I saw a report that indicated some of the families that the D.C. snipers killed are suing the company that makes the gun used in the killings. While I defiantly feel sorry for the victims and their families, I do not think this lawsuit is right. I understand there a lot of people out there that may disagree.

I have heard from others, concerning this subject, who insert that without the gun the killers would not have been able to do what they had done. That is to say shoot someone from such a distance with such accuracy. While I agree this may be true, the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger.

If you are to follow that line of reasoning, you must also blame the military, which I believe trained one of the shooters. You might then also blame the car manufacturer who made the van they where driving and so on.

I believe the shooters should pay for what they have done but I do not blame the gun.

Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img]

I would like to hear other people’s opinions, however if this is an old topic and no one wishes to comment I understand.

They are NEVER gonna win this lawsuit.

Never say never in Lawsuit land, Johnny... there have been strange outcomes to such cases before.

Of course it's an inanimate objects fault. The preps were just harmless little pople when the gun forced them to go around shooting the country side. The real problem...too many lawyers with nothing to do.

Nah,it's not the guns fault,it doesnt pull the trigger.The shooters decided to do so and they are the guilty ones.Those families (I feel sad what has happened of course,it is unfair that something like that happens) can never win the lawsuit.

Hey.. if the company has to pay for making them.. then the goverment will have to do the same thing for allowing these company's to sell them. Which will lead to... (you get the picture)

Well, first I must say that these lawyers are swill. The reason they name such defendants in a lawsuit is: (1) hope for a settlement - some will pay nuisance value to make you go away, (2) cover their asses, cause if they sue other folks who may be liable, those folks will insist on dragging everyone who ever even *talked* to the snipers into the suit (spread the loss, of course) - note that # 2 probably isn't applicable here.

Now, I bet they're suing on a products theory, which would assert something to the effect:
1. The product was being used for its intended purpose;
2. it was foreseeable the product could be used in the fashion it was being used;
3. There was some defect in the product - either in its design or labelling/warning (this case, I would assume they would attack the design);
4. That there would be no deaths BUT FOR the gun; and
5. the gun was the actual cause of the deaths.

Also, they'll liikely sue for Negligence, asserting the gun maker:
1. Had some sort of a "duty" to the victims;
2. That it "breached" the duty in some fashion;
3. That its breach of the duty was the actual cause of the harm;
4. That the harm resulting from the breach was foreseeable; and
5. That there was harm done (i.e. deaths).

Just some FYI folks. You can see that they have a very hard case indeed trying to pigeonhole their notion into a legal theory.

Ooookaaaay. If that gun firm hadn't produced the guns, then a different one would have. How pointless is that? Are they looking for someone to blame APART from the actual snipers? If so, why exactly?
Sorry if I sound a bit heartless, I may be wrong 'cos I've never lost anyone close to me, and I hate to think about that. But the real perpetrators have been caught. Why want more?

I don't blame the gun. I blame the bullets. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

But without the gun the bullets couldn't have been fired...