Families of Newtown shooting victims file lawsuit against gun manufacturer, distributor

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Families of Newtown shooting victims file lawsuit against gun manufacturer, distributor

Pat Eaton-Robb, The Associated Press
Published Monday, December 15, 2014 11:29AM EST
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher wounded two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit Monday against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.
The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defence.
"The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare," attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. "In fact, one of the Army's specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet."
In addition to Bushmaster, the defendants are Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the East Windsor store where the gunman's mother purchased the Bushmaster rifle in 2010.
Messages seeking comment from the defendants were not immediately returned.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/families-of-newtown-shooting-victims-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer-distributor-1.2148332

The article goes on to quote a relative of a victim:
""These companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it," he said."

Bullshit. Car manufacturers aren't responsible when someone runs someone else over. Aeroplane manufacturers aren't responsible for 911. It is not the responsibility of a manufacturer to police their clients and customers.

I don't like guns and would see them restricted to an extent, but the manufacturer has nothing to do with this. Nor the distributer. The mother bought the gun and the son fired it. The government allowed the company to sell the model to citizens. Those are the only parties with any actual responsibility in this, and the son bears the vast majority of that responsibility.

This suit doesn't even make sense from a anti-firearms perspective. If the company is burdened enough with law suits that it goes bankrupt, it'll just make room for a new manufacturer to take their place. One without a safety or quality record equal to the company that went under.

This is about some greedy fucks who think they are entitled to a big pile of cash just because some people died, and those greedy fucks know the assailant cannot provide that pile of cash so they go after peripheral targets who bear no responsibility. That the government wasn't named proves it, as only the government can regulate what is and isn't legal for sale to the public.

It incences me to think these people actually have a chance at victory.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Beyond

zarathustra wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Ironically, one of the leading causes of accidents is wwhile cleaning and the person believes it is unloaded.
That is why only properly trained people should be allowed to hold firearms.

The problem with that video is that you have a Jamaican cop teaching the students. He was most likely high as a kite when he shot himself.