Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

a reply to: KawRider9

Over 100 MILLION of us scary gun owners in the US. If we were violent, you'd know it!

Oh, we most certainly know it.

a reply to: pteridine

Owners of such must be patients and not "scum" as you claimed.

Oh, did I say gun owners were scum? I'm pretty sure I said gun pushers were scum. Gun owners are just addicts: hooked, helpless, dangerous to themselves as well as to others.

A hundred million you say? My God. Thank heavens I don't live in America.

a reply to: KnightFire

Can't fix stupid

Oh, I don't know. It's not impossible to educate people out of the fantasy that guns make them sexy. Most of the rest of the world has done it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Well the founding fathers disagree with everything you say

Your precious Founding Fathers, as you envisage them, are just a myth. The authors of the USA were nothing like American constitution-fetishists make them out to be. And they lived in a primitive country two hundred and fifty years ago. The idea that the American Constitution mandates citizens plugging one another with lead is one of the stupidest and most self-serving myths gun addicts in the USA use to excuse their sickness.

Well its a good thing the bill of rights and the constitution are real and not a myth. Therefore, I have the right to own and use firearms. Don't like it?? Molon Labe!!!

First thing that came to mind was:



Anything misused can cause harm or even death.

I'm a 44 year old US resident and I have only once been threatened with a firearm, in Germany.

If someone wants to do something bad, they will, but don't think the entire nation is running around like it's the Old West with gunslingers on every corner flashing their firearms. Deny Ignorance.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raxoxane

I have yet to hear of a gunmaker company Pushing their product on anyone.

You've never seen ads and promotions for guns and ammunition? Really?

Pardon the pun but no one is putting a gun to some one's head to force them to purchase a gun.

Drug pushers don't put guns to their customers' heads either. In both cases, the buyer's addiction does the job for them.

Then the buyers with their addictions are the guilty party. Anyone can use an inanimate object for destruction. Next thing you know, we'll be suing landscapers for rocks being thrown off over passes. The list is endless.

The problem with the judge's generality of what the manufacturer should have known is that several guns were used yet only one manufacturer is being held responsible. Since multiple guns were used as murdering tools in this instance, they would all ostensibly be applicable to the same type of suit.

The judge ruled that the lawsuit can move forward since the manufacturer "Know or should know that their product are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others."

This is so general and could be said of every single gun.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

Owners of such must be patients and not "scum" as you claimed.

Oh, did I say gun owners were scum? I'm pretty sure I said gun pushers were scum. Gun owners are just addicts: hooked, helpless, dangerous to themselves as well as to others.

A hundred million you say? My God. Thank heavens I don't live in America.

Actually, you said "Gun pusers and drug pushers should both be treated as the scum they are." Is "pusers" a word meaning pushers or users? I didn't say 100 million.

Hooked and helpless? How do you define hooked? If I own a shotgun for hunting season, am I hooked?

a reply to: Astyanax

There is no debate with hysterical commentary such as this.

Have fun.

a reply to: Astyanax

That's a hundred million owners. The number of actual guns in the country looks like this.

However, while I normally tend to agree with you, the notion that manufacturers should be held liable for usage of their product in a way it was not intended for or marketed is absurd. For instance, knife manufacturers should not be held liable for producing knives that then go to stores where they are purchased by people who eventually use them for stabbing someone, unless they are marketed as "Chuck Hughes super stabbity knives: they're good for stabbin', you should stab someone!"

While I too detest gun pushers, manufacturer liability in cases where an even is not a result of their failure or neglect sets an awful precedent. It is not called the "Sandy Hook Multiple Guns Discharging Accidentally Due to Shoddy Design."

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Well its a good thing the bill of rights and the constitution are real and not a myth. Therefore, I have the right to own and use firearms.

Is it?

Do you?

1. Just because a prescriptive right is conferred by a piece of paper doesn't mean a corresponding natural right exists.

2. The terms of the prescriptive right, too, are open to interpretation. Most constitutional experts say the provision to bear arms in the US Constitution refers to the formation of citizens' militias, not to ordinary citizens packing heat on the kiddies' school run.

3. The US Constitution is not infallible.

It seems to me that the Constitution, written at a time when institutions of state were weak and life was in the main nasty, brutish and short, and written, moreover, by slave owners who had every reason to fear an uprising of those they oppressed, is hardly an ideal civic guide, and certainly not an admirable moral one. In the light of its support for gun addiction, it may need changing -- or perhaps it needs to be scrapped altogether and replaced with something more sensible.

ETA: I notice you go by the name of 'Praetorian'. I suppose you do not know that the original Praetorians were foreign mercenaries who supported and protected the Roman Emperor, an unconstitutional tyrant, against the people and the Republic? I'm sure this doesn't reflect your own political stance, but it shows that your knowledge of history is unreliable. Even you must realize that this raises the strong possibility that you've got the whole thing wrong.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Then the buyers with their addictions are the guilty party.

I think most people would agree that this is nonsense. An addict has, at the very least, diminished responsibility for his actions; a pusher doesn't have that excuse.

a reply to: pteridine

I think the typo was clearly interpretable as 'pusher'. I would have changed it if I'd seen it in time.

? If I own a shotgun for hunting season, am I hooked?

Oh yes.

You kill animals for pleasure? Ugh.

a reply to: Astyanax

1. Just because a prescriptive right is conferred by a piece of paper doesn't mean a corresponding natural right exists.

Pick up one book and read up on the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. 50 questions on the natural law is a good book to study.

Might actually give you some insight into the philosophy of the right to arms. A philosophy wholly relevant to this day.

a reply to: Astyanax

You definitely do not want guns.

I can respect that.

As long as you don't support infringing on MY rights to own them, we're cool.

a reply to: projectvxn

There is no debate with hysterical commentary such as this.

I agree. The gun addicts are really getting a bit crazy on this thread. I was even called retarded for civilly espousing a differing view.

More evidence, if any were needed, that these people should be disarmed. Hysterical people with guns are very dangerous.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The notion that manufacturers should be held liable for usage of their product in a way it was not intended for or marketed is absurd.

I absolutely agree. But guns are intended for killing. That is the purpose for which they were invented and that is the purpose for which they are mostly used. 'Sporting' gun use is just a fig-leaf used to veil this ugly reality.

For instance, knife manufacturers should not be held liable for producing knives that then go to stores where they are purchased by people who eventually use them for stabbing someone, unless they are marketed as "Chuck Hughes super stabbity knives: they're good for stabbin', you should stab someone!"

It is plain to see that you have not been exposed to much American gun advertising. This is pretty much what the ads do say -- to the extent that legal restrictions permit.

a reply to: Astyanax

I absolutely agree. But guns are intended for killing. That is the purpose for which they were invented and that is the purpose for which they are mostly used. 'Sporting' gun use is just a fig-leaf used to vein this ugly reality.

Out of curiosity then, where then do bows stand? They were, after all, essentially the historic precursor to firearms.

It is plain to see that you have not been exposed to much American gun advertising. This is pretty much what the ads do say -- to the extent that legal restrictions permit.

No, I have not. Perhaps thankfully.

a reply to: projectvxn

St Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher whose ideas have long been discredited, except in the Catholic Church, where they are used as the justification for various doctrines.

If you wish to educate me, either quote the relevant words of Aquinas in this thread or, better still, explain in your own words what you understand them to mean. With references.

Then you might have a case. Right now all you have is a vague appeal to a discredited authority.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Your 'right' to own them is only prespective and likely spurious. I do not recognize it and I call for your disarmament in the interest of public safety as well as your own -- as well as in the interests of public order. No compromise, I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your 'right' to own them is only prespective and likely spurious. I do not recognize it and I call for your disarmament in the interest of public safety as well as your own -- as well as in the interests of public order. No compromise, I'm afraid.

Fair enough. Then it would only be appropriate if I reciprocated in kind and worked to deny your rights as well, wouldn't it?