Please explain this to me, burgerfats.
Even if you disagree with the Newton lawsuit, surely your American perspective at least makes the logic behind it understandable to you.
How can you sue the weapon's manufacturer because your son was shot by someone wielding the weapon? Are they seriously expecting to win? Why not, at the very least, go after the people who SOLD the gun?
>>70313141
it doesn't, they are opportunists trying to make a quick buck.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3525726/Bernie-defends-gun-manufacturers-against-Sandy-Hook-lawsuit-saying-victims-families-SHOULDN-T-able-sue.html
>For Sanders to say that the Sandy Hook families should be barred from court, even if the weapon was negligently made, is wrong.
>even if the weapon was negligently made
What does he mean by this? Is an automatic weapon supposed to have a mechanism that prevents you from using it to shoot people?
>>70313141
It doesn't, it's a scam set up by your American kinsmen in an attempt to kill our domestic civilian firearms market and weaken 2nd Amendment defense through damage to NRA funding.
What is a Jew doing on /pol/?
http://thehill.com/regulation/266107-gunmakers-should-face-lawsuits-from-gun-violence-victims-dems-say
>“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,” continued Schiff, one of the lawmakers behind the gun control bill. “If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable."
>“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.
The fuck kind of retarded analogy is this?
>>70313141
Why sue cigarette manufacturers?
>>70313525
>Is an automatic weapon supposed to have a mechanism that prevents you from using it to shoot people?
You know I think it actually does have one. Gun Safety Switch
>>70313850
But the gun did exactly what it was designed for so the only faulty part in this whole thing is the person who decided to kill children.
>>70313944
Well but that would only work if I don't actually want to shoot people, won't it? It wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza or any other shooter.
>>70313141
It doesn't, but libcucks are retarded and never see fault in their actions while blaming every 3rd party for everything they disagree with
>>70314131
Yep.
>“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,”
Defect in the product kills people- not the case here
>“If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable."
Defect in the product kills people- not the case here
>" If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable."
Yes, and ONLY A RETARD would blame the guy who manufactured the liquor
>>70314296
>making sense
STOP
RUINING
EVERYTHING
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>70314131
You're trying to lecture a bunch of guys that agree with you, leaf.
Lawsuits against gun makers are filed and allowed by anti gunners. They will do ANYTHING to shut down personal freedom in the name of "muh children"
>>70313141
It doesn't. Everyone wants to be a victim now a days.
I think it's absolutely funny that liberals of all people are so against civilian ownership of firearms. Instead they want a massive police force to protect everyone. Jeez I can't imagine how that could go wrong.
>>70313141
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's true that cases can be summarily dismissed, but in this case there is an argument to be made, even if most people don't agree with the reasoning. My guess is that they will argue that the guns were too powerful, had too many rounds, or too good at killing children and not good enough for hunting, and the gun manufacturers were negligent by creating them without considering the consequences.
>>70316789
Libs are funny like that.
The people that yell at the police "why didn't you protect me" are the same people that will yell "why did you try to protect me" when they shoot someone.
>>70313944
The shooter obviously thought he had the safety on the entire time. Boy was his face red with blood.
>“If you’re a carmaker and your airbags kill someone, you’re potentially liable,” continued Schiff, one of the lawmakers behind the gun control bill. “If you’re a pharmaceutical company and sell faulty drugs, you can be held liable. If you’re a liquor store and sell alcohol to minors, you can be held liable."
>“Why should it be any different for gun manufacturers?” he asked.
We trully live in the most retarded times ever in history.
>>70316828
>too good at killing children
>but not good enough for hunting
This is some decent quality bait, I expect you to reel in some whoppers.
this is insanity
>>70317745
Except that the gun was working as intended. People are fucking stupid
>sue gun manufacturer
>gun manufacturer's win and counter sue
>????
>profit
>>70313141
It makes no sense to me at all.
