• 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

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?

I think it also has to do with what I call cigarette reasoning... remember those ads in the 1950s and 1960s telling people how safe cigarettes were? I don't. I've only seen them on YouTube but I know they exist. They recommended cigarettes for everyone and even praised how healthy they were. 10 years down the line, a whole bunch of people started suing them for false advertising and a whole bunch of diseases they didn't know they could catch. Result? I haven't seen a single cigarette ad in a single standard publication in over 10 years of working in a business that deals with ads. Smoking in general has also dropped as a result. The general populace has also seen the dangers of smoking.

How does that relate to the guns? As it stands, gun manufacturers in the US have a lot of restrictions. I've never seen a gun ad on television. I've never even seen one online. I've seen stores ads but they're not even close to being nationwide. Any usage of guns on television is preempted by "Don't Try This At Home". Any movie with gun violence has a little screen between commercial breaks telling people that this movie is not for children. That is what is needed. We need to make the population aware that guns are solutions for your life being in danger. They're not solutions for ending temporary problems.

I think that's a positive first step towards bringing down gun violence. However, there are also other issues which aren't accounted for when people are in a hurry to just blame gun companies. It's the fact that gun companies operate like any other tool manufacturer out there. They make guns, and then they ship them to stores and police departments. They have no idea which guns will be used for what and by whom. They have no control if 10 years down the line a gun decides to shoot people up. It doesn't matter if they made a gun that once belonged to a legal gun owner, who sold it to a guy and then that guy got it stolen from him and it ended up on someone else's hands. They're simply not liable.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

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

I didn't say you were, I was merely highlighting the tactics often used in by those who try to defend of the indefensible
 
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 mentally handicapped and could not take care of himself so she was is guardian whether she petitioned the courts for it or not. There was no way she should have had that weapon where he could get it. That is certainly obvious. We need gun purchasers to sign a document that says guns should not be brought into a home with a mentally unstable occupant and they will be liable if they do.
 
Last edited:
He was mentally handicapped and could not take care of himself so she was is guardian whether she petitioned the courts for it or not. There was no way she should have had that weapon where he could get it. That is certainly obvious

100% agree.

She begged for him to be institutionalized, it never happened. The mental health care system is as much to blame here.
 
100% agree.

She begged for him to be institutionalized, it never happened. The mental health care system is as much to blame here.

Yes its easier to blame anything other than the easy access to firearms I suppose. As long as the gun rights are safe though thats all that matters. Who cares if a few innocent strangers have to pay the price each time this happens as long as they aren't your loved ones right ? :(
 
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.

many of which are not animate so your claim about killing is without merit
 
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.

nope gun is made for hunting, target practice and in some cases personal defense. please show me anywhere that a gun maker makes a gun for people to go on rampages with?
ol yea you can't.

a car is made for transportation to get someone from point a to point B please show me where the car maker designed the car to run a ton fo people over.
while both can be used for evil purposes that doesn't mean they were designed that way.

again semantics, but you don't care about facts.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

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?

all companies have the same protection depending on what the product is for.

why? because once sold a company has little control over what someone does with their product regardless of products intent.

I guess we should go and arrest all makers of turpentine because some people use it to make meth right?
or any other house hold drug or chemical that is used in drug manufacturing?

there are no special laws. all products are treated the same. the maker of the product is not responsible for the crimes of which people are committing with his product.
just like alcohol companies are not responsible for the guy that gets drunk and mows down a ton of people with his car and neither is the car maker.

the gun maker isn't responsible for what actions someone would do with a gun.

why? they have no control over a person that buy their gun.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

many of which are not animate so your claim about killing is without merit

I have absolutely no idea on earth what you mean by that or what it has to do with the reality that firearms were made as a weapon. Can you provide more explanation to what you are talking about?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

all companies have the same protection depending on what the product is for.

Really!?!?!?!? Then why has Congress and some states passed special laws for the gun industry?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0



By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.



Wayne LaPierre of the N.R.A. called the bill "historic."


The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.

"It's a historic piece of legislation," said Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, who said the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."

The bill, which is identical to one approved in July by the Senate, is aimed at ending a spate of lawsuits by individuals and municipalities, including New York City, seeking to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence when their weapons are used in crimes.

While it bars such suits, the measure contains an exception allowing certain cases involving defective weapons or criminal behavior by a gun maker or dealer, such as knowingly selling a weapon to someone who has failed a criminal background check.

President Bush said in a statement that he looked forward to signing the bill, which he said would "further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits, which cause a logjam in America's courts, harm America's small businesses, and benefit a handful of lawyers at the expense of victims and consumers."

Same for everyone indeed!!!! :roll::doh

34 states also have singled out guns for special protections that other products and businesses do not get

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

simply click the second orange box - our state law summary - and stand back and be amazed by the special treatment guns get from state legislatures

Its one thing to attempt to justify such special treatment - its quite another to pretend to deny it even exists.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

It certainly can be depending on the situation and the facts involved.

The thesaurus says it is

Kill Synonyms, Kill Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

and it works the other way also

http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/murder/

But why does it not work the other way at Thesaurus.com?

It is because murder is always killing while killing is not always murder... the two are not synonyms in the true sense that they are generally interchangable...
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

But why does it not work the other way at Thesaurus.com?

It is because murder is always killing while killing is not always murder... the two are not synonyms in the true sense that they are generally interchangable...

Take it up with them. I did not write it. Of course killing is not always murder. But murder is always killing.

SO WHAT?

How does any of that negate the reality that firearms are made as weapons for the purpose of firing a projectile which can kill - if one is using it properly as intended.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Take it up with them. I did not write it. Of course killing is not always murder. But murder is always killing.

SO WHAT?

How does any of that negate the reality that firearms are made as weapons for the purpose of firing a projectile which can kill - if one is using it properly as intended.

If one is using it properly and as intended there would never be a murder committed with a firearm.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Take it up with them. I did not write it. Of course killing is not always murder. But murder is always killing.

SO WHAT?

How does any of that negate the reality that firearms are made as weapons for the purpose of firing a projectile which can kill - if one is using it properly as intended.

The intent is with the person, not the inanimate object.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

If one is using it properly and as intended there would never be a murder committed with a firearm.

That is pure fantasyland.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

The intent is with the person, not the inanimate object.

How does that negate the purpose for which the object was invented and produced in the first place?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

How does that negate the purpose for which the object was invented and produced in the first place?

It was invented and produced to create fire work shows in China.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

How does that negate the purpose for which the object was invented and produced in the first place?

Exactly. Taking that to extremes a nuclear weapon is an inanimate object too.

I wish there were more here as interested in protecting people as they are with safeguarding selfish firearm fetishism
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

That is pure fantasyland.
Are you saying firearms are designed and built with MURDER as an intended purpose?



P.S. It would be very dishonest at this point to try to answer this by substituting "killing" for "murder".
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Are you saying firearms are designed and built with MURDER as an intended purpose?
P.S. It would be very dishonest at this point to try to answer this by substituting "killing" for "murder".

Firearms simply make killing far too easy be that by accident or intent and its usually the latter.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

This country needs massive tort reform, the type where you sue and lose you pay the court costs to those you sue. The type where damages are capped to reasonable levels and where lawsuits like this get tossed on principle.

That would be nice but then who would fund the Democrat Party?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Firearms simply make killing far too easy be that by accident or intent and its usually the latter.
So what?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother


Well given that sort of response you get the society you deserve as is reflected in your murder stats, nearly three quarters of which involve a firearm. But hey ,so what as long as your hobby is protected :roll:
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Really!?!?!?!? Then why has Congress and some states passed special laws for the gun industry?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0





Same for everyone indeed!!!! :roll::doh

34 states also have singled out guns for special protections that other products and businesses do not get

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

simply click the second orange box - our state law summary - and stand back and be amazed by the special treatment guns get from state legislatures

Its one thing to attempt to justify such special treatment - its quite another to pretend to deny it even exists.

please go sue a car manufacture for someone mowing down a bunch of people.
or a hammer manufacture for people getting hit with hammers
or a knife manufacture etc ...

guess what you can't sue them either.
 
Back
Top Bottom