Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I noted back in post #12, those bringing the suit are alleging that the manufacturer originally crafted the gun for military purposes and is therefore responsible for selling it to a civilian audience, knowing its capabilities.
 
As I noted back in post #12, those bringing the suit are alleging that the manufacturer originally crafted the gun for military purposes and is therefore responsible for selling it to a civilian audience, knowing its capabilities.
But your assertion didn’t make sense. In what way is a weapon that is durable, simple and reliable enough for military use poorly suited to personal defense? That’s just a non-sequitor.
 
But your assertion didn’t make sense. In what way is a weapon that is durable, simple and reliable enough for military use poorly suited to personal defense? That’s just a non-sequitor.
Just to clarify, it isn’t “my” assertion – it’s that of the plaintiffs. Sorry to say I have no answers other than what’s been provided in news reports. 🙂
 
Exactly, it’s not just an assertion, it’s not necessarily a non sequitur, apparently that would be what the legal documents show the company is being sued about.
 
But your assertion didn’t make sense. In what way is a weapon that is durable, simple and reliable enough for military use poorly suited to personal defense? That’s just a non-sequitor.
It’s also easier for smaller men and women to operate than the M-14, which it replaced, making it a pretty good personal defense weapon. It’s also a pretty good “varmint” gun. The 5.56mm NATO round the AR-15 uses is a lot easier to handle than the .308 Winchester round the M-14 used. I would note that one of the requirements I have for a personal defense weapon is the ability to kill people efficiently. If I need to defend my family or me from some ne’er-do-well, I want to do it efficiently.

Note - I know this is the lawyer’s rationalization for filing the suit, it is not necessarily the position of anybody on these forums.
 
Just to clarify, it isn’t “my” assertion – it’s that of the plaintiffs. Sorry to say I have no answers other than what’s been provided in news reports. 🙂
Oops. good correction. THEIR non-sequitor, not yours. 🙂
 
What happened is tragic, but the cause was appalling lack of judgment by the kid’s mom, not by the gun maker. As society continues to come apart under the rejection of Natural Law and the reality of human nature, we’re going to see more and more chaos. The pressure to adopt ‘feel-good’ solutions that preserve our disordered cultural values will be intense. What won’t happen for some time is soul-searching about what’s REALLY behind societal breakdown.
I am also not a gun owner or do I support the ownership of one. However, we have a society that is fixated on weapons. Passing a law to prohibit guns will only elevate the problem to a society that we have not seen since the Prohibition era.

This is not an isolated case, we hear of terrible events involving a gun(s) taking place all the time. I believe it was shortly after Newton’s tragedy that he had the shooting in a movie theater in Colorado, killing 12 people and injuring many more. Remember before Newton, we had U.S. Representative Gabrielle Gifford shot, six people killed at an event that she was addressing. Congresswomen Gifford had to step down from her seat because of the injuries she incurred and I can go on…

I agree with you that the problem is a society breaking down. But a lot has to do with each of us being less civic-minded, we only look out for ourselves. Our political system is a perfect example; we have extreme ideologies at both ends of the spectrum. They each have received their opportunity for “change” yet we remain with the same political continuity.

I agree with you; we do need some soul-searching.
 
I am also not a gun owner or do I support the ownership of one. However, we have a society that is fixated on weapons. Passing a law to prohibit guns will only elevate the problem to a society that we have not seen since the Prohibition era.

This is not an isolated case, we hear of terrible events involving a gun(s) taking place all the time. I believe it was shortly after Newton’s tragedy that he had the shooting in a movie theater in Colorado, killing 12 people and injuring many more. Remember before Newton, we had U.S. Representative Gabrielle Gifford shot, six people killed at an event that she was addressing. Congresswomen Gifford had to step down from her seat because of the injuries she incurred and I can go on…

I agree with you that the problem is a society breaking down. But a lot has to do with each of us being less civic-minded, we only look out for ourselves. Our political system is a perfect example; we have extreme ideologies at both ends of the spectrum. They each have received their opportunity for “change” yet we remain with the same political continuity.

I agree with you; we do need some soul-searching.
This is a reflection of the “if it bleeds, it leads” attitude of the media. Incidents like Newtown get lots of press to the exclusion of other news and lead people to believe that gun murders are way up, when in fact, the opposite is true. According to a 2013 Pew survey gun homicides have dropped by nearly 50% since their peak in 1993. This despite the fact that gun control is down and gun ownership is up.

pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
 
You know, this assertion (by the plaintiffs) that since it was designed for the military use, it was known by the manufacturer that it would be particularly dangerous for civilian use doesn’t hold water when applied to other devices or technologies originally designed for government or military use.

The M1 rifle was originally developed for military use. But many individuals use them for non-military use. Notably, I have a friend that prefers it for hunting and my father was an avid M1 target shooter. If somebody uses an M1 to commit a crime, should the manufacturer be sued? Or is it because sufficient time has passed since it was developed, manufactured, and sold, that they are no longer liable? What is an appropriate amount of time?

What about the M9? I suspect that many more people are killed each year by M9’s than by AR15’s. Why isn’t there a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of M9’s?

The development of spread spectrum radios received considerable funding and development by the government for espionage and military use. These radios have become nearly ubiquitous. So, if a spread spectrum radio (e.g. a variety of walkie-talkies and cell-phones) is used in the commission of a crime, shouldn’t the manufacturer be held liable for the use of military-grade technology?

I think that once the government authorized the sale of a particular item or technology to the general public, the responsibility is on the government, not the manufacturer. Perhaps they should be suing the Secretary of Defense instead.
 
What is the difference between gun makers and tobacco companies? If tobacco companies can be held responsible, why can’t gun makers? I’m not asking from a legal standpoint but from a logical standpoint.
The tobacco companies lied about the effect product had on the human body. Do you feel that the gun makers lied about what their product does?
 
You know, this assertion (by the plaintiffs) that since it was designed for the military use,
If that is their legal argument, it fails from the start. The firearm in question was designed for civilian use.

While their are external similarities to the military M-4, internally, they are significant design differences. Such differences are required by law for the firearm to be legally sold to the civilian market.

So, by definition, it was designed for the civilian market
 
Quote:
“The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the U.S. military to meet the needs of changing warfare,” Josh Koskoff of the law firm Koskoff, Koskoff & Beider in Bridgeport, Connecticut, said in a press release. “The weapon was not designed for home defense or hunting. This weapon was designed to efficiently kill other human beings in combat.”

…]

Not really, the M-16 was engineered for the US military. It was designed to meet a military requirement which prioritized reduction in costs, magazine capacity, standardization on a single round, and the ability to carry greater quantities of ammunition over lethality (ability to kill). The 5.56mm was significantly smaller and lighter than the 7.62mm (.300) round or the .30-06 it was intended to replace. It was significantly cheaper- so a significant savings due to quantities involved. Lighter and smaller meant an infantryman or unit could carry significantly more ammunition, easier/cheaper to transport in large quantities, and the magazines were initially intended to be disposable- i.e. come pre-loaded and then be discarded when empty. The M-16 is a machine gun and can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, initial M-16s were capable of full auto which was subsequently changed to limit them to burst fire (i.e 3 or 5 rounds vice firing until the magazine is empty), military found that with full auto vice burst fire machine guns troops were wasting much of their ammunition and going through it too quickly. This is why the M-16/M4 are assault rifles - medium caliber infantry rifles capable of select fire between either semi-auto or automatic fire.
The round itself is far more likely to wound than kill compared to the rounds it was replacing, some say this was intentional in that wounding an enemy diverts resources to attending them vice fighting. M-16s have not been available for sale to the US public since the 1986 ban on the sale of new production machine guns to the public.
In fact, the recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in the Army and USMC examining other caliber options with greater lethality than the 5.56mm, it has been criticized as inadequate by a number of the units during the past decade.

The AR-15 is designed for civilian use by both civilians and law enforcement, commonly chambered in .223 Remington (a lower pressure and slower round than the 5.56mm). The shortened version- often referred to as the M-4 (military) or M4gery is almost perfectly suited to home defense. Hence why SWAT teams and the police routinely use them when doing building entry and clearing. The high-speed and lightweight round, as others have said, fragments on hitting even drywall at close range and begins to lose energy rapidly on the other side of obstructions. Unlike many higher-caliber pistol rounds and buckshot which retain more energy for longer after barrier penetration. It may still be lethal after penetration but will be so for a shorter time/distance. Most have integrated rails allowing for the installation of accessories like ‘tactical lights’ which make operating the weapon AND IDENTIFYING A TARGET in the dark easier and more likely to occur-- less likely to shoot the boyfriend a daughter snuck into the house. The ability to attach a sling enables the user to gather his family, manipulate a cell phone etc without giving up control of the weapon. That is, having to set it down. Additionally, the weapon is easier to load or unload than a fixed magazine allowing one to store the weapon unloaded with a magazine nearby, vice storing loaded; as well as easier to safely unload and check clear after use. The standard capacity of 30 rounds is superior for home defense to a shotgun or other rifle in an incident involving multiple intruders- i.e. home invasions getting fairly common in the southwest United States. This is particularly beneficial to the homeowner, who unlike law enforcement will be far more likely to be alone without backup readily available.

A useful feature of the AR 15 is civilian can choose calibers other than the 5.56mm or .223 to address penetration/lethality concerns. For example, the .300 Blackout which is produced in both subsonic and supersonic variants.

Variants of the AR-15 modern sporting rifle are the most popular rifle sold and are routinely used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. The modular nature of the AR15 makes them particularly well suited to recreational shooting and hunting due to the ability change uppers, triggers, optics, stock and caliber. Flexibility to use one weapon for numerous purposes. As mentioned above, being able to change the upper from a .223, to a 300 Blackout makes these rifles well-suited to civilian use in a number of applications

The suit states that -]assault rifles /-] The weapon was not an assault rifle, it was not a military rifle, it was not selectable to automatic firelike Lanza’s were previously used in …

Depends on the type of body armor, again, the .223 or 5.56 are far less capable of penetrating body armor than the typical hunting rifle

The common thread in these spree shootings was their occurrence in a gun-free zone, a quality that all the other spree shootings, for example Virginia Tech, where the perpetrator used handguns. Note, at VT the perpetrator also used chains to lock the entrances significantly delay weapons other than his entering the area. Perhaps their suit would be better directed at the government and laws which are a more common factor in spree shootings than weapon choice
 
What is the difference between gun makers and tobacco companies? If tobacco companies can be held responsible, why can’t gun makers? I’m not asking from a legal standpoint but from a logical standpoint.
I don’t know, maybe because cigarettes aren’t used an estimated somewhere between 1 to 3 million times per year to defend people’s lives?

Perhaps because of the net cost benefit of gun ownership- the losses to life, property and productivity that are prevented?
 
I don’t know, maybe because cigarettes aren’t used an estimated somewhere between 1 to 3 million times per year to defend people’s lives?

Perhaps because of the net cost benefit of gun ownership- the losses to life, property and productivity that are prevented?
Pulled the below from Wikipedia on the tobacco lawsuits.

There is no epidemic with guns and the gun industry has not been deceptive, nor is the risk hidden. Everyone knows what happens when you pull the trigger, be it for hunting, self defense, or recreation shooting.

Tobacco has no connection to preserving our liberties as well.
The general theory of these lawsuits was that the cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems among the population, which in turn resulted in significant costs to the states’ public health systems. As Moore declared, “’[The] lawsuit is premised on a simple notion: you caused the health crisis; you pay for it.’”[7] The states alleged a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent practices by the tobacco companies over decades of sales.[8]
 
The lawsuit is BS and the tragedy that is being exploited here is the greed of the lawyers for these families KNOWING that there is no case on the merits. However, juries are not always exactly the smartest people either. I say this about lawyers because if these guns weren’t supposed to be used for the public, isn’t the fault really with Congress who MAKE THEM LEGAL TO THE PUBLIC?
 
This is a reflection of the “if it bleeds, it leads” attitude of the media. Incidents like Newtown get lots of press to the exclusion of other news and lead people to believe that gun murders are way up, when in fact, the opposite is true.
That is true about media, but we…as a public - we buy it. Look at your movies; those with a subject of spirituality or good moral teaching don’t draw very many viewers in the box office. In contrast to movies with extreme sex and violence that are typically our box office winners. I don’t believe that it is only secular audiences that are handing over their money to watch them.

It is hard for me to be convinced that gun violence is down. But, I am certain that I am the wrong demographics. I never felt the need to have a weapon, I live in a neighborhood where I go for a walk after dinner, leave my doors & windows opens and I have never felt intimidated. But I am aware that is not the case with everyone and I don’t have to drive very far to discover proof.

However, I think gun owners are giving themselves a false sense of protection. I understand if you like it for some kind of recreational use, but defense, protection, I don’t think so…
 
If they have no uses for defense and protection, then why do police carry them?
Or the military. I’m sure the 82nd Airborne will be surprised to find that their rifles are giving them a false sense of protection.
 
Seems like a frivolous lawsuit begging to be thrown out. A weapon made for civilian use is not any safer than those originally designed for the military. They are all designed to kill.
 
The new US Surgeon General is an advocate of gun control. Will he try to make gun ownership a health issue? Already many primary care physicians ask patients if they own guns. I recommend simply saying ‘no’ if a physician ever asked you this. Gun ownership is not a health issue.
Just adding this…gun control advocates are getting more savvy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top