Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

a reply to: kreator666

Too many movies and TV shows would be my guess.

You would guess wrong. I don't even own a TV. Haven't since 1998, except when I briefly rented a flat that came with one. I see perhaps one movie a year.

Television is mostly wish-fulfilment. Have you noticed how much of it is make-believe violence designed to turn on gun addicts and others with its death and blood and gore and fantasies of revenge?

More evidence of gun sickness.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Irrelevant. This 'right' does not exist. Constitutions are just pieces of paper, they can be rewritten at need. How many amendments has the US Constitution?

a reply to: pteridine

The fact that you are a vegan certainly colors your opinion.

How on Earth did you conclude I was vegan? I eat meat. Just finished a nice slice of kingfish.

I never shoot animals for pleasure.

Hunting is always for pleasure. If you need meat there are butchers' shops and supermarkets.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: kreator666

Too many movies and TV shows would be my guess.

You would guess wrong. I don't even own a TV. Haven't since 1998, except when I briefly rented a flat that came with one. I see perhaps one movie a year.

Television is mostly wish-fulfilment. Have you noticed how much of it is make-believe violence designed to turn on gun addicts and others with its death and blood and gore and fantasies of revenge?

More evidence if gun sickness.

Certainly, some TV and movies contain violence. Kung-fu movies are notable for realistic fight scenes. Harry Potter movies contain significant wand violence. Then there are the documentaries. The ones with supernovas show the ultimate violence. Fortunately, ATF has outlawed supernovas along with other destructive devices.
In contrast, I understand that the many websites promoting love are the most popular on the internet, so all is not lost.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Rights are something you are born with.

No, that's a lie told to children. You have no rights except what society allows you.

These pretty lies, however, are not relevant. The social experiment has gone on long enough. The data point to an inescapable conclusion: private citizens cannot be trusted with lethal weapons. What you think are your rights signify nothing. Gun owners are dangerous and have to be disarmed.

I think I have made my point.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yes lot's of crap and violence on tv, you do get to choose what you watch though..at this point in time. I watch mostly documentaries, history etc..truth be known I mostly listen to my stereo for entertainment.
I'm not a gun nut by any stretch and do believe the U.S. has a huge problem with the current gun culture but I do not get this lawsuit.

a reply to: pteridine

I accept your courteous and lighthearted disengagement in the spirit it is offered. Au revoir!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

The fact that you are a vegan certainly colors your opinion.

How on Earth did you conclude I was vegan? I eat meat. Just finished a nice slice of kingfish.

I never shoot animals for pleasure.

If course it is. If you need meat there are butchers' shops and supermarkets.

Butcher shops and supermarkets get their meat by killing animals and, based on your arguments, I erroneously concluded that the violence of slaughtering animals was what you objected to. Why would it make a difference whether the animals were killed by an individual or a slaughterhouse?
In a previous post, you didn't like the idea that guns could be fired rapidly. How about single-shot guns? Black powder muzzle loaders? Crossbows? Do you expect people to wait in trees and drop rocks on the deer below?

a reply to: pteridine

Butcher shops and supermarkets get their meat by killing animals and, based on your arguments, I erroneously concluded that the violence of slaughtering animals was what you objected to. Why would it make a difference whether the animals were killed by an individual or a slaughterhouse?
In a previous post, you didn't like the idea that guns could be fired rapidly. How about single-shot guns? Black powder muzzle loaders? Crossbows? Do you expect people to wait in trees and drop rocks on the deer below?

Oh, I thought we were done.

I don't object to gun ownership because guns are used to kill animals, but because they are used to kill and maim and frighten people.

The difference between the individual and the slaughterhouse is the difference between killing for pleasure and killing for food. Killing for pleasure is evil. But that is a different argument.

I object to hunting and gun ownership for different reasons.

All clear now?

originally posted by: KingKelson
So im surprised that this hasn't been posted yet, or if it has I apologize and please disregard.

Two Sandy Hook parents have had their lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms and their parent company Remington Firearms. 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."

So my first question is that isn't there a provision in the TPP (or whatever) that a company can sue the government over loss of profits? Or is this wrong/does not apply.
Secondly, would this set a precedent that would allow anyone to sue any company legitimately because they know or should know that their product can used to harm others?

This will get over-turned in a higher court due to slippery slope. A landmark decision like this will not stop at gun makers.

Automobiles, power tools, butter knives, garden tools can all be used in a way to injury others. I feel this judge is pandering to the masses and knows it will eventually get overturned, in a higher court, or else the judge is delusional.

Objects themselves don't hurt people only deranged people behind the tool.

a reply to: Realtruth

I doubt it'll take much time, either.

Have to placate all us gun-addicts, y'know...

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

Butcher shops and supermarkets get their meat by killing animals and, based on your arguments, I erroneously concluded that the violence of slaughtering animals was what you objected to. Why would it make a difference whether the animals were killed by an individual or a slaughterhouse?
In a previous post, you didn't like the idea that guns could be fired rapidly. How about single-shot guns? Black powder muzzle loaders? Crossbows? Do you expect people to wait in trees and drop rocks on the deer below?

Oh, I thought we were done.

I don't object to gun ownership because guns are used to kill animals, but because they are used to kill and maim and frighten people.

The difference between the individual and the slaughterhouse is the difference between killing for pleasure and killing for food. Killing for pleasure is evil. But that is a different argument.

I object to hunting and gun ownership for different reasons.

All clear now?

It is true that guns CAN be used to kill and maim and frighten people but most of the time they are not used to used to kill and maim people. As to fright, people are frightened for different reasons; some irrationally so. I know people who are afraid of any size spider and harmless garden snakes. I also know people who are afraid of guns because they really don't understand them and think that they are autonomous and randomly shoot people because they are inherently evil.

Your logic fault is that you assume that people who hunt are killing for pleasure. How do you know this? [Hint: you don't.] In fact, many kill for meat for reasons of economy, acquiring game food not available any other way, and ridding the land of predators.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krakatoa

Irrelevant. This 'right' does not exist. Constitutions are just pieces of paper, they can be rewritten at need. How many amendments has the US Constitution?

This I agree with. Rights are a construct of humans and their societies, no matter how much you'd wish it wasn't so. And how many governments and individuals over the planet have shattered them? They are as illusory and ephemeral as the wind.

As it stands, hunting is not a right, but I can easily imagine societies where it could be so.

a reply to: pteridine

I also know people who are afraid of guns because they really don't understand them and think that they are autonomous and randomly shoot people because they are inherently evil.

Even as someone who for the most part is on your side this line is ridiculous. The fear of guns has nothing to do with guns intrinsically, I distrust guns because I distrust the people who wield them. It's not even that I expect malice, that I expect gun holders to be crazed criminals. What I expect is incompetence.

An accidentally discharged shot may not have the intent behind it, but it will kill and wound and maim all the same.

I have never been a Sandy Hook conspiracy person. But now, maybe I'm getting a little wind of it. There was something wrong about the whole thing...the whole story. Many felt it and many made up stories based upon that feeling. But that feeling has now changed for me. If Sandy Hook had drifted into memories, I would have remained silent and would have shrugged my shoulders saying...but it didn't lead to anything. It would have been just one very sad event. But now that it is turning into a law suit against gun makers...my opinion has changed.

Why did Sandy Hook seem off or wrong? Apparently because it was. And this law suit is the beginning of the reason that it occurred. Only our government could pull something like this off and this is what happens when liberals are in power. It doesn't matter how they get to the outcome, how many lies are told or how many have to die. The end justifies the means and this is now sounding exactly like that. I now question the smiling father of a murdered child. I now question the Lambert brothers, the guns, etc. I now understand what others have for a long time.

The liberal mind is very simple to understand. They look at a situation and decide what the outcome has to be. They don't evaluate it, consider it, discuss it...they chose it. And then they force it and only it as the only solution. And in getting to that solution while protecting their "I was right" mentality, it doesn't matter how many jobs it costs, lives, lies, etc. In fact...the jobs, lives and lies are YOUR problem. They are RIGHT about the solution...you are WRONG to complain about the pain of getting there. That is the liberal utopia. They are right...if you die in the process, that is your problem. They are always right. But I digress.

I now believe that Sandy Hook was somehow used for the exact purpose that has now shown in it's results. This was somehow a play or step toward taking guns or making them illegal. Our government has gone too far. But in their rush to force something upon the people of this country, they have bred another believer that our government is the root of all our problems...and by their hand...the root of all evil.

I truly never thought anything of Sandy Hook other than a mentally disturbed person causing death. Now...I believe the tin-foil-hats were on to something. And another set of eyes is staring at you...our government. The more eyes you cause to watch, the sooner we will all see the truth.

When I first heard about this all I can say is good luck to those families, cause the stakes are high.
If they lose, those families could end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if they win, it will set a messy precedence legally that could affect the entire country.

There is legal precedence to support the fire arms companies and such will be used. If they take it to court, any decision will be appealed, and it will go back and forth on up to the US Supreme Court.

The primary argument on the part of the arms maker is one that has been around for a long time, and that is how do you control what a person does with a product once it is purchased? If they use it in ways it is not supposed to be used, who is at fault, the manufacture or the person using it? There are several cases to this point: Drunk drivers and Sirgiorgio Clardy.

The first one drunk drivers, if you consider, that it is illegal and dangerous to drive a car if a person is drunk, however, under that mindset of the people suing the arms manufacturer’s, any vehicle company and alcohol company can be held liable for any and all auto accidents caused by a drunk driver. There are some laws on the books concerning the sales of alcoholic beverages, including those that would hold a bar tender or a seller of alcohol liable if a drunk person purchases and leaves, but here is where it gets sticky.
What if the person is at home and gets drunk and then drives, then who Is responsible? Should the car maker be held accountable for the actions of a person who is misusing the vehicle while drunk and causing accidents? There are a lot of such that happens and this would give people a venue to sue auto makers for millions in deaths and injury.

The other one and this one is rather interesting is the Sirgiorgio Clardy. He is a pimp, living in Oregon, who beat a person to death with a pair of Nike shoes. Should the victims family be allowed to sue Nike for the death, due to the misuse of their product? And the list goes on, including other weapons such as a knife, or chemical companies, all cause someone decided to do a violent action.

That is the kind of messy can of worms that would be opened if this lawsuit succeeds and is able to survive the appeals process.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

If they lose, those families could end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars,

No. It is a tort suit. Fees in such suits are generally contingency based. If they win, the attorneys get a cut (a large one) if they lose, the attorneys eat the costs.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: pteridine

I also know people who are afraid of guns because they really don't understand them and think that they are autonomous and randomly shoot people because they are inherently evil.

Even as someone who for the most part is on your side this line is ridiculous. The fear of guns has nothing to do with guns intrinsically, I distrust guns because I distrust the people who wield them. It's not even that I expect malice, that I expect gun holders to be crazed criminals. What I expect is incompetence.

An accidentally discharged shot may not have the intent behind it, but it will kill and wound and maim all the same.

As ridiculous as it sounds, I do know someone that really thinks that they randomly go off. I can unload the weapon, show her the empty chamber and she still asks me to remove the evil device and put it in its place, out of sight.
"How do you know it won't go off?"
"It has no ammunition in it. There is nothing to go off."
"I don't trust it."

You on the other hand, don't trust people who have guns as some are careless. Some are.

a reply to: Phage

I was looking at the last case like this, where the people sued and lost and ended up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs.

a reply to: pteridine

guns CAN be used to kill and maim and frighten people but most of the time they are not used to used to kill and maim people

That isn’t good enough. The facts demonstrate clearly that guns are too dangerous to be held in private hands — not, at least, without severe restrictions that amount to a general ban with a few very rare exceptions.

no In fact, many kill for meat for reasons of economy, acquiring game food not available any other way

Do Americans live in a subsistence economy?