One of the most infamous mass shooters, Charles Whitman, used a bolt action 6mm to kill his victims. If I am misinterpreting your point, NM.
And the death of a child that is shot and killed by a bolt action rifle results in just as much grief and heartbreak for the parents as the death of a child that is shot and killed by an assault rifle.
Yes, but the nice thing about the latter is that there are so many more of them.
Well, they’ve done it.
From the article: "The AR-15 is described in the lawsuit as a “military weapon” that “has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes,” and the families accuse the gunmaker, distributor and seller of knowing that selling such a weapon to civilians means “individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them.”
I really don’t see which exception they are going for. The suit should be dismissed under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act immediately.
Sure, that’s true for you, but these days I usually encounter this sentiment expressed among people saying things like “When the gibmedats run out, those people are going to swarm out of the ghetto towards us hard-workin’ Murkins…” These same people claim to fear the government, but they seem to love armed state power when it’s not being used against them.
Firearms are vulgar weapons.
I thought it was a substitute for live targets, and I admire a marksperson who can hit with the first shot rather than spraying projectiles, but fair enough.
I wanted to pre-empt the “I kill animals for food!” argument. One of the best things we can do for ourselves is to eat less meat, and as for the sporting argument, it doesn’t seem like fair play when the prey cannot return fire.
What does this even mean?
Does the fact that an AR-15 was NOT used make any difference to the courts (appeal assumed)?
Will the fact that the monster stole the weapon from the legal owner make any difference to a court trying to determine if the manufacture is at fault for not selling a firearm to this monster?
It means what I wrote earlier. With edged weapons, one must stand toe-to-toe with one’s opponent. It’s more honorable. If people must be violent (and it is not a must), they can at least do so with some measure of honor, instead of hiding from the consequences of their actions.
Honorable? Feh. This kind of romanticizing of violence sickens me. How many people have you ever stabbed or slashed, Chuckles?
None at all! On the contrary, I don’t want to romanticize, I want to de-industrialize and personalize, not to mention removing the possibility of harming bystanders.
He’s pining for a lightsaber.
The functionality of the firearm you just described was never, in any iteration, present at Sandy Hook. Your implication that it was is misinformed at best, or an outright lie at worst.
You’re (deliberately?) confusing full-auto (which still can’t “drop an entire squad of armored cops”) with semi-auto.
And you’re laboring under the (deliberately?) mistaken assumption that the 2nd Amendment has fuck-all to do with hunting.
I agree, I think. I can’t see any allegation in the suit that the manufacturers knew their gun would be used in a crime – as opposed to knowing there was a risk associated with their product, which the suit does allege.
Nor does the suit allege a design defect that was the proximate cause of the injury.
Can anyone explain how this suit can survive dismissal under the PLCAA?
Makes me wonder whether the whole point of filing the suit is so that it is immediately dismissed, to try to generate outrage on the left, and try to create some momentum for gun control. If so, they really picked a bad time to do that.
Is there ever a good time to do it?
Eh, I think I get it. They want at least some good to come from their kids’ deaths, some sort of positive change to reduce the chances of this happening again. Passing gun control legislation didn’t happen, so now they’re trying to pressure the gun manufacturers directly through legal action. I agree that it’s probably futile, but grief breeds desperation.
I would add that I don’t think the law technically says they can’t sue… just that they won’t win. So far as I know, it’s not prohibited to sue someone for something they aren’t legally liable for. That’s just not a great recipe for legal victory. But IANAL.
The law provides that suits are dismissed – in fact, it specifically says that even suits pending at the time it was passed are immediately dismissed.
It would be extremely difficult to imagine a law that says “You can’t sue.” I could sue you tomorrow for failing in your duty to dance like a marionette and make me laugh. The law, in other words, almost never says, “You can’t sue.” But it pretty definitively says a suit of this type is immediately dismissed.
From the law:
Thanks for telling me how to live my life. To return the favor, I declare that you should only eat rice and beans, and donate the rest of your food budget to charity.