Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker can move forward.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

You obviously don't understand anything about how the world works. My right to own and bear firearms is not protected by some piece of paper called the bill of rights. It is protected by my firearms.

Then anyone with more firepower can take away your right from you.

Do you imagine the government fears you and your precious pea-shooters? They can take them away any time they like.

It is not I who have failed to understand how the world works .

MOLON LABE

Is this a typo?

a reply to: Flipper35

Dealt with several pages ago. Read the thread before posting, please.

a reply to: Astyanax

And how is it irrelevant? It is federal law, it was enacted in 2005. And as I recall, the supremacy clause in the US constitution out trumps local laws at the state level. The lawyers for the gun manufactures are going to argue that this law removes the liability. And as long as the law remains on the books, no judge is going to rule against any gun manufacture for liability at all. And thus the trial ends before it begins. And another argument that will be used, ultimately will force this into the federal court system claiming that this kind of trial will ultimately impede on the rights of the individual to own and have a firearm. Even in states and localities where it was restricted, the US Supreme court has rules that no law can deny or prohibit the ownership of fire arms. District of Columbia V. Heller (2008) was the landmark case that decided that and reaffirmed by McDonald V. Chicago (2010)

Then there are the attorneys arguing for the plaintiffs, the families, how long do you think that they can do this kind of case and survive? The gun manufacturers will have a deep pockets and high powered lawyers that will fight this and the appeals and still not lose any money in the process. And if it looks like there is a remote chance that it may succeed, you can bet that there will be a few new laws that are brought up at both the state and federal level, a few may very well may pass, furthering hampering the problem.

So instead of saying something is irrelevant, how about you give the tort and laws that support what would be argued in court on the part of the families.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Already explained. See my replies to seagull.

a reply to: Astyanax
I am still puzzled by why you cannot or will not give case law and court precedent to support your view and the side of the argument that you are taking.
You seem to think that the government can simply do this and this will succeed in court, yet seem to think that the laws are irrelevant. I am sure that the attorney for Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, believed the same thing and when they lost and ended up with a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So how again is the law and legal precedent irrelevant again?

This case will go like that, it will be argued in court, and go back and forth, for years, with the loser appealing the decision on up and up, and in the end the law and the legal precedent being there on the side of the gun manufacturers, unless an argument can be made against them, and one that would make all prior decisions on the matter to be wrong will the court change its mind.

I read your reply to Seagull, and am shocked by it, as well as amused. Getting stuff from North Korea? A country that is isolated and has to get a majority of what they need to be imported.

Court decisions are never based on emotion, but on laws and legal precedent. So for the families to prevail, and win, there will have to be laws that support their side, and legal precedent that would also agree for there to be any chance.

The other question is this: How many laws can be passed, stalled, killed and court cases won with 350 million dollars? If you can answer that, then you will see what the families are up against.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

I have no responsibility for America's problems. Yes, I posted an opinion. So did you and everybody else on this thread. But my opinions are based on experience and a very thorough understanding of human nature. Yours are based on social conditioning and what you want to believe.

And until you provide a detailed rebuttal of my points, that is how the matter stands.

Your points are merely opinions as you have no data to back them up. You paint with a broad brush but know only what your media has told you about the topic and the American movies you have seen. What if I were to say, based on what I have seen, all Dutch live in windmills, wear wooden shoes, grow tulips, skate on frozen canals, and plug holes in dikes with their fingers during storms?

While your opinions are based on social conditioning and what you want to believe based on some imagined experience or another, my experience and that of many others on this board is first hand. You don't walk in our shoes but you are trying to tell us what we think and how we behave because you have a "very thorough understanding of human nature." That sounds like the psychobabble spouted by a counselor of sorts so as to provide confidence to the victim of the treatments. If your job has to do with addiction and rehab, I can understand why your vision is distorted. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I use firearms all the time. I hunt for meat and remove predators from fields. If I had a button to press to do the same things, I would use it and not noisy, kicking firearms. They are useful tools and not the objects of obsession, lust, or longing. I have not purchased a firearm in the last 35 years. I do not live in Texas, wear cowboy boots and a big hat, lasso cattle, or randomly shoot people in gunfights. I do not have guns acquired illegally, live in an inner city, listen to cRap music, and shoot the homeys and any innocents nearby. I am not a private detective, secret agent, Navy SEAL, Marine sniper, Army Ranger, ex-CIA assassin saving my daughter from kidnappers, or mercenary. Remember that movies are not real, "addiction" is overused, and that your knowledge of the USA is distorted and severely limited.

Carry on.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

You obviously don't understand anything about how the world works. My right to own and bear firearms is not protected by some piece of paper called the bill of rights. It is protected by my firearms.

Then anyone with more firepower can take away your right from you.

Do you imagine the government fears you and your precious pea-shooters? They can take them away any time they like.

It is not I who have failed to understand how the world works .

MOLON LABE

Is this a typo?

Firepower is irrelevant in guerrilla warfare. Any modern conflict currently going on in the world will tell you this. If firepower made a difference Vietnam would have had a much different outcome.

You don't know the meaning of Molon Labe? Go ahead and Google it. I have no more words to waste on a defenceless serf.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yes because only you understand such thing's..I think you have a superiority complex.
BTW I'm not a gun owner and have no need for one.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I am still puzzled by why you cannot or will not give case law and court precedent to support your view and the side of the argument that you are taking.

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter, or with the process of national fragmentation that any historically informed person can see at work in America today.

a reply to: pteridine

Your points are merely opinions as you have no data to back them up.

On the contrary, the data to back them up are so numerous and overwhelming it is hardly necessary to repeat them in this thread. Relative statistics on gun deaths in the USA and other countries, where firearm ownership is restricted, tell the story. So do a variety of other data connecting gun ownership with higher rates of suicide, murder, in-home violence, accidents and so on. I do not propose to debate these; the case is closed, however often the addicts may try to deny it.

As to the support for treating gun fetishism as an addiction, I posted that already.

you are trying to tell us what we think and how we behave because you have a "very thorough understanding of human nature"... That sounds like the psychobabble spouted by a counselor of sorts so as to provide confidence to the victim

Ah, but I have decades of successful manipulation of human nature for marketing and public-relations purposes behind me to substantiate my claim. This is my field of expertise, friend.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have no doubt that, to a gun addict, everything looks like it needs a bullet.

Remember that movies are not real

I don’t watch many movies, or any TV. I mentioned that before, too.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I have no more words to waste on a defenceless serf.

That’s fine. Enjoy your next game of make-believe soldiers.

a reply to: vonclod

you have a superiority complex.

Since I have lived a somewhat successful life, it would be ungrateful of me to have one. Still, you never know.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine

Your points are merely opinions as you have no data to back them up.

On the contrary, the data to back them up are so numerous and overwhelming it is hardly necessary to repeat them in this thread. Relative statistics on gun deaths in the USA and other countries, where firearm ownership is restricted, tell the story. So do a variety of other data connecting gun ownership with higher rates of suicide, murder, in-home violence, accidents and so on. I do not propose to debate these; the case is closed, however often the addicts may try to deny it.

As to the support for treating gun fetishism as an addiction, I posted that already.

you are trying to tell us what we think and how we behave because you have a "very thorough understanding of human nature"... That sounds like the psychobabble spouted by a counselor of sorts so as to provide confidence to the victim

Ah, but I have decades of successful manipulation of human nature for marketing and public-relations purposes behind me to substantiate my claim. This is my field of expertise, friend.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have no doubt that, to a gun addict, everything looks like it needs a bullet.

Remember that movies are not real

I don’t watch many movies, or any TV. I mentioned that before, too.

Your life may be dedicated to manipulation of human nature and sales, but that experience will not help you substantiate your claims. The data I speak of are those which show a so called "addiction." As you may see from my post, I own and use firearms as tools. I own and use many tools and my addictions do not include firearms. I understand that you think you know what you are speaking of but you are too steeped in your own culture and profession to see any other point of view. Perhaps you should start eliminating privately owned firearms in European countries and work your way west. They should be much easier targets for your great skills developed over "decades of successful manipulation." You should begin with the French. They are nearby, have a legal firearm for about 1 in every 3 people, and take advice well from fellow European sophisticates. When they realize your background and manipulative skills, they will turn in their firearms to the nearest foundries to be made into plowshares and praise you for your original insights. Maybe, since you will have solved all of their problems with a flash of genius, they will offer you citizenship and elect you to office.

a reply to: Astyanax

So you believe that the law is irrelevant or are you the kind of person who thinks that you have the right to ignore the laws when you don't like them? If so, then I guess if you were robbed and had your stuff taken, you would not want to prosecute cause that person did not believe in the laws that state such is a crime and there are consequences for those actions.

I have given the name of the law, people have shown how the highest law, ensures that all in the United States of America have the right to own and carry a firearm. And that there are laws where a person can be excluded under certain conditions.

No person in the government is going to be able to remove it, as the numbers are not there that would support such. So that amendment is not in any danger of being removed from the laws.

And if you are so worried about people being killed by guns, why focus on the United States? It is not even the number one in stats, Honduras has a higher rate than the United States when it comes to murders by guns.

Why do you hate the United States that much?

Just a friendly reminder...

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from personal jabs aimed at your fellow ATSers. Further posts down this avenue may result in the removal of your posts and possibly the suspension of your posting privileges.

Consider this fair warning.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: pteridine

The data I speak of are those which show a so called "addiction."

Yes. Well, I already showed how many American gun owners meet the criteria of addiction in respect of their relationship to firearms.

As you may see from my post, I own and use firearms as tools. I own and use many tools and my addictions do not include firearms.

Precisely. You are essentially arguing from a sample of one, or at best a tiny handful of people comprising you and your gun-owning acquaintances. As I am sure you are aware, such an argument is meaningless.

I understand that you think you know what you are speaking of but you are too steeped in your own culture and profession to see any other point of view. Perhaps you should start eliminating privately owned firearms in European countries and work your way west. They should be much easier targets for your great skills developed over "decades of successful manipulation." You should begin with the French. They are nearby, have a legal firearm for about 1 in every 3 people, and take advice well from fellow European sophisticates.

Your French firearm statistics are massaged to display a picture very different from reality. In France, the ownership of guns and ammunition is strictly limited and regulated. See, for example here, here and here (the last link is for people who don’t like reading statistics).

By the way, I am not European. I am the native of a country in South Asia. It may help that I have seen a great deal of the world; I have lived in many countries other than my own, and travelled in a good many more. I have never been to America but I have many friends there, both natives and expatriates. For the most part, they agree with me.

When they realize your background and manipulative skills, they will turn in their firearms to the nearest foundries to be made into plowshares and praise you for your original insights. Maybe, since you will have solved all of their problems with a flash of genius, they will offer you citizenship and elect you to office.

I am happy being a citizen of my own country, but I gratefully acknowledge your encomium. Many thanks!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

So you believe that the law is irrelevant or are you the kind of person who thinks that you have the right to ignore the laws when you don't like them?

Because either a change of law will be forced through, or the rule of law in America will collapse. Those are your choices as a nation and that is why the laws, as they stand today, are irrelevant.

And if you are so worried about people being killed by guns, why focus on the United States? It is not even the number one in stats, Honduras has a higher rate than the United States when it comes to murders by guns.

That must be such a relief to Americans — to know that there is at least one small, poor, historically misgoverned country with a higher murder rate than the USA.

Why do you hate the United States that much?

If I hated the United States, I would applaud your current gun control regime and join my voice to those, like you, who defend a historical anomaly in your Constitution that, if retained, will sooner or later tear your country apart.

a reply to: Astyanax
I went and looked, and from what I can tell you that the rule of law is not in any danger of collapsing anytime soon. If that was so, when they did things like civil rights, the laws would have collapsed and the country would have been in chaos long before this point. And they are not going to ram through the changes you are advocating at this time frame, cause to do such, would ask a lawmaker to risk his/her job and entire career on a gamble where he/she could not only lose his/her job, but his/her entire political career.

People who have guns, are too firmly entrenched in their beliefs, and the moment that such is even suggested, gun and ammunition sales skyrocket, the NRA sees an increase in new memberships and those that have them start to grumble, and even move to remove the law maker from office. This has been seen time before and it is engrained heavily.
Even in places where firearms were restricted, those restrictions did not stand up in court, and the laws that forbid the ownership and possession of such was simply struck down by the courts, as they are found to be unconstitutional.

The laws are not going to change any time soon, nor is the constitution of the United States. The numbers are not there to support such. The only way that is going to happen, and it is unlikely, is that the people will have to say yes it is time to do such, but that is highly unlikely. And that is going to have to be the only way such is done, anything else would cause a major problem in the United States, and if you think that gun deaths are high in the USA right now, you have not seen anything yet. To change the laws, the first would be the hardest fight of all, and that is the constitution and keep these numbers in mind: One would first need 2/3 of both the senate and the house of Reps to vote and approve on it. Then it has to be voted on by the country and that would require ¾ of the entire voting population to agree to the terms and to have such done.

Now there is about 318.9 million people in the USA, breaking down to 146311000 voters in the USA. There could be no more than 36577750 people who vote no on that measure. And most estimates state that there are 3.1 million people who own firearms. The numbers are not there to support any removal of firearms at all. And if you look at the statistics and past, one can see that the moment that there is a mere whisper of gun restriction or removal of firearms from the public, the gun shops see an increase in the number of people applying for and buying of firearms, far more than normal.

One day it may happen, but right now, it is not going to happen. Mess with a right of the people to own firearms, and it not only raises the anger of the people with firearms, but also those without, to the point where they start to look to remove or not allow that politician to remain in office or hold any political office. And such would be best to put on the ballot for the people to decide, while lawyers for those who want guns start their quills and fight it out in court to win and have such laws removed from the books.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pteridine


Precisely. You are essentially arguing from a sample of one, or at best a tiny handful of people comprising you and your gun-owning acquaintances. As I am sure you are aware, such an argument is meaningless.

You are assuming that I am unique in that sense because your reality is skewed towards what you want to believe. As to the topic of this post, the lawsuit may well proceed but the plaintiffs will lose. They know that and want this as a bit of PR and social theater. Maybe they believe that they can use this to instigate new laws that would limit access by those with known mental disorders, a good idea whose time will come sooner rather than later.
As to the rest of your thought that the US will be free of privately owned firearms, that will not happen in this century so we will have to muddle on, depending on the rest of the world advising us on solutions to our many problems. In between helping us and manipulating public opinion and given the elevation of the Netherlands and global climate change you should probably spend some time learning to swim.

As I have posted in other threads, I live 10 miles away from SHES, so I have very strong feelings about this issue

with that said, this lawsuit is nonsense. This is an example of a moronic gun owner who did not keep the weapons locked or in a safe. What makes it even more disturbing is the reports that the shooter would play COD for hours on end, sometimes not even coming out of his room to eat and was in therapy for his emotional issues.

The keyboard I'm typing on could be a murder weapon