• 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!

SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

haymarket said:
Hunting is taking life.
Click to expand...
The life of a game animal.


haymarket said:
So that leads us with recreation like target shooting - the main purpose of which is to be able to shoot better and that brings us back to shooting something that lives. I concede that there is stuff like skeet but a very small percentage of gun owners engage in that recreation.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of different types of target shooting competitions. It's more than just skeet shooting. The Olympic biathlon for example.


haymarket said:
I have no objections about guns for self defense. And the main purpose of that is to take somebody else life before they take yours or your families.
Click to expand...
A successful defensive shooting does not necessarily mean the other guy dies. It just needs to stop the attack. The other guy may (or may not) die, but that death is not the point of the shooting.


haymarket said:
Because the main primary intended use for this tool is the taking of life. And that is NOT abusing the tool. It is using it just as designed and intended.
Click to expand...
So what? How does that make the acts of a criminal the fault of the manufacturer?
 
mrjurrs said:
Guns would only qualify for this type of protection if manufacturers actually admitted that their product was inherently unsafe. Did that happen?
Click to expand...

I do not know. Normally gun manufacturers have dismissed these cases prior to their being heard on the merits. It is certainly something that I would raise. Because weapons have to be inherently unsafe. That is what makes them weapons, not toys.
 
Fledermaus said:
Did the Pinto explode by design?

No.

So what did the rifle do that would be covered under liability laws?[/QUOTE

The Pinto was working as designed, the design was bad. A rifle, when used as the product is designed to be used, can create injuries and damages to others.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Yes...for product 'failures'.

That's not what this suit is about, the AR functioned properly...and safely. It didnt harm the operator.
Click to expand...

It harmed others. This suit isn't about product liability, it deals with some type of misleading advertising as I understand it. The product liability comes from a different tangent.
 
haymarket said:
Because the main primary intended use for this tool is the taking of life. And that is NOT abusing the tool. It is using it just as designed and intended.
Click to expand...
I sure hope you don't own any firearms. Since you have a strange sense of why they should be used. You sir are a menace.
 
zsu2357 said:
Yes we have. BUT there was some sort of malfunction. Not just because it was a car.
Click to expand...

Some of them were because of product design. That bad product design led to product failure. Just like Boeings bad design on the Max 37 led to crashes. The plane was operating as it was designed to operate, the design was bad.
 
Felis Leo said:
I do not know. Normally gun manufacturers have dismissed these cases prior to their being heard on the merits. It is certainly something that I would raise. Because weapons have to be inherently unsafe. That is what makes them weapons, not toys.
Click to expand...

I agree. And in my opinion, that is why America should restrict gun ownership.
 
mrjurrs said:
It harmed others. This suit isn't about product liability, it deals with some type of misleading advertising as I understand it. The product liability comes from a different tangent.
Click to expand...

They needed to shoe-horn their argument into one of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act exceptions, but ultimately this suit really is about product liability which is why if the plaintiffs win they will ultimately lose the next time it reaches the SCOTUS
 
mrjurrs said:
It harmed others. This suit isn't about product liability, it deals with some type of misleading advertising as I understand it. The product liability comes from a different tangent.
Click to expand...

All guns have that potential.

As for misleading advertising, I think it's been pointed out that at its most basic, the 2A is about using firearms in a military capacity...to protect citizens from govts out of control.

However I did read that there are specific laws in CT regarding this and I cant speak to those since I dont know them. I do know tho, that even tho CT might have some specific laws, they may not stand up to Constitutional (federal) scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
mrjurrs said:
Some of them were because of product design. That bad product design led to product failure. Just like Boeings bad design on the Max 37 led to crashes. The plane was operating as it was designed to operate, the design was bad.
Click to expand...
From your own words, what is the bad product design or product failure in an AR 15?
 
Lursa said:
Yes I see it that way (mostly) too and was thinking of the Joe Cool Camel cigarette ads.

Except that the advertising is clearly still geared towards adults...is the assumption that adult males (sorry but this is the vast majority of spree/mass shooters) are incapable of making reasonable purchasing decisions and are 'fooled' into believing these guns are for military purposes? (Not to mention that shooting unarmed people is hardly a military task...for the most part)

I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. and if we are to believe that a advertisement in a gun magazine.. can be held responsible for committing a mass shooting....

Then what are we to believe about a videogame that actually depicts violence and mass shooting.. and where the adult is actively participating in that video?

Surely manufactures of violent videogames and violent television would be the major problemmakers then.
 
mrjurrs said:
Some of them were because of product design. That bad product design led to product failure. Just like Boeings bad design on the Max 37 led to crashes. The plane was operating as it was designed to operate, the design was bad.
Click to expand...

And the product failure in the case of THIS rifle?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. That argument, if valid, could (and surely would) be used for any "gun death" - especially suicides, since that normally invalidates any life insurance claim potential.
Click to expand...

It certainly could.
 
Lursa said:
What have the gun manufacturers done wrong creating their products? Please explain? What product liability issues are there?
Click to expand...

That is an issue for a jury of our peers.
 
gdgyva said:
they arent lawmakers

if congress wants to put extra laws out there...gun manufacturers will follow them

to punish a company for putting a product on the market is ludicrious UNLESS they product is defective and did not act as intended

same crap as having to put warning signs on cups of coffee now..."contents MAY BE HOT"...well no **** sherlock

this is just another end run at the NRA and guns....cant get the laws changed lets go after the people that make them
Click to expand...

The problem with guns is that they work exactly as intended.
 
zsu2357 said:
And no car has ever taken a life? Got an El Camino a couple houses down literally smashed. I don't think the guys parents have considered suing GM.
Click to expand...

That is not their purpose.

It is with a gun.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The life of a game animal.



There are a lot of different types of target shooting competitions. It's more than just skeet shooting. The Olympic biathlon for example.



A successful defensive shooting does not necessarily mean the other guy dies. It just needs to stop the attack. The other guy may (or may not) die, but that death is not the point of the shooting.



So what? How does that make the acts of a criminal the fault of the manufacturer?
Click to expand...

Guns are intended to take life.
 
zsu2357 said:
I sure hope you don't own any firearms. Since you have a strange sense of why they should be used. You sir are a menace.
Click to expand...

I have heard that since I was 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom