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

[RF667799]

I do not understand what your point is.

They didn't change the fundamental utility and purpose of cars when they made them safer. They are still intended to speed down the highway, weaving in and out of traffic, sideswiping other cars and the odd pedestrian or cyclist here and there.

 

[Lursa]

Defend yourself how you see fit


Just not with guns that are historically turned on others....or kills / maim tens of thousands of people with "accidental" discharges.


What makes you think that you'll never commit a mass shooting ? (when did Stephen Paddock know he was?)


What makes you think the authorities are aware of that likelihood ?

The authorities have no business in private citizens 'business' without due process or damn good reason. Apparently you are a big supporter of Big Brother...and maybe the Minority Report.

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

Nothing will make you completely safe...yet here you are, instead of trying to be pro-active in protecting yourself/family, you would deny other families the same...all the while promoting fertile ground for the criminals who will still have the advantage over us. I dont care if a guy breaks into my house with only a baseball bat...I will want the greater advantage of a firearm to stop him. It's insane to suggest I should go without an advantage against an attacker just because some people are unrealistically afraid of their fellow Americans who own firearms.

I cant answer about Paddock. I cant answer when the next earthquake will hit here either. It's childish and silly to think you can control everything.

As for me committing such an atrocity? I know I wouldnt do so but I also dont expect someone like you to accept that statement when it's not convenient to your Internet argument.

 

[Rich2018]

Very good .... I actually laughed out loud.

Thank you my ex-wife said I was full of wit

least that I thought she said.

 

[Rich2018]

They didn't change the fundamental utility and purpose of cars when they made them safer. They are still intended to speed down the highway, weaving in and out of traffic, sideswiping other cars and the odd pedestrian or cyclist here and there.

The purpose of cars is not to speed or weave or create any kind of hazard to others,

 

[jaeger19]

Guns are "necessary" only because of the existence of other guns. t.

Complete and utter lie.

 

[RF667799]

The purpose of cars is not to speed or weave or create any kind of hazard to others,

It seems they're very well suited for it. People use them for that a lot.

 

[jaeger19]

No evidence that Adam Lanza was influenced by the advertisements? Are you sure of that? Can you provide references/links to support your assertion?

Advertisements.???

Heck..why would one believe that an advertisement is responsible for a mass shooting...

When there are video games and movies glorifying and portraying mass murder and mass killing that are far far more evident in society????


its like saying that the Venus of Urbino... is more likely to cause kids to experiment with sex...

And not just about any cinemax movie!..

 

[Rich2018]

The authorities have no business in private citizens 'business' without due process or damn good reason. Apparently you are a big supporter of Big Brother...and maybe the Minority Report.

Respectively, I love the show and it's a good movie

I also support the state of Georgia in banning smoking in public places.

..."Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

Freedom is over-rated, I'd take security first every day

...nothing will make you completely safe...yet here you are, instead of trying to be pro-active in protecting yourself/family, you would deny other families the same...all the while promoting fertile ground for the criminals who will still have the advantage over us. I dont care if a guy breaks into my house with only a baseball bat...I will want the greater advantage of a firearm to stop him. It's insane to suggest I should go without an advantage against an attacker just because some people are unrealistically afraid of their fellow Americans who own firearms...

"Insane" you say...yet most governments have made this choice and kept their sanity.

Most American don't own guns and likewise keep their sanity.


PS: British gun control law is amongst the most draconian in the world yet still allows you to buy a double barreled shotgun if you feel you need one. The vast majority of Britons don't feel that need.

...I cant answer about Paddock. I cant answer when the next earthquake will hit here either. It's childish and silly to think you can control everything....

And therein lies the problem

As we can't know in advance, a normal law abiding citizen can turn his guns on other people at any time

Most if not all mass shooter were previously law-abiding citizens until they decided to go on a rampage. The so called "red flags" just aren't there to be picked up and you create a bureaucratic train wreck if you try to pass laws that allow you to look for let alone act on them.

...as for me committing such an atrocity? I know I wouldnt do so...

Might not Paddock give a similar answer 10 or even 5 years ago ?

 

[Rich2018]

It seems they're very well suited for it. People use them for that a lot.

Yes and we hope traffic police stop them.

 

[jaeger19]

Well perhaps not EVERY gun

But guns are destroyed when seized from criminals and every gun was held legally at one point




Yep but guns are a little harder to manufacture and smuggle

.

No they are not.

That's laughable.

As far as the UK, terrorists and guns... ... Did you ever hear of the IRA?

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah...so there will still be plenty of guns out there and THEN...the ones left will ALL be in the hands of the criminals....

Initially as we drain the swamp


The only people with stores of crack cocaine are also criminals

...total BS. Even long guns break down into different parts that are easy to put together. Just ask anyone who cleans their firearms...

No they can't be. What is your experience of breaking down and hiding guns?


And they definitely can't be manufactured in the back yard or in a Mexican forest.

...and why should I be more vulnerable to someone with an illegal gun or knives or anything else when I can have my firearm to protect myself?

Why should I be vunerable the a person who has a firearms that was legally purchased and owned.


Why should I live my life in a proverbial "tank"

 

[Rich2018]

No they are not.

That's laughable....

Oh really try to make a gun or smuggle it through an airport detector

...as far as the UK, terrorists and guns... ... Did you ever hear of the IRA?

That's a terrorist ORGANISATION

The only one I'm aware of that used Armalites Btw


Why do you think, in a recent attack, a group of Islamic terrorists attacked a crowd in London with knives rather than automatic rifles.

 

[haymarket]

So then blame and liability as being described here continually are invalid.

And it's working as designed in its end result too. It's the perfect result when I shoot a rapist.

But again...all that is under the control of the operator, not the manufacturer.

The gun functions exactly as the manufacturer intended it to function. In that school shooting today in California the gun worked exactly as the manufacturer intended it for ruction.

 

[haymarket]

They didn't change the fundamental utility and purpose of cars when they made them safer. They are still intended to speed down the highway, weaving in and out of traffic, sideswiping other cars and the odd pedestrian or cyclist here and there.

Cars are intended. designed and built to facilitate the transportation of people from one place to another.

Guns are intended, designed and built to shoot a projectile into living things.

In that school shooting today in California, the gun functioned perfectly as the manufacturer intended it to function. The trigger worked, the bullet was fired, and it entered flesh.

 

[haymarket]

Complete and utter lie.

So why is it necessary then? Please take some societies where gun ownership severely restricted and tell me what gun use is still necessary.

 

[haymarket]

And firearms are intended to shoot and kill animals or to be used defensively.

The function of a gun is to fire a projectile into living things. That is their intended usage.

 

[Court Jester]

If a manufacturer of any product intends for that product to take a life when it is used properly, why are they not responsible for at least some of that.

They are saying - here is our product that is meant to kill. If you use it as intended, killing can result.

Not all "killing" is murder. The police routinely use these same rifles to neutralize bad guys who are committing murders. The gun has no morality one way or the other.

The plaintiffs are arguing Remington misled buyers with ads that targeted a specific type of person, promoting the firearm and its military styling and useage.

This in turn is what the plaintiffs are alleging. You should not be promoting military or military type weaponry for civilian use. That's what they're using to sue remington.

That is ridiculous, these are NOT military rifles! These are civilian rifles. What exactly is "military styling" other than NOTHING. Same company also sells lever action repeating rifles which in fact once were used in our military over 100 years ago, so why not sue them for that too?

Just because criminals and crazy people used a rifle (not a military rifle) to commit a crime is no reason to sue the manufacturer. If the rifle didn't blow up in someone's face and cause injury or death this lawsuit will not prevail--- it is just a waste of time. You can sue a auto manufacturer for product failures which cause injury or damage, but you can't sue the manufacturer because somebody was negligent or criminal using the car and killed someone.

If it were true you could sue a company for deaths caused to other while that product was being used, then every alcohol manufacturer would already be be out of business.

 

[Court Jester]

The irony about new stories like these is that they ALWAYS result in more Americans going out and buying more guns. You would think the silly gun grabbers would have figured this out by now?

 

[RF667799]

Cars are intended. designed and built to facilitate the transportation of people from one place to another.

Guns are intended, designed and built to shoot a projectile into living things.

In that school shooting today in California, the gun functioned perfectly as the manufacturer intended it to function. The trigger worked, the bullet was fired, and it entered flesh.

Neither bolded statement is universally true.

 

[RF667799]

Yes and we hope traffic police stop them.

Your point?

 

[Lursa]

Freedom is over-rated, I'd take security first every day

And here we seriously depart.

With a huge gap.

And I'm basically a liberal, but not of a shameful sort that isnt willing to take responsibility for myself, my family, paying my bills, protecting us, etc etc etc.

I'd never abdicate my personal security to a bureaucracy, it's ludicrous. Just look how that bureaucracy works? Any bureaucracy.

 

[Lursa]

"Insane" you say...yet most governments have made this choice and kept their sanity.

Most American don't own guns and likewise keep their sanity.


PS: British gun control law is amongst the most draconian in the world yet still allows you to buy a double barreled shotgun if you feel you need one. The vast majority of Britons don't feel that need.





And therein lies the problem

As we can't know in advance, a normal law abiding citizen can turn his guns on other people at any time

Most if not all mass shooter were previously law-abiding citizens until they decided to go on a rampage. The so called "red flags" just aren't there to be picked up and you create a bureaucratic train wreck if you try to pass laws that allow you to look for let alone act on them.


Might not Paddock give a similar answer 10 or even 5 years ago ?

All this verbal speculative diarrhea is useless in a discussion.

Re: insane...I spoke of individuals, not govts and their freedom of choice, whatever their country. The insanity is in believing you or the govt know better than those individuals what their risks and circumstances are...and then deciding for them/us based on your biases and fears. Those people also have choices...not all the same ones, and not everyone succeeds because, um, no one can control everything.

 

[CLAX1911]

The function of a gun is to fire a projectile into living things. That is their intended usage.

And if you choose to fire that projectile into somebody or some animal or even someone's property without proper justification then it is entirely your liability. just like if you were to drive your car through someone's house or over someone's child you are held liable not the manufacturer of the car.

 

[BahamaBob]

I am not talking about banning gun ownership. Your post fails because of that false premise.

Gee, this just came from the guy who posted "And it is turning logic and reason upside down to pretend that a good reason for owning a gun is to stop other people who own guns from its use upon you. If there were no guns that reason would disappear. "

Your post fails because you haven't got a clue.

 

[haymarket]

And if you choose to fire that projectile into somebody or some animal or even someone's property without proper justification then it is entirely your liability. just like if you were to drive your car through someone's house or over someone's child you are held liable not the manufacturer of the car.

Once again, you playing at being a lawyer and telling me what the law says and how it characterizes an action. I am talking about the function of the gun as it was made by the manufacturer.