Newtown families to announce lawsuit against gunmaker


Two years ago today, 20-year-old Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn… Twenty children and six adults were killed. On Monday, some families are expected to announce their part in a class-action lawsuit against the maker of the assault rifle Lanza used.


So, lets see here. A legal rifle bought legally. legal purchaser murdered and rifle stolen. Weapon then used to gun down 26 more innocent victims. While I know the families are grieving horribly over this, I just don’t see any link that the gun company was involved in the chain of events other than making the rifle. The only ones who win here are the lawyers.


I feel so sorry for these families. It has to be an indescribable feeling to send your little one off to school and they are shot to death. I think these families just want someone to pay. To have some type of justice. I can’t imagine losing a loved one like that.

I don’t think you can blame the gunmaker, though.


I have sympathy for these families for their losses and their grief.
This time of year must be so agonizing for these families.

I don’t think blaming the gunmaker is the answer.
I don’t know what the answer is to prevent these incidents from happening.


This incident took just over four minutes from the time he started firing until the gunman killed himself. The only thing that possibly could have stopped him is if there was somebody already there with a gun.


Or the gun owner properly storing them knowing she was living with someone who was mentally unstable.


Neither of which is the gun maker’s responsibility or fault.


They may as well sue China for inventing gunpowder.


No money (for the lawyers, who I am pretty sure are the reason the gun maker is being sued) in that.


I’m no expert at this, but it is hard for me to imagine a class being approved. It is my impression that members of a “class” must be similarly situated and affected by the same action or pattern of actions, and the act must be wrongful to begin with. I can’t imagine how they would put that one together.

But the gun manufacturers might, indeed, give them “go away” money so as not to spend millions defending it. In that event, you’re right, the only winners are the lawyers.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not too impressed with most “class action” suits. I have been a nominal plaintiff (without choosing to be) in a number of them. One, as I recall, was against our electricity provider for some overcharge somwhere in history. If I was able to produce my electricity bill from some years back, and the check showing I paid it, then I would receive some miniscule credit on some electric bill somewhere down the line. I recall another against my mortgage lender who, it was alleged, misinterpreted its own “variable rate” calculation and overcharged. If I could produce my checks from some years ago, along with the record showing the interest I paid, then I could get some tiny interest adjustment in the future.

The only winners in those things are the lawyers. I looked it up. In both suits the lawyers made a huge amount of money.


Didn’t say it was. Just don’t want to lose sight that this was a complete and total failure of the gun owner who refused to take her responsibilities seriously.


“The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the U.S. military to meet the needs of changing warfare,” Josh Koskoff of the law firm Koskoff, Koskoff & Beider in Bridgeport, Connecticut, said in a press release. “The weapon was not designed for home defense or hunting. This weapon was designed to efficiently kill other human beings in combat.”


The lawsuit filed Monday claims that the named defendants know “as a result of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them” and that the defendants continue to sell the weapons to the civilian market despite the fact that they “know that the AR-15’s military firepower, unsuited to home defense or recreation, enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage.”

The suit states that assault rifles like Lanza’s were previously used in incidences in department stores, fast-food chains, offices, homecoming parties, courthouse steps and other schools, resulting in civilian deaths. The rifle, “designed as a lightweight but fearsome combat weapon for troops in Vietnam,” according to the press release, “can expel 30 bullets in a matter of seconds, each of which is capable of piercing body armor and causing catastrophic injury.”

Might need to watch Runaway Jury again.


There was a law and order show where the theme was going after a gun maker. I know that’s just TV but it might be of interest still to see how it relates since they model their shows after real life incidences.

Generally, gun makers are not going to be responsible but there might be little ways where they tripped up somewhere and in legalese they can be pursued. That’s what happened in that show. I can’t remember the details now.


I am incapable of respecting this at all. Stop it. Just stop.

I hope the gunmaker goes straight to court and I hope the families are defeated soundly, swiftly and cleanly.

This is just terribly silly and shows a lack of forethought, sense, and reason imo.


“Ripped from the headlines,” as they say. :stuck_out_tongue:

If I might ask, why is respecting this move by victims and their families, specifically, a problem?


What is the difference between gun makers and tobacco companies? If tobacco companies can be held responsible, why can’t gun makers? I’m not asking from a legal standpoint but from a logical standpoint.


You’re assuming there is logic to any of it.

There is one distinction between the tobacco companies and the gun companies, though. For a long time the tobacco companies encouraged the idea that smoking was not unhealthy. Some even claimed it was an aid to health, and had some medical opinions supporting it. (Remember the movie “The King’s Speech”? ) The evidence, apparently, was that they knew better than that, or at least did at some point in time before they quit claiming it.

The gun companies on the other hand, make no pretense that a gun does anything other than what it does.


Isn’t one reason the Tobacco companies were liable is because they hid research that showed they knew how damaging smoking can be? I think so.


I’m not a gun owner myself, but I know plenty who are. As I understand it, the AR is about sport shooting and home defense. If I understand it correctly, it has much less penetration power than a shotgun slug or 30-06 hunting rifle, which makes it actually very good for home defense purposes. One of the largest risks of home defense gun use is the potential for the bullet to penetrate the home walls and kill some innocent bystander outside or in an adjacent home. Lighter bullets, like the AR round make that LESS likely.

Given that the right to own such arms is protected in the Constitution, what should the maker have done differently that they failed to do? If they are found liable, what’s next? My dad enjoys flying a small single engine airplane, just for fun. Will such planes be banned (since they have no pressing purpose) if somebody crashes one and someone is killed? Will we soon be banned from driving our cars unless we can prove ‘pressing purpose’ for the trip? The precedent would be the same.

What happened is tragic, but the cause was appalling lack of judgment by the kid’s mom, not by the gun maker. As society continues to come apart under the rejection of Natural Law and the reality of human nature, we’re going to see more and more chaos. The pressure to adopt ‘feel-good’ solutions that preserve our disordered cultural values will be intense. What won’t happen for some time is soul-searching about what’s REALLY behind societal breakdown.


Was the weapon defective? The weapon worked exactly as engineered. Its not the gunmakeers fault that the weapon was used in a illegal manner anymore than the manufature of a hammer that was used to bludgeon someone to death,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit