quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
X is a product.  There are many things that can be used to kill people.  They pretty much all have a secondary use if not more. 
Y is blaming a third entity for the actions of a second entity.  They are not producing anything.  At least the lawyer would be doing some work.  Y is just trying to make money on a tragedy. 

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Y is just trying to make money on a tragedy. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Couldn't you have strung this out for PeonForHer? I think he wanted to extend his tangent a bit more than one response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Couldn't you have strung this out for PeonForHer? I think he wanted to extend his tangent a bit more than one response.

I don't know what 'extending one's tangent' means, DS, but so long as you do it in private and with a consenting party, I'm sure that it's both legal and seemly.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Y is just trying to make money on a tragedy. 

So is the gunmaker, and the gun-seller. So far as I can see, everyone involved in the killing of anyone, by a gun, in the USA, says that he, she, or they, is not to blame. Only the person who pulled the trigger is culpable. Heads up: *everyone* in the USA sees it as his or her right to make as big a profit as he/she is able. Why not? That's how the free market, and how a 'free society', works. You've sowed the seeds of this worldview, now you're reaping the results. Good luck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I do acknowledge your attempt at humor though.

quote:

The child will possibly suffer from PTSD for the rest of her life and will many children who were there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

http://news.yahoo.com/claim-seeks-100-million-child-survivor-connecticut-school-003646074.html

I have so many emotions about this right now, I do not even know where to start.

quote:

A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

For one thing, it is filed by the parents of a child who survived, which makes me sick for some reason.

Then there is

quote:

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

Foreseeable harm? How the hell could this be foreseeable?

I do not know the answer to the question "Can this be prevented in the future?", although I lean towards not as long as there are crazy folks slipping through the cracks.

But, I know 20 families of children who wish their child was alive to be traumatized.

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

To effect change, sometimes the only way is through the threat of a wallet.

I suppose I would feel better about the lawsuit if I knew exactly what change they wanted. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitsuneinabox

I'm noticing the issue that on top of this child being a survivor, it is suggested they were at no point in the line of fire, and did not witness someone being shot. "The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire..." That just bothers me.

quote:

Should it be? I don't think so. If emotions play into a law, then, it isn't truly a law. Backgrounds and particulars being equal, there should be no difference in the sentences for a given crime. I do know that in criminal cases, there is a greater burden of proof required, and that's all well and good, but the results can't be tied to emotion, regardless of the level. Imagine how poorly that would go if there was a lawyer that was eminently capable of toying with a jury's emotions.

quote:

X is a product.  There are many things that can be used to kill people.  They pretty much all have a secondary use if not more. 

quote:

Y is blaming a third entity for the actions of a second entity. They are not producing anything. At least the lawyer would be doing some work. Y is just trying to make money on a tragedy.

quote:

Whats the secondary use for guns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Whats the secondary use for guns?

An OTC alternative to penile implants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

X is a product.  There are many things that can be used to kill people.  They pretty much all have a secondary use if not more. 

Whats the secondary use for guns?

quote:

Than killing people?  Hunting animals and self-defense.  For the self-defense, most of the time the firearm does not need to be fired to be effective.  It just has to be shown.  There is also the reduction in crime.  States with less firearm restrictions have less violent crime, than do states with draconian restrictions.  Look at Chicago.  Almost the toughest firearm laws in the country.  They just celebrated their 500th homicide.  87% of which involved guns.