Gun Makers Sued Over Las Vegas shooting

[RecoveringYuppy]

A co-worker's wife was sued by a scam lawyer and scam plaintiffs who pulled out in front of her deliberately on a busy road, and she rear-ended them. They claimed she was responsible "because she could have swerved into oncoming traffic and creamed herself instead of rear-ending" them.

Did Carrie Parsons and 57 others die by gun fire in Las Vegas or do you think it was a scam?

 

[BStrong]

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105

 

[Myriad]

No, it would be a bit stupid to understand it that way. It's even a stupid way for you to phrase the question and implies that maybe you should be asking that question you thought was rhetorical.

The lawsuit is complaining about the power of the recoil, not it's mere presence. And that is a design parameter. And they could have designed it with more or less recoil (and if you look up the history of the weapon you could actually know what they did about this point).

Not so. There is no unit of measure or actual figure cited in the lawsuit for either (1) how powerful the recoil of an AR-15 is, or (2) what numerical threshold constitutes excessively powerful. In the absence of any figures or any basis for comparison, the descriptor "powerful" is meaningless. Any recoil at all dissipates energy over time; that is to say, it has power. If that's what the plaintiffs mean by "powerful," then indeed they ARE complaining about the mere presence of recoil. If they mean the power exceeds some acceptable threshold, let's see the figures.

For what it's worth, I looked at multiple reviews and comparisons of the AR-15 versus other rifles with similar shooting characteristics. They generally describe the recoil of the AR-15 as unremarkable. (If you want to see video of a guy firing multiple rounds with the butt held against his nose, YouTube is your friend.)

Conservation of momentum is demanded by Newton's third law, not gun recoil.

The function of a gun is to rapidly impart a lot of momentum to a projectile. Recoil is the inevitable result of that fact, given the law of conservation of momentum.

The engineering of altering or minimizing recoil in a firearm is complex. There are mechanisms that do indeed reduce recoil by reducing the forward momentum of the mass ejected from the gun during a shot. Not, of course, that of the projectile (except a little, as an undesired side effect) but the additional combustion gases also normally ejected forward. By redirecting some of that gas to eject backward instead, a net reduction in total recoil is achieved. There's a limit to that, though. To completely negate recoil, a mass of gas or other material equal to that of the projectile (plus any forward-venting gases) would have to be ejected rearward at the same speed. (Or a smaller mass at proportionally higher speed, etc.) That's practical for some artillery but not, for obvious reasons, for a hand-fired weapon.

Other recoil-ameliorating mechanisms involve moving masses and springs that temporarily, for as long as the mass keeps moving rearward, compensates for the initial recoil. When the moving compensating mass comes to a stop, though, its momentum is imparted back to the gun. So the momentum of recoil is not reduced at all, but it is spread out over time, up to (but not exceeding) the cycle time of the automatic weapon. This can have some benefit, but since it doesn't reduce the recoil momentum, it would not have any effect on the workability of a bump stock device that makes use of that momentum.

And your earlier stupid assertion about Gorilla Glue as if it were the only alternative to how they could mount the stock make it's look like you're really desperate to keep mass murdering weapons around.

The lack of any suggestions in the lawsuit regarding what manufacturers should have done to prevent owners from removing and replacing the stock forces me to speculate. And if you'd read carefully, you'd have noticed that Gorilla Glue was not my only suggestion. It's true that I was unable to come up with any suggestion that was truly practical. Perhaps you can do better. The plaintiffs couldn't, though, and that's what matters. In the absence of any such specifics, that aspect of the suit does indeed amount to complaining that guns are manufactured out of assembled parts.

As for what stating these facts makes me look like, if I saw you setting out to hike fifty miles across a desert in high summer wearing flip flops and carrying a half-liter bottle of Pepsi, and I pointed out that you're not adequately equipped for the task, would that make me look like I'm desperate for you to get stranded and die of thirst? This suit will fail because it doesn't make an adequate case. Clapping my hands and proclaiming that I really truly believed that powerful recoils and removable parts create liability wouldn't make any difference. What I want has nothing to do with it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Can you cite the plaintiffs' argument?

Actual text of lawsuit available at bottom of this article: https://portermedium.com/2019/07/la...as-vegas-massacre-that-killed-58-injured-500/

The plaintiff's actual argument cites powerful recoil and removable stock.

I'm repeating the link to the actual lawsuit, rather than address Myriads burlesque of it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.

 

[Pope130]

Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.

The AR-15 was not designed to be easy to modify. It was designed to be as light as possible, and easy to construct and maintain. This resulted in a modular construction scheme, which does make it easy to change parts. Regardless of that point, the manufacturers who are being sued did not design the AR-15 at all, so are not responsible for the design concept. The AR was designed to meet a government requirement at the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Company, a firm that no longer exists.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The AR-15 was not designed to be easy to modify. It was designed to be as light as possible, and easy to construct and maintain. This resulted in a modular construction scheme, which does make it easy to change parts.

You just explained a potential reason for why it was designed that way, not that it wasn't.

And the pertinent point is that it IS easy to modify. And it is easier than it has to be. And easier than it could be.

Regardless of that point, the manufacturers who are being sued did not design the AR-15 at all, so are not responsible for the design concept.

From the article I just cited:

In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[10] After Colt's patents expired in 1977, an active marketplace emerged for other manufacturers to produce and sell their own semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.

The AR was designed to meet a government requirement at the Armalite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Company, a firm that no longer exists.

"No longer exists"? Without any mention of this:

ArmaLite sold the patent and trademarks to Colt's Manufacturing Company in 1959.

 

[Dr.Sid]

There is just no way to decrease recoil so much bump-fire wouldn't be possible. especially with bump-stock. They go after manufacturer, because they have money, nothing more, nothing less.
The stock was legal. It's not anymore, but it was at the time. Not unknown, not not-considered. It was studied, and proclaimed legal.
The gun was legal. It is STILL just as legal as it was at the time.

Trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal is really gonna be tough job ..

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There is just no way to decrease recoil so much bump-fire wouldn't be possible. especially with bump-stock. They go after manufacturer, because they have money, nothing more, nothing less.
The stock was legal. It's not anymore, but it was at the time. Not unknown, not not-considered. It was studied, and proclaimed legal.
The gun was legal. It is STILL just as legal as it was at the time.

Trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal is really gonna be tough job ..

If this is directed at me you might noticed that I said I don't think they will win quite a while back. And FFS they aren't trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal. They are going after one gun and one gun only, the AR-15.

But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?

 

[Dr.Sid]

If this is directed at me you might noticed that I said I don't think they will win quite a while back. And FFS they aren't trying to prove all guns with recoil are illegal. They are going after one gun and one gun only, the AR-15.

But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?

AR-15 actually has relatively low recoil, compared to many other semi-auto rifles. It IS attack on all guns.

I see no possibility claim like this can stop this happening in the future. How ? Even if they win, which I doubt. Will it do something with amount of guns already among people ? All it can achieve is some crazy muzzle breaks being mounted on all semi auto rifles.

And yes, I am that cynical. Why go after gun manufacturer ? Why not after bump-stock manufacturer ? That was the very device which converted the gun in somewhat automatic. That was the "loophole" device. Even if it was considered legal at the time.

 

[Pope130]

....But still, Myraid and Pope130 still seem to me to be completely misrepresenting things.

Are you so cynical that you are certain the plaintiffs only goal can be money? No possibility that stopping this from happening again or less often is their motive?

I have no knowledge of the plaintiffs motives, nor do I think that their motives are relevant to the case. Their argument seems to hinge on a criticism of the intent of the design, and the existence of recoil. Yet they have not (and can not) bring suit against the designer of the weapons, who is dead, the firm for which he created the design, which no longer exists, nor against physics. They could, I suppose, have named the manufacturer of the ammo used, since that is the source of the recoil, but have not done so.

 

[Myriad]

Some more simple factual stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Modularity

So despite Myriad's protestation that it would be impossible to make a gun that can't be modified, it's actually the case that the AR-15 is designed to be easy to modify.

So the claim in the lawsuit isn't that the manufactures didn't do the impossible, it's that they did way too much to make it possible to modify this rifle.

The unusually modular design of the AR-15 applies to the firing mechanism components, like the upper and lower receivers and so forth.

But the replaceable stock is the complaint raised in the lawsuit, and being able to remove and replace that is not unusual modularity. Rifle stocks are removable and replaceable. That's as true for a bolt-action Remington you can buy at Walmart as it is for the AR-15. It's as unusual a feature as a car having removable replaceable wheels.

Google "replacement rifle stock" and be appalled at the results. People just make and sell those things whenever they feel like it. That's because they're all removable and replaceable.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

AR-15 actually has relatively low recoil, compared to many other semi-auto rifles. It IS attack on all guns.

Can you find anything in the suit where all guns are mentioned? I see nothing but AR-15.

I see no possibility claim like this can stop this happening in the future. How ? Even if they win, which I doubt. Will it do something with amount of guns already among people ? All it can achieve is some crazy muzzle breaks being mounted on all semi auto rifles.

I don't have answers to those questions but I'm reminded of the Onion headline "'No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens "

And yes, I am that cynical. Why go after gun manufacturer ? Why not after bump-stock manufacturer ? That was the very device which converted the gun in somewhat automatic. That was the "loophole" device. Even if it was considered legal at the time.

Not sure I'm following your reasoning. Do bump-stock manufacturers not have money? Seems to me that if they left out those manufactures that would be a sign they are going after the AR-15 because they want it off the market. The bump stocks already are.

ETA: Further along those lines, it looks like several of the defendant's are not obvious sources of big bucks.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I have no knowledge of the plaintiffs motives, nor do I think that their motives are relevant to the case. Their argument seems to hinge on a criticism of the intent of the design, and the existence of recoil. Yet they have not (and can not) bring suit against the designer of the weapons, who is dead, the firm for which he created the design, which no longer exists, nor against physics. They could, I suppose, have named the manufacturer of the ammo used, since that is the source of the recoil, but have not done so.

FFS, Colt is responsible for their products. Doesn't ******* matter that the original designer is dead. JFC, that is a desperate argument.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Google "replacement rifle stock" and be appalled at the results. People just make and sell those things whenever they feel like it. That's because they're all removable and replaceable.

I went to the trouble of googling this from a separate network to make sure my earlier searches wouldn't influence results but yet got pages dominated by AR-15 parts. Not sure what you expected me to learn from this.

 

[Myriad]

I went to the trouble of googling this from a separate network to make sure my earlier searches wouldn't influence results but yet got pages dominated by AR-15 parts. Not sure what you expected me to learn from this.

From that, you should learn that Google can find you.

My top result is Stocky's Rifle Stocks. Second is Boyd's Hardwood Gunstocks. Third is McMillan Fiberglass Stocks. Nothing on the first two pages is "dominated by AR-15 parts," though of course there are sites that sell AR-15 stocks, just as there are those selling hunting rifle stocks, competition rifle stocks, tactical rifle stocks, and so forth. This is because rifle stocks are removable and replaceable.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Can you find anything in the suit where all guns are mentioned? I see nothing but AR-15.

It attacks qualities of AR-15, which are present in all guns.

I don't have answers to those questions but I'm reminded of the Onion headline "'No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens "

That's irrelevant. This discussion about specific case. Not about what should be done. I have many opinions about that, but that would be off topic.

Not sure I'm following your reasoning. Do bump-stock manufacturers not have money? Seems to me that if they left out those manufactures that would be a sign they are going after the AR-15 because they want it off the market. The bump stocks already are.

ETA: Further along those lines, it looks like several of the defendant's are not obvious sources of big bucks.

Not sure who manufacturer of bump stock was, but since those devices are way simpler and cheaper, and illegal now, I would guess they are less likely to be good source of money.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

From that, you should learn that Google can find you.

Uh, no.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It attacks qualities of AR-15, which are present in all guns.

OK. Please cite such a section. Quote it here.

Maybe you have a valid case that this case might indicate that all guns should be banned. Show your evidence and we'll decide.

 

[applecorped]

Did Carrie Parsons and 57 others die by gun fire in Las Vegas or do you think it was a scam?

Poor appeal to emotion attempt noted