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.
how is the lawsuit going to charge white 5 gallon bucket manufactures with murder of a legion of toddlers around the world?
"The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warns that buckets filled with water or other liquids, especially the large five-gallon size, present a drowning hazard to small children. CPSC knows of at least 67 drowning deaths in buckets during the years 1985-1987, mostly to young children 8 - 12 months old. Information available to the Commission strongly suggests that many, if not most, of these drownings occurred in large (five-gallon) plastic buckets or containers being used for mopping floors or for other household chores."
"The five-gallon bucket is particularly dangerous (even when only-partly filled) because its heavier weight makes it more stable than a smaller bucket and unlikely to tip over when a child uses it to pull up. The five-gallon containers are commonly about half the height of these infants and with several gallons of water, weigh more than children of that age."
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]"Since 1984, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received
reports of over 275 young children drowning in buckets. There are many bucket drownings
reported each year around the world"
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
The point is that the AR-15 is very similar to the M16 and yes there are other rifles and handguns for that matter that are just as capable, but this lawsuit is regarding the AR-15.
you do understand that the AR-15 was designed from the ground up to be a rifle intended for civilian use?
To those supporting the lawsuit, I won't make comparisons about other lawsuits to sway your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, unfettered.
I would urge you to seriously consider what you are supporting. Things like this set legal precedence in regards to liability. The unintended consequences always cause more harm than good.
Making a dangerous device. No different than a car maker being sued for making an unsafe car. Each dead kid had 6-8 bullets in their bodies. Can you explain why so many bullets? A responsible gun maker should make guns that fire at a much lower rate. At most 1-2 shots before re-loading.
Do you actually tie your own shoes in the morning ? Seriously ?
You make a good point, but automakers would be sued if they made a car that is not safe.
A simple gun that needs to be loaded after two shots would have much less killing power. One way to eliminate massacres is to only allow the sale of guns that function the way they did in the civil war. Anything else should not be allowed.
Why does a normal person needs a gun with so much destructive power?
So much destructive power ? You might need to do a little research before you spew.
Take a look at this firearm...it is much more powerful and to a further range than the one you seem to have so much angst over.
Consider the fact that they have lost a child, the government is doing absolutely nothing in the way of passing legislation that they think will prevent another tragedy. What else is left?
What you advocate is illegal, with zero chance of going anywhere. You sound like Obama; just make shi# up when you can't get your way.
They should be removed from the market. I would only allow guns that need to be re-loaded after two shots.
Why two shots, might as well limit it to one.
Charles Whitman killed 49 people, 2 of those were stabbed , several where shot with a shotgun and the rest were shot with a bolt action hunting rifle. He did have many more firearms with him but from what I've read the majority was done with the bolt action rifle.
you do understand that the AR-15 was designed from the ground up to be a rifle intended for civilian use?
The AR-15 was marketed to military around the world back in the 1960's although there may have been some civilian use that was not the intention. Ask the designers about their perception.
The AR10 was the original. The .222 special was used by civilians (as are most weapons) that vie for contracts by the military. No one was surprised it was used by civilians.
Except relatives, apparently by second and third hand stories of dead people.
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.
