Good news.

Yep, and now they have experience!

 

That’s not the alternative. That’s just what we accept. Prison/societal reforms are the only meaningful way to reduce violent crime.
Violent crime, outside of crimes of passion, is committed by those seeking a thing they feel they can not attain in any other way. Address that and we have our solution.

 

Except for the fact that such is not the case. No firearm, regardless of type or construction, poses any sort of risk to anyone unless it is being directly used by someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the well being of others. Otherwise it is no more dangerous than a piece of furniture.

 

Are all firearms equally capable of being used to kill?

If so, then all firearms are equally lethal to one another. It does not matter what the number killed is, unless one is willing to argue murder should not be a crime if only one person is killed.

 

Motor vehicles are designed to be safe for the operator within them. They are not designed to be safe for those who are outside of the motor vehicle and who can be plowed into in a deliberate fashion.

Thus firearms are just as safe as motor vehicles.

 

Casualty production rate is most certainly a determining factor in determining a weapon’s lethality. It’s why the military uses light machine guys on the flanks of a patrol formation.

 

Which would ultimately mean the assumption on the part of the member Lee Atwater is factually incorrect. In truth, societies do not have a right to take measures against public health hazards of all kinds.

 

"Casualty production rate" pertains to what the operator is willing to do, rather than the implement used. An individual can use an AR-15 for committing only a single murder instead of thirty, thus demonstrating it is operator intent that is the determining factor.

 

Fair point and a good argument. I don’t have a rebuttal.

 

Freedom ain’t for everyone. Evidently neither is common sense.

 

Perhaps it is ultimately for the best that the suit is allowed forward. The burden of proof necessary for the Remington company to be held responsible will be significant, and if the plaintiffs lose the case they will be held financially liable for paying the court costs incurred by the defendants.

Once news of such a development reaches the mainstream media, it will prove far more difficult to convince anyone to put themselves at risk by bringing frivolous suits against firearm manufacturers.

 

A weapon’s potential for lethality isn’t determined by operator intent. Caliber, powder load, and fire rate are. I’d rather be shot with a .22 LR over a .223 NATO round; or once over three times. Are you saying an operator of a bolt action rifle could shoot more than 20 people in less than ten seconds if he intended to?

 

Rifles are always more deadly than handguns. That is a simple fact of basic physics.

Such would indeed be done quite easily if the operator knew what target to select to achieve the greatest destruction.

An operator of a motor vehicle murdered eighty six individuals and seriously injured four hundred and eighty six others in the span of less than five minutes. All of this despite, as many have pointed out, motor vehicles are not designed or intended to be used for killing others.

 

Gee, that's what I want my children's legacy to be: "my child died to take away constitutionally protected rights from Americans."

 

They have been charging bartenders for years, for what people do after they leave the bar. Ford got sued because the Pintos blew up whenever they were stopped at intersections and rear ended by a van.

 

It is odd that you are blaming your political rivals, when what is happening is right in line with Libertarian ideology. In Libertarian ideology, there are no regulations, yet if one is wronged, one can sue to correct the behavior of companies. If a company keeps getting sued due to the ill effects of its product, market forces would force the company to make changes.

 

How do you correct the behavior of companies? don't manufacture guns? Don't make cars? The example you gave about the pintos makes sense but the rest seems strange (I believe you), but just saying. I can even see the bartender example, because they are supposed to cut people off if they are too lit (I still think thats unfair though)...I don't get the gun thing though, because by that logic, you could sue knife companies depending on what knife someone used to do a stabbing. And why do I blame political rivals? because they are the ones that want to regulate everything to the point of rediculousness

 

I have never heard of a bank robber slipping the teller a note that said, "Give me the money or I'll ram my car into your building".

 

The company is not being sued because of "the ill effect of its product". The basis of the suit is that Remington advertised its product in a way that "caused" Adam Lanza to commit his crime. It's the last angle they have.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is not at odds here. The question is, "Did Remington advertisement actually cause the murder"?
The Connecticut Supreme Court noted that proving this causal effect "may prove to be a herculean task".
They must prove the advertising encourages illegal or negligent misuse of the firearm, and that Lanza saw and was influenced by the advertisement.
Since the rifle was locked in a gun safe and required Lanza to murder his mother to steal it, that's going to be a long hard road.
Adam Lanza murdered those kids, not Remington.

 

Your early claim was that all firearms are equally lethal. Do you no longer believe that?
What bolt action rifle are you familiar with that’s capable of such a feat?
I’ve not mentioned motor vehicles in any of my posts. What makes you think they’re relevant to this conversation?

 

crappy news from a dumb ass judge

 

Faulty product is not the issue and manufacturer did not sell the gun to the guy.

 

What law(s) did Remington break? Did Remington force Lanza to buy their weapon and use it to kill innocent people?

 

If memory serves, this is not the first time an arms manufacturer has been sued to no effect. My sympathies to the victims. Terrible tragedy.

 

And it wold also be less useful. But people don't buy objects because they are useless. They buy them because they expect to use them for the purpose they were designed. In the case of furniture, to sit on (or lay objects on). In the case of the AR-15,to kill people. Or, as the manufacturer explains it "for use in assaults against human beings."