They’re killing machines: Newtown families have a right to sue the makers of the AR-15

[n2doc]

Cedric Larry Ford gunned down three and injured at least 14 more with an automatic rifle in Kansas Thursday, blasting away randomly from his car and then in the industrial building where he worked. Just another day in America.

This nation cannot awaken from a nightmare: Madmen wield weapons of war to indiscriminately slaughter, in their workplaces, on streets, in movie theaters and in elementary schools.

Ford added to the tally of slaughter as Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is considering the merits of a wrongful death suit — brought by family members of Sandy Hook Elementary School children and one survivor of that assault.

They are trying to sue Remington, America’s top manufacturer of guns and ammunition in the civilian marketplace, for negligent entrustment in manufacturing AR-15s for purchase and use by ordinary Americans.

These assault rifles are weapons of war.

more
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/killing-machines-article-1.2545453

[valerief]

1. Aren't all firearms killing machines? But these firearms are particularly disgusting. nt

[tk2kewl]

3. Agree with you on both counts.

I hate guns, but if it's legal to sell weapons of mass murder, it doesn't seem logical that you could sue the manufacturer.

[valerief]

4. I agree. They shouldn't be legal to sell. nt

[SunSeeker]

18. People sue manufacturers over legal products all the time.

A negligent design subjects manufacturers to a product liability suit, not jail.

[tk2kewl]

19. nothing negligent about the design of a an AR15

it does what it's designed to do very effectively... if it blew up in the shooter's face then the manufacturer may be negligent, but if it mows down 20 1st graders it worked perfectly as designed. they simply need to be illegal

[SunSeeker]

20. Why are you posting in this group if you think AR-15s are "perfect"?

Lawn darts "worked perfectly," yet that manufacturer was successfully sued because it was a negligent design--because they also worked perfectly to impale people.

Victims should be able to sue gun manufacturers for the very reasons most people think they should be illegal: they are designed to kill mass amounts of people, and attract buyers who think that is cool.

[tk2kewl]

21. wrong...

lawn darts were designed for a game not killing. i'm not defending guns, just defending logic.

[SunSeeker]

23. You are not defending logic.

Manufacturers of lawn darts insist they were not designed to impale kids, just like manufacturers of AR-15s insist they were not designed to kill 20 6-year-olds in seconds. The only liability difference between the two results is one manufacturer got off because of the PLCAA.

[tk2kewl]

24. a link to another comment of mine on guns...

i am not your enemy. i simply do not see a reasonable argument for negligence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=145205

peace

[SunSeeker]

25. I see. Seems you are making these ridiculous arguments to defend Bernie's vote for the PLCAA.

Hillary voted against the PLCAA, so your post at that link suggesting there is "no so much" to go on for Hillary on her gun record is wrong.

[tk2kewl]

27. whatever

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 04:03 PM - Edit history (2)

I guess your argument is entirely political as you fail to even acknowledge that I have personal experience with gun violence

there is common sense gun control and there is the politics of gun control.

there is no common sense to the argument for suing gun manufacturers b/c guns in my view

I'm done with this thread. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts to reduce gun violence. I simply think there are many more useful ways to go about it; that this approach is flawed and therefore a will prove to be a waste of energy

[SunSeeker]

22. It is negligent to design & market a mass killing military weapon to civilians.

As negligent as it is to sell tanks to the civilian market.

[GoldenEagle16]

9. But handguns kill many many more people

the focus on rifles is misguided - it is handguns that are the real problem.

[valerief]

11. It's arms manufacturers buying our Congress. nt

[lastlib]

14. Handguns aren't industrial-strength killing machines.

(btw, deflection is a silly debate tactic. We're not playing that game here, tyvm.)

[GoldenEagle16]

15. They were at Virginia Tech - 32 dead

that is why the focus has to be on handguns. AWBs are a fine start but they will not save that many lives simply because they are not used to kill that many people relative to other murder weapons. And AWBs are irrelevant to reducing suicides. Any fight for an AWB will be so bruising that it will make stricter controls on handguns that more harder. Why not go straight to handguns while there is growing public support for gun control?

[cantbeserious]

2. Sadly The Problem Is A Society That Drives Citizens Over The Edge - Banning Guns Will Not Ameliorate

The root cause if the underlying problem.

[DirkGently]

5. I think gun profits are actually a large part of the problem.

The new pro-gun rhetoric of the past few years:

1. There are "Second Amendment remedies" to political issues

2. Conservatives should walk around visibly armed and not be questioned about it

3. The Government -- when a Democrat is President -- is plotting to disarm everyone so they can put political enemies in camps

4. Mass killings are faked to make it falsely appear there is a gun homicide problem when really there isn't

5. People have not just a right, but some kind of patriotic duty, to be armed everywhere, all the time,

6. Because at some point there will be a nationwide conservative uprising (what the Malheur yahoos tried to start) resolved by armed conflict against the "Feds."

These things are all bullshit, designed to sell increasing numbers of guns to decreasing numbers of people. And the focus is not on hunting tools or even basic self-defense weaponry, but on pseudo-military gear centered around a fantasy of personal political power derived from being prepared to wage outright war.

And it's working, for the gun manufacturers. Every time there is a mass killing, there is an upsurge in sales, on the theory there might be legislation forthcoming to limit firearms. Every time there is actual talk about legislation, arms sales skyrocket. There are periodic panics about ammunition being banned, further increasing sales.

All of this bizarre mythology runs through the screaming rhetoric and iron-fisted political influence of the NRA. All of it is funded with gun manufacturer money. A co-worker handed me a copy of the NRA's monthly magazine a while back. It was 90% military-style tactical gear, seasoned with a positively looney editorial rant about how Obama was plotting to ... wait for it ... TAKE ALL THE GUNS!

We do need a less anxious society, better mental health care, and so forth.

But I think we also need to look at the source of the ceaseless insanity convincing people that firearms are some kind of magical totem that provides the only real source of personal power available to them to protect them against largely imaginary fears.

If we can make bloodshed less profitable, I think a lot of the rhetoric egging it on will go quiet.

[jeff47]

6. Based on.....?

You have to have a mechanism where the manufacturers were negligent in this particular instance.

They sold the guns to a licensed federal firearms dealer. The gun was not defective (unfortunately). Where is the negligence?

SLAPP lawsuits are not the way forward. We have to get people to turn out for gun control like the NRA gets people to turn out against it.

[SunSeeker]

7. The negligence is designing a mass killing weapon marketed to the unstable.

Exhibit A:



We sued lawn dart manufacturers out of existence for a lot less, but they didnt have the PLCAA to hide behind.

[jeff47]

8. And that doesn't meet the legal standard for negligence.

Again, SLAPP lawsuits are not the way forward. You're adding a large economic burden on families that just suffered a horrible loss. Because they will lose these cases, and lawyers aren't free.

[SunSeeker]

10. A jury should decide whether it meets the standard.

Unfortunately, the PLCAA prevents it from even going to a jury.

But if the families' attorneys think they can find a creative way around the PLCAA, and the families want to try, then who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

[jeff47]

12. Decisions about the law are made by the judge, not the jury.

Once again, SLAPP lawsuits throw a large financial burden on families that are already suffering, and will not put all gun manufacturers on the planet out of business.

Why would Kalashnikov care about a US lawsuit? Putin gonna go collect for us?

But if the families' attorneys think they can find a creative way around the PLCAA, and the families want to try, then who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

It's not the PLCAA. It's far more basic: you have to show negligence by the manufacturer, and they are not liable for illegal acts done with their guns. Just like Ford is not liable for drunk drivers, even though Ford could install a Breathalyzer in every Ford car.

These cases will gain fame for some lawyers, and gain large bills for the victims. They are not a good idea.

[SunSeeker]

13. Calling gun victims' suits "SLAPP suits" is a bullshit NRA talking point.

It is disgusting to see that bullshit repeated on DU and in this forum. A product liability suit for damages is BY DEFINITION not a ""Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."

Your Ford example is not analogious. Selling AR-15s with 100 round magazines and no national background check at a gun show and thousands of armor piercing bullets to anonymous buyers on the internet is akin to Ford selling to civilians armored military transports with battering rams on the hood and a decanter full of Jim Beam on the dashboard. And featuring them in ads in Guns and Ammo magasine urging its unhinged readers to renew their "Man Card."

[jeff47]

16. Not when the people pushing this are using the very definition of SLAPP lawsuits.

The plan is to lose a ton of cases, but be such a nuisance that somehow every gun manufacturer in the world will just give up. That's the definition of SLAPP lawsuits.

Your Ford example is not analogious. Selling AR-15s with 100 round magazines and no national background check at a gun show

Gun manufactures can't sell at gun shows. They can only sell to licensed federal firearms dealers.

Which neatly insulates gun manufacturers from legal liability - they sold it to someone who has gone undergone background checks and is subject to regular auditing.

Ford selling to civilians armored military transports with battering rams on the hood and a decanter full of Jim Beam on the dashboard.

Or perhaps Ford advertising about the performance of their vehicles that exceed every speed limit and reckless driving statute?

Once again, these lawsuits will be lost. They will cost the victims a lot of money and can not possibly stop every gun manufacturer on the planet. We need to convince people to turn out for gun control like NRA supporters turn out against gun control.

[SunSeeker]

17. That is not the "definition of SLAPP suit." Stop with the NRA talking points.

And that is not these families' "plan" These families are trying to recover their massive damages and have irresponsible gun manufacturers be held accountable. I thought this was a pro gun control group, and you keep posting vile NRA talking points. Why do you post here?

Whether or not it is negligent to design and market AR-15s is a product liability question that should go to a jury.

The majority of Americans already do support gun control. We would have had sensible gun control after Sandy Hook but for the GOP (NRA) controlled congress.

[yourpaljoey]

26. That is absurd

[COLGATE4]

28. +1. People have very strange ideas about

what constitutes legal negligence. As another poster correctly mentioned a suit like this will be thrown out by any judge. All it does is raise false expectations on the part of the families and cost them a bunch of money paid to prepare and go forward with the suit.