Sue the Rifle Maker!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

An interesting way to deal with gun crime?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30484531

[Billy.]

I saw this last night. I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject, given the nature of the deaths, but they're suing the gun maker for making a gun which can pierce armour....

 

They should really go after changing the laws on armour piercing rounds, as you'd have to throw a rifle pretty hard to become armour piercing.

[deadeye18]

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Guest cookoff013]

Absolutely ridiculous.

+1

why they didnt sue the bullet manufacturer too?

[malkiserow]

It is the USA ! ...... mad is just another possibility there

[deadeye18]

As awful as that crime was you cant blame the rifle.its only a tool at the end of the day its the criminal thats to blame but hes not here.some of these familys are looking for anything and anyone to blame and vent their anger on.

[Tim85]

Thought the thread was a bout a rifle maker called Sue.

[fenboy]

I think I may take Remington to court as mine has gone berserk at times and killed loads of pigeons

[rich1984]

Thought the thread was a bout a rifle maker called Sue.

 

me too

[grrclark]

I rather suspect that all is not as it seems with this story. I don't believe for one second that the plaintiffs in this case believe that they would have any chance of success, however what they are guaranteed is a significant media reaction to the story. The media coverage and the resulting reaction will be used in some way shape or form to influence something else, whatever that something else may be.

 

There is most definitely a hidden agenda.

[The Mighty Prawn]

I cannot imagine the heartbreak something like this causes but sueing the gun maker is ridiculous, like sueing a match maker if your house gets firebombed. That said in the world of the US you never know which way it'll go

[malkiserow]

So if a burglar rifles through your sock drawer, can you sue his parents ? .... as they made the rifler

I rather suspect that all is not as it seems with this story. I don't believe for one second that the plaintiffs in this case believe that they would have any chance of success, however what they are guaranteed is a significant media reaction to the story. The media coverage and the resulting reaction will be used in some way shape or form to influence something else, whatever that something else may be.

 

There is most definitely a hidden agenda.

 

Not now, I think you just outed it. Good spotting

[Steppenwolf]

In 2005 I had an accident in a Renault vehicle. I wonder if I can sue Renault for their product putting my life in danger. I am sorry to hear of these families losing kids but this line of action is just moronic!

[JohnFreeman1310]

Stupidity at its best i think that argument could be used for suing Ferrari Lamborghini ect for making road legal track cars and crashing and killing people.

John

[bluesj]

Stupidity at its best i think that argument could be used for suing Ferrari Lamborghini ect for making road legal track cars and crashing and killing people.

John

Not just killing, but you could sue if you got qa speeding fine for making a car that was too fast!

[Guest cookoff013]

wouldnt you just be able to sue god, for providing the energy required to do all these things?

[Dougy]

If i remember wasn't there a film based on a true story in the USA were a gun manufactures were sued, i think it was around 1/2 million dollars each company paid to the victims.

[malkiserow]

wouldnt you just be able to sue god, for providing the energy required to do all these things?

 

well the film has already been done .... Steve Myers played by Billy Connelly

[aris]

Interesting - I thought the gun manufacturers lobbied for this law some years ago:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

 

They are obviously trying to either invalidate it or push its boundaries.

Just found this article which expands on the law - there are apparently exceptions.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-20141215-story.html

[The Mighty Prawn]

Interesting - I thought the gun manufacturers lobbied for this law some years ago:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

 

They are obviously trying to either invalidate it or push its boundaries.Just found this article which expands on the law - there are apparently exceptions.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-20141215-story.html

I don't think that legislation will get them a victory, as I read it they are attempting to claim the gun shouldn't have been sold to someone who was mentally impaired, but the gun wasn't sold to him, it was sold to his mother and he stole it - the mother would be the only one liable under that claim IMHO as she failed to secure it - she was victim 1 though I believe so that claim is out.

[aris]

I don't think that legislation will get them a victory, as I read it they are attempting to claim the gun shouldn't have been sold to someone who was mentally impaired, but the gun wasn't sold to him, it was sold to his mother and he stole it - the mother would be the only one liable under that claim IMHO as she failed to secure it - she was victim 1 though I believe so that claim is out.

 

The legislation protects the gun makers, not the parents - but It will be interesting to see how this transpires. That bit of legislation is quite contentious with the anti-gun lobby. In the US the loser of a court case doesn't (usually) have to pay costs like here in the UK - so the parents are obviously giving it a go. They may well argue that the kid had 'access', and from what I recall, she did let him shoot it too (supervised).

[Scully]

The entire case is ridiculous in my opinion but I can understand the parents wanting their pound of flesh; they are going to be hurting for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be more relevant if they sued their Government or their local police department for failing to protect their children?

I suppose the motif 'To Protect and Serve' isn't as catchy as 'To Protect and Serve......but we can't be everywhere'.

[four-wheel-drive]

I get the point that they are making the gun was designed and made for use by the military I do not understand why people should have them if you want to go hunting by a hunting rifle or a target gun for shooting paper for birds or clays shotguns if people want to shoot automatic guns they could keep some for hire at shooting ranges but what do I no I just look at things logically.

[Gunman]

If i remember wasn't there a film based on a true story in the USA were a gun manufactures were sued, i think it was around 1/2 million dollars each company paid to the victims.

[i think it was called A Class Action , Dustin Hoffman and John Cusack /quote]

[Steppenwolf]

The entire case is ridiculous in my opinion but I can understand the parents wanting their pound of flesh; they are going to be hurting for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be more relevant if they sued their Government or their local police department for failing to protect their children?

I suppose the motif 'To Protect and Serve' isn't as catchy as 'To Protect and Serve......but we can't be everywhere'.

The problem is they are as you said hurting and wanting to blame anyone they can just to get some "closure". Unfortunately they will not look at the elephant in the room and that is that a good guy with a gun is 99% of the time the only one who stops the bad guy with the gun. Other more freedom oriented states get it that is why they are employing armed guards at school and even allowing techers to carry concealed on school property.

 

Liberal states like Connecticut will undoubtely have more mass shootings until something is done in this regard, meanwhile the anti-gunners will literally campaign standing on the bodies of dead children not because they care about the little lives lost but because it furthers thier anti-gun anti freedom agenda.