Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families’ Liability Lawsuit Against Gunmaker

By | November 12, 2019

  • November 12, 2019 at 11:43 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 5

    I believe the marketing of the rifle as a highly lethal weapon doesn’t provide an avenue toward a guilty verdict. Lethal weapons are marketed as such to demonstrate their ability to take out terrorists, burglars/ home invaders who intended fatal harm to property owners, etc. That, in itself, should suffice to convince the Court to hold for the defendants. In addition to the Connecticut Sandy Hook tragedy, I recall and researched that there was a multiple fatality homicide a few years prior to SH wherein 3 women were raped and murdered after the husband / father/ doctor was beaten unconscious, but escaped to contact the police. A fire was set by the two perps, both now convicts, to destroy the evidence before they left. I wonder if the court would allow testimony of such a heinous act in regard to ‘lethal weapons for self-defense purposes’…?

    Has anyone read the reasoning behind the SCOTUS ruling to protect gun manufacturers from these lawsuits? It is essential to understanding their wisdom in regard to the 2nd Amendment, as well as this particular lawsuit.

    • November 12, 2019 at 1:22 pm
      Oh Goody says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 27
      Thumb down 6

      The reason for not allowing firearms manufacturers to be sued for the actions of the users of their products is that firearms are inherently dangerous. Their primary purpose is for killing, although there are also non-lethal uses. Manufacturers are usually held liable in products liability cases for deign or manufacturing defects that cause their products to be dangerous to users and to others. A firearm that works and functions as designed is not a defective product. To allow people to sue a manufacturer for a properly functioning product would be ridiculous. In addition, it would be ridiculous to hold a manufacturer liable for the actions of consumers, over whom the manufacturer has no control. That would mean any manufacturer would be liable for anyone killed or injured by a knife, car, use of alcohol, or any other product that was not defective in manufacture or design. I believe this law relating to firearms was passed because people with an anti 2A agenda would bring numerous products liability lawsuits against firearms manufacturers that they knew they would lose with the intent of forcing them into bankruptcy by incurring the costs to defend the suits.

      • November 13, 2019 at 6:28 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 11

        Where is it stated / proven that the primary purpose of a rifle is for killing?

        If that were true, the population on Earth would be very small. 300 + million guns in the US would mean 300 million dead people. Not true. Prove otherwise.

        One key purpose of a weapon is self defense. 300 + million guns in the US. 300 + million living citizens in the US. Self defense through weapons is effective. Prove otherwise.

        • November 13, 2019 at 9:23 am
          TR714 says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 17
          Thumb down 2

          While one reason for the Supreme Courts bizarre ruling may be to have States deal with issue. However there is such a push to dilute and shred the 2nd Amendment can’t help but think this is the intent. To hold gun manufacturers liable for a mentally deranged individual who snapped or commits an act of terror is wrong. It opens Pandora’s box and will put some manufacturers out of business. Ah, the intended consequence. Tacoma, WA just placed a $25 tax on weapons, plus adding extra taxes on ammunitions. Do we now start suing auto manufacturers for our accidents? Their marketing schemes entice us with their “Turbo Charged” V8 engines inspiring drivers to drive fast! This is about killing the 2nd Amendment. Shredding it and ultimately disarming Americans. Government must remain in control.

          • November 13, 2019 at 11:55 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 7

            If liberals claim guns are primarily made for killing people, others with a better understanding can claim gun control is primarily for killing the 2nd Amendment. Who is right? The answer lies in the answer to this question: what & who does the 2nd Amendment protect?

          • November 13, 2019 at 12:08 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 7

            The 2nd Amendment protects “A well regulated Militia.” As far as I know, a militia is “a military force” and I don’t know of any military force which does not intend to use their weapons for killing people.

          • November 13, 2019 at 8:10 pm
            PolarBeaRepal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 8

            Wrong, Rosie; a well-armed militia is a deterrent to tyranny.

            Your opinion is just that, and is intended to refute what I wrote and waht is written in the background on the ‘A.2’

          • November 14, 2019 at 9:55 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 6

            Ummm… I don’t think our US military is worried about a well organized militia. There is only so much your guns can do against tanks, chemical warfare, and the sheer force of our military.

            It isn’t an interpretation either, the 2nd Amendment states it is for well organized militias, which militia are you a part of? I know Jack or Jax (can’t remember which one) is part of a militia that is a WWII reenactment thing, which is not really classified as a militia. Where is your affiliation?

          • November 14, 2019 at 11:04 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 7

            It was Jack, and he claimed it was a militia but really it’s a group of civil war re-enacting people. It’s pretty on the nose for his particular brand of misguided ignorant hatred.

          • November 14, 2019 at 2:00 pm
            TR714 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 4

            To be clear the 2nd Amendment doesn’t stop at: A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…. 2nd Amendment continues: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be Infringed. 2nd Amendment was not put in place by our Founders to just protect a Well Regulated Militia. Limiting Fire Arm access is an Infringement on Right to Bear Arms!

          • November 14, 2019 at 2:35 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 6

            Jon- as usual you are wrong about what I stated, but we are use to it.

          • November 14, 2019 at 2:42 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            Oh I’m wrong? about what exactly? You’re saying you didn’t call it a militia, now? Because you did. Or you’re claiming you’re not civil war reenactors? What was the name of this “militia” again? That’s what I thought.

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:34 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 6

            Jon- I am not a member of a civil war re-enacting group.

            I am part of a group that’s been established to defend the US constitution, there are many.

            For you people that argue things like “There is only so much your guns can do against tanks, chemical warfare, and the sheer force of our military.”, you forget that at least 50% of “our military” will defend the US constitution as well. We are not alone here in the general public. Do Ya Feel Lucky Punk?

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:55 pm
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 4

            What is your militia affiliation if Jon has it wrong? I do remember you saying you were apart of one, so why not share it?

          • November 14, 2019 at 4:09 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 8

            Note how he avoids calling it a Militia now because he did once, and if you google the name of the group it’s a bunch of elderly people dressed in confederate attire. Pathetic, that you would try to push yourself as some tough defender of the constitution when really you’re an Elks lodge with more guns and Fox News. Why don’t you tell us what it’s called again, Sons Who Lost the Civil War?

        • November 13, 2019 at 12:53 pm
          Oh Goody says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 0

          Shooting in self defense is also killing/attempted killing. I attended a clinic with Ken Roxburgh, the coach of the Remington shooting team, and he pointed out that although we use our rifles for punching holes in paper, their primary function is as a weapon, even if we don’t use them for that purpose. I think he was trying to make the point that our rifles were dangerous implements and to remember to treat them as such for safety purposes. As I stated above, there are non-lethal uses for firearms, but their primary purpose is for killing.

      • November 13, 2019 at 1:50 pm
        Jax Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 4

        What SCOTUS didn’t rule on was a lawsuit alleging that the gun company’s MARKETING is inherently dangerous in that the advertising itself may have led to/ could lead to someone doing what that mentally disturbed young man did.
        They didn’t ‘get’ Al Capone for murder, selling liquor, prostitution – they got him for an ancillary act – income tax evasion. Ancillary because those revenues were generated by the illegal activity, but the charges against him had nothing to do with the crimes themselves.

        Similarly, these lawyers are trying to get into Remington’s (et al) pocket by circumventing the existing law that protects gun manufacturers. Anywhere but Connecticut and this lawsuit would get laughed out of the courtroom. The advertising in question is no more suggestive than some sun glasses ads touting that Navy Seals wear these really cool, really cheap sun glasses and if you wear them you’ll be a bad*ss too !
        This is nothing more than another extortion attempt. Pathetic.

        • November 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm
          ralph says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 1

          wait, you mean my Navy Seal Sunglasses don’t make me look like a total bada$$? I paid $19.99 for them + shipping and handling and waited because there was more and then got a free sunglasses case with them.

          Thanks a lot for peeing in my Cheerios, Jax. I’ll see you in heck. Heck, I say. Heck.

          • November 13, 2019 at 3:07 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Ralph, you are the exception to this advertising farce. You, my man, look totally bad*ss sporting those polarized, IR enhanced, Night Vision, chick magnet sunglasses ! In no small part because you are ‘that guy’.

  • November 12, 2019 at 12:49 pm
    KP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 3

    I too remember the other story and I agree 100%.

  • November 12, 2019 at 1:20 pm
    Floodguy says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 42
    Thumb down 23

    When can we expect to be able to sue Auto manufacturers for their product killing so many people ?…..How about holding politicians personally liable for the financial ruin they have caused in so many communities. The liberals take no responsibility for anything.

  • November 12, 2019 at 1:33 pm
    Sue 'em All says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 6

    In other news, manufacturers of sushi knives are being sued in a nationwide class action for making knives that are sharp.

  • November 12, 2019 at 2:10 pm
    Kraaat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 11

    The gun manufacturers may eventually need to be prodded into starting an insurance pool. For every firearm, a reasonably priced policy would have to be purchased on an annual basis, priced slightly higher for semi-automatic weapons. All gun owners who pay premiums would then be covering the gun manufacturer’s cost of reimbursing victims of the few nut jobs out there who use their firearms for criminal pursuits. Sort of like the federal no-fault vaccine injury compensation program. The manufacturer would be protected by having that money available to settle lawsuits. Having a firearm without insurance would be punishable to the same extent that having a car without insurance is. Everyone gets their guns, the manufacturers are protected, and victims have recourse. Everybody wins.

    • November 12, 2019 at 2:27 pm
      Jack says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 20
      Thumb down 2

      Kraaat- insurance does not pay for intentional acts, and it shouldn’t.

      • November 13, 2019 at 2:42 pm
        Ummmm.... says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        Ummm Libel, Slander, and defamation claims would disagree with that blanket statement.

        • November 14, 2019 at 9:56 am
          Jack says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 2

          Ummmmmm- might need to read the exclusions in the policy endorsement.

          • November 14, 2019 at 10:51 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            I have read a lot of those, and on the personal and commercial side, those are still covered losses, unless you are just representing a low quality product.

            Additionally sexual misconduct would be a covered loss even if it is intentional. We can continue to hit on intentional acts that are covered, but if you don’t realize these things are covered for intentional acts, you might want to go to an insurance class and brush up on this some more.

          • November 14, 2019 at 2:49 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmmm- again read the Exclusions , even the standard ISO forms have it. Just one example below.

            SECTION II-EXCLUSIONS
            With respect to the coverage provided by this endorsement, Section II-Exclusions is replaced by the following:
            This insurance does not apply to:
            1. “Personal injury”:
            a. Caused by or at the direction of an “insured” with the knowledge that the act would violate the
            rights of another and would inflict “personal injury”;
            b. Arising out of oral or written publication of material, if done by or at the direction of an “insured” if known or should have been known of its falsity;
            c. Arising out of oral or written publication of material whose first publication took place before the
            beginning of the policy period;
            d. Arising out of a criminal act committed byor at the direction of an “insured”;
            e. Arising out of liability assumed by an “insured” under any contract or agreement except any
            indemnity obligation assumed by an “insured” under a written contract directly relating to the ownership,
            maintenance or use of the premises;

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:05 pm
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            If you are using the ISO forms, then you are representing a sub-par product and proving my point exactly.

            go to a class and find a better company to represent.

            Also personal products (i will say it does vary more for commercial), will still cover personal injury for these types of offences.

            Additionally what about the sexual misconduct portion? That is still covered whether it be intentional or unintentional.

            Happy to help you find better products, because if yours is excluding this, I would make the switch so you can properly protect people.

            Thanks!

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:06 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Ummmm- I don’t like “blanket” statements either, but with intentional acts, I’d say more often that not – no coverage. Personal lines

            I don’t write commercial insurance, for many reasons, 1. personal lines are good premium here on the coast of SC. 2. Most E&O claims occur on the commercial side.

            About the sexual misconduct, I don’t get the coverage offered in commercial policies like sex abuse for churches. You can’t really have unintentional sexual abuse.

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:10 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm..I represent 30 different personal lines carriers. Tell you what, you tell me which one you have that has an open checkbook for that type of claim, I’ll read the endorsement for the coverage. ?

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:32 pm
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            30 carriers? Yeah I wouldn’t trust you as far as I can throw you. You obviously cannot know all of the intricacies of each product. Do you only write in SC? That may be another difference between our disagreement, being in the midwest, but working all over the US, you see a ton of different forms and you understand each , and I guess my idea may be warped as I work with a lot of premier carriers.

            Do you have anything against my sexual misconduct claims? Again those would be an intentional act. I will wait.

          • November 14, 2019 at 3:48 pm
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            I also really hope this isn’t you: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2018/10/04/503358.htm

            I would have an even greater worry for you if it is.

          • November 14, 2019 at 4:11 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 7

            LOL Did Jack just get owned on insurance? It sure looks like he did LOLOL

          • November 15, 2019 at 9:21 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- Do you always resort to personal attacks when someone ask you for specifics about a policy? Tell me one personal lines carrier you write with so I can look up their endorsement. If I don’t write with them I’ll find another independent agency owner that does and get it from them. That’s easy to do.

            Unless your name is Ummmm, why would you think mine is Jack?

            I own the agency, but good try.

            Jon- R

          • November 15, 2019 at 9:57 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            It wasn’t really a personal attack, just working in the personal business awhile, I understand that if you have that many carriers you cannot know all the intricacies of each policy, and how some contracts vary from state to state. Again an observation regarding your over abundance of carrier options.

            One carrier we have worked with before would be Pure insurance (this is in your home state) does not exclude those types of damages, unless it is due to race, age, national origin, color, sex, creed, handicapped status, sexual preference, and it does exclude personal injury arising out of sexual misconduct. In the pure insuring agreement is states under personal injury that it covers defamation, libel, and slander, no caveat or exclusion regarding intentional or unintentional.

            Just cause you own your agency doesn’t make you a great agent, there is a lot that goes into to, and all you done recently is attack people on here, so if you can’t take a little heat, maybe you should refrain yourself?

            Additionally what militia are you a member of? You have stated you were before, so what is it?

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:01 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            Again, these are covered losses at times, especially if you have children, vicarious liability will pick that up in instances where they could be cyber bullying someone and hurting their reputation.

            It isn’t a one size fit all bucket, but reading the contracts, and constant education opportunities where classes like the CPRM they go over these instances where intentional acts are covered, and they stress the importance of having these great carriers.

            If it is different in S.C, please let me know because then I would really want to get my hands on those contracts to check as it isn’t that way over here in IL.

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:04 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            I should say that was an IL contract, but if the contract is different in S.C I would be very interested to find that out as I know Pure tailors their overages and exclusions to the area like most other carriers.

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:06 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            It would also pick up the vicarious liability from your child intentionally cyber bullying someone as well.

            If you don’t know if something is 100% covered or not, I would highly recommend asking your underwriter, that is how I knew about these intentional acts that are covered.

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:44 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- I write PURE, Section III Liability exclusions, 16. Expected or Intended Injury

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:46 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- i’d suggest you ask a claims person, underwriters don’t write the claims checks.

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:55 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            We disagree on those points though, you can ask the underwriter, and if you get it in writing, you have more leverage for claims situations when they arise.

            Did you read the definition under that section? It does not fall apply to these situations I have outlined.

            Good luck, but you just seem stuck in your ways.

            Also still waiting for your militia affiliation.

          • November 15, 2019 at 10:58 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            I also want to state that I have admitted this multiple times, but it might be a product difference in our states. I write in all 50, but I haven’t written a Pure policy in the state of S.C.

          • November 15, 2019 at 11:17 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- of course I read the definitions, that’s what claims adjusters do (10 years for me).

            16. Expected or Intended Injury
            Personal injury or property damage resulting from
            any criminal, willful, intentional, or malicious act or
            omission by any insured which is intended to result
            in, or would be expected by a reasonable person to
            cause personal injury or property damage. This
            exclusion applies even if the injury or damage is of a
            different kind or degree, or is sustained by a different
            person than expected or intended. This exclusion
            does not apply to bodily injury if the insured
            acted with reasonable force to protect any person or property.

          • November 15, 2019 at 11:22 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- and the fact you told me there was no way I knew 30 carriers policies and then you say you write in 50 states, and most of those have their own policy requirements, come on.

          • November 15, 2019 at 11:49 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            You seem pretty dense with this coverage, I have the ability to write in all 50, but we operate a lot in 4 states.

            I would still highly recommend you get some more education on this subject, whether you own your agency or not, you seem like you could use it. If you ever think you are done learning in this industry, then you would be wrong.

            Cheers mate!

          • November 15, 2019 at 12:07 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Ummmm- Here endeth the lesson.

          • November 15, 2019 at 5:20 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 6

            Yeah Jack definitely got served LOL

          • November 18, 2019 at 10:56 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Jon- I put the policy wording in here directly from a PURE client’s policy that proves my point, and you think I got served. Proves you are R.

        • November 14, 2019 at 1:35 pm
          Jax agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Ummmm, those things are covered differently. Not standard GL as none of those can affect the traditional triggers: BI or PD.

        • November 18, 2019 at 10:24 am
          Perplexed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 1

          Ummm, your lack of insurance knowledge is glaring.

        • November 18, 2019 at 11:31 am
          Perplexed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Ummm…I hope you aren’t selling insurance and telling customers that intentional acts are normally or even generally covered by an insurance contract. They most definitely are not. It’s a bit scary to think you and Jon might be selling insurance and making contact with the public.
          You’re right about libel, slander and defamation being insured on specific policies with specific coverages, but most intentional acts are not insured against and never have been and shouldn’t be. That might be hard for you young people to grasp though. After all, no one is responsible for their “intentional acts”.

          • November 18, 2019 at 4:13 pm
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            So you admit that I was right about libel and slander being covered (even though I did confer with the Pure claims people) that they are covered losses, yet did I ever mention that all intentional acts are covered, answer is no. I did highlight a few instances that they are covered including that, your child cyber bullying another child online, and then of course sexual misconduct on commercial forms.

            I find it weird you can agree with me, but then worry about the issues I am bringing up about people, including your lack of knowledge.

          • November 21, 2019 at 11:54 am
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Ummmm- I’m getting a different answer from a PURE claims person. Who did you talk to at PURE?

          • November 22, 2019 at 10:50 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Spoke with a thomas in the claims department. He explained it how they do in class while they say those coverages are not included in all states, it is a hard burden of proof they must meet for these types of claims.

            Additionally I confirmed that their child cyber bullying someone would be covered under liability. Did you ask about that one? Or do you care just to try and confirm your own ideas?

          • November 22, 2019 at 10:54 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            And while I never disgareed insurance should not be intentional acts. I agree that it should not, but we don’t live in a perfect world, you need to have it in real life situations rather than the perfect scenario where it would be excluded.

            It is always a case by case basis, and it does depend on the state you are writing in. The only other reason I know this is that one of my clients was sued for intentional slander, and it was covered. They didn’t pay a ton, but they did pay out like 10K.

            The cyber bullying thing is going to be covered though, but the issue is most situations with this do not arise to the level of a claim.

          • November 22, 2019 at 10:56 am
            Ummmm.... says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            The biggest intentional act liability a family has is with their children. What if they throw rocks at a window and break it, what if they do the same thing to a car, cyber bullying, and should I go on.

            Vicarious liability will cover these things even though they would not with the adults in the household and anyone (depending on where you are from) over the age of 14 (again varies by state).

          • November 22, 2019 at 2:31 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Ummmm- Sorry got a different answer from claims. While the coverage for “personal injury” is included in the standard wording of the policy, the specific exclusions I posted above stands.

  • November 12, 2019 at 2:25 pm
    Jack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 8

    Let’s take it a step further and allow stock holders to be sued. With their investment, these killing instruments wouldn’t be made. Ok, that was sarcasm, and I had to say that was sarcasm because I would have gotten 20 thumbs up from the nazi socialist on here. All kidding aside, every member of congress should have to disclose every investment they make. And I’d bet the house every gun grabbing liberal would have GUN stocks, you know why, they are the best gun salesmen in the US. Take that to the bank, they have!

  • November 12, 2019 at 3:32 pm
    Joseph S Harrington, CPCU says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 1

    This situation arises from a misapplication of civil liability and a resulting distortion of liability insurance.

    Guns are dangerous but not volatile on their own, like fuels and other chemicals. They generally won’t hurt anyone unless they are fired at someone. Given that, I see why supporters of PLCAA believe law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers should be exempt from liability for illegal use of guns marketed legally.

    Insurers face another problem, however: With perpetrators barred from coverage (if they have any) by intentional acts exclusions, and arms merchants protected by PLCAA, injured victims are looking to other third parties for compensation. The MGM settlement for the Las Vegas shooting, which reportedly cost insurers more than $700 million, is the most dramatic example, but there are many examples of friends and acquaintances of shooters, plus police, school officials, social workers, and others, having to respond to liability claims.

    If there are costs to the public from commerce in firearms, it would be best to address those costs upfront, in the form of taxes for public safety and victim compensation costs, rather than using the court system for a shell game. If the amount of the tax were established based on the amount and type of injury to the public arising from particular types of guns and ammunition, the firearms industry would have a strong financial incentive to speed up innovation in the design and distribution of firearms, without infringing on anyone’s constitutional rights.

    • November 13, 2019 at 6:41 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 2

      Thank you for that excellent, factual, summary of the issue.

      I’d like to add that municipalities are partially at fault for some mass homicides; e.g. the Sandy Hook mass murder, as they knew the perp was a risk and did not take proper actions. Many government entities are immune from prosecution, so victims turn elsewhere for compensation.

      Serious reforms in the way mental health issues are treated and administered are urgently needed.

      • November 13, 2019 at 12:35 pm
        Jon says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 18

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • November 13, 2019 at 2:34 pm
          sak74 says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 13
          Thumb down 3

          Jon,

          Why the need to take a non political exchange between Joseph and Polar and make it political. I understand you and Polar are on opposite spectrum of politics and both go back and forth but in this particular exchange your two cents going political really was unnecessary. If something political was said above or below this exchange you want to respond to fine, but it would be nice to see everyone try and control their urge to take exchanges and amp up the political garbage.

          • November 13, 2019 at 3:47 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 11

            Hey Sak, see up above where both Polar and Jack made things political by mentioning “liberals” in a negative light? Your bias is showing in that you only seem to be chiding me for political comments, but totally ignoring the members of the right-wing doing the same thing. Why is that, I wonder?

          • November 13, 2019 at 3:58 pm
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 10
            Thumb down 2

            Hey Jon see where i discuss this PARTICULAR EXCHANGE….Joseph put his OWN comment on this thread (a very well thought out comment I would like to add) that had no political leaning either way. Polar responded non politically to that comment. Political garbage started when YOU chimed in……..You don’t like comments Jack or Polar made above or below throw your garbage back comments there (and yes I find their political comments garbage as well)

            There are several people on these boards that from both sides that I completely skip over because all the stupid comments from both sides get out of hand…….Joseph’s comment was very well thought out and I was hoping would lead to some good and civil discussion and Polar did respond in that manner, then you go and chime in and ruin it…..

          • November 13, 2019 at 6:29 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 11

            “non-politically” did you even read his post? What post has Polar, Craig and their ilk EVER done that is non-political? They’re constantly bashing the left and supporting nonsensical right-wing ideals. Logic and the evidence of months’ worth of articles disagree with you.

          • November 14, 2019 at 1:41 pm
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            Jon, I know you like to just argue so again I am going to state my comments are all in reference to Joseph’s initial comment and Polar’s response to that comment (no other comment am I refering as honestly I haven’t bothered to read them)…..

            “PolarBeaRepeal says:
            WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 12Thumb down 2
            Thank you for that excellent, factual, summary of the issue.

            I’d like to add that municipalities are partially at fault for some mass homicides; e.g. the Sandy Hook mass murder, as they knew the perp was a risk and did not take proper actions. Many government entities are immune from prosecution, so victims turn elsewhere for compensation.

            Serious reforms in the way mental health issues are treated and administered are urgently needed.”

            Where in THIS comment is there anything political being said, as this is the comment you attacked and continue to accuse me of bias for siding with Polar’s political view? I don’t see any political reference of any kind. Oh and FYI yes on this thread I called you out for your comment but on a totally different thread I did call out Craig for his comments taking a civil discussion and getting overly snarky for no reason other than to garbage up that discussion.

          • November 14, 2019 at 2:44 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            I was talking about
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 3Thumb down 5
            If liberals claim guns are primarily made for killing people, others with a better understanding can claim gun control is primarily for killing the 2nd Amendment. Who is right? The answer lies in the answer to this question: what & who does the 2nd Amendment protect?

            You know, the one where he mentioned liberals like I said he did. Try harder LOL

          • November 15, 2019 at 4:11 pm
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            Jon maybe you need to try harder with your reading comprehension…..in your continued argument you are starting to remind me of your biggest nemesis on this board…….you know, not really responding to what I am saying directly and twisting my point out of context…….so lets try this ONE MORE TIME……..I am not talking about any other comments in this section OTHER THAN these two RIGHT HERE:

            ” Joseph S Harrington, CPCU says:
            WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 15Thumb down 0
            This situation arises from a misapplication of civil liability and a resulting distortion of liability insurance.

            Guns are dangerous but not volatile on their own, like fuels and other chemicals. They generally won’t hurt anyone unless they are fired at someone. Given that, I see why supporters of PLCAA believe law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers should be exempt from liability for illegal use of guns marketed legally.

            Insurers face another problem, however: With perpetrators barred from coverage (if they have any) by intentional acts exclusions, and arms merchants protected by PLCAA, injured victims are looking to other third parties for compensation. The MGM settlement for the Las Vegas shooting, which reportedly cost insurers more than $700 million, is the most dramatic example, but there are many examples of friends and acquaintances of shooters, plus police, school officials, social workers, and others, having to respond to liability claims.

            If there are costs to the public from commerce in firearms, it would be best to address those costs upfront, in the form of taxes for public safety and victim compensation costs, rather than using the court system for a shell game. If the amount of the tax were established based on the amount and type of injury to the public arising from particular types of guns and ammunition, the firearms industry would have a strong financial incentive to speed up innovation in the design and distribution of firearms, without infringing on anyone’s constitutional rights.

            Reply
            NOVEMBER 13, 2019 AT 6:41 AM
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 13Thumb down 2
            Thank you for that excellent, factual, summary of the issue.

            I’d like to add that municipalities are partially at fault for some mass homicides; e.g. the Sandy Hook mass murder, as they knew the perp was a risk and did not take proper actions. Many government entities are immune from prosecution, so victims turn elsewhere for compensation.

            Serious reforms in the way mental health issues are treated and administered are urgently needed.

            Reply”

            As I stated a few times, I haven’t read anything else because I am pretty sure it is political garbage with nothing of value other than the right gets their digs at the left and the left then does the same to the right……thanks I will pass……..THIS particular exchange I actually was hoping to see some civil discussion without politics and then I hit comment number three from you and just like that my hopes were gone…..

          • November 15, 2019 at 5:21 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            Yeah, boring. I’m not reading that LOL

          • November 18, 2019 at 8:55 am
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Congrats…….you know totally sound like Craig! Two peas in a pod are you both in how you react to comments that are not totally in line and agreement with your ideas and arguments. You both are more alike than you think or even would admit to.

          • November 18, 2019 at 11:59 am
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            Never claimed we weren’t. I’ve always admitted that I am a reaction to his and Polar’s type of trolling, I just so happen to be better at it than they are. I also like to point out the hypocrites on the right who like to yell at me about behavior they’ve been casually allowing from Craig and Polar for months. :D

          • November 18, 2019 at 12:49 pm
            sak74 says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            Well I have called out both, just as I have you……I don’t do it on EVERY comment because I don’t have the time and frankly I tend not to ready threads when I see certain names pop up, but if/when I am participating in a comment thread that is going well and then gets mucked up by political garbage I will call that person out left, right, center, top, bottom, whatever their view……Have a great Monday!

    • November 18, 2019 at 12:07 pm
      Joseph S. Harrington, CPCU says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      It’s a little lame to reply to my own post, but I want to thank those who commented positively on it and keep the focus on the risk and insurance issues.

      I’d be foolish not to expect polemical responses on a topic such as gun violence, but I hope IJ comment boards can avoid becoming deluged with so much invective that our shared purpose is lost. Not only is there a tendency to fall into established political positions on such matters, but that typically degenerates further into an “argument about the argument.”

      The essential question is: How do insurance and gun violence relate, and can anything be done to insurance mechanisms to address gun violence?

      I think most readers would agree with me that private, voluntary insurance is ill-suited to deal with gun vioence because the vast majority of gun injuries and fatalities are intentional. Given this inhereent limitation, I welcome initiatives by gun rights organizations to take a financial stake in safe use of firearms to see if some mechanisms of coverage can be developed, even though I strongly disagree with certain pronouncements of those organizations.

      That said, the Sandy Hook court case, coming on the heels of the MGM Grand settlement, brings home a critical question for insurers: Who will compensate victims of mass shootings if the perpetrators can’t and gun merchants don’t have to? So far, the first up are liability insurers for third parties who are indirectly connected to a shooting. That’s not right.

      Given that there are costs for public safety and victim compensation arising from commerce in firearms, it is reasonable to seek coverage of those costs by taxing that commerce. As the costs fall, so could the taxes. My idea may be a non-starter politically, but it doesn’t have to be so. It’s better than having to sue anyone but those most directly involved.

  • November 12, 2019 at 5:43 pm
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Is his marketing “buy more devices solely intended to kill”? Your lack of logic is astounding, boomer.

  • November 13, 2019 at 8:19 am
    Vox says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    This might just be a signal from the court that they wish to leave this issue for the 50 states to decide. It’s not a decision on the wisdom or fairness of such suits. The debate about it will go on, ad infinitum.

  • November 13, 2019 at 8:57 am
    bob pegg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 6

    Lots of people all over the place on this one. I have issues with Congress creating a carve out for the gun manufactures in the first place. All others who create products are required per statute and common law to create safe products within the scope of what that product is intended for. Fair enough. The CT court did not subvert the federal statute, but ruled that the “marketing” of the product was not contemplated by the federal statute. The Supreme’s needed a minimum of 4 to take up this case. Last time I checked there are 4 conservatives, one confused Chief and 4 liberals. They could not get to 4 to hear the case. Sounds as if gun rights folks should be happy the full court did not hear this one. Besides it only allows the case to be tried and go to jury. Fat chance the plaintiff will settle, so I see some pain in Remington’s future and a new ad campaign. Also see a flood of suits based on past mass shootings that end up in the state Supreme courts.

    • November 13, 2019 at 12:04 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 2

      “all others who create products are required per statute … to create safe products within the scope of the intended use of the product… ” (paraphrased for brevity).

      Guns are intended for killing animals, enemies in combat, and potential murderers who attack the gun owner.

      If guns are used for killing innocent people, the USERS of the guns are responsible for the harm caused… not the manufacturer who built the gun for the above stated purposes.

      Merely marketing a product doesn’t compel a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs unless there was misleading info or info absent about the possible harm.

  • November 13, 2019 at 12:33 pm
    JACK says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 7

    A wolf attacks a sheep. The sheep dies.

    Other sheep observe the killing, and notice that teeth kill sheep.

    The sheep remove their own teeth for their own safety.

    • November 13, 2019 at 12:35 pm
      Jack says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 2

      PS- I am a sheep dog and will not be toothless.

      • November 13, 2019 at 12:37 pm
        Jon says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • November 13, 2019 at 12:53 pm
          Jack says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 6

          Sheep too stupid to realize there are 15 million teeth in the US that we know of, not including the ones smuggled across our open southern border.

          Sheep also too gutless to go into the projects of large cities to take teeth away from criminals and illegals.

          woof woof

          • November 13, 2019 at 1:59 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 2

            Sheep also too stupid to realize wolves don’t want sheep to have teeth. they don’t say if you all had teeth we wouldn’t kill you.

          • November 13, 2019 at 2:18 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 13

            Enough with the metaphor. The problem is you don’t have the data to back up your argument. It has been shown in multiple companies that if you limit firearm access to people trained/evaluated, you reduce gun crime. See Australia/Sweden. Keep arguing for the thing killing you, the rest of us are tired of listening to your garbage.

            Summary: OK Boomer, you’re not in charge anymore thankfully and your political party won’t be for long. You mad bro?

          • November 13, 2019 at 3:45 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 4

            Jon- I bet on the next post you bash the police for shooting someone that deserved to be shot. Yep guns in the hands of people trained to shoot them. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and one is just as ignorant as the other.

          • November 13, 2019 at 3:49 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 10

            I bash the police for shooting people that didn’t deserve to be shot, such as the female officer who walked into a man’s apartment and killed him. Or the officers who killed a black man for selling cigarettes. Or the officers who killed a black man by shooting him in the back while he was already on the ground contained. OR – should I go on? Your side likes to ignore the clear violence perpetrated by the police, whining about how blue lives matter. The fact is most of you are racists and cowards, you just don’t like being confronted with that truth. Take away the guns and you’re just a bunch of scared little boys. You felt threatened and needed to mention your AR 15 just up above – your fear is palpable, snowflake.

          • November 15, 2019 at 8:02 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            AND Epstein didn’t kill himself!

        • November 13, 2019 at 2:19 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 4

          LOL OK boomer, you mad? Too bad, no one cares about you aging selfish hacks anyway. :D

        • November 13, 2019 at 2:52 pm
          Jack says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          Jon- which is why I’ll keep my AR15’s !!!!!

        • November 13, 2019 at 3:11 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          Jack, you are so right……to make amends, I have something for everyone today.
          For you, Jack, I have 2 extra 30rd/ MagPull 5.56 magazines, 200rds of armor piercing rounds and 100 tracer rounds.
          For Jon, I have a small box of lilac scented tissues.

          Heck yeah, I’m a giver !

  • November 13, 2019 at 2:11 pm
    ralph says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 2

    allow me to get serious for a minute here:

    The reason this is such an emotional issue is because of the kids involved in the Sandy Hook shooting. It’s a day I’ll personally never forget.. I remember turning on the news and seeing the kids pouring out of the school building, the same school I attended Kindergarten in in 1981. As a parent, I can’t even BEGIN to imagine the immeasurable grief those parents suffered and will continue to suffer, not to mention the harassment they’ve had to put up with by Alex Jones and his kooks accusing them of faking the entire thing in order to take away someone’s 2nd Amendment rights. It’s one of the saddest things that could ever happen.

    Now, all that said, the only ones who will benefit from suing Remington are the attorneys. It’s absolutely sick that they’re preying on the grief of these parents. You can try and hurt the gun manufacturers financially all you want; it won’t do a damn thing to end school shootings.

  • November 13, 2019 at 3:29 pm
    Smooth says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    The Japanese said mainland America could never be attacked by a military force because behind every blade of grass there is a gun. This is sort of true.

    As for guns.… I always keep my mouth shut on the topic, however, I’ve read many articles stating the number of guns is somewhere between 600 – 900 million, not the estimated 300 million. There is absolutely no possible way they could all be confiscated, and on that note, who in the world would be dumb enough to try and do so? It would most certainly lead to a civil war.

    The solution has to be somewhere in the middle. I read the arguments and realize most people have no idea what an “AR” is, nor what the difference is between an “AR” and any gun with a larger magazine. So, let’s do this; Background checks for everyone. If you have a history of assault on your record, no gun for you. If you are an illegal drug user, no gun for you. Prison record? No gun for you. We can tighten the rules of obtaining a gun and at least lessen the potential risk of another Sandy Hook. If you own guns, they MUST be locked in a safe, not left in the open, or the parent faces responsibility. These may sound like tough laws, but let’s be serious, there is absolutely no way guns in this nation are being taken away. I’m a gun owner too. I have many. I don’t keep them for fear of being attacked by terrorists, rabid deer, vampire rabbits or anything along those lines. I have mine to target practice with on days I’m super bored. That’s it. I don’t hunt and I don’t have my guns where someone could even come into my home and find them. They are locked up, but easily accessible if I hear a noise in the middle of the night. People overcomplicate things. Stricter laws do not hurt anyone. By the same token, a gun has never killed anyone. People have. There has to be a middle ground to all this as neither side will get remotely close to what they want. Police Departments across the Nation have already stated they would never enforce a gun ban. The Military most certainly isn’t going to go door-to-door. Nobody wants a riot that turns into a homegrown war.

    • November 13, 2019 at 3:35 pm
      ralph says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      good ol’ Smoov! I 100% agree.

      That’s it, I’m gonna get you a super sweet pair of those Navy Seal Tactical Sunglasses and the two of us will look like total bada$$es.

    • November 13, 2019 at 9:51 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      Yeah, uh, Smooth, I’mma just gunna have to agree with everything you said there, mkay? Thanks :)

  • November 13, 2019 at 3:41 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 4

    Jax- I’m all stocked up with 20 AR mags, thousands of rounds of the little green tip….wink wink… and plenty of tracers. I normally shoot the tracers behind the house on holidays. They look like bottle rockets on steroids so the gun grabbers don’t have a clue.

    I’ll donate your gift to the 18 year old down the street thats already figured out the US is going communist. He’s a smart one.

    • November 13, 2019 at 3:50 pm
      Jon says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 15

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • November 14, 2019 at 8:21 am
        Jax Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 2

        Now, now Jon, it’s going to be ok. Take a tissue and have a seat over in that safe space. BTW, the video of you sobbing and defending Brittany Spears has somehow made it back into the mainstream.
        Not your best look, Jon. Just sayin……

        • November 14, 2019 at 9:31 am
          Jack says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 1

          Jax- see he claims I have “illegal ammo”. Not really that smart is she.

        • November 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 11

          So more toxic masculinity attacks from you, Jax. Oh, and some blatant transphobia from Jack again! Boy, you geezers on the right really like to wear your ignorance and hatred on your sleeve, huh? And you say I am not putting out my best look? Your look went out of fashion with gay-bashing in the 90s, were you two too stupid to catch on? LOL



Add a Comment

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

*