Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ai®a©ob®a

Newtown Ct Families File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

Recommended Posts

Kampioen

The only reason people in the US look at firearms as weapons of defence is because they live in what it, in comparison to the rest of the developed world, an extremely violent society.

Most countries don't see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective measure. That's a pretty uniquely American perspective. In fact, most Western nations with high firearm ownership rates explicitly forbid their use as defensive weapons. But I concede that violence rates in the US could be argued to justify this.

In this instance both sides being portrayed here are basically wrong. Outlawing firearms in the US or heavily restricting access to them and any other "lethal" weapons (so combat type knives, long and crossbows etc) isn't going to result in substantially less societal violence without extremely heavy-handed and likely impossible policing and enforcing of legislation, and you'd still be faced with a huge underground marketplace for clandestine weapons that would be effectively impossible to counter. But, by the same token, many Americans who oppose this view harp on about "protection from violence" and vaguely Darwinist concepts like "the physically strong subjugating the weak" which are every bit as absurd a response to the underlying problem as just banning them.

You have to be absurdly shortsighted to think that defensive ownership of firearms decreases societal violence in any meaningful way. At best, it acts as a partial individual-level deterrent; at worst it could actually increase the statistical likelihood of you coming to harm. A study in the British Medical Journal addressed purchasers of legal and liscenced handguns in California in 1998, concluding that there was a correlation between handgun ownership and violent death through homicide or suicide; that is, handgun owners are more likely to die violently than the baseline.

What's more, it totally ignores the underling issue. Saying "handguns give the weak a chance of defending themselves" tacitly acknowledges the problem- the significantly higher rates of violence in the US- but doesn't actually provide anything even resembling a solution to deal with the underlying issues that cause this violence.

Tl:Dr: banning firearms is stupid but so is trying to justify them as "defensive" solution to a societal problem they in no way address.

 

I do agree with most of this and if I lived in the US I would probably own a gun. I also agree that it would be very hard to ban guns in the US because a huge black market would arise. However, (higher) punishments for carrying a gun could act as a deterrent. The most hardcore criminals and those determined to kill someone would probably disregard this, but your average gun-toting gangster might think twice about carrying his gun every day.

Edited by CenMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

The only reason people in the US look at firearms as weapons of defence is because they live in what it, in comparison to the rest of the developed world, an extremely violent society.

 

Most countries don't see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective measure. That's a pretty uniquely American perspective. In fact, most Western nations with high firearm ownership rates explicitly forbid their use as defensive weapons. But I concede that violence rates in the US could be argued to justify this.

 

In this instance both sides being portrayed here are basically wrong. Outlawing firearms in the US or heavily restricting access to them and any other "lethal" weapons (so combat type knives, long and crossbows etc) isn't going to result in substantially less societal violence without extremely heavy-handed and likely impossible policing and enforcing of legislation, and you'd still be faced with a huge underground marketplace for clandestine weapons that would be effectively impossible to counter. But, by the same token, many Americans who oppose this view harp on about "protection from violence" and vaguely Darwinist concepts like "the physically strong subjugating the weak" which are every bit as absurd a response to the underlying problem as just banning them.

 

You have to be absurdly shortsighted to think that defensive ownership of firearms decreases societal violence in any meaningful way. At best, it acts as a partial individual-level deterrent; at worst it could actually increase the statistical likelihood of you coming to harm. A study in the British Medical Journal addressed purchasers of legal and liscenced handguns in California in 1998, concluding that there was a correlation between handgun ownership and violent death through homicide or suicide; that is, handgun owners are more likely to die violently than the baseline.

 

What's more, it totally ignores the underling issue. Saying "handguns give the weak a chance of defending themselves" tacitly acknowledges the problem- the significantly higher rates of violence in the US- but doesn't actually provide anything even resembling a solution to deal with the underlying issues that cause this violence.

 

Tl:Dr: banning firearms is stupid but so is trying to justify them as "defensive" solution to a societal problem they in no way address.

Pretty much this. I think at a micro level firearms can be quite important to protect people in crime ridden areas. Is it going to lower the crime rate? Absolutely not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find justification to tell parents raising kids in Camden NJ that they don't need guns to defend their families.

 

Just think it's very funny, the people who argue we need to ban every single gun and stop their production are the same people who preach about how the war on drugs is a failure because "prohibition doesn't work".

 

 

 

However, (higher) punishments for carrying a gun could act as a deterrent. The most hardcore criminals and those determined to kill someone would probably disregard this, but your average gun-toting gangster might think twice about carrying his gun every day.

I'm inclined to disagree. We saw this with drug prohibition. Higher punishments don't equal more deterrence. In fact if you have a middle class American living in a bad area with a family I'd bet you he/she'd happily be willing to face the legal consequences to protect their family. Look at NYC, they have extreme consequences for carrying illegal guns and people still do it, the two bit gang bangers you mentioned don't care. Especially when the left in NYC has piled on the NYPD for stop and frisk, which was designed to stop people carrying those same illegal weapons. Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

 

Some robbers use the gun to simply make sure you don't attack them. After Thy're done robbing, they will just run off, leaving the victim unharmed. I did say some since I cannot over generalize all gun wilding criminals. But some can be actually some, or most depending on actual data.

Going a bit off-topic here, but I always find it funny when police bust some nut with enough hardware to arm their own private militia, yet they're never seen with supplies to actually clean and maintain the damn things.

 

It's actually kind of scary how clueless/careless some owners can be about their firearms, legal or not.

 

Usually maintenance consists of disassembly or field stripping, so cleaning supplies will probably not be on the person an will be at home or wherever they clean the thing. Unless they own an AK of course :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

After reading the text of the lawsuit I think they might have a chance. The numbered points really help break it up, but if you're antsy on that sort of thing start on page 14 for the emotion grabbing. I had to take a few breaks while reading that part.

 

Basically the case is presented that the AR-15 is marketed as a military-grade weapon, and for all intents and purposes is the same as the M-16. The military, and police who use AR-15/M-16s do so with training for their use and with protocols in place to maximize safety in using them. They mention how a missing firearm from a weapon's locker can put a facility on lockdown and lead to punishment for the responsible party. They go on to say that selling a weapon that is well-suited for combat and marketed for its military characteristics to an untrained civilian market is dangerous and constitutes a public nuisance under Connecticut law. Among other things they are pursuing an injunction to stop future sales of the AR-15.

 

I was skeptical before reading it but I think they make a good case. Allowing for individual buyers might invite unnecessary risk. Maybe semi-autos should be an institutional purchase. Like a shooting range could own them and rent them out for use at their range but a woman couldn't just have one laying about in an unsecured case as part of her collection.

Rown :rampage:

E: Edited for some situationally awkward weapon-metaphors.

Edited by Rown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I think bushmaster should settle and give the families some money. Like many lawsuits the defendant really did nothing wrong and has no responsibility, but when there are the means for it a settlement for grieving plaintiffs is inportant. That said, I can't disagree more with this suit and what it argues. Can anyone define what is a military weapon? What's a law enforcement weapon? You can think of things that are unquestionably solely reserved to the military; grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. but never have rifles other than full out machine guns been reserved to the military.

 

In terms of manufacture, yes, the AR15 and M16 are almost one in the same. Both have the same three parts, upper/lower receiver, bolt carrier group, and those parts are interchangeable in most cases. With that said, a civilian AR does not have a 3 round burst option that the M16 has; is not permitted in most states to have flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc. so to me the idea that the AR is a tool of war is just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

This has to be the most stupid case I've ever seen. Might as well sue the dairy farm that produced the milk that Adam Lanza drank with his breakfast meals as well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9i OTD

 

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

 

But the folks suing have to prove that Bushmaster knew when they made that specific gun that it would be used during a killing spree.

 

It's a bushmaster.

 

That's like asking for proof the nuclear bomb was developed to be used for mass murder, that's it's sole purpose. Killing human beings.

 

I strongly disagree this is a "hunting weapon", I know hunters love to use it, but that's so they can use the same type of gun the army uses, this weapon was designed specifically to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible, just because most people misuse doesn't negate it's intentional, original purpose.

The army doesn't use the bushmaster. They use M4 and M4A1 carbines, and sometimes M16A4 rifles. A bushmaster is a semi-automatic rifle that, besides looking similar to and being able to fire the same bullet as, has almost nothing in common with weapons used by the army. Edited by Hocko1999_fgc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9i OTD

○|

Edited by Hocko1999_fgc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's not really true, the latter part anyway. Either the Haig Convention or Geneva Convention (can't remrber which) explicitly outlaws weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering.

 

The 5.56x45 NATO FMJ is not designed to expand (like most commercial hunting ammunition) but to tumble- the logic being that a single wounded soldier removes more individuals from the fight than a single dead one. The tumbling aspect is designed to mitigate issues seen with the Soviet M43 7.62x39 steel core bullets which just punched small holes in their targets and seldom even removed combatants from the fight unless it hit a vital organ or immobilising bone.

 

I don't know what proportion of civilian AR-15 shooters use military surplus FMJ rounds in lieu of commercial JHP ammunition designed for small game hunting, but the latter is likely to be extremely popular with hunting sport shooters. So the notion that the bullets commonly used in civilian Bushmaster semiautomatics is the same as that used in military environments because the calibre is the same (quite aside from highlighting the distinction in loading pressures and bullet types in the "civilian", partially cross-compatible .223 Remington for which many civilian AR-15 type rifles are explicitly chambered in to prevent the use of higher-pressure military loadings) is deeply flawed.

 

 

 

As an aside, let's not derail the thread with idiotic conspiracy theories. They've all been extensively debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

 

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

But the folks suing have to prove that Bushmaster knew when they made that specific gun that it would be used during a killing spree.
It's a bushmaster.

 

That's like asking for proof the nuclear bomb was developed to be used for mass murder, that's it's sole purpose. Killing human beings.

 

I strongly disagree this is a "hunting weapon", I know hunters love to use it, but that's so they can use the same type of gun the army uses, this weapon was designed specifically to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible, just because most people misuse doesn't negate it's intentional, original purpose.

The army doesn't use the bushmaster. They use M4 and M4A1 carbines, and sometimes M16A4 rifles. A bushmaster is a semi-automatic rifle that, besides looking similar to and being able to fire the same bullet as, has almost nothing in common with weapons used by the army.

 

The AR-15 was design is based off the M-4, was initially made for the army, scrapped last minuted and now sold on the civilian market. You're making distinctions where none deserve to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EpicnessInABox

Before anything, I want to state that this is all my opinion, with tiny sprinkles of facts.

 

Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. Don't get me wrong, I totally get the fact that these families all lost someone close to them, so I understand where they're coming from trying to sue Bushmaster. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

 

But the gun ban bull sh*t is completely illogical. There are a whole lot of scenarios of where owning guns could be good, and they could be bad obviously. I for one, feel as though, I don't need to hide behind my nations military, if our nation were ever to be invaded, like on September 1st, 1939.

(Nazi Germany invades Poland)


But no one wants to invade the U.S. You know why? Because most of us Americans believe, and practice our rights to bear arms. This nation has so many firearms within it. I myself own a beautiful Glock 17 4th Gen, a Mossberg 500, and currently saving up for a Smith and Wesson m&p 15.

You may say I am biased, when in all reality, I am just pro gun.

 

Go ahead, post what you must. I'll respect your opinion as much as you respect mine.

 

tumblr_m6nblly29n1r63m9x.jpg

Edited by EpicnessInABox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

No one invades the US because we have one of the best armed forces in the planet :^:

But also the right to bear arms is a contributing part too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9i OTD

 

 

 

 

No one thinks the manufacturers of murder-machines should have to share in some level of the culpability of the massacre?

 

But the folks suing have to prove that Bushmaster knew when they made that specific gun that it would be used during a killing spree.
It's a bushmaster.

 

That's like asking for proof the nuclear bomb was developed to be used for mass murder, that's it's sole purpose. Killing human beings.

 

I strongly disagree this is a "hunting weapon", I know hunters love to use it, but that's so they can use the same type of gun the army uses, this weapon was designed specifically to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible, just because most people misuse doesn't negate it's intentional, original purpose.

The army doesn't use the bushmaster. They use M4 and M4A1 carbines, and sometimes M16A4 rifles. A bushmaster is a semi-automatic rifle that, besides looking similar to and being able to fire the same bullet as, has almost nothing in common with weapons used by the army.

 

The AR-15 was design is based off the M-4, was initially made for the army, scrapped last minuted and now sold on the civilian market. You're making distinctions where none deserve to be made.It still isn't THE same type of gun. Infact IIRC the Bushmaster is a semi automatic rifle and the M4A1 is a carbine capable of burst and full auto fire. It's like saying that if have a Ruger Mini 14 for target shooting then you actually are using a Vietnam-era military rifle, since the Mini 14 is based of the design off the M14 even though they aren't THE exactly same model of gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's clearly a false analogy though. The Mini-14 is a downscaled visual clone of the M14, chambered for a different round, using a sightly different (by design) gas system. AFAIK not a single component of a Mini-14 is interchangeable with an M14.

 

Whereas the only distinction between an AR-15 and an M16 is the lower receiver- in fact, even more specific than that, the trigger. They're amongst entirely cross-compatible in terms of parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dottie

There are some technical differences (mainly in receiver and internals) between the M16 (the gun AR-15s are really based off of) and the M4 carbine (made in the 1990's), but that's another conversation. They're not exactly the same thing with a different barrel.

 

But the Ruger mini-14 is not the civi version the M14. The civilian M14 is a M1A.

My analogy is that you just called a Ford F150 a Chevy Camaro.

 

Please consider doing some Internet research before making claims. It saves the embarrassment :^:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9i OTD

Yeah sorry I confuses the Mini 14 with the M1A.

 

Besides my silly mistake, the army still doesn't use the AR 15. It and the M4A1 (IIRC the service 'rifle' for the US army) are extremely similar but not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.