Smith & Wesson sued for the Chicago Highland Park shooting. This is not satire.

[SavannahMann]

Better still is have a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you want, but if you lose, you are legally responsible for paying all costs of your opponent. That would stop ambulance chasers in their tracks.

They have that law. In nearly every state it is the law. But it isn’t the lawyer who pays. It is the client.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, DEFECTIVE weapons lead to lawsuits. However, if the users were following the four rules of gun handling there would be no issue other than sending the gun off for repair.

Remember children, don't point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

Not exactly. The Taurus flaw killed a guy. He put the weapon on safe. The switch was pointed clearly at safe. He went to holster the weapon. The trigger was depressed by the soft holster enough to discharge. The round severed his femoral artery. He bled out and died.

Now you can argue that anyone holstering the weapon is being safe.

 

[Resnic]

-------------------------------------

You can sue them if you so wish.
Personally, I don't think your chances are good. But then, the devil is in the details.

More importantly, is that.....guns are different.
That seems so obvious.
If only Stephan Paddock would have taken a suitcase of knives up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay hotel.....instead of a suitcase full of guns.

Things may have turned out different.
Clearly, guns are different.

I can't tell for sure, but I assume that was you being facetious because there is no logical way to argue a gun is different than a knife when comparing them in the context of killing someone.

 

[westwall]

Not exactly. The Taurus flaw killed a guy. He put the weapon on safe. The switch was pointed clearly at safe. He went to holster the weapon. The trigger was depressed by the soft holster enough to discharge. The round severed his femoral artery. He bled out and died.

Now you can argue that anyone holstering the weapon is being safe.

Yeah, he ignored rule three. His muzzle awareness was terrible, and he paid the ultimate price.

 

[hadit]

-------------------------------------

You can sue them if you so wish.
Personally, I don't think your chances are good. But then, the devil is in the details.

More importantly, is that.....guns are different.
That seems so obvious.
If only Stephan Paddock would have taken a suitcase of knives up to the 33rd floor of the Mandalay hotel.....instead of a suitcase full of guns.

Things may have turned out different.
Clearly, guns are different.

Alcohol abuse kills more people in America than guns do and it's advertised far more aggressively, yet no one is seriously talking about suing alcohol distillers, bottlers and distributors.

 

[hadit]

Guns are different. Duh!
------------------------------------------------------

Guns are different. Duh x2!
----------------------------------------------------------

If only Salvador Ramos would have used a chainsaw at Uvalde.....things may not have been so tragic for so many?

If only Stephen Paddock had taken some Stihl's and Husqvarna's up to the 33rd floor of Mandalay Bay.....things may not have been so tragic for so many?

Why are guns different from alcohol besides reasons and feelz? The similarities:

1. Both are harmless until someone uses them.
2. Both can be accidentally lethal when used improperly.
3. Both REQUIRE misuse in order to accidentally kill or harm.
4. Both are legal.
5. Both require people to be responsible when using them.
6. Both require can only be purchased by an adult.

Now, for actual differences:

1. Alcohol is far more aggressively and more widely advertised than are guns.
2. Gun ownership is Constitutionally protected.
3. Alcohol is deadlier in America than guns are, and kills far more people. Yet we see no effort from you or anyone else to sue alcohol distillers, bottlers, and distributors out of business.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The anti-gun loons are desperate to push their mindless agenda, and they know their ability to do so though the legilsative process is almost over.

Thus, we see their efforts move to civil courts, where they can find sympathetic judges to allow suits againsg gun manufacturers that they would never allow aginst, say, car manufacturers.

And they wonder why we will not give one inch.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Alcohol is deadlier in America than guns are, and kills far more people. Yet we see no effort from you or anyone else to sue alcohol distillers, bottlers, and distributors out of business."

If only Adam Lanza would have taken 10 bottles of bourbon into that Sandy Hook elementary school. Would he have gotten all those 6yr olds ---and their teachers --- fatally drunk?

But if he couldn't have done that, well, things may have turned out differently for the kids, the teachers, the parents, Alex Jones, and Remington.

And we'll Jack Daniels & Wild Turkey fend for themselves. No?

See, the deal is this: Guns are different than bourbon.

 

[hadit]

If only Adam Lanza would have taken 10 bottles of bourbon into that Sandy Hook elementary school. Would he have gotten all those 6yr olds ---and their teachers --- fatally drunk?

But if he couldn't have done that, well, things may have turned out differently for the kids, the teachers, the parents, Alex Jones, and Remington.

And we'll Jack Daniels & Wild Turkey fend for themselves. No?

See, the deal is this: Guns are different than bourbon.

Yes, bourbon kills more people, yet you don't try to sue distillers out of business. How many people have to die on the roads because someone drove drunk before you act?

 

[westwall]

If only Adam Lanza would have taken 10 bottles of bourbon into that Sandy Hook elementary school. Would he have gotten all those 6yr olds ---and their teachers --- fatally drunk?

But if he couldn't have done that, well, things may have turned out differently for the kids, the teachers, the parents, Alex Jones, and Remington.

And we'll Jack Daniels & Wild Turkey fend for themselves. No?

See, the deal is this: Guns are different than bourbon.

Yeah, they kill far fewer people.

DURRRRRR

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They have that law. In nearly every state it is the law. But it isn’t the lawyer who pays. It is the client.

You are allowed to sue for damages but it's not a law you are obligated to pay them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guns are different. Duh x2!

The only difference is gun ownership is protected by the US Constitution. Be honest for once, you just don't like guns and that's why you'd support any anti-American policy to get rid of them. You'd like to see the entire country like NYC where people get beaten to near death with no ability to protect themselves.

The truth of the matter is that Americans use their firearms for self-defense or to stop crime between 1 and 4 million times a year, depending on who's estimate you subscribe to. Using the lowest figure, that means by disarming people there would be well over a million more crimes every year.

 

[Chillicothe]

".....you just don't like guns and that's why you'd support any anti-American policy to get rid of them. You'd like to see the entire country like NYC where people get beaten to near death with no ability to protect themselves."

Ummm, I demur.
I would suggest I likely now own and use more guns than most who visit this website. And have likely used them far longer than most who visit here. I do not want to lose the ability to own, and enjoy firearms, but.......but I think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by what I term 'gun nuts' endangers my usage of firearms far more than any 'anti-gun' group.

The absolutism and extremism of the NRA and those 'gun-nuts' I refer to.....increase the likelihood of a societal-wide revulsion of gun ownership. I currently belong to two 'gun-clubs'...ranges. I used to be a member of the NRA...with first membership in the early 1960's if memory serves. I left that organization when new management took it in a hard extremist direction. I have never looked back. Good riddance. I could understand those who may term the NRA as 'domestic terrorists'.

As far as this thought of yours: "You'd like to see the entire country like NYC where people get beaten to near death..."

That is a silly over-emotional screeching. It makes your avatar look like a frivolous un-serious man. A hysterical pretender.

Don't be like that. It is not a good look for a grown man.
Be better.
We all here expect you to be.

Good luck.

 

[Blues Man]

See, the deal is this: Guns are different than bourbon.

Not from the standpoint of manufacturer obligation.

Both manufacturers make consumer products and both are protected from law suits based on what a third party does with their products. If a person shoots up a school it is not the fault of the gun maker. If a person drinks too much whisky and drives his car into a school bus killing the same number of children it is not the distiller's fault.

If you want a gun manufacturer to be held liable for crimes committed by a third party then you must hold all manufacturers to that same standard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not from the standpoint of manufacturer obligation.

Both are consumer products both are protected from law suits based on what a third party does with their products. If a person shoots up a school it is not the fault of the gun maker. If a person drinks too much whisky and drives his car into a school bus killing the same number of children it is not the distiller's fault.

If you want a gun manufacturer to be held liable for crimes committed by a third party then you must hold all manufacturers to that same standard.

But...but...but... GUNS!!! CHILDREN!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ummm, I demur.
I would suggest I likely now own and use more guns than most who visit this website. And have likely used them far longer than most who visit here. I do not want to lose the ability to own, and enjoy firearms, but.......but I think the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by what I term 'gun nuts' endangers my usage of firearms far more than any 'anti-gun' group.

The absolutism and extremism of the NRA and those 'gun-nuts' I refer to.....increase the likelihood of a societal-wide revulsion of gun ownership. I currently belong to two 'gun-clubs'...ranges. I used to be a member of the NRA...with first membership in the early 1960's if memory serves. I left that organization when new management took it in a hard extremist direction. I have never looked back. Good riddance. I could understand those who may term the NRA as 'domestic terrorists'.

As far as this thought of yours: "You'd like to see the entire country like NYC where people get beaten to near death..."

That is a silly over-emotional screeching. It makes your avatar look like a frivolous un-serious man. A hysterical pretender.

Don't be like that. It is not a good look for a grown man.
Be better.
We all here expect you to be.

Good luck.

How can I take your claims seriously when you support the closing down of all gun manufacturers and sellers in this country? Because that's what removing liability protection would do, close them all down. I don't know one firearms owner that would support that.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I want to sue every alcohol manufacturer for all alcohol related deaths"

Go for it, BM.
Let the forum know how your efforts are going.
Thanx in advance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"........I assume that was you being facetious because there is no logical way to argue a gun is different than a knife when comparing them in the context of killing someone."

Well, yeah. You caught me.
Your are right, I WAS being facetious....or as I just responded to another -- 'sarcastic'.
Nonetheless, to your point: "No logical way to argue...."
Well, yes there is.

Again, let's go back to Stephen Paddock.
If only.....if only.....he would've taken knives in all those suitcases up to the 33rd floor. Instead of 24 guns, and about 6,300 rounds of ammo. I'd bet things would've turned out differently for those 600+ people shot or injured by Paddock's efforts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His muzzle awareness was terrible,

Ummm, according to reports ----he was holstering his gun.
And 'muzzle awareness' figures in there how?

 

[westwall]

Go for it, BM.
Let the forum know how your efforts are going.
Thanx in advance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yeah. You caught me.
Your are right, I WAS being facetious....or as I just responded to another -- 'sarcastic'.
Nonetheless, to your point: "No logical way to argue...."
Well, yes there is.

Again, let's go back to Stephen Paddock.
If only.....if only.....he would've taken knives in all those suitcases up to the 33rd floor. Instead of 24 guns, and about 6,300 rounds of ammo. I'd bet things would've turned out differently for those 600+ people shot or injured by Paddock's efforts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, according to reports ----he was holstering his gun.
And 'muzzle awareness' figures in there how?

Not pointing the muzzle AT YOURSELF!


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Resnic]

Go for it, BM.
Let the forum know how your efforts are going.
Thanx in advance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yeah. You caught me.
Your are right, I WAS being facetious....or as I just responded to another -- 'sarcastic'.
Nonetheless, to your point: "No logical way to argue...."
Well, yes there is.

Again, let's go back to Stephen Paddock.
If only.....if only.....he would've taken knives in all those suitcases up to the 33rd floor. Instead of 24 guns, and about 6,300 rounds of ammo. I'd bet things would've turned out differently for those 600+ people shot or injured by Paddock's efforts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, according to reports ----he was holstering his gun.
And 'muzzle awareness' figures in there how?

A man chose to pick up a knife and stab someone. Or, a man picked up a gun to shoot someone. In either scenario the only factor that led to the death of others was the man that chose to kill them.

You're clinging to one specific scenario and twisting it out of reality in order to argue with while avoiding the entire point of the discussion. It's easy to argue when all you do is make it impossible.

At the end of the day if someone wants to kill people they will do it. Drive a car into a crowd, hijack a plane and crash it into a building, make a bomb, shoot people, poison them, set a building on fire. A gun doesn't change that person wanting to kill people. If all the guns disappeared the nutballs and criminals would still be there, they would still kill people.

So no, you can't argue it. I mean, yes, you can argue it because you'll do any mental gymnastics needed to feel like you're right.

I'll consider this exchange at an end though because I see you have no desire to discuss or consider any point of view except your own.

 

[Chillicothe]

Pillows have been intentionally used to kill people.
Knives have.
Baseball bats and golf clubs have.
Hell, trucks and cars have.

But you see, the Adam Lanza's and Nikolas Cruz's of the world don't use pillows or golf clubs when they walk into a school with the intent to slaughter.

They use guns. Semi-automatic guns that are readily available in America because the gun-nut/2nd Amendment culture requires that they be readily available.

Duh!