As they would say on FARK, "Rational Thought Surrenders"
 

I still have issues with people calling them "Snipers." Aside from that, the lawsuit is absurd.

Of course it's absurd.

It's like suing Ford because your kid got hit by a drunk driver.

But since when did sense enter into lawsuits?

Agreed, stupid lawsuit. But why shouldn't they be called "snipers"?
(Honest question; I'm not a gun guy, so I might not understand the nuances.)

i think he said that because the term "sniper" is somewhat honorific... signifying a standard of marksmanship that the killer didn't exhibit. if i remember correctly, he fired from relatively short distances which wouldn't make him a "sniper", just a guy who killed a lot of people with a gun. but, if that isn't what mrselfdestruct had in mind... i'm stumped also.

retarded..

I don't blame the families or lawyers who file suits like these. After all every single person I have ever known would go after free money if they could. (That's what these lawsuits amount to.)

I blame the system that allows these frivilous lawsuits. They clog up our system, they cost taxpayers way too much money and they do nothing but help the government make laws that take away more freedoms.

There are good lawsuits out there that are needed and we should never stop those. But lawsuits like the one this topic is built on or someone spilling coffee on themselves are seriously wrong and the judges and courts should dismiss them.

Two words....

Tort Reform.

(Part of the Republican Platform)

I am not particularly for tort reform of the republican kind. I am for reasonable juries, and accountable litigants. Looser pays, not caps on awards.

I am however for immunity to gun manufacturer's from most lawsuits.

This is the first of hundreds of similar lawsuits which has resulted in anything. The FIRST. This includes law suits attempted by governements, State, County, and Municipal, the most favored class of litigant....and they still loose. They loose huge, and are handed their asses after being laughed out of court. Frankly it amuses me.

I am thankful that I don't see too many outlets claiming this as a victory for the "Brady Campaign to confiscate firearms and eliminate American Citizens Constitutional Rights" and the rest of her lying, useless, gun-control camp.

-bear

It boils down to accountability... Because the company made guns, and the other company sold guns, their loved ones were killed. No one want the person who shot them to be accountable because they won't get any cash from them.

Stupid is an understatement. Frivilous lawsuits need to be thrown out.

I dont know...

in terms of absurdity I would put it on the same level as smokers suffering from cancer, or their survivors, suing tobacco companies.

*sigh* Unbelievable... I get angry everytime I hear things like this.

If I eat McDonalds, I'm responsible for getting fat. If I smoke, I'm responsible for getting cancer. If I play on the train tracks, I am responsible for getting hit. If I shoot someone, *I* am responsible for murder!

To me, this isn't a gun issue. This is an issue of several people trying to achieve monetary gains for the loss of a loved one. Two people and two people alone are responsible for these murders - and it isn't the people who made the tools these psychotic murderers used. If the victims families can do this, why can't Malvo and Muhammad use the same argument? They wouldn't have shot those people if the bad people hadn't provided them the tools/weapons? Why stop there, why not sue Chrysler/Ford/whomever for the car that was used?

Stop the planet... I want off...

They're not really considered "Snipers" because the ranges they performed at where pretty short, around 100 yards or so. Any marine who passes basic training should be able to hit a target at 100 yards, especially when the shooter gets to pick and choose his targets.

I guess the companies did the right thing (the legal costs would have been hideous), but it still disgusts me. Why not sue the people who fed the criminals, since they indirectely contributed to the crime by providing energy? "Negligent distribution" is a nice way of saying we should profile people before we allow them to purchase something, and that's a blatant form of discrimination.

the only way i see this as not being bull shit is if the manufacturer and vendor broke the law in the dealings leading to malvo getting the gun. if all laws were followed, then it's BS, if not, then i think there would be a non-frivolous case.

In fact, our closest string of fire on the rifle range for annual qualification is 200 yards. The furthest is 500 yards, with a stage at the 300 yard line.

I don't even remember a 100 yard line on the rifle range, but do remember a 700 yard line...where the scout/snipers train.

/end off topic thread jack.

-bear

I'm not a fan of guns, and I hate corporations.

The only legitimacy to those suits lies in those who smoked while the tobacco companies maintained, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that smoking did not contribute to cancer.


As for the sniper part, 100 yards is not a whole lot. I have taken out a bottlecap with a 310fps pellet gun at half that range. I don't delude myself into thinking I'm capable of military sniping. The only reason these guys get called snipers is that "sniper" is a better buzzword than "serial killer."

Interesting on "sniper", thanks. From someone uneducated in guns, a "sniper" would be considered "someone who fires from a hidden position, once, then escapes". What would be a better term for that definition?