Sandy Hook Law Suit

Ah! So they settled for $13 million rather than going to court.
Red Bull Does (Not) Give You Wings
Yeah, it can be extremely costly, even if you win, going to court. I was just last month involved in a lawsuit and it was settled. We had home court advantage and they would have had to pay all of the attorney fees had they lost. So they offered to settle and we took it. Granted, we were technically in the right and 'should' have won, but when you are talking a lawsuit of that size you don't want to risk having to pay THEIR attorney fees if for some reason we lost. Not to mention the time giving depositions and dealing with all of it. It would, or could have, been in court for at least a year.

I honestly think most of the people that sue do so hoping the other party will opt to settle. That was the third lawsuit I have been involved in!
 
Oh no, more guns wont stop it. Me having a gun will stop it from being me. It's not too late to fix the problem but it's not a popular opinion on how to stop the problem.

If you know when to use it. AZ is heavily armed - and when Gabby Giffords was shot here, the police actually thanked the gun owners in the parking lot for not trying to help by shooting. The fact is, this could have started a pretty deadly shoot out, since no one would know who was on the side of the killer.

My personal belief is that if police and teachers were not underpaid and overworked you would see less of these things. You could catch problems before they start and recognize when individuals fall through the cracks. I do not think you can begin to rectify the situation until those things are taken care of first. That's just one step though.

Agreed - and it's a mental health issue - even with good insurance, the difficulty finding services for a teen or young adult is astounding. Hospitalization is rare, and patients are often kicked out before they are stable.

The mother did everything that should be done - locked the gun and ammunition away.
 
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire...

CA School Board Votes Unanimously To Arm Teachers

It should be noted that this school is located in California, a very liberal (as opposed to "gun crazy") state, and the vote to allow armed school staff was unanimous.

What was the old Chinese curse about living in "interesting times?"

Fresno is a very conservative area of California and it's pretty hard to actually get a concealed carry permit here. I wonder if it's even possible for five teachers/staff to successfully get the necessary permits.

But surprising and interesting indeed.
 
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire...

CA School Board Votes Unanimously To Arm Teachers

It should be noted that this school is located in California, a very liberal (as opposed to "gun crazy") state, and the vote to allow armed school staff was unanimous.

What was the old Chinese curse about living in "interesting times?"

It really does sound frighteningly Darwinian. The teachers have to have the gun on hand to kill intruders, and they also have to have the gun locked away from the students.
 
Fresno is a very conservative area of California and it's pretty hard to actually get a concealed carry permit here. I wonder if it's even possible for five teachers/staff to successfully get the necessary permits.

But surprising and interesting indeed.

The people in question may be classified as security staff, therefore authorized to carry firearms on school property only. In that case, no private CCW would be necessary.
 
If the school board voted it in, they have to pay for the guns etc, all insurances and night security, silly buggers.
 
And yet, there are far more deaths attributed to automobiles every year that firearms. No one is sueing Ford or General Motors because some drunk driver runs over a pedestrian or crashes into another car. The crime is committed by the person, and they should be punished. There are laws in existence written specifically for that purpose.

I'm in agreement, I don't think they should be suing in any case.

I understand a car can be used as a weapon, but a gun is a weapon.

What I totally disagree with is the idea that penalizing me for what someone else does is in any way not an abuse of my personal rights.

I don't think anyone is advocating taking away your rights, at least not on BB. The majority of gun owners are the same as yourself @white avenger, responsible sane people. (I'm sure Kean would disagree on the sane part 😉) For anyone to say, 'oh just ban guns, that'll fix it', when gun ownership has been a part of American culture since it was a country would be wrong.

As a comparison - it's a bit better now, but in recent history, Glasgow (biggest city in Scotland) had a terrible gang problem and the murder rate was higher per capita than NYC, yet we have almost zero access to guns in this country. So there you go, and that's from someone who detests guns.

I think everyone has a different outlook on it depending on where they grew up. Reminds me of the Eliza Dushku hunting controversy a few years ago.
 
For those of you in the rest of the world, you have to understand...

a1b6a7ae59ca08d32ee5076aa8c3b89a.jpg


and if that isn't enough:

[youtube]
[/youtube]

Let's refrain from this type of posting.
 
I understand a car can be used as a weapon, but a gun is a weapon.

We have a unique situation in the United States, as far as I know. Ours is the only nation where the private citizens are, not allowed by the grace and whims of their government, but instead, GUARANTEED by their Constitution, the right, and some might even call it the duty, to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that most people here are familiar with our Bill Of Rights, but I'm not really sure that the full meaning of that document is clear.

Our Bill Of Rights and Constitution isn't the Government's assurance that we have these rights, it is simply their acknowledgement that the rights exist. "...all men are created equal, and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." If any one of those rights can be taken away by our government, then every single one, from freedom of speech and worship, to the assurance that no human being can ever be the property of another, then any and all of them can, and we become no better than slaves of the State. I know that that sounds extreme to some, but it remains a fact. The right to keep and bear arms is, in the United States, a right, not a privilege, and some might even call it a duty and responsibility.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state..." is the part of the Second Amendment that is often ignored. The Militia Act of 1794 defined the Militia as all able bodied white men between the ages of 15 and 54, and all veterans, regardless of age, as being members of the standing militia, and as such were required to provide their own rifle, ammunition, and equipment, upon being called to duty. That has been modified several times since then (the word "white" has since been eliminated, and "men" has been changed to "person") and the current definition, as of 1904, divides the militia into three groups: the regular Army (all branches), the State Militia and National Guard, and the Reserve Militia, which is comprised of "all able bodied persons between the age of 17 and 54, and all veterans."

I'm not some gun happy prepper hiding in my own private bunker with a cache of MRE's and ammunition, waiting for SHTF Day, but I do believe that I have the right to protect myself, my family, and my property, and I also believe that the day might come when I am required to do so with more than just harsh language and my bare hands and feet. As long as I act responsibly and abide by the just laws of a polite and civilized society, the government has neither the reason nor the right to deny me the right to own firearms simply because criminals choose to use them in the commission of crimes.
 
Rogueslayer
Rogueslayer
I was hoping someone would explain this.
We have a unique situation in the United States, as far as I know. Ours is the only nation where the private citizens are, not allowed by the grace and whims of their government, but instead, GUARANTEED by their Constitution, the right, and some might even call it the duty, to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that most people here are familiar with our Bill Of Rights, but I'm not really sure that the full meaning of that document is clear.

Our Bill Of Rights and Constitution isn't the Government's assurance that we have these rights, it is simply their acknowledgement that the rights exist. "...all men are created equal, and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." If any one of those rights can be taken away by our government, then every single one, from freedom of speech and worship, to the assurance that no human being can ever be the property of another, then any and all of them can, and we become no better than slaves of the State. I know that that sounds extreme to some, but it remains a fact. The right to keep and bear arms is, in the United States, a right, not a privilege, and some might even call it a duty and responsibility.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state..." is the part of the Second Amendment that is often ignored. The Militia Act of 1794 defined the Militia as all able bodied white men between the ages of 15 and 54, and all veterans, regardless of age, as being members of the standing militia, and as such were required to provide their own rifle, ammunition, and equipment, upon being called to duty. That has been modified several times since then (the word "white" has since been eliminated, and "men" has been changed to "person") and the current definition, as of 1904, divides the militia into three groups: the regular Army (all branches), the State Militia and National Guard, and the Reserve Militia, which is comprised of "all able bodied persons between the age of 17 and 54, and all veterans."

I'm not some gun happy prepper hiding in my own private bunker with a cache of MRE's and ammunition, waiting for SHTF Day, but I do believe that I have the right to protect myself, my family, and my property, and I also believe that the day might come when I am required to do so with more than just harsh language and my bare hands and feet. As long as I act responsibly and abide by the just laws of a polite and civilized society, the government has neither the reason nor the right to deny me the right to own firearms simply because criminals choose to use them in the commission of crimes.

I don't have a problem with your Constitution or your rights, I'm all for people being free to do what they want, I just don't like guns personally. 🙂 I forget that guns are linked to US Constitution so if I say I don't like guns it doesn't mean I don't like your Constitution. It's not my place to judge your bill of rights, in fact it would be fairly rude coming from a foreigner.
What was this? Was it because she confessed to going hunting with her boyfriend and a bow? I dimly recall this...

Yes I think it was bow hunting. I can barely remember it myself but it was a bit of a hoo-ha. 😛
 
From the article: "...Bushmaster and Remington's marketing strategy deliberately targets young men, some of whom are inclined to violence."

Well, that's kind of painfully vague and offensive to young men. "Some of whom are inclined to..." could be used as a line to caution for anything.

While I feel for the families, and don't like guns, I think suing the manufacturer is a bit ridiculous and I can't really see what good will come of it. I hope they're not putting themselves through this grief for nothing.
 
While I feel for the families, and don't like guns, I think suing the manufacturer is a bit ridiculous and I can't really see what good will come of it. I hope they're not putting themselves through this grief for nothing.
To me this is no different than the daughter of Paul Walker suing Porsche because he was drag racing. They threw that case out but are looking at this. It's the same thing. Just this one involved the evil gun.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
She should have sued the Fast and Furious franchise.
Some of us like guns, some of us don't, some have no clear opinion and we might think different about gun laws. Still it seems to me that we agree that this lawsuit is misguided.

I wondering though, since it seems many consider America to be "special". Should the rest of the world change their view on guns and gun laws as to how you want it to be in America? Or is it the thing that make it "special" something that would make it a bad idea in other countries? Why or why not?
 
Should the rest of the world change their view on guns and gun laws as you want it to be in America? Or is it the thing that make it "special" something that would make it a bad idea in other countries? Why or why not?
I think the other countries could, but I don't think you could replicate what America is/has. Just from the earliest days of the country it was build around, by and because of the gun. America's history revolves around the gun and the railways. Even if other countries were to lower their regulations the mentality is still not there.
 
Rogueslayer
Rogueslayer
There's the second point I was hoping to see.
I think the other countries could, but I don't think you could replicate what America is/has. Just from the earliest days of the country it was build around, by and because of the gun. America's history revolves around the gun and the railways. Even if other countries were to lower their regulations the mentality is still not there.
That's why I asked should and not could. 😉 So what do you think would happen if other countries were to lower their regulations?
 
So what do you think would happen if other countries were to lower their regulations?
It depends on the country and the people. I don't know what other countries regulations are though, honestly. I don't even know what all the STATE regulations are!
 
Back
Top Bottom