Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Manufacturers

By | October 10, 2017

  • October 10, 2017 at 1:14 pm
    wayne smith says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 48
    Thumb down 11

    There is no negligence. It is a legal product, approved by the BATF under Obama, and it worked just as designed. Unfortunately, it was used by a nut in this case and no law will stop it. But leave it to the lawyers to use this as an opportunity to place blame elsewhere for money.

    • October 10, 2017 at 2:16 pm
      Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 21
      Thumb down 6

      Wow, the attorneys descended like locusts on the hospital rooms of the victims, right?

    • October 10, 2017 at 3:42 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 0

      Agree. No negligence and completely legal. Not being facetious here, but why are they legal? Didn’t we pass a law to eliminate automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 (that’s a different debate). So if, after 1986, you make a modification to a gun, using a bump stock, and the gun becomes an automatic, isn’t that the same concept of “manufacturing”.

      • October 10, 2017 at 3:59 pm
        Agent says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 9

        SW, you asked why they are legal. Why not ask the Obama Administration that approved them? That was surprising in that they are so Anti Gun.

        • October 11, 2017 at 1:46 pm
          CalDude says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 14
          Thumb down 11

          Ah for petes sake, no one was ever going to take your guns. EVER. And the ATF did not have jurisdiction over the bump stock because it was deemed a gun PART, not a gun.

          I can’t even imagine the S-Storm that would have ensued if Obama had even mentioned regulating the part. Give me a freaking break. I am sickened by my GOP. Spineless, racist, wuss representatives. Grow some and make a stand that makes a difference.

          • October 12, 2017 at 4:23 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 6

            “Ah for petes sake, no one was ever going to take your guns. EVER.”

            Yes they were, and liberals have been fighting for this for some time. There have been numerous 5-4 judgements, conservative to liberal, in which the minority lead judge said that if their interpretation prevailed the only logical conclusion was that the founders did not intend for us to have guns. That right there, if there were a 5th liberal judge, would have resulted in removal of gun ownership in the country.

            Ben Shapiro has talked about these events. Liberals have pushed this for some time, in each country they are in. Yes, people are trying to stop gun ownership in the U.S.

          • October 12, 2017 at 4:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            Here’s my suggestion, go watch Ben Shapiro, Louder with Crowder, look up their gun rights arguments. Even though Michael Crowder is mostly a humor guy, he dissects it based on history and source quotes all of it.

            These two specifically go over the supreme court past rulings on the matter. It will take some digging, but you should be able to find it.

          • October 12, 2017 at 4:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            “I am sickened by my GOP. Spineless, racist, wuss representatives. Grow some and make a stand that makes a difference.”

            As for this, the GOP is not spineless or racist.

            I’m very tired of this. Grow some, and make a stand that makes a difference, calling someone racist and spineless doesn’t accomplish that. What bills are you against specifically? Which ones were racist in intent?

          • October 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Your GOP representatives are anything but spineless – they are standing up to the liberal, whiney, anti-gun wackos every day. And good on them for doing so.

            Bump stock: get rid of them all.

      • October 11, 2017 at 10:08 am
        Claims Adjuster says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 1

        They are legal due to a technicality and precise wording. Automatic weapons are illegal. Turning a weapon into an automatic by mechanically altering said weapon is illegal. Bump Stocks simulate auto fire while leaving the weapon as is. The weapon technically is not a full auto weapon when you put the bump stock on, its a semi with a more rapid rate of fire. Devil is in the details boys

    • October 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm
      Tim says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      There doesn’t need to be negligence. The concept of strict liability is pretty well established in many cases similar to this. I am not a judge but this is not a simple matter of the manufacturer not being negligent so not guilty. Also, with the general discussion here, the gun and political debate should be separate from the insurance debate. There is reddit for all that posturing and politicizing.

    • October 16, 2017 at 2:48 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      This is a typical trial lawyer ‘extortion’ ploy. Name everyone you can think of anywhere up and down the supply chain and try to squeeze some money out of everyone. And if they can ‘get to’ the manufacturer’s insurance company, they might be able to scare them bad enough to make them blink.

      Make the losing side pay the other side’s legal expenses….that will slow them down a little bit.

  • October 10, 2017 at 1:25 pm
    Name* says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 10

    Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant granted.

  • October 10, 2017 at 5:50 pm
    Realist says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 6

    How about suing the elevator manufacturer, he rode up to his room in it?

  • October 11, 2017 at 9:44 am
    vox says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 3

    These parasitic lawyers salivate like Pavlov’s dog every time there is a tragedy. Then they’ll extract their “cut” and drain more resources from the productive economy. Where will it end?
    When will the citizens of this republic decide that enough is enough with regard to the “personal injury” culture.

  • October 11, 2017 at 10:31 am
    Dave says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    One can debate until blue in the face about whether such weapons or weapon modifiers should be legal, but for now they are. They functioned as designed and did not fault in any way we know about. There is no negligence here by the manufacturer and the case should be dismissed. Should such products which are designed to turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons be made illegal? Probably so. But until then, no civil case here unless one malfunctions and injures somebody or fails to help one defend themselves.

  • October 11, 2017 at 1:58 pm
    Ricky Kirkland says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    This is a simple example of “Ambulance Chaser” Lawyers who will politicize anything to try and make money. The litigants, who I am sorry were hurt or killed by this insane idiot, will gain nothing from this class-action suit. Once the lawyers get their cut, the victims will get penny’s on the dollar as a settlement. It is the fault of the killer, and no one else. If he had run through the crowd with a frying pan hitting people in the head and killing them, would we be ready to sue the manufacturers of frying pans? It was not any “Objects” fault. It was the man pulling the trigger. He was crazy.

  • October 11, 2017 at 2:36 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    Okay, bump stocks will likely be illegal soon. But murder has always been illegal, and the shooter in this case also reportedly loaded his car with explosives. The shooter was clearly intelligent and would have figured out a way to kill dozens if not hundreds with bombs or explosives or anthrax or one of a hundred other methods. Attacking the NRA makes people feel good but is so ludicrous as a solution; it reveals a serious problem people have with serious, thoughtful compassion. Guns – all guns – have been illegal for years in Mexico. Mexico now has the second highest murder rate per-capita in the world. (Blame the NRA!) With 3D printing becoming more sophisticated by the day, “illegal guns” is a sad joke for thinking people.

  • October 12, 2017 at 10:47 am
    Interested says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 3

    …And bump stocks sell out as gun makers, yet again, make significant profit off of mass shootings.
    Sandy Hook netted $632 Million for gun makers.
    (Check This Out: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/)

    There is a significant pattern being created especially since we know that there is much more to be uncovered in this Vegas shooting. There is a distinct possibility that the shooter was known to the hotel staff or at least one additional individual who assisted in keeping his room off limits to hotel.

    Having been in Vegas multiple times on business trips and accidently leaving the “Do NOT Disturb” Sign on my door for two days. I can testify that two members of staff including one large gentleman arrived at my door to inspect my room and check on me. They were required to enter my room at that moment. Any resistance on my part would gave generated a call to the police. There are cameras everywhere and the shooter killed the guard out front before starting the mass shooting.

    Someone had the authority to prevent his room check and also prevent an instant response from the security staff. This would not make any sense unless there was a significant amount of money to be made from a catastrophic event. Oh…wait bump stocks sales have been great lately. (Sold OUT)

    • October 12, 2017 at 4:29 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 4

      You source quoted incorrectly, so your link doesn’t go to an article it goes to a news site. As for what I imagine you are criticizing, there is usually a gun sales spike following events like Las Vegas. The reason is not something that the gun lobby should be looked down on for. They aren’t the proximate cause. Gun owners know that restrictions could be coming, with the left using this as a drum to beat, so they buy up what they can.

      And you’re trying to say that because someone makes money, the motives must be in question. You say this without digesting facts of gun ownership, which by default, would mandate someone to provide the guns economically.

      This is ideological as opposed to practical, and a disgrace to actual solutions for gun issues.

      • October 14, 2017 at 10:24 am
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Prey tell – what are your solutions for gun issues, then?

        • October 16, 2017 at 10:29 am
          mrbob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 0

          Confused, the problem is not the gun, the gun is no more dangerous than the truck full of fertilizer and fuel used to blow up the federal building in OKC. The problem is that we have sick and evil people in the world and our current path of moral decay will only make for more evil people. We need better mental health care. Would it have helped with the Vegas shooter probably not, but with so many others it may have.

          • October 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 5

            Where you are way off base here, because your mental health assessment is 100% true, is that the government took measures to prevent another OK City bombing. They regulated Ammonium-Nitrate sales and tracked shipments.

            What has congress done after countless mass shootings?

            Lots of thoughts and prayers, but almost NOTHING else.

            See a couple dozen kids shot to death in a school? 50 people in a night club? Hundreds in an open air concert?

            Thoughts and prayers. The NRA originally backed the banning of bump stocks after the shooting has now withdrawn support for the bill to ban them. Nothing will happen…until a few months from now when another mass shooting happens again, and again, and again.

            Hundreds of multiple-homicide shootings in America every year. Thousands upon thousands of lives lost. No action.

          • October 16, 2017 at 2:57 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Doug: Part of the problem is that the genie is out of the bottle and you will never, ever get her back in it. Another part is that we have many gun laws in place now but not enough enforcement of those.
            No action ? What doth thou propose ?

            If all of the legal gun owners in this country agreed to turn theirs in, you and I both know the bad guys will not do the same….and they will be mightily empowered.

            Bump stocks – get rid of them now…….but most people can pull a trigger just about as fast as a bump stock allows a weapon to fire. Limited size magazines – not a deterant…at least not much of one.
            What can congress do ? Not a lot. So what action would Doug suggest ? No need to reach for the absurd cause it ain’t gonna happen.

          • October 16, 2017 at 4:30 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            “Nothing will happen…until a few months from now when another mass shooting happens again, and again, and again.
            Hundreds of multiple-homicide shootings in America every year. Thousands upon thousands of lives lost. No action.”

            Lot’s of supposed “I care” so much, we get it, you care and no one else does (see what I said below about believing you are the hero with common sense saving the world, common in the youth).

            Now, how would you stop this without infringing on other’s rights, and the ability for innocent people to defend themselves?

            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

            Banning clips is not going to save hundreds. 80% of multiple death situations are with handguns.

            htt ps://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

            Thousands of deaths? Nope. This is you being either dishonest with the info, or woefully inept.

            I would say it’s probably the later, given my own history, and liberals I see. I would say your hero complex needs to end and how you think of people who support gun ownership.

            I don’t own a gun. I don’t like guns. I still support the right to own one, and, watch me while I say: Assault weapons, assault clips, etc. Until the second amendment is changed, I don’t think the government should limit those at all. This has less to do with what I think about guns than I do with our government not being arbitrary. I am more worried about reinterpretation of laws than I am nearly anything in regards to the government.

          • October 17, 2017 at 5:39 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “They regulated Ammonium-Nitrate sales and tracked shipments. What has congress done after countless mass shootings?
            Lots of thoughts and prayers, but almost NOTHING else.”

            I forgot to add this:

            Gun sales are regulated and tracked presently. Your comparison is yet again way off base.

            As for the gun show loop hole, it is greatly exaggerated, and some have willfully used manipulated statistics, as CATO points out rather well in this link:

            https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows

            They don’t accuse the parties of willful manipulation, but it’s pretty clear they are willful in it.

            Cato’s numbers make sense, so if you have a problem with this being a conservative source, you need to say what is wrong in the information and data.

            To me, this is shocking how little this loop hole does any harm, certainly not in the thousands of deaths, and, how much it causes issues with say a son inheriting a gun. Should we do a background check, Confused and Doug? Neither of you have sound solutions, you just keep saying “people die how dare you let mentally ill people have guns”. And how, pray tell, are we allowing this?

        • October 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          What are yours? You’re the one condemning the gun industry and everyone else as inept.

          As for the above sections here I see a lot of people who are terrible with politics and government role, and just think with their feelings.

          In order to make automatic weapons illegal, which by the way should be against the constitution (we can see that both machine guns and cannons were approved by the former creators of the constitution) you need to actually change the 2nd amendment, which does not in fact have restrictions. If in present day you want to do that, go for it. Be honest about your intentions. Don’t waddle around stating you are moral and just want to save lives and ignore the processes we have in place.

          I think the clear reason why the left doesn’t go for amending the constitution is obvious: They can’t. They don’t have nearly the mandate for it, and that is not due to the gun lobby. It is due to the population percentage support of gun ownership. Confused, you need to see the corruption on the left and the danger of ideals when used in place of structure. We pass laws by the numbers, by the system, and to be applied as they were written. Any new laws, need to be interpreted as written. Any reinterpretation by passes the process, and can lead to tyranny. If words supposedly matter in speech, why do they not in laws?

          The left is woefully behind in this area and they openly state that they are against laws being interpreted as written, that it should be subject to evolution. No. It shouldn’t.

          The left seems to be against any law by the numbers, as seen by how they are against border control when republicans do it. Do NOT back talk me on this by saying which administration had less immigrants and say it went down certain years under Obama by comparison to Bush W. That is not a debate of laws and who is doing what. Right now the liberals are against establishing borders and limiting illegal immigration, and they want to legalize a huge sum of people who did not come here legally, which is important to note as to how that will affect people trying to come legally. Virtue is not virtuous without consistent process.

          They do this so consistently, (not being consistent with application of law) you can rely on it. They criticized Jeffrey Sessions for saying if pot is illegal, he will enforce it. Trump said if dreamers are illegal, we must enforce it, or, issue actual law on the matter with congress and senate. then they throw fits, make a public ideological moral argument, against laws, and get everyone mad about how bad the system supposedly is.

          If Pot is illegal federally, and we want change, we go to the darn law! Not go to one man, Jeffrey Sessions, and tell him to look the other way! If illegal dreamers are illegal and we want them here, we pass a law to grant entry, and make requirements which are not applied arbitrarily. We don’t have one man, Obama, look the other way!

          Do you get the darn point?

        • October 16, 2017 at 3:32 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Also, I could just as easily make the argument for prohibition. Should we have mental stability checks for alcohol consumption?

          Alcohol consumption is directly linked to murder, violence, domestic abuse, child abuse, and is much worse when someone is already mentally ill.

          This number far outweighs gun violence and gun deaths. In fact, it crosses over and causes gun violence and gun deaths, not all of them mind you.

          More lives in teens are lost by drunk drivers than any leading cause of death, it makes up a whopping one third of deaths. Are you ready to have some fun? I will now show you care NOTHING about lives, and SOLELY about hot topics and emotions.

          https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

          1.1 million drunk drivers, just over 10,000 fatalities.

          100 million gun owners, just over 10,000 fatalities per year.

          You are nearly 100 times more likely to kill someone when you abuse alcohol. Mental health is surely a factor here. Do you propose we ban alcohol? Submit to mental health screenings and licenses to purchase alcohol? Why? Why not? What controls do you believe we should put on alcohol? Do you believe alcohol is safe as it is sold presently? Do you not believe we could be safer? When you ask me these same questions on Gun ownership, which you have if you switch the wording to apply to guns, do you see now why I usually reply with “these numbers are not the ones that matter, and yes, I do advocate for controls which would not result in people who need guns for defense possibly not having them, or the government deciding someone is mentally unfit to have guns”. Outside of this, then, it seems that this is a symptom of crazy people when gun ownership exists, which could only really be solved by removing all guns. This is why when the debate comes up, conservatives always say “you just want to take guns”. And why when Doug says “why are you ok with mentally insane people owning guns?” as if he has a solution, he doesn’t.

          Why are you ok with mentally unstable people having alcohol? Where do we cut the line with the government monitoring this? Why? Compare. Contrast. Think!

          Compare, contrast, think for yourself.

          • October 16, 2017 at 4:08 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            I should not have used the word “fatality” I mean homicide in terms of gun deaths.

            Fatalities only applies to the first of the two.

    • October 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      “They were required to enter my room at that moment. Any resistance on my part would gave generated a call to the police.” Bullshit. BTW, the guard was not killed.

  • October 16, 2017 at 3:25 pm
    mrbob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Doug Fisher,
    So they regulated sales of Ammonium-Nitrate which is true what is there to stop the bad guys from stealing a tanker truck of gasoline and exploding it? How about driving a vehicle through a crowd, or as happened the same day as Newton taking a knife and killing innocent children. My point is that as long as there are evil people in the world and by the way there always will be, banning, controlling, taxing or whatever steps taken will not solve the problem.

    It is not the guns, trucks, bombs etc that are the problem in this country it is in fact the evil people that are the problem. Show me a solution to that and I will jump towards supporting that solution.

    • October 16, 2017 at 3:45 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      I used to hate guns growing up. I still don’t like firing them. The fact is, guns scare me a bit.

      And I think this is the way most people are on the left. It was not until roughly my awakening period that I changed on many issues, which actually most people here don’t realize was 2014 and later.

      Immigration I didn’t touch on until Trump ran. I once told Agent here I wanted his numbers for illegal immigrants because I didn’t see any evidence for what he suggested. I looked at it as “helping” people to have them over here. Help your neighbor and all. I never voted with immigration as a topic I voted on. For guns, I didn’t care about gun control. Who would support someone owning something that could cause so much damage I wondered? I avoided the gun ownership debate here.

      I think the left does this on purpose. This fear type of tactic works.

      How does this connect to Doug and your question for him?

      He is going to say evil people cannot kill without guns. He will say something that sounds like common sense to him, just like I used to. Something like, why should mentally ill people have guns? Why should people be able to go to a gun show and buy them illegally? On the first one, the government shouldn’t be in the business of saying who is too insane to own guns. In the past, the left passed bills which would count forms of aging which have no affect on violent behavior, as mental illness and a danger to own guns. The republicans pointed this out. Then the democrats said the republicans wanted insane people to own guns when they didn’t pass the bill. I’m sure that Doug saw one side of this, and then thought republicans wanted mentally ill people to have guns. I’m sure he missed the republicans saying they would do away with the loop holes for gun purchase on it’s own, but the democrats refused without the mental health the way they wanted it. We could have solved that issue, if it were not for ideologues like Doug. He thinks he is saving people. He’s not. This is the important thing to take note when you debate Doug. You have to realize what he intends, and how he views the scenario. It’s basically a hero complex. Much of the youth have it.

      • October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm
        mrbob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Bob,
        Thanks for the insight into the liberal mind, I found it enlightening.

    • October 16, 2017 at 3:45 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      “He is going to say evil people cannot kill without guns”

      Rather, as much, without guns.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features