Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'll bite on that one.
I for one am for the idea of cops not having or having to deal with the same restrictions as the rest of us

Hell if anyone is "criminally' negligent' here it's Lanza's mother.

But hell you can't get money which this is all about from a dead person.

a reply to: neo96

It was a big fat cash-in from the beginning. The trend simply continues. I hope the courts don't feel the need to see any physical evidence, because access to that, if it exists, has already been highly restricted. I'm sure they'll just award a trillion dollar judgment in an attempt to bankrupt a gun maker.

a reply to: neo96

I'm wondering why they don't go after "dear old dad" here. HE knew of his son's mental state. HE knew of the mother using firearms as a "treatment" for his son's ailment. HE was still his father....etc....etc...etc...

I don't think he should be held 100% accountable, not by a long shot. However, he IMO is not void of his responsibility in this matter either.


From where I sit, this is merely an attempt to get the firearm mfg's to settle out of court for a non-disclosed "fee" without admitting anything. The ones who win though, will not be the parents, it will be the lawyers for both sides. Sad really....their children are dead, and all they can see is $$$.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AgentShillington

JUST STOP! With that nonsense.

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

Yes they will, doesn't mean that the one thing used to kill the most shouldn't be looked at and asked " what can we do to curb some of these deaths"

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

"origin" isn't a generic word, and is most assuredly the point that will be argued in court.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
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.

Toyota is the most recent one in memory dealing with this sort of lawsuit. Lots of people suing Toyota over hit and runs involving their cars.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes they will, doesn't mean that the one thing used to kill the most shouldn't be looked at and asked " what can we do to curb some of these deaths"

That would be cars then.

Next up prescription drugs.

Either one or combined kills more people per year.

Then we could move on to abortion.

Anti gunners need to come up with a real argument.

originally posted by: aightism2
If I was a judge I would throw that out of court

that's like suing the makers of pavements because your kid slipped in dog # and broke his back on the concrete

That's just silly.

Everyone knows it's the dog that should be sued...

Peace

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

"origin" isn't a generic word, and is most assuredly the point that will be argued in court.

In this particular context it refers the where the prime suspect got the weapon.

Did he get it from the mfg? No.
Did he get it from a licensed FFL dealer? No.
Did he get it from his mother? Yes.
Was she licensed to allow him to use it?
Was she licensed to allow him access to it?

Seems like these questions need to be answered as the point-of-origin of the weapon.


ETA:
AS a firearm owner, I am solely responsible for access to my weapons. Period. If I fail to secure them and control their access (including ammunition) then I expect to be held accountable. However, in this case, AL removed that point of responsibility himself by killing his mother. That, IMO, is where the chain-of-responsibility ends.

a reply to: neo96

Car accidents or people using them to kill people?

You bring up accidents and overdoses...
Totally comparable to someone searching out and killing someone with a gun.
Get real

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

"origin" isn't a generic word, and is most assuredly the point that will be argued in court.

In this particular context it refers the where the prime suspect got the weapon.

Did he get it from the mfg? No.
Did he get it from a licensed FFL dealer? No.
Did he get it from his mother? Yes.
Was she licensed to allow him to use it?
Was she licensed to allow him access to it?

Seems like these questions need to be answered as the point-of-origin of the weapon.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how it is handled in court. I believe it will be put back on the manufacturers, but I don't think the parents will win, because, as I said, it was used for its intended purpose, to kill people. Now, if this weapons was intended to be used by military personnel, as in, it was specifically designed for military or even paramilitary use, it might raise more concerns, and it might provide the wiggle room needed for a win.

a reply to: AgentShillington

And it's stupid. It's a last resort effort to make money. Everytime someone gets run over on purpose or is sold dangerous substances, the manufacturer would be liable. It makes no sense.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah someone needs to get real.

How the hell do people die from guns ?

Since they are one of the most REGULATED things in this country.

People have to prove their innocence before they get to buy them.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Why is the dad not "in their sights" before the mfg? I'll tell you my opinion, because they have more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ than he does. Follow the money.

a reply to: neo96

Everyone's talking about mental illness and ownership, it's not like the gun was licensed to Adam Lanza....

Not on the maker, to me it's on the mother. A case that proves why you should be responsible.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah someone needs to get real.

How the hell do people die from guns ?

Since they are one of the most REGULATED things in this country.

People have to prove their innocence before they get to buy them.

Why not go after the mfg of the ammunition then? Heck, without that, any gun is just a fancy expensive blunt instrument. Or, go after the gunpowder mfg too....after all, without that, the ammo would be useless as well as the gun. What about the primer mfg, without that the ammo is not as deadly.But, oh, the chemical companies that mfg the chemical ingredients to the gun powder must also be responsible for this too.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: AgentShillington

Why is the dad not "in their sights" before the mfg? I'll tell you my opinion, because they have more $$$$$$$$$$$$$ than he does. Follow the money.

Was it the dad's gun? If it wasn't the dad's gun, then I don't see what he has to do with anything.

He didn't kill anyone.
The guns used weren't licensed to him.

He shouldn't be held accountable for the same reasons you saw the mother SHOULD be held accountable.

a reply to: Krakatoa

And since pills are empty husks without those evil drugs, the drug makers should rot in the gutter