Support NeoGAF

[Dram]

http://news.yahoo.com/families-2012-connecticut-shooting-victims-sue-gunmaker-local-161153323.html

The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.

While the AR-15 assault weapon used in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School was legally sold in Connecticut, the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza. The AR-15 is manufactured by Bushmaster, a privately held company based in Windham, Maine.

Lanza shot dead 20 first-graders and six educators in the Dec. 14, 2012, attack, which stands as one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The massacre sparked a fresh debate on gun rights, which are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

The lawsuit, filed in Connecticut Superior Court in Bridgeport by the families of nine of the people killed in the attack and a person who was wounded, seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The 40-page suit names Bushmaster as well as a weapons distributor and the retailer that sold the gun used in the shooting as defendants.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has brought dozens of lawsuits, many successful, against gun makers and sellers when there was evidence that a gun was wrongly sold to a person who went on to use it in a crime, said Jonathan Lowy, the group's director for legal action.

But the Sandy Hook suit makes a broader case, attempting to get around protections for gun makers included in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocked liability suits against gun makers when their products were used criminally.

"This immunity does not apply to a claim based on negligent entrustment," Koskoff said.

Bill Sherlach, whose 56-year-old wife Mary Sherlach was a school psychologist killed in the attack, said the suit was necessary to hold gun makers accountable.

"I believe in the Second Amendment but I also believe that the gun industry should be brought to bear the same business risk that every other business assumes," Sherlach said in a statement.

 

[BattleMonkey]

But the retailer and bushmaster legally sold the weapons to his mother, how is it their fault that he stole them from her?

 

[jon bones]

If congress won't do something, the people will try anything.

 

[Guevara]

You know, if gun makers weren't shielded from liability their guns would be locked to the lawful buyer's fingerprint tomorrow

 

[Mesoian]

They will lose. Badly.

This is misplaced rage.

 

[yankeeforever2]

Cool I can sue chevy because some chevy truck totaled my car.

 

[7DollarHagane]

You know, if gun makers weren't shielded from liability their guns would be locked to the lawful buyer's fingerprint tomorrow

ID Tagged guns like Metal Gear Solid 4 (also Riddick) should already be a thing

 

[Jacobi]

Cool I can sue chevy because some chevy trucked totaled my car.

If chevy made cars which single purpose was to wreck cars, well then...

 

[Volimar]

But the retailer and bushmaster legally sold the weapons to his mother, how is it their fault that he stole them from her?

Agreed. I'd prefer harsher penalties for irresponsible gun owners that are irresponsible with their weapons. Right now the law says that the gun owner can only be charged if they implicitly know tha the gun is going to be used to commit a crime. Remarkably easy to wiggle out of a charge for that. If you allow the deadly weapon that's registered to you to be used by someone else, you bear some responsibility with what they do with it. That way if you have any doubts, you'd be better off just saying "Nah get your own gun, son."

If chevy made cars which single purpose was to wreck cars, well then...

Second amendment says that I can use my F-150 for personal defense man. DON'T TREAD ON ME!

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Won't have the same result..I'm sure.

 

[7DollarHagane]

If chevy made cars which single purpose was to wreck cars, well then...

not exactly correct on either side. A lot like most of these debates!

 

[Rebel Leader]

If chevy made cars which single purpose was to wreck cars, well then...

I thought that's what they are for, no one told me different

 

[DragonSworne]

Gun makers shouldn't get a free pass in the business they are in when companies in other industries have to face legal and civil penalties for similar cases.

Time to pony up Bushmaster, you're screwed.

 

[sarcastor]

If chevy made cars which single purpose was to wreck cars, well then...

so i can sue makers of swords, katanas, and knives when someone uses them criminally to stab me or kill my loved ones?

 

[7DollarHagane]

Agreed. I'd prefer harsher penalties for irresponsible gun owners that are irresponsible with their weapons. Right now the law says that the gun owner can only be charged if they implicitly know tha the gun is going to be used to commit a crime. Remarkably easy to wiggle out of a charge for that. If you allow the deadly weapon that's registered to you to be used by someone else, you bear some responsibility with what they do with it. That way if you have any doubts, you'd be better off just saying "Nah get your own gun, son."

I never thought of this or knew this was the law.

A gun registered to you used in a crime should be on you unless you made contact with the police to report the gun stolen/lost or it can be determined that you were unable to do so before the crime was committed.

 

[Mesoian]

You know, if gun makers weren't shielded from liability their guns would be locked to the lawful buyer's fingerprint tomorrow

The first thing you learn in cryptography is that no matter how complex you make a locking mechanism, people will always find new and innovative ways to break through them. Have a gun that's locked to a fingerprint, cut off someone's finger to gain access.

We need better regulations regarding the buying and selling of weapons, full stop.

 

[Volimar]

so i can sue makers of swords, katanas, and knives when someone uses them criminally to stab me or kill my loved ones?

In America? Probably. Doubt you'll win, but you might get a settlement so they don't get bad PR.

 

[MrPink93485]

Won't have the same result..I'm sure.

Yep, mind went straight to Runaway Jury

 

[Corgi]

ID Tagged guns like Metal Gear Solid 4 (also Riddick) should already be a thing

wasn't even 4 which is the 'future'. That rationale was in MGS2 which is set in the early 2000s.

We have apple's touchid which takes like a second to trigger, so the tech is there.

 

[Volimar]

I never thought of this or knew this was the law.

A gun registered to you used in a crime should be on you unless you made contact with the police to report the gun stolen/lost or it can be determined that you were unable to do so before the crime was committed.

It might not be the law everywhere, but they were talking about it on CNN this afternoon. There might be other charges they can get you for, and civil liability might be something else entirely, but yeah.

The first thing you learn in cryptography is that no matter how complex you make a locking mechanism, people will always find new and innovative ways to break through them. Have a gun that's locked to a fingerprint, cut off someone's finger to gain access.

We need better regulations regarding the buying and selling of weapons, full stop.

That's the kind of scenario that even if we had fingerprinted weapon locks, would happen maybe once a year. It's preposterous notion in most situations.

 

[7DollarHagane]

The first thing you learn in cryptography is that no matter how complex you make a locking mechanism, people will always find new and innovative ways to break through them. Have a gun that's locked to a fingerprint, cut off someone's finger to gain access.

We need better regulations regarding the buying and selling of weapons, full stop.

And no matter how enforced the regulations, people will find ways around them.

Both are mostly inconveniences to stop someone not determined enough. No one can stop anyone from doing anything barring physical restraint.

 

[DragonSworne]

The first thing you learn in cryptography is that no matter how complex you make a locking mechanism, people will always find new and innovative ways to break through them. Have a gun that's locked to a fingerprint, cut off someone's finger to gain access.

We need better regulations regarding the buying and selling of weapons, full stop.

Guess what? If you're fingers have been cut off, the chances are you'll likely go to the hospital and tell the police someone stole your gun.

That's a win in my book.

 

[Mesoian]

Guess what? If you're fingers have been cut off, the chances are you'll likely go to the hospital and tell the police someone stole your gun.

That's a win in my book.

Or you're dead, which is the more likely scenario.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Or you're dead, which is the more likely scenario.

Either way its a big step up in criminal behavior from "stealing a gun" to "cutting off a man's finger and stealing a gun"

Besides it should be something that could be deactivated remotely. Something that burns out the firing pin or something.

 

[Gray Matter]

I feel as this won't end well for the families.

 

[Guevara]

The first thing you learn in cryptography is that no matter how complex you make a locking mechanism, people will always find new and innovative ways to break through them. Have a gun that's locked to a fingerprint, cut off someone's finger to gain access.

We need better regulations regarding the buying and selling of weapons, full stop.

Oh well let's not do anything then.

 

[Mesoian]

And no matter how enforced the regulations, people will find ways around them.

Both are mostly inconveniences to stop someone not determined enough. No one can stop anyone from doing anything barring physical restraint.

Precisely. The idea is to cut down issues in the most efficient way possible. The best way to do that is on the merchandise side of things.

Make it not alarmingly easy to buy 7 hand guns in one day and we'll be headed down the right path.

 

[Arcteryx]

They're going to lose and it will end up being another rallying cry for gun owners(of which, I am one).

It's a sad case of misplaced emotion.

 

[bucyou55]

Oh well let's not do anything then.

Or we can go your way, nothing says cool and practical like fumbling with a fingerprint lock on a gun in total darkness while you hear your windows smashing and people climbing through in the middle of the night.......

 

[PopeReal]

They're going to lose and it will end up being another rallying cry for gun owners(of which, I am one).

It's a sad case of misplaced emotion.

So guns that are meant to quickly and efficiently kill as many people as possible should be sold?

Why? I just don't get it.

 

[Cat Party]

Regardless of the merits of the lawsuit (and it has some big problems), I support anything that will push us toward a country with far far far fewer guns.

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

Bushmaster is in no way responsible for anything that happened they sold it to the local gun store and they were done with it. They couldn't have known the local store would sell it to someone who had a mentally unstable individual living with them, who would eventually use it to commit murder. It isn't as if the gun was malfunctioning in which case the maker would be liable.

 

[victreeb3l]

I feel as this won't end well for the families.

Yeah for some reason I feel like theyre gonna get harassed by gun nuts.

 

[PopeReal]

Bushmaster is in no way responsible for anything that happened they sold it to the local gun store and they were done with it. They couldn't have known the local store would sell it to someone who had a mentally unstable individual living with them, who would eventually use it to commit murder. It isn't as if the gun was malfunctioning in which case the maker would be liable.

If you read the OP, the suit isn't about malfunction or mental stabilitiy.

Their argument is that the gun should have never been sold to the public, period. It is designed to kill. Which means they may have a case.

 

[Gray Matter]

If you read the OP, the suit isn't about malfunction or mental stabilitiy.

Their argument is that the gun should have never been sold to the public, period. It is designed to kill. Which means they may have a case.

So does that mean that ANY gun shouldn't be sold to the public? It's designed to kill, just like the AR-15.

 

[Cat Party]

Bushmaster is in no way responsible for anything that happened they sold it to the local gun store and they were done with it. They couldn't have known the local store would sell it to someone who had a mentally unstable individual living with them, who would eventually use it to commit murder. It isn't as if the gun was malfunctioning in which case the maker would be liable.

That's not how product liability works. If you design something dangerous, you can be liable even if it does not malfunction.

 

[iamblades]

Either way its a big step up in criminal behavior from "stealing a gun" to "cutting off a man's finger and stealing a gun"

Besides it should be something that could be deactivated remotely. Something that burns out the firing pin or something.

Sorry, but this idea is just hilarious.

People have some really sci-fi notions of what is fundamentally 500 year old technology.

Guns are not complicated, they are not hard to build, and it wouldn't be hard to remove some nonsensical add on biometric lock.

Under US law, only one part of a gun is legally controlled(the receiver/frame). Every other part you can buy without even showing ID. It is 100% legal to machine your own receiver in your garage (and not that difficult if you have access to a bridgeport).

This is assuming you are not legally prohibited from possessing firearms, of course, and assuming that you do not build a gun that is illegal to own(like a full auto or a SBR).

 

[BattleMonkey]

If you read the OP, the suit isn't about malfunction or mental stabilitiy.

Their argument is that the gun should have never been sold to the public, period. It is designed to kill. Which means they may have a case.

It's a gun no different from countless other guns that are all legally allowed to be sold. A lawsuit for selling something that has been deemed legal to sell and own? Nonsense. They are also attacking only bushmaster, when there are hundreds of other companies selling same model of gun, and even more powerful weapons out there.

 

[Chumly]

So does that mean that ANY gun shouldn't be sold to the public? It's designed to kill, just like the AR-15.

Do we need to quote the OP AGAIN? Please read the OP and THEN post. It answers the VERY question you are asking.

 

[Gray Matter]

Do we need to quote the OP AGAIN? Please read the OP and THEN post. It answers the VERY question you are asking.

I did read it. I was just trying to make a point to the poster I quoted.

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

If you read the OP, the suit isn't about malfunction or mental stabilitiy.

Their argument is that the gun should have never been sold to the public, period. It is designed to kill. Which means they may have a case.

Ahh, I did miss that in the OP. Thank you.

I don't think there is much of a case though regardless. While guns sold to civilians are designed to kill they are mainly designed to kill animals during hunting season, or perhaps kill other humans in extreme situations where self-defense is necessary. Using the weapon as it was used at Sandy Hook was an example of improper use of the gun. Many ordinary items can be used improperly to kill as well but that doesn't mean that we believe that the producer shouldn't be making them.

 

[Ultryx]

I guess if you have no other options, you lash out at the company who created something you hate. Good luck to them.

 

[elrechazado]

Settlement fishing. Lame

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

That's not how product liability works. If you design something dangerous, you can be liable even if it does not malfunction.

then why aren't manufacturers of cars sued for vehicular homicide, or manufacturers of hammers sued when someone brains another person with a hammer?

 

[PopeReal]

So does that mean that ANY gun shouldn't be sold to the public? It's designed to kill, just like the AR-15.

It's a gun no different from countless other guns that are all legally allowed to be sold. A lawsuit for selling something that has been deemed legal to sell and own? Nonsense. They are also attacking only bushmaster, when there are hundreds of other companies selling same model of gun, and even more powerful weapons out there.

I was just clarifying the suit for people. The thread had turned into discussion that had nothing to do with this lawsuit. Whether it works or not, who knows.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Settlement fishing. Lame

These people's children were murdered by a madman. You're disgusting.

 

[Gray Matter]

I wonder what my locals news will say about this (I'm from CT)

 

[Chumly]

Ahh, I did miss that in the OP. Thank you.

I don't think there is much of a case though regardless. While guns sold to civilians are designed to kill they are mainly designed to kill animals during hunting season, or perhaps kill other humans in extreme situations where self-defense is necessary. Using the weapon as it was used at Sandy Hook was an example of improper use of the gun. Many ordinary items can be used improperly to kill as well but that doesn't mean that we believe that the producer shouldn't be making them.

Your example is 100% irrelevant in this case. They are arguing that the AR-15 had no reasonable purpose. "Many ordinary items" have reasonable purposes. Other guns have reasonable purposes. They are attempting to make the argument that the AR-15 serves no reasonable purpose.

I think they clearly have a point and grounds to sue but whether or not they win or not is another story.

 

[Arcteryx]

So guns that are meant to quickly and efficiently kill as many people as possible should be sold?

Why? I just don't get it.

ALL firearms are used for killing. Why pick on the AR15? because it's "scary" looking?

It's a silly argument. How many people own AR15s and NEVER kill another human with them? Get back to me when you see the %.

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

Your example is 100% irrelevant in this case. They are arguing that the AR-15 had no reasonable purpose. "Many ordinary items" have reasonable purposes. Other guns have reasonable purposes. They are attempting to make the argument that the AR-15 serves no reasonable purpose.

I think they clearly have a point and grounds to sue but whether or not they win or not is another story.

Why do AR-15's not share the reasonable purpose that other guns have?