Background checks and restrictions on weapons sales might have prevented Sandy Hook

[Ken Burch]

Corporate liability could not have prevented it.

[awake]

1. restrictions on weapons maybe but Background checks would not have

The guns were bought by his Mother I believe.

[Ken Burch]

2. Well, if the checks had turned up her survivalist tendencies and social paranoia

they might have.

While I despise most gun manufacturers, they rarely have any way of knowing who's going to buy the guns.

[awake]

3. Wended background checks look into if you have "survivalist tendencies and social paranoia"

[hack89]

4. Background checks don't and will never look at such stuff

the present criteria is pretty cut and dried - there is no way in hell background checks will become a subjective "I don't like your beliefs so you can't have guns" system. I know that is a gun control fantasy but it will never pass constitutional muster. We learned our lesson during Jim Crow about the dangers of subject and capricious limits on civil rights.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. So far as I know, background checks don't read minds.

Nor do they have access to a person's purchase patterns, medical records, etc.

[bettyellen]

12. I think checks need to be extended to all residents who live among guns.

Especially since they are usually used on other family members- intentionally or not.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. True, yet there is the need to want to sue somebody for institutional failures and negligence.

.


The mother is the one who knew her son, and yet she allowed this situation to unfold.

The problem is, the mother does not have deep pockets.


.

[Ken Burch]

13. And, of course, the mother was the first victim in the massacre.

We all feel deeply about the pain these families went through.

Even if liability legislation had passed(btw, it didn't lose on Bernie's vote...there was a solid majority against that bill and that would not have changed based on Bernie changing his position) this is a country where corporations virtually never lose in the courts.

Restrictions on sales of semiautomatic weapons is much more likely to prevent nightmares like Sandy Hook from repeating themselves in the future.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. Background checks, no.

The weapon was legally purchased, which would have required a background check, and had been in possession of its owner for some time. It wasn't transferred to the shooter; he stole it (and killed her with it).

A prior restriction of that type of weapon might have prevented it, but given that there are millions of such rifles already in circulation, even that's doubtful.

But corporate liability wouldn't have accomplished anything, either. Such suits are shameless dodges of the democratic process and/or attempts to monetize grief.

[DrDan]

7. what other manufacturer needs liability legislation?

gun makers seem to stand out, don't they?

[Ken Burch]

10. They should have had it be liability for the large gun corporations.

Smaller gunmakers were the ones Bernie was concerned with...the ones who don't usually make the kinds of weapons used at Sandy Hook.


And in order to hold gun manufacturers liable, you would have to prove that they had reason to assume their weapons would be used as the weapons at Sandy Hook were used. That would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove in court.

I would like to see the makers of this type of weapon put out of business, but it's absurd to suggest that liability legislation would have achieved that goal OR prevented the massacre that day.

Remember, we live in a country where corporations, in general, almost never lose in civil or criminal court.

[DrDan]

11. if they "almost never lose", why do we need legislation for gun makers?

we don't have it elsewhere, and the issues resolve themselves.

Why do they get a free ride in (or not in) court and a breathe-easier approach when considering distribution channels?

[aikoaiko]

8. The Lanza rifle was legal under the CT Assault Weapons Ban - modeled after the Fed AWB

So not even restrictions helped -unless someone wants to make the case that not having a bayonet lug on the rifle somehow prevented deaths.

And not background checks either since the owner, the mother passed.

But you're right that PLCAA had nothing to do with helping or hindering the shooter.

[mythology]

14. Not necessarily

If lawsuits put pressure on gun manufacturers to add biometric safety features, Adam Lanza may not have been able to fire the guns. If pressure were put on gun manufacturers to limit clip size, Lanza would have had to reload more would have had the chance to escape as reports have indicated 6 kids did.

So no you can't say that being able to sue gun manufacturers for failing to enact safety features that it wouldn't have prevented or lessened the number of victims.

In fact the opposite is more likely as cars are safer today based on traffic fatalities and car manufacturers had to be dragged into safety by people like Ralph Nader suing them and putting pressure on the government to be in charge of car safety.