Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: pteridine

I think the poster indicated gun's removed by any means necessary including killing the owner if they are not giving it up..sounds real logical and not hypocritical at all(sarc off) I wonder what will be used to kill the reluctant to give it up gun owner?

I don't know how this would be accomplished. Many would not go quietly but Asty hasn't considered any of that and wants everyone to behave like they are in a European country with average population densities anywhere from 3 to 12 times that of the US and a size on the order of a state. Asty hasn't defined success nor a process to reach that point.
This is all moot, as the lawsuit will be bounced but it will be interesting if Asty defines some sort of process.

I'm going to sue C&H Sugar and Morton Salt because I have diabetes and high blood pressure. Also maybe Pepsi, Coke or McDonalds. They all know their products are bad for people and cause harm. Perhaps I should sue my family for passing on poor genes too me. Or the cable/internet company for making me lazy. The days of personal responsibility are gone.

a reply to: Astyanax

Not really, cause I do not believe that the families can win the court case or the argument in court. What legal basis could there be to support such a lawsuit? That is the one question that any judge would want to know.

If you used a bat to beat someone to death, would their family be able to sue the manufacture for the death of the product? There is nothing that states it should not be used for such on the packaging. Yet that is what will happen if the families win their law suit, then anyone can sue any company if there is a death involve, even if the item is not designed for such.

And the other question is this: How can a manufacturer be responsible for the use of its product once it leaves the store and it purchased? Do companies now have to control how said products are used, even to the point of taking said products back from the consumer if it is misused? That kind of starts looking like an invasion of privacy and or intrusion into a persons home.

a reply to: pteridine

Your arguments for addiction are spurious

Disprove them, then, point by point. You quoted every point but failed to provide a detailed rebuttal. I don’t believe you can.

You, and many like you, have wonderful simplistic solutions to problems you perceive.

What solutions have I offered? I say the banning of private firearms in America is inevitable, and sooner rather than later.

Please do not count me among the fools who think social problems of this kind are amenable to deliberate solutions. They solve themselves, sooner or later, usually to devastating effect, while creating further problems for the future. America is on the cusp of that happening with its gun-addiction problem.

What is your plan for exactly how firearms are to be removed?

I have none. I imagine that, when the time comes, public pressure will force the necessary laws through. There may be some violent civil conflict before that, of course. The gun addicts will then discover how useless their precious guns are.

a reply to: seagull

Sorry, but I'm mentally, and emotionally stable enough that I'm not going to have to worry about it.

You don’t worry about it, but you hope and pray about it? Pardon me if I find those two statements hard to reconcile.

a reply to: redmage

I'm not addressing this emotionally, nor am I even a gun owner.

Apparently not for want of trying, though: Home defense recomendations. You curated that gun-crazy thread for three years.

There is really nothing else in your post to reply to. It’s just one big unsubstantiated ‘no’. So, instead, please accept my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

All your points have previously been dealt with. I suggest reading the thread in full.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Apparently not for want of trying, though: Home defense recomendations. You curated that gun-crazy thread for three years.

Not for want of trying? You assume far too much. Yes, over a decade ago I created a thread, as a resource, looking to generate discussion regarding what owners felt was a good choice for home defense.

Using ad hominem slander like "gun-crazy" to miss-characterize the thread suggests that you are the one bringing far too much emotion to the discussion, and not addressing the issue from an objective state of mind.

Furthermore, "curated for three years" is evidence that you didn't even bother to read what you are commenting on. The thread sat dormant for three years until another member chose to resurrect it with a direct response to me. When it, after three years of dormancy, re-appeared on my subscribed threads list; I made one reply noting such.

originally posted by: Astyanax
There is really nothing else in your post to reply to. It’s just one big unsubstantiated ‘no’. So, instead, please accept my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

"Speedy recovery"? Really?

Again, I am not a gun owner, nor do I have any "addiction" that needs recovery. Another shining example that strongly suggests that you are the one bringing far too much emotion to the discussion, and not addressing the issue from an objective point of view at all.

a reply to: redmage

Nothing substantive to respond to there. Thank you for replying.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Nothing substantive to respond to there.

I suppose with all of the hyperbole, ad hominems, and gross miss-characterizations you've provided; the same could certainly be said of your posts in this thread.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and I hope to see you around somewhere where we can find a bit more common ground.

As for the OP, and the topic at hand, "Know or should know that their product are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others" is far too broad of a brush to grant the OK for the trial to proceed.

As it has been pointed out, this case opens the door for auto makers (and many other industries) to be sued as well. Using a motor vehicle is very well known to have risks of injury to one's self, and to others, and auto makes know that their products actually will be used in such a way. This is why we have laws in place regarding speed limits, seat belts, and numerous other traffic laws. Likewise, there are many laws in place regarding the responsible ownership and use of firearms, and steeply increased-punishments for those who use a firearm while committing another crime.

With freedom comes risks, and that will never change.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

Your arguments for addiction are spurious

Disprove them, then, point by point. You quoted every point but failed to provide a detailed rebuttal. I don’t believe you can.

You, and many like you, have wonderful simplistic solutions to problems you perceive.

What solutions have I offered? I say the banning of private firearms in America is inevitable, and sooner rather than later.

Please do not count me among the fools who think social problems of this kind are amenable to deliberate solutions. They solve themselves, sooner or later, usually to devastating effect, while creating further problems for the future. America is on the cusp of that happening with its gun-addiction problem.

What is your plan for exactly how firearms are to be removed?

I have none. I imagine that, when the time comes, public pressure will force the necessary laws through. There may be some violent civil conflict before that, of course. The gun addicts will then discover how useless their precious guns are.

If guns are taken from everyone, which is never going to happen, but let's assume it does. Then you will discover just how grave the danger will be to you and those you love, from the corrupted authorities who will still have their guns. If you think they will play nice with unarmed citizens, then you are even more naive than you already show.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This argument is one that i read often, but in my opinion this argument is false and merely shows how paranoid and fearful people are.
The 'corrupted authorities' apart from their profession are just ordinary american citizens who happen to work at local, state and federal governments.

If i really go deeper in to this, the police is not very friendly and often quite trigger happy due to the possibility that the 'suspect' has a gun and might use it against them.
Ohh, he was unarmed? sorry i thought he had a gun....

Statistics point out that people have more reason to fear each other than the authorities.
Bad family relations, armed burglars, little kids playing with a gun, armed robbery, the madman who decides to shoot people, a dispute that leads to somebody being shot and so on.
But do feel free and have as many guns as you all want to have, after all, as american you are free, you have the freedom, it is your right to carry guns.

Authorities have other ways to keep the free americans in line, propaganda is one of them, play with the mind's to move the herd.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

Your arguments for addiction are spurious

Disprove them, then, point by point. You quoted every point but failed to provide a detailed rebuttal. I don’t believe you can.

You, and many like you, have wonderful simplistic solutions to problems you perceive.

What solutions have I offered? I say the banning of private firearms in America is inevitable, and sooner rather than later.

Please do not count me among the fools who think social problems of this kind are amenable to deliberate solutions. They solve themselves, sooner or later, usually to devastating effect, while creating further problems for the future. America is on the cusp of that happening with its gun-addiction problem.

What is your plan for exactly how firearms are to be removed?

I have none. I imagine that, when the time comes, public pressure will force the necessary laws through. There may be some violent civil conflict before that, of course. The gun addicts will then discover how useless their precious guns are.

So all of your arguments can be distilled to "the banning of private firearms in America is inevitable, and sooner rather than later." This is what we call an opinion. To support this you say that guns are an addiction and attempt to show it by example. That is another opinion. Most people I know that own guns use them for specific purposes and display little, if any, of the addiction characteristics.
A major social problem in the US is drugs and almost all violence using guns is a result of the drug market. The guns are almost all illegally owned, of course. You may not see this from a distance of 6,000 km and filtered through the media of your country. Illegal gun ownership is the result of the addiction of others to drugs.
I note that many European countries do not ban personal firearms. From the data available en.wikipedia.org... Netherlands has a low ownership rate, perhaps by geographical or population density constraints. The average ownership rate in the world is about 1 gun for every 10 people. Netherlands has about 1 in 25. Belgium about 1 in 6. France is about 1 in 3 as are Germany and Finland. The Swiss are about 1 in 2, but they have militia weapons [fully automatic] that are counted.
The country with almost a complete ban, 1 in 1000, is Tunisia; but the data was from 2007 and was the result of the dictator Ben Ali ensuring that there could be no armed revolution. These data are registered firearms and are less accurate in other than first world countries, q.v., Ethiopia is shown as about 1 in 400. A newer article www.cbc.ca... merely shows the countries with the most guns.
The US will not eliminate private gun ownership.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well here is something that you may want to consider.

Ever try to repeal a law, or a federal law? It has to go through a lengthy process, most legislatures very rarely do not do such, and usually takes an act of a court to do such, that in itself can be a costly and long process, about 2 to 6 years to get it to where it is final and all arguments are heard and found.

The families will lose their court case, the law is on the side of the gun manufacturers, unless an act of congress or an act of the courts intervenes and that is just to remove the law, then a new set of trials to prove that the gun manufacturers were at fault. You say it was all covered, yet no one mentioned this:

the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, a federal law that protects gun manufacturers from liability as the lawsuits, such was brought up by the families of the Sandy Hook victims.

Then there are the local and state laws, such as what Colorado has in place, where in short you can try to sue, but it will go no where and the person who does sue, like the family of the victim of the Theater shooting found out, cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition to the loss of their child.

So there you have it a lawsuit that will not succeed, cause the families are going to lose both time and money on this one. First having to fight it in the courts, and believe me they better hope that the attorneys they hire are as good as they believe, to fight a law, and chances are attorneys who are going to fight and fight like their lives depended on it against them every step of the way, and it will be a few years going back and forth in the courts.

As it is, it is alot more costly to go through a federal court, than it is through a state court and the only ones to win in the end will be the lawyers in this case.

a reply to: Astyanax

I truly do not care whether you can reconcile them or not.

You and I are so far apart on this issue as to render any further conversation on this subject pointless.

So, I am going to bow out, agreeing to disagree.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

You obviously don't understand anything about how the world works. My right to own and bear firearms is not protected by some piece of paper called the bill of rights. It is protected by my firearms. The bill of rights just affirms it. So once again no matter what emotion or rationalization you have towards guns is irrelevant when I have guns and you don't. You don't like my right to bear arms??? MOLON LABE!!!

As for my name I am well aware of the history behind the Praetorians in Roman times. Just because its my name don't you think its a little obtuse to assume you know anything about me? If you must know however Praetorian is the name of the militia group formed by myself and other law abiding persons.

But in the end once again im the guy with the guns and you are not. Sadly "History" shows that when unarmed groups fight armed groups the unarmed group aways loses. But a history connoisseur such as yourself probably knew that.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Not the same at all. A gun is not a tool, it is an object designed for killing.

And if tools are proven to be unsafe they are banned.

Actually a gun is a tool. Actually a multipurpose sporting tool that can be used for many types of competition, hunting, self defense and yes, killing others illegally. Should we ban knives because they cover the same aspects?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

If guns are taken from everyone, which is never going to happen... you will discover just how grave the danger will be to you and those you love, from the corrupted authorities who will still have their guns.

I don't live in America. I have lived in countries where firearms are banned and in a country awash with guns in the middle of a civil war. I know exactly what I am talking about, from personal experience.

I already explained all this. Read the thread.

a reply to: pteridine

I have no responsibility for America's problems. Yes, I posted an opinion. So did you and everybody else on this thread. But my opinions are based on experience and a very thorough understanding of human nature. Yours are based on social conditioning and what you want to believe.

And until you provide a detailed rebuttal of my points, that is how the matter stands.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

All irrelevant, the same way that dikes become irrelevant when a tsunami hits.