-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used by Adam Lanza in 2012 attack
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Right in the OP
So people who get killed (or their kids) should just deal with it.
This is why we will never get real gun laws in America. I guess we should give stickers out to gun owners who don't kill people.
The Cowboy
Member
Because it was that one the murderer used, by going after just that one if they win (they won't, which is a shame IMO) it would set a president that would affect all other guns.
Going after all guns has a 0% chance of a win, going after 1 gun has at least some % of a chance to win and it would affect all other guns.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Do you think any court will find in their favor? I really don't see how this is a legitimate argument.
Yes guns are weapons that can kill. But they are also legally protected in the Bill of Rights. I don't see how a court rules in the victims' favor.
Slammin_Hammon
Member
Please point it out to me because after re-reading the OP as well as the original article I still don't see it.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Additionally, it was not made for self defense. Which is the argument so many use for guns.
RoyaleDuke
Banned
I tend to stay out of threads like this because I am extremely pro-gun, the problem I see with people is that they act like the firearms picked themselves up and shot all those poor people.
It was the act of one, very disturbed man using a deadly inanimate object designed to kill things and not necessarily people. Much like a knife or anything else, I feel like we shouldn't punish the law abiding citizens like myself or other responsible gun owners for the actions of a few crazy assholes.
I remember historically speaking that back in the days of the Winchester rifle, I seem to remember something about the families whose loved ones were killed by the rifles Winchester produced tried to sue Winchester so that they could pay them pain and suffering.
I don't believe they succeeded, and as much as I want justice for the families of this terrible tragedy I can't help but feel like everyone is trying to find a scapegoat for their loss and grief.
I remember the morning I woke up to this, I felt horrible almost as bad as when that shooting at a local theater at the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises because I almost lost a friend to that asshole. Do I want guns banned? No, because it'd be too expensive of a venture and it probably wouldn't change anything.
It was the act of one, very disturbed man using a deadly inanimate object designed to kill things and not necessarily people. Much like a knife or anything else, I feel like we shouldn't punish the law abiding citizens like myself or other responsible gun owners for the actions of a few crazy assholes.
I remember historically speaking that back in the days of the Winchester rifle, I seem to remember something about the families whose loved ones were killed by the rifles Winchester produced tried to sue Winchester so that they could pay them pain and suffering.
I don't believe they succeeded, and as much as I want justice for the families of this terrible tragedy I can't help but feel like everyone is trying to find a scapegoat for their loss and grief.
I remember the morning I woke up to this, I felt horrible almost as bad as when that shooting at a local theater at the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises because I almost lost a friend to that asshole. Do I want guns banned? No, because it'd be too expensive of a venture and it probably wouldn't change anything.
Slammin_Hammon
Member
That doesn't mean it can't have the same reasonable purpose as another gun though.
GoldenEye 007
Member
The AR15 isn't used in the military, IIRC. The platform is similar to M4 rifles which is used in the military, but ultimately nobody would ever carry an AR15 into combat as a semi-auto main combat gun.
It does look like a military rifle, but ultimately it is like any other semi-auto gun.
There's NOTHING wrong with reasonable gun laws, but banning THE gun? give me a break.
Why not put in a law that outlaws gun purchases(or severely restricts usage/storage requirements) for individuals with family members with mental health issues? boom. That would have solved this case.
banning the individual > banning the gun
When I hear "ban the AR15", all I hear is: "Lets ban Smirnoff vodka because it's sole purpose is for individuals to get totally blasted, whereupon SOME individuals MIGHT decide to drink and drive, potentially killing themselves or innocents". But who am I kidding...that's just crazy.
You're having a reactionary stance against an inanimate object. The gun didn't "magically" waltz into that school of it's own volition.
Slammin_Hammon
Member
It could fulfill the same civilian purpose as nearly any other gun.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
None of those are AR-15s, not sure how that is relevant.
Reasonable gun laws would be a start. We can't even get those. No worries, bans will never happen in this country.
The reason they are going after the AR-15 is because they suffered a loss from it. That is why they are going after Bushmaster, the weapons distributor and the retailer that sold the gun used in the shooting. They aren't going after anyone else because they wouldn't have grounds to sue.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Ah thanks for the correction. In service to boot, but with automatic options.
Still targeting a semi-auto gun via a civil lawsuit doesn't seem like much of a hope. As being a semi-auto, it has the same civilian uses as any other semi-auto gun. I am not sure a court would make such a move.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
They will lose but I feel extremely bad for these families.
I think what upsets me the most are the people who feel like the whole attack was a conspiracy. It makes me want to throw up.
I think what upsets me the most are the people who feel like the whole attack was a conspiracy. It makes me want to throw up.
Someone above said the AR15 has ZERO relevant civilian usage.
That may not be an AR15, but the usage is no different.
Did you really not read anything I posted?
nope, of course not, why would you
"Could" has nothing to do with it. A lot of things "could" do things. The argument is that it serves no reasonable civilian purpose.
We should hand out tanks and Browning 50 cals and grenades for store defense, because you can use them for the same thing.
and now you're just being facetious, which is typical for these threads.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Are you expecting civilians to ever do that in the US, what kind of world do you live in? Are you this paranoid by nature, or have you been watching fox news 24/7?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Sorry but I don't think a gun manufacturer should be sued when one of their products is stolen, the person it's stolen from murdered and the perpetrator goes on a rampage with it.
Civilians *can* own tanks and 50 cals....
They're just prohibitively expensive. So I doubt they'd be handed out.
Civilians *can* own tanks and 50 cals....
They're just prohibitively expensive. So I doubt they'd be handed out.
Coffee Dog
Banned
It's a legitimate argument. You already draw the line somewhere.
Where do you think that photo was taken?
Enjoy the ban for that one. Calling out someone for watching Fox news...gee nice job man. Too bad you don't know SHIT about me.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Destructive devices are not the same because you can't reasonably control the damage to other people or property. They don't have the precision a single shot gun does.
50cals are accessible and can be bought at basically any gun store. Same with the ammo.
People shouldn't be able to purchase military weapons.
Slammin_Hammon
Member
That's poor word choice on my part then. If the reasonable purpose that guns in general serve is to be used for hunting then the AR15 can and does fulfill this purpose. Just because it is better suited for being used to murder does not mean that it doesn't also serve the same reasonable purpose as another gun.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Define "military weapons"?
So, ANY firearm that is either:
* initially adopted by the military
or
* subsequently adopted by the military
should be outlawed for civilian purchase?
Ok. There goes: the M92, 1911, 226, 229, 228, 238/9, anything from Glock...shit, just about ANYTHING. Even legitimate hunting rifles like the Remington 700 would be outlawed. Give me a break.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
A weapon produced and designed primarily for military purpose?
I think you missed his point. That was a picture from the LA riots. Hes saying that they do fulfill a purpose in mowing down as many protesters as possible. Too bad those weren't handed out at Ferguson right? Store owners could have taught those protesters a lesson!
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Good. Other countries figured it out already, why can't we?
Protestors? Give me a break.
Read about what happened in Korea town during the LA riots. Some people...
Mammoth Jones
Member
But it's NOT better suited to kill a person in every situation. Each type of gun is better for certain scenarios and worse for others.
Getting caught up in the minutiae of AR-15's in the context of this shooting is silly because it could have been done with nearly ANY modern firearm. All would have had very similar results in a classroom of defenseless children.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Exactly, and those people were out of line, they are not the police. They should have been arrested.
Ah yes, I was too busy dodging his backseat modding abilities.
GoldenEye 007
Member
You're not getting a gun ban.
Of course the last part is completely untrue though, military weapons have been designed to favor wounding over killing for a long time. The standard military 5.56 NATO round is not all that great at stopping power compared to what the military was using previously. The main advantage of the AR 15 design is it's light weight(and down the line customizability, but originally they weren't all that customizable). Everything else, the AR is actually inferior. It uses the a dirty direct impingement gas system instead of a gas piston, so all the gasses from the spent round go directly into the mechanicals of the gun. The round is lower powered than the 7.62 NATO it replaced, and uses a small fast bullet that doesn't transfer kinetic energy to the target as efficiently as a slower heavier bullet.
The first part is technically true, but it is also true that the AR-15(and the AR-10 before it) were on the commercial market well before the US military adapted them as standard issue. Armalite didn't make very many of them, but a civilian could buy them well before the military was using them, IIRC.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I'm aware but it doesn't help me from thinking about how much good it would do. *shrug*
maybe one day this country will pull its head out of its ass.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Wouldn't it just be better to say "People shouldn't be able to own guns" then? Cuts right to the point w/o the insinuation that AR-15's are a "special" type of firearm. Because Rifles, shotguns, pistols are all used by the military and therefore be considered "military weapons".
Which include pistols used for self defense... I'd personally would never own an AR, as a pistol or shot gun, imo, is a better and safer option for home defense, but an AR looks fun to shoot at the range.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Hence the point of the lawsuit.
Ok? Is that such a bad thing? Will there be no other guns people can use for sport or hunting?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked