Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Aurora victim's family suing ammo supplyer. Right or wrong?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Aurora victim's family suing ammo supplyer. Right or wrong?

    Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...916-story.html

    http://www.wisn.com/national/parents...llers/28098082

    http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...ue-ammo-seller

    http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/T...275312681.html

    While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

    When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

    What's everyone else's thoughts?

  2. #2
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...916-story.html

    http://www.wisn.com/national/parents...llers/28098082

    http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...ue-ammo-seller

    http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/T...275312681.html

    While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

    When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

    What's everyone else's thoughts?
    I'm not sure where to draw the line. I will say this...the ammo store is not responsible for the shootings. I'll also say this, though...could they have raised a flag? If someone buys all of the components to make a bomb from a single location, I believe the store owner has some sort of responsibility to pass the info on to law enforcement.

    Should the ammo shop have to pay? Not at all. It's just the family's way of trying to cope, I guess. There always has to be someone to blame other than the actual assailant.

  3. #3
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    If the laws of the state in which the buyer resides are being broken, the seller has the obligation to act. Otherwise, no. Not everyone that purchases ammo and gun-related items is felon waiting to strike. I live in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Connecticut and I have to email in my drivers license and permit with each purchase I make online. Too easy.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Never heard Connecticut called that before. Heard it about the people republic of Virgina!

    And i agree, unless we start allowing online sellers access to criminal records and medical records to see who is potentially going to flip out, we ain't going to stop this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member efmbman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,042
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Never heard Connecticut called that before. Heard it about the people republic of Virgina!

    And i agree, unless we start allowing online sellers access to criminal records and medical records to see who is potentially going to flip out, we ain't going to stop this.
    I do not support allowing online sellers access to criminal records and / or medical records. That is a gross invasion of privacy by a commercial entity. The states can (apparently) impose whatever restrictions they wish on their citizens, so it is the state that must screen the customers. If I have a license / permit from Connecticut, then I am good to go.

    To date, I have only found one online seller willing to do business with me. Most end the conversation once I tell them I live in Connecticut. I explain that I have all the required permits and licenses, but to no avail. It is almost as if the sellers are punishing the people of CT in the hopes that will cause us to force change in the law. No chance... not after "Sandy Hook". So, like many before me, I will vote with my feet.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    That sucks. Guess CT is going on my list of states to not bother living in.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Yesterday i heard on the news that some of the families of victims of the Aurora Colorado theater shooting, were attempting to sue the online store that supplied the ammo, body armor and magazines (as well as teargas grenades).

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...916-story.html

    http://www.wisn.com/national/parents...llers/28098082

    http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...ue-ammo-seller

    http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/T...275312681.html

    While i may see a point in regards to the 100 round magazine being sold, does this not open up the gate for people to say sue Target.com or walmart.com cause someone bought ammo/guns from them, and shot up a place? What about those online pharmacies who let people get prescription medications without needing a doctors prescription note/form? Should people be allowed to sue those places cause their family member got addicted to meds, or suffered pain/issues from allergies to the medication or side effects?

    When i hear of things like this, my mind goes back to a great film with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, Runaway jury. Where Cusack is a friend of a victim of a school shooting trying to sabotage a jury in a lawsuit against gun makers, for not background checking people better before letting their guns get sold.

    What's everyone else's thoughts?
    If the ammunition supplier was operating within the law, then they should be held accountable. If they were operating within the law, and someone uses their product to break the law I don't see why we should hold them accountable or be angry with them per se; if I buy a baseball bat at Target, then use it to assault and kill someone is Target also liable? Granted, the general purpose of bullets is to produce bodily harm (whether in an offensive or defensive role.) If the state wishes to apply a screening or permit to buy ammunition, that is for the state to decide.

    Also, yes if you came into my store and purchased everything you needed to buy a bomb you may get my attention. At an online retailer it may or may not be the same warehouse worker filling that order; and his/her understanding of what creates a danger may not be the same (a gun expert is a gun expert, a stocker is a stocker.) Is it the company's job to screen orders for possible 'ingredient lists' ... I don't really think it is legally. It is morally ... don't know.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  8. #8
    Senior Member TJMAC77SP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,156
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by efmbman View Post
    I do not support allowing online sellers access to criminal records and / or medical records. That is a gross invasion of privacy by a commercial entity. The states can (apparently) impose whatever restrictions they wish on their citizens, so it is the state that must screen the customers. If I have a license / permit from Connecticut, then I am good to go.

    To date, I have only found one online seller willing to do business with me. Most end the conversation once I tell them I live in Connecticut. I explain that I have all the required permits and licenses, but to no avail. It is almost as if the sellers are punishing the people of CT in the hopes that will cause us to force change in the law. No chance... not after "Sandy Hook". So, like many before me, I will vote with my feet.
    CT's responses (along with almost everyone else's) was simple knee jerking. The single initial focus was on the killer's use of a Bushmaster 'assault weapon' as if without that this tragedy wouldn't have happened. Anyone claiming that is the worst kind of fiend and says it while standing on the graves of 27 kids (yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole). The Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols, a .22 caliber and a 9mm. Using the same logic, shouldn't those be banned as well? What if there was a total gun ban in the US? Would that have prevented these attacks? You still have a bent individual determined to hurt people. While removing the most 'effective' tool for killing certainly might reduce the casualty numbers (would 10 children killed with a machete have been more palatable?) no one can legitimately guarantee any proposed gun ban would prevent anything (when speaking of these types of attacks).

    I am no fan of the ownership of an assault weapon. I simply don't get the appeal of owning one. However, banning them with not "keep our children safe" as was claimed. These arguments are disingenuous at best.

    The role that the mental health system played in the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't seriously mentioned until 6 months after the incident (probably because it was mentioned in the various investigative reports produced). We won't see any real reform there either because the answer is mandatory reporting and the AMA will never back that.

    I am not sure that I even support that but I do know that I hate to see these type situations blamed on peripheral issues. It started with the Columbine shootings. Evidently that happened because the shooters played Doom. Well I played Doom and never had the (real) urge to shoot anyone because of it. These were bent kids. When I was a kid there was a story of another kid who jumped off the roof wearing a homemade cape of some sort because he watched the Superman TV show. Well, I loved that show and used to jump off the back of the couch while wearing my bathrobe as a cape. I didn't jump off the roof because I knew that it would frapping kill me..........I wasn't bent. It wasn't the fault of the TV show is my point.
    ___________________
    Read carefully, think, then write thoughtfully……………………………..

    I don’t have any quotes……you can pick one for yourself

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,305
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP View Post
    Evidently that happened because the shooters played Doom. Well I played Doom and never had the (real) urge to shoot anyone because of it. These were bent kids. When I was a kid there was a story of another kid who jumped off the roof wearing a homemade cape of some sort because he watched the Superman TV show. Well, I loved that show and used to jump off the back of the couch while wearing my bathrobe as a cape. I didn't jump off the roof because I knew that it would frapping kill me..........I wasn't bent. It wasn't the fault of the TV show is my point.
    That is one of the things i feel a lot of those on the left either fail to grasp or don't want to grasp. Many millions of people played games like doom or other first person shooters. Does not mean we all want to go out and shoot people for real.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dayon, Ohio
    Posts
    1,244
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    That is one of the things i feel a lot of those on the left either fail to grasp or don't want to grasp. Many millions of people played games like doom or other first person shooters. Does not mean we all want to go out and shoot people for real.
    If you are going to go after the left for their idiocy shouldn't you call out the right too? People are in jail for selling marijuana while at the same time you can legally purchase alcohol just about anywhere. Casinos and gambling are slowly gaining traction but for the longest time gambling was illgall while at the same time the state was selling Powerball tickets. At least in the various casino games you can get a probability of winning around 47%. In the freaking lottery you are looking at between 7 and 17%.

    You can point fingers at the left all you want but the right does the same things. The bottom line is that laws enacted to protect people from themselves do not work and never will.

    If you don't like my marijuana or gambling analogies I have one more for you. Voting rights. People on the right work just as hard to block people from voting as people on the left work to block people from owning guns. Both are rights spelled out in the constitution. The sides simply disagree on how much documentation you should have to provide to enact said right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •