Anti-Gunners Will HATE This News From Out West

4
922

Anti-gunners present an image of being absolutely confident in the righteousness of their cause. Whether they really are that confident in their mistaken zeal for gun control, I can’t say, but they do present a consistent image.

If they really do believe that strongly in their misguided cause, I wonder how they are going to react once they hear the news about a court ruling which recently happened in a state in the Western U.S.

See, like anti-gunners in other parts of the country, anti-gunners in Nevada wanted to blame gun manufacturers for the evil actions of the Las Vegas shooter, but a court gave them an answer that they won’t like. Geoff Dornan writes,

Advertisement

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that the state’s immunity law prohibits suing gun makers and sellers over Route 91 Harvest Festival mass shooting deaths.

The parents of Carrie Parsons, who was killed in the mass shooting at a Las Vegas festival along with more than 50 other people, filed the lawsuit against Colt Arms and other companies that made or sold the weapons used. That suit was transferred to federal district court which then sent questions on Nevada’s statutory immunity provisions protecting gun makers and sellers to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The court ruled unanimously that the statute prohibits the Parsons from suing.

Now, I have no doubt that these parents and other people are hurting emotionally. I would be if I were in this situation. That doesn’t change the fact that blaming gun manufacturers for the evil actions of an individual is misdirected blame. The gun manufacturers didn’t pull any triggers and, therefore, aren’t to blame.

This is just another sad example of how anti-gunners want to, for some bizarre reason, blame anyone other than the person who actually is responsible for a shooting. The truth, though, is that the only person to blame for a shooting is the shooter, and this court ruling was absolutely the right ruling in this case.

Advertisement

4 COMMENTS

  1. The court is correct; the Anti’s appear to decide that if the actual shooter is not available – in this case, he was dead or slipped away – that anyone will do. In fact, the guy who carried all those guns up to his room is not likely to have shot anyone because he was already dead. If I recall correctly the room had a double door like those that families use so as not to have to go outside the room. That could have been available yo help the real perps to escape. This is also proof that mass shootings are not sudden or spontaneous; they are planned ahead of time in order to gather the weapons and kill as many innocent persons possible. That type of evil is the way that “Uncle Joe” Stalin would cause fear among the people and make them willing to accept “anything that Big Bro can do” to stop this from happening. Now there is another “Uncle Joe” to deal with.

  2. When they get this sort of thing OKed, the country will be finished. Can you imagine suing Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc because some drunk uses one of their vehicles to kill people? All they are caring about is collecting big bucks, not making the actual responsible person pay for their crimes.

  3. The court is absolutely right it is not the tool its the person that is operating it …
    The only one that should be able to to sue a tool company is the operator of the tool that malfunctions …

  4. If they were allowed to sue then auto manufacturers would be liable for mass a murderer that uses a vehicle to run people down or a knife manufacturer and the store that sold the knife. That would make every manufacturer liable for misdeeds by criminals of a product.

Comments are closed.