Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

301
Banjo Lovers Online


Families of Sandy Hook victims can sue Remington

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

 New Topic  Topic Locked

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (8) 

Mar 15, 2019 - 4:55:58 PM
likes this
532 posts since 11/17/2018

Could become a turning point on how firearms are marketed in the U.S.

npr.org/2019/03/14/703439924/l...e-forward

Mar 15, 2019 - 6:02:08 PM
like this

dfwest

USA

533 posts since 7/24/2006

I am in complete sympathy with the victims of the tragedy. And yes - we do need to take significant action to control gun violence in the US. However, can we hold a manufacturer responsible for the misconduct of someone who purchases that manufacturers product? How about if someone buys a Chevy, drives drunk, and then kills someone? Should Chevrolet be held liable? I don't know how to get us out of this pickle, but I don't think this is it.

I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

Dave

Mar 15, 2019 - 6:25:59 PM
like this

1918 posts since 4/5/2006

Actually we got out of that pickle by passing that law protecting the firearms industry against frivolous lawsuits. Then some low level judge got in the way. So now they can sue. No guarantees of winning though. If they do win, you can bet it will be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS.

IMHO: they are barking up the wrong tree. The suit should be against the perpetrator. But he has no money so they go after anyone who does.

Edited by - monstertone on 03/15/2019 18:29:13

Mar 15, 2019 - 8:06:09 PM
likes this

8853 posts since 8/22/2006

Can I sue Apple and other cellphone manufacturers  for making a product that has killed more people in 2013 than Remington?

Edited by - 5B-Ranch on 03/15/2019 20:08:38

Mar 15, 2019 - 8:50:05 PM
like this
Players Union Member

Tommy5

USA

3298 posts since 2/22/2009

The law suit isn’t about the weapon exactly but that the company violated a state law by marketing a military style weapon to civilians. Tne court narrowly overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit couldn’t continue because of a federal law thst prohibits lawsuits against weapon manufacturers. Tne ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case, just the argument over whether the federal or state law is applicable in this case.
Regardless of the decision by a lower court, this case could eventually end up in tne Supreme Court. Even if a state or the feds passed a law thst allowed victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers or even individuals for damage their guns inflicted ,I suspect thst would also end up in the Supreme Court,hence the importance of getting judges on the supreme court that agree with your ideology one way or the other.

Mar 16, 2019 - 6:03:33 AM
likes this

1077 posts since 1/31/2011

quote:
Originally posted by 5B-Ranch

Can I sue Apple and other cellphone manufacturers  for making a product that has killed more people in 2013 than Remington?


I'll bite. 

How did Apple products kill more people than Remington commercial,  personal and defense products?  I'm really interested to know how you know which weapons killed what people in what battle field across the globe or a street corner in Chicago.

Or for that matter what phone or computer was used to kill someone.

Mar 16, 2019 - 6:21:17 AM
likes this

8853 posts since 8/22/2006

edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/c...tics.html

Just one of several articles about cellphones and distractive Driving.
Both products,guns and cellphones are devices that one must make a decision to use. Both are hand held the only difference is the cellphones I.E. distracted driving takes lives one or two at a time were as the deaths from gun use can be multiple. Like airplane crashes few seems to get upset as much with a small plane crashes versus a commercial aircraft.

Mar 16, 2019 - 6:33:33 AM
like this

68956 posts since 5/9/2007

Time for the gun lobby to lose strength,imo.

Mar 16, 2019 - 6:48:27 AM
like this

8853 posts since 8/22/2006

Time for all lobbies to lose strength IMO but this statement may lead to a political argument so mods if it comes close to that threshold I apologize.

Mar 16, 2019 - 6:51:09 AM
like this

68956 posts since 5/9/2007

I call it a business argument.

Mar 16, 2019 - 7:19:49 AM
like this

mbuk06

England

7429 posts since 10/5/2006

quote:
Originally posted by 5B-Ranch

edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/c...tics.html

Just one of several articles about cellphones and distractive Driving.
Both products,guns and cellphones are devices that one must make a decision to use. Both are hand held the only difference is the cellphones I.E. distracted driving takes lives one or two at a time were as the deaths from gun use can be multiple. Like airplane crashes few seems to get upset as much with a small plane crashes versus a commercial aircraft.


As a non-American it is noticeable how the entrenched, partisan debate causes people on both 'sides' to use the existence of other destructive behaviours as an argument for not acting at all. That is entirely irrational and flawed.

A Sandy Hook parent has an equal right to enforcing responsibility from Remington as does the parent of a child killed by a cell-phone distracted driver. They both have a right to justice and civil law on their side.

There are no 'sides' - only equal access to justice for innocent victims.

Edited by - mbuk06 on 03/16/2019 07:23:12

Mar 16, 2019 - 7:41:13 AM
likes this

chuckv97

Canada

40040 posts since 10/5/2013

Quote : “getting judges on the supreme court that agree with your ideology one way or the other.” Supreme Court judges with ideologies ?!.... tell me it ain’t so.

Mar 16, 2019 - 8:12:59 AM
like this

1083 posts since 2/10/2013

Assault rifles serve one purpose. If someone wants to use one, just enlist in the army or marines. They aren't used for rifle competition, are not a sporting weapon. For home defense police recommend shotguns.

I am not pro or anti gun. I liked to target shoot a rifle or pistol. But the legal sale of assault rifles or devices that converts standard weapons to assault rifles is the problem.

I don't think that decision will hold up in court. As a previous post remarked, can a car manufacturer be sued when a car causes fatalities ? That is just one example of inconsistencies defense lawyers will "bring up".

Mar 16, 2019 - 8:30:01 AM

Owen

Canada

3411 posts since 6/5/2011

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Hauser
<snip>  ...the legal sale of assault rifles or devices that converts standard weapons to assault rifles is the problem.    <snip>

...or a part of the "problem" .... the legal niceties don't materialize out of thin air.

Mar 16, 2019 - 9:24:42 AM
like this

68956 posts since 5/9/2007

We didn't used to be able to have the same weapons as our police or military.
That seemed a good way to go because it had the "automatic" power of discouraging bad guys from shooting it out against their more advanced weaponry.
This isn't like freedom of speech.It's about looking out for everyone's best interest and safety.

There's safety in the criminal's knowledge of being out-gunned.Incentive to behave.People that buy armor piercing rounds should be locked up,imo.

No civilian should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon,in my other opinion.
Semi-auto,5 shot max and no riding around with a loaded weapon was how I grew up with guns.
Worked good for me and all my friends for many lifetimes.

I'm not at war with anyone.That's not my job.

Edited by - steve davis on 03/16/2019 09:25:50

Mar 16, 2019 - 9:36:19 AM

8487 posts since 2/22/2007

Steve posted---"We didn't used to be able to have the same weapons as our police or military.---"

Well, part of the problem is that at the time of our Constitution there was no such distinction. In fact, most weapons were privately owned, including the weapons of mass destruction available at the time, which was a warship with cannon that could destroy a coastal town with impunity. These were almost all privately owned.

And by the way, I tend to agree with you on limitations on civilian firepower. I was just pointing out how we got here.

Mar 16, 2019 - 9:53:38 AM
likes this

68956 posts since 5/9/2007

Guns were basically the same at the time of the revolution.As the advances were made many things were kept from civilians.
I don't think Gattling guns were for sale in the local hardware store,back in the day.
When I was in the Army from '72 to '75 it was illegal to rig a civilian AR 15 with the auto-fire detent pin.
This pin was,however available on the black market for $400.

Joining the military would satisfy those big gun types,but they would also have to take orders.That's not as easy as it sounds.That's good because someone needs to be in command over those that wield those arms.

Mar 16, 2019 - 10:44:57 AM
like this

1918 posts since 4/5/2006

During the revolution, the American "Kentucky long rifle" having a riffled barrel was state of the art & far superior to the smooth bore British Brown Bess.

I could be wrong but to my knowledge, there are no restrictions on civilian ownership of a Gatling Gun.

The selective fire M-16 used by the military, is classified as a fully automatic sub machine gun. As such, the same restrictions apply to civilian ownership as any other fully automatic weapon. I doubt it was ever available for civilian ownership over the counter. Although doing so was a felony, in the early days it was possible to convert an AR-15 to a selective fire M-16 by simply dropping in a black market trigger assembly.That is no longer possible. Even by extensive machining, the M-16 trigger assembly cannot be made to function in an AR-15. 

"Assault weapon" an ambiguous term loosely applied to anything the user wants it to be, & It keeps changing.   

Edited by - monstertone on 03/16/2019 10:46:52

Mar 16, 2019 - 11:00:15 AM

Mooooo

USA

6681 posts since 8/20/2016

Sure guns are the same today as in the Revolution. People have gotten a lot quicker at loading the gun powder then the lead musket ball into the barrel along with the paper from the cartridge, then push the rammer in the barrel to pack it. "Let me introduce you to my little friend.....hold on...almost ready.....hmmm.......ok...cock the firing pin....ready, aim, fire!"

Edited by - Mooooo on 03/16/2019 11:01:24

Mar 16, 2019 - 11:27:38 AM
Players Union Member

Tommy5

USA

3298 posts since 2/22/2009

quote:
Originally posted by monstertone

During the revolution, the American "Kentucky long rifle" having a riffled barrel was state of the art & far superior to the smooth bore British Brown Bess.

I could be wrong but to my knowledge, there are no restrictions on civilian ownership of a Gatling Gun.

The selective fire M-16 used by the military, is classified as a fully automatic sub machine gun. As such, the same restrictions apply to civilian ownership as any other fully automatic weapon. I doubt it was ever available for civilian ownership over the counter. Although doing so was a felony, in the early days it was possible to convert an AR-15 to a selective fire M-16 by simply dropping in a black market trigger assembly.That is no longer possible. Even by extensive machining, the M-16 trigger assembly cannot be made to function in an AR-15. 

"Assault weapon" an ambiguous term loosely applied to anything the user wants it to be, & It keeps changing.   


The rifles were much more accurate then the smooth bore muskets like the Brown Bess, But the muskets were much faster to reload , the British infantry like all infantry at the time fought in mass formations, . Rate of fire was the  key as the infantry line served as a gigantic shot gun firing into mass targets not individuals. The key factor is the defense of the colonies and later US was in tne hands of state militias thst were composed of citizens that brought their own weapons to the battlefield, most of the battles were against native Americans and slavery revolts. If the federal government banned firearms,it would have the effect of dis arming state militias,hence the second amendment. Nothing I said is even political or debatable just historical facts,

Mar 16, 2019 - 11:37:44 AM
like this

68956 posts since 5/9/2007

Any decision that saves lives is what I want.

Mar 16, 2019 - 12:09:47 PM
like this

76 posts since 3/25/2016

@ Richard Hauser: Sorry, Mr. Hauser, but you are incompletely informed in several areas. "Assault rifle" is a political term with meaning(s) dependent upon the bias of the user; similar to saying that "black rifles are dangerous." The repeating Springfield rifle of the early 1860s was itself an assault rifle, as used by the Union (and later by southern) forces. The lever-action Henry (and later Winchester evolutions) are other examples still in wide sporting use. The modern AR rifle represents additional engineering, but the "repeating" concept is not unique. "Machine guns" (fully automatic weapons) remain highly restricted and require extra scrutiny, licensing and taxes, and conversion of consumer weapons to fully automatic fire is highly illegal. Law enforcement recommends shotguns because most potential users are incompletely trained in their use. Joe Biden actually recommended a double-barrel shotgun for keeping bad guys off the porch! As @Tommy5 notes, these are simply facts.

You are further incorrect in claiming there are no competitive uses for such military-style, magazine-fed rifles; such uses include service-rifle, long-range, and high-power target competitions and so-called three-gun competitions that also employ handguns and shotguns, again for shooting at targets. And AR-type rifles are one of the most popular choices for wild-hog hunting, as well as for some types of varmint hunting. Just to be clear, I do not own nor currently aspire to own an AR-type rifle.

The problem is behavior, as well as mental health, sadly both tough nuts to crack.

Mar 16, 2019 - 12:45:46 PM

donc

Canada

5816 posts since 2/9/2010

What if I invented a laser pistol that would fit in my pocket and destroy a whole building in one shot ? The authors of the constitution knew of one basic technology and it was quite primitive compared with today's weapons. That weapon I've suggested could be within 100 years of the automatic weapons we have today. What would the founding fathers predict if they were able look ahead and foresee the weaponry in 2019 ? My guess would be that their legislation would have had common sense adjustment factors to protect the future generations from owning or carrying weapons of wide excessive destruction.

Mar 16, 2019 - 12:47:30 PM

8584 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by banjo5280

@ Richard Hauser: Sorry, Mr. Hauser, but you are incompletely informed in several areas. "Assault rifle" is a political term with meaning(s) dependent upon the bias of the user; similar to saying that "black rifles are dangerous." The repeating Springfield rifle of the early 1860s was itself an assault rifle, as used by the Union (and later by southern) forces. The lever-action Henry (and later Winchester evolutions) are other examples still in wide sporting use. The modern AR rifle represents additional engineering, but the "repeating" concept is not unique. "Machine guns" (fully automatic weapons) remain highly restricted and require extra scrutiny, licensing and taxes, and conversion of consumer weapons to fully automatic fire is highly illegal. Law enforcement recommends shotguns because most potential users are incompletely trained in their use. Joe Biden actually recommended a double-barrel shotgun for keeping bad guys off the porch! As @Tommy5 notes, these are simply facts.

You are further incorrect in claiming there are no competitive uses for such military-style, magazine-fed rifles; such uses include service-rifle, long-range, and high-power target competitions and so-called three-gun competitions that also employ handguns and shotguns, again for shooting at targets. And AR-type rifles are one of the most popular choices for wild-hog hunting, as well as for some types of varmint hunting. Just to be clear, I do not own nor currently aspire to own an AR-type rifle.

The problem is behavior, as well as mental health, sadly both tough nuts to crack.


Clay, you are absolutely correct on all points.  I don't mind anyone having a different opinion of mine regarding rifles and handguns, but it is always good to have the terms correct so that you will understand what the other side is talking about.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard a news person (sometime called a journalist) or politicians refer to semi automatic rifles as automatic.  Having grown up around guns and having them around my entire life, they are just not something I ever think of until someone starts a thread on them.  Otherwise they just don't enter my mind.  I don't feel the need nor have I ever really thought about carrying one.

Mar 16, 2019 - 1:31:26 PM
like this
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

5233 posts since 6/30/2015

quote:
Originally posted by steve davis

Time for the gun lobby to lose strength,imo.


100,000,000+ lawful gun owners in the U.S.  All of them old enough to vote.  Good luck with your utopian dreams Steve.

Time for the criminal lobby to lose strength.  If current laws were enforced violent crime would drop like a stone.

Mar 16, 2019 - 1:40:10 PM
likes this

2353 posts since 7/28/2015

What law is it that you view as being uninforced, such that it enables violent crime? Also,  the number of gun owners is less than 100 million as less than 1 in 4 households own a gun.

Edited by - prooftheory on 03/16/2019 13:43:18

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (8) 

 New Topic  Topic Locked

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.765625