Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[2aguy]

Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily, not the gun companies.

Really? Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?

Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.

Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?

Where did he get the gun to shoot her? He stole the key, Mensa Boy.

I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable, and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.

Most stories say he got the rifle from one of her collections, but haven't seen anything about a safe, one way or the other

He planned it for 2 years......she could have had them locked in a safe and he would have gotten them anyway.....that is what people who plan to murder children do.....

 

[2aguy]

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?

in some cases that is proper

why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s

1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
2) The police aren't military.
3) The police need military firepower.

And that's fine for you. For me, my "assault" weapons are fine right where they are.

I agree.

My point is, if assault weapons are weapons of war and have no place on the streets, then police (civilians by the way) have no use for them. If civilian agencies can have them, then so should all civilians.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

If the military has them, then the people who hire, pay and equip the military....their bosses.....get the guns too.....we do not serve the military...they work for us....we are not serfs......

 

[2aguy]

Hey douchetard, I know more about this issue than you can fathom. And I am a trial attorney who spent 24 years as a DOJ prosecutor. I also defended the FBI, ATF and DEA in civil suits involving USE OF FORCE and prior to that I was general counsel for everything from major league gun dealers to a Title II machine gun maker

and after all that....you're STILL an idiot......go figure....LOL

Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.

The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...

Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...

This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...

Nope....it is about keeping poor people from getting guns.......which is unConstitutional under the 14th Amendment....when you guys used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting that wasn't allowed either......putting this tax on guns is the same thing....you guys never give up trying to deny rights to the little people.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

why is it that those who support these stupid suits or push for restrictionists on honest gun owners are INVARIABLY left wing Hildabeast or Bernie supporters?

Because these political leaders tell the sheep what they are supposed to be against and what they are not. That's why facts, charts, history means nothing to them.

 

[Leweman]

why is it that those who support these stupid suits or push for restrictionists on honest gun owners are INVARIABLY left wing Hildabeast or Bernie supporters?

Because these political leaders tell the sheep what they are supposed to be against and what they are not. That's why facts, charts, history means nothing to them.

True that. Most recently, they are taught from a very young age to not think for themselves. Independent thought is the biggest enemy of liberalism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Made it available? He stole the guns and killed her. There's not a state in the Union that would prosecute her even if they COULD prosecute a dead person. It's not like she handed him the gun and then stood there reloading for him.

Can't say for sure anyway else, but it can and has happened here. And the feds can make a case if they wanted to. Adam Lanzas mom is probubly pretty lucky she ain't around to find out, oh, and seeing that she did not properly secure the guns, she would have been the one who should have been held liable monitarily, not the gun companies.

Really? Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?

Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.

Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?

Where did he get the gun to shoot her? He stole the key, Mensa Boy.

I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable, and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.

The warrants revealed that that FBI had learned from an interview that Adam was considered by one person they interviewed to be a “shut-in” who played Call of Duty and other video games.

Here’s some of what the police found in the home:

• A brown gun safe, unlocked, with no indication that it had been broken into.

What Police Found in Adam Lanza's Home

 

[2aguy]

Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?

 

[turtledude]

Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?

yeah armed adults at the school

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?

Even if she could have, that would be on her. But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his. Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.

 

[SwimExpert]

Does anyone think that with two years to plan there is anything she could have done to keep him from killing those kids?

Well, an abortion would have probably been helpful, but there's only so much you can predict, ya know?

 

[turtledude]

[

Even if she could have, that would be on her. But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his. Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.

The suit is not based on a claim that Bushmaster knew, or had reason to know that Mrs Lanza had a psychotic nut case of a son who might kill. The idiotic suit (and this is why the judge needs to be removed from office) is based on the claim that rifles-that have been sold to the public for 50 years, are rarely used in crime and are standard issue for almost every police department) arguably (its a FACTUAL DISPUTE according to the leftwing twit sitting on the bench) has NO LEGITIMATE USAGE being sold to civilians who don't work for the government

that is the argument. but what the idiot judge fails to understand is that the ATF has approved this rifle for civilian sales and that alone should have caused the case to be thrown out

 

[Crixus]

Really? Your state prosecuted someone for being so "irresponsible" as to be murdered and subsequently robbed?

Not as dramatic as all that. A hood rat was taking a nap and two kids were playing with his gun. One shot the other. All this talk about the guns being in a safe, sooo, where did he get the gun to shoot his mom and steal her guns? And if he was crazy, why were they so easy to get to? The mother at a minimum was grossly negligent.

Yeah, do you see the difference between guns locked in a gun safe, and a gun lying out for kids to play with?

Where did he get the gun to shoot her? He stole the key, Mensa Boy.

I don't recall anyone saying they were in a safe. Nothing I found says anything about a safe at all, but, I said I would be wrong if there was. Still, reading what I have, again, there were gins avaliable, and as was pointed out Adam Lanza may have bought the gun whoo knows.

Most stories say he got the rifle from one of her collections, but haven't seen anything about a safe, one way or the other

He planned it for 2 years......she could have had them locked in a safe and he would have gotten them anyway.....that is what people who plan to murder children do.....

Meh.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is nothing in the product gun manufacturers make that causes addiction. Your argument is false.

Have you read 2AGuy's posts recently? He frankly makes a crack addict going through withdrawls look sedate when you suggest he can't have a gun.

A gun is just a gun, it has no hypnotic powers.

Wrong. A gun gives its possessor a sense of power, and has an impact on how s/he will act. The simple possession of a gun will impact judgment.

And how does that prove the original contention, that gun manufacturers are doing what tobacco companies did and making their products addictive?

Edit to add: A gun certainly does give a woman walking alone a sense of confidence and power.

That sense is exactly the point, having a gun impacts judgment and can lead to someone walking into harm's way.

Wow. Just wow.

You know what that is exactly the same as? She was raped because of those revealing cloths that she wore or because she went to that sleazy club.

Walking into harms way? Talk about blaming the victim here just so that you can attack a right.

 

[FA_Q2]

You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.

If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them.

Like they do in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada. YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.

No...criminals in all of those countries get guns easily....even in Japan...when the Yakuza bosses decide that they want to kill people they get guns....look up the season of the Pineapple during the last Yakuza war in 2006....they were throwing grenades at each other so often they named a season after it........the only thing keeping killing low in japan is that the bosses there want to make money...not settle insults on facebook by murdering people.......

Culture, not guns, is the issue with all of those countries.....and the gun crime rate is going up in Britain and Australia....and France...remember Charlie Hebdo and Paris...?

BINGO.

The violence problem we have is one of culture. the implement is irrelevant and virtually every statistic bears this out. Grater gun controls have zero effect on homicides. That is why those that want to attack the right ALWAYS point at 'gun deaths' so that they can manipulate the data.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually you just said you don't like stats. Let me repeat it for you:

"The UK doesn't have so many guns, but they have just as many suicides. They just kill themselves other ways"

Hey, half-brained....Are we talking about suicides on this thread or are we talking about a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for putting out assault weapons to MAXIMIZE the number of mass shootings?

You call him half brained and then claim that gun manufacturers are trying to maximize mass shootings in the same statement. Do you not see how utterly crazy you sound?

 

[Crixus]

Have to say, I don't feel anything holding a gun.

You know with background checks, of course a criminal wouldn't think of getting a gun without going through a background check first, and, of course, when he takes the LEGAL route to obtain his weapon that he plans to commit crimes with . . . we want to make it more expensive for him to so. Outlawing particular guns are definitely going to help deter criminals from getting those guns because they wouldn't THINK of breaking a law.

If no one is manufacturing new guns and old guns are removed from the street, criminals will have a hard time getting them.

Like they do in the UK, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Canada. YOu know, the countries that don't seem to have these sorts of problems.

No...criminals in all of those countries get guns easily....even in Japan...when the Yakuza bosses decide that they want to kill people they get guns....look up the season of the Pineapple during the last Yakuza war in 2006....they were throwing grenades at each other so often they named a season after it........the only thing keeping killing low in japan is that the bosses there want to make money...not settle insults on facebook by murdering people.......

Culture, not guns, is the issue with all of those countries.....and the gun crime rate is going up in Britain and Australia....and France...remember Charlie Hebdo and Paris...?

BINGO.

The violence problem we have is one of culture. the implement is irrelevant and virtually every statistic bears this out. Grater gun controls have zero effect on homicides. That is why those that want to attack the right ALWAYS point at 'gun deaths' so that they can manipulate the data.

Some of it could be culture, but more and more I think it's the drugs they feed these kids.

 

[FA_Q2]

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?

in some cases that is proper

why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s

1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
2) The police aren't military.
3) The police need military firepower.

1 - They are not on our streets as proven by the virtually non-existent death rate from those weapons. IOW, there is no point whatsoever in banning or 'addressing' that particular class of weapon. They are not an issue in any way shape or form.

2 - correct. Which is why 3 is so confusing.

3 - No, they really do not. You do understand that the police and military have VASTLY different functions. The military is the absolute WORST police force you can ask for.

 

[2aguy]

[

Even if she could have, that would be on her. But there is no reason to hold the gun manufacturer responsible for either her actions or his. Even if she was just as evil herself and handed him the gun and ammo, the dealer nor the manufacturer could have possibly known.

The suit is not based on a claim that Bushmaster knew, or had reason to know that Mrs Lanza had a psychotic nut case of a son who might kill. The idiotic suit (and this is why the judge needs to be removed from office) is based on the claim that rifles-that have been sold to the public for 50 years, are rarely used in crime and are standard issue for almost every police department) arguably (its a FACTUAL DISPUTE according to the leftwing twit sitting on the bench) has NO LEGITIMATE USAGE being sold to civilians who don't work for the government

that is the argument. but what the idiot judge fails to understand is that the ATF has approved this rifle for civilian sales and that alone should have caused the case to be thrown out

In short.....this suit is based on the fact the judge is a left wing anti gunner who wanted to attack a gun maker with the law.

 

[turtledude]

How the hell would a gun manufacturer 5 states over have any idea who you are selling guns to in Chicago? Do you think the cattle rancher knows who is eating his steak at your restaurant? What is it with liberals and a general lack of logic?

Speaking of "logic".......Do you not comprehend that a gun manufacturer that sells assault weapons are selling those weapons UNAWARE that such a weapon may be used to kill as fast and as many people as possible?

in some cases that is proper

why are CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS ISSUED SELECT FIRE M4 Carbines or semi auto AR=15s

1) They are weapons of war and have no place on our streets.
2) The police aren't military.
3) The police need military firepower.

1 - They are not on our streets as proven by the virtually non-existent death rate from those weapons. IOW, there is no point whatsoever in banning or 'addressing' that particular class of weapon. They are not an issue in any way shape or form.

2 - correct. Which is why 3 is so confusing.

3 - No, they really do not. You do understand that the police and military have VASTLY different functions. The military is the absolute WORST police force you can ask for.

civilian police departments don't have any greater right to deploy lethal force against criminals than other civilians do. I know, I used to represent police departments in "use of force" cases. I also shot a mugger so I know the laws on civilian SD better than most. and if a government entity-state, city or federal government gives a civilian police officer or civilian LE Officer a certain weapon, that means that weapon has been found to be very suitable for CIVILIANS to use for self defense in civilian environments

SO HOW CAN other governmental entities claim that such a weapon has NO legitimate purpose whatsoever being owned by civilians who don't work for the government? many of us are better trained and know the law better than most cops

I certainly do

 

[CowboyTed]

[QU

Nat you notice how our bastions of individual responsibility want have nothing to do with responsible gun insurance that covers the violence we are talking about.

The whole process is simple before you sell a gun to someone you ask for their insurance and you just transfer ownership...

Why does the right want the government to subsidize gun accidents and incidents like Sandy Hook?
No one wants these things to happen, much like a car accident but you get insurance just in case...

This is about individual responsibility... No gun grabbing, just pay your way...

in automobiles, the insurance is apportioned by known risk

good drivers pay far less than members of groups (like teen boys) who have higher rates of claims. Those with lots of accidents or DUI convictions pay much higher rates than say those with 20 years of no claims

more than 80% of gun shot damages are perpetrated by those who cannot even LEGALLY own a gun. Making those who can legally own guns buy insurance means the 20% or so who cause little of the problems are being forced to subsidize the costs imposed by those who cannot be forced and will not buy insurance

MORONIC IDEA

I didn't say insurance companies would keep paying for a guns damage... I said until reported stolen.

This is about the individual responsibility of owning a gun... If someone buys a gun do you think the gun is there responsibility?

Accidents happen, shouldn't victims be compensated... Doesn't the general public deserve the protection if an accident happens while someone is exercising there right to carry a gun.

I will point out that the NRA already sells insurance very close to this... It is not hugely expensive... It only gets expensive if the insurer has not safety training (also provide by the NRA), doesn't secure their weapon and other high risk activity....

Why should the taxpayer pay for irresponsible behaviour... Financially Sandy Hook cost millions... Injuries are also high, about 235 people are shot every day not counting suicides...
Do 100,000 people get shot every year in U.S.? Facebook post says yes

This seems something you insure against... A lot of these are just innocent accidents...

This is not all about death... A serious injury causes a lot more financial stress...