Parents of Sandy Hook

So incredibly pointless.

They would be better off suing the government for inadequate gun legislation.
 
What happened to their children is unthinkable. My heart truly aches for them.

But as much as I hate guns, I don't see how the manufacturer is to blame. We live in a sick society with little or no help for mentally sick people, and add the lack of adequate security in schools, we are just wide open for these tragedies to occur.
 
The manufacturer profited . Just as the tobacco companies profited from the cancer their advertised product induced.

Curious to see not only the outcome but what is inside the books of these weapons peddlers.

I personally find it unconscionable anyone actually made money off n this tragedy
 
57Brave said:
The manufacturer profited.
Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with profit. Gun manufacturers have been legally shielded from suits of that nature for a decade.

The Sandy Hook families claim that the gun Lanza used didn't have proper safety features. It will be interesting to see what the plaintiff believes those features should be. If anything, outside of the fame-whore attorney getting another moment in the sun, the case should provoke another necessary national debate on gun control.
 
http://mic.com/articles/106406/the-sandy-hook-parents-are-suing-the-gunmaker-behind-the-ar-15

The families of the victims don't want to hold Bushmaster responsible for Lanza's actions, their lawyers say, but to hold the gunmaker responsible for neglecting to include reasonable safety improvements and protections on the AR-15 that could have prevented Lanza from using or firing the weapon. Similar lawsuits in the 1960s and 1970s pushed car manufacturers to add seat belts to vehicles, with potential plaintiffs eyeing biometric locks that only allow guns to be fired by licensed owners as the firearm equivalent of an air bag.
 
I like the idea of biometric locks on triggers. I think it would reduce gun violence tremendously but you have so many guns already out there, it would have no effect on crimes, since those guns won't use biometrics.

Lanza was a high school kid. What kind of safety precautions do the parents reasonably think that the gun manufactuers should put on guns that a high school kid shouldn't be able to figure out?
 
hope it works out well for them

our country has a weird fetish with guns
 
Krgrecw said:
I like the idea of biometric locks on triggers. I think it would reduce gun violence tremendously but you have so many guns already out there, it would have no effect on crimes, since those guns won't use biometrics.

Lanza was a high school kid. What kind of safety precautions do the parents reasonably think that the gun manufactuers should put on guns that a high school kid shouldn't be able to figure out?
Click to expand...

It is a foot in the courtroom door. Maybe it wont be safety locks that get to the weapon profiteers attention.

But some lawyer in some case will break through and hold these people accountable for producing and distributing killing machines for profit to anyone with a ...

Just anyone

Tomorrow is the official announcement. Let's see what happens

////////////////////

As far as saftey precaustions - I know this is a wish list item but here goes - make it hard to fire a weapon. As in, tax out the ceiling the components of the bullets. From gun powder to the casings to whatever it is they make the tips from. Going to Lowes or the drug store it is all but impossible to buy the materials that make up Meth. It can be done

Which to me the frustrating end. It can be done from the suburbs to the inner cities. The weapns industry will not allow it and the NRA lobbies and pays to maintain the status quo
 
57, you in favor of going after the soda makers next? Since they profit from making people fat and in turn end up killing some people because of it?

Then we can go after knife manufacturers since people die from stabbings, followed by going after the pharmaceutical companies since people die from OTC drugs?

Or how about just saying the dude was a ****ing nutcase?
 
57Brave said:
But some lawyer in some case will break through and hold these people accountable for producing and distributing killing machines for profit to anyone with a ...
Click to expand...

That would result in dismissal (with prejudice): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7902

Achieving the result you are hoping for would need to begin in Washington, not a court room.

Although, I must say, opinions like that are exactly why this country needs drastic tort reform
 
Krgrecw said:
57, you in favor of going after the soda makers next? Since they profit from making people fat and in turn end up killing some people because of it?

Then we can go after knife manufacturers since people die from stabbings, followed by going after the pharmaceutical companies since people die from OTC drugs?

Or how about just saying the dude was a ****ing nutcase?
Click to expand...

Sadly, people have already sued both soda makers and knife makers, under similar pretenses, to varying degrees of success.

Americans possess a reprehensible inability to take responsibility for their own conscious actions.
 
Let's go back to automobile safety and tobacco.

I dont understand how an imbalanced person is expected to exhibit "responsibility" yet the profiteers are not and given free rein.
Perhaps someone can explain that to me
 
57, is it possible to control a imbalanced person?

And if that person is a minor isn't it his parents responsibility to ensure the person is taking his Meds?
 
Imbalanced people are just that, imbalanced. I agree with the notion of responsibility to a degree. Being around medicated people there are times where yes you could hold them to their acts then others where they are completely off the rails. I' like many others have worked everyday with people that are bi-polar or are functioning schizophrenics. It is a crap shoot from day to day which person shows up

There is one common thread attached to each of these mass shootings. They are shootings - not stabbings or baseball bat riots or ...
That to me is an imbalance in society. Which to my mind is the purpose of laws and regulation - to correct societal imbalances.

We as a union of people can legislate societal imbalances but individual chemical imbalances --- I don't se how that happens since every situation is far far different. Not to come across disrespectful but it seems laughable to hold a notion of personal responsibility towards are person that has been diagnosed unable to be responsible without chemical interference.

So that brings me back to the common thread - guns
As far as the parents - yes again you can to a degree hold them accountable but anyone that has raised children knows no matter how hard you try or how good you think you are doing you still cringe when an unidentifiable number comes across your phone

One last thought. Suppose the parent is in the same psycoological condition as the imbalanced child ? My guess that is often the case - who then is responsible ?
 
57Brave said:
Let's go back to automobile safety and tobacco.

I dont understand how an imbalanced person is expected to exhibit "responsibility" yet the profiteers are not and given free rein.
Perhaps someone can explain that to me
Click to expand...

If you are conflating automobile safety and tobacco with gun control then I don't know what to say -- it's that preposterous.

Guns are designed explicitly to maim and/or kill.
 
But you can legislate / regulate interstate commerce. Through that means you can legislate or probably a better term affect human nature
 
57Brave said:
But you can legislate / regulate interstate commerce. Through that means you can legislate or probably a better term affect human nature
Click to expand...

Sorry, I deleted that post because I didn't want to detract from the discussion at hand. Interesting topic, but maybe not the right place for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top