Claim seeks $100 million for child survivor of Connecticut school shooting

[james&olya 1,121]

While you were sleeping, the Congress passed a federal law protecting firearms manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from the illegal use of their products.

As I have observed before, we have the best congress that money can buy!

[james&olya 1,121]

Alot of people have been complaining about this but that law made perfect sense. As much as certain groups try to single out firearms as somehow special and unique, it is still a product sold commercially like any other product. Once you allow a manufacturer to be held liable for a third party misuse of a product (assuming the manufacturer follows all rules and regulations) it opens up the door for liability claims for anything. A motorist could sue GM after being hit by a chevy. A family could sue sony after a radio falls into the bathtub (assuming you live in an older home without GFI outlets in the bath).

Same issue for the liability insurance argument. A person might try to say that firearms are somehow different then a toaster but a courtroom will not be able to make that distinction.

Your argument fails completely and totally because all those other products out there are NOT exempted from liability for innocent people being injured or dying from the use of the product. Guns could be made MUCH safer!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Your argument fails completely and totally because all those other products out there are NOT exempted from liability for innocent people being injured or dying from the use of the product. Guns could be made MUCH safer!

If thats true name one such product, and provide the contextual example. IE that the manufacturer can be sued for the criminal use of that product by another party.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[james&olya 1,121]

If thats true name one such product, and provide the contextual example. IE that the manufacturer can be sued for the criminal use of that product by another party.

You name it! You are entitled to sue for just about any imagined wrong. Many crininals have won negligence and product liability suits. If you want to find them google it. I'm not wasting my time for you!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Alot of people have been complaining about this but that law made perfect sense. As much as certain groups try to single out firearms as somehow special and unique, it is still a product sold commercially like any other product. Once you allow a manufacturer to be held liable for a third party misuse of a product (assuming the manufacturer follows all rules and regulations) it opens up the door for liability claims for anything. A motorist could sue GM after being hit by a chevy. A family could sue sony after a radio falls into the bathtub (assuming you live in an older home without GFI outlets in the bath).

Same issue for the liability insurance argument. A person might try to say that firearms are somehow different then a toaster but a courtroom will not be able to make that distinction.

Yeah, I don't think the gun manufacturers should be held liable simply for making the gun, but if Lanza's mother had been required to have a million dollar liability insurance on her firearms, that might be just enough to bury those 26 children and teachers. That's not too much to ask of gun owners, imo.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yeah, I don't think the gun manufacturers should be held liable simply for making the gun, but if Lanza's mother had been required to have a million dollar liability insurance on her firearms, that might be just enough to bury those 26 children and teachers. That's not too much to ask of gun owners, imo.

Yeah but here is the irony, the insurance co. probably would have not covered the criminal act of murder by a party not on the policy.

You name it! You are entitled to sue for just about any imagined wrong. Many crininals have won negligence and product liability suits. If you want to find them google it. I'm not wasting my time for you!

Frankly you are wasting my time if you cannot back up your claim.

[james&olya 1,121]

Yeah, I don't think the gun manufacturers should be held liable simply for making the gun, but if Lanza's mother had been required to have a million dollar liability insurance on her firearms, that might be just enough to bury those 26 children and teachers. That's not too much to ask of gun owners, imo.

Lawn mowers are required to require the continued grasp of the handle for the engine to go. There may soon be a requirement that power saws have brakes that instantly stop the blade if it touches flesh. Similarly, technology exists that could disable the firing mechanism of a gun if an unregistered user was holding it. This could have saved all those lives at Sandy Hook. Having the ability to use a 'safety' device but not installing them even as an option could be construed as negligence on the part of manufacturers. Yes, they would add cost, weight, and affect those cold, clean lines. Too bad!! Yeah, I would also go for the required liability insurance. Make certain that victims or their families could at least get some reimbursement for their loss. The real reason, of course, would be to discourage gun ownership and create a legal basis for the forfeiture of firearms found not to be insured!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lawn mowers are required to require the continued grasp of the handle for the engine to go.

Who requires this, the government?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[james&olya 1,121]

Yeah but here is the irony, the insurance co. probably would have not covered the criminal act of murder by a party not on the policy.

My homeowners policy covers me for break-ins and other criminal acts committed by others. This woman did not commit a crime so if she had liability insurance for the possibility someone would be hurt by one of her guns it would have to pay!

An even better example. If you own a dog and it assaults (bites) someone that can be considered a crime attributable to the owner. The insurance policy will still have to pay unless by their choice they have written language into the policy to exempt themselves for that particular type of event!

Edited December 30, 2012 by james&olya

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yeah, I don't think the gun manufacturers should be held liable simply for making the gun, but if Lanza's mother had been required to have a million dollar liability insurance on her firearms, that might be just enough to bury those 26 children and teachers. That's not too much to ask of gun owners, imo.

All those inner city kids killing each other day in and day out and not a peep. 26 little white kids from white people suburbia get whacked by a nutter using stolen firearms from a registered gun owner and you get those post in the quote.

So the price of those kids in your opinion is $1 million liability? Might as well do that for cars, fat foods, knifes, hammers...well everything.

Just like when those Trayvon Martin tapes were edited by NBC. The usual brain dead trolls on here were all over those headlines before the truth came out. They couldn't ride the headlines enough. Of course when it comes to facts and numbers you don't hear much from that group. Kind of like how the poster "OnMyWayID" put it on a poster on here so bad by using facts that a certain media headline rider poster on here had a mental breakdown in front of the rest of us.

Why is it that a certain group of posters on here are so against having armed security in the schools? Do they really hate children that much? Armed security in court houses, larger banks, USCIS offices, airports, etc... no problem with that. But when it comes to the children having the same they go ballistic.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

My homeowners policy covers me for break-ins and other criminal acts committed by others. This woman did not commit a crime so if she had liability insurance for the possibility someone would be hurt by one of her guns it would have to pay!

Does your insurance cover a third party car if its hit with your car while stolen?

An even better example. If you own a dog and it assaults (bites) someone that can be considered a crime attributable to the owner. The insurance policy will still have to pay unless by their choice they have written language into the policy to exempt themselves for that particular type of event!

Great a dog is not an inanimate object.

[james&olya 1,121]

A dog might very soon BECOME an inanimate object if it goes after me or my family!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

A dog might very soon BECOME an inanimate object if it goes after me or my family!

Iv'e shot my share of pesky dogs.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

A dog might very soon BECOME an inanimate object if it goes after me or my family!

lol ok. Well you will find that insurance policies often protect your property from criminal acts but not the criminal act itself. IE just because your car is stolen your insurance is not covering the actions of the thief with the exception of the car itself. The only exception is if you give the criminal permission to use the car.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Iv'e shot my share of pesky dogs.