HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Father of 6-year-old Sand...

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:23 AM

Father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim hopes to bring unique lawsuit against AR-15 makers

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sandy-hook-victim-dad-hopes-viable-suit-ar-15-maker-article-1.3686471?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Not a day goes by that Ian Hockley doesn’t think about the death of his son Dylan.

The 6-year-old boy was gunned down five years ago by deranged mass shooter Adam Lanza. He was among the 26 children and adults whom the 20-year-old Lanza killed during his Dec. 14, 2012, rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“Dylan is dead every day, and his mother and his brother Jake and I live with that,” Hockley said.

The boy’s death left an unfillable void in Hockley — but it also gave him a purpose.

(Rest at link)

I feel for all the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, but this lawsuit is very likely doomed to fail. And the gun ban groups that continually push these grieving families to file these nuisance lawsuits will walk away once the judgement to pay the Remington's legal fees comes down.

55 replies, 5922 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim hopes to bring unique lawsuit against AR-15 makers (Original post)
TupperHappy Dec 2017 OP
mountain grammy Dec 2017 #1
COLGATE4 Dec 2017 #2
MichMary Dec 2017 #3
sarisataka Dec 2017 #4
Ferrets are Cool Dec 2017 #5
flamin lib Dec 2017 #6
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #7
Alea Dec 2017 #8
flamin lib Dec 2017 #9
Alea Dec 2017 #10
flamin lib Dec 2017 #11
Alea Dec 2017 #12
flamin lib Dec 2017 #13
Alea Dec 2017 #14
Marengo Dec 2017 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2017 #15
krispos42 Dec 2017 #16
flamin lib Dec 2017 #17
krispos42 Dec 2017 #18
flamin lib Dec 2017 #19
krispos42 Dec 2017 #20
flamin lib Dec 2017 #21
krispos42 Dec 2017 #22
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #25
Fred Sanders Dec 2017 #27
oneshooter Dec 2017 #29
krispos42 Dec 2017 #30
Fred Sanders Dec 2017 #31
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #36
Straw Man Dec 2017 #37
Straw Man Dec 2017 #38
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #42
krispos42 Dec 2017 #44
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2017 #45
krispos42 Dec 2017 #47
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2017 #48
yagotme Dec 2017 #49
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2017 #50
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #24
ClarendonDem Dec 2017 #28
flamin lib Dec 2017 #32
hack89 Dec 2017 #33
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #35
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #34
Marengo Dec 2017 #39
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #43
yagotme Dec 2017 #40
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2017 #41
guillaumeb Dec 2017 #26
Marengo Dec 2017 #46
no_hypocrisy Dec 2017 #51
Straw Man Dec 2017 #52
ClarendonDem Dec 2017 #53
X_Digger Jan 2018 #54
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2018 #55

Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:31 AM

1. Negligent entrustment

Interesting..I hope he prevails, though I’m doubtful.

Should be America’s motto, “Negligent entrustment “

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:37 AM

2. This suit isn't going anywhere nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:41 AM

3. FTA:

they knew they were selling deadly weapons and looking for violent young men as customers.


Just wondering if this would apply, since the owner was actually his mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 10:56 AM

4. Fatal flaw in this suit

The person who committed the crime is not the person who purchased the rifle. That negates all of the points about marketing targets and entrustment since it was not entrusted to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 11:38 AM

5. Cant think of Sandy Hook without it

bringing this song up in my head. I'm an old softie. I can't watch it without crying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 01:26 PM

6. The premise has merit.

Just did a google for "AR15 ads".

Vast majority are military themed followed by semi clothed women. One ad about rancher/outdoorsman but even that one cites the M16/military pedigree. Not a single ad about any sporting use.

Makes the claim of " modern sporting rifle" ring hollow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 01:43 PM

7. Only if one ignores the fact that the actual purchaser wasn't a member of that demographic

Which brings up a question for those who think this lawsuit is a good idea:

What sort of support, aside from fine words on the Internet, are *you* giving this family?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 08:37 PM

8. I googled "AR 15 ads" too

Google sorts by popularity and clicks and these were at the top of page 1



Where are all these semi clothed women you speak of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 01:12 PM

9. There are more scantily clad women in your example

Than "sporting" ads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 01:19 PM

10. Not seeing the "Vast Majority" asserted. Now you're changing your own goal post.

There's 45 ads in that pic and 1 that could maybe be considered a scantly clad woman. No "Vast Majority".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 01:21 PM

11. Vast majority are MILITARY.

Deflect much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 01:23 PM

12. Not seeing "Vast marority are Military"

Grasp at straws much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 03:25 PM

13. None so blind and so not worth my time. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 13, 2017, 04:15 PM

14. I fully agree

Isn't it nice that people can actually discuss differing opinions in this Group without getting banned from the Group, whereas in the Lower Gungeon, not echoing with the chamber gets one immediately banned from the group? What's that list up to now... 90 or so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 03:37 PM

23. Got caught again, eh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 14, 2017, 06:58 AM

15. I'm getting your drift

'If you want this military looking rifle that so many mass shooters want, there must be something wrong you. If there's something wrong with you, then you shouldn't have a rifle.' Am I getting close?



I still prefer Yossarian's version: "Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 14, 2017, 11:37 PM

16. Tactical themes abound

After all, that's what you want for self-defense, right? As opposed to a "sporting" or "hunting" gun.

The thing is, "tactical" looks and features are here to stay. There are broad applications of "tactical" features that bleed over to sporting and hunting guns, even bolt-action and pump-action guns.

Even if all semi-auto rifles were banned, pretty quickly pump-action rifles sporting the same tactical features would fill the void. Red-dot sights, foregrips with lots of space to add accessories, gun-mounted flashlights and lasers, matte-black finishes, camo finishes, protruding pistol grips, folding/telescoping buttstocks, fancy slings, bipods, etc., would all be available on whatever replaces the semi-auto AR-15.

You might get more luck googling for the AR-10. They're in a more potent chambering than the AR-15 platform can handle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 15, 2017, 06:18 AM

17. Is this the velocity of an unladen sparrow

argument?

Must be because it bears no relationship to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 15, 2017, 05:29 PM

18. *snort* oops, I made a booboo. It was to your comment #6.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 15, 2017, 05:57 PM

19. Bears no relevance to either. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 16, 2017, 04:36 PM

20. I disagree

With the migration of Americans to urban areas and associated suburbs the intended purposes for guns have shifted. A century ago a lot of guns purchased were either for hunting or self-defense, and a fair number were dual-purpose; the lever-action rifle, for example, had enough power to take medium-sized game at 100 yards or more but was also handy enough and reloaded fast enough to make a credible self-defense gun against both humans and animal predators. A 12-gauge pump shotgun could take a bird on the wing at 40 yards or dump a load of buckshot into a deer, or an intruder.

Now, self-defense is a much larger reason for buying a gun. For example, nearly every semiautomatic pistol sold is optimized for tactical use and would make a pretty mediocre hunting gun. In fact, only a couple of types of pistol ammo are powerful enough to be legal for taking deer, none of which are the usual and typical semiauto pistol chamberings.

Therefore, Glock, Smith & Wesson, Walther, Ruger, Springfield Armory, CZ, Heckler & Koch, Rock River Arms, Kimber, Taurus, Kel-Tec, Beretta, Kahr, Sig-Sauer, etc., are not going to marketing their latest 9mm or .45 for hunting. No, it's going to promoted for either law-enforcement/private security markets or the individual personal-protection market. There aren't going to be pastoral scenes with hunting buddies have a good time in the wild; it's going to be in grim self-defense situations taking place in urban or suburban areas.

Same goes for rifles and shotguns. While obviously a lot of rifles and shotguns are optimized for hunting use and marketed as such, a similar amount (or perhaps more) are optimized for self-defense/tactical use and, also, are marketed as such. Again, the lightweight bolt-action rifle intended for people that go hunting deer in mountains is going to have a markedly different advertising campaign from the lightweight semi-automatic rifle intended for self-protection in the home.

Further blurring the lines is the fact that the addition or subtraction of a few accessories can convert a semiautomatic rifle from one purpose to another. For example, let's say I have an AR-15 chambered in .223. And let's say that I normally keep it set up for self-defense. I keep it loaded with tactical ammunition, I have a red-dot sight on top, and I have a powerful flashlight attached under the barrel.

Now I'm going varmint hunting out in my fields, or whatever. Okay, so I strip off the flashlight, swap the red-dot sight with a nice 3-9 power variable-zoom hunting scope, attach a bipod, and throw some hunting ammunition in a magazine. Now I've a setup I can use to very effectively shoot prairie dogs, coyotes, gophers, hares, etc. All I needed to do was invest in a second scope and a bipod.


Second example: Let's say I have an AR-15, but instead of the normal .223 Remington I have it chambered in .450 Bushmaster. Instead of a small fast bullet it shoots a big, slow one. It's much more powerful but the slowness of the bullet means it drops like a brick, limiting me to maybe 200 yards. A red-dot sight and a barrel-mounted flashlight makes it effective for self-defense OR hunting feral hogs, and replacing the red-dot sight with a 2-7x variable-zoom scope means I can use it as a close-to-medium-range deer gun.

The beauty of the AR-15 is that it is a 2-piece design. The upper part and lower part of the receiver easily come apart and can be swapped, so it is a popular option to purchase several uppers in different calibers and simply swap them as needed. The optics and accessories stay attached to the upper, so I could have both a .223 upper and a .450 upper and simply swap them in a few seconds as needed.

Since keeping a gun around for self-defense is an every day need but a hunting a gun is used only a few times a year, a multi-use gun like the AR-15 will be predominantly marketed for self-defense even if the manufacturer makes hunting or marksmen optimized rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 16, 2017, 05:25 PM

21. Nice apology for marketing a made-for-war weapon to the masses, but

frankly your post is full of something that smells to high heaven.

The majority of ads for the AR are not about self defense. They are aggrandizing the military aspects of the design and use of the gun. Pictures of soldiers, police and an abundance of over-testeroned rhetoric. Ads not featuring heroes in camo refer to man cards being validated or show semi naked women, in effect saying "Our gun will make your dick hard!"

Gun makers market to the insecurity and self doubt of semi emasculated white men. Why else feature heroic military figures in camo and face paint with captions like "designed for them, made for you" and "the difference between winning and total domination"? These lines were taken verbatim from ads on the first page of my search.

Take your gunner apologies and NRA talking points about self defense and file them in the same bull's anus this last post came out of.

Now have the last word and declare victory, you bore me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 16, 2017, 07:22 PM

22. You mean, typical advertising techniques?

Yeah, of course they do that, just like Ford does for pickup trucks or DeWalt does for power tools. And don't forget the beer commercials!

But I understand where you're coming from. They play up the military angle, I think in part because it's macho and they fetishize the military. George Lakoff notes this is part of the conservative "strict father" model he wrote about in "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Part of it too is that, since it's generally agreed that the military has decently high standards for their equipment, if the military is using it then the design is pretty good. And of course, when you're defending yourself with a rifle you're doing something awfully similar to what the military does in combat. The difference is that what you're doing will likely only last seconds, not multi-year tours like the Army.

There are numerous reasons why I don't own an AR-15 and probably won't, but that can be for another time.

The issue here, I think, is that the AR-15 is, in one aspect, just another gun. It's a launching device for bullets. Unless you beat somebody with it, the gun doesn't do the actual injury; the bullet it launches does.

The military, the police, and civilians have done work improving the AR-15 as a bullet-launching device. A lot of it is technical; what kind of coating to use on the mechanical parts, what kind of steel or aluminum to use, how to heat treat it. What kind of stock works better? How can we make the trigger pull smoother, or lighter, or both? Is the magazine release too big? Too small? Too smooth? Too rough?

Gas system... direct impingement or gas piston? Carbine length or mid-size? Without or without gas-adjustment?

There's certainly a lot more than that; I'm far from an expert on this issue. But what I'm getting at is that the metrics are too strong to ignore, and these are above and beyond being specific to the AR-15. A protruding pistol grip is generally more comfortable and secure than a traditional straight grip. And having two (front and back) can be even better.

Mounting a flashlight to your gun is just too good of an idea to not do.

A telescoping buttstock that quickly adjusts for different arm lengths and different thicknesses of clothing seems, nowadays at least, to be just basic common sense.

Red dot sights work better than iron sights; they're easier to see, don't' require as much in terms of sight alignment, and don't require your eyes to focus off the target.

These improvements have spread very widely throughout the world and across a variety of rifles and shotguns. In fact, they're now making small red-dot sights for ordinary pistols. You'll probably start seeing them on cops a lot more.

The metric is speed and accuracy. OF COURSE people want to get their sights on target faster, whether your hunting a running deer, shooting clays, or facing down an adversary. OF COURSE people want to put their bullets where they are aiming. And these kinds of improvements and developments are making a difference.

So yeah, the military is going to adopt them. And the police. And Joe Schmoe down the street. Because that's what progress is... continual improvements.

What you're complaining about is that CONCEPTS (not technology) is migrating from the police/military world into the civilian world. You don't like it, you seem to want it to revert, somehow, and you fight what has been a largely lost cause on this.

And I understand it's intimidating and threatening. People that have guns for self defense are people that think and practice and plan for the circumstance of having to take a human life. And it's creepy because some of them REALLY TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. Like, really seriously. Like, to the point where it seems they grow a desire to test the skills they've acquired and the planning they've done.

And the internet, like it has for everything else, makes this stuff more available and easy to find. And to find others that have a similar hobby. I think part of your concern is that you realize just how popular this is, something that 25 years ago you would be ignorant of because you didn't go to a gun store or read a gun magazine or have any friends to talk with about guns. Now it's everywhere, just like everything else.

But ultimately the intense concern over this has resulted in a backlash that is having the opposite effect of what you would like. Rifle and handgun sales under Obama skyrocketed because of his, and his party's, stance on guns. Trying to make tactical rifles unacceptable socially, if not legally, has led to soaring sales and more effort into R&D, as well as more accessories.

The only real, if incomplete solution, would be to ban semi-auto long guns. Of course, the market would respond in relatively short order with tactical pump-action rifles, with red dot sights and pistol grips and adjustable stocks and matte black finishes, but at least they would be manual action, not semi-automatic action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 06:03 PM

25. You're far more polite than I would be- the gun control bitter-enders seem determined...

...to make all Democrats die politically on their particular hill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 06:10 PM

27. Do as Australia did...buy back the military grade weapons and toss them on a bonfire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 08:07 PM

29. All of the "military grade" weapons in civilian hands are registered to the current civilian owners

The cost would be very high, as these weapons sell for 8-30,000 dollars. EACH.

Now if you are speaking about civilian owned AR and AK semi-auto clones, well they are not considered to be "military grade".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 08:49 PM

30. The perpetual question is "how do you define 'military grade'?"

As I've noted earlier, a lot of tactical features (assault features or military features, if you prefer) are simply design features that improve the handling of the gun to make it more effective (deadly, if you prefer) in the hands of a trained person. Better sights, better grips, better handling, better recoil absorption, better fit to individual body types, etc.

Going forward, these features are going to be on pretty much all rifles and shotguns with tactical use in mind, even if they are pump-action or lever-action guns instead of semi-automatics.

Behold the pump-action AR-15. Used the same accessories as a regular AR-15: trigger, stock, grip, mounting rails, trigger, magazines, sights, etc., but it's a pump-action.




Looking at this, are you relieved it's not a semi-automatic, or still unhappy because it's a tactical rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 08:59 PM

31. Exactly the type of WMD's Australia threw in the Barbi! Zero mass murders since.

Thanks for the picture of your beloved instrument of death, just makes my point.

P.S. Gunner porn on DU is laughed at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 10:59 PM

36. I've no doubt you do a fine job of convincing those who already agree with you...

...and will wear out many a keyboard proclaiming your disdain for guns and gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 01:31 AM

37. Zero? Guess again.

Using the FBI's definition of mass murder as four or more killings in a single event, there have been eight mass murders in Australia in the 20 years since the legislation was enacted. Those with the highest death tolls have been arson attacks.

In the 20 years prior to the legislation, there were 12 mass murder events, most of them shootings. Only one of them, the Port Arthur massacre, had a death toll higher than any of the subsequent arson attacks.

Among the "military" weapons the Australians banned was the humble pump shotgun. Any attempt at a similar ban in this country would be the best gift the Republican Party has ever been handed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 02:43 AM

38. Wrong again.

Exactly the type of WMD's Australia threw in the Barbi! Zero mass murders since.

Thanks for the picture of your beloved instrument of death, just makes my point.

That is a pump-action rifle, not a semi-auto. It is still legal in Australia. For some odd reason, though, Australia bans -- or heavily restricts -- pump shotguns.

Technical details matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 04:05 PM

42. "Technical details matter." Not to gun control advocates- theirs is a faith-based movement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 07:42 PM

44. I don't think Australia threw any pump-action rifles on the barbie

Which is what my picture was of.

Nice of you to set up conditions where contrary evidence is "porn", but whatever.

My point still stands: I show you a picture of a tactical rifle that is not an "assault weapon" and you still call for it to be destroyed, after stating it's a WMB and an instrument of death.

Either appearance or intention are driving your opinions on this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 10:53 PM

45. just so you understand...

...I still think you can eradicate diabetes by banning spoons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 27, 2017, 06:12 PM

47. At minimum, assault spoons should be banned.

I mean, really, who needs a spoon with more than 15 mL capacity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 28, 2017, 07:03 AM

48. Don't you think that all serving spoons should be round?

I mean that since the idea is to collect and move a large capacity of food, having them be elongated to possibly fit in a mouth while containing an excess of food seems unnecessary. Consider the effects on the folks seated next to or across from someone using a serving spoon to eat. The horror!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 11:41 AM

49. Try eating with one of the spoons from a WW1/WW2 mess kit.

I've seen serving spoons that were smaller...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yagotme (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 11:46 AM

50. Been there; done that; got the waistline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 05:47 PM

24. "NRA talking points" is the antigun version of "fake news": partisan cant and pietism...

...not an actual argument.

I suggest giving up on your losing cultural war- it's made you lot bitter, harms Democrats and enables
Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 08:03 PM

28. How are these semi-auto rifles

 

Which aren't used (as far as I know) by any military organization, "made-for-war" weapons? They are semi-auto rifles, with a few bells and whistles, but semi-auto rifles nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 09:15 PM

32. Originally marketed to the navy under the nomenclature

"Assault rifle", a name conjured up by Armalite.

Eta marketed and sold to the navy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 09:25 PM

33. Weren't those fully automatic? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 10:57 PM

35. Indeed they were. We were not supposed to notice the conflation of the two sorts of firearms.

Last edited Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 10:53 PM

34. Three mistakes in two sentences. 1) It was the Air Force, not the Navy

2) All of which were fully automatic, unlike any of the guns that you or Alea found which are
thus not assault rifles...

3)...a term of art invented by the Germans in WWII, not Armalite.

Are your other posts of similar factual accuracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 02:04 PM

39. He is an endless source of alternative firearm facts...

 

Here’s my favorite:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=199560

I’m still astonished that he actually posted that morass of misinformation on a public forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 04:13 PM

43. Kindly note just who it was that wrote the following:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=11154

I have a federal firearms license. I daresay that I know more about guns and the relationship between warfare and weapons development than most gun nuts here on DU.

If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are too ignorant of the topic to have this discussion...









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 03:13 PM

40. You missed another one, fi:

AR=Armalite, not "Assault rifle".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yagotme (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 19, 2017, 04:04 PM

41. Ah, yes- didn't catch that one. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 06:07 PM

26. Yes, a modern sporting rifle if the "sport" is killing humans.

The NRA is nothing but a lobbying group for weapons manufacturers posing as a group for gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 20, 2017, 08:34 AM

46. The AR platform is increasing in popularity for hunting. Ive used an AR-10 and...

 

Can report I was very pleased and likely to do so again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Original post)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 02:58 PM

51. IMO, it won't be lawsuits that change the accountability of gun owners.

It will be the insurance market that will mandate owners buy and maintain liability coverage if they own a gun. Same concept as owning a car. Eventually there will be states that also require liability insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 04:46 PM

52. Mandatory gun insurance ...

... would not do what many seem to think it will. For starters, it would not compensate the victims of intentional illegal acts. Your car insurance will deny coverage if you intentionally run down a pedestrian. The same would apply to the illegal and intentional use of firearms.

Second, because firearms accidents are statistically rare, such insurance would not be prohibitively expensive. (Note the use of the word "prohibitively," as it is so close to the hearts of most vocal advocates of such insurance.)

Finally, mandating such insurance would be a boon to the coffers of the NRA, since they are currently a major purveyor of such insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 29, 2017, 05:31 PM

53. You can't mandate liability insurance

 

If there's no gun registration, and I doubt there will ever be gun registration. I'm not even sure how liability insurance would work - won't cover criminal acts, so what is the purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 26, 2018, 11:18 PM

54. Liability insurance doesn't cover intentional criminal acts.

You know who would be the prime seller of such insurance? The NRA.

IOW, it wouldn't do what you think it would, would only make the NRA richer, and would be laughably cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 27, 2018, 12:19 PM

55. The insurance load...

...is just another straw to grasped in the losing efforts by regulation happy gun haters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread