• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother[W:52]

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

'Cos they were the real victims of Sandy Hook, after all.

that's really stupid
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Firearms were created to kill people and other living things.

nope, firearms were designed to project a bullet.
 
I hope they take all of her estate to warn others of the dangers of unsecured guns. There needs to be consequences if there is to be responsibility. Anything less is a sham.




Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother - CNN.com

So they have to prove that the mother was the cause of their kids death. she wasn't. it was her son.
the mother owe nothing to the members of the family as not only was she not the killer she was a victim herself.

so please tell us what grounds they have to sue her estate over? the mom's estate doesn't owe anything to anyone it didn't commit a crime and neither did
the kids mom.

they are free to go after him, but she was a victim just as much as their kids.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

That would depend on if the car was used for the purpose it was manufactured for.

once someone buys a car the dealer is under no obligation to ensure that the owner of that car is behaving.
it is called personal responsibility. you guys on the left need to understand what that is.

it isn't the gun makers fault this kid went out and shot up a school. the fact he stole the gun is of no consequence.
same as buying a car. chevy isn't responsible if you go and drive your suburban through a crowd.

it doesn't matter the purpose. the car is made to drive on the road someone chose to drive it through people how is that chevy's fault?
same with a gun. a gun is used to protect, hunt, or practice with. how is it the gun makers fault someone goes on a rampage with it?

it isn't.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Judging from the response here, I would say yes. It really makes no difference that the mother died, that is not always the case and has nothing to do with punishment by society. You guys are scared $hitless that you might lose everything because of your guns but isn't that what happened to all those grieving parents?

they are free to go after the person that did the crime for any damages.

His mother didn't commit a crime and in fact was part of the crime. therefore suing her is a futile effort. hopefully a judge will inform them of the same thing.
 
So they have to prove that the mother was the cause of their kids death. she wasn't. it was her son.
the mother owe nothing to the members of the family as not only was she not the killer she was a victim herself.

so please tell us what grounds they have to sue her estate over? the mom's estate doesn't owe anything to anyone it didn't commit a crime and neither did
the kids mom.

they are free to go after him, but she was a victim just as much as their kids.

She was the shooters legal guardian, knew he was disturbed yet still kept a AR-15 where he could get it. I'm tired of gun owners shirking responsibility when their "hobby" goes terribly wrong. There needs to be some examples made. Honestly the kid did her a favor by killing her first so she did not know the horror she enabled.
 
She was the shooters legal guardian, knew he was disturbed yet still kept a AR-15 where he could get it. I'm tired of gun owners shirking responsibility when their "hobby" goes terribly wrong. There needs to be some examples made. Honestly the kid did her a favor by killing her first so she did not know the horror she enabled.

No she had the gun in a locked cabinet.
so it wasn't where he could get it. please prove that the gun cabinet was not locked and unsecure?

I do believe he broke into the cabinet. So that right there proves that he committed an illegal act.
no responsibility was shirked at all. she kept the gun locked up in a cabinet. he broke into it and got the gun out.
he searched and found the key.

they can go after him, but there is little evidence to show neglect on her part.

appeal to emotion do not make for good legal arguments.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

nope, firearms were designed to project a bullet.

Why did you stop there? Lets finish that thought for you..........Firearms were designed to project a bullet at people or other targets.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

once someone buys a car the dealer is under no obligation to ensure that the owner of that car is behaving.
it is called personal responsibility. you guys on the left need to understand what that is.

it isn't the gun makers fault this kid went out and shot up a school. the fact he stole the gun is of no consequence.
same as buying a car. chevy isn't responsible if you go and drive your suburban through a crowd.

it doesn't matter the purpose. the car is made to drive on the road someone chose to drive it through people how is that chevy's fault?
same with a gun. a gun is used to protect, hunt, or practice with. how is it the gun makers fault someone goes on a rampage with it?

it isn't.

The difference is that one of the primary purposes of a firearm is to shoot other living things. To use it for that purpose is as it was designed. That is NOT the case with an automobile. That is a basic and fundamental difference.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Why did you stop there? Lets finish that thought for you..........Firearms were designed to project a bullet at people or other targets.

In my experience Stateside gun owners are so desperate to protect their guns after such events that they don't even refer to them as weapons but as 'tools' in some sort of weird effort to diminish or trivialise their inherent lethality :shock:

Tools for what ? Moving small pieces of lead around at high velocity perhaps :roll:
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

The difference is that one of the primary purposes of a firearm is to shoot other living things. To use it for that purpose is as it was designed. That is NOT the case with an automobile. That is a basic and fundamental difference.

makes no difference.
yep plenty of people go hunting every year, and use a gun for what it was intended for. plenty of people target shoot using a gun designed what it is used for.

again gun makers aren't responsible just like car makers are not responsible for when people go out of their way to be stupid.

it is simply semantics with what you are arguing.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Why did you stop there? Lets finish that thought for you..........Firearms were designed to project a bullet at people or other targets.

possibly people depending on the situation. IE someone breaking into your home or threatening you on the street.
other targets could be anything.

still doesn't mean that the gun maker is responsible for what someone else chooses to do with it.
just as a car maker isn't responsible when someone decides to mow people down in traffic.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

I'd make a comment one way or the other, but I'm afraid the Sandy Hook parents might sue me. They've sued everybody else, I think.
 
She was the shooters legal guardian, knew he was disturbed yet still kept a AR-15 where he could get it. I'm tired of gun owners shirking responsibility when their "hobby" goes terribly wrong. There needs to be some examples made. Honestly the kid did her a favor by killing her first so she did not know the horror she enabled.

He was a legal adult in the state of CT at the age of 20, not a kid and she was not his legal guardian as he was an adult and no guardianship was made.
 
He was a legal adult in the state of CT at the age of 20, not a kid and she was not his legal guardian as he was an adult and no guardianship was made.

I think you forgot she wasn't his guardian. Hay wey, mas repetida que la novela!
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

makes no difference.
yep plenty of people go hunting every year, and use a gun for what it was intended for. plenty of people target shoot using a gun designed what it is used for.

again gun makers aren't responsible just like car makers are not responsible for when people go out of their way to be stupid.

it is simply semantics with what you are arguing.

Actually IT IS the DIFFERENCE. And it is NOT semantics. It is the purpose and function of the item.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

possibly people depending on the situation. IE someone breaking into your home or threatening you on the street.
other targets could be anything.

still doesn't mean that the gun maker is responsible for what someone else chooses to do with it.
just as a car maker isn't responsible when someone decides to mow people down in traffic.

Why is it necessary for some to write into law special protections that go well over and above the same treatment in law given to other products used by consumers who use them for the purpose they were made for?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Actually IT IS the DIFFERENCE. And it is NOT semantics. It is the purpose and function of the item.

Indeed. How many people use a car to intentionally kill someone ? This is just another lame argument promoted for the protection of guns
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Indeed. How many people use a car to intentionally kill someone ?

The purpose of a car is NOT to be used as a weapon. The purpose of a firearm IS to be used as a weapon.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Actually IT IS the DIFFERENCE. And it is NOT semantics. It is the purpose and function of the item.

C'man haymarket. You gotta admit, the company isn't responsible for this. Guns aren't the only things made for killing. You also have knives and crossbows made for killing. If you use one to kill should the company be sued? I use to think so. I really did. Then I realized that it really boils down to the gun being simply an accessory. In Japan, guns are pretty much non-existent and yet, there are kids going into their schools an slicing other kids up and committing some really heinous f'n crimes. In Cuba, it's the same damn thing. The general populace has no real access to guns and yet the country has seen waves of people killing each other using everything from machetes to sickles. The reality is that you're not going the right way about impacting the rampart gun violence in this country. What needs to be done is education and less glamorizing of guns. We don't need to ban them, just ensure people realize that they're not items you use when you feel depressed or are going through some stuff. That's what happened in Sandy Hook. You have a man who had serious mental issues and used the gun to take it out on others. Without access to a gun, he would have used a knife, or a car or his mothers underwear. The gun company wasn't at fault here. It didn't place the gun in his hand and tell him to start shooting. He did that all on his own.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

The purpose of a car is NOT to be used as a weapon. The purpose of a firearm IS to be used as a weapon.

The difference between an accidental death by car and an intentional (and hence avoidable) one by firearm is one gun advocates desperately try to blur in order to keep their lethal hobby safe from the legislators :(
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

C'man haymarket. You gotta admit, the company isn't responsible for this. Guns aren't the only things made for killing. You also have knives and crossbows made for killing. If you use one to kill should the company be sued? I use to think so. I really did. Then I realized that it really boils down to the gun being simply an accessory. In Japan, guns are pretty much non-existent and yet, there are kids going into their schools an slicing other kids up and committing some really heinous f'n crimes. In Cuba, it's the same damn thing. The general populace has no real access to guns and yet the country has seen waves of people killing each other using everything from machetes to sickles. The reality is that you're not going the right way about impacting the rampart gun violence in this country. What needs to be done is education and less glamorizing of guns. We don't need to ban them, just ensure people realize that they're not items you use when you feel depressed or are going through some stuff. That's what happened in Sandy Hook. You have a man who had serious mental issues and used the gun to take it out on others. Without access to a gun, he would have used a knife, or a car or his mothers underwear. The gun company wasn't at fault here. It didn't place the gun in his hand and tell him to start shooting. He did that all on his own.

The intended purpose of a firearm is to be fired and used as a weapon first and foremost. I sympathize with what you are saying and some of your argument makes sense. I do NOT think the firearm company is ultimately responsible. But perhaps it is time we examine the proliferation of guns in society and ask the question as to the degree of responsibility - even a small degree - certain sectors do indeed have.

But why is it necessary for legislators to pass special laws giving special protection to firearms manufacturers that other product manufacturers do not get?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

The difference between an accidental death by car and an intentional (and hence avoidable) one by firearm is one gun advocates desperately try to blur in order to keep their lethal hobby safe from the legislators :(

I am not trying to blur anything. I am being very forward and direct about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom