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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

  • 16-12-2014 6:08am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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

Comments

  • 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭unjedilike


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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...


  • 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • 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
  • 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.


  • 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?


  • 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    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?


  • 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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    :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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,862 ✭✭✭✭inforfun


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

    Ahem....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,885 ✭✭✭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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Runaway Jury

    Great film :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,063 ✭✭✭Hitchens




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,648 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    inforfun wrote: »

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


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,648 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭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.
    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Interesting. Thanks for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    People comparing guns to cars are so entrenched in their own gun fetish that they can't see the gaping holes in their logic.

    In the 20th century there absolutely were a load of shenanigans by the car industry to promote their product and influence governments to favour the private car over other modes of transport, but at the moment, the motor industry is heavily regulated, the safety and emmissions standards applied to car manufacturing are getting more stringent every year, taxes on fuels are increasing and there are legal responsibiities on car manufacturers to ensure that the products they sell are maximally safe for the end users (hence the multiple product recalls that every large manufacturer has to go through to fix safety issues with their cars)

    As well as this, most developed countries are increasing restrictions on the ownership and use of cars. Drink driving limits are reducing, taxes on fuels are increasing, there are compulsary vehicle safety checks, more stringent speed checks, penalty points for a wide variety of offences.

    States and car manufacturers are doing everything practical to make car use and ownership as safe as possible.

    On the other hand we have gun manufacturers who are manufacturing and selling products with the sole purpose of being as dangerous as possible. Where the manufacturers are extremely active in lobbying to prevent the introductions of regulations and safety measures to reduce the risks associated with gun ownership

    Where other than America are fully automatic weapons sold as recreational items to the general public? This is almost entirely down to the NRA and other arms industry lobby groups who have spent generations and billions of dollars on PR and political donations

    In the civilised world, if a disgruntled employee or an alienated teenager wants to go on a shooting spree, they would need months or years of preparation and would raise all kinds of red flags in the meantime. In parts of the U.S. all they have to do is go down to 'a private seller' where they can buy pretty much anything they like without restriction or any licensing requirement. 40% of gun sales are done privately in America (many of them illegal).

    The sale of firearms illegally is far far easier because firearms don't need to be registered or licensed in the U.S. and any proposals to intruduce registration or licensing are fought tooth and nail by the industry lobby groups.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Where other than America are fully automatic weapons sold as recreational items to the general public?

    What state are fully automatic weapons sold legally?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    Akrasia wrote: »
    ...

    Where other than America are fully automatic weapons sold as recreational items to the general public? This is almost entirely down to the NRA and other arms industry lobby groups who have spent generations and billions of dollars on PR and political donations
    ....

    i'm going to ignore the same, tired, anti-gun arguments but this bit is bull****. you cant just walk into walmart and come out with an automatic weapon. they are federally regulated and require a lot of time and expense to purchase. and when i say expense i mean sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. the type of person who goes to that sort of trouble is not a danger to public. have a guess how many people have been killed with legally held automatic weapons in the US since 1930?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭Zombienosh


    The gun manufacturers operate within the law, the problem here is with the Government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Wait a second.

    I thought all those Sandy Hook families were actors and the whole thing was a leftie conspiracy to take guns away from right thinking god fearing Americans.

    Truthers couldn't be lying could they? I mean, truth is in their name after all so they must be right. Right? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    it's america, anyone can sue anybody for anything. maybe it's just trying to draw even more attention to gun ownership.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,824 ✭✭✭floggg


    Jester252 wrote: »
    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.

    I would be very surprised if the lawyers weren't doing this pro bono.

    While legally, there is unlikely to be sufficient grounds for a negligence suit (at least there wouldn't be here), I imagine that given the complete failure of the federal and state legislatures to pass any proper gun control laws they feel this is the only avenue open to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    floggg wrote: »
    I would be very surprised if the lawyers weren't doing this pro bono.

    While legally, there is unlikely to be sufficient grounds for a negligence suit (at least there wouldn't be here), I imagine that given the complete failure of the federal and state legislatures to pass any proper gun control laws they feel this is the only avenue open to them.

    there is also the small matter of the federal law that specifically prohibits lawsuits of this nature.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    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.

    It is, but (thankfully) I can't begin to imagine the amount of pain that they must be going through, especially at this time of year.:(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Swimming pool contractors and the water companies should be sued for those who drown in swimming pools.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Swimming pool contractors and the water companies should be sued for those who drown in swimming pools.

    Why?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Swimming pool contractors and the water companies should be sued for those who drown in swimming pools.

    Oh somebody please mention the dog in the microwave. Get it over and done with.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    Beano wrote: »
    i'm going to ignore the same, tired, anti-gun arguments but this bit is bull****. you cant just walk into walmart and come out with an automatic weapon. they are federally regulated and require a lot of time and expense to purchase. and when i say expense i mean sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. the type of person who goes to that sort of trouble is not a danger to public. have a guess how many people have been killed with legally held automatic weapons in the US since 1930?

    Vetting kind of goes out the window on Black Friday. They'd spend less than 3 minutes vetting each purchaser.

    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/30/367544540/black-friday-gun-sales-soar-straining-background-checks

    and then in december after black friday gun crime soars.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-warns-of-an-increase-in-bank-robberies-in-december/2014/11/28/c17d242e-740f-11e4-9c9f-a37e29e80cd5_story.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano



    you need to actually read what i said.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    You need to follow the links posted and acknowledge that your assertion that there is some quality control in the process of controlling who gets guns is completely false.
    If a ne'er do well wants a gun they'll buy it on Black Friday.

    Gun control in the U.S. is similar to Irish Banking Regulation during the first decade of this century.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    You need to follow the links posted and acknowledge that your assertion that there is some quality control in the process of controlling who gets guns is completely false.
    If a ne'er do well wants a gun they'll buy it on Black Friday.

    Gun control in the U.S. is similar to Irish Banking Regulation during the first decade of this century.

    i was referring to automatic weapons. you do know what an automatic weapon is dont you?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    An automatic weapon is what you get when you purchase certain types of freely available rifles in a US supermarket and then buy the kit mail-order to convert it.
    Either you are naive or deliberately disingenuous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    An automatic weapon is what you get when you purchase certain types of freely available rifles in a US supermarket and then buy the kit mail-order to convert it.
    Either you are naive or deliberately disingenuous.

    buy a mail order to kit to convert it to automatic? you do realise that those "kits" you refer to are subject to the same controls as automatic weapons themselves?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Beano wrote: »
    i'm going to ignore the same, tired, anti-gun arguments but this bit is bull****. you cant just walk into walmart and come out with an automatic weapon. they are federally regulated and require a lot of time and expense to purchase. and when i say expense i mean sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. the type of person who goes to that sort of trouble is not a danger to public. have a guess how many people have been killed with legally held automatic weapons in the US since 1930?

    Ok, I was wrong about fully automatic weapons being easy to buy in America, but a semi automatic weapon is still pretty damn dangerous and 40% of these guns are traded without any background checks, and can be converted to fully automatic mode with a custom bumb stock which is legal to buy and own (they're not very accurate with this 'upgrade' but if your intention is to spray a crowd with a hail of bullets, accuracy isn't really a top priority)
    http://www.cabelas.com/product/Slide-Fire-AR-Stock/1403492.uts


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    Conversion kit is easily purchased unofficially as you well know and fits in an envelope.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement