Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

[styrgwillidar]

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.

Quote:
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]

Well, the other problem with tobacco is they couldn’t argue the most salient point regarding cost to the health care system- smokers tend to die younger and cost much less over their lifetimes than non-smokers. Its the medical care in your elderly years that really adds up.

If they argued that, they’d be admitting to their product killing folks at younger ages than they otherwise would have lived to.

 

[Leo2014]

If they have no uses for defense and protection, then why do police carry them?

You misunderstood my statement; I said Gun owners have a false sense of security.

I am certain that most of them do not have much combat training or been in particular situation that merit using a weapon. Besides, you are making the huge assumption that you have the advantage. What if the gunman enter a building from behind you and started firing randomly?

There is also the assumption that you are in some kind of physical condition to handle the stress and activity. I am not picturing a Draw like in the old West where two cowboys stand at opposite sides. Besides, I don’t think most of you would be up to this type of scenario either. But what if you needed to tuck under something and quickly move away on your knees?

Most people over the age of forty are on some kind of medication, don’t exercise, overweight and need the aid of glasses. Unfortunately, these people are no match for someone younger and with a gun. Especially when encountered under a surprise attack.

Besides, are you always carrying a gun? I am certain that if law enforcement encountered you with a gun at a large public gathering, they would find you just as much a concern. Definitely, they would not want your help and would find you more of a liability.

I think we have just watch too many movies were our hero is wronged and seeks revenge. There is anger in each of us when we feel helpless, especially in a dramatic situation. But the odds are that you will not aid the situation but simply be another body bag.

 

[PeteZ28]

Waste of taxpayer dollars…

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Sad that the families are still harboring so much anger, they need to grant forgiveness in their hearts so they can find peace and move forward. This business about suing the gun maker just shows me they are harboring anger and resentment, and two years on still feel that making someone else suffer will somehow ease their pain.

 

[PeteZ28]

But the odds are that you will not aid the situation but simply be another body bag.

With several million concealed carry permit holders in the USA, and 4 states requiring no permit to carry a concealed weapon, and a nearly 30 year history of loose right to carry laws in the USA, there should be an encyclopedia full of cases if your claim was true.

Alas, that is the claim that has been made by groups opposing concealed carry for 30 years, and it has been proven untrue time and time again. If there have been cases, they have been very few and far between, and not statistically relevant. There have been far more cases of a concealed carry holder preventing a crime than intensifying one. Violent crime in the USA is at a 40 year low. Despite the cries in the media, mass shootings are no more or less common than they ever were. And one were committed or intensified by the actions of a CCW permit holder. Quite the contrary, a good guy with a gun has ended more than a few.

Where has violent crime been the highest, and in many cases increasing? Inner cities with restrictive gun laws. Chicago, D.C., etc.

The truth is, all of the claims about how concealed carry would lead to increases in crime and/or gun violence have been proven patently untrue.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Waste of taxpayer dollars…

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Sad that the families are still harboring so much anger, they need to grant forgiveness in their hearts so they can find peace and move forward. This business about suing the gun maker just shows me they are harboring anger and resentment, and two years on still feel that making someone else suffer will somehow ease their pain.

I tend to agree with you, it is always difficult to come to grips with these random acts of violence and try and find reason, something to blame in addition to the perpetrator. Why my child/spouse/parent have this happen to them?

It’s cynically exploited by folks, for example those who pushed through the gun control laws while admitting those laws wouldn’t have prevented the incidents which were cited as the justification. We have to do something!

I think the law you cited will preclude the families winning- however, the company’s insurance company will make a business decision on whether it’s cheaper to pay or to go through the lengthy process of fighting it in court. If it were left to the business vice the insurance company, they’d also have to figure in the consequences of publicity on their company’s image and bottom line. From a legal standpoint it’s very similar to trying to sue a car manufacturer because someone chose to use their vehicle to plow into a crowd.

 

[ucfengr]

You misunderstood my statement; I said Gun owners have a false sense of security.

So, a police officer only has a false sense of security if he owns the gun he’s using. If it’s government issued, they’re good.

I am certain that most of them do not have much combat training or been in particular situation that merit using a weapon.

Most military and police don’t have much combat training. In the military, most soldiers qualify on their weapons yearly by shooting at some paper targets. Not very realistic at all.

Besides, you are making the huge assumption that you have the advantage. What if the gunman enter a building from behind you and started firing randomly?

I’m not sure how useful hypothetical situations are. There are always situations in which a particular tool is less useful, that’s not an argument for not carrying one.

There is also the assumption that you are in some kind of physical condition to handle the stress and activity. I am not picturing a Draw like in the old West where two cowboys stand at opposite sides. Besides, I don’t think most of you would be up to this type of scenario either. But what if you needed to tuck under something and quickly move away on your knees?

A firearm gives someone in poor condition a chance to defend themselves against physically stronger opponents. There’s a reason for the saying “God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal”.

Most people over the age of forty are on some kind of medication, don’t exercise, overweight and need the aid of glasses. Unfortunately, these people are no match for someone younger and with a gun. Especially when encountered under a surprise attack.

Being old, overweight, and armed is going to give you a better chance against a young physically fit person that being old, overweight, and unarmed. And seriously, over forty?

Besides, are you always carrying a gun? I am certain that if law enforcement encountered you with a gun at a large public gathering, they would find you just as much a concern. Definitely, they would not want your help and would find you more of a liability.

Maybe in your pantywaist Yankee states they might be concerned, but in the South, law enforcement would think nothing of it.

I think we have just watch too many movies were our hero is wronged and seeks revenge. There is anger in each of us when we feel helpless, especially in a dramatic situation. But the odds are that you will not aid the situation but simply be another body bag.

That opinion is not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence argues against you. Crime rates are down and crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders are almost non-existent.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Going nowhere, I hope. Sop to those who want to restrict our rights. And will use these incidents against those of us who see them for what they are. It’s no coincidence that the worst shootings have almost exclusively taken place in “gun-free” zones. The shooters intentionally select them in order to inflict the maximum carnage before responding officers can get there.

Violent crime is down across the country, not up. The worst violent crime in this country is in cities with the strongest anti-gun ownership laws. Like Chicago and Washington, DC, for instance.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Things that routinely happen which don’t make the national news-

charlotteobserver.com/2014/12/17/5390011/teen-arrested-in-east-mecklenburg.html#.VJNFMcmIZ7i

A boy’s unarmed father was shot to death when he was eight. Did the boy learn from that incident that guns are evil? Thankfully no

So when two ~20 year old men broke in he shot them. Only he and his 73 year old grandmother were present. Note, not only was the kid 14 he was also suffering from bronchitis. And his 73 year old grandmother was recovering from hip surgery. Do you think they could have taken on the criminals without a firearm? A firearm with a sufficient number of rounds for multiple assailants?

 

[gracepoole]

Maybe in your pantywaist Yankee states they might be concerned, but in the South, law enforcement would think nothing of it.

Did you really just use the word “pantywaist”? So those in “Yankee states” are effeminate and those in the South are more masculine?

 

[ucfengr]

Did you really just use the word “pantywaist”? So those in “Yankee states” are effeminate and those in the South are more masculine?

Do we really want this thread to digress into a discussion about Yankee men and their preference for sitting while urinating?

 

[gracepoole]

Do we really want this thread to digress into a discussion about Yankee men and their preference for sitting while urinating?

No, we wouldn’t want that. After all, it would likely then derail into a discussion about bubbas and banjos.

 

[Brendan]

You misunderstood my statement; I said Gun owners have a false sense of security.

Either the gun is useful for protection and defense or it is not.

I am certain that most of them do not have much combat training or been in particular situation that merit using a weapon.

Neither do most police actually. The amount of range time needed to graduate from a police academy is actually quite small.

Our local PD uses my gun club’s range for their training and yearly qualifications. They are there FAR less than most of our members.

Now that said, the officers could be members at other ranges, and do shooting on their own, but that then is not any different from what a civilian gun owner can do.

Besides, you are making the huge assumption that you have the advantage. What if the gunman enter a building from behind you and started firing randomly?

The same could be true for a police officer. Either way, a person with a gun on them would STILL be in a more advantageous position that one without.

There is also the assumption that you are in some kind of physical condition to handle the stress and activity.

What else would you suppose a person do? Hand to hand combat? Is that less physically stressful?

I am not picturing a Draw like in the old West where two cowboys stand at opposite sides. Besides, I don’t think most of you would be up to this type of scenario either. But what if you needed to tuck under something and quickly move away on your knees?

That is what waistbands are for, and what do you think a police officer would do in such a situation?

Most people over the age of forty are on some kind of medication, don’t exercise, overweight and need the aid of glasses. Unfortunately, these people are no match for someone younger and with a gun. Especially when encountered under a surprise attack

.

Which is why they carry guns, because it helps even the odds, so to speak. Do you think that the unarmed 40 year old is in a better position to take on an armed 20-something?

Besides, are you always carrying a gun? I am certain that if law enforcement encountered you with a gun at a large public gathering, they would find you just as much a concern. Definitely, they would not want your help and would find you more of a liability.

I

think we have just watch too many movies were our hero is wronged and seeks revenge

.

Nope, I think most active gun owners have a very realistic knowledge of what can, and cannot be done with a firearm. Far more than most non gun owners,. who DO get their only knowledge of firearms from the media

.

But the odds are that you will not aid the situation but simply be another body bag.

Perhaps, just like there are police officers who don’t make it home from an encounter with a bad guy. But they still carry guns anyway, mostly because it improves the chances that they WILL make it home.

 

[ucfengr]

No, we wouldn’t want that. After all, it would likely then derail into a discussion about bubbas and banjos.

And shootin’ irons. Don’t forget shootin’ irons.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The worst violent crime in this country is in cities with the strongest anti-gun ownership laws. Like Chicago and Washington, DC, for instance.

It is tempting to conclude from this statistic that gun control laws cause higher crime rates, or that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates. However that would be conflating causation with correlation. Here is an equally plausible explanation of this statistic that shows the stated conclusions may not be true.

Some cities, because of economic or demographic reasons, have a higher crime rate than others. In those cities, in an effort to combat the higher crime rate, gun control laws are enacted. Perhaps they slightly reduce the crime rate, or perhaps they leave it unaffected. So even with a reduced crime rate, these cities are still statistically worse than other cities, even after gun control laws go into effect. On the other hand, small towns in rural areas with a more uniform demographic and more community self-awareness, having no big problem with crime, do not have any incentive to enact gun control laws, and so they don’t. The lack of gun control laws was not the reason crime is low. Quite the opposite. Gun control laws are absent because there was little crime.

Now I cannot prove my explanation is the correct one for this statistic, but neither can it be proven that the causation assumed in the first instance is the correct one.

 

[Path_Finder]

We should not spill the blood of innocents to push a point, no deaths are acceptable but the wild eyed unbalanced kid who shoots up some movie theater or school is still, a drop in the bucket of total murders in the USA. I don’t want to trivialize these awful events or the death of one innocent individual but if one wants to really lower the murder rate, I’d look elsewhere.

Most of the shooters including Lanza were known about. Why didn’t the mental health system work? And that is a loaded issue in itself along with video games, etc.

 

[Dawnia]

It is tempting to conclude from this statistic that gun control laws cause higher crime rates, or that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates. However that would be conflating causation with correlation. Here is an equally plausible explanation of this statistic that shows the stated conclusions may not be true.

Some cities, because of economic or demographic reasons, have a higher crime rate than others. In those cities, in an effort to combat the higher crime rate, gun control laws are enacted. Perhaps they slightly reduce the crime rate, or perhaps they leave it unaffected. So even with a reduced crime rate, these cities are still statistically worse than other cities, even after gun control laws go into effect. On the other hand, small towns in rural areas with a more uniform demographic and more community self-awareness, having no big problem with crime, do not have any incentive to enact gun control laws, and so they don’t. The lack of gun control laws was not the reason crime is low. Quite the opposite. Gun control laws are absent because there was little crime.

Now I cannot prove my explanation is the correct one for this statistic, but neither can it be proven that the causation assumed in the first instance is the correct one.

Or it could be that criminals don’t care either way. The only ones who care about laws are law abiding citizens.

 

[styrgwillidar]

It is tempting to conclude from this statistic that gun control laws cause higher crime rates, or that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates. However that would be conflating causation with correlation. Here is an equally plausible explanation of this statistic that shows the stated conclusions may not be true.

Some cities, because of economic or demographic reasons, have a higher crime rate than others. In those cities, in an effort to combat the higher crime rate, gun control laws are enacted. Perhaps they slightly reduce the crime rate, or perhaps they leave it unaffected. So even with a reduced crime rate, these cities are still statistically worse than other cities, even after gun control laws go into effect. On the other hand, small towns in rural areas with a more uniform demographic and more community self-awareness, having no big problem with crime, do not have any incentive to enact gun control laws, and so they don’t. The lack of gun control laws was not the reason crime is low. Quite the opposite. Gun control laws are absent because there was little crime.

Now I cannot prove my explanation is the correct one for this statistic, but neither can it be proven that the causation assumed in the first instance is the correct one.

Are you familiar with Don Kates, a civil rights lawyer who became interested in trying to get to ground truth on crime and gun use in the US, he noted existing studies on both sides were fundamentally flawed and biased. Or Kleck, a criminologist? They’ve both made the same argument you have put forward, at least in their early work back in the 80’s. Not sure if they’re of the same opinion now, that is, have been able to find sufficient information to isolate the gun control ownership to crime rates.

However, since the crime rates in the US have markedly declined as gun ownership has greatly increased, we can at least say that there is not a correlation between increased gun ownership and crime while acknowledging that the decrease in crime may be related to other factors, not the increase in guns.

something by Kates back in '90.
catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html

 

[livingwordunity]

Isn’t this like blaming the car manufacturer when someone gets drunk and kills people with the vehicle?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Isn’t this like blaming the car manufacturer when someone gets drunk and kills people with the vehicle?

I would say it would be more like suing the manufacturer when a person with mental issues deliberately runs someone down with their vehicle.

 

[Orogeny]

I find the idea of blaming the gun manufacturer silly and the case should not progress in the court system.

However.

I can’t imagine the grief of losing a child the way these people did. I actually understand them making an effort to understand such a tragedy and, when some lawyer comes along and blames the gun maker, they agree. Their lawsuit is misguided, but I blame the lawyers rather than the parents.

Peace

Tim