Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

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

No it clashes too much with the freedom boner that a good portion of gun owners have.

And also gets their paranoia running. "WHAT IF THE HOME INVADER HACKS MY GUN'S ID RECOGNITION!"

 

[Arcteryx]

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.

So...they should have waited for police? the same police that were in severe shortage? Makes sense. Just get shot, get killed, get raped, watch your life burn before you. Sure thing.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

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.

I have my civilian AK but it's locked up when not at the range. It serves no purpose for home defense. The round would go through the guy and through the building and through the next building.

Once again I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe this lawsuit has any merit. I just don't see how the gun company is responsible any more than the knife maker is responsible for a stabbing. The argument of "a knife is designed to do more than kill people" doesn't hold up in my opinion as a knife CAN be used for purposes other than murder just as a gun can. A guns ONLY function isn't murder despite how many anti-gun people want to claim it is.

No it clashes too much with the freedom boner that a good portion of gun owners have.

And also gets their paranoia running. "WHAT IF THE HOME INVADER HACKS MY GUN'S ID RECOGNITION!"

The real concern for smart guns was the backlash the company that made em to be sold in NJ got when people realized they also developed a remote "kill switch" that they were in the process of patenting.

I personally would love to own a smart gun (cost permitting). But the tech isn't there yet. But the problem is the tech will NEVER get there if people don't adopt the tech. Smart guns should be available and optional. Extra security layer for people that want it. But trying to force it w/ laws will just entrench the opposition. No matter how much we claim to know what's best for them.

 

[Pepiope]

Hence the point of the lawsuit.

But an AR also serves the purpose. Plus, that's just one opinion. I know people who prefer an AR or an AK.

 

[Chumly]

Protestors? Give me a break.

Read about what happened in Korea town during the LA riots. Some people...

Sorry I did actually mean to put in looters. We gotta Judge Dredd that shit!

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

If the gun was legally sold to his mother I don't see how this goes anywhere.

 

[Pepiope]

I have my civilian AK but it's locked up when not at the range. It serves no purpose for home defense. The round would go through the guy and through the building and through the next building.

Once again I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe this lawsuit has any merit. I just don't see how the gun company is responsible any more than the knife maker is responsible for a stabbing. The argument of "a knife is designed to do more than kill people" doesn't hold up in my opinion as a knife CAN be used for purposes other than murder just as a gun can. A guns ONLY function isn't murder despite how many anti-gun people want to claim it is.

I agree with this, but people who live out in the country may not need to worry about a bullet going into another building. It makes no sense for me in the city, but people who have the land want that firepower, while others just love their guns.

 

[Suikoguy]

But an AR also serves the purpose. Plus, that's just one opinion. I know people who prefer an AR or an AK.

The argument is sole purpose, and I can see the argument being made, perhaps even well enough to pass summary judgement. I don't see them winning the case in court.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I agree with this, but people who live out in the country may not need to worry about a bullet going into another building. It makes no sense for me in the city, but people who have the land want that firepower, while others just love their guns.

Yep. That's something a lot of people don't consider. Not all of us live in an urban or suburban environment. And that's not to say everyone living out in the middle of nowhere owns a gun or feels the need to. Some do, some don't and their home defense needs may be different depending on the layout of their home/property. I live in a condo so no need for property/perimeter defense outside my immediate dwelling.My boy down south keeps an AR rifle after a cougar killed one of his dogs in his backyard a few years back.

 

[RevDM]

I really want to see competitive big game hunting with the following:

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I really want to see competitive big game hunting with the following:

Ironically those guns are too underpowered to kill most big game with. Need a much larger round.

But people absolutely hunt wild hogs/coyote and sometimes deer with ak/ar rounds. Depends on the hunting laws of the state.

 

[iamblades]

Ironically those guns are too underpowered to kill most big game with. Need a much larger round.

But people absolutely hunt wild hogs/coyote and sometimes deer with ak/ar rounds. Depends on the hunting laws of the state.

Most DNR regs for big game say 6MM centerfire, which is .24 caliber specifically to disallow the 5.56, the 7.62x39 round would be technically legal, but any hunter trying to take anything larger than a small whitetail with that round should probably get his permits revoked, and if we are talking actual 'big game' like Elk, Moose or Bear, using a round like that is probably more hazardous the the hunter than to the animal.

 

[Diablos]

It's a lawsuit that generates headlines. They're going to lose badly. I don't blame them though, our Republican controlled Congress has basically thrown up the middle finger to those lost in these senseless tragedies, and their lack of action must make these poor families feel so much despair and misguided angst and frustration.

 

[TxdoHawk]

Sorry GAF, but I'm fully in agreement that this lawsuit is the wrong way to go.

If we're going to lay blame, it's probably better to lay it at the feet of a scholastic, parental (Adam's mother, especially), and mental health system that failed to properly address Adam Lanza's deteriorating mental state and increasingly violent tendencies. The report released by Connecticut's Office of the Child Advocate a few weeks ago pads their foreword with a lot of fluffy "well we can't draw any direct lines..." speech, but the discoveries are pretty damning. Here's some choice pieces from the summary:

There were early indications of AL’s preoccupation with violence, depicted by extremely graphic writings that appeared to have been largely unaddressed by schools and possibly by parents.

Recommendations from the Yale Child Study Center, where AL was evaluated at age 14 (AL’s 9th grade year), offered prescient observations that withdrawal from school and a strategy of accommodating AL, rather than addressing his underlying needs, would lead to a deteriorating life of dysfunction and isolation.

Yale’s recommendations for extensive special education supports, ongoing expert consultation, and rigorous therapeutic supports embedded into AL’s daily life went largely unheeded.

AL’s resistance to medication recommended for treatment of his Anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders appeared to be reinforced by his mother. According to records, AL disagreed with his Asperger’s diagnosis and may not have understood the benefit of individual therapy.

In the waning months of AL’s life, when his mother noted that he would not leave the house and seemed despondent, it is not clear that any measures were taken to curtail his access to guns or whether the family considered AL’s potential for suicide.

AL was anorexic at the time of death, measuring 6 feet tall and weighing only 112 pounds. Authors cannot determine what concerns were raised by his mother regarding his eating ability or habits, or his continued emaciation during this time.

Bottom line, this kid's mental issues were managed horribly, partly due to a system that largely ignored Adam's needs and partly due to his mother, who coddled Adam and gave him the kind of environmental bubble that let his mental state fester.

 

[appaws]

"Could" has nothing to do with it. A lot of things "could" do things. The argument is that it serves no reasonable civilian purpose.

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.

Ironically those guns are too underpowered to kill most big game with. Need a much larger round.

But people absolutely hunt wild hogs/coyote and sometimes deer with ak/ar rounds. Depends on the hunting laws of the state.

The AR platform is actually really commonly used for hunting these days, the standard AR-15 for smaller game and up to smallish southern Deer. And the bigger calibers like the AR-10 for something like a whitetail buck....or hogs.

I remember reading in the book "American Rifle" by Alexander Rose about how the primary hunting rifle of any era is always linked to the main military rifle of that era, and today is no exception.

Bushmaster should only have to present statistics about the common use of the AR platform, and the case should be dismissed in summary judgment. I am a lawyer, but I am not an expert on the act passed by Congress a few years ago that was supposed to prevent this kind of suit.

 

[appaws]

Most DNR regs for big game say 6MM centerfire, which is .24 caliber specifically to disallow the 5.56, the 7.62x39 round would be technically legal, but any hunter trying to take anything larger than a small whitetail with that round should probably get his permits revoked, and if we are talking actual 'big game' like Elk, Moose or Bear, using a round like that is probably more hazardous the the hunter than to the animal.

I don't think anyone in the northern half of the North American continent should be trying to take a whitetail buck with a 5.56. I think it would be stupid and cruel to the animal to do so, creating too great a risk of a non-killing shot.

My dad takes those little southern deer on a plantation he rents in SC for hunting using one once in a while, but still generally goes with a .308 even for those.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I really want to see competitive big game hunting with the following:

Yeah hold on let me just go down to the neighborhood gun store and pick up HIGH EXPLOSIVE GRENADE LAUNCHER ROUNDS.

 

[Bodacious]

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.

No they don't.

 

[iamblades]

I don't think anyone in the northern half of the North American continent should be trying to take a whitetail buck with a 5.56. I think it would be stupid and cruel to the animal to do so, creating too great a risk of a non-killing shot.

My dad takes those little southern deer on a plantation he rents in SC for hunting using one once in a while, but still generally goes with a .308 even for those.

I was talking about the 7.62x39 when i made the whitetail comments, and I agree that even that is iffy on the bigger northern deer.

 

[RevDM]

Yeah hold on let me just go down to the neighborhood gun store and pick up HIGH EXPLOSIVE GRENADE LAUNCHER ROUNDS.

Don't be a bitch, go blow up some elk w/ a mortar round.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is not new. There have been a lot of suits against gun manufacturers by the victims of gun crimes on various theories, with very limited success.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/washington/10guns.html?_r=0

Congress enacted a law in 2005 that severely limited this kind of suit:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

 

[Deified Data]

This is pointless. They should be suing their legislators, not a gun manufacturer. What sort of closure do they hope to gain from this? Do they want to run Bushmaster out of business so some other manufacturer can go on making products that do the exact same thing? Totally misplaced and reactionary.

 

[iamblades]

This is pointless. They should be suing their legislators, not a gun manufacturer. What sort of closure do they hope to gain from this? Do they want to run Bushmaster out of business so some other manufacturer can go on making products that do the exact same thing? Totally misplaced and reactionary.

Not even counting other semi-auto rifles that are functional the same, there are like 300 different companies that manufacture AR-15s alone.

 

[Zeke]

Yea not seeing how they have a case. All bushmaster has to do is show people use their rifles for hunting purposes.

 

[Chumly]

This is pointless. They should be suing their legislators, not a gun manufacturer. What sort of closure do they hope to gain from this? Do they want to run Bushmaster out of business so some other manufacturer can go on making products that do the exact same thing? Totally misplaced and reactionary.

If we could only sue our legislators.......

They are suing bushmaster because they were the ones that made the weapons. They don't have grounds to sue anyone else. If for some reason they actually won (not going to happen) other gun manufacturers would probably stop making the AR15 style guns also due to the risk of civil suit.

 

[OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather]

This is pointless. They should be suing their legislators, not a gun manufacturer. What sort of closure do they hope to gain from this? Do they want to run Bushmaster out of business so some other manufacturer can go on making products that do the exact same thing? Totally misplaced and reactionary.

Why? Honest question.

 

[Who]

nevermind

 

[OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather]

nevermind

lol Was probably not a good idea.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I really want to see competitive big game hunting with the following:

The M4 with a 203 has a purpose while hunting. It's a good round for deer and the 203 can be loaded with a signal flare for emergency.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

The potential of Lawn Darts to stop a home invasion didn't stop them from getting banned. Thanks a lot, Nanny State.

 

[speculawyer]

Rachel Maddow did a segment the lawsuit. Sounds like a bit of a long shot but worth a try I guess.

 

[Wiktor]

That's pretty ridiculous suit, but I guess people are just that desperate for change? Gun ownership should be limited by law, but since that's not going to happen I guess anything else with any chance of success seems like a way to go.

 

[cajunator]

Ironically those guns are too underpowered to kill most big game with. Need a much larger round.

But people absolutely hunt wild hogs/coyote and sometimes deer with ak/ar rounds. Depends on the hunting laws of the state.

Same exact ammo in a normal rifle. .223 caliber.
I have a bushmaster ar15 too. The ammo is interchangeable.

 

[Celestia]

ALL firearms are used for killing.

That isn't true at all though.

 

[Bodacious]

I don't think anyone in the northern half of the North American continent should be trying to take a whitetail buck with a 5.56. I think it would be stupid and cruel to the animal to do so, creating too great a risk of a non-killing shot.

My dad takes those little southern deer on a plantation he rents in SC for hunting using one once in a while, but still generally goes with a .308 even for those.

I'm not advocating for it, I don't hunt and if I did I wouldn't try it ... but my father hunted whitetail all through the 60's and 70's with a 22/250, which AFAIK balistically is not a lot different from the .223. Every kill he made was a one shot drop, but his target was the spinal column in the upper neck, not the 'vitals.'

If I ever got back to hunting deer I'd probably take the .270 Winchester, or a .308.

 

[neorej]

That isn't true at all though.

Some have +3 Healing?

 

[Celestia]

Some have +3 Healing?

Target and Biathlon rifles are purpose built for their respective sports. Killing paper is about all they do.

 

[iamblades]

Target and Biathlon rifles are purpose built for their respective sports. Killing paper is about all they do.

A target rifle will most certainly kill you if you are on the wrong end of it. IIRC .22 LR accounts for a shockingly large percentage of gun homicides, and the rest of the most common calibers used in homicides are relatively small junk calibers, .25, .32, .380, etc. Criminals aren't going to use a $2,000 gun to kill someone very often.

But for the bolded you could say that about almost any type of rifle. Rifles account for like 2% of all guns used in crime. Scary looking ones even less. Even if gun control was a feasible proposition, rifles would be the last place you would touch.

 

[TheJLC]

Waste of money because they at gonna lose.

 

[appaws]

I'm not advocating for it, I don't hunt and if I did I wouldn't try it ... but my father hunted whitetail all through the 60's and 70's with a 22/250, which AFAIK balistically is not a lot different from the .223. Every kill he made was a one shot drop, but his target was the spinal column in the upper neck, not the 'vitals.'

If I ever got back to hunting deer I'd probably take the .270 Winchester, or a .308.

Oh you can do it...no doubt. I just have no faith in the average hunter's ability to place a shot all that well.

 

[Celestia]

A target rifle will most certainly kill you if you are on the wrong end of it. IIRC .22 LR accounts for a shockingly large percentage of gun homicides, and the rest of the most common calibers used in homicides are relatively small junk calibers, .25, .32, .380, etc. Criminals aren't going to use a $2,000 gun to kill someone very often.

Yes, but Arcteryx specifically said "ALL firearms are used for killing". That was a factually incorrect statement. I know you could kill someone with one, but that isn't what they were designed for.

As for the lawsuit itself, I don't get it. I feel for the families, I truly do, but I don't see what this will accomplish and I very much doubt they'll win.

 

[HyperionX]

Gun control advocates made a huge mistake trying to differentiate the bad guns from the good guns, for fear they might turn too many people away from their cause. They ended up creating a rather silly idea of there being "assault" weapons that are supposed to be excessively dangerous. They ended up creating a contradiction, since pretty much all guns can be lethal.

If we are seriously about gun control, we need to move on and start an Australia gun control system, where the vast majority of guns are banned, and the only way to get them is through an elaborate system of mental health checks and/or proof of need.

 

[Madness]

If the gun was legally sold to his mother I don't see how this goes anywhere.

People will try and exhaust all their options, even if their attempts are futile. If your children were killed you'd probably do the same thing. Laugh at how many are suggesting it's about the money. What do parents who just saw their young sons and daughters in kindergarten slaughtered before their lives even began have to gain? Or do you think this isn't something they'll live with forever, that they'll sue and win and party in Hawaii and forget all about their children.

 

[Wiktor]

If the gun was legally sold to his mother I don't see how this goes anywhere.

Wouldn't it make more sense to sue the mother? Don't gun owners have responsibility to take care of their weapons?

 

[linkboy]

Wouldn't it make more sense to sue the mother? Don't gun owners have responsibility to take care of their weapons?

She's dead, he killed her and then stole the guns

 

[TheJLC]

Gun control advocates made a huge mistake trying to differentiate the bad guns from the good guns, for fear they might turn too many people away from their cause. They ended up creating a rather silly idea of there being "assault" weapons that are supposed to be excessively dangerous. They ended up creating a contradiction, since pretty much all guns can be lethal.

If we are seriously about gun control, we need to move on and start an Australia gun control system, where the vast majority of guns are banned, and the only way to get them is through an elaborate system of mental health checks and/or proof of need.

The word ban also killed the idea. The idea of banning any gun is going to face opposition even from people who are not pro-gun advocates.

So, When the idea of bans on took place, it killed all other ideas attached to it. They should have just made it mandatory background checks anf mental evaluations. Instead nothing happened.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

The gun was literally made to kill people. This lawsuit isn't ridiculous, although I doubt it will help them.

I tought they were for defending themselves, according to the NRA propagandists.

There is a huge difference between, say, a revolver, and a war weapon like the AR15. The first is reasonable, and enough to satisfy the paranoia of whoever believe they'll have armed intruders in their house soon. The second is complelte overkill, and amplify the risk of fatal wound, as well as collateral damage when such a weapon is used by a madman, and for what? Just to appeal to the primal instinct of wanting the biggest club possible.


But the ones targeted by the lawsuit shouldn't be the manufacturers. It should be the politicians that aren't doing anything to change the laws. This is a failure to their duty to protect the population.

 

[Kite]

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible,"

rofl no its not, the military uses M4s/M16s. AR-15s are the gimped civilian version that only allows semi-automatic fire aka it fires one round each time your pull the trigger which is the same as any regular hunting rifle. The actual military weapons have a selector switch that allows either semi-auto or 3 round burst/full auto.

And that is why I personally make fun of people who own and open carry AR15s, they scare people who don't know anything about guns but they're essentially the same as any old hunting rifle. Its the same as people who rice up their honda accords with spoilers, racing stickers and mufflers.. people who don't know cars might be impressed by the loud noises lol

 

[Spaghetti]

pretty reasonable, these weapon manufacturers lobby congress into inaction on gun laws, so why not just go after them instead?

 

[neorej]

Target and Biathlon rifles are purpose built for their respective sports. Killing paper is about all they do.

Of course, a .22 lead projectile at high velocity could never hurt anybody, let alone kill.