Judge dismisses Sandy Hook families' lawsuit against gun maker

[dd614]

You can argue that self-loding rifle only reale use is murder spring, a hunter do not need a self-loding rifle, a competition shooter do not need a self-loding rifle, they can use a bolt action rifle, and peopel who need a self defence wepon can use pistols.

But there are predicate, very small pistols was forbidden becuse there only real use was assination (murder)

But as long as the wepon was legal at the time and the gun maker did only sell to authorized buyer it stupid to blame the gun maker.

No, you can't logically argue such a rifle's only purpose is for "a murder spree". That's totally ridiculous.

[Rhinopotamus]

Yeah, lots of people for gun control believe that Sandy Hook ''was a konspiracy to steal my guns'' SURE.

Yeah... I know two at my work... They don't own guns, but still think it was a conspiracy to try and take people's guns... I mean you can deny that all you want doesn't change the fact that they exist.

- - - Updated - - -

You can argue that self-loding rifle only reale use is murder spring, a hunter do not need a self-loding rifle, a competition shooter do not need a self-loding rifle, they can use a bolt action rifle, and peopel who need a self defence wepon can use pistols.

But there are predicate, very small pistols was forbidden becuse there only real use was assination (murder)

But as long as the wepon was legal at the time and the gun maker did only sell to authorized buyer it stupid to blame the gun maker.

It can also be used to defend your own country from a tyrannical government... like our founding fathers intended.

[enragedgorilla]

I am glad the court got this one right , this time.
I hope in the future it stays this way.

Not just for firearms, for other manufacturers as well who make products that if misused can or will cause harm/death/maiming .

[Dovashy]

No, you can't logically argue such a rifle's only purpose is for "a murder spree". That's totally ridiculous.

You're only half right, and yes...you totally can. While a rifles purpose isn't simply for a "murder spree", as you say...a gun only exists to injure or kill. It's their intended design, and that is their only function. Defending oneself with a gun by shooting another is still harming or killing those who may be trying to do harm to you, so I'll never understand the craze behind people rallying behind to protect such weapons.

[sarahtasher]

Yeah... I know two at my work... They don't own guns, but still think it was a conspiracy to try and take people's guns... I mean you can deny that all you want doesn't change the fact that they exist.

- - - Updated - - -



It can also be used to defend your own country from a tyrannical government... like our founding fathers intended.

Such an argument helps so much people to appear grounded and normal.

[josykay]

No, you can't logically argue such a rifle's only purpose is for "a murder spree". That's totally ridiculous.

True, but is certainly not a hunting rifle. It is a gun, so the owners can feel badass, because it looks like a military rifle. There is no need for that.
And while I do think, the lawsuit was rightfully dismissed, there are some things relating to Sandy Hook leaving a very bad taste:

First of all, despite having an obviously mentally ill child, Adam's mother didn't use any gun security tools like a safe, trigger locks or anything. Or even better she should not have those guns in the first place. IMO security measures should be mandatory, to prevent mentally ill, children old people and untrained people in general, having access to that stuff.

Secondly she did bring him to shooting training. Why? And why are gun lane owners not caring what kind of people are using their proverty?

[Orbitus]

You mean like the people who thought Brexit would go through? Ohhh... and look it did. It defied all odds, the media, the stats, and it still passed. Damn.

There were polls on both sides well within the margin of error and the voting showed it was right around where the polling was. But right now, Trump is literally losing almost every fucking swing state well outside the margin of error. Sorry to say, unless something drastic happens, Trump is losing this election. The real question is, by how much? Also, why does Brexit matter? Why do people keep trying to make this shitty excuse to try to help their argument?

- - - Updated - - -

Also I find it hypocritical and a half-assed cop out when the same people who say that 9/11 was an inside thing, call the people calling Sandy Hook a hoax, morons? Like wow, 10/10 level hypocrisy. Good job, shoulda seen that coming from the far left though.

Funny, I don't see "far-left" people calling either inside jobs or hoaxes. I see a lot of people of the right that say both are hoaxes that watch Alex Jones. Coincidence that they are ignorant of the truth and think that Trump is going to win? Nope. If they believe anything that Alex Jones says, they are morons/retarded.

[Deleted]

No, you can't logically argue such a rifle's only purpose is for "a murder spree". That's totally ridiculous.

I did say you can argue, (new) fully automatic wepons are not allow in US for this reason, so it's not impossible to do the same interpretation of self-loading wepons.

I did only say you can argue, I am not a crusader who want to ban self-loading wepons.

- - - Updated - - -

It can also be used to defend your own country from a tyrannical government... like our founding fathers intended.

is that not a moot point becuse civilians in US cant have (new) automatic wepons.

[Kellhound]

You're only half right, and yes...you totally can. While a rifles purpose isn't simply for a "murder spree", as you say...a gun only exists to injure or kill. It's their intended design, and that is their only function. Defending oneself with a gun by shooting another is still harming or killing those who may be trying to do harm to you, so I'll never understand the craze behind people rallying behind to protect such weapons.

The purpose of a firearm is to propel a bullet in a controlled and predictable manner, no more no less.

- - - Updated - - -

I did say you can argue, (new) fully automatic wepons are not allow in US for this reason, so it's not impossible to do the same interpretation of self-loading wepons.

I did only say you can argue, I am not a crusader who want to ban self-loading wepons.

- - - Updated - - -



is that not a moot point becuse civilians in US cant have (new) automatic wepons.

Its a lot harder to claim semi-auto rifles have no sporting purpose as compared to full-autos.

[TirielWoW]

I'm not sure how you could hold the gun manufacturer at fault in this case. The gun was bought perfectly legally, and no one - not the manufacturer, and not the gun dealer - had any reason to believe the gun would be misused, as the woman who actually purchased it - Lanza's mother - had no criminal record or history of erratic behavior.

She just had terrible, terrible judgement and allowed her unstable son to have access to her guns. But unless she told the gun dealer what she was doing, I don't see how the gun dealer could have known. Background checks don't cover things like a parent's stupidity.

[Svifnymr]

Also I find it hypocritical and a half-assed cop out when the same people who say that 9/11 was an inside thing, call the people calling Sandy Hook a hoax, morons? Like wow, 10/10 level hypocrisy. Good job, shoulda seen that coming from the far left though.

The logic is easy enough really. You see the news reporting things that you know are not the full truth, in some minor way, then you see them running some other story and someone points out the flaws with that. Soon, it's easy enough to believe that the news is full of outright lies and conspiracies.

Really, we've had some other threads where folks think reality is The Matrix, I'm sure there are folks in small towns that don't think Europe is real. I used to joke that Arizona wasn't real, they faked it on the moon.

The current news cycle is first-to-print/clickbait based, and the reaction to Sandy Hook was the usual string of half information. Since we're in the Age of Entitlement, people also think they are OWED an explanation for something that happened somewhere else that never affected them in the first place!

[McFuu]

No, you can't logically argue such a rifle's only purpose is for "a murder spree". That's totally ridiculous.

I'm "pro" gun I suppose, as in I'm currently acquiring them and I think others should own them too. But the sooner we get to the realization that guns' and knives' purpose is to be a weapon, therein they are an easier way to rend flesh from bone or in general killing. The healthier we will be as a country.

Just because you shoot deer or paper, or cut steak with something, doesn't mean that it stopped being the weapon it was originally intended to be.

[Putin-Chan]

You lose the right to call people wanting to sue gun manufacturers morons when your side scream with eyes bulging that the event did not occurred.

Why do you think that the entire right wing is comprised of racist, tinfoil-hat wearing, Flat-Earther, idiots who are on 4chan 24/7 posting racist pepe memes and speak like they are in a Twitch chat?

[sarahtasher]

Why do you think that the entire right wing is comprised of racist, tinfoil-hat wearing, Flat-Earther, idiots who are on 4chan 24/7 posting racist pepe memes and speak like they are in a Twitch chat?

You certainly have to be a very special kind of individual, and the pun is intended, to be a truther in general ans a Sandy Hook truther in particular.

[Belime]

Every fucking MMO-Champion off topic thread in a nutshell. Starts off with someone with actual news. Then someone HAS TO to involve Trump, calling anyone who is a republican stupid, and europeans telling Americans how they should live.

[caervek]

The scary thing about this story is it was actually the plot of an episode of Law and Order many years ago lol.

Sadly as Jack McCoy found out, in Murica gun manufacturers will never be held to account for what criminals do with their products, even when they are aimed at criminals.

[jimboa24]

The scary thing about this story is it was actually the plot of an episode of Law and Order many years ago lol.

Sadly as Jack McCoy found out, in Murica gun manufacturers will never be held to account for what criminals do with their products, even when they are aimed at criminals.

That's a can of worms. Might as well charge all auto manufacturers with manslaughter for every murder where a car was used as a weapon. Or all alcohol makers liable for those who suffer from alcoholism or any crimes committed while under the influence. Or charge everyone who's ever worked at a cigarette company with murder, or all knife makers for any stabbing-related deaths...and on and on it goes.

If you start charging manufacturers because their products were used or misused to hurt others, then no one is safe and everyone becomes criminally liable because they had some marginal connection to a crime.

[Kellhound]

The scary thing about this story is it was actually the plot of an episode of Law and Order many years ago lol.

Sadly as Jack McCoy found out, in Murica gun manufacturers will never be held to account for what criminals do with their products, even when they are aimed at criminals.

What firearms are aimed at criminals? Or are you talking about people using their legal firearms to target criminals?

[Totalturtle]

The gun maker didn't kill anyone, this was the right choice

[Mistame]

An ounce of hope to counter the buckets of batshit. A win is a win, right?