There's no need to an average citizen to own weapons like that.

but there's still a lot of lawsuits as there should be in this case.

which is what happened at Sandy Hook.

then yes they should be held responsible for their crime.

to run pedestrians over and was legal to purchase, own, and drive why would we sue Toyota? The car functioned exactly as it was intended.

You could sue the driver though for running over pedestrians as that is against the law. Toyota didn't violate that law.

Now, if Toyota was not designed for such purposes and a failure in the Toyota caused those pedestrians to be run over then they are fair game for a suit.

owe my brain!@!!

to an auto mfg being sued for someone using a vehicle as a weapon.

I have been searching and cannot find one.

the criminal or negligent misuse of their product and the plaintiff winning?

I hate it when lawyers take advantage of grieving parents.

that the AR-15 isn't one. how?? fairly sure it's being used to assault someone. compared to say what happens when you may or may not be resisting arrest. they tend to charge you with assualting an officer , so it's assult if you use your bare hands but not when you use deadly ammo, although the only actual people who should be sued are ammo makers. since it's their ammo's that are designed to kill a certain way . not the actual gun. Hence hollow points

The phrase "assault weapon" is specifically chosen to confuse people into thinking of assault rifles, which are machine guns, and are never covered under any "assault weapon" legislation.

All ammo is deadly. The purpose of hollow point ammo is to dump all the energy into the target and not come out the other side thus being safer for the non-targets.

to buy them and protect them? The dang cosmetic stuff must fill some need for those into lethal weapons

My passion is my wife, kids, farm and animals, in that order, oh, and maintaining my rotary wing cert.

That results in shots that are more accurate. This is always a good thing.

There's a reason the Police use it, and it's not necessarily tied to the potential for increased lethality to the intended target. It's to prevent over-penetration, which is dangerous to people down-range.

Your use of 'assault' has absolutely no bearing on this issue. In the case of the squishy legislative, made-up term 'assault weapon', it's referring to more like 'assaulting a fixed position', not 'simple battery/assault' in legal terms.

it's a legalese attempt at a quasi-military reference not a legal reference.

but that would mean that there is a law restricting sales of these weapons to the public.

Is there such a law? Until there is, I think we are barking up the wrong tree.

We need to get some laws passed restricting the kinds of guns people can buy now!

Congress won't do it, so we need to take back congress NOW!

You seem unfamiliar with those laws.

How was Lanza's mother able to buy an AR-15?

She was not adjudicated ineligible by any court or medical evaluation.

And that is why the AR-15, a military weapon, should not be available for the public to purchase. At least in my view.

But then, I'd stop a lot of weapons from being sold if it were up to me.

YMMV

Further, most hunting rifles have far more powerful ammunition and many have longer and more illustrious military pedigrees.

Using the word "military," no less "military-style" or "assault weapon," means and infers absolutely nothing about the capabilities, history, or use of the rifle, other than implying it's a "scary black rifle" as a means of emotional persuasion. Those who champion the terms deceptively hope ignorance about firearms will lead to broader restrictions. Further, ALL rifles, not just AR-15's or semi-automatics, represent a tiny fraction of ALL firearm death, whether crime, accidents or suicide.

In any event, the particular rifle used at Sandy Hook was totally compliant with CT's "assault weapons" ban, and Lanza's mother was eligible to purchase the gun because she wasn't a felon, adjudicated a danger to herself or others, subject to a domestic restraining order, or any other remotely objective criteria that prevents firearm ownership.

and that is all it should have been used for.

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces.

Connecticut had an "assault weapons" ban, and Lanza's weapons were in full compliance. The was also a federal AWB that did precisely nothing. One of the reasons why these laws fail so miserably is because ALL rifles represent such a tiny minority of all firearm-related deaths, criminal and otherwise.

I assume you want is a ban on all semi-automatic rifles. First, note that the military does not use semi-auto rifles. Second, as tens of millions of these rifles are already in common, and non-criminal, use in the USA, such a ban would clearly violate Heller and McDonald. Third, in a country that refuses to implement UBC's, there is absolutely no support for anything close to such a ban.

Are you also really suggesting that "large capacity magazines" are effectively anything more than two cartridges? Wow.

Nevertheless, you are indeed entitled to your opinions (and have been far more courteous than many in discussing the issue), no matter their legal, political or practical impossibilities in the USA.

However, when Democrats claim they really do support an individual right to own firearms (as per our Democratic Platform) and don't want really want to ban guns when lobby for restrictions, posts like yours supporting banning millions of common firearms are often the proverbial "exhibit A" of why there will never be any compromise and how laws that might actually prevent crimes, unlike AWB's, will never even be seriously considered on a national level or by most states.

You are not changing my mind.

I've been shot at by idiotic target practice shooters, shooting while drinking. Not paying any attention to where their bullets were flying. Not even caring that someone might be in the vicinity.

I don't really give a shit if all guns are banned (well, actually, I do, because guns can be useful tools), but that's not what I'm hoping for. I am hoping that someday we have more sensible gun laws like Australia. And I wish that our police didn't carry guns, like the British, except for special ops teams.

I don't expect my personal idea of gun control laws to ever be passed in this crazy country.

only highlighting why your vision of gun control stands little chance of becoming a reality in the USA any time soon, a fact you appear to acknowledge. For good or ill, the USA is not Britain, Australia or anywhere else. We have our own unique history, culture and jurisprudence.

I would note, however, that the incidents you describe with the target shooters and drunks are already largely illegal. Similarly, even if your types of bans became law anywhere here, the collection of over 350+ million firearms from 80-100+ million currently lawful gun owners, to say nothing of the unknown number of illegal firearms, is the type of spark that starts civil wars.

if your types of bans became law anywhere here...is the type of spark that starts civil wars

battle rifle, it operates the same exact way as my semi auto .22, one trigger pull per round down range.

The AR platform is a great versatile weapon, my AR-10, chambered in .308, is a wonderful, accurate hunting rifle, I can switch out the upper receiver to accommodate the .223 round for predator control.

Is not a military weapon. It is a civilian version that looks like one but operates very differently. Kindly name a military that uses them please?

That's about how many of that model are out in the wild. Plus tens of millions more, that function the same, but look different, SCAR-L, FN-FAL, AK variants, AR-10, FS2000's, you name it. Any .223-.30 caliber rifle that is semi-auto and accepts a detachable magazine is indistinguishable from the AR-15 for the purposes of murder, like Sandy Hook.

The AR feature set 'looks' military, but it lacks key features (after 1986) that the military would require. At one point they were closer to interchangeable, but the 1986 GOPA bill changed all that. The AR can no longer readily accept M-16 parts, after 1986.

I own two. It has civilian uses. Period. And most semi-automatic rifles produced since WWII of any caliber would be just as devastating in that terrible use, so no, nothing specific about the AR-15 enabled it. You could do the same with a M1-Carbine, or whatever.

Legislatively, the only thing that can really be done here, is to limit the capacity of the magazines as the 1994 CAWB, and current laws in states like California have. No high-cap mags, harder to achieve that sort of devastation.

The lawsuit will and should be dismissed. Constraining these sorts of attacks in the future can happen legislatively, but legislatures have to actually.. do it.

spent $600 to have Sig Saure make his. My brother spend $1000 or so making a full metal version of the same gun and that one is an AR15 compared to the SS M400 which is almost all plastic crap. I'd trust the metal one for aiming correctly not the plastic crap. I've held both. the real AR-15 is easier to handle than the plastic SS

It's 'more real' to me. And float the barrel.

In fairness, the AR's plastic bits are non-load-bearing, but it still feels... wrong somehow.

for that position and thereafter reconcile it with the Second Amendment, particularly instances where killing is perfectly lawful such as hunting and self-defense.

I would also like for you explain the vast, vast majority of tens of millions of firearms owners who possess these and similar rifles who commit absolutely no crime, many of whom only shoot at paper targets.

Are their AR-15 type rifles defective?

Plaintiffs that file a bullshit lawsuit should take a moral and financial responsibility and pay all legal
costs incurred by the defendants in a case like this.

Sadly, unlike the plaintiffs in the Aurora shootings lawsuit, it probably won't happen with this one.

According to their own logic, they should sue the dealer.

They sold to Lanza's mother who had underwent a background check and absolutely no disqualifying conditions.

Adam Lanza only procured the firearms by killing his own mother, an act obviously already illegal.

But I guess they shouldn't be suing anyone, really.

That must be a surprise for the most widely sold civilian rifle today and to the millions of civilian AR-15 owners.