Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker

[Leo2014]

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.

I have to disagree with you. I know gun owners and they fall under the same demographics of any other groups. Yes, you have your responsible adults but you also have your individuals that I would much rather stay away. Of course, you have those that make the media…I just noticed on MSN some person in Georgia had his gun go off accidently and killed a bystander. There are just all kinds.

I already admitted that we cannot take all the weapons off the street. Culturally, we just have a fixation with weapons. But I do not believe having more guns would make us safer. Look at high crime areas, I am certain each one of those households own a weapon (legal or not). But, obviously crime is still ramped. No, guns are not their only problem, but they contribute greatly to the issues that their communities encounters.

I can only speak from my experiences. I don’t own a gun, never had the need for one. Yes, I have been in countries were guns were everywhere. I also been in neighborhoods were I suspected that it would not be hard to find a gun. Honestly, those areas just made me more intimidated almost like walking through a mine field. Having a gun in those situations would have just provided me a false sense of security.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

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.

A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets

foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/

 

[pnewton]

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

I didn’t get that either. I thought the pantywaist remark was backwards. If we are going to measure wussiness like kids on a playground, who really is the weak one, the one who needs a gun to feel safe or the one who can handle himself without one?

Oh, and the whole North-South thing, I have always thought of it as Texas and not-Texas parts of America.

 

[pnewton]

I feel so sorry for these families…

My empathy for these families diminished when I read about this lawsuit. The ones responsible for our current laws are our legislators, and the people who elect them. Yet legislators are immune from prosecution for the laws they enact. This suit is unjust. Those who seek justice for wrongs should not seek to wrong others.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

My empathy for these families diminished when I read about this lawsuit. The ones responsible for our current laws are our legislators, and the people who elect them. Yet legislators are immune from prosecution for the laws they enact. This suit is unjust. Those who seek justice for wrongs should not seek to wrong others.

My empathy isn’t diminished at all. Grief, can make the most sane person say or do things they wouldn’t normally do. What they went through, no parent should ever have. Parents shouldn’t have to bury their <7 year old kids.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I didn’t get that either. I thought the pantywaist remark was backwards. If we are going to measure wussiness like kids on a playground, who really is the weak one, the one who needs a gun to feel safe or the one who can handle himself without one?

Oh, and the whole North-South thing, I have always thought of it as Texas and not-Texas parts of America.

Call my a pantywaist, I can’t carry a firearm in my jurisdiction but I probably would if I could, even though I live in a great neighborhood. It’s like any other form of insurance or protective equipment (I live in a two story house and do have portable fire escape ladder since there’s only one set of stairs- make of it what you will), you don’t ever want to have to use it. I do not want to have a fire to see how well my smoke detectors, extinguishers and ladder work in a real incident. I’d rather not have the incident.

Again, call me a pantywaist because I avoid fights, I refuse to escalate confrontations into physical violence and will walk away- I guess if that makes me a wuss or coward in your eyes- so be it. No matter how well prepared you think you are to ‘handle yourself’ you are only one side of the equation. You are not a mind reader, you never know how far the other person is willing to take it. Or how well prepared they-- and the buddies they have which you don’t see-- are. (An acquaintance got cold cocked from behind by a crowbar/pipe/bat? (didn’t see what it was- he woke up 3 days later in a hospital bed) squaring off against some smaller guy he’d happened to spill a drink on at a crowded party. My acquaintance was 6’2 and about 240 of almost solid muscle and really wasn’t scared. He could handle himself. He’s now a police officer by the way.)

My father grew up in a very rough neighborhood and he taught me that if I got in a fight- he would accept my killing the other person. Because in any physical fight, no matter what your intention, you can kill a person, you can strike a single blow which is lethal. And again, no matter your intention you are not a mind reader and have no idea how far the other person is willing to take it. My father expected me to stay out of fights unless the stakes were worth my life, and then act accordingly to defend myself or others. There are no winners or losers in those situations, just those that survived and those that didn’t.

Call me a coward, I don’t care. My career in the Navy underscored my Dad’s point to me. The fact that a fight isn’t a matter of fairness, that many people aren’t civilized and will in fact mob you and stomp on your head while you’re on the ground vice ceasing once you’re disabled or unconscious. There is nothing admirable about choosing to make yourself more vulnerable- it will grant you no sympathy, no mercy, no quarter from many of the folks who seek to do evil. It simply gives them an advantage they will be more than happy to exploit.

Again, if I fit your definition of a coward or a pantywaist- so be it.

• First rule to a fight is- you never lose the fight you avoid.
• Never engage in a fight if it isn’t worth your life.

But if I am pushed to the point of defending my life, I will do whatever it takes and feel no remorse over the actions I am forced to take. I will feel no obligation to give my attackers an even break or a ‘fair fight’.

 

[PeteZ28]

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.

What is even worse is that these families are being exploited to push an agenda. I have no doubt they have voices buzzing in their ears day in and day out from people with selfish interests in mind. Lawyers, politicians, etc. Every one of them willing to feed the misery of these families for their own benefit.

 

[ucfengr]

My apologies for the “pantywaist” remark. It was not intended to be taken personally.

I didn’t get that either. I thought the pantywaist remark was backwards. If we are going to measure wussiness like kids on a playground, who really is the weak one, the one who needs a gun to feel safe or the one who can handle himself without one?

Yeah, if Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces where “real men” they wouldn’t need guns.

 

[Crossbones]

Yeah, if Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces where “real men” they wouldn’t need guns.

Cause that’s the same thing.

 

[pnewton]

Call my a pantywaist,
Again, if I fit your definition of a coward or a pantywaist- so be it.

I didn’t. You might want to read back over the remarks with a discerning eye, if you really though I called anyone names.

Yeah, if Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces where “real men” they wouldn’t need guns.

As a rule, most do not need guns in their private live. I sure wouldn’t want to mess with them unarmed.

 

[ucfengr]

Cause that’s the same thing.

Which is it, are guns a useful tool for self defense or are they phallic symbols for inadequate men, because they can’t be both? And what about women? Are they compensating too, or are they taking rational means to address the physical disparities between them and the men who would do them harm? It can’t be both.

 

[pnewton]

Which is it, are guns a useful tool for self defense or are they phallic symbols for inadequate men, because they can’t be both?.. It can’t be both.

Why not? Why can they not be a useful tool for some jobs and some people and a dangerous overcompensation for others?

 

[rfournier103]

I sympathize with the families that lost loved ones at the hands of the man who committed this atrocity; but how in the world can the MANUFACTURER of the weapons used be in ANY WAY held responsible???

This is the way that I see it…

The shooter is dead. He cannot be punished in any way. He cannot be sued or incarcerated. The families have no recourse against anyone and feel like SOMEBODY has to pay.

That’s where suing the gun manufacturer comes in.

They (the gun manufacturers) have money; and with a sympathetic judge and jury will be forced to pay out massive damages to the families.

As I said, I feel terrible for the families; but it is completely asinine to hold the people who MADE the guns liable for their misuse. Do we sue breweries and distilleries for drunk driving deaths? Do we sue supermarkets and restaurants for deaths related to obesity?

Unbelievable.

 

[ucfengr]

Why not? Why can they not be a useful tool for some jobs and some people and a dangerous overcompensation for others?

Which jobs?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

But what is so great about noting a lack of correlation in this instance, unless it also says something about causation? You just acknowledged that the decrease in crime may be caused by other factors. Therefore we still have the possibility that crime might have decreased even more if guns were reduced, in addition to whatever other factors were responsible for the reduction in crime.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets

Naturally Second Amendment advocates would like to make the case that more guns means safer streets. But just because this logical fallacy is quoted by foxnews, that does not make it any less of a fallacy.

 

[pnewton]

Which jobs?

Well, as said earlier, a woman (or man) who is in need of protection, a person defending country or community.

On the other hand, a person can choose to carry a gun just to make themselves more powerful and dangerous. This could result in someone choosing to “stand their ground” when a retreat would keep someone alive.

 

[Suudy]

On the other hand, a person can choose to carry a gun just to make themselves more powerful and dangerous. This could result in someone choosing to “stand their ground” when a retreat would keep someone alive.

This attitude of avoiding retreat is exactly the opposite of what is taught in training courses. The use of deadly force really is the last resort. In fact, the training courses I’ve attended make it very, very clear that unless you are willing to risk losing your home, your fortune, your freedom, your family, etc, that weapon shouldn’t even leave its holster, and perhaps you shouldn’t even have a weapon.

 

[Crossbones]

This attitude of avoiding retreat is exactly the opposite of what is taught in training courses. The use of deadly force really is the last resort. In fact, the training courses I’ve attended make it very, very clear that unless you are willing to risk losing your home, your fortune, your freedom, your family, etc, that weapon shouldn’t even leave its holster, and perhaps you shouldn’t even have a weapon.

That may be what trained, but then you take a George Zimmerman, and, no matter what you think of the case, I think this is pretty clearly a man who saw himself as the righteous protector of his neighborhood and would have never gotten out of his car if he wasn’t armed.

Big picture here: let’s not forget that the legal gunowner of the weapons used in the Newtown massacre herself was killed by her own weapons because she did not properly secure them.

This whole idea that everyone can be trained properly to use these weapons is just plain wrong.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I didn’t. You might want to read back over the remarks with a discerning eye, if you really though I called anyone names.

As a rule, most do not need guns in their private live. I sure wouldn’t want to mess with them unarmed.

Actually, since I count Navy Seals among my acquaintances, the ones I know prefer not to be unarmed, but they would prefer their opponents are. They choose to have the best chance of survival in a conflict, it isn’t a matter of need, it is a matter of preparation. No one knows what they might ‘need’ for the future, the best one can do is prepare for the worst case-- which includes trying to keep it from occurring. They choose to operate to minimize they need for a weapon, but, again of the ones I have known, they choose to have the best weapon possible just in case the need arises. Or as Admiral Halsey said (referring to an old Louisiana gambler’s adage) Never give a sucker an even break.