General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn Newtown Families’ Suit Against Maker of the AR-15 Rifle, Surprising Progress
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/nyregion/in-newtown-families-suit-against-maker-of-the-ar-15-rifle-surprising-progress.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&_r=0For two years, a group of families in Newtown, Conn., quietly laid the groundwork for a legal case against the maker and sellers of the assault rifle that on Dec. 14, 2012, claimed their loved ones lives and shattered their own in less than five minutes.
The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which killed 26 people, was carried out with an AR-15, a military-style assault rifle that has surfaced in recent mass shootings, from Aurora, Colo., to San Bernardino, Calif. On the eve of a hearing to determine whether the lawsuit can proceed, a rifle similar to the AR-15 was used yet again in an attack at an Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, the deadliest shooting in American history.
The legal challenge faces long odds, and a key hearing next week will determine its future. But the lawsuit has already progressed further than many had expected a judge has set a trial date and has ordered the defendants to turn over documents and no matter the outcome, it represents a muscular campaign against the powerful gun industry.
(end snip)
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)It is a well designed weapon aimed at one goal: the mutilation and murder of as many as possible as quickly as possible. I can recall the tests of the prototype vs the more mundane M-14. The differences between the weapons and more especially the ammo were obvious.
One was a traditional weapon, an outgrowth of the M1 familiar to many WWII and Korea vets. The other was a killing machine designed to put down an opponent with severe injuries and/or death as quickly as possible. How does this translate to civilian life? It doesn't. Like the AK-47 it has no civilian purpose other than being the weapon of choice for mass murderers.
Banning weapons like that do not constitute a move towards banning all weapon anymore than banning Oxycontin would constitute a move towards banning pain killers.
You do not "walk away" when shot with one of these weapons, no matter what TV or Dirty Harry movies might suggest. There are no "flesh wounds". These weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens under the justification of the Second Amendment anymore than screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre is protected by the First.
Grownups have to make distinctions.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)Bullshit because you say so? I hate to break it to you but the AR15 is used for hunting by hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year.
You may also be surprised to find that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, either. Your analogy employing screaming fire is a lame one, as ownership of a weapon is passive, while shouting in a theater is active. Possessing vocal cords and owning a weapon is the accurate analogy, what you do with those objects is what results in the problem.
Waldorf
(654 posts)to swap out different upper calibers while keeping the same lower receiver is a big plus.
Here it Texas it is the preferred rifle for hog hunting as those can be dangerous animals to hunt and it offers the ability to follow up quickly with a 2nd or 3rd shot if needed.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Very versatile, the choice of shooting enthusiasts from Newtown to San Bernardino, from Roseburg to Orlando. They're everywhere!
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)is ultimately going to look foolish when the case is eventually thrown out or the plaintiffs lose and are subjected to substantial legal costs.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)that's the likely outcome. I doubt the anti-gun crusaders are going to come out of the woodwork and pony up for the fees, either.