Judge Says Lawsuit Can Proceed Against Maker of Gun Used in School Shooting

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawsuit-can-proceed-versus-maker-of-gun-used-in-conn-school-shooting/ar-BBrLnH9?li=BBnb7Kz

c.d.

[GUT]

Interesting development.

[c.d.]

If a drunk driver kills somebody can we now sue the car manufacturer? My heart goes out to the parents but I think this lawsuit is just wrong.

c.d.

[GUT]

If a drunk driver kills somebody can we now sue the car manufacturer? My heart goes out to the parents but I think this lawsuit is just wrong.

c.d.

It appears that the argument is that this type of weapon has only one purpose, and that is to kill and kill en mass. And flowing from that is that this type of weapon should not be sold to the public, but be the sole provenance of the military.

If your driver was at the wheel of a Sherman Tank (sold to the general public) and it was shown that a normal car wouldn't have killed the victim, yes the result may well be the same.

[Pcdunn]

Not wrong, important

If a drunk driver kills somebody can we now sue the car manufacturer? My heart goes out to the parents but I think this lawsuit is just wrong.

c.d.

No, I think this could be a landmark case. Car manufacturers have been sued if their autos are proven to be unsafe, and this has led to advances in safety that help to save lives.

Something of the same sort could happen if gun manufacturers decide it is more worth their while to invent safety devices (fingerprint scanner? Dunno) to prevent any gun being picked up and used by any person.
And my argument with pro-gun enthusiasts has been "a gun is only meant to kill", which seems to me to be true. Killing animals to survive is one thing, but killing people for thrills or out of twisted thinking is another.

[Shaggyrand]

It appears that the argument is that this type of weapon has only one purpose, and that is to kill and kill en mass. And flowing from that is that this type of weapon should not be sold to the public, but be the sole provenance of the military.

If your driver was at the wheel of a Sherman Tank (sold to the general public) and it was shown that a normal car wouldn't have killed the victim, yes the result may well be the same.

Here is my problem with this suit being granted with that line of thought. It was an AR-15, one of the most common rifles in the world and despite what lazy reporters say in not an assault weapon. An AR-15 as is can not do what was done at Sandy Hook. Its just not possible for anyone to pull the trigger that much that fast. Just isn't. It CAN when modified, which makes it a M4. Civilians aren't supposed to have M4s, which are full auto assault rifles. Owning an M4 is illegal... So why aren't they suing the state for allowing the conversion to be legal. You can't legally have an M4 but you can make another gun into an M4 and that's ok? In this case the manufacturer made one gun, it was modified without them involved in anyway to be another gun.
Just seems to me that suing the state or the folks selling modification kits is a better approach here as they were the ones who facilitated the event far more ultimately.

[Robert St Devil]

I wonder how long it will be before insurance companies work an angle on gun control. I,ve constantly seen the car analogy, but insurance factors a lot into car regulation... with sport modifications expected to be reported for coverage purposes. If the same dollar amount were set for life and liability per month per weapon, it might seriously limit arsenals. And also, when you purchase a car, you are expected to provide insurance coverage at the time of sale.