And stupidity ensues

[~Rocktar~]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fam...rer/ar-BBgPJXT

The families of the Newtown shooting are suing the manufacturer and possibly the seller of the weapon used. Here is one plaintiff's reasoning:

Bill Sherlach, whose wife, Mary, was killed in the shooting, said he believes in the Second Amendment but also that the gun industry needs to be held to "standard business practices" when it comes to assuming the risk for producing, making and selling a product.

"These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it," he said.

So, under that logic, if my child is carrying a light bulb and slips and falls on it, then the manufacturer should be responsible? Or, better yet, they have a hammer and accidentally hit their finger while learning to use it, I should sue? What if they use the hammer to defend themselves from a home invasion, can the assailant sue the hammer maker? This kind of seriously flawed and emotionally childish reasoning is not acceptable and the suit should be tossed out as a waste of time. Should a car manufacturer be sued for selling a sports car to a person that has not taken a performance driving class?

This was a tragic case of a fucked up mother refusing to see her child was messed up and needed medical attention and likely a facility, she doctor shopped, moved, lied and did all kinds of things to "protect" her fucked up child from getting decent medical care. Then this jacked up woman purchased firearms and obviously didn't have them secured from her mentally fucked up kid and he went on a shooting spree. People want someone to blame, that's OK, however they don't want to place personal responsibility on people and they want someone to pay up. Specifically lawyers want someone to pay them and that someone is now corporate America.

There is no evidence the weapon used malfunctioned, there is no evidence that the store involved didn't follow the law and there is no one to blame but the fucked up guy who's fucked up mom overprotected for his whole life.

[Gelston]

Unless it was a manufacturing defect that caused death/injury... I don't see how they can hold the manufacturer liable... Unless they were directly selling the weapons to people who shouldn't have them under applicable laws.

Although it appears the company has settled out of court before, so there is that.

[crb]

He is correct that the population doesn't understand the power of it. He is wrong in which direction their misunderstanding lies. I wouldn't use a .223 to shoot a deer.

AR-15's are popular because they're tacticool, they're barbies for boys with tons of accessories, the ammo is relatively cheap and they're low recoil and easy to shoot. There are tons of legal guns no one ever talks about banning that are far more powerful. Your average 12 gauge fill with buckshot for instance.

Case will be dismissed.

edit: In fact, I think anyone who says AR-15s need to be banned needs to take a trip to a rifle range. Let them shoot an AR-15, then let them shoot a 12 gauge. Then ask them which one they'd rather get shot by. Plus watching people shoot a shotgun for the first time is just funny. "Oh this gun isn't all black with those scary looking militaristic attachments, this gun looks like a gun a grandpa would carry around... this won't be that powerful..."

The whole world should be happy Adam Lanza didn't have an SRM 1216 or something.

[~Rocktar~]

The problem is, in a lot of corporate boardrooms, they are more worried about bad press (freely given by the Liberal-Socialist media) than they are about the truth or principles. In the DC Sniper case the seller and manufacturer quietly agreed to shell out 2.5 million to victims which sets a horrible precedent. I am not sure if the purchase was 100% legal as it has been stated that it was in the Newtown case.

[crb]

The problem is, in a lot of corporate boardrooms, they are more worried about bad press (freely given by the Liberal-Socialist media) than they are about the truth or principles. In the DC Sniper case the seller and manufacturer quietly agreed to shell out 2.5 million to victims which sets a horrible precedent. I am not sure if the purchase was 100% legal as it has been stated that it was in the Newtown case.

Agreed. Settling is like feeding a seagull at the beach, always a bad idea.

[Latrinsorm]

So, under that logic, if my child is carrying a light bulb and slips and falls on it, then the manufacturer should be responsible? Or, better yet, they have a hammer and accidentally hit their finger while learning to use it, I should sue? What if they use the hammer to defend themselves from a home invasion, can the assailant sue the hammer maker? This kind of seriously flawed and emotionally childish reasoning is not acceptable and the suit should be tossed out as a waste of time. Should a car manufacturer be sued for selling a sports car to a person that has not taken a performance driving class?

Failure to warn is an established avenue of product liability. Whether it applies to firearms in this specific case, I can't tell you, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction if you find this stupid.

[Tenlaar]

Failure to warn is an established avenue of product liability.

*Warning: Product Not Intended For Mass Murder

[~Rocktar~]

Failure to warn is an established avenue of product liability. Whether it applies to firearms in this specific case, I can't tell you, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction if you find this stupid.

I find something here stupid, that's for sure.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Failure to warn is an established avenue of product liability. Whether it applies to firearms in this specific case, I can't tell you, but you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction if you find this stupid.

I miss lawn darts.

[Ker_Thwap]

I miss lawn darts.

http://www.retroland.com/click-clack...rs-kerbangers/