Good news.

That makes exactly the same sense as suing general motors because the drunk that hit you was driving a chevy. Or, perhaps suing the grandparents of a murderer, because if they hadn't had children it couldn't have happened. I realize that to some, the goal is to punish anyone in sight, but you have really got to be off you rocker to think that kind of thinking is logical. If you wonder why our society is in such a mess- it's people who think like that, because they use similar logic for everything. Bonkers.

The "recourse" is to take violent and disturbed people out of the picture- because they are the only common thread, and regardless of what they use as a weapon- it only becomes a weapon for crime when a criminal comes along and uses it. That of course is too logical for those who can't use logic and reason, because emotion is always telling them what to think and do. That is dangerous too.

 

Or in the case of my brother, to target shoot with a similar gun he had in the Marines. Or in the case of many others I know who own ARs, they use them for target shooting. None of these people expect to ever use their ARs to kill.

 

Such related to deliberately failing to correct a product that was known to be dangerous and defective, because it was determined settling wrongful death suits was less expensive than fixing the defect.

The same standard cannot be applied to firearms, as the challenges are not based on their being defective, but because of how they are are being used by those who should not and do not have legal access to them.

 

Such holds no relevance to the discussion. Firearms are no more dangerous than motor vehicles, as neither are capable of causing harm unless they are deliberately misused for the purpose of doing such.

 

All firearms are equally deadly, as all firearms are equally capable of killing someone if used for such purposes. Some models simply use more powerful ammunition than others. But such does not change the fact that all firearms are equally deadly.

Any bolt action rifle that can be used to kill the operator of a motor vehicle, and lead to a chain reaction of multiple motor vehicle collisions. As all the resulting deaths would be kicked off by one person being killed, all resulting deaths are firearm-related deaths as a direct result through cause and effect.

There is no standard under which they are not relevant to the discussion.

 

And yet such is simply not the case. The majority of AR-15 rifles in private circulation are not used for anything except legal purposes. The number of AR-15 rifles used for the purpose of killing or otherwise causing harm to others, is in the extreme minority, to the point of not even being one percent in comparison.

 

Neither did the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter when she bought the gun. And yet... that's what it's for. And I'm not the one saying it. The manufacturer is. That doesn't mean that any of the people you mention will ever use theirs for that purpose. But somebody will.

I would much rather see these children alive, than see your brother shooting a target.

 

I've lost 3 friends to illegal aliens driving their cars drunk. Should I sue the alcohol manufacturers, the auto manufacturers or Mexico as the primary manufacturer of illegal aliens in America.

 

Then show the supposed advertisement by the firearms manufacturer, and where they stated their product was intended for mass killings.

Just like how some men go on to become rapists, while others do not.

 

This is a class action started and funded by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and his many anti gun groups like "everytown". I think the gun manufacturers will welcome this as it will put a definition on frivolous lawsuits of this type. In the same vein, there are over 100 lawsuits against the Parkland School district for various things from incompetence to post-traumatic stress. Lawyers are a nasty lot.

 

AR15s et al are no more lethal than any other high capacity semi automatic rifles. I own several and none of them are scary in appearance and so have not evoked the kind of hysteria the ARs have. All guns in the wrong hands are lethal and scary, it's really time for common sense to prevail. If this lawsuit goes forward it won't just be Remington but scores of others. I can tell you that all that will accomplish is to create more demand for these firearms because of the perception that it is another step toward a ban or confiscation, not to mention the loyalty of gun owners to gun manufacturers. Here in Massachusetts our AG unilaterally banned AR15s and others but left the backdoor open with a grandfather clause that precipitated a sudden glut of these firearms that dwarfed the original number of these guns in the state. Until the deadline dealers were selling out whole shipments before they even arrived and I can tell you they aren't cheap but everyone was buying two or three of them. There is also a very high number of ghost guns here for the same reason. You can still buy all the parts you want except for the receiver so some enterprising individuals are making their own. There's no paper work or serial numbers on these so there is no way to tell when they were made as they too were 100% legal prior to the ban. There are some estimates that there are 400 million privately owned firearms in the US, that only assumes what's on paper there's millions more out there that are war relics, legacies, collections and black market. No legislation exists that is ever going to change that. These shootings are unfortunate but will continue until we focus on the cause more than the firearms.

 

Is it your belief there is no other gun that could have been used to kill those children?

 

The manufacturer and reality show that that is the case.

Which is not using them for what they were designed. I don't care about "a majority". I care about the minority. Even stopping one nut who goes into an elementary school and kids a bunch of children is well worth giving up target practice.

I hear that argument made as if it made any sense. It's nonsense! These are weapons designed for the purpose of killing a large number of people in a short amount of time. Claiming that they should not be outlawed because not everybody who buys one uses it for the purpose it is designed for is absurd. If you want to do target practice, use military-style paint guns, if you want. But not something that a nut will use to kill dozens of people in less than 10 minutes.

 

True. No gun (or any other thing, be it a knife or even a rock) is a murder weapon until a murderers hand picks it up. Murder is an act of violent people, not of inanimate objects.

 

The phrase is "for use in assaults against human beings."

Do you think I may be going out on a limb by assuming that if you use assault weapons against human beings, they are likely to get killed?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf

And you would contend that, since the majority of people aren't rapists, then rape should not be illegal?

 

Absolutely. And their sale should be banned. Or, at a minimum (to stay within the topic of the thread), the manufacturers of any of such weapons that is used in a mass shooting should be sued.

 

considering that even super-Liberal New York City allows the sale and possession of semi-auto high caliber weapons, this lawsuit is totally without merit.

 

That shows your ignorance.

 

Should the French sue Renault for the use of the assault truck to kill 80 people in Nice or should they sue the manufacturer of the gun that the police used to stop the truck driver?

 

Anything he thinks it is.

 

And such weapons are used in about two percent of crimes nation wide and most such weapons are black market purchases.

One of the worst Scotus rulings of the past fifty years

 

I remember that the same day of Sandy Hook, there was a news report from China in which a nut attacked a school in China with a knife. He wounded 21 children (same number as those who died in Sandy Hook) but none of them died.

Murder with an assault weapon is the act of violent people who have an assault weapon. Anybody trying to kill 27 people, including 21 children, by throwing rocks at them will find it much more difficult.

 

I find most of the NRA talking points dumb. But this is the most ridiculous by far.

A Renault is not designed to kill people. An Assault Rifle is.

Talking about ridiculous arguments. This one is so off the chart, I don't think even the NRA would be capable of coming up with it.

But you never know... Maybe one day they'll argue that if people can't have access to guns, then the police shouldn't either.

 

My AR-15 is for home defense, and also to do my part in keeping the government in check. Civilians should be able to be just as well armed as soldiers. Nuts on rampages are not an excuse to take away guns any more than a nut driving a car into a crowd is an excuse to take away cars. Many, many more people died keeping those constitutional rights secure than died at the hands of the nut in sandy hook. There is nothing more important to keep secure in this world than the first and second amendments. Everything after that is nice and important, but those first two are absolutely sacred.

 

Why should that mean people can’t own them, but the government can? I would rather the government have no weapons, and only civilians are armed.