Tue Oct 10, 2017, 12:09 PM

HAB911 (8,221 posts)

Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers

Victims of the Las Vegas shooting sued manufacturers of bump fire stocks, accusing them of negligence. A dozen bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire with the rapidity of an automatic weapon, were found in gunman Stephen Paddock’s 32nd-floor Mandalay Bay Resort hotel room. The attack targeted the Route 91 Harvest festival and left nearly 60 dead and some 500 wounded.

Filed in Clark County District Court, the complaint, which seeks class action status, alleges that Slide Fire Solutions Inc, a bump stock manufacturer, and other unidentified manufacturers and retailers behaved negligently in selling and producing these devices.

“This horrific assault did not occur, could not occur, and would not have occurred with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self-defense,” the complaint states.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/las-vegas-shooting-victims-sue-bump-stock-maker

156 replies, 9626 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

156 replies	Author	Time	Post
Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers (Original post)	HAB911	Oct 2017	OP
Yes! This is one way to get some gun control.	HopeAgain	Oct 2017	#1
I agree and as well...but....	sdfernando	Oct 2017	#4
The reason manufacturers are protected by law is precisely because	Always Right	Oct 2017	#59
This is lot more like cigarettes than drunk drivers	HopeAgain	Oct 2017	#74
I'm not sure that is a fair comparison.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#84
Good!	lkinwi	Oct 2017	#2
Great. Now remove the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and profiteers.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#3
Modify how?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#5
It would be quite simple really, modify the trigger guard area where something like that doesn't	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#6
Trigger guards don't move	Always Right	Oct 2017	#24
I bet you'd like to see the suit. You probably have some bump stocks, maybe profit from them.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#7
I'm just here for the facts, not to debate.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#12
You've only made 10 and came in through the Gungeon. That tells me a lot about you.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#13
Everyone started at post 1	Always Right	Oct 2017	#17
The genetic fallacy is a favorite 'go to' for those that have nothing else to counter with...	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#88
On ANY talk board	fescuerescue	Oct 2017	#146
"what post number...t before I'm worthy of not being insulted?"	Orrex	Oct 2017	#92
those posters tend to have a bad signal-to-noise ratio	Reiyuki	Oct 2017	#111
Not sure if you're insulting me or not...	Orrex	Oct 2017	#114
Not saying you in particular, I mean in general on any forum. Nt	Reiyuki	Oct 2017	#118
Hmm... Now I'm DEFINITELY not sure...	Orrex	Oct 2017	#122
Almost to 50	Always Right	Oct 2017	#117
This one goes to eleven.	Orrex	Oct 2017	#121
Hoyt, stop it.	Adrahil	Oct 2017	#94
What "technical information" have I provided that is not true? Yes, I do get ticked with gunners	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#95
Example from earlier in this discussion	Always Right	Oct 2017	#102
First, BS. Second that is what ads say. Third, I was not	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#109
Correcting a mistake isn't an apology	Always Right	Oct 2017	#110
Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec?	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#124
Yes and no	Always Right	Oct 2017	#139
"Yes and no." LMAO. I guess the one that comes right out and says this gun "is destined	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#142
The ads are puffery	Always Right	Oct 2017	#149
The idea that it somehow "easy" for gunmakers to make changes preventing such devices.	Adrahil	Oct 2017	#132
Oh, I agree and think all semi-autos need to be banned. As to modification to prevent bump stocks,	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#134
Not impossible, more like impractical	Always Right	Oct 2017	#136
Well, at least you are thinking and can see that it is possible to modify a rifle where a bump stock	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#137
I'm not part of "you guys"	Always Right	Oct 2017	#138
You are a gun promoter. There are millions who support the NRA, but are too cheap to pay dues.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#143
Maybe I'm not a member because I disagree with them on things	Always Right	Oct 2017	#151
"Gun promoter"	ClarendonDem	Oct 2017	#153
Its up to them. They are the smart ones who have been evading safety laws	RainCaster	Oct 2017	#52
Legally speaking, the weapons were not fully automatic.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#57
Sue them for what? THIS lawsuit says couldn't happen without the stocks.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#9
The bump stock is worthless without the AR15. Gun manufacturers, dealers and profiteers like	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#11
Then why does this lawsuit state otherwise? THAT'S the point, Hoyt.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#14
Jeeezus. The lawsuit is filed against the bump stock manufacturers. Get you head out of your barrels	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#16
I KNOW Hoyt. THIS lawsuit (their statement) puts ALL the blame on the stock guys!	jmg257	Oct 2017	#18
If you were filing a law suit, wouldn't you write it that way. That's the way all lawsuits are	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#21
Ha - that'a a funny dig - I get it! Bet the other kids love you at recess!	jmg257	Oct 2017	#22
Bump stocks are a legal product,	Keefer	Oct 2017	#29
Keefer, look up how they brought down the Tobacco companies. Then look up PLCAA.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#32
The tobacco companies got caught	Keefer	Oct 2017	#37
The gun companies are the same, they use the NRA and gun-humpers to hide behind. That needs to	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#41
You can't hold ANY manufacturer	Keefer	Oct 2017	#46
Wow - you will LOVE this, Hoyt...you will have to read some though...	jmg257	Oct 2017	#49
Exactly. Now the Gun Protection Act needs to repealed legislatively	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#61
What did the manufacturers and dealers do	ClarendonDem	Oct 2017	#69
They advertise that guns make you a man, you need guns to survive, their	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#70
I like you Hoyt	ClarendonDem	Oct 2017	#72
Look, Dem, there's civil liability and morality to consider. Gun profiteers are implicated.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#75
Lawsuits determine liability, not morality. - NT	Always Right	Oct 2017	#116
And coolaid advertises that a Giant Man will break down your wall	fescuerescue	Oct 2017	#150
Yea, pretty much	Always Right	Oct 2017	#152
Bankruptcy doesn't end production of items, it just changes who sells them	Always Right	Oct 2017	#67
Yeah, but s potential buyer or producer has to factor in the liability for the next massacre.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#71
Yes, but not likely in the way you want	Always Right	Oct 2017	#78
I get it AlwaysRight, gun and accessory manufacturers, dealers and many gun owners are slimy SOBs	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#80
Lots of industries take advantage of legal tricks	Always Right	Oct 2017	#86
I'm sure the Trump Admin will likely followup on your recommendations.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#99
A prediction isn't a reccomendation	Always Right	Oct 2017	#103
Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued	LanternWaste	Oct 2017	#85
If their drug causes harm,	Keefer	Oct 2017	#93
Guns are designed and built to do what PRIMARY thing?	Eliot Rosewater	Oct 2017	#30
Fire projectiles.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#31
to kill	Eliot Rosewater	Oct 2017	#39
So other than with all the wounded - his functioned as designed?	jmg257	Oct 2017	#44
In a sane world, you would be able to sue, very successfully , a company that	Eliot Rosewater	Oct 2017	#45
Welcome to America. Here we protect their ownership by the highest laws in the land. nt	jmg257	Oct 2017	#50
Do criminals shot by the police get to sue gun manufacturers too?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#60
Save lives.	ileus	Oct 2017	#64
It's not the semi autos that are the problem	Drahthaardogs	Oct 2017	#34
Agreed - that hi-capacity mags are also an issue.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#40
Happens to pharma companies rather often...	LanternWaste	Oct 2017	#83
Pharma, huh? Don't think I have ever posted in a thread about them.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#90
Bump fire and bump stocks are not limited to AR-15 style guns.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#15
You don't get it. As far as those not performing back ground checks, I'm referring to gun-humpers	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#19
Who said I sell guns without background checks?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#23
It's kind of Obvious.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#35
Is that you, Fred Colon?	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#89
He's not defending guns and gunners because he's altruistic.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#98
Kindly point out what's factually inaccurate in his posts. Show your work	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#100
..which request got the expected reply:	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#106
Is not immediately replying to a post I didn't see til now, considered awkward silence? - NT	Always Right	Oct 2017	#120
My apologies for being unclear- that was meant for your interlocutor, not you	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#129
What evidence do you have that poster sells guns without background checks?	Marengo	Oct 2017	#108
Most of you gunners do, that's why you want to protect private sales without background checks.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#125
No evidence, eh? If you have any integrity, you'll retract that accusation. Additionally, you can...	Marengo	Oct 2017	#128
Don't hold your breath- that one has been 'all advertising and no product' for years	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#130
In what way is it obvious?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#119
I replied to what you wrote #23-"I've never said that I do or don't own guns." Again, it's obvious.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#126
"Again, it's obvious." Only to you...	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#131
I know, all the Gungeoneers are just acting like gunners. None have any guns, don't want anyone	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#133
Perhaps someday you'll learn that "my firm belief(s)" and "things that are demonstrably true"...	friendly_iconoclast	Oct 2017	#135
Gun sales without background checks	Always Right	Oct 2017	#140
No, because gunners will sell to anyone with a fistful of cash. All transfers need	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#141
All transfers have to go through a FFL?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#147
Jeeez, go post to someone else. You are too obtuse to own or speak on behalf of your guns. n/t	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#148
You said all	Always Right	Oct 2017	#154
Are you a NRA member? I think you lost your way	rockfordfile	Oct 2017	#144
Not a member.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#155
Unless it's made for an AK47, then it'd be useless without an AK.	ileus	Oct 2017	#62
you can bump-fire without the stock. I've seen it all over youtube	samir.g	Oct 2017	#104
Great - win this, so bump stocks are THE culprit, and semi-autos are off the hook.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#8
Why would this mean that anything else is "off the hook."	Weekend Warrior	Oct 2017	#26
Because, the way I read it (w/o seeing the complaint) it states that the guns were not the issue	jmg257	Oct 2017	#27
It's a correct statement.	Weekend Warrior	Oct 2017	#28
Ah I see your point about this is the end game, as it gets even better for the gunners & builders...	jmg257	Oct 2017	#51
K&R...	spanone	Oct 2017	#10
Hope they sue the magazine manufacturers	malaise	Oct 2017	#20
Good. Now remove the special protections for gun manufacturers. nt.	Weekend Warrior	Oct 2017	#25
Link to complaint	Always Right	Oct 2017	#33
They'll be suing shortly, don't you think? I bet a lot of people and groups file suits too.	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#36
I am sure there will be lots of law suits	Always Right	Oct 2017	#43
Thank you for posting this link to the complaint	Gothmog	Oct 2017	#112
The PLCAA refers to suits against makers of "qualified" products, which it defines	petronius	Oct 2017	#38
Agree. The PLCAA shouldn't apply to guns either. It allows gun manufacturers and profiteers to	Hoyt	Oct 2017	#42
Stocks are not optional	Always Right	Oct 2017	#47
Huh, good point! If a stock is a stock is a stock, and a stock	petronius	Oct 2017	#53
No, but there are a wide variety of stocks for this rifle	jmowreader	Oct 2017	#73
Yes, there are lots of other choices for a stock	Always Right	Oct 2017	#79
This suit will go nowhere.	former9thward	Oct 2017	#48
Then sue the Federal Government. Sue every Congressperson who voted for it and the President who	coolsandy	Oct 2017	#54
The law was enacted in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#55
Youre right: gun bans work!	Nevernose	Oct 2017	#63
I haven't advocated a position for or against anything	Always Right	Oct 2017	#65
You said it	Nevernose	Oct 2017	#66
I think you confused me with someone else.	Always Right	Oct 2017	#68
If these devices are not guns according to the ATF, then they are not protected	Gothmog	Oct 2017	#56
The law protects components of guns, not just guns	Always Right	Oct 2017	#58
The rationale for the Obama ATF to not regulate this device is that it is not a gun	Gothmog	Oct 2017	#113
The rational for not regulating is that does not meet the definition of machine gun conversion part	Always Right	Oct 2017	#115
How do you sue someone for a product that performed just	doc03	Oct 2017	#76
Designed to turn a legal device into a legal one?	Atman	Oct 2017	#81
Hell, why not?	Doreen	Oct 2017	#77
Looks like the gunners not liking this one.	Kingofalldems	Oct 2017	#82
the gunners don't like anything	HAB911	Oct 2017	#87
Which ones aren't digging it?	jmg257	Oct 2017	#91
That's not allowed here.	Kingofalldems	Oct 2017	#96
Ah - gotcha - that would be call-out? Strange, but understood - I guess.	jmg257	Oct 2017	#97
Good! Good!💰The only way to stop it🔫is take their 💸.	Alice11111	Oct 2017	#101
The stocks are meaningless, the guns have to go	samir.g	Oct 2017	#105
Was it a Colt 1911 in .45acp rather than a Colt 45?	Always Right	Oct 2017	#123
the way i look at it is	bluestarone	Oct 2017	#107
If only they could sue tinfoil nutjobs who think ot was a hoax.	LW1977	Oct 2017	#127
It Would be good if they could succeed. It straighten them up.	rockfordfile	Oct 2017	#145
Big K/R	JDC	Oct 2017	#156

Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Tue Oct 10, 2017, 12:17 PM

HopeAgain (4,407 posts)

1. Yes! This is one way to get some gun control.

This is the most foreseeable use of automatic weapons -- the killing of large numbers of people before they can get away. It certainly isn't manufactured for target shooting or hunting. I hope they get sued out of business.

Las Vegas Shooting Victims Sue Bump Stock Makers

1. Yes! This is one way to get some gun control.

4. I agree and as well...but....

59. The reason manufacturers are protected by law is precisely because

74. This is lot more like cigarettes than drunk drivers

84. I'm not sure that is a fair comparison.

2. Good!

3. Great. Now remove the law that prohibits victims from suing gun manufacturers and profiteers.

5. Modify how?

6. It would be quite simple really, modify the trigger guard area where something like that doesn't

24. Trigger guards don't move

7. I bet you'd like to see the suit. You probably have some bump stocks, maybe profit from them.

12. I'm just here for the facts, not to debate.

13. You've only made 10 and came in through the Gungeon. That tells me a lot about you.

17. Everyone started at post 1

88. The genetic fallacy is a favorite 'go to' for those that have nothing else to counter with...

146. On ANY talk board

92. "what post number...t before I'm worthy of not being insulted?"

111. those posters tend to have a bad signal-to-noise ratio

114. Not sure if you're insulting me or not...

118. Not saying you in particular, I mean in general on any forum. Nt

122. Hmm... Now I'm *DEFINITELY* not sure...

117. Almost to 50

121. This one goes to eleven.

94. Hoyt, stop it.

95. What "technical information" have I provided that is not true? Yes, I do get ticked with gunners

102. Example from earlier in this discussion

109. First, BS. Second that is what ads say. Third, I was not

110. Correcting a mistake isn't an apology

124. Do any of these ads give the target (buyers) the idea the rifles are military spec?

139. Yes and no

142. "Yes and no." LMAO. I guess the one that comes right out and says this gun "is destined

149. The ads are puffery

132. The idea that it somehow "easy" for gunmakers to make changes preventing such devices.

134. Oh, I agree and think all semi-autos need to be banned. As to modification to prevent bump stocks,

136. Not impossible, more like impractical

137. Well, at least you are thinking and can see that it is possible to modify a rifle where a bump stock

138. I'm not part of "you guys"

143. You are a gun promoter. There are millions who support the NRA, but are too cheap to pay dues.

151. Maybe I'm not a member because I disagree with them on things

153. "Gun promoter"

52. Its up to them. They are the smart ones who have been evading safety laws

57. Legally speaking, the weapons were not fully automatic.

9. Sue them for what? THIS lawsuit says couldn't happen without the stocks.

11. The bump stock is worthless without the AR15. Gun manufacturers, dealers and profiteers like

14. Then why does this lawsuit state otherwise? THAT'S the point, Hoyt.

16. Jeeezus. The lawsuit is filed against the bump stock manufacturers. Get you head out of your barrels

18. I KNOW Hoyt. THIS lawsuit (their statement) puts ALL the blame on the stock guys!

21. If you were filing a law suit, wouldn't you write it that way. That's the way all lawsuits are

22. Ha - that'a a funny dig - I get it! Bet the other kids love you at recess!

29. Bump stocks are a legal product,

32. Keefer, look up how they brought down the Tobacco companies. Then look up PLCAA.

37. The tobacco companies got caught

41. The gun companies are the same, they use the NRA and gun-humpers to hide behind. That needs to

46. You can't hold ANY manufacturer

49. Wow - you will LOVE this, Hoyt...you will have to read some though...

61. Exactly. Now the Gun Protection Act needs to repealed legislatively

69. What did the manufacturers and dealers do

70. They advertise that guns make you a man, you need guns to survive, their

72. I like you Hoyt

75. Look, Dem, there's civil liability and morality to consider. Gun profiteers are implicated.

116. Lawsuits determine liability, not morality. - NT

150. And coolaid advertises that a Giant Man will break down your wall

152. Yea, pretty much

67. Bankruptcy doesn't end production of items, it just changes who sells them

71. Yeah, but s potential buyer or producer has to factor in the liability for the next massacre.

78. Yes, but not likely in the way you want

80. I get it AlwaysRight, gun and accessory manufacturers, dealers and many gun owners are slimy SOBs

86. Lots of industries take advantage of legal tricks

99. I'm sure the Trump Admin will likely followup on your recommendations.

103. A prediction isn't a reccomendation

85. Your absurd contention then is that pharmaceutical companies have never been sued

93. If their drug causes harm,

30. Guns are designed and built to do what PRIMARY thing?

31. Fire projectiles.

39. to kill

44. So other than with all the wounded - his functioned as designed?

45. In a sane world, you would be able to sue, very successfully , a company that

50. Welcome to America. Here we protect their ownership by the highest laws in the land. nt

60. Do criminals shot by the police get to sue gun manufacturers too?

122. Hmm... Now I'm DEFINITELY not sure...