Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Options
  • 16-12-2014 7:08am
    #1
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1215/667067-sandy-hook/

    I find this pretty incomprehensible; simple common sense says that you cannot hold a manufacturer responsible for supplying a product legally for sale (and legal to own) for the illegal actions of a user.

    This makes as much sense as the owner of a ram raided store suing Ford for making vehicles tough enough to smash plate glass.

    A tragic event turned into a circus.


«134567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Ford don't design cars to maim, injure and kill........

    I suppose the gun companies will just argue that their products are just designed to make bullets go faster.

    Courts and common sense are often mutually exclusive especially in the States - hopefully they 'win' and force some changes, even if they are only minor ones.


  • Options
    #3
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Maybe this is what it will take to stop the crazy gun culture in the US hit them in the pocket.l


  • Options
    #4
    unjedilike
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭unjedilike


    They will never contain gun crime. They're way too proud of their weapons.


  • Options
    #5
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Ford don't design cars to maim, injure and kill........

    They design thier cars to protect the passengers better the competition. If I get hit by a Ford could I sue on the basis that Ford gave the driver a false sense of security?
    I suppose the gun companies will just argue that their products are just designed to make bullets go faster.

    Courts and common sense are often mutually exclusive especially in the States - hopefully they 'win' and force some changes, even if they are only minor ones.

    You hope they win and manufacturers of legal 'lethal' items get to pay when users use products in a manner the law deems illegal? Hmmm....there's the thin end of a quite large wedge.


  • Options
    #6
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Maybe this is what it will take to stop the crazy gun culture in the US hit them in the pocket.l

    Do you mean stop the one third of all American homes who own gun(s) or the tiny tiny percentage of rampage shooters?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    I might sue Sony. Was moving an old tv and it hurt my fingers as it had no places to correctly hold it.

    or when will drink drivers sue alcohol company for producing a poison that caused them to get drunk?

    They much better cases than Sandy Hook family has.


  • Options
    #8
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Jester252 wrote: »
    I might sue Sony.

    They are a bit busy at the moment trying to gag news stations about what documents were hacked.

    They'll get back to you soon I'm sure...


  • Options
    #9
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Ford don't design cars to maim, injure and kill........

    I suppose the gun companies will just argue that their products are just designed to make bullets go faster.

    :D

    I'm a soldier, I'm going to steal that line and put my own twist on it with the young lads in work ~ nice :D


  • Options
    #10
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    It's kinda sad that people are supporting this lawsuit. It is just a greedy lawyers trying to make a quick buck off devastated families.


  • Options
    #11
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    MadsL wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1215/667067-sandy-hook/

    I find this pretty incomprehensible; simple common sense says that you cannot hold a manufacturer responsible for supplying a product legally for sale (and legal to own) for the illegal actions of a user.

    This makes as much sense as the owner of a ram raided store suing Ford for making vehicles tough enough to smash plate glass.

    A tragic event turned into a circus.

    Well, the US is Crazy Lawsuit Land after all. Duh. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Guns, shootings and crazy lawsuits. All we need is for a cop to shoot a black guy and we have american bingo.


  • Options
    #13
    Irish Guitarist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭Irish Guitarist


    They said that the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.
    I totally agree with them. What purpose does this gun serve other than to kill as many people as possible?


  • Options
    #14
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    They should sue themselves for not packing the place with guns beforehand in the off chance that a maniac with a weapon would turn up. Remember folks: the more guns you have in schools, the less shootings will occur.


  • Options
    #15
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    I totally agree with them. What purpose does this gun serve other than to kill as many people as possible?
    Then isn't it the government/state's fault for allowing the laws that let the gun manufacturers create and sell that? How is there any logic in suing a company that has created a product that is perfectly legal [whether you agreed with it or not] in that area?


  • Options
    #16
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    MadsL wrote: »
    They design thier cars to protect the passengers better the competition. If I get hit by a Ford could I sue on the basis that Ford gave the driver a false sense of security?

    Actually, that's known as the 'Volvo effect' and its a phenomenon, so if you are going to do that, then do it in a Volvo - they use safety as a strong marketing concept and consequently people people feel they can drive quicker.

    MadsL wrote: »
    You hope they win and manufacturers of legal 'lethal' items get to pay when users use products in a manner the law deems illegal? Hmmm....there's the thin end of a quite large wedge.

    You know, I like to think I 'get' American gun culture. I lived there, I have family there and one their inlaws is a gun dealer. I don't agree with it (in fact I think they are bonkers) but I think I understand where they are coming from.

    Guns. and gun ownership are a cultural phenomenon there - it's woven into their history. We hear guns we think criminals, 'RA heads etc - they hear guns and a good portion of the population think home defence - it conjures up images of people defending their homestead etc.

    Gun companies play on that.

    Ford don't market the Explorer, for example, as the 'best car in the world to go ram raiding in" but plenty of gun companies - and the NRA - highlight the stopping power of various gun / ammo combinations - and they ain't talking about it's ability to knock a duck from the sky or halt a bear in it's tracks.

    They also emphasise portability, weight and 'concealability,' among other things in their sales literature - they talk about the best thing for stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!!

    In other words they design, market and sell products that are intended to kill people, and are easy to carry in the community.

    I shoot, I have a couple of shotguns and and a vintage rifle. In my limited experience, a 9mm pistol is feckin' useless for bringing down a bird and way OTT for target shooting - so what could it possibly be intended for? (there's a reason why this calibre is quite popular with police and armed services, and it's not because it's designed to stun people).

    In Sandy Hook the shooter used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle - it fires a 5.56mm round (same as a NATO round, effectively). Aside from the fact it was locked on semi-auto it's exactly the same rifle that police and army use in the US - does that suggest that this is not a weapon designed to maim or kill?


  • Options
    #17
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,427 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    MadsL wrote: »
    They design thier cars to protect the passengers better the competition. If I get hit by a Ford could I sue on the basis that Ford gave the driver a false sense of security?



    You hope they win and manufacturers of legal 'lethal' items get to pay when users use products in a manner the law deems illegal? Hmmm....there's the thin end of a quite large wedge.

    Worked for tobacco companies


  • Options
    #18
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Lilliana Harsh Revenue wrote: »
    :D

    I'm a soldier, I'm going to steal that line and put my own twist on it with the young lads in work ~ nice :D

    Borrowed it from Robin Williams......

    It was his response to the NRA's suggestion that guns don't kill people, people kill people.


  • Options
    #19
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    Well, the US is Crazy Lawsuit Land after all. Duh. :pac:

    Ahem....


  • Options
    #20
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    They said that the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.
    "This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," said Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

    "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

    They do have a point IMHO.


  • Options
    #21
    Tzardine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭Tzardine


    Stupid lawsuit.But because it is America they will win and will be awarded a quadrillion dollars.

    The lawyers will be the only winners here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Chiparus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Actually, that's known as the 'Volvo effect' and its a phenomenon, so if you are going to do that, then do it in a Volvo - they use safety as a strong marketing concept and consequently people people feel they can drive quicker.




    You know, I like to think I 'get' American gun culture. I lived there, I have family there and one their inlaws is a gun dealer. I don't agree with it (in fact I think they are bonkers) but I think I understand where they are coming from.

    Guns. and gun ownership are a cultural phenomenon there - it's woven into their history. We hear guns we think criminals, 'RA heads etc - they hear guns and a good portion of the population think home defence - it conjures up images of people defending their homestead etc.

    Gun companies play on that.

    Ford don't market the Explorer, for example, as the 'best car in the world to go ram raiding in" but plenty of gun companies - and the NRA - highlight the stopping power of various gun / ammo combinations - and they ain't talking about it's ability to knock a duck from the sky or halt a bear in it's tracks.

    They also emphasise portability, weight and 'concealability,' among other things in their sales literature - they talk about the best thing for stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!!

    In other words they design, market and sell products that are intended to kill people, and are easy to carry in the community.

    I shoot, I have a couple of shotguns and and a vintage rifle. In my limited experience, a 9mm pistol is feckin' useless for bringing down a bird and way OTT for target shooting - so what could it possibly be intended for? (there's a reason why this calibre is quite popular with police and armed services, and it's not because it's designed to stun people).

    In Sandy Hook the shooter used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle - it fires a 5.56mm round (same as a NATO round, effectively). Aside from the fact it was locked on semi-auto it's exactly the same rifle that police and army use in the US - does that suggest that this is not a weapon designed to maim or kill?

    In the US the constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to own firearms, for the purpose of having an armed citizenry ( a militia).

    No point in having a less than lethal weapon.

    If you wanted to save far more innocent lives , campaign for speed restrictors on cars.


  • Options
    #23
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Runaway Jury

    Great film :)


  • Options
    #24
    Hitchens
    Registered Users Posts: 7,982 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    http://bustedcoverage.com/2014/12/15/bama-fans-hold-burglars-at-gunpoint-until-cops-arrive/

    I love it.............'A Town Called Warrior' :D


  • Options
    #25
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Tzardine wrote: »
    Stupid lawsuit.But because it is America they will win and will be awarded a quadrillion dollars.

    The lawyers will be the only winners here.

    I don't think that's the aim at all.

    The manufacturer will say in it's defence that the sale of these guns is perfectly legal, and that raises the question of why civilians need or want to own military grade automatic weapons. Handguns and rifles are part of American life, fair enough, nothing will change that, but these guns may be pushing it a bit too far, no?


  • Options
    #26
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    I totally agree with them. What purpose does this gun serve other than to kill as many people as possible?

    That particular one? Long Range Match, National Rifle Competition, in Camp Perry Ohio?

    http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/perrylr1404.jpg

    It's got the free-floating barrel, the long-range optic, fully adjustable stock. It's designed for precision work, not mass output.

    Of course, you could also just look at what the guy who made it designed it for.
    http://nwgun.com/2011/12/23/ar-15-build-dale-millers-precision-ar-15/
    His goals were similar to mine: an accurate AR-15 that would wear a scope, and be suitable for long-distance target shooting and varminting

    However, I'll ignore your ignorance of firearm design and work on the basis that you might have picked a more appropriate AR-15 variant for your example. In which case I will stipulate that many ARs are indeed designed to be capable of killing people. We're allowed do that in this country. Sometimes we even kill the right people.

    Of course, you may as well sue Ferrari for making a car which has no purpose other than to go faster than the speed limit.

    As to the lawsuit, it is likely going to fail flat for a couple of reasons.
    1) 15, US Code, Section 7901.
    "The purposes of this chapter are as follows:
    (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended."

    Although there are some exemptions, they are quite narrow, and they'll be doing well to get past this bit.

    2) The argument that "The rifle is not suited for civilian use" appears to be rather discounted by the civilians of the nation. The AR-15 is the single most popular rifle platform being sold in the US today. It is difficult to fathom that so many civilians would be spending their hard-earned dosh on a rifle which has no civilian use.

    3) One of the arguments I heard on the radio from the laywer was that Bushmaster was selling a lethal product and should bear responsibility for it. Of course it's a lethal product! The bloody thing is supposed to be lethal! (Or at least, seriously debilitating, but the idea is that you don't mind if whatever or whoever you're shooting dies). It's the whole point.


  • Options
    #27
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    inforfun wrote: »
    Ahem....

    Yeah, that story is nothing compared to kind of lawsuits brought in the US.


  • Options
    #28
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    I don't think that's the aim at all.

    The manufacturer will say in it's defence that the sale of these guns is perfectly legal, and that raises the question of why civilians need or want to own military grade automatic weapons. Handguns and rifles are part of American life, fair enough, nothing will change that, but these guns may be pushing it a bit too far, no?

    Because it's more ergonomic, more versatile and more accurate than many 'traditional looking' rifles?

    Here's an example.

    This is a Ruger Mini-14, a quite common small-game hunting rifle. Very inoffensive. Wouldn't raise many eyebrows in Ireland if you saw a farmer wandering around with one to go shoot rabbits. It happens to fire the same round as the AR above.
    http://elliottco.home.comcast.net/~elliottco/images_2A/Mini_14_wood2.jpg

    However, if you saw a farmer in Wicklow roaming around with this one, I'm sure the Gardai would be called in short order.
    http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2013/02/16/1078244_02_mini_14_30_6_8_tactical_stock_640.jpg

    This above rifle is also a Mini-14. It just has a few bits swapped out. You can change it from one colour and configuration to the other in about five minutes. Seriously. A cop does it in this video in about two.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0#t=358

    With one exception, all the features that make the AR-based platform such an excellent service weapon also make it an excellent civilian weapon. That one exception is the fact that it fires a small-ish bullet, so for deer and larger game, the civilians usually need bigger, more lethal weapons than the Army uses as standard.

    Of course, try differentiating between a Springfield M1A commonly used for deer or elk hunting, and an Army M-14/M-21...


  • Options
    #29
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    a quick google shows these guns are legal in 14 countries (including Ireland) with / without licensing.

    in the US alone they reckon there are up to 3.7 million of them, yet one wacko and their irresponsible parent seems to be enough to ruin it for everyone...
    As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.[42] They are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection, and have become the most popular rifle in America.
    Manic Moran wrote:
    3) One of the arguments I heard on the radio from the laywer was that Bushmaster was selling a lethal product and should bear responsibility for it. Of course it's a lethal product! The bloody thing is supposed to be lethal! (Or at least, seriously debilitating, but the idea is that you don't mind if whatever or whoever you're shooting dies). It's the whole point.

    hundred (millions?) of products are lethal, either purposely and directly or through non flawless usage; from all sorts of chemicals to knives to cars to building blocks... As an argument it's total BS


  • Options
    #30
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Interesting. Thanks for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    I don't think that's the aim at all.

    The manufacturer will say in it's defence that the sale of these guns is perfectly legal, and that raises the question of why civilians need or want to own military grade automatic weapons. Handguns and rifles are part of American life, fair enough, nothing will change that, but these guns may be pushing it a bit too far, no?

    the rifle in question is not an automatic weapon.


Advertisement