• 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

flogger said:
All developed nations have auto accident casualties. No one has yet explained why having the large number of additional gun casualties in the US (most of them intentional) yet which are almost absent in other such countries is a good thing
Click to expand...

no one has explained why banning handguns for honest people would do anything useful in the USA other than make gun haters in other nations feel better
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
NO. It matters and it matters completely. When a firearm is used to kill - it being used exactly for the purpose it was created in the first place. And the maker knows that and was aware of it and makes the product just the same.

So please spare me the excuses and the really atrocious comparison to people driving cars. Cars were invented to transport people. They were NOT invented as weapons of death.
Click to expand...
that really is silly given you don't allow for legal vs illegal shooting. its like lumping consensual sex in with rape

and an ITEM that is not INTENDED as a weapon that kills far more people than actual weapons ought to make you pause and think about that silly analogy
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
no one has explained why banning handguns for honest people would do anything useful in the USA other than make gun haters in other nations feel better
Click to expand...

Well by all accounts it would dramatically reduce your homicide rate just for starters. But it seems US firearms fetishism has nothing to do with protecting people and everything to do with protecting guns :(
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
Well by all accounts it would dramatically reduce your homicide rate just for starters. But it seems US firearms fetishism has nothing to do with protecting people and everything to do with protecting guns :(
Click to expand...

I agree.

Whether owning guns is good or not is debatable.

But it seems clear to me that most gun owners seem more concerned about protecting guns then protecting people. And many of them come across as flat out obsessed with gun ownership.

Me? I think 2 loaded stun guns will protect my home just about as well and FAR safer from accidents then one regular gun.

And the argument that Americans need guns to protect themselves from the government is total nonsense. The government can drop a JDAM bomb on your head from a B-2 bomber (or MANY other aircraft) flying at 30,000 feet...you would not even hear anything until just before the bomb destroys your house.
This is not 1776...you cannot protect yourself from the government any longer. If they know roughly where you are and want you dead badly enough...you are dead no matter how many guns you have.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
that really is silly given you don't allow for legal vs illegal shooting. its like lumping consensual sex in with rape

and an ITEM that is not INTENDED as a weapon that kills far more people than actual weapons ought to make you pause and think about that silly analogy
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all in any way shape or form as automobiles are used far far far more than guns are in terms of daily and hourly use not to mention by a whole lot more people each day than every come near a gun.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
NO. It matters and it matters completely. When a firearm is used to kill - it being used exactly for the purpose it was created in the first place. And the maker knows that and was aware of it and makes the product just the same.

So please spare me the excuses and the really atrocious comparison to people driving cars. Cars were invented to transport people. They were NOT invented as weapons of death.
Click to expand...

That is a poor argument you offer.

Guns were made to defend the individual, to kill game for food, and other reasons. For many, they are simply for sport. Many thousands of rounds fired in competitition, target practice and other things, yet not a single creature killed.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
That makes no sense at all in any way shape or form as automobiles are used far far far more than guns are in terms of daily and hourly use not to mention by a whole lot more people each day than every come near a gun.
Click to expand...

you still haven't told us why a gun maker should be sued if an item they make is not defective and someone makes a conscious decision to violate the law and use the gun contrary to the criminal codes
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
Well by all accounts it would dramatically reduce your homicide rate just for starters. But it seems US firearms fetishism has nothing to do with protecting people and everything to do with protecting guns :(
Click to expand...

no it wouldn't and might well increase crimes because lots of people won't comply with a silly ban.

people who call firearms ownership a "fetish" suggest the motivation for their proposed laws is based on a cultural hatred of gun ownership and not a real desire to curb crime. its all about protecting freedom
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Henry David said:
That is a poor argument you offer.

Guns were made to defend the individual, to kill game for food, and other reasons. For many, they are simply for sport. Many thousands of rounds fired in competitition, target practice and other things, yet not a single creature killed.
Click to expand...

None of what you said negates the reality that firearms were made as a weapon to kill. When a person uses a firearm to shoot another person or creature, they are using it for its created purpose.

That is simply reality no matter how many people shoot at targets.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
you still haven't told us why a gun maker should be sued if an item they make is not defective and someone makes a conscious decision to violate the law and use the gun contrary to the criminal codes
Click to expand...

Because a person is using the item as intended by its creators.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
None of what you said negates the reality that firearms were made as a weapon to kill. When a person uses a firearm to shoot another person or creature, they are using it for its created purpose.

That is simply reality no matter how many people shoot at targets.
Click to expand...



True if and only if you talk about the ORIGINAL intent. There are many purpose built modern firearms that are optimized for target shooting. They certainly can be used to kill someone but they are by design meant for target shooting. That doesn't really alter the fact that the first firearms were meant to be weapons but that's really irrelevant. In fact this entire rathole is completely irrelevant.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

What the **** does the reason why guns were created in the first place have to do with anything?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
Because a person is using the item as intended by its creators.
Click to expand...

that is no grounds to sue the maker the gun is not defective and did not malfunction

sorry that is a silly argument.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

tres borrachos said:
What the **** does the reason why guns were created in the first place have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

its a specious argument gun banners make. they think a product that is not defective and works as intended should be sued out of existence when criminals deliberately violate the law. why do they believe that? because their desires for laws banning guns are not being fulfilled so they want to use harassing lawsuits to bankrupt an industry because that industry tends to cater to non-socialists or non-statists
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
its a specious argument gun banners make. they think a product that is not defective and works as intended should be sued out of existence when criminals deliberately violate the law. why do they believe that? because their desires for laws banning guns are not being fulfilled so they want to use harassing lawsuits to bankrupt an industry because that industry tends to cater to non-socialists or non-statists
Click to expand...

Axes were originally intended to chop down trees. I guess that should make the victim of an axe murder feel better than it wasn't intended to kill. But because they CAN kill, maybe we should ban axes so they don't fall into the hands of crazed lumberjacks who want to split their ex-wives' heads open.Boomerangs were invented as weapons yet we let our ****ing kids play with them. Cars were invented to be driven so I guess that means if you die as a result of being hit by a car at least you died having the satisfaction of being killed by something that wasn't intended to kill, and it's better that you weren't killed by a gun.

WTF is with all of these freaking stupid posts by gun banners screaming about what guns were invented to do that aren't even remotely relevant to anything? Someone who is hell bent on murdering someone else isn't going to stop and look around and make sure he finds a weapon of destruction that was invented for that exact purpose.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
no it wouldn't and might well increase crimes because lots of people won't comply with a silly ban.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Around 30,000 lives a year would be saved based on international comparisons

People who call firearms ownership a "fetish" suggest the motivation for their proposed laws is based on a cultural hatred of gun ownership and not a real desire to curb crime. its all about protecting freedom
Click to expand...

I don't hate guns but I do hate those who idolise them at the expense of the wider society
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
Nonsense. Around 30,000 lives a year would be saved based on international comparisons



I don't hate guns but I do hate those who idolise them at the expense of the wider society
Click to expand...

bogus argument. Chicago and DC banned guns and the murder rates skyrocketed. I get tired of disarmed subjects of other governments wanting to impose the misery they suffer on free people. your claim that 30,000 lives would be saved is something you just made up and has no basis in reality.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
bogus argument. Chicago and DC banned guns and the murder rates skyrocketed. I get tired of disarmed subjects of other governments wanting to impose the misery they suffer on free people. your claim that 30,000 lives would be saved is something you just made up and has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Its your number of firearms deaths per annum. To put this into context in two years your fatalities surpass those of the Vietnam war and that took ten years causing riots and civil disturbance all over the US. You are around 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than Europe
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
True if and only if you talk about the ORIGINAL intent. There are many purpose built modern firearms that are optimized for target shooting. They certainly can be used to kill someone but they are by design meant for target shooting. That doesn't really alter the fact that the first firearms were meant to be weapons but that's really irrelevant. In fact this entire rathole is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Te word you are looking for is not IRRELEVANT but rather INCONVENIENT. Every time a person shoots a gun at another person or creature they are using that weapon for the purpose it was created in the first place.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
Its your number of firearms deaths per annum. To put this into context in two years your fatalities surpass those of the Vietnam war and that took ten years causing riots and civil disturbance all over the US. You are arounf 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than Europe
Click to expand...

sadly for you, your desire to impose the Dunblane Bed wetting on us won't happen and wouldn't do much. More than half those deaths are suicides. and of the remaining cases which are murder-more than 80% of the murder victims and the murderers are already banned from owning guns. If you don't do drugs, or hang out with drug dealers your chances of being murdered with a gun are very low. Indeed, us white americans have a lower rate of violent crime than you whites in England
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
that is no grounds to sue the maker the gun is not defective and did not malfunction

sorry that is a silly argument.
Click to expand...

That is an argument meant for the courts in specific lawsuits. People have a constitutional right to sue in court and have their day in court. The idea that we give special protections to the gun industry that other companies do not get is a travesty and disgusting. The sole purpose for it is political payoffs.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
Te word you are looking for is not IRRELEVANT but rather INCONVENIENT. Every time a person shoots a gun at another person or creature they are using that weapon for the purpose it was created in the first place.
Click to expand...

but you ignore that in some cases that is LEGAL and in other cases its Illegal and 80% of the time that it is illegal it was also ILLEGAL for the shooter to possess the gun. So why should a gun maker be liable for illegal use of a gun when 99% or more of gun use is legal?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

TurtleDude said:
its a specious argument gun banners make. they think a product that is not defective and works as intended should be sued out of existence when criminals deliberately violate the law. why do they believe that? because their desires for laws banning guns are not being fulfilled so they want to use harassing lawsuits to bankrupt an industry because that industry tends to cater to non-socialists or non-statists
Click to expand...

Your very argument contradicts itself. If a gun manufacturer has done nothing wrong, how can they then be "sued out of existence"? That makes no sense on any level because it assumes they will have to pay huge penalties when being found responsible - which you adamantly keep insisting they are not.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
That is an argument meant for the courts in specific lawsuits. People have a constitutional right to sue in court and have their day in court. The idea that we give special protections to the gun industry that other companies do not get is a travesty and disgusting. The sole purpose for it is political payoffs.
Click to expand...

so if they sue and lose you agree they should have to compensate the target of their suit especially after similar suits continue to be dismissed as frivolous? the sole purpose of those lawsuits is to try to bankrupt industries socialist scumbags want to put out of business but cannot do so with legislation
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
Your very argument contradicts itself. If a gun manufacturer has done nothing wrong, how can they then be "sued out of existence"? That makes no sense on any level because it assumes they will have to pay huge penalties when being found responsible - which you adamantly keep insisting they are not.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't understand that if you are sued, and win it still costs you money and if those suits are financed by cities who can tax their citizens more and more to pay for them, defending such suits becomes financially burdensome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom