Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

21. Neither of our opinions matter to set legal precedent.

Reply to Duckhunter935 (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 15, 2016, 10:27 AM

Oct 2016

I have read enough over the years to know that you will reliably defend firearms. That's a given.

The point I raise is that the judge, in this case, where we both agree that the target was school children, said that the weapon worked as intended.

I know that you will bend that in your mind in whatever way possible to defend firearms. Our opinions don't matter towards legal precedent. The judge's does.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Remington For Sandy Hook Massacre [View all] aikoaiko Oct 2016 OP

A good result Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #1

The purpose of a gun is to kill. Kingofalldems Oct 2016 #2

The purpose of a firearm Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #5

Not even close. The purpose of a firearm's projectile is to kill. Fact. Kingofalldems Oct 2016 #9

Yet so few guns are actually used to kill anything hack89 Oct 2016 #17

But Chevys still kill a lot of people if used improperly hack89 Oct 2016 #7

Seems some don't care for that small important point Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #12

Except mine, their purpose is to save lives. ileus Oct 2016 #10

A Renault truck, being driven, killed 86 in Nice. Should Renault be sued? Marengo Oct 2016 #14

According to several here, yes sadly Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #16

"the gun most definitely worked as intended." Thor_MN Oct 2016 #3

No. The judge defined firearms as machines designed to shoot bullets. aikoaiko Oct 2016 #8

In this case, that target was school children. Thor_MN Oct 2016 #15

I disagree Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #18

Neither of our opinions matter to set legal precedent. Thor_MN Oct 2016 #21

I agree with the judge Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #23

By your logic, the truck that killed 80 in Nice also "worked as intended" cleanhippie Oct 2016 #28

I don't think the issue was whether the product could be used to kill people. aikoaiko Oct 2016 #20

See #21, minus the history... Thor_MN Oct 2016 #22

Not really Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #25

I agree that its the judge's ruling that matters. aikoaiko Oct 2016 #26

Your tactic of attempting to smear a poster when your argument falls apart is your history. cleanhippie Oct 2016 #29

I'm not smearing anyone, just stating facts Thor_MN Oct 2016 #31

Very true statement Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #24

Not a surprise. Nt hack89 Oct 2016 #4

I agree Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #6

Not a surprise, but plaintiffs were given every opportunity to make their case... aikoaiko Oct 2016 #11

Very true Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #19

Not at all. Absolutely the correct decision. NaturalHigh Oct 2016 #13

Thank you White Jesus. Gun fanciers are relieved that their pipe line of guns will not be impeded. Hoyt Oct 2016 #27

Is "impeding the pipeline of guns" the goal of these types of lawsuits. aikoaiko Oct 2016 #32

That's obviously you gunners fear. You darn sure don't care about the kids, spouses, innocents that Hoyt Oct 2016 #33

Gun safety, Hoyt. You're supposed to talk about gun safety. aikoaiko Oct 2016 #34

The ultimate gun safety is for you guys to quit promothing more gunz in more places and Hoyt Oct 2016 #35

The correct decision Calculating Oct 2016 #30