Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Not to mention knives, blunt objects, fireplace pokers....

How many responsible gun owners have kids in their houses? Plenty. It's called a locked safe.

If you have a family with mental illness issues..it should be harder for you to get a gun. You should go out of your way to prove your mentally fit to own one.

If you allow kids to handle guns, you should be kept from owning guns. You should not be allowed to own a gun until your of a certain age due to emotional issues kids deal with on a daily basis. If they do not have the adult mentality that should go with gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

If your willing to kill someone over minor disputes ie...slapped in the face, walking towards you aggressively..(pathetic..lol)..then banned.

If your willing to kill a person for taking your TV or other items..then banned...etc.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Sounds a little fascist imo. If you do this only criminals will have guns, and then crimes will increase.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Why is so bad for citizens to do what they have the right to do?
I agree the case will get thrown out but it doesn't mean it is some classless act.
It's their life, let them live it the way they want.

This is going to do nothing but increase gun sales, kinda makes you wonder imo

Just for the record...I am not against gun ownership. I am against any ol' idiot having one.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
If you have a family with mental illness issues..it should be harder for you to get a gun. You should go out of your way to prove your mentally fit to own one.

If you allow kids to handle guns, you should be kept from owning guns. You should not be allowed to own a gun until your of a certain age due to emotional issues kids deal with on a daily basis. If they do not have the adult mentality that should go with gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

If your willing to kill someone over minor disputes ie...slapped in the face, walking towards you aggressively..(pathetic..lol)..then banned.

If your willing to kill a person for taking your TV or other items..then banned...etc.

Then I guess you are all for some of the police of late not having guns either since they too "kill someone over minor disputes ie...slapped in the face, walking towards you aggressively" too.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Onslaught2996

If you do this only criminals will have guns, and then crimes will increase.

In Canada we have pretty strict laws for owning guns, yet our streets are not being overrun by criminals with guns...why is that?

a reply to: Sremmos80

I think it's wrong but it's their lives. It shows how far they're willing to go to make money and push the anti-gun agenda.

originally posted by: Krakatoa


Then I guess you are all for some of the police of late not having guns either since they too "kill someone over minor disputes ie...slapped in the face, walking towards you aggressively" too.

Exactly..those types of people should never have had the opportunity to handle a gun.

Thats the problem with police....how thorough are their mental illness checks and do they do them yearly?

Some cops have proven they are too eager to shoot and should never have had a gun in the first place.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Not to mention knives, blunt objects, fireplace pokers....

How many responsible gun owners have kids in their houses? Plenty. It's called a locked safe.

Don't forget hammers, chisels and adjustable metric crescent wrenches.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: Krakatoa


Then I guess you are all for some of the police of late not having guns either since they too "kill someone over minor disputes ie...slapped in the face, walking towards you aggressively" too.

Exactly..those types of people should never have had the opportunity to handle a gun.

Thats the problem with police....how thorough are their mental illness checks and do they do them yearly?

Some cops have proven they are too eager to shoot and should never have had a gun in the first place.

Ok, and who decides the measure of "fitness" for you? What are the criteria? Should those criteria change over time? What of someone is cured of that affliction, do they get that right back?

See, you are looking for a quick fix...when there is none. What you and others that are not U.S. citizens need to understand is that to change the Constitution (the ultimate protector of our rights) is possible, and not easy....on purpose. If this is what the majority wants, that is the method to use. It is not correct to chip away piece-by-piece and wear them down over time. That is not how it should work.


ETA: The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, BTW, does not grant us these rights, it only assures us that those rights are protected from people like you changing the rules.

It's unfortunate that a law firm is taking on this case. In order to win, they would have to prove that there was a flaw or malfunction with the weapon itself, and pitifully enough, there wasn't.

You can't sue Tramontina for murder by machete, Honda for murder by CRX, or Dinger bats for a murder by D-318 baseball bat. This is a ludicrous lawsuit and everyone involved should be ashamed to attempt to lay guilt on an inanimate object that was manipulated by human actions to execute a horrible action.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Exactly. It all comes down to the individual who uses the object. Personal responsibility.

And don't forget it would allow the manufacturers of rat poison (something that is designed to kill when used appropriately) to be sued by someone who had a family member intentionally poised by someone who then poisons themselves in a murder-suicide. THAT is the crux here. The family, in their (admittedly understandable) immense grief has nobody to reach out and hold accountable for the deaths....since AL is dead, and his mother, the origin of the weapon, is dead. Next on the list is suing the gun safe mfg that AL's mom used because a combination was not enough to keep the firearms from AL. If anything, that would be more of a arguable case IMO. Still stupid and a waste of time and $$ IMO....but more understandable than the firearm mfg.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Not to mention knives, blunt objects, fireplace pokers....

How many responsible gun owners have kids in their houses? Plenty. It's called a locked safe.

Don't forget hammers, chisels and adjustable metric crescent wrenches.

Pull up stats on how many mass murders are committed by knives, blunt objects, fireplace pokers, hammers, chisels, and crescent wrenches, and then we can have a proper discussion about your examples.

I wont hold my breath.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
And don't forget it would allow the manufacturers of rat poison (something that is designed to kill when used appropriately) to be sued by someone who had a family member intentionally poised by someone who then at the poison themselves in a murder suicide. THAT is the crux here. The family, in their (admittedly understandable) immense grief has nobody to reach out and hold accountable for the deaths....since AL is dead, and his mother, the origin of the weapon, is dead. Next on the list is suing the gun safe mfg that AL's mom used because a combination was not enough to keep the firearms from AL. If anything, that would be more of a arguable case IMO. Still stupid and a waste of time and $$ IMO....but more understandable than the firearm mfg.

Actually, the origin of the weapon isn't dead. As the mother didn't create the weapon. I'm not arguing for the case, but your logic isn't sound.

a reply to: AgentShillington

JUST STOP! With that nonsense.

People kill people, and they will use ANYTHING to do it.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Within the context of my comment the word "origin" is meant as where he got the weapon from....his mother. Please do not take generic words out-of-context to make an irrelevant point, it's beneath you.

a reply to: AgentShillington

If we followed the logic of the families suing, then everytime there's a fatal hit and run the car manufacturer would have to pay out money to compensate the victims. And then it applies to anything used to kill a person. And before guns were invented humanity found a lot of ways to achieve that.

As absurd as it sounds I think it would be interesting to see this go to court strictly to see the evidence the present. There are a lot of things that don't make any sense about the Sandy Hook shooting and I think a trial might bring to light some things that were purposefully kept in the dark.

Just my 2 cents.

Those parents should be ashamed of themselves for trying this. Didn't they make enough money off the whole ordeal to begin with?