• 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:
But she had allowed the person who did do the shooting to stay in her home and it is probable too he may have always known where and how to access the firearms. As the mother there would have been nobody more aware of the latent predisposition of her own son so it could be argued that there is some culpability there

This sort of thing will keep happening again and again when firearms are kept in the home but nobody wants to hear that stateside :(
Click to expand...

You mean she allowed her son to stay in her home? OMFG, imagine what could happen next! :roll:
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
But she had allowed the person who did do the shooting to stay in her home and it is probable too he may have always known where and how to access the firearms. As the mother there would have been nobody more aware of the latent predisposition of her own son so it could be argued that there is some culpability there
Click to expand...

So if you have a son that grows up and ends up murdering someone with your gun that was locked away in a gun safe and he happened to pickpocket your key from you would you accept responsibility for your son murdering innocents? I mean come on, you "obviously didn't do enough to secure your guns". And you obviously "should have known beforehand that your son was a murdering psychopath".
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

American said:
You mean she allowed her son to stay in her home? OMFG, imagine what could happen next! :roll:
Click to expand...

IKR!? Imagine! A mother letting her own son stay in her home with her! BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU! BLASPHEMY!
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

American said:
You're comparing apples and oranges, the owner of the estate being sued is dead and didn't shoot anyone.
Click to expand...

It is not an apples and oranges comparison. The fact that she's dead is completely irrelevant because it's her actions prior to her death that are in question. And her actions may be negligent if she wasn't reasonably careful with safeguarding her weapons.
Understand I don't know if she was or wasn't. All I'm saying is that it's not a question that you can't dismiss out of hand because she's dead and she wasn't the shooter.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
Guns made for and sold to US Citizens are not made for murdering people. They are made for hunting, defense, target practice, and competitions. No gun manufacture would nor has ever condoned a gun sold to a US citizen to be used in the use of murdering people. They will all vehemently agree that such use is not the intended use of their products.

Do you deny this?
Click to expand...

Yes - the main purpose of a firearm is as its use as a weapon. If one cannot admit that simple reality - there is little point in entertaining any other delusion or fantasy about what firearms are there for.

Yes - you can shoot at targets and hunting and in competition. That does NOT negate its main purpose as a weapon.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
It is not an apples and oranges comparison. The fact that she's dead is completely irrelevant because it's her actions prior to her death that are in question. And her actions may be negligent if she wasn't reasonably careful with safeguarding her weapons.
Understand I don't know if she was or wasn't. All I'm saying is that it's not a question that you can't dismiss out of hand because she's dead and she wasn't the shooter.
Click to expand...

Since you don't know, you don't have a case.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
It is not an apples and oranges comparison. The fact that she's dead is completely irrelevant because it's her actions prior to her death that are in question. And her actions may be negligent if she wasn't reasonably careful with safeguarding her weapons.
Understand I don't know if she was or wasn't. All I'm saying is that it's not a question that you can't dismiss out of hand because she's dead and she wasn't the shooter.
Click to expand...

Its already been shown that she did reasonably safeguard her guns. Post #4.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
Yes - the main purpose of a firearm is as its use as a weapon. If one cannot admit that simple reality - there is little point in entertaining any other delusion or fantasy about what firearms are there for.

Yes - you can shoot at targets and hunting and in competition. That does NOT negate its main purpose as a weapon.
Click to expand...

I see that you totally ignored what I said. Re-read and provide an answer that suites the post in question please. Its a real easy question to answer that only involves using one of two words to reply to. "Yes" or "no". In fact I'll even rephrase it in order to simplify it for you.

Do you deny that gun manufacturers do not intend for their products to murder people?

or we can phrase it this way....

Do you believe that gun manufacturers intend their products to be used in the commission of a murder?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
No one knows. Which is why it's legitimate to ask.
Click to expand...

But not to sue. And there is no way to ever know if she was negligent.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
I see that you totally ignored what I said. Re-read and provide an answer that suites the post in question please. Its a real easy question to answer that only involves using one of two words to reply to. "Yes" or "no". In fact I'll even rephrase it in order to simplify it for you.

Do you deny that gun manufacturers do not intend for their products to murder people?

or we can phrase it this way....

Do you believe that gun manufacturers intend their products to be used in the commission of a murder?
Click to expand...

Expecting a straight answer out of him is like expecting a bear to not **** in the woods.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
Its already been shown that she did reasonably safeguard her guns. Post #4.
Click to expand...

Then the lawsuit will go nowhere fast.

And btw - just locking them in the basement may not be enough if she told the kid where the key was AND she knew that he was violence prone. That all would need to be determined.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
Then the lawsuit will go nowhere fast.

And btw - just locking them in the basement may not be enough if she told the kid where the key was AND she knew that he was violence prone. That all would need to be determined.
Click to expand...

"Violence prone"? Based on what? He hadn't committed any acts of violence. He wasn't diagnosed as a violent schizophrenic.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

American said:
But not to sue. And there is no way to ever know if she was negligent.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sue. There isn't enough money in the world to replace a dead child, but it's their right. My biggest issues in this entire thread have been the idea that since a gun is tool it doesn't have to be secured any better than a hammer and the idea that since mother is dead she can't be at fault. Both are wongheaded to me.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
Then the lawsuit will go nowhere fast.

And btw - just locking them in the basement may not be enough if she told the kid where the key was AND she knew that he was violence prone. That all would need to be determined.
Click to expand...

How in the world can anyone tell if she told him where the key was? It would be impossible to prove one way or another.

As to whether he was violent prone...isn't that what locking them away is to help with? IE: Irrelevant if he was violent prone or not as long as weapons were locked away since the very purpose of locking away guns is twofold. Keep kids away from guns in order to prevent accidental shootings and keep violent people away from guns. This whole schtick of him being violent prone does not mean that she doesn't have a right to own guns nor does it mean that she shouldn't have had guns in the first place.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
I see that you totally ignored what I said. Re-read and provide an answer that suites the post in question please. Its a real easy question to answer that only involves using one of two words to reply to. "Yes" or "no". In fact I'll even rephrase it in order to simplify it for you.

Do you deny that gun manufacturers do not intend for their products to murder people?

or we can phrase it this way....

Do you believe that gun manufacturers intend their products to be used in the commission of a murder?
Click to expand...

YES.

Every single gun manufacturer in the entire world knows damn well that their product can be used in the commission of crime and that includes murder. They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.

I hope my response was clear enough for you this time.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

tres borrachos said:
"Violence prone"? Based on what? He hadn't committed any acts of violence. He wasn't diagnosed as a violent schizophrenic.
Click to expand...

It's an open question. I do not know. That would be for the people looking into it to decide.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
I wouldn't sue. There isn't enough money in the world to replace a dead child, but it's their right. My biggest issues in this entire thread have been the idea that since a gun is tool it doesn't have to be secured any better than a hammer and the idea that since mother is dead she can't be at fault. Both are wongheaded to me.
Click to expand...

Who said a gun shouldn't be secured?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
YES.

Every single gun manufacturer in the entire world knows damn well that their product can be used in the commission of crime and that includes murder. They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.

I hope my response was clear enough for you this time.
Click to expand...
I called it, you didn't answer the question, AS ****ING USUAL.

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

haymarket said:
YES.

Every single gun manufacturer in the entire world knows damn well that their product can be used in the commission of crime and that includes murder. They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.

I hope my response was clear enough for you this time.
Click to expand...

Christonacracker. He asked you:

Do you believe that gun manufacturers intend their products to be used in the commission of a murder?

And then you come back with this moronic post. He didn't ask you if they knew that a gun CAN BE USED in the commission of a murder. He asked you if they INTEND for their guns to be used in the commission of a murder.

No wonder people laugh at gun grabbers.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
How in the world can anyone tell if she told him where the key was? It would be impossible to prove one way or another.

As to whether he was violent prone...isn't that what locking them away is to help with? IE: Irrelevant if he was violent prone or not as long as weapons were locked away since the very purpose of locking away guns is twofold. Keep kids away from guns in order to prevent accidental shootings and keep violent people away from guns. This whole schtick of him being violent prone does not mean that she doesn't have a right to own guns nor does it mean that she shouldn't have had guns in the first place.
Click to expand...

Again I don't know. It's an open question. All I'm saying is it's a reasonable question to ask.

Yes that's what locking the guns up is for. I'm NOT saying that she shouldn't have had guns in the first place. All I'm saying, all I've been saying, is that firearms need to be secured and what "secured" means depends on individual circumstances.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
YES.

Every single gun manufacturer in the entire world knows damn well that their product can be used in the commission of crime and that includes murder. They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.

I hope my response was clear enough for you this time.
Click to expand...

They probably do. Everyone in the universe probably knows that that potential exists. Again so what? It doesn't matter in the least. Firearms are legal for private citizens to own. Responsibility for misuse falls squarely and completely on the user and possibly on the owner in the case where the weapon is not properly safeguarded. The manufacturer has no control over that and cannot be held responsible
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Gaius46 said:
Again I don't know. It's an open question. All I'm saying is it's a reasonable question to ask.
Click to expand...

When there is no reasonable way of obtaining an actual answer then no, its not a reasonable question to ask.

Gaius46 said:
Yes that's what locking the guns up is for. I'm NOT saying that she shouldn't have had guns in the first place. All I'm saying, all I've been saying, is that firearms need to be secured and what "secured" means depends on individual circumstances.
Click to expand...

You may not be saying that she shouldn't have had guns in the first place, but several other people have.

Bold: Basing what is considered "secured" upon individual circumstances is a good way to leave so much up for subjectivity that pretty much any amount of precautions or security taken beforehand could be deemed as "not secured" or "not secured properly". Doing so in a court of law or even in a legislated law would be one hell of a blow to 2nd Amendment Rights. Anti-gunners would have a field day with it and so would trigger happy DA's (no pun intended) looking to make a name for themselves. Not to mention all the ambulance chasing lawyers.
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

haymarket said:
YES.

Every single gun manufacturer in the entire world knows damn well that their product can be used in the commission of crime and that includes murder. They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.

I hope my response was clear enough for you this time.
Click to expand...

You still evaded my original question.

Car manufacturers know that their products can be used in the commission of a crime. Those that make hammers knows that their product can be used in the commission of a crime. Bat makers know that their product can be used in the commission of a crime. And as you said here...

They would have to be in the worst combination of intentional denial along with severe mental disability to not realize that simple fact of life.

To pretend otherwise is to dwell in delusion and fantasy and denying history.
Click to expand...

Now, let me draw your attention to a previous post of yours.

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

Now, lets try and answer my actual question to you this time.

Do you deny that gun manufacturers do not intend for their products to murder people?

or....

Do you believe that gun manufacturers intend their products to be used in the commission of a murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom