Gun Makers Sued Over Las Vegas shooting

[RecoveringYuppy]

Poor appeal to emotion attempt noted

Ooh. Six words. Must have struck a nerve.

So what about your opinion. Did the Vegas shooting happen or was it a hoax?

 

[LTC8K6]

If an AR-15 has powerful recoil, what does an AR-10 have? Super powerful recoil? A 30-06 must have ludicrous recoil?

All the AR-15's and M16's I ever shot had very little recoil.

AFAIK, only the AR-15 rifles had bump stocks at the Las Vegas incident.

I doubt many gun owners would classify the AR-15 as having powerful recoil.

 

[LTC8K6]

Also, you don't actually need to remove the stock for bump fire.

So, I don't think the remove-ability of the stock should be a factor.

Plus, replacing a stock is a common thing with rifles. Making it non-removable would be pretty unusual. Not to mention difficult.

 

[Ranb]

While I don't think they have a case myself, I think you've gone overboard there.

How did I go overboard when detailing how I feel about their "facts"? I thought I was typing the sugar coated version.

Other than the details on the shooting itself most of it seems to be written by a person who never actually read federal or NV gun control laws and instead obtained their information from the VPC or the Brady Campaign

 

[Ranb]

....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 fact that the upper and lower receivers can be separated by removing two take down pins is the main reason that most owners like the rifle; if they like it for the ability to modify it. I don't think the ability to add a bump stock is the reason for the vast majority of owners.

If you talk to the average person who modified their AR-15, it won't be the bump stock people. It will most likely be a person who changed out the barrel with a wrench and action vise, or they changed sights/scope, added a brake/silencer or they just swapped upper receivers.

 

[Bogative]

I'm pretty sure this doesn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova of achieving anything useful.

We can always hope this is the bull **** lawsuit that ushers in loser-pays tort reform to put an end to moneygrubbing politically-motivated frivolous lawsuits by punishing those who bring them.

 

[Myriad]

Plus, replacing a stock is a common thing with rifles. Making it non-removable would be pretty unusual. Not to mention difficult.

But RecoveryingYuppy doesn't accept that, because when HE Googles for replacement rifle stocks, he sees "mostly ar-15 parts."

I've read essays about how individually targeted online searches and media have been dividing people up into separate bubble worlds that only reflect their own convictions as the media sites figure out algorithmically, but I never understood before how effective it can be.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Don't put words in my mouth Myriad.

 

[LTC8K6]

I would guess that Ruger's 10-22 is one of the most modified rifles out there. Probably a thousand different stocks available alone. And it's stock is not even designed to be easily changed.

 

[Myriad]

Don't put words in my mouth Myriad.

You mean these?

I went to the trouble of googling this ["replacement rifle stock"] 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.

Oh, sorry, I misremembered "dominated by AR-15 parts" as "mostly AR-15 parts" instead. That changed the meaning, not at all.

If you didn't mean to imply that you interpreted the results of your Googling from a separate network to imply that replacement of rifle stocks is specifically associated with AR-15s and not with other kinds of rifles, then you've expressed yourself very poorly. For instance, if what you meant was, "of course you're right Myriad, a modicum of online searching made it obvious that replacement stocks are readily available for all different kinds of rifles" then you could have said that instead of "not sure what you expected me to learn from this."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you didn't mean to imply that you interpreted the results of your Googling from a separate network to imply that replacement of rifle stocks is specifically associated with AR-15s and not with other kinds of rifles, then you've expressed yourself very poorly.

No, you read very poorly. I simply told you what your suggested search terms lead to and then said "Not sure what you expected me to learn from this."

I didn't interpret the results at all. I ignored them. I thought your suggestion to do that was stupid in the first place. It was both a bad way to make your point and likely to lead to misleading results.

 

[Roboramma]

No, you read very poorly. I simply told you what your suggested search terms lead to and then said "Not sure what you expected me to learn from this."

I didn't interpret the results at all. I ignored them. I thought your suggestion to do that was stupid in the first place. It was both a bad way to make your point and likely to lead to misleading results.

So, do you think that " that replacement of rifle stocks is specifically associated with AR-15s and not with other kinds of rifles" or not?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not, of course.

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...las-vegas-mass-shooting/ar-AADOnae?ocid=ientp


Actually not true. The ATF has repeatedly defined bump fire as semi-auto and distinct from full auto. Even though bump stocks are now defined as machine guns, bump firing is not like a machine gun except for rate of fire.

Well if we define the finger as the auto sear then it does kind of become like it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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 ..

Well there could be, increasing length of trigger pull would make it harder for a bump stock to reset and then use the finger as the auto sear. Much the same kind of things one does when one does not want a gun to double as readily.

 

[applecorped]

The more you know

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thinking on this, I wonder if you could design a select fire previously legal gun designed to have the trigger reciprocate. There by reducing reciprocating mass and making a better handling full auto gun that is technically not full auto.

 

[Ranb]

Progress on the lawsuit.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/05/20/569346.htm

MGM Resorts International reached an out-of-court $800 million settlement resolving lawsuits in at least 10 states. MGM Resorts acknowledged no liability for the massacre.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon asked last month for the ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court, saying there are “important public policy ramifications.” A hearing has not yet been set.

“We’re saying you were selling guns that meet the definition of machine guns in violation of federal law, so you don’t get protection,” he said.

The owner of the hotel, MGM Resorts International, reached a sweeping out-of-court settlement last October, agreeing to funnel up to $800 million to the families of the victims. The agreement resolved lawsuits in at least 10 states, but MGM Resorts acknowledged no liability or guilt for the massacre.

The plaintiff is still claiming that rifles with bump stocks were contraband machine guns even though the BATFE had ruled a few times that they were merely semi-auto prior the the Trump ban.

 

[Jim_MDP]

A cynical thought just occurred... this comes just a day after a public bro hug between the NRA and Trump.
Timing?

 

[Ranb]

A cynical thought just occurred... this comes just a day after a public bro hug between the NRA and Trump.
Timing?

If the NRA is going to hug Trump after his gun grab and voicing his desire to seize guns without due process, then the NRA should have hopped in bed and gone all the way with Obama after the ATF wrote 41F.