Why Sandy Hook parents are suing a gunmaker

[AUUSN 823]

Hey Mikey! How about another?

[alexava 6,974]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

A car company producing and selling a car is 100% analogous to a firearms manufacturer selling a firearm. There's no way to dodge that fact, like it or not. The firearm used at Sandy Hook was produced and sold for civilian use, just as a Ford truck that might mow down 10 kids after school is produced and sold for civilian use.

The lawsuit is silly on the face of it and unfounded. A suit against the retailer might have some merit if the gun was sold illegally, but suing the manufacturer, after the gun has gone through several hands in the distribution chain? That nuts!

They are filing against Remington because the local gun store, even if the suit is won, does not have the millions of $ the greedy lawyers want. They'd rather hope for a big out of court settlement and are doing nothing except using the grieving parents as pawns in their money making scam.

The lawsuit is making a distinction between firearms and "weapons of war."

A parent said, "There were a lot of guns the shooter could have chosen from his arsenal and he chose the AR-15," Hockley said, according to the Hartford Courant, "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

"Weapon of war " is really hyperbole. I have a friend who's 10yr old son shot his first dear with an AR-15 this past dear season. It was approximately a 50 yard shot because an AR won't take a dear down much further than about 100 yards. Common hunting rifles, 308, 30.06, 7mm...etc, are much more powerful than an AR. Those rifles can take a dear down from several hundred yards.

i thought this was itchy being sarcastic. But you are correct. A .223 is not a good choice for deer hunting. It is designed to take out groups of humans quickly in short to medium range. I doubt many AR 15 s even have scope mounts. Accuracy is not so important as is rapid fire and capacity to reload. Most deer rifles are bolt action that hold five or six rounds.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Shotgun statement without merit? Bring it up with Joe Biden then. Ha ha ha.

Okay then. Well you're just as wrong as he is. Joke is still on you.

No , simpleton. You are the one who is wrong. Doesn't take a freaking military man to understand that a shotgun will cause more damage in a crowded area than a assault rifle.

How much do you think the pellets spread? I'd rather have a 30 round magazine with a much longer effective range of fire and a much better rate of fire.

AUUSN feel free to chime in if I'm wrong.

Not to mention the bullets will penetrate furniture, walls and more than one person. And shotguns take a lot longer to reload.

The penetration is going to depend on the round. The rounds we carry in our patrol rifles are manufactured by hornady. They are specifically engineered to prevent "over penetration ".

You should have access to an AR-15. The general public shouldnt.

For sale, specially designed to mow down large groups of kids...

http://www.gunbroker...?Item=543976182

The only thing M855 is really good for is reducing the real effective range and accuracy of an AR-15 to average-quality AK-47 proportions. Any ammo designed for enhanced penetration on hard targets is going to be less effective on soft targets (people). It was designed for a battlefield where the enemy would be wearing ballistic helmets and plate carriers, and it was also designed for the longer barrel of the M249. In M16A4's and M4A1's it resulted in a dirtier weapon and brighter muzzle flash. It's sold on the open market because even the military found it to be a poor performer and replaced it with M855A1.

Mow down large groups of kids? Any hollow-point, soft-point, or ballistic tip that is freely available at Wal-Mart would be better suited to that purpose.

[MDM4AU 337]

AUUSN, it clear you don't agree with the avg. citizen owning these rifles but do you feel a manufacturer should be held responsible for what someone does with their product?

[Strychnine 1,808]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

A car company producing and selling a car is 100% analogous to a firearms manufacturer selling a firearm. There's no way to dodge that fact, like it or not. The firearm used at Sandy Hook was produced and sold for civilian use, just as a Ford truck that might mow down 10 kids after school is produced and sold for civilian use.

The lawsuit is silly on the face of it and unfounded. A suit against the retailer might have some merit if the gun was sold illegally, but suing the manufacturer, after the gun has gone through several hands in the distribution chain? That nuts!

They are filing against Remington because the local gun store, even if the suit is won, does not have the millions of $ the greedy lawyers want. They'd rather hope for a big out of court settlement and are doing nothing except using the grieving parents as pawns in their money making scam.

The lawsuit is making a distinction between firearms and "weapons of war."

A parent said, "There were a lot of guns the shooter could have chosen from his arsenal and he chose the AR-15," Hockley said, according to the Hartford Courant, "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

http://www.npr.org/s...dy-hook-parents

"Weapon of war " is really hyperbole. I have a friend who's 10yr old son shot his first dear with an AR-15 this past dear season. It was approximately a 50 yard shot because an AR won't take a dear down much further than about 100 yards. Common hunting rifles, 308, 30.06, 7mm...etc, are much more powerful than an AR. Those rifles can take a dear down from several hundred yards.

i thought this was itchy being sarcastic. But you are correct. A .223 is not a good choice for deer hunting. It is designed to take out groups of humans quickly in short to medium range. I doubt many AR 15 s even have scope mounts. Accuracy is not so important as is rapid fire and capacity to reload. Most deer rifles are bolt action that hold five or six rounds.

Stop. .223/5.56 NATO is a varmint round. It was designed to be a light, high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory round. It is useful to the military because those same characteristics make it easier to teach people to shoot, carrying more ammo becomes lighter, and rapid-firing 7.62 (.308) or 30.06 can be quite unpleasant to the shoulder. It is accurate at long range, it just lacks punch when it gets there. It wasn't designed to kill people at all, it was designed to kill varmints at range.

As for optics, the ACOG was designed specifically for the M16A4 and M4A1. Reflex and holographic (non-magnifying) optics are also common. While it is true that hunting rifle optics aren't used, military doctrine doesn't need them. That's what DMR's are for.

[AUUSN 823]

AUUSN, it clear you don't agree with the avg. citizen owning these rifles but do you feel a manufacturer should be held responsible for what someone does with their product?

No I dont.

[aubearcat 2,153]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

A car company producing and selling a car is 100% analogous to a firearms manufacturer selling a firearm. There's no way to dodge that fact, like it or not. The firearm used at Sandy Hook was produced and sold for civilian use, just as a Ford truck that might mow down 10 kids after school is produced and sold for civilian use.

The lawsuit is silly on the face of it and unfounded. A suit against the retailer might have some merit if the gun was sold illegally, but suing the manufacturer, after the gun has gone through several hands in the distribution chain? That nuts!

They are filing against Remington because the local gun store, even if the suit is won, does not have the millions of $ the greedy lawyers want. They'd rather hope for a big out of court settlement and are doing nothing except using the grieving parents as pawns in their money making scam.

The lawsuit is making a distinction between firearms and "weapons of war."

A parent said, "There were a lot of guns the shooter could have chosen from his arsenal and he chose the AR-15," Hockley said, according to the Hartford Courant, "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

"Weapon of war " is really hyperbole. I have a friend who's 10yr old son shot his first dear with an AR-15 this past dear season. It was approximately a 50 yard shot because an AR won't take a dear down much further than about 100 yards. Common hunting rifles, 308, 30.06, 7mm...etc, are much more powerful than an AR. Those rifles can take a dear down from several hundred yards.

i thought this was itchy being sarcastic. But you are correct. A .223 is not a good choice for deer hunting. It is designed to take out groups of humans quickly in short to medium range. I doubt many AR 15 s even have scope mounts. Accuracy is not so important as is rapid fire and capacity to reload. Most deer rifles are bolt action that hold five or six rounds.

The point I was attempting to make is that the AR is not the ultra powerful rifle many seem to believe that it is by comparing it to the average every day hunting rifle that is far more powerful.Also, as far as optics goes, it just depends on if the rifle is flat top or not. Mine is not and I use the iron sights (Rock River Arms by the way). Many of my friends have optics mounted.

[Strychnine 1,808]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

A car company producing and selling a car is 100% analogous to a firearms manufacturer selling a firearm. There's no way to dodge that fact, like it or not. The firearm used at Sandy Hook was produced and sold for civilian use, just as a Ford truck that might mow down 10 kids after school is produced and sold for civilian use.

The lawsuit is silly on the face of it and unfounded. A suit against the retailer might have some merit if the gun was sold illegally, but suing the manufacturer, after the gun has gone through several hands in the distribution chain? That nuts!

They are filing against Remington because the local gun store, even if the suit is won, does not have the millions of $ the greedy lawyers want. They'd rather hope for a big out of court settlement and are doing nothing except using the grieving parents as pawns in their money making scam.

The lawsuit is making a distinction between firearms and "weapons of war."

A parent said, "There were a lot of guns the shooter could have chosen from his arsenal and he chose the AR-15," Hockley said, according to the Hartford Courant, "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

http://www.npr.org/s...dy-hook-parents

"Weapon of war " is really hyperbole. I have a friend who's 10yr old son shot his first dear with an AR-15 this past dear season. It was approximately a 50 yard shot because an AR won't take a dear down much further than about 100 yards. Common hunting rifles, 308, 30.06, 7mm...etc, are much more powerful than an AR. Those rifles can take a dear down from several hundred yards.

i thought this was itchy being sarcastic. But you are correct. A .223 is not a good choice for deer hunting. It is designed to take out groups of humans quickly in short to medium range. I doubt many AR 15 s even have scope mounts. Accuracy is not so important as is rapid fire and capacity to reload. Most deer rifles are bolt action that hold five or six rounds.

The point I was attempting to make is that the AR is not the ultra powerful rifle many seem to believe that it is by comparing it to the average every day hunting rifle that is far more powerful.Also, as far as optics goes, it just depends on if the rifle is flat top or not. Mine is not and I use the iron sights (Rock River Arms by the way). Many of my friends have optics mounted.

Rock River is a good choice. I've been a fan of their 1911's for quite a while.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

A car company producing and selling a car is 100% analogous to a firearms manufacturer selling a firearm. There's no way to dodge that fact, like it or not. The firearm used at Sandy Hook was produced and sold for civilian use, just as a Ford truck that might mow down 10 kids after school is produced and sold for civilian use.

The lawsuit is silly on the face of it and unfounded. A suit against the retailer might have some merit if the gun was sold illegally, but suing the manufacturer, after the gun has gone through several hands in the distribution chain? That nuts!

They are filing against Remington because the local gun store, even if the suit is won, does not have the millions of $ the greedy lawyers want. They'd rather hope for a big out of court settlement and are doing nothing except using the grieving parents as pawns in their money making scam.

The lawsuit is making a distinction between firearms and "weapons of war."

A parent said, "There were a lot of guns the shooter could have chosen from his arsenal and he chose the AR-15," Hockley said, according to the Hartford Courant, "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

"Weapon of war " is really hyperbole. I have a friend who's 10yr old son shot his first dear with an AR-15 this past dear season. It was approximately a 50 yard shot because an AR won't take a dear down much further than about 100 yards. Common hunting rifles, 308, 30.06, 7mm...etc, are much more powerful than an AR. Those rifles can take a dear down from several hundred yards.

i thought this was itchy being sarcastic. But you are correct. A .223 is not a good choice for deer hunting. It is designed to take out groups of humans quickly in short to medium range. I doubt many AR 15 s even have scope mounts. Accuracy is not so important as is rapid fire and capacity to reload. Most deer rifles are bolt action that hold five or six rounds.

Which is exactly my point. AR 15s are horrible hunting weapons. They are weapons meant for combat and that is it. People can own em I suppose but they should have a learners license, take a few tests to ensure capabiliry to operate them and then must apply to renew their license ever so often......since we want to compare them to cars.

[aubearcat 2,153]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Which is exactly my point. AR 15s are horrible hunting weapons. They are weapons meant for combat and that is it. People can own em I suppose but they should have a learners license, take a few tests to ensure capabiliry to operate them and then must apply to renew their license ever so often......since we want to compare them to cars.

The 2nd Amendment is not restricted to hunting weapons (practical or otherwise). I know that my collection of AK's and AR's is not practical for hunting purposes, and I don't care. I've hunted perhaps a handful of times in my life. I'm a shooter. I enjoy shooting firearms at my local ranges, and I particularly enjoy my collection of what others would call "military-style" or "assault weapons".

I've said plenty of times in this forum that I have no problem with AR's, AK's, and [insert semi-auto weapon with a 30-round capacity here] being added to the NFA. It's a much more rigorous examination of the individual that's wanting to buy said weapon, and approval is weapon-specific.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

AR's are definitely accurate weapons with fantastic ergonomics, but they absolutely prefer to be shot wet.

By SCAR's, I'm assuming that you're referring to SCAR's in 7.62 caliber. The 5.56 SCAR's I've fired are little different from AR's. SCAR in 7.62 is a superb rifle. All the accuracy of a Springfield M1A, in a much more modern platform.

[aubearcat 2,153]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

AR's are definitely accurate weapons with fantastic ergonomics, but they absolutely prefer to be shot wet.

By SCAR's, I'm assuming that you're referring to SCAR's in 7.62 caliber. The 5.56 SCAR's I've fired are little different from AR's. SCAR in 7.62 is a superb rifle. All the accuracy of a Springfield M1A, in a much more modern platform.

Yes, it is 7.62 (I believe)and had a very modern look. Very, very loud boom with a long flash from the muzzle.

[Mims44 1,969]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

maybe he should consult with the military. They are woefully unaware that they are using the wrong equipment.

We used shotguns constantly, you think I was kicking in doors with an M16A2? LMAO

[homersapien 12,172]

Shotgun statement without merit? Bring it up with Joe Biden then. Ha ha ha.

Okay then. Well you're just as wrong as he is. Joke is still on you.

No , simpleton. You are the one who is wrong. Doesn't take a freaking military man to understand that a shotgun will cause more damage in a crowded area than a assault rifle.

How much do you think the pellets spread? I'd rather have a 30 round magazine with a much longer effective range of fire and a much better rate of fire.

AUUSN feel free to chime in if I'm wrong.

Not to mention the bullets will penetrate furniture, walls and more than one person. And shotguns take a lot longer to reload.

The penetration is going to depend on the round. The rounds we carry in our patrol rifles are manufactured by hornady. They are specifically engineered to prevent "over penetration ".

I am taking the perspective of what a potential mass-shooting terrorist might use.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

Hummm. I only oiled my weapons with CLP and some TLC. I live in the Gadsden area though. Where do you live?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

maybe he should consult with the military. They are woefully unaware that they are using the wrong equipment.

We used shotguns constantly, you think I was kicking in doors with an M16A2? LMAO

Inside a fatal funnel you are obviously going to use a shotgun if you have one. You know what we are talking about.

[AUUSN 823]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

Hummm. I only oiled my weapons with CLP and some TLC. I live in the Gadsden area though. Where do you live?

My birth place!

[Mims44 1,969]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

maybe he should consult with the military. They are woefully unaware that they are using the wrong equipment.

We used shotguns constantly, you think I was kicking in doors with an M16A2? LMAO

Inside a fatal funnel you are obviously going to use a shotgun if you have one. You know what we are talking about.

Maybe I should have cut out everything from the quote except the "military is woefully unaware of the shotgun" bit.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

Hummm. I only oiled my weapons with CLP and some TLC. I live in the Gadsden area though. Where do you live?

My birth place!

Nice. I just moved here a couple years ago. You wouldn't believe the development that's gone on just in that short time. Still not much jobs around here though other than Goodyear.

[Mikey 16,781]

My nephew has an AR-15 and I don't think he bought it with the intention of mowing down a bunch of humans. He's big into hog hunting in Florida and that's his weapon of choice. Me, I hunt with my bolt action Remington model 700 chambered in .270 Win. It would go through several more people than the .223, given the opportunity.

USN, I never even glance at the cartoons, I just mark the poster down as infantile. Save the bytes.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

AR's are definitely accurate weapons with fantastic ergonomics, but they absolutely prefer to be shot wet.

By SCAR's, I'm assuming that you're referring to SCAR's in 7.62 caliber. The 5.56 SCAR's I've fired are little different from AR's. SCAR in 7.62 is a superb rifle. All the accuracy of a Springfield M1A, in a much more modern platform.

Yes, it is 7.62 (I believe)and had a very modern look. Very, very loud boom with a long flash from the muzzle.

Aside from the bore, 7.62 SCAR's are frequently indistinguishable from 5.56 models. They're bloody expensive, but I do suggest replacing your issued patrol rifle with something in 7.62 if it's an option. If you have to stay in the AR family, 7.62 AR's are becoming quite common and affordable. From your responses, I've gathered that you're a LEO that is also a shooter. In my experience of dealing with them, LEO's that are also shooters are the best LEO's. You won't take lethal force lightly, you'll deploy a weapon you're most familiar with, and you'll generally seek to find means that avoid the deployment of lethal force.

[Mims44 1,969]

Also, should be noted. AR15's if designed along the lines of the M series of assault rifles the military uses is not even designed to kill targets, but to wound. And the longer variations at least are not good for close quarters combat... think M16s.

I loved the M16A2, no scopes, extra flair, etc... If I could see the target I could hit it every time. That being said, it's no where near the top of my list of weapons I would take inside a building for multiple targets.

And to the naysayers from previous pages, hell yeah I'd use a shotgun, not your grand daddys, but a 1014 or one of those old school AA12s or the mossbergs we used to carry.

All of this to say, if we are taking away "weapons of war" then the shottys gotta go too, with the ARs.

[aubearcat 2,153]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

Hummm. I only oiled my weapons with CLP and some TLC. I live in the Gadsden area though. Where do you live?

I work for an agency in Jeff Co and I live in Good Hope. Many guys will also use transmission fluid on their AR. I used Mobil1 that week due to the weather and heavy use we were putting on our rifles. I normally use Eezox. It's a great lubricant and it smells really good to boot. Frog Lube has become really popular but I've never tried it.

[AUUSN 823]

Jeff, I love my RRA. It performs like a sewing machine. I've had only one or two malfunctions out of it ever. Those were mainly my fault for running it too dry. I took it to an advanced SWAT course last November and oiled it with Mobil1 0/20 synthetic because it was a rainy week. It performed flawlessly. A few guys from the Gadsden area had Scars, now those things sounded like bombs going off. Especially compared to our little 223 rounds.

Hummm. I only oiled my weapons with CLP and some TLC. I live in the Gadsden area though. Where do you live?

My birth place!

Nice. I just moved here a couple years ago. You wouldn't believe the development that's gone on just in that short time. Still not much jobs around here though other than Goodyear.

My uncle worked 50 years for Goodyear. He was a boiler tech in the Navy and then went to work after WWII.