It's the lawyers that are suckering them into this.

Good to see that at least 7 of the parents still have some dignity and
honor not to fall for this bull shit.

This suit is a non-starter going nowhere.


Might as well sue automakers for deaths caused by drunk drivers.

and I thought I was cynical. Nevermind all those parents who, in light of Americas(!) apathy need some kind of closure. DO you even believe they were killed or do you believe it was a 'false flag' attack?

the attorneys described in the article probably have plenty of attention already, and probably plenty of bank. NObody is going to take on the manufacturers unless they actually believe gun shit is out of control

Anyone suffering an unjust loss would like to find a party to blame and punish them. Vigilantism is illegal.
Retaining an attorney and suing may in some cases may be motivated by the same spirit.


Now and then folks do something that improves the world but mostly they just get angry and rightly so. Megan Kanka’s parents, Maureen and Richard, got angry, wanted to die and had every reason to feel all of those things.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/parents-girl-inspired-megan-law-recall-tragedy-article-1.1881551

They found another way to deal with Megan's murder.


I don't have any ideas. I wish I did. That shooting was a terrible loss.

of those precious lives worth?

This is just a stunt. You can't put a dollar amount on anyone's life. Trying to do so just makes a mockery out of the very idea of justice.

Furthermore, no amount of money that the manufacturer's insurance ends up paying is going to hurt the gun manufacturer at all.

frivolous and I doubt it will go anywhere, lawyers trying to push a tragedy and make a buck

background checks every 3 seconds on the the big shopping day marketed as Black Friday. The bucks come from more gun sales after anytime anyone dares mention what should possibly be done to curtail our MTWTFSS Death problem in our awesome country.

You say frivolous because you want nothing done and blame lawyers when really it's a dozen parents who will grieve for the rest of their lives, reliving the horror of their kids having their limbs shot off.

Even when the parents try to do something/anything and here comes the same old shit talking points. Frivolous and blaming lawyers.


I blame the NRA, wing-gun-nuts and a violent nation bent on continuing our violent past. No solutions America - we can't do shit to save the thousands who get killed each and every year by guns because know it's all so fucking frivolous and many of you like it that way.

You know, the person actually responsible for those deaths.

Of course he did not do it, the rifle did it all by itself.

and a society that thinks giving kids guns is a good idea and could care less how many die each year by "rifles"

Can't contemplate shooting the arms of children off unless you have the guns, parents and bucks to do it.

"rifles". Rifles are the least used of firearms in crime.

It should be an individual decision and in a lot of cases children supervised handling firearms, even rifles can be very safe.

to achieve the same result - DEAD

Is it okay for police to do this or should they use other means when it comes to controlling protesters?

but the firearms in the photo are not rifles, but rather shotguns, the preferred self-defense tool recommended by Vice-President Biden.

In light of the officers other equipment and posture, as well as the orange-colored fore-end on the weapons, the shotguns are also almost definitively loaded with less-than-lethal munitions for the safety of the protesters and officers.

FYI, see http://policemarksman.com/2013/09/10/bullseye-the-less%E2%80%90lethal-shotgun/

who said it was?

"Of course he did not do it, the rifle did it all by itself."

No more and less than "of course the firearm had no relevance... the shooter did it with his bare hands.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

It cannot form intent. If I load a gun and stick it in my gun safe, it will stay there pretty much forever. It won't shoot anyone. Ever. It cannot make decisions. It cannot act on its own.

OTOH, a person with murderous intent can choose any number of tools to get the job done. You can arbitrarily decide where to draw the line at the efficiency of killing tools. But the line IS arbitrary, and if you do, you may well just wind up chasing that line as happened in Britain, where a man was put in JAIL for bringing a .22LR round he found in his garden to a police station. All in the name of public safety doncha know.

for our complicity in our policies that allows any nutcase to purchase hoards of guns.

We just let the killing continue - who's fault is that?

prove that statement or apologize. You are just plain wrong. They will not get anywhere with this because it was a legal AWB compliant rifle that was legally purchased and background check was completed upon purchase. The rifle was stolen from the legal owner when the criminal son killed his mother.

I am all for universal background checks. As you know this was done in this case. Connecticut also continued the AWB as state law when the federal law expired.

So what should be the reason for going after the manufacturer? They are not liable for crimes committed with a product just as a car manufacturer is not liable for damages done by a stolen vehicle used in a criminal act.

Very revealing.

While we're at it, let's sue Ford too!

they have never been sued for not having a design feature that was not required by state or federal law.

That is the issue here - the gun manufacturer has not only not broken any laws but their rifle complied with one of the most stringent AWBs in the country.

the state of CT decided that an AR-15 absent certain cosmetic features was not an "assault weapon".

for all the talk about military style weapons, strip away all the plastic furniture and all you have is a semiautomatic rifle. Semiautomatic rifles are very old technology that have been available to civilians for nearly a century.

Caliber of bullet and rate of fire are all that matters when talking about lethality. There is nothing unique about military style rifles that allow a bright line to be drawn between military and civilian rifles. There are plenty of non-military rifles out there that are just as lethal as an AR-15.

We got to this point because of a deliberate choice by gun control advocates in the 1990s when they were pushing the first assault weapon ban. They decided to blur the lines between fully automatic military rifles and semiautomatic civilian models to create a moral panic and get the AWB passed. The AWB would then be the first step in getting stricter laws regulating handguns. But the law was so poorly written (because "assault weapon" was a made up term with no actual technical meaning) because they didn't want a blanket ban on all semiautomatic rifles (only the evil military ones). Since the only difference was cosmetic features, the ban was simply a list of banned cosmetic features. The gun manufacturers simply removed those features and kept on selling AR-15s.

And you should certainly be able to sue for a design flaw that makes an accidental shooting possible (as opposed to a negligent discharge). But the idea of blaming the maker of an inanimate object for a person's BEHAVIOR is ludicrous.

We already have too many guns, and too much violence in society today. When a company like this uses this in its advertising to promote killing, they should be held responsible for the repercussions of said advertising.

See my link in comment 16.

Don't think so. Beside a woman purchased and owned the rifle used at Sandy Hook

Because that's their biggest ad campaign in years, so if it's not that, then your buddy (the poster you commented on) is full of crap.

Stupid ads? Yup. Insensitive and misogynistic? Yuppers. Mass murder? Not so much.

Yep, sure kept her safe, by cracky!

No, they don't and if these parents are listening to these attorneys telling them that they can successfully sue Bushmaster for the criminal misuse of their product, then shame on those lawyers.

They ain't promoting peace on earth.

It's like the car commercials or the beer party commercials, or even the damn Viagra commercials with the sexy undulating woman. They don't say it outright. But the message is - buy this (car, booze, med) and you can fuck this girl! That's ALL any ads promote. Buy this and you'll fill-in-the-blank-here to alleviate your own inadequacy. You'll get laid, you'll get thin, you'll get rich, you'll get popular, you'll get girls, you'll get sex appeal, you'll get safe, you'll get security, YOU will be the alpha, etc etc etc. That's all ads do. My dad was a salesman. I learned it at his knee. That was ALWAYS the message. It's never just simplistic. There's always a loaded insinuation in there. It's never just about - buy this, just to buy it and shell out some money for it. There is always an ulterior message - buy this and you'll get ______ . Or you'll be ______ . There's always an implied cause-and-effect. Why do you think every calendar hanging in any mechanic's garage, promoting whatever tool or carburetor or spark plug - is loaded with sexy girls? There's a subliminal message. Buy this and you'll REALLY get that. Whatever the "that" is.

I'm certain Mom in that case thought she'd be reeeeeeeeaaaal safe, and reeeeeeeal badass if she had that Bushmaster. Nobody'll mess with MOI!!! Nobody will be the boss of ME!!!!

Unfortunately, when it's guns that are being advertised, what else is to be done with them but shooting someone? Guns, okay? Does one clean silver with them? Does one do laundry with them? Are they economical at the gas pump? Do you take one and your headache goes away? Or your arthritis? Well, maybe your erectile dysfunction, but that wouldn't apply to her anyway. Do they taste good - and make good gravy? Do you serve them with beef, poultry, or fish? Do they insure your car for less? Guns. Okay? They're designed to shoot, and damage or maim or disable or kill. They're not designed to fire confetti, okay? I once had them described to me by a gun store owner as "an attitude adjustment device." They're a weapon. An OFFENSIVE weapon. She probably felt they'd make her safe. For her, evidently, they were designed to shoot somebody. Presumably some imaginary boogie man. Hell, she LIVED with the boogie man! She birthed him and brought him up! And probably never dreamed that he'd ever be "that" bad. Naaah, s'not gonna happen.

How many times have I heard, coming out of cocky and self-satisfied and complacent mouths - "s'not gonna happen." And despite those rock-solid confident assurances to the contrary, it invariably DOES.

I use mine to hunt, kill predators attacking my livestock, target shooting, etc.

And if you think Bushmaster can be sued for the criminal misuse of their product, I leave you to read this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Like the vast majority of gun owners.

...stupid thing for her to do, wasn't it?

Maybe.
BTW, what do you consider an arsenal?

probably wasn't a good idea having those firearms in the house with a mentally troubled son.

but that has absolutely nothing to do with gun makers advertising.

I certainly don't own guns because of advertising.

...and not even bat an eye.

It only *offends* people that don't like guns, with prejudice.

And that particular demographic, among whos numbers you surely count yourself, is a tiny, ineffectual, sliver of the bigger pie.


In simpler terms, just to make sure you understand, stony, people that don't like guns with prejudice, the sort that are *OFFENDED* by that AD, are nowhere near being anything that could be accurately described as "mainstream".

The *mainstream* view of that ad, is this:

But I'd be happy to start a OP on the ad with a poll attached if you would like.

is not in any way indicative of what is considered mainstream in American culture, regardless of the issue.

Such a poll may be interesting and provoke discussion, but it most certainly is not remotely scientific or determinate of whether something is mainstream or not in the USA. Mainstream is not defined as that which agrees with a majority of voters on a poll on DU.

However, if you believe such a poll would be valuable, I encourage you to post. However, I would recommend it be posted in the GC & RKBA Sub-Forum to comply with DU rules concerning firearm posts in LBN and GD.

and they will get the results they so want.

This is a frivilous lawsuit that will never see the light of day.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Here's a link: http://bit.ly/1wN2Ifi
was it that hard?

since Bushmaster did not produce or endorse those private videos.

You are so reaching it is becoming crazy

they would have made people take them down.