Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

[moon]

You like these T-shirts ?

 

[Konono]

No.

What was your point then?

 

[The Dude]

Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

In a sane country, yes.

The guns used in this crime were constructed for the purpose of killing. They were not bookends, paperweights or ballast. Their only purpose was to kill.

The notion that they were only intended to scare does not run as they only scare because they were constructed in order to kill.

So the manufacturer produced the guns knowing what their purpose was and took no action to prevent them being used for that purpose. The courts of a sane country would hold that manufacturer accountable.

I like your take a lot
We are a nation of gun nuts

 

[Konono]

Can Sandy Hook Families Hold the Gun Industry Accountable?

In a sane country, yes.

The guns used in this crime were constructed for the purpose of killing. They were not bookends, paperweights or ballast. Their only purpose was to kill.

The notion that they were only intended to scare does not run as they only scare because they were constructed in order to kill.

So the manufacturer produced the guns knowing what their purpose was and took no action to prevent them being used for that purpose. The courts of a sane country would hold that manufacturer accountable.

What country allows them to be liable for the acts of murderers?

Do you believe that alcohol companies should be liable for DUIs or drinking related deaths?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I guess I never read any of the owners manuals all the way; because I never saw the part that said we were required to point the barrel at other people.
All the ones I've read seemed to say that we should never point the weapon at anyone, even if we think it's empty.

 

[moon]

What country allows them to be liable for the acts of murderers?

Do you believe that alcohol companies should be liable for DUIs or drinking related deaths?

Chalk and cheese really, Konono. Alcoholic drinks are manufactured for pleasure whereas lethal weapons are manufactured to be lethal. People might die from alcohol-related reasons, sure, but that not what it's for. Guns manufactured to kill have just the one purpose- and that is the manufacturer's intent.

 

[Abatis]

I guess I never read any of the owners manuals all the way; because I never saw the part that said we were required to point the barrel at other people.
All the ones I've read seemed to say that we should never point the weapon at anyone, even if we think it's empty.

True dat.

Only in loony-leftie-land can a mechanism that functioned exactly as engineered and without defect, be deemed defective and grounds for a liability lawsuit.

The only thing that was defective and ultimately liable for the deaths of innocents that day, was the brain controlling the finger on the trigger.

 

[Konono]

Chalk and cheese really, Konono. Alcoholic drinks are manufactured for pleasure whereas lethal weapons are manufactured to be lethal. People might die from alcohol-related reasons, sure, but that not what it's for. Guns manufactured to kill have just the one purpose- and that is the manufacturer's intent.

What country allows them to be liable for the acts of murderers?

Why didn't you answer this question? Because you know that no other country has this law and thus your claim of a sane country is hilarious.

As to gun manufacturers, if you really want to go after a manufacturer who designs the 'kill', go after bullet makers. You are basically trying to the sue the NTSB over freeways instead of a faulty car.

Your argument is specious at best and stupid at worst. Guns are not solely designed to kill people. They are an inherently dangerous product and have warnings that comport with the law. There are background checks etc. We have millions of guns that never 'kill' a person, yet, you would hold the entire industry responsible for the acts of what, 1% of gun owners or illegal gun holders who commit an illegal act. Carry your thought process through and you could set a trend that allows anyone to sue any manufacturer for the criminal acts of a third party. What about hunting knives? Do you want to go after those manufacturers as well? Heck, what about bow manufacturers? Sword manufacturers?

 

[moon]

Why didn't you answer this question? Because you know that no other country has this law and thus your claim of a sane country is hilarious.

It actually quite appalling that governments protect their arms manufacturers to the detriment of their populations. That has to change- in order for sanity to emerge.

As to gun manufacturers, if you really want to go after a manufacturer who designs the 'kill', go after bullet makers.

They're one and the same

Your argument is specious at best and stupid at worst.

Bandying Internet cliches isn't going to do your weak arguments any favors.

Guns are not solely designed to kill people.

We've already covered that. Why don't you read the thread before presenting your own guff as original.

They are an inherently dangerous product and have warnings that comport with the law. There are background checks etc. We have millions of guns that never 'kill' a person, yet, you would hold the entire industry responsible for the acts of what, 1% of gun owners or illegal gun holders who commit an illegal act. Carry your thought process through and you could set a trend that allows anyone to sue any manufacturer for the criminal acts of a third party. What about hunting knives? Do you want to go after those manufacturers as well?

See my previous comment, above.

 

[Konono]

It actually quite appalling that governments protect their arms manufacturers to the detriment of their populations. That has to change- in order for sanity to emerge.

So no government in the world hold's a gun maker responsible for the criminal act of the buyer or third party. And you think you're sane. Fascinating.

They're one and the same

Prove it.

Bandying Internet cliches isn't going to do your weak arguments any favors.

You think that is a cliche? Guess you've been told it too many times and believe it to be just a 'cliche'. Oh, it can't be you, it must be everyone else.

We've already covered that. Why don't you read the thread before presenting your own guff as original.

Yet, you keep insisting the guns are designed solely to kill people. If you admit they are not, then you have lost your argument.

See my previous comment, above.

You have made dozens of comments and you simply refer me to some comment? Learn to cite.

 

[moon]

criminal[/B] act of the buyer or third party. And you think you're sane. Fascinating.




Prove it.





You think that is a cliche? Guess you've been told it too many times and believe it to be just a 'cliche'. Oh, it can't be you, it must be everyone else.





Yet, you keep insisting the guns are designed solely to kill people. If you admit they are not, then you have lost your argument.




You have made dozens of comments and you simply refer me to some comment? Learn to cite.

You're more of a boring twat than I thought.

 

[Konono]

You're more of a boring twat than I thought.

I accept your surrender.

 

[moon]

You'll accept anything , evidently.

Tell me what you think of the neoZionist army T-shirt;

 

[Legion Troll]

What was your point then?

Already axed and answered.

The fact is that since the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act went into effect, it's been nearly impossible to sue a gun manufacturer.

How come you didn't know that?

 

[moon]

Hillary Plays Gun Card Against Bernie, But The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Is Sound

In their fervor to stop gun violence, the activists think they’d like to drive gun makers out of business through suits claiming that they are liable whenever a deranged person uses one of their products to kill innocent people. The obstacle to that was and remains the common law principle that the producer or seller of any product is not liable for deliberate misuse of that product.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...l-commerce-in-arms-act-is-sound/#47b1ffa765a3

No, it is not ' sound ' . Killing with a gun specifically designed to kill is not an 'misuse ' of that weapon. It is an obedience to its purpose and the manufacturer's intent.

 

[CFM]

No, it is not ' sound ' . Killing with a gun specifically designed to kill is not an 'misuse ' of that weapon. It is an obedience to its purpose and the manufacturer's intent.

Are you still spouting that nonsense raghead?

 

[Konono]

No, it is not ' sound ' . Killing with a gun specifically designed to kill is not an 'misuse ' of that weapon. It is an obedience to its purpose and the manufacturer's intent.

Are the guns designed to murder? Are you saying that all killings are unjustified?

 

[Konono]

Already axed and answered.

The fact is that since the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act went into effect, it's been nearly impossible to sue a gun manufacturer.

How come you didn't know that?

It has? Did you read the law that said they could still be sued except only for unforeseeable murder? All manufacturers enjoy that protection.

Why aren't you smarter?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are the guns designed to murder? Are you saying that all killings are unjustified?

They just won't accept the fact that a gun is designed to propel a projectile out of the front of its barrel and that a gun can't kill anything.
It would make as much sense as blaming the bow, because someone was shot with an arrow.

 

[Legion Troll]

Did you read the law that said they could still be sued except only for unforeseeable murder? All manufacturers enjoy that protection.

Cite.