Ten Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster: Should victims of gun violence be able to sue gun manufacturers?

  • If gun manufacturers can sell, they can be sued.

    I believe that gun manufacturers have a grand responsibility in assuring that whoever is purchasing their guns has the capacity to use it responsibly and carefully. Unfortunately when someone is a victim of gun violence, they might feel as if their only option is to stop those that gave oppurtunity in the first place.

  • Gun Manufacturers are Responsible

    Victims of gun violence should be able to sue gun manufacturers. It is the responsibility of the gun manufacturer to ensure that a safety cannot be easily dislodged. The gun manufacturer also determines the calibre and type of weapon available for sale. The manufacturer also determines the distribution method and marketing. As with any product that injures a consumer, the manufacturer does hold some liability.

  • You don't blame Ford

    It's easy to think that the people who made these weapons are evil, but they're not. They're just business people. It wasn't the people at Winchester, Riger, Bushmaster, Colt, or any other gun manufacturers that told these people to do this. I know we need to do somethi bf to prevent gun violence, but this is not it.

  • Manufacturers not liable

    Where does it stop? Does a victim of a car accident sue Toyota because the driver that hit them was in a SUV or truck instead of a Prius? Because a mad man uses a rifle instead of a pistol to kill people does not mean the manufacturer is at fault. Handguns are responsible for far more deaths in this country than AR-15s yet the lawsuit and the parents state the rifle is the cause of the terrible murders. The insane person with the weapon is at fault and that's the simple truth. I feel terrible for the families but we can't allow the justice system to deteriorate any further than it already has and be used to punish those not at fault for the actions of mad men or women.

  • Victims of Gun violence should NOT be able to sue the manufacturers making a legal product and selling it in a legal manner.

    A victim intentionally injured by a person using a motor vehicle does not sue the auto maker. An assault victim injured by a knife-wielding assailant does not sue the maker of the knife. The person injured by a fist or a rock does not sue the creator of either.
    Proper jurisprudence and common sense should prevail over an ethically-challenged desire to "find somebody - ANYBODY - with deep pockets".

  • Last timed I checked, people shoot people.

    Guns don't just jump up and decide one day to shoot someone. It's the fault of the person wielding the gun. The manufacturers didn't force the gunman to shoot those kids and teachers, so why should they face charges? Why should they have to suffer the consequences of something they had no part of?

  • No way never

    The gun store didn't say "Go shoot children". They sold them the gun and he used it in the wrong way. A gun can be used in the right way, it just wasn't in this case. That would be the equivalent of a person getting in a car accident and suing the manufacturer even though it was the DRIVER'S fault.

  • The Person Did it, Not the Store

    First, Congress says you can't. They passed a bill that says you can't sue a manufacturer because someone used it illegally.

    You can use a knife illegally, or a car illegally. If you kill someone with it, the victim's family isn't gonna sue Farberware or Honda. Cars are statistically the most lethal devices we've ever had on this earth.

    The person who committed the crime might've passed the background check at the time, because they hadn't committed any crime (or gotten caught for it) before. Thus, the manufacturer cannot be held responsible. There is no real way to catch someone BEFORE they commit their first crime. You can't do mental testing on everyone for no reason, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

  • No, victims of gun violence should not be able to sue gun manufacturers.

    Victims of gun violence have every right to want justice for their loss, but the target should not be suing gun manufacturers. The victims should instead focus on means to achieve better gun control laws, particularly relating to who can obtain weapons. The gun manufacturers did not kill their loved ones - an unstable gun carrying human being did.

  • There is no case to be made.

    On what basis could you possibly say that it's bushmaster's fault that the shooting happened. Would you sue Craftsman if someone was stabbed to death with a screwdriver? How about Toyota if someone dies in a car wreck. I really hate how whenever a tragic incident like this happens, it's everyone's fault for it except for the person who actually committed those murders. I realistically don't believe a real case being brought to trial against bushmaster (seeing as there isn't a case to be made), but if bushmaster does get successfully sued, then it will be a devastating blow to my faith in humanity.

  • There is no reason

    Suing a gun manufacturer for shooting someone is like suing an axe for breaking a chair. Both tools did their job, the problem is the user made the wrong choice of what to use the tool for. If we can't sure an axe manufacturer for breaking a piece of furniture we love why can we sue a gin manufacturer for their gun killing someone.

  • Someone got cut by a knife made in China, are we at war?!

    Let's get real, this is either emotionally devastated or morally bankrupt groups of people who are lashing out for any sense of justice they can get or making a grab for easy money, playing off chumps that support them to make a quick buck.

    Can you sue a rope maker for binding someone?
    Jack Daniels for inebriation?
    Honda and Samsung when someone is texting and driving?

    How about Dell and internet providers for allowing people to support idiotic lawsuits like this online?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.