Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[rickyrick]

We are living the result of compromise on the pro-gun side.

We gave up short barreled rifles and shotguns. We said ok to extreme restrictions on machine guns and destructive devices.
We submitted to background checks.

We let them say who could carry and how pistols could be carried in public. Some areas have deep restrictions on handguns.

We’ve pretty much collectively allowed the above and more.

Now they want ordinary rifles. No matter how it is spun, the AR15 is an ordinary rifle... probably the most ordinary rifle in the USA. They want ordinary rifles and apparently certain caliber handguns.
There is no room for any more compromises.
AR15 is an ordinary rifle in common use, FACT.
The AR15 was never a weapon of war, FACT Anyone who says differently has no credibility, even military generals. Generals have no say over my constitutional rights, they are obligated by oath to protect my rights.
A general that doesn’t want civilians to own a common rifle should be concerning to all.

[OPC]

Looks like the legal actions are starting: NBC news reports first legal action in Uvalde shooting

A staff member is filing pre-suit petition (discovery) to determine if she can sue DD for “irresponsible advertising practices” quite clearly using the Remington settlement as a roadmap.

[44 AMP]

A couple of points to remember about the Remington settlement.

First, Remington didn't settle.

Remington went out of business (for other reasons) well before the settlement, and left behind an account with a legal firm to handle all the unfinished business. Part of that business was the lawsuit.

The lawyers handling the account decided to settle, feeling it in the best interests of their "client" which was their legal firm handling the account, NOT Remington.

I'm sure they examined the potential costs of going to count and losing and weighted that against the cost of a settlement, and choose the settlement to preserve as much of the account as possible to handle the other obligations Remington left behind.

Since there was no court ruling, there is no legal precedent established.

Next point will most likely be the determining factor if there is a suit brought in Texas, and that is what the differences are between Texas and Connecticut law relevent to the issue.

from what I understand, the CT case was initially turned down, as not meeting the requirements of the CT law. They appealed and a review judge ruled that it was unclear if the suit met the law's requirements or not and that they should have a chance to argue that in court, and allowed the suit to proceed.

I don't know if Texas law has the kind of provision to allow the suit the way CT did.

My guess would be that the discovery petition is to determine if such a suit is possible under Texas law, or not.

The fact that such a motion must be made to determine if suit can be brought tells me the matter is, at best, very murky....

[Aguila Blanca]

From OPC's link:

“Everybody knows that school shootings are happening. It’s an epidemic. So we want to know, what are they doing to change their marketing practices?” Flanary said.

Flanary is the plaintiff's lawyer. [For the record, the plaintiff is the person who left the door unlocked. She was not injured in the icident.] I'd like to know what his definition of "epidemic" is.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by OPC

A staff member is filing pre-suit petition

The staff member in question is Emilia Marin, the person who propped a door open and was incorrectly blamed for allowing the shooter access to the school. He actually entered through a different door, but the media initially blamed her for it. I can imagine she's distraught.

The lawsuit is being handled by Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, who specialize in product-liability lawsuits. They were the guys the Brady Campaign hired to sue Lucky Gunner for selling the ammunition used in the Aurora movie theater shooting.

The Brady Campaign hired Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, parents of one of the victims, to their organization. KK&B made the Phillips the plaintiffs, so when the lawsuit failed, the Phillips were the ones left holding the bag when Lucky Gunner counter-sued and won.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The staff member in question is Emilia Marin, the person who propped a door open and was incorrectly blamed for allowing the shooter access to the school. He actually entered through a different door, but the media initially blamed her for it. I can imagine she's distraught.

Do you have a source citation for the different door revelation? Everything I have read so far indicates that he did enter through the door she had propped open. All the updates I've seen report that she kicked the rock away and allowed the door to close, but that it didn't latch (or didn't lock). I have not seen a single report that said the shooter entered through a different door.

[44 AMP]

Personally, I find the whole door thing a red herring, if not outright just barking stupid.

The killer had a RIFLE.

hello, wake up and smell the coffee (or your beverage of choice) RIFLES can shoot through doors. They can destroy door latches and locks.

Sure, it would have taken a little longer and attracted more attention than just opening a door and walking through, but he would have gotten in, anyway, if that was what he wanted (and, it was...)

WHY is this door thing even an issue for discussion?? Let alone any kind of lawsuit?

Now, I can see a lawsuit for defamation, slander or libel being possible due to accusations in the media, but those wouldn't be about the door, or its state of being, they would be about harm done to a person's reputation and all that results from that, not about the door.

as far as I'm concerned, the entire issue of the door should be an open and shut thing.

The old saying that "locked doors only keep honest people out" is not entirely without merit.

[mehavey]

- delete -

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...wake up and smell the coffee (or your beverage of choice) RIFLES
can shoot through doors. They can destroy door latches and locks.

Sure, it would have taken a little longer and attracted more attention...

I have to disagree....

I give it as my fixed opinion that had the shooter encountered a locked door, that shooter would have gone to a different (also locked) entrance, and another, and another before trying something so Hollywood as "shooting the locks out"* -- if he had stayed in the school area at all.

That whatever door he used was unlocked is a major factor in why/how the shooting developed at/in the school, and after the funeral home and (apparently after another 12 minutes) shooting up the area outside of both establishments)

It does appear later evidence points to the teacher having closed the door, and expected it to automatically lock. That it didn't lock means there are a lot of questions yet to be asked -- and answered.

That will likely be a lot cleaner Q&A than the outright "cluster" that went on/followed for the next hour.


* (Try that w/o a breaching round/shotgum sometime)

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Sure, it would have taken a little longer and attracted more attention than just opening a door and walking through, but he would have gotten in, anyway, if that was what he wanted (and, it was...)

WHY is this door thing even an issue for discussion?? Let alone any kind of lawsuit?

The door thing is an issue for discussion precisely because he did NOT have to shoot his way into the school. The school doors were supposed to be locked, yet he was able to just walk in. If he had needed to shoot his way in, the police already on site and en route would have had time to engage him outside of the building.

The other thing that bothers me, and which I have not seen addressed, is how he got into a classroom once he was inside the building. The teacher who did the rock thing supposedly gave an alert. Why weren't all the classroom doors locked? In fact, I thought it was S.O.P. ever since Columbine that classroom doors were to remain locked except during class changes -- and this was an elementary school, so they most likely didn'y have class changes.

So why was he able to not only walk into the building, but also walk into the classroom?

[Double Naught Spy]

Why weren't all the classroom doors locked? In fact, I thought it was S.O.P. ever since Columbine that ...

So much should have been SOP since Columbine, yet, they all handled this like it was 1998 and back to 1958.

So the exterior door had been propped with a rock, now, supposedly it was closed but just happened to fail to lock. The school was supposed to be on lockdown, yet he gained entry to a set of classes. Supposedly, information from 911 calls were not reaching the on scene commander because 911 and the school district SROs don't communicate.

The whole think was a mess at every level.

[Pathfinder45]

I like it when we have worthwhile, constructive, and civil discussions/arguments
with substantially valid points. Weak and overly disagreeable viewpoints for the sake of inflexibility and sheer argument are counter-productive.

Yes, there is a clear difference is different between a military M-16 and a civilian AR-15 in that the civilian AR-15 has no full auto capability. Valid point.
Yet there is less difference between them than there is between the M-1 Garand versus the M-14, both world-class battle rifles.

Stoner's AR-15 was a select-fire rifle designed for war; the civlian AR-15 is essentially a semi-auto version of the same thing. Quibbling that it's never been to war and thus it's no weapon of war may be legally correct, but it's essentially wrong. Like saying it's no battle rifle. Yet that's what it's designed and marketed for. So I think that's a weak argument that actually serves the other side better to have us defend such points. We need to stand on better ground than that.

So what could be done, legislatively and enforced, that would not hinder ourselves from obtaining such a rifle, but could have prevented this off-kiltered 18 year-old from purchasing these weapons with which he carried out this deadly crime?

Don't say, "Nothing.". If that's our position, we will lose badly and get legislation forced upon us that will be bad. Something is going to change; better come up with something good.

[Rob228]

Speculation but if she is pursuing legal action I suspect one of the lawyer types knew that she was beating her self up emotionally over the issue with the door and is trying to make a big name for themself/their firm.

There was a video clip shortly after the Pulse nightclub shooting where a guy was bragging about how he barricaded one of the exits after he escaped so that no one else could come out and he attributed all the banging and pounding he heard on the other side to the shooter, not others trying to escape.

[LeverGunFan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So why was he able to not only walk into the building, but also walk into the classroom?

One version of the story is that there were two adjoining classrooms, one occupied and one empty. The occupied classroom was locked, the adjoining empty classroom was not. Entry was into the empty classroom and through the connecting door.

Supposedly. We may learn more when the final report is completed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

One version of the story is that there were two adjoining classrooms, one occupied and one empty. The occupied classroom was locked, the adjoining empty classroom was not. Entry was into the empty classroom and through the connecting door.

Yes, I have seen plans of the school and I know there were connecting classrooms. That's not at all unusual in elementary schools. We had a design project with that as a parameter when I was in architecture school, decades ago.

What I don't (but do) understand is how/why the unoccupied (if it was unoccupied) classroom was unsecured. I'm not prepared to accept that it was unused. There were two teachers killed in that room -- or in that pair of rooms. Why were there two teachers for one class? I expect at some point we're going to learn that there were two classes, but that they took some subjects together.

But that's immaterial. The key point is that this was a school which was supposed to have a security protocol. That protocol should have included keeping ALL classroom doors (especially with connecting classrooms) locked. Since that obviously wasn't done, it points to a lack of commitment on the part of the school board, the administration, and the teachers to meaningful security. I'm sure the school board and the administration all said the right things, and they may even have believed that they were doing all they could. In the end, actions speak louder than words.

They failed, and children died. The bottom line is, the rifle didn't kill those children. The shooter didn't kill those children (metaphorically). Bureaucratic ignorance and arrogance killed those children.

When we review Cooper's four rules of firearms safety, we know that they overlap to an extent such that, typically, if one of the four rules is broken the other three will still (usually) prevent seeing someone shot or killed. School security also consists of multiple, overlapping layers. For an event such as this to have happened, it wasn't one thing that failed. There were multiple lapses.

Google the Swiss cheese metaphor for aviation safety. The same thing applies here.

There's so much blame to spread around regarding this incident it'll take months, if not years, to sort it out.

[Pathfinder45]

School security in America could no doubt be better. When newer schools are built, they will probably have building codes that are shaped by these terrible events. We can look for a lot places to put the blame.... It's the shooter who killed those kids and teachers. We could go so far as to say that it's the parents that alowed this to happen by even sending their kids to school, but let's not go that far. I never sent my kid to public school because it wasn't a good place when I went there and it's worse now. This is a deep problem and there isn't a simple, one answer solution.
Pertinate to this incident:

• A deranged person was able to easily obtain weapons.
• School security was inadequate to keep the threat from entering.

While the only one that is truly to be blamed is the shooter, there are painful lessons to learn, resulting in actions that must be taken to substantially reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future.
There is a mental health component to this. Kids today have too much access to unwholesome influences like never seen in earlier generations.
School itself, can be seething with hateful social interactions that aren't being adquately dealt with. Hazing, anyone?
Whether you like it or not, the AR-15 is here to stay. We need better, yet pro 2nd Ammendment, screening/qualification to separate those who should never have access to guns, from everyone else.
The infrastructure of our schools has got to be better secured.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder45

School security in America could no doubt be better. When newer schools are built, they will probably have building codes that are shaped by these terrible events.

Building codes are what I deal with every day. There is nothing in building codes addressing school security against intruders of any kind, and I don't expect to see anything like that ... ever.

It's a design issue, not a code issue, and it won't be addressed until architects and school boards start taking security seriously rather than paying lip service to it.

[44 AMP]

So what could be done, legislatively and enforced, that would not hinder ourselves from obtaining such a rifle, but could have prevented this off-kiltered 18 year-old from purchasing these weapons with which he carried out this deadly crime?

The mechanism to do that is in place, and has been for a long time. The drawback to it is that it must have a set of standards, to give everyone equal treatment under the law, AND the responsible authorities not only need to recognize there is a potential threat, they also have to correctly evaluate the risk and IF it meets the standards set in law, act in a competent and timely manner.

Suppose they look at 100 "off kilter" kids over a few years, and none of them is ruled to be a credible threat, and none of them ever do anything. The people doing the assessments, get their faith in their judgement re-enforced, after all, they's been right 100 out of 100 times.
Then they look at kid #101...see the same things (essentially) they've seen before, and rule #101 no real threat. All good, still..right?
Then, years later, #101 (who is not restricted) buys guns and goes on a murder spree.

What failed there??? Did the system fail?? Did the evaluators fail? Or maybe kid#101 decided to actually go on a murder spree sometime AFTER being evaluated??

As to "hardening" our schools, AB, I know its your area of expertise, but I have to slightly disagree with this statement.

It's a design issue, not a code issue,...

I don't think its a design issue, directly. Designers will create whatever code requires. If you put security concerns into the building codes, designers will come up with something to meet code. If you don't, they won't.

ALSO one has to look at conflicting needs in design codes. And prevailing thought at the time. Look at commercial aircraft cockpit doors. Until the codes were revised after the 9/11 highjackings, cockpit doors were required to be easy to break into.

This was a safety concern. The concern at the time the standards were written was that if something happened to the pilot(s) (and the door locked) someone else on the plane could break into the cockpit and hopefully keep the plane from crashing. That was then, this is now and priorities have changed.

But consider, about building codes, the priority has always been safety of the people inside, and this includes getting them out safely and rapidly when needed, such as when there is a fire. Keeping people out has always been a much lower priority, if it was even on the list.

Lots and lots of our kids are still going to school in building that were created over a half century ago, or longer. In the late 60s I went to the same school building my mother graduated from in the 50s, and its cornerstone had the construction date on it, 1936... it was a junior high for me, it had been her high school. In the early 70s I went to the new high school, a building that had just been finished and opened a couple years before I got there. I'm sure there are still school building in use that were built in the 70s or even before in many places around the country.

its a balancing act, and the thing weighing very heavily ALL the time is money. New concerns have to not only be possible, but practical enough to balance against their costs.

Doing "anything" and spending as much as needed to protect our kids is an ideal and makes for a compassionate sounding sound byte, but in the real world, compromises (and not always good ones) WILL be made and reality often falls short of our ideals.

If you can change that, we've got something to really work with.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Pathfinder 45
So what could be done, legislatively and enforced, that would not hinder ourselves from obtaining such a rifle, but could have prevented this off-kiltered 18 year-old from purchasing these weapons with which he carried out this deadly crime?

Don't say, "Nothing.". If that's our position, we will lose badly and get legislation forced upon us that will be bad. Something is going to change; better come up with something good.

First off, I don't take it as a given that something will change. We've heard that same warning with nearly every mass shooting and the majority of the time little if anything changes. Doing the wrong thing for the sake of doing something is worse, IMHO, than doing nothing at all.

However, for the sake of argument, I think there are several things that could be done. First and foremost, as 44 AMP pointed out, the tools we have already need to be applied equally. If we're going to get the vapors over inappropriately chewn toaster pastries in kindergarten then I think terroristic threats by teenagers should be met with at least equal severity and concern.

Secondly, I think it's well past time to hold the media responsible for it's part in this. If Remington and Daniel Defense can be sued over their marketing, then why can't CNN and Fox News be sued for covering the event irresponsibily? After all, they sometimes refuse to air the shooters' name and image so it could be easily argued that they know doing so is at least potentially harmful.

Finally, I'm not entirely opposed to raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21, but I think we should consider raising the age of majority for everything to 21. After all, if someone is too mentally and emotionally immature to buy a gun at 18, 19, or 20 then surely they're also too mentally and emotionally immature to join the military, sign legally binding contracts, get married, or be legally and fiscally responsible for themselves.

[Rob228]

Quote:
Originally posted by Pathfinder 45
So what could be done, legislatively and enforced, that would not hinder ourselves from obtaining such a rifle, but could have prevented this off-kiltered 18 year-old from purchasing these weapons with which he carried out this deadly crime?

Don't say, "Nothing.". If that's our position, we will lose badly and get legislation forced upon us that will be bad. Something is going to change; better come up with something good.
First off, I don't take it as a given that something will change. We've heard that same warning with nearly every mass shooting and the majority of the time little if anything changes. Doing the wrong thing for the sake of doing something is worse, IMHO, than doing nothing at all.

However, for the sake of argument, I think there are several things that could be done. First and foremost, as 44 AMP pointed out, the tools we have already need to be applied equally. If we're going to get the vapors over inappropriately chewn toaster pastries in kindergarten then I think terroristic threats by teenagers should be met with at least equal severity and concern.

Secondly, I think it's well past time to hold the media responsible for it's part in this. If Remington and Daniel Defense can be sued over their marketing, then why can't CNN and Fox News be sued for covering the event irresponsibily? After all, they sometimes refuse to air the shooters' name and image so it could be easily argued that they know doing so is at least potentially harmful.

Finally, I'm not entirely opposed to raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21, but I think we should consider raising the age of majority for everything to 21. After all, if someone is too mentally and emotionally immature to buy a gun at 18, 19, or 20 then surely they're also too mentally and emotionally immature to join the military, sign legally binding contracts, get married, or be legally and fiscally responsible for themselves.

There was a recent article that stated something to the effect of "minds are not fully developed at the age of 18..... still legally an adult so they can vote but should not be allowed to purchase a firearm".

Call me crazy but voting is a right and can be as equally dangerous as a firearm. I am kind of split on raising the age across the board though. I enlisted at 17, my parents had to sign a waiver and I know that I was mentally and emotionally not an adult at that point. I think I do agree with you about if we raise the age we need to raise it for everything, but that's putting around 100,000 young adults fresh out of high school into a job market where they are not quite adults and not quite kids and can't yet enlist. I wish I had an easy solution but I'm stumped on this one.

[rickyrick]

After serving a long time in the army, my personal belief is that minimum age for soldiers should older. Not for competency reasons, just think you should experience a little adulthood before experiencing life altering war.

[44 AMP]

my personal belief is that minimum age for soldiers should older.

I understand your point, and to a point, agree, but I also see the point in the essentially opposite view, widely held in the military (in fact their training system is based on it, and has been for centuries), that they want young men without much "life experience" and prefer them over older recruits.

The primary reason is because that 18yr old mind isn't "fully developed". It is easier to train and mold into what the military wants. Look what basic training/boot camp is meant to accomplish...

Its not just physical conditioning, its also mental conditioning. Serious mental conditioning. Some of it is subtle, some much less so. And, it is most effective and efficient when you start with someone (say 18) than it is when you start with someone in their mid or late 20s or older.

Generally speaking the more "life experience" one has, the stronger their individual sense of identity and personality is (for good or bad).

Order a trained 18yr old to charge up that hill and take out that enemy machinegun, and and the response is generally "Yes sir!" Give the same order to an older troop (say mid or late 20s) and they'll say "yes, sir" (because they have to) but their inner response will be something like "are you barking stupid??!!! That will get me killed!"

One of the reasons I abandoned my pursuit of a military career was as I matured a bit it sunk in that "some moron wearing a bar because he went to the "right" school can get me killed....or otherwise destroy my life forever...:"

Point here isn't directly the military and its rules, but the uneven treatment of young "adults". Lots of things with even greater life impact than buying a gun are legal at 18. Now much is being made about raising the age for some guns to 21. Some states have already done it.

The Federal law for purchasing from an FFL dealer is 18 for long guns (rifles and shotgun) and 21 for handguns. Keep in mind that standard DID NOT EXIST until the Gun Control Act of 1968.

And, its for purchase from an FFL dealer, not possession or purchase from a private seller. Laws covering that are state laws, where and if they exist.

At 18 Federal law lets Uncle Sam put a machine gun in your hands and send you to war with it. At 18 you can vote for the politician who sends you to war (or not) but at 18 you cannot own that gun for yourself, because you're too young to be "responsible" with it.

Double standard?? maybe just a little.....

Most of us have known people who were responsible stable "adults" in their teen years, and (sadly) also known people who were not when they are decades older. The problem with a standard is, we have to have something, to ensure equal treatment under the law, but people are individuals, and are not standardized. Some will meet any legal standard before the written age, and some will not. Some, never do....

[mehavey]

We've been using young people in Armies since Genesis.

My own grandfather's grandfather joined the Continental Army *
sweeping up through South Carolina under Nathanel Greene Green,
and was present at the Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown.

... starting at age 16.

[OPC]

44 AMP wrote: First, Remington didn't settle.

Understood, but the fact that money was paid out is all some people will care about. Nuisance lawsuits are a thing, after all.

Tom Servo wrote: left holding the bag when Lucky Gunner counter-sued and won

I was wondering about Daniel Defense's options given the massive legal fees they will likely accrue between protecting their interests while testifying at Congressional subcommittees and responding to the civil lawsuits. It's good to know of a case where at least the civil costs were recouped.


On the minimum age discussion: My opinion is that while it is tempting to raise minimum age requirements for assumed responsibility of firearm ownership or other rights, I think it would be of limited benefit. There are many examples of crimes involving firearms wherein the perpetrator was over 21.

[rickyrick]

Raising the age of gun ownership is just a knee jerk response anyway, although I owned rifles at that age, I also had lower interest than I do now.
Back to the original post, I don’t like the idea of suing companies or individuals over how a customer misused a product. I’d don’t think any firearm companies promote crime of any kind.