Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So let's all just keep shrugging our shoulders and accepting that mass shootings are a way of life in America. Oh well. We sure are exceptional!
That's always the liberal response when you can't ban guns. You've got a one track mind, if you can't push your agenda you take the position that no one cares or wants to stop the problem. Doesn't matter if your "solution" is ignorant and wouldn't do anything to solve the problem if people stop you they don't want to solve the problem.
Might as well sue Grey Goose after a drunk driver decided to rear end my car.
And I thought liberals were the more intelligent ones...
In this case since they went after the ammo company it's probably more like suing Exxon or Chevron for selling the drunk the gas to drive the car. Just as absurd. The liberal solution to solving drunk driving is probably to add a $20 / gallon gas tax so it's too expensive for drunks to drive, just like they keep trying to create ammo taxes to solve "gun violence".
They got bad legal advice. No gun shop/dealer should be held liable for what someone else does. The business did nothing illegal.
You gonna sue a swimming pool company if someone drowns in a pool ?
You gonna sue Ford, GM, Toyota because someone got hit by a car and died ?
Sad they got hit with such a big fine but that was the risk they took going forward.
And I think the fine should be huge to prevent future filings like this.
People sue swimming pool companies, car companies all the time and often win.
My old consulting firm we avoided casinos, gun makers etc as we could get hit in the splatter of their lawsuits.
On the other hand, why should I be penalized for keeping up my proficiency of a professional skill? Back in the days when ammo was cheap and plentiful, a month's need was around 400 rounds rifle and 1000 rounds pistol (now that it is not so cheap nor easy to get a hold of, I have severely cut back on training bouts, needs).
When I started marksmanship as a teen, I shot 30-40 rounds a day, 4 days a week, over 3 academic year. (JROTC ammo, I did not pay for it, at least not directly)
At my level, I am not expected to miss. Not only is that expectation, that "trust", a matter of personal pride, it is also something of a Damocles Sword. If I have to shoot, if rounds down range go anyplace but into the intended target (ie, person), I stand the great potential of going to jail, ESPECIALLY if they go into someone else.
I give these two examples to show that not every one who consumes thousands of rounds is the next mass murder shooter. Further, that is not about just me for in order for such companies to make a profit, there must be others as well.
So, once again, at least from my standpoint, why should these people be allowed to bring suffering against a honest buyer and the supplying company, two good tax paying components in the consumer economics system?
Unless they are saying that every one who buys such amounts of ammo has got to be the next mass murder shooter. In which case, it rather sounds like they were trying to use a lawsuit as a hate, well dislike, crime instrument.
Correct. As a competitive shooter and a firearms instructor, I shoot about 1000 rounds a month, maybe more. There are several thousand competition shooters that use at least this much ammo each month.
First off, I feel very sorry for these people and the grief they must be experiencing right now. That said, they are 100% in the wrong on this issue.
These people set out to make a political point and they lost. You can't sue companies for not following a law that doesn't exist.
If we can sue gun manufacturers for the actions of third party criminals, then why shouldn't we be allowed to sue Ford when a drunk uses their product to kill someone? Or a cutlery company when someone uses their product negligently or criminally?
I personally think these grieving parents should sue the Brady Campaign because they are the ones who filed the lawsuit knowing full well they would lose based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. The strategy seems to be to accomplish through litigation what they can't through legislation. If they can't pass tougher gun laws legislatively, they'll bury manufacturers in lawsuits and bankrupt them, or make the prospect of doing legitimate business too risky.
I also think these same standards should be applied to all forms of lawsuits; you bring a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay the price.
I feel for their loss but I have zero sympathy for frivolous lawsuits.
People who use the courts to lash out and/or try to score a big cash settlement have lead to the litigation-paranoid, risk averse nanny-state world of today which has in turn done plenty to suck the joy out of life.
Maybe those parents should have sued god for making crazy sons of #*$ches and putting them on the planet instead.
I thought that in Civil suits the loser paid all court costs and legal fees for both sides? I would think any lawyer would know this. if these folks were set up by the Brady (?) organization they that organization should be paying the bills.
More proof that the NRA has way too much power and the politicians need to stop kow towing to them. The ones who don't kow tow they need to start attacking the NRA
NRA has too much power? You have no idea of what you speak. How about an association which will stand up for your first amendment or other rights when necessary?
Progressive libs have too much power and the courts, SCOTUS in particular backs them. Explain ACA.
This all reminds of the various tort cases involving automobiles over the past 50 years.
Corvairs were dangerous a any speed - they weren't and were actually a very nice car. My neighbor has a 62 Monza Spyder in his garage.
The infamous Pinto exploding gas tanks. 60 minutes rigged one to explode for sensationalism. I rode in my buddy's 71 Pinto several times while commuting back and forth to work in the mid 70s. As in most driving situations, we were never rear ended. Most people are never involved in rear collision accidents. I, on the other hand, have been involved in two, both were young white teenage boys who had been driving less than 6 months and shouldn't have been on the road as I was sitting still in traffic both times. I had to go to court the second time.
The one that really got me was the ford Explorer and Firestone tires. Ford and Firestone were hit hard but the fact people didn't know how to drive SUVs surfaced in those cases. Driving an SUV at high speeds on underinflated tires - sports cars style - is stupidity. Does an 18 wheeler handle like a Porsche? Neither does an Explorer. Ford never claimed it did and people found out about driving those vehicles in such manner.
"Hey, my Escalade handles like a CTS" is not something you will hear.
IMHO - Ford was screwed by those suits. Why should Ford be responsible for damages occurred when their product is improperly used. Did Ford advertise their huge fancy SUV on a race track? Did Firestone advise using underinflated tires? If you drive a heavy high center of gravity truck in a fast evasive maneuver and it flips over that is YOUR fault. if you do not know how to drive one of these type vehicles stay off the road.
No company should be liable for the misuse of any product. if I use a screwdriver as a chisel and it slips and cuts my hand the maker is not responsible for my injury. If I am injured when a wrench snaps while I am using it correctly because it was improperly heat treated then they should be liable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
