• 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!

Court reinstates Sandy Hook lawsuit against gunmaker

Rucker61 said:
It's not deflection. I've address your spurious points every single time. It's an analogous situation. Do we allow victims to sue manufacturers who have no liability in selling a legal product to be sued? Why shouldn't this Connecticut lawsuit simply be tossed, other than you want to end the firearms industry in the US?



Fine. Answer the question above then.
Click to expand...

You first: why do you want to deny people their 7th Amendment right to a civil trial?
 
I suspect rhe gun manufacturers will appeal the courts ruling to the Supreme Court. That court will most likely uphold the Federal law prohibiting such kinds of cases.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
We are all mostly products of our own experiences.

I'm guessing if it was 1 of our 6 year olds who was shot and needlessly killed some here might have different opinions.
Click to expand...

My mother was killed by a gun.

I fully support the 2nd Amendment, along with 8 out of 9 of my brothers and sisters.
 
calamity said:
Obviously our friends here are so obsessed by the 2nd Amendment that they never bothered to count to 7
Click to expand...


Obviously you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The 7th amendment hasn’t been incorporated and only applies to federal jurisdictions
 
RetiredUSN said:
My mother was killed by a gun.

I fully support the 2nd Amendment, along with 8 out of 9 of my brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your Mother.. I did say 'some' though..

I have a different view on guns, but none of my family members were killed by a gun. Nothing is 100%..
 
DebateChallenge said:
So I suppose we should sue car companies for all the car accidents, after all you say this is good.
Click to expand...

Ya'mean like when batteries catch fire and kill people, or software keeps jeeps from stopping? You bet we should.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So I suppose we should sue car companies for all the car accidents, after all you say this is good.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that car companies do not get sued?
 
Roadvirus said:
You hate the constitution that much huh?
Click to expand...

No. But, unlike you, I actually understand it.

Show me where in the constitution it says "thou shall not sue gun manufacturers."

I can show you where it says thou has a right to sue though. See the 7th Amendment.

I know; it's higher than 2. So, most of the gun folks never heard of it. But, ya might want to check it out.
 
Chillfolks said:
It's more about trolling gun owners than any love/hate for the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's mostly about pointing out hypocrisy and showing gun people their failure to understand the 2nd Amendment. But, hey. It's what I do.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Assuming for a moment this this goes forward, it opens up a mess that might be difficult to contain as applied elsewhere.

The original suit is based on two premises. One, that a gun designed "as a battlefield weapon to maximize fatalities" should have never been "entrusted... to an untrained civilian public." Two, that all the companies involved intentionally promoted the weapon with "placement in video games and macho militaristic marketing slogans that appealed to a population of mentally unstable young men."

By that standard then just about any gun used by the military, or by extension law enforcement, could be isolated as a means to find liability by the manufacturer when used to commit any crime by anyone else. Because this is a civil matter the burden of proving point one and two is fairly low.

In the pursuit of accountability we create an odd condition.

By that standard I can prove that certain cars, in combination with how they are depicted in various video games and in combination how they are advertised (a bit of a stretch,) should not be entrusted to the "untrained" public either.

Also, by that standard I can prove that anyone killed by gang violence means going after those weapon manufacturers regardless of advertising intention or legality of product purchase. It just means changing a few definitions and applying some different reasoning to points one and two.

In other words, we have no real way to ensure this does not domino into other aspects of product liability, arguably some by the wording of any future suit but not really. It all comes down to the nature of the event, the suit, and how the jury handles both points as applied to any product.

In our efforts to reconsider gun control we may be making a very big mistake even if this is a perceived win in terms of what happened at Sandy Hook. Example, who I do not see named in the suit are those to manufactured the medications the shooter in this case was taking, nor the "psychiatrist/therapist" dealing with him.

My main concern is even if we suggest this is a big win for those who oppose gun manufactures, what is next? (And how much fallout will this win cost everyone else across a plethora of products.)
Click to expand...

No can of worms at all; very specific: Remington ACR | all4shooters

Only during the 2010 SHOT Show did Bushmaster finally launch its version of the “Masada”, named ACR, or Adaptive Combat Rifle.
Click to expand...

So yeah, they can be sued.
 
Crovax said:
Obviously you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The 7th amendment hasn’t been incorporated and only applies to federal jurisdictions
Click to expand...

the 7th is a part of the Bill of Rights, and it was ratified in 1791
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is more or less what I am trying to get at. The risk is discovery where all internal communications related to AR-15 advertising and product placement ends up in the hands of those looking to exploit what those intentions really are.

The logic is problematic to the point I could apply it to so many other products and/or conditions that product manufactures all end up liable for the actions the public takes with those products.

I see problem after problem if this lawsuit ends up going forward as is.
Click to expand...

Next thing ya' know some woman will spill hot coffee on herself and sue mcdonalds.
 
jet57 said:
Ya'mean like when batteries catch fire and kill people, or software keeps jeeps from stopping? You bet we should.
Click to expand...

With both of those examples it is the car, or component of the car, that failed to work properly. This lawsuit isn't about something not working properly.
 
jet57 said:
Ya'mean like when batteries catch fire and kill people, or software keeps jeeps from stopping? You bet we should.
Click to expand...

If the act is purely the fault of the driver that hit you, would you still sue Jeep?
 
calamity said:
Are you arguing that car companies do not get sued?
Click to expand...

Not for crashes caused by the driver deliberately exceeding the speed limit, no, they don't.
 
calamity said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

You do realize that proving a negative is impossible, right?

Do you think that Subara should be sued if someone street racing a WRX hits a pedestrian?
 
DebateChallenge said:
So I suppose we should sue car companies for all the car accidents, after all you say this is good.
Click to expand...
Gosh! Does this mean I get to sue the maker of my favorite butcher knife that cut the piss out of my finger that had to be stitched up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom