# Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.









						Sandy Hook families agree to $73 million settlement with gunmaker Remington
					

Families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre agreed Tuesday to a $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

What a load of horseshit


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


liable for what, dumbfuck?


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> liable for what, dumbfuck?


Read the story, if you can, if you cannot, have someone read it to you.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Read the story, if you can, if you cannot, have someone read it to you.


What are they liable for, dumbfuck?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 15, 2022)

Was it a faulty weapon? Would Sheffield be liable in a knife slaying? Would Craftsman be liable for a murder with a hammer? This is a dangerous precedent.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

If i have a wreck in a GTO for doing 125 mph while drifting like they do in the commercials, apparently i can sue the shit out of the manufacturer.
This ^^^ is the precedent you stupid fucking moonbats create.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> What are they liable for, dumbfuck?


Their marketing campaign.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.


Interesting.
Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most settlements involve no admittance of liability.

And if you read it, it was the insurance companies settling, not Remington.


----------



## Orangecat (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.


But no liability for the vax manufacturers. Strange cognitive dissonance, that.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Most settlements involve no admittance of liability.
> 
> And if you read it, it was the insurance companies settling, not Remington.


Remington turned over thousands of documents.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?


If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Their marketing campaign.


I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting *pussies* are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.


did remington have a commercial that showed a kid shooting up a school?


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Was it a faulty weapon? Would Sheffield be liable in a knife slaying? Would Craftsman be liable for a murder with a hammer? This is a dangerous precedent.


Marketing, dumbass.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> did remington have a commercial that showed a kid shooting up a school?


See above, stupid.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Remington turned over thousands of documents.



That isn't admitting liability. And now that they have moved out of Connecticut they won't have to deal with the corrupt State courts there.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.



I've seen plenty of car commercials with the car speeding. They add the old "closed track, pro driver disclaimer."

Try getting better comparisons.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> See above, stupid.


The answer, ACCORDING TO YOUR LINK, is no, Dumbfuck. They did not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.


In other words...  you have no idea why Ford cannot be so held liable.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 15, 2022)

"we didnt want money but we couldnt settle for less than 70M dollars 
No sympathy for those parents. Not one fucking drop.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting *pussies* are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.


And their irrational fear of firearms.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And their irrational fear of firearms.







It's not an irrational fear it's about power and control

*****SMILE*****


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.



Remington owed them not a dime.  They are no more responsible for crime than Ford and Chevy are responsible for bad driving!


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Marketing



Show us some of the recalcitrant Remington "marketing."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.


Here you go.   Every bit the equal to the Remington advertisements.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> liable for what, dumbfuck?





			https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/118198/20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

_The Sandy Hook victims were slain in a commando-style assault on the school. Their killer’s weapon of choice was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners. The XM15-E2S was designed for military combat, specifically to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy. Petitioners’ marketing emphasized precisely those characteristics of the firearm. In words and images, petitioners touted the XM15-E2S as a combat-tested weapon that would bestow the power to “perform under pressure” and “single-handedly” conquer “forces of opposition.”_


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting *pussies* are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.




I think I'll sue Seagram now for the next time I get drunk, trip and fall down.  You know, like our "president."


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Here you go.   Every bit the equal to the Remington advertisements.


Lol, yea right.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/118198/20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf


He won't read it, not smart enough.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Remington turned over thousands of documents.



You mean they complied with a court order.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I think I'll sue Seagram now for the next time I get drunk, trip and fall down.  You know, like our "president."


Better off suing them for being a dumbass.


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

The families pointed to how the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was portrayed by the company as a weapon of war, employing slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Connecticut state court in 2014, and it meandered its way through the court system for years without notching much progress. It was moved to federal court before a judge sent it back to the state level, where the families were given a glimmer of hope when the State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, allowed the case to move closer to trial before dismissing it, finding that the case was of the sort that the federal protections were meant to curb.

An appeal brought by the families elevated the case to the State Supreme Court. The stakes of the case drew intense interest from both sides of the gun debate, seeing in the court’s decision either an opportunity or a threat.

The state attorney general, gun violence prevention groups, and a statewide association of school superintendents wrote to the court in support of the families’ case. But the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group that happens to be headquartered in Newtown, argued that the case was centered on “a tragedy of unimaginable proportions,” yet the lawsuit was trying to achieve “regulation through litigation.”

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices ruled that the case could move ahead based on the state law regarding unfair trade practices. Several months later, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the case to continue, denying an appeal brought by Remington.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Their marketing campaign.



So Joe is liable for marketing himself as going to SMASH covid not the economy if elected?

Can we then hold Joe liable for the 600,000 deaths on his watch because of his false marketing?

Then there is the matter of the economy.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

The US Supreme Court denied Remington's plea to dismiss the case, so it went forward.









						Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
					

The gun-maker had appealed to the highest federal court after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit over the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Conn., to go forward in March.




					www.npr.org
				




_In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court__, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."_


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Remington turned over thousands of documents.


And now those documents will be public record.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Better off suing them for being a dumbass.



Then you must be a bazillionaire.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> The families pointed to how the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was portrayed by the company as a weapon of war, employing slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.
> 
> The lawsuit was originally filed in Connecticut state court in 2014, and it meandered its way through the court system for years without notching much progress. It was moved to federal court before a judge sent it back to the state level, where the families were given a glimmer of hope when the State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, allowed the case to move closer to trial before dismissing it, finding that the case was of the sort that the federal protections were meant to curb.
> 
> ...



Another end run attempt around the Constitution.

Lesson to gun manufacturers, move out of Blue States.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Here you go.   Every bit the equal to the Remington advertisements.



Please post links to said Remington advertising.

Thanks so much...


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?






Ummm, I think they can now.  I am right now looking for law firms using similar marketing.  I plan on going after them.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 15, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...


Not as disgusting as a school of elementary kids getting shot up and most of America could give a rat's patootie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Lol, yea right.


Truth hurts, eh?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Travesty of justice.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Not as disgusting as a school of elementary kids getting shot up and most of America could give a rat's patootie.



How about as disgusting as only caring when non inner city kids are the ones getting shot?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> The families pointed to how the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was portrayed by the company as a weapon of war, employing slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.


Sounds like just about every sports car advertisement every published.
And yet, Ford, Chevy, etc aren't liable when some drunk guy steals one and kills a bunch of people with it.
Why?


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


>






Proving what a complete moron you truly are.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> The families pointed to how the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was portrayed by the company as a weapon of war, employing slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.
> 
> The lawsuit was originally filed in Connecticut state court in 2014, and it meandered its way through the court system for years without notching much progress. It was moved to federal court before a judge sent it back to the state level, where the families were given a glimmer of hope when the State Superior Court judge, Barbara N. Bellis, allowed the case to move closer to trial before dismissing it, finding that the case was of the sort that the federal protections were meant to curb.
> 
> ...





odanny said:


> The lawsuit contended that hypermasculine themes — including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon and the slogan “Consider your man card reissued” — specifically appealed to troubled young men, like the gunman, who was 20.



Interesting, considering the firearm belonged to his mother.

Should have been laughed out of court.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Interesting, considering the firearm belonged to his mother.


And stole it, after killing her.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 15, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I think I'll sue Seagram now for the next time I get drunk, trip and fall down.  You know, like our "president."


Go right ahead.   And make sure you compare you falling down to an Elementary school full of children getting slaughtered.


----------



## JLW (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-168/118198/20191004151558181_19-168BriefInOpposition.pdf


Thank you for the link.  SCOTUS denied Cert. That is not to say the current court would have found for the families or that the Court would not have found the case was barred under the 2nd amendment. The opposition brief was very well written. It explains in part why Remington settled.


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?


Maybe tomorrow. Mustang thief needs lawyer to declare Ford antisementickle


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sounds like just about every sports car advertisement every published.
> And yet, Ford, Chevy, etc aren't liable when some drunk guy steals one and kills a bunch of people with it.
> Why?


Maybe you need a lawyer.


----------



## Flash (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This fucking ridiculous and never should have been settled.

A woman legitimately bought a legal firearm for her protection and then it was stolen and then used in a crime.

Not the fault of the gun maker.  Not the fault of the legal owner.

The fault completely in the hands of the little shithead that used it illegally.

Just is nothing more than filthy Libtard bullshit.  Dispicable!


----------



## Flash (Feb 15, 2022)

This really not a victory for the despicable shitheads that brought the suit.

Remington declared bankruptcy last year.

Any settlement would be to protect the board of directors - and odds are there are not any funds within the company to pay off the settlement, so it is mostly a paper loss, and possibly a real victory for Remington.


----------



## JLW (Feb 15, 2022)

Flash said:


> This really not a victory for the despicable shitheads that brought the suit.
> 
> Remington declared bankruptcy last year.
> 
> Any settlement would be to protect the board of directors - and odds are there are not any funds within the company to pay off the settlement, so it is mostly a paper loss, and possibly a real victory for Remington.


Calling the parents of murdered children "despicable shitheads" is as low as you can get.


----------



## Mac-7 (Feb 15, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> "we didnt want money but we couldnt settle for less than 70M dollars
> No sympathy for those parents. Not one fucking drop.


If they donate all the money to childrens cancer hospitals they wont look so greedy


----------



## Flash (Feb 15, 2022)

So if my child gets killed with a stolen vehicle and the driver dies I can sue the vehicle maker?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sounds like just about every sports car advertisement every published.
> And yet, Ford, Chevy, etc aren't liable when some drunk guy steals one and kills a bunch of people with it.
> Why?


Can you show me a Ford ad which says their cars are the ultimate machines for the mass killing of humans?

Please and thank you.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 15, 2022)

Flash said:


> So if my child gets killed with a stolen vehicle and the driver dies I can sue the vehicle maker?
> 
> View attachment 601786


If the vehicle maker advertised their cars as the ultimate machine for the mass killing of humans,  yes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

Flash said:


> So if my child gets killed with a stolen vehicle and the driver dies I can sue the vehicle maker?


Apparently, yes.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 15, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...


My question is,  Should the maker of the knife used by the BMX stabber, be sued for the use as a weapon?  Or the truck company in France that allowed all those people in Nice France to be run over?  I got it, lets sue the shit out of the Democrat Party for allowing not only diseased murderers and child molesters to come across the southern border, but release them into the country along with the criminals of the US.  Sue the shit out of the voters also for aiding and abetting the Democrats for being such evil fucks.









						Man arrested in random BMX stabbing attacks across Albuquerque
					

Suspect Tobias Gutierrez was arrested by police after being spotted on a BMX bike with a large knife




					news.yahoo.com
				








__





						Terrorist drives truck through a Bastille Day celebration
					

On July 14, 2016, thousands gathered along the seafront of Nice, France to celebrate Bastille Day—the country's independence holiday. The mood turned from joy




					www.history.com


----------



## bodecea (Feb 15, 2022)

martybegan said:


> How about as disgusting as only caring when non inner city kids are the ones getting shot?


I care about that too.....you, not so much.


----------



## Calypso Jones (Feb 15, 2022)

oh. no.   The parents reached a settlement with the insurance companies..not the gun manufacturers.  There the left wing lying media goes spinning so their little kool aid drinkers can feel some joy in mudville seeing as Hilliary is looking like chopped meat.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Apparently, yes.


and it's been done, too.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 15, 2022)

Calypso Jones said:


> oh. no.   The parents reached a settlement with the insurance companies..not the gun manufacturers.  There the left wing lying media goes spinning so their little kool aid drinkers can feel some joy in mudville seeing as Hilliary is looking like chopped meat.


They should of sued the county and the Fed's for failing to put the creep into a mental institution because his mom warned them something bad was going to happen, but no, our government failed those children again.

The FBI Reportedly Knew of Adam Lanza’s Plans Four Years Before Sandy Hook Shooting 


> The documents reveal what the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit classified as “careful, methodical planning and preparation.” The bureau lists that behavior as part of the reason further action wasn’t taken to prevent Lanza from killing 20 first-grade students and six adults during a 2012 rampage at the Newtown, Connecticut school.
> One entry details a man whose name was redacted specifically alerting authorities about a conversation in which Lanza said he had an assault rifle and planned to kill his mother as well as children at Sandy Hook. According to the document, the man reported the conversation to the Newtown Police Department in 2008, only to be told “Lanza’s mother owned the guns and that there was nothing N.P.D. could do about it.”


So they dont put the mentally ill person away, he kills his mother, than all those at Sandy Hook.  Fucking worthless is our government, shame that doesnt happen to our progs who visit this site.


----------



## Hellbilly (Feb 15, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> They should of sued the county and the Fed's for failing to put the creep into a mental institution because his mom warned them something bad was going to happen, but no, our government failed those children again.
> 
> The FBI Reportedly Knew of Adam Lanza’s Plans Four Years Before Sandy Hook Shooting
> 
> So they dont put the mentally ill person away, he kills his mother, than all those at Sandy Hook.  Fucking worthless is our government, shame that doesnt happen to our progs who visit this site.


What, exactly would you like to happen to the progs who visit this site?
Please be specific.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 15, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...


The lawsuit argued that Remington should not have sold such a dangerous weapon to the public

Remington must have agreed.  They paid up $73 million to make the case go away.  

“For the insurance and banking industries, it’s time to recognize the financial cost of underwriting companies that elevate profit by escalating risk. Our hope is that this victory will be the first boulder in the avalanche that forces that change.”

Remington filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to escape responsibility from the lawsuit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The lawsuit argued that Remington should not have sold such a dangerous weapon to the public


Wow.  -There's- some hyperbole.
If these 'dangerous weapons' are -so- dangerous, why are they so rarely used to commit violence?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Not as disgusting as a school of elementary kids getting shot up and most of America could give a rat's patootie.



What's disgusting is placing the blame where it doesn't belong...


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2022)

JLW said:


> Calling the parents of murdered children "despicable shitheads" is as low as you can get.





He was referring to the leech lawyers pushing this scam.

Moron

But, by all means, allow your mock outrage to alter the facts.


----------



## JLW (Feb 15, 2022)

westwall said:


> He was referring to the leech lawyers pushing this scam.
> 
> Moron
> 
> But, by all means, allow your mock outrage to alter the facts.


LOL...try again, Booboo.  It was clear what he meant. The persons who "brought the suit" were the parents not the lawyers, dimwit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 15, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Remington owed them not a dime.


I agree, but at the end of the day they chose to settle, so it’s on them


----------



## Flash (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> If the vehicle maker advertised their cars as the ultimate machine for the mass killing of humans,  yes.




Firearms do not have the purpose of killing children.


----------



## JLW (Feb 15, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I agree, but at the end of the day they chose to settle, so it’s on them


Remington actually settled the case  in the worst possible way for gun manufacturers IMHO. Here is why:  while it is true Remington is in bankruptcy, it is Remington's 4 insurance carriers  that will pay the 73 million. What do think those insurance carriers will do now? Raise their premiums of course. Those premiums will now skyrocket.  (Remember the insurance companies settled for 73 million because they most likely believed  that if this case went in front of a jury they would be dishing out between 100 million to a billion dollars in damages).  Gun manufacturers that can not afford the premiums will now go under.  Banks will not lend money to businesses if they can not obtain insurance. Those that can pay the insurance will pass the additional costs on to you, the consumer. Of course, these insurance companies will also want to scrutinize the marketing activities of these companies more closely to prevent or as a defense to future law suits.


----------



## Flash (Feb 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The lawsuit argued that Remington should not have sold such a dangerous weapon to the public
> 
> Remington must have agreed.  They paid up $73 million to make the case go away.
> 
> ...


Firearms are not dangerous weapons.  

The danger is from the shitheads that would use firearms for illegal dangerous things.

Just like my swimming pool is not dangerous.  But some deranged asshole could use it to drown a child.


----------



## toobfreak (Feb 15, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I agree, but at the end of the day they chose to settle, so it’s on them



Probably figured for more money, it was worth fighting, but for that amount, it would cost them at least as much to fight the suit (and maybe lose), so why battle.

But you are right, having done so, now there is legal precedent for yet more suits like it.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BAd move

MAybe we can hold the Jack Daniels Distillery and Every Brewery liable for all the drunk driving accidents and deaths from alcoholism too.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wow.  -There's- some hyperbole.
> If these 'dangerous weapons' are -so- dangerous, why are they so rarely used to commit violence?


IDK ask Remington or the Sandy Hook parents who are now rich.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 15, 2022)

JLW said:


> Is the primary purpose of a beer or spirits distillery to kill? Do distilleries market themselves as weapons of mass destruction?


Do they market themselves to kids?  Apparently Remington was marketing to kids and that's why they paid $73 million dollars for the case to go away.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 15, 2022)

JLW said:


> Is the primary purpose of a beer or spirits distillery to kill? Do distilleries market themselves as weapons of mass destruction?


Funny the primary use of any of my weapons is to defend myself, my wife and my home.

I guess I'm must be using them wrong huh?


----------



## JLW (Feb 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Do they market themselves to kids?  Apparently Remington was marketing to kids and that's why they paid $73 million dollars for the case to go away.


Distilleries and bars are already liable for damages caused by their products. You sell alcohol to an underaged kid..POW, you lose you liquor license. Sell liquor to a patron who is  shit faced drunk already who then drives out and kills someone..POW, bar owner sued under the dram shop laws.  Distilleries, bars and liquor stores are already on the hook for their negligence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> IDK ask Remington...


YOU used the term.
You don't know if the term is accurate?
If so, why did you use it?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Held liable for what?  No one at Remington killed those kids.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Marketing, dumbass.


What marketing?
Remington only advertises in gun publications.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you a moron?  Yes...yes you are....Remington didn't do anything you half wit.......


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.




Did Remington say, take our gun and shoot children?  You fucking moron....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Insane. Absurd


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Marketing, dumbass.



Great answers, Kreskin


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> BAd move
> 
> MAybe we can hold the Jack Daniels Distillery and Every Brewery liable for all the drunk driving accidents and deaths from alcoholism too.


Do they market their product to underage consumers?


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Are you a moron?  Yes...yes you are....Remington didn't do anything you half wit.......


I knew a gun humper like you would be triggered (pardon the pun) and your tears are delicious. 

Keep crying.


----------



## ranfunck (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> _The Sandy Hook victims were slain in a commando-style assault on the school. Their killer’s weapon of choice was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners. The XM15-E2S was designed for military combat, specifically to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy. Petitioners’ marketing emphasized precisely those characteristics of the firearm. In words and images, petitioners touted the XM15-E2S as a combat-tested weapon that would bestow the power to “perform under pressure” and “single-handedly” conquer “forces of opposition.”_


Sandy hook was a fucking hoax.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 15, 2022)

g5000 said:


> _The Sandy Hook victims were slain in a commando-style assault on the school. Their killer’s weapon of choice was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners. The XM15-E2S was designed for military combat, specifically to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy. Petitioners’ marketing emphasized precisely those characteristics of the firearm. In words and images, petitioners touted the XM15-E2S as a combat-tested weapon that would bestow the power to “perform under pressure” and “single-handedly” conquer “forces of opposition.”_




What a bunch of bullshit....

Commando style?   

Military combat?

I know you anti-gun assholes are fascists, and you will use any excuse to crush people you hate.......`


----------



## whitehall (Feb 15, 2022)

odanny said:


> Marketing, dumbass.


Marketing dumbass? Why not sue the ad agency that is responsible for marketing?


----------



## McRib (Feb 15, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Marketing dumbass? Why not sue the ad agency that is responsible for marketing?


Because maybe that marketing was done by Remington? How the fuck would I know?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 15, 2022)

It's hard to determine the make of the "SUV" that killed 5 and injured 40 in a Wisconsin parade in November 2021. Is that intentional by the news media? Wouldn't a lawsuit be just as legitimate regarding the manufacture of a vehicle used by a maniac to kill five and injure forty as a firearm used by a maniac?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 15, 2022)

whitehall said:


> It's hard to determine the make of the "SUV" that killed 5 and injured 40 in a Wisconsin parade in November 2021. Is that intentional by the news media? Wouldn't a lawsuit be just as legitimate regarding the manufacture of a vehicle used by a maniac to kill five and injure forty as a firearm used by a maniac?


Oh it was a GM SUV, that is why the liberal Lame Stream Media is all hush hush.  Government Motors, doesnt want to be bankrupt again.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Feb 15, 2022)

This decision is not good for 2nd  amendment rights and people who want to own assault rifles.
What about automobiles, and the many people killed each year by cars?. How are automobiles marketed. This settlement is absurd. What about knives?, and knife manufactures? This settlements makes no sense. The gun grabbers are absurd.Insane.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> This decision is not good for 2nd  amendment rights and people who want to own assault rifles.
> What about automobiles, and the many people killed each year by cars?. How are automobiles marketed. This settlement is absurd. What about knives?, and knife manufactures? This settlements makes no sense. The gun grabbers are absurd.Insane.




Yup.  If you are the victim of a violent crime sue EVERYONE who had a part, however small.  Bankrupt enough of these idiots and they will stop this shit out of self preservation.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2022)

whitehall said:


> It's hard to determine the make of the "SUV" that killed 5 and injured 40 in a Wisconsin parade in November 2021. Is that intentional by the news media? Wouldn't a lawsuit be just as legitimate regarding the manufacture of a vehicle used by a maniac to kill five and injure forty as a firearm used by a maniac?


Is the SUV marketed to kill?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 16, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Do they market their product to underage consumers?


Do underage people drink?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yup.  If you are the victim of a violent crime sue EVERYONE who had a part, however small.  Bankrupt enough of these idiots and they will stop this shit out of self preservation.


Sure…why not.  After all you’ve already passed laws that do just that.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Do underage people drink?


Doesn’t matter.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 16, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Is the SUV marketed to kill?


Show me an ad where a gun is marketed to kill people.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 16, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Doesn’t matter.


of course it does.

Why make things like Hard Lemonade or other sweet alcoholic drinks?

I have never seen a gun ad that was directed at children and neither have you.


----------



## initforme (Feb 16, 2022)

It's not a huge deal.   Remington agreed to pay it and some people get the $.   It affects nothing.   Settlements happen all the time.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 16, 2022)

bodecea said:


> I care about that too.....you, not so much.



Yes, because taking MY gun = fighting gang crime in the inner city.

Progs aren't concerned with real solutions, just whatever fits their agenda.


----------



## JohnDB (Feb 16, 2022)

Where I'm not a fan of the proliferation of cheap firearms...

The real guilty party is not going to see a courtroom.  

And the rightful guilty party is the psychiatrist.  Because when you give ADHD medication to Bipolar children it causes the mass murderer behavior.  It's been indicated in every instance of mass slayings at schools.  

The gun manufacturer?  They made an assault rifle.  The mother bought it.  And the son she tried to medicate into "good behavior" instead of adjusting her behavior to get better results and actually paying attention to what was happening with her son...it got her killed with her own gun.  

So has the psychiatrist ever been at least charged with malpractice?  Ever seen the inside of a courtroom for this?  

The medicines he proscribed are the absolute cause of the Sandy Hook massacre...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> I am sure this doesnt matter to you, but you bedwetting *pussies* are setting disturbing precedents because of your greed and hackery.



That if the Gun Industry sells an arsenal to a family like the Lanzas, they will be held responsible.  I'm all for it. 

Here's the problem.  The gun industry decided their business is not based on the guy who bought a gun during a spike in crime and stuck it back in his closet and forgot about it. 

Their key market is people like Nancy Lanza and her son, and it's only a matter of time before those people go off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Another end run attempt around the Constitution.
> 
> Lesson to gun manufacturers, move out of Blue States.



You think the Red States aren't going to figure out there's Gold in them there hills?  

I'm actually pleasently surprised Remington settled... because they could have gone with the argument that Nancy bought the gun, not Adam.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That if the Gun Industry sells an arsenal to a family like the Lanzas, they will be held responsible.  I'm all for it.
> 
> Here's the problem.  The gun industry decided their business is not based on the guy who bought a gun during a spike in crime and stuck it back in his closet and forgot about it.
> 
> Their key market is people like Nancy Lanza and her son, and it's only a matter of time before those people go off.




You are such an idiot.....you support violent criminals, and then want to destroy innocent people....you are vile.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

52ndStreet said:


> This decision is not good for 2nd amendment rights and people who want to own assault rifles.
> What about automobiles, and the many people killed each year by cars?. How are automobiles marketed. This settlement is absurd. What about knives?, and knife manufactures? This settlements makes no sense. The gun grabbers are absurd.Insane.



If you want to go there, let's regulate guns like cars...  Licenses, insurance, registrations and a lot of cops dedicated to enforcing their use.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You are such an idiot.....you support violent criminals, and then want to destroy innocent people....you are vile.



Remington isn't innocent.  Remington took advantage of a mentally ill woman's fears to sell her a military grade weapon her son used to kill her and 26 other people.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 16, 2022)

What an assinine judgement guns are designed to kill, duh!!!


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Remington isn't innocent.  Remington took advantage of a mentally ill woman's fears to sell her a military grade weapon her son used to kill her and 26 other people.




What a crock of shit........the parents used the deaths of their children to fleece the gun company........

The rifle was stolen, he didn't even fucking buy it......and it isn't a military weapon, you lying sack of shit.......

He could have killed those people with pistols or shotguns you moron...

Virginia tech...2 pistols....32 killed

Luby's Cafe....24 killed, 2 pistols....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> If you want to go there, let's regulate guns like cars...  Licenses, insurance, registrations and a lot of cops dedicated to enforcing their use.




And we should regulate voting and publishing the same way.......a license to vote, only 250 dollars  to register before an election, and lots and lots of cops investigating democrat party voter fraud........

Dittos publishing books, magazines, pamphlets.......to write books, columns, or onliine, you need to get a license and register with the Federal government....failure to do so will get the new 1st Amendment police sent to your home to arrest you...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> What a crock of shit........the parents used the deaths of their children to fleece the gun company........
> 
> The rifle was stolen, he didn't even fucking buy it......and it isn't a military weapon, you lying sack of shit.......


No, they sold it to a mentally unstable woman who took her son to gun ranges and let him play hours and hours of first person shooter video games. 



2aguy said:


> He could have killed those people with pistols or shotguns you moron...


But he didn't.  He used a military grade .226 MM round to blow big holes into small children.  



2aguy said:


> And we should regulate voting and publishing the same way


When you can kill someone with a vote, you might have an argument.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, they sold it to a mentally unstable woman who took her son to gun ranges and let him play hours and hours of first person shooter video games.
> 
> 
> But he didn't.  He used a military grade .226 MM round to blow big holes into small children.
> ...




You keep lying, it isn't a military weapon, it isn't "military grade."  

Voting democrat has killed thousands of young black men around the country, you doofus......


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You keep lying, it isn't a military weapon, it isn't "military grade."
> 
> Voting democrat has killed thousands of young black men around the country, you doofus......



Wow, really?  I'd ask the crazy logic you come with that one with, but never mind.  

In other good news, they threw out George Zimmerman's attempt to sue Trayvon's parents...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 16, 2022)

Hey, I am just curious how this is being addressed by people like Dale Smith and other lunatics who think that Sandy Hook was a false flag event. 

Was Remington in on it, too, settling for 65 million dollars?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Show me an ad where a gun is marketed to kill people.










JohnDB said:


> Where I'm not a fan of the proliferation of cheap firearms...
> 
> The real guilty party is not going to see a courtroom.
> 
> And the rightful guilty party is the psychiatrist. Because when you give ADHD medication to Bipolar children it causes the mass murderer behavior. It's been indicated in every instance of mass slayings at schools.



Except that Adam Lanza wasn't ADHD nor Bipolar.  He suffered from severe autism, for which he was given Celexa. 









						Lanza's Psychiatric Treatment Revealed In Documents
					






					www.courant.com
				







JohnDB said:


> The gun manufacturer? They made an assault rifle. The mother bought it. And the son she tried to medicate into "good behavior" instead of adjusting her behavior to get better results and actually paying attention to what was happening with her son...it got her killed with her own gun.
> 
> So has the psychiatrist ever been at least charged with malpractice? Ever seen the inside of a courtroom for this?
> 
> The medicines he proscribed are the absolute cause of the Sandy Hook massacre...



Nancy Lanza saw the psychiatrist a total of four times about Adam, and over the objections of her ex-husband, who was trying to get the kid help.  Kind of hard to blame a psychiatrist when the parent doesn't do her part... Oh, and allows him access to a military grade weapon and lets him play first person shooter games for hours on end.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> BAd move
> 
> MAybe we can hold the Jack Daniels Distillery and Every Brewery liable for all the drunk driving accidents and deaths from alcoholism too.



If you want to go that route, we already hold bars responsible for overserving their clients, that they are required to cut someone off if they appear too intoxicated.  



whitehall said:


> It's hard to determine the make of the "SUV" that killed 5 and injured 40 in a Wisconsin parade in November 2021. Is that intentional by the news media? Wouldn't a lawsuit be just as legitimate regarding the manufacture of a vehicle used by a maniac to kill five and injure forty as a firearm used by a maniac?



Was the SUV marketted as a lethal weapon like the gun was?


----------



## JohnDB (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> View attachment 602532
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I read in that article was even worse than my original thoughts. 
Misdiagnosis on top of poor mental health diagnosis.  The kid likely hated taking the drugs...and the crazy mom just as crazy as her offspring.  Both stewing in their own crazy.  Celexa won't help with OCD.  (Which can be a sign of Bipolar)
And the detectives were woefully inadequate in researching the kid's mental health.  (As per the article)
The mom was a nutball as well.  In complete denial of her own mental health issues and moreso of her son's.  The onset of puberty is a huge clue that this was a form of juvenile Bipolar disorder left untreated into adult years and the wrong drugs administered. 
Basically, the wrong drugs will put a bipolar patient in a depressive state that they do not cycle out of but they can keep OCD behaviors and psychotic features going to extremes.  (The walls start talking to them everyone and everything is out to get them like germs)
Yale university can be good but often not.  It takes a lot of sifting through crazy psychiatrist to get to one that accurately prescribed the right medication...and usually after visiting a dozen or more psychologists first. 

You aren't going to stop a highly intelligent person who is determined to do what he did. (The kid was smart and really didn't need formal education...he was essentially skipping grades successfully) He had years of planning and obsessing about doing harm to others.  Where that does point to Asperger's syndrome...the OCD and other symptoms still make me think BPD.

*And the psychiatrist should have reported the mother for severe medical neglect...*it was extremely easy to throw up his hands and ignore everything...when a 5 minute phone call could have stopped everything.  As a medical professional he was required to.  But he was derelict in his duties.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> View attachment 602532
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The print is illegible 
Where does it say anything about killing people?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> If you want to go that route, we already hold bars responsible for overserving their clients, that they are required to cut someone off if they appear too intoxicated.
> 
> 
> 
> Was the SUV marketted as a lethal weapon like the gun was?


The bar is not the liquor manufacturer.

We should also hold car manufacturers responsible for all auto accidents and deaths

How about we hold cookie makers accountable for obesity and diabetes too?

And I have never seen a gun ad that said anything about killing people


----------



## martybegan (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You think the Red States aren't going to figure out there's Gold in them there hills?
> 
> I'm actually pleasently surprised Remington settled... because they could have gone with the argument that Nancy bought the gun, not Adam.



The suit wasn't about the gun, it was about advertising and it snookered a few prog judges into letting it continue. End Run.


----------



## Jets (Feb 17, 2022)

Still trying to figure out why Remington settled this.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> What I read in that article was even worse than my original thoughts.
> Misdiagnosis on top of poor mental health diagnosis. The kid likely hated taking the drugs...and the crazy mom just as crazy as her offspring. Both stewing in their own crazy. Celexa won't help with OCD. (Which can be a sign of Bipolar)
> And the detectives were woefully inadequate in researching the kid's mental health. (As per the article)
> The mom was a nutball as well. In complete denial of her own mental health issues and moreso of her son's. The onset of puberty is a huge clue that this was a form of juvenile Bipolar disorder left untreated into adult years and the wrong drugs administered.



Okay, but at the end of the day, Remington still marketed this gun with Nancy as a key target, as nuts as she was.   Now, with sane parents who did their job, maybe he could have been helped, maybe not.    But a nutty woman who was stocking up enough guns to fight off the Zombie apocalypse wasn't going to end well. 



martybegan said:


> The suit wasn't about the gun, it was about advertising and it snookered a few prog judges into letting it continue. End Run.



Actually, it's about the marketing tactics of the gun industry.  Our politicians might be too cowardly to stand up to the gun industry, but the courts are not.  



Jets said:


> Still trying to figure out why Remington settled this.



Didn't want a jury to see autopsy photos of what happens when a 5.56MM round hits a six year old.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> View attachment 602532
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So....?   I fail to see where it say..."use our product to murder children....."

When they do that, then you have a fucking point...you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, but at the end of the day, Remington still marketed this gun with Nancy as a key target, as nuts as she was.   Now, with sane parents who did their job, maybe he could have been helped, maybe not.    But a nutty woman who was stocking up enough guns to fight off the Zombie apocalypse wasn't going to end well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shit head, this didn't go to a court or a jury, the insurance companies settled out of court...you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 17, 2022)

Jets said:


> Still trying to figure out why Remington settled this.




They didn't.....the insurance companies involved did......Remington no longer exists as an entity........ like in many cases, the insurance companies didn't care about right or wrong, just limiting the damages from a run away jury....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So....? I fail to see where it say..."use our product to murder children....."
> 
> When they do that, then you have a fucking point...you idiot.



You miss the point.  The problem was that in a sane world, someone would have looked at Nancy Lanza, a woman with severe psychological issues, and said, "Nope, that person does not need a gun."  Instead, Remington marketed to people like her specifically.  



2aguy said:


> Shit head, this didn't go to a court or a jury, the insurance companies settled out of court...you idiot.



Because they knew they would lose.  What I like is that we are going to see all of Remington's internal memos, where they knew people they were selling to had no business owning guns, but they sold to them anyway..  



2aguy said:


> They didn't.....the insurance companies involved did......Remington no longer exists as an entity........ like in many cases, the insurance companies didn't care about right or wrong, just limiting the damages from a run away jury....



Exactly.  Now all the other gun makers have insurance companies looking at them sideways for the same reason.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You miss the point.  The problem was that in a sane world, someone would have looked at Nancy Lanza, a woman with severe psychological issues, and said, "Nope, that person does not need a gun."  Instead, Remington marketed to people like her specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Remington sold to Licensed Retailers.
Do you have a sample of an ad where Remington encourages shooting up a school?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Remington sold to Licensed Retailers.
> Do you have a sample of an ad where Remington encourages shooting up a school?



NO, but we have plenty of information that they intentionally and marketed to the mentally unstable.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> NO, but we have plenty of information that they intentionally and marketed to the mentally unstable.


Any Links?
I work with a bunch of gun enthusiasts and they are all far more rational than you.
In fact, you're barely rational at all and we all know why you want to take weapons away from Whitey.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Any Links?
> I work with a bunch of gun enthusiasts and they are all far more rational than you.
> In fact, you're barely rational at all and we all know why you want to take weapons away from Whitey.



Um, so they don't go into a school mowing down preschoolers?

No, man, there are only two lines of thinking for the gun fetishists, the Stupid Reason and the Crazy Reason. 

The stupid reason is they really think a gun makes them safer from scary dark people.  They forget that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  

(Eeek.  Kellerman.  Expecting 2TinyGuy to spooge the next six pages with claims that Kellerman withdrew his study when he did no such thing.) 

The Crazy Reason is the people who think they need their guns to fight the government.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, so they don't go into a school mowing down preschoolers?


No, they don't.
I'm sorry to upset you.
In fact, they would stop someone like that but would never use a weapon to hold up a store unlike the thugs you sympathize with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> No, they don't.
> I'm sorry to upset you.
> In fact, they would stop someone like that but would never use a weapon to hold up a store unlike the thugs you sympathize with.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> View attachment 602840


14!
Wow!
Now post all the pictures of the 2022 murderers in Chicago...
I don't think there's enough hard drive space on the Internet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 17, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Now post all the pictures of the 2022 murderers in Chicago...
> I don't think there's enough hard drive space on the Internet.



Oh, I agree, if we cared as much about poor black people being murdered as we do a gaggle of white school children, guns would have been banned years ago.  

Maybe those victims can start suing the gun makers.. works for me.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I agree, if we cared as much about poor black people being murdered as we do a gaggle of white school children, guns would have been banned years ago.
> 
> Maybe those victims can start suing the gun makers.. works for me.


I care but it seems Blacks don't.
In fact, when I try to discuss it with them, they don't give a damn about each other; but at least they have you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I care but it seems Blacks don't.
> In fact, when I try to discuss it with them, they don't give a damn about each other; but at least they have you.



We've seen the way you care about blacks... which is to mostly blame them for what white people do to them. 

Case in point.  Chicago had some very good gun laws.   Of course, the gun industry decided to set up gun shops on the periphery of Chicago to sell guns to circumvent that, before they got the Knuckle Draggers on SCOTUS to strike them down.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We've seen the way you care about blacks... which is to mostly blame them for what white people do to them.
> 
> Case in point.  Chicago had some very good gun laws.   Of course, the gun industry decided to set up gun shops on the periphery of Chicago to sell guns to circumvent that, before they got the Knuckle Draggers on SCOTUS to strike them down.


*We've seen the way you care about blacks... which is to mostly blame them for what white people do to them.*

You are mentally ill.


----------



## JohnDB (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, but at the end of the day, Remington still marketed this gun with Nancy as a key target, as nuts as she was. Now, with sane parents who did their job, maybe he could have been helped, maybe not. But a nutty woman who was stocking up enough guns to fight off the Zombie apocalypse wasn't going to end well


Ahhh 
But that's something that a medical professional should have reported to Child Services... especially in the case of juvenile medical neglect.  Mental Health neglect in this instance was severe.  Severe enough that it was definitely reportable and actionable.  The mother couldn't have come across as sane...and with a child demonstrating the symptoms described... criminal.  And the crazy psychiatrist didn't do his job.  There's a reason he hid out in another country afterwards....he was very guilty of being unprofessional.  Any and all of his colleagues would have called him out on it or quite possibly were and that's why he left the country.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

odanny said:


> Read the story, if you can, if you cannot, have someone read it to you.


Clearly YOU can't


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 18, 2022)

g5000 said:


> Can you show me a Ford ad which says their cars are the ultimate machines for the mass killing of humans?
> 
> Please and thank you.


Can you show us the Remington ad that says semi-automatic rifles are great for school shootings?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

g5000 said:


> If the vehicle maker advertised their cars as the ultimate machine for the mass killing of humans,  yes.


God.... Dammit, you are a complete leftist.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 18, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> Do they market themselves to kids?  Apparently Remington was marketing to kids and that's why they paid $73 million dollars for the case to go away.


Let's see said marketing ads.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 18, 2022)

odanny said:


> Marketing, dumbass.


Sounds something protected by the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

martybegan said:


> Yes, because taking MY gun = fighting gang crime in the inner city.
> 
> Progs aren't concerned with real solutions, just whatever fits their agenda.


and the agenda is confescation


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> *We've seen the way you care about blacks... which is to mostly blame them for what white people do to them.*
> 
> You are mentally ill.


Isn't your son-in-law black?

You rascist!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

Coyote said:


> Is the SUV marketed to kill?


Show me the ad where Remington marketed the rifle to kill school children.


----------



## Flash (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We've seen the way you care about blacks... which is to mostly blame them for what white people do to them.
> 
> Case in point.  Chicago had some very good gun laws.   Of course, the gun industry decided to set up gun shops on the periphery of Chicago to sell guns to circumvent that, before they got the Knuckle Draggers on SCOTUS to strike them down.




You are confused Moon Bat.

Chicago has some the worst gun control laws in the country and they don't work to curtail crime because the fucking crooks don't adhere to the laws.

If some goddamn Chicago street thug Negro goes to Indiana to buy a gun and then takes it illegally to Chicago and uses it in a crime it is his fault.

You Moon Bats are always confused about shit like this, aren't you?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You miss the point.  The problem was that in a sane world, someone would have looked at Nancy Lanza, a woman with severe psychological issues, and said, "Nope, that person does not need a gun."  Instead, Remington marketed to people like her specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron.......she was a normal human being.   You hate her because she owned guns....

The insurance companies settled you moron....just like they do when you are involved in an accident that isn't your fault but the insurance company doesn't want to take the chance that assholes like you are on the jury and will simply rule to take the insurance company for all they have.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> NO, but we have plenty of information that they intentionally and marketed to the mentally unstable.



No...you lying fuck.........just make things up.....what kind of human being are you....it really must be hard to live in your skin...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, so they don't go into a school mowing down preschoolers?
> 
> No, man, there are only two lines of thinking for the gun fetishists, the Stupid Reason and the Crazy Reason.
> 
> ...




You keep lying about Kellerman......

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I agree, if we cared as much about poor black people being murdered as we do a gaggle of white school children, guns would have been banned years ago.
> 
> Maybe those victims can start suing the gun makers.. works for me.




It is your political party that allows the murder of young black men in the cities they control.....your political party, the democrat party, the party that actually was created by slave rapists........the term you use to define the Founders of this country, but the political party you vote for and empower was created by two slave owners.....and in the cities they control, they allow young black men to be murdered, and young black children to have their lives ruined in the democrat party controlled public schools.....

That's on you...the democrat party should be sued and their assets liquidated to pay for the deaths they have caused.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, so they don't go into a school mowing down preschoolers?
> 
> No, man, there are only two lines of thinking for the gun fetishists, the Stupid Reason and the Crazy Reason.
> 
> ...


Actually, they're the same stupid, crazy reason.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, they're the same stupid, crazy reason.


You should move to Ukraine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 19, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Ahhh
> But that's something that a medical professional should have reported to Child Services... especially in the case of juvenile medical neglect. Mental Health neglect in this instance was severe. Severe enough that it was definitely reportable and actionable. The mother couldn't have come across as sane...and with a child demonstrating the symptoms described... criminal. And the crazy psychiatrist didn't do his job. There's a reason he hid out in another country afterwards....he was very guilty of being unprofessional. Any and all of his colleagues would have called him out on it or quite possibly were and that's why he left the country.



Except Nancy wasn't on trial for being a bad mother... on account of her being dead.  I guess Remington could have tried to shift the blame to her, but then the retort of the families' lawyers would have been "And you sold her a bunch of guns!"  



2aguy said:


> Moron.......she was a normal human being. You hate her because she owned guns....
> 
> The insurance companies settled you moron....just like they do when you are involved in an accident that isn't your fault but the insurance company doesn't want to take the chance that assholes like you are on the jury and will simply rule to take the insurance company for all they have.....



Except in most of those cases, they settle because it's pretty clear who is at fault AND the money totals are less than the cost of litigation.  

73 Million dollars is not chump change.   My guess is the insurance companies looked at the reams of documents provided, realized the criminal and truly despicable behavior of Remington's executives, and settled. 




2aguy said:


> You keep lying about Kellerman......


See, he can't help himself.  You just say ' 43 times more likely and" 








2aguy said:


> It is your political party that allows the murder of young black men in the cities they control.....your political party, the democrat party, the party that actually was created by slave rapists........the term you use to define the Founders of this country, but the political party you vote for and empower was created by two slave owners.....and in the cities they control, they allow young black men to be murdered, and young black children to have their lives ruined in the democrat party controlled public schools.....



There were no "Democrats" when the slave Rapists founded this country.  There were Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.   Seriously, dude, what retarded home school did you learn your history in. 

If our side had our way, guns would be controlled and black schools would be adequately funded.   Because we put people ahead of profits.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 19, 2022)

No answer from Dale Smith yet?  I'm still waiting to hear how it is that Remington paid off the "Crisis Actors".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 19, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You should move to Ukraine.


The racist right arming themselves out of an unwarranted fear of black Americans is stupid and crazy.

The willfully ignorant right arming themselves to ‘fend off’ government ‘tyranny’ is stupid and crazy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 19, 2022)

Actually, this thread is in the wrong forum – the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; the issue doesn’t concern the regulation of firearms or the courts determining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.

What the thread is about is the usual lies and demagoguery from the right – the lie that civil suits will be used to manifest a _de facto_ ‘ban’ of assault weapons.

Remington settled because it realized it engaged in reckless, irresponsible advertising – Remington has only itself to blame.

But this applies only to Remington, not other makers of AR pattern rifles and carbines who haven’t engaged in reckless, irresponsible advertising – such as SA, whose AR 15 clone is call the Saint.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, this thread is in the wrong forum – the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; the issue doesn’t concern the regulation of firearms or the courts determining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.



That's accurate . . .

It is only about the exploitation of a workaround law in one state that had such egregious consequences that no other state will ever consider enacting a similar one.

So, there is no worry about this cancer ever spreading or ever becoming an issue federally or even being repeated in Connecticut, since major gun makers are fleeing the state for those with a friendlier business and legal climate.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Nancy wasn't on trial for being a bad mother... on account of her being dead.  I guess Remington could have tried to shift the blame to her, but then the retort of the families' lawyers would have been "And you sold her a bunch of guns!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron......the actual democrat party, the party you say you vote for, was created by two slave owners....actual slave owners.........

You morons have total control of the school systems in democrat party controlled cities......the slave rapist party, the democrat party, isn't educating black children in the schools they control....complete and total control.......

You slave rapist party, the democrat party, the home of racism in this country, is the political party releasing violent, known murderers back into black communities over and over again, leading to the murder of more blacks than anywhere else in this country.....communities you guys totally control.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, this thread is in the wrong forum – the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; the issue doesn’t concern the regulation of firearms or the courts determining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.
> 
> What the thread is about is the usual lies and demagoguery from the right – the lie that civil suits will be used to manifest a _de facto_ ‘ban’ of assault weapons.
> 
> ...




No...again, Remington did not settle, the insurance companies settled because they were afraid of assholes on a jury not ruling on the facts, but ruling on emotions......that is the truth, the fact and the reality.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The racist right arming themselves out of an unwarranted fear of black Americans is stupid and crazy.
> 
> The willfully ignorant right arming themselves to ‘fend off’ government ‘tyranny’ is stupid and crazy.




Moron........blacks and women are the biggest growth areas in gun ownership, you dumb shit....because the democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, burned, looted and murdered Americans in primarily black neighborhoods...the democrat party did this......and then they began sending blm and antifa scouting parties into lily white, democrat party suburbs...so now left wing white women are now buying guns......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The racist right arming themselves out of an unwarranted fear of black Americans is stupid and crazy.
> The willfully ignorant right arming themselves to ‘fend off’ government ‘tyranny’ is stupid and crazy.


More support for the claim of you being a known liar.


----------



## JohnDB (Feb 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Nancy wasn't on trial for being a bad mother... on account of her being dead. I guess Remington could have tried to shift the blame to her, but then the retort of the families' lawyers would have been "And you sold her a bunch of guns


Oh but I do agree with you that Remington wasn't at fault for making and marketing their product.  
And that sueing the mother was impossible...
However,
That psychiatrist WAS AT FAULT.  It was his responsibility to report the mother for being incompetent and medically neglecting her son.  Especially when the father was the exact opposite.  

But they targeted Remington because they couldn't leave the country unlike the truly guilty party that did.  

Everyone ignores the truth in favor of a political agenda.  Why isn't the whole mental health community saying anything....OH wait....they are busy promoting gender dysphoria as no longer being a mental disorder.  Because that item is on their political agenda.  

See how twisted the whole environment has become?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron......the actual democrat party,



Had nothing to do with the founding of this country on Slavery and Genocide.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Oh but I do agree with you that Remington wasn't at fault for making and marketing their product.


I said nothing of the sort.   I totally blame the gun industry for our current state of affairs. They have flooded our streets with guns and look at crazy people like Nancy Lanza as a key market. 



JohnDB said:


> However,
> That psychiatrist WAS AT FAULT. It was his responsibility to report the mother for being incompetent and medically neglecting her son. Especially when the father was the exact opposite.



That actually sounds like an argument between the parents.  The shrink saw Adam a total of four times.  She made a recommendation.  Nancy ignored the recommendation because she was just as crazy as her son. 



JohnDB said:


> Everyone ignores the truth in favor of a political agenda. Why isn't the whole mental health community saying anything....OH wait....they are busy promoting gender dysphoria as no longer being a mental disorder. Because that item is on their political agenda.
> 
> See how twisted the whole environment has become?



Except Trans people aren't hurting anyone. 

The Gun Culture is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That's accurate . . .
> 
> It is only about the exploitation of a workaround law in one state that had such egregious consequences that no other state will ever consider enacting a similar one.
> 
> So, there is no worry about this cancer ever spreading or ever becoming an issue federally or even being repeated in Connecticut, since major gun makers are fleeing the state for those with a friendlier business and legal climate.



But they still have to SELL in blue states, that's the problem.  Blue states where the judges will be just fine in allowing suits to go forward. 

The gun industry might even have to adopt- gasp - responsible business practices.  



2aguy said:


> No...again, Remington did not settle, the insurance companies settled because they were afraid of assholes on a jury not ruling on the facts, but ruling on emotions......that is the truth, the fact and the reality.



The truth and reality is that once the "Crisis Actors" got ahold of Remington's internal memos, they were well and screwed.  

(Hey, Dale Smith I see you are still not commenting on this one. How is it that Remington paid a bunch of crisis actors for non-existent kids?)


----------



## Abatis (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But they still have to SELL in blue states, that's the problem.  Blue states where the judges will be just fine in allowing suits to go forward.



This was a one-off.

Suits can't "go forward" if there is no law in that state to cite to pierce the federal PLCCA immunity.  This settlement does not create a new general rule for the nation that carves out of the PLCCA a path to sue; the suit was withdrawn, it and its arguments no longer exist.



JoeB131 said:


> The gun industry might even have to adopt- gasp - responsible business practices.



That is a laughable over-reading of the situation.  The CT supreme court decision that stood before the settlement, only said the lawsuit's interpretations were plausible and could proceed in CT.  The court did not decide *any* question of the PLCAA’s applicability repelling the lawsuit, which would have depended on whether it could be proven that Remington _knowingly_ violated CUTPA and whether the challenged conduct directly caused the harms the lawsuit claims.  When the insurance companies settled, the case's status was that it had been remanded for discovery and further proceedings.

*As I've told you repeatedly, no final legal determination on the viability or veracity of the "marketing" approach, or the applicability of the PLCCA federal immunity was ever set down by any court or agreed upon in the settlement.*

The decision to settle was a business decision made by the insurance companies whereby The lawsuit _WAS WITHDRAWN_.  It was not settled from any legal determination or acceptance of Remington's responsibility in the massacre.

.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Had nothing to do with the founding of this country on Slavery and Genocide.  Thanks for playing.




They created the party that started a Civil War to keep slavery......and Andrew Jackson ......?

There was no Genocide...but thanks for playing


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> This was a one-off.
> 
> Suits can't "go forward" if there is no law in that state to cite to pierce the federal PLCCA immunity. This settlement does not create a new general rule for the nation that carves out of the PLCCA a path to sue; the suit was withdrawn, it and its arguments no longer exist.


Until the next set of victims sues on the same principles.   The problem with PLCCA is that it has questionable legal foundations.  It creates a carve out for one industry's recklessness in its business practices.  



Abatis said:


> That is a laughable over-reading of the situation. The CT supreme court decision that stood before the settlement, only said the lawsuit's interpretations were plausible and could proceed in CT. The court did not decide *any* question of the PLCAA’s applicability repelling the lawsuit, which would have depended on whether it could be proven that Remington _knowingly_ violated CUTPA and whether the challenged conduct directly caused the harms the lawsuit claims. When the insurance companies settled, the case's status was that it had been remanded for discovery and further proceedings.



At which point, Remington folded like a cheap suit when they realized that all the internal emails showing they knew they were targeting unstable people like Nancy Lanza came to light.  



Abatis said:


> The decision to settle was a business decision made by the insurance companies whereby The lawsuit _WAS WITHDRAWN_. It was not settled from any legal determination or acceptance of Remington's responsibility in the massacre.



again, whistling past the graveyard.    Only a matter of time before some of the other 39,000 victims of gun violence realize there's gold in them thar hills.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I said nothing of the sort.   I totally blame the gun industry for our current state of affairs. They have flooded our streets with guns and look at crazy people like Nancy Lanza as a key market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Trans people are pushing the sterilzation and mutilation of children...you idiot...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They created the party that started a Civil War to keep slavery......and Andrew Jackson ......?
> 
> There was no Genocide...but thanks for playing



My Cherokee ancestors would disagree... 

The problem was of course, when the racists were thrown out of the Democratic Party, the Republicans welcomed them with open arms. 




Yeah, this is fucked up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Trans people are pushing the sterilzation and mutilation of children...you idiot...



Uh, guy, we have a million trans people in this country and only perform 11,000 sex-reassignment surgeries a year.  If a minor is getting the surgery, it's a pretty clear case.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Trans people are pushing the sterilzation and mutilation of children...you idiot...


This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 20, 2022)

JohnDB said:


> Everyone ignores the truth in favor of a political agenda. Why isn't the whole mental health community saying anything....OH wait....they are busy promoting gender dysphoria as no longer being a mental disorder. Because that item is on their political agenda.


This is a lie.

The mental health community isn’t advancing the lie that being transgender is a ‘mental illness’ because those transgender are in fact not ‘mentally ill,’ having nothing to do with a ‘political agenda.’

The only political agenda being advanced is that of the bigoted right, motivated by an unwarranted fear and hatred of transgender Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron........blacks and women are the biggest growth areas in gun ownership, you dumb shit....because the democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, burned, looted and murdered Americans in primarily black neighborhoods...the democrat party did this......and then they began sending blm and antifa scouting parties into lily white, democrat party suburbs...so now left wing white women are now buying guns......


Racism is a form of mental illness; it is therefore crazy for racist conservatives to arm themselves out of an unwarranted fear of black Americans.

And it’s stupid to arm oneself out of a baseless fear of ‘government tyranny’ – it’s also ignorant and wrongheaded.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – the Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they has just created.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> My Cherokee ancestors would disagree...
> 
> The problem was of course, when the racists were thrown out of the Democratic Party, the Republicans welcomed them with open arms.
> 
> ...




The racists were never thrown out of the democrat party.....and that photo of the blm, antifa, democrat party thug holding that flag is great.........you vile assholes will do anything to take power.......


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The mental health community isn’t advancing the lie that being transgender is a ‘mental illness’ because those transgender are in fact not ‘mentally ill,’ having nothing to do with a ‘political agenda.’
> 
> The only political agenda being advanced is that of the bigoted right, motivated by an unwarranted fear and hatred of transgender Americans.




The transgenders are, in fact, mentally ill.....pretending they are not is not helping them......and it creates higher rates of suicide in that community when you allow them to go untreated....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.


Says the known liar.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.


Says the known liar.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 20, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Racism is a form of mental illness; i


You are fully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
And thus, another lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The racists were never thrown out of the democrat party.....and that photo of the blm, antifa, democrat party thug holding that flag is great.........you vile assholes will do anything to take power.......



Wait, are you really trying to claim that the Jan 6 Rioters were Antifa?  Are you really that mentally ill and divorced from reality.  

No wonder you fear mental health checks for gun owners.   I doubt you'd pass.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wait, are you really trying to claim that the Jan 6 Rioters were Antifa?  Are you really that mentally ill and divorced from reality.
> 
> No wonder you fear mental health checks for gun owners.   I doubt you'd pass.




The ones fighting the police were....the rest were people who were invited or allowed into the building by the capitol police, likely under orders from pelosi.....they walked around, as we saw in the video, and took selfies, then left.....the DOJ has been hiding 1400 hours of video from the defendants.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wait, are you really trying to claim that the Jan 6 Rioters were Antifa?  Are you really that mentally ill and divorced from reality.
> 
> No wonder you fear mental health checks for gun owners.   I doubt you'd pass.




You ignore the truth that you happily support the democrat party, the political party of actual slave rapists...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The ones fighting the police were....the rest were people who were invited or allowed into the building by the capitol police, likely under orders from pelosi.....they walked around, as we saw in the video, and took selfies, then left.....the DOJ has been hiding 1400 hours of video from the defendants.....





2aguy said:


> You ignore the truth that you happily support the democrat party, the political party of actual slave rapists...



Wow, you are living in your own universe, aren't you?  I mean this is so retarded, I don't know what to say.  

Look, man, you guys need to OWN Jan. 6.   Be proud of it.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you are living in your own universe, aren't you?  I mean this is so retarded, I don't know what to say.
> 
> Look, man, you guys need to OWN Jan. 6.   Be proud of it.




Blm and antifa burned, looted and killed in black neighborhoods for 7 months...you supported that.......Trump had massive rallies since 2015 with no violence other than the violence created by guys like bob craemer a democrat operative caught on under cover video admitting to sending in thugs to start fights at Trump rallies........ who sent in thugs to start fights.......years of non violence by Trump supporters, 7 months of burning, looting and killing by democrat party brown shirts who you support...

Then you want to tell us that Trump supporters attacked the police...

The facts, truth and reality show you are an idiot....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Blm and antifa burned, looted and killed in black neighborhoods for 7 months...you supported that.......



Hardly.  Just realized that if you have people ask nicely for something for 10 years, eventually, they get tired of asking nicely. 



2aguy said:


> Trump had massive rallies since 2015 with no violence other than the violence created by guys like bob craemer a democrat operative caught on under cover video admitting to sending in thugs to start fights at Trump rallies........ who sent in thugs to start fights.......years of non violence by Trump supporters, 7 months of burning, looting and killing by democrat party brown shirts who you support...



Hey, who were the Trumpsters going to beat up at those rallies, each other?  The point was, Trump spent hours getting his mutant followers worked up until they stormed the capitol.  



2aguy said:


> Then you want to tell us that Trump supporters attacked the police...



Uh, we know that because all the ones who were arrested were in fact, Trump Supporters.  

Now, unless these Antifa folks are fucking ninjas, you just come off as a crazy person. 

But let's just limit it to the guy who was carrying a CONFEDERATE FLAG (the flag of racists and traitors) into the hallowed halls of the US Capitol. 

Who was that guy?









						Man who carried Confederate flag to Capitol during Jan. 6 riot indicted
					

Kevin Seefried, who was photographed carrying a Confederate flag in the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riots in Washington, has been indicted by a grand jury,




					www.cnbc.com
				




“Defendant Kevin Seefried told law enforcement that he had traveled with his family from Delaware to the District of Columbia to hear President Trump speak and that he and Hunter Seefried participated in a march from the White House to the Capitol led by an individual with a bull horn,” Pattillo wrote.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Hardly.  Just realized that if you have people ask nicely for something for 10 years, eventually, they get tired of asking nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How is telling them to peacefully go to the capitol geting them worked up?   Blm, antifa....7 months of violence, burning, looting and killing...with threats they would do more and worse if Trump won............Trump supporters 6 years of massive rallies of over 70, 000 people...no violence....

You are selling crap....sell it to biden voters...

The guy with the flag, likely blm/antifa thug....planted there for the specific purpose of giving the democrat party media a photo.......just like bob craemer, the democrat party operative who sent thugs in to start violence at Trump rallies....which he admitted to doing on video...


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Feb 20, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The insurance Company settled, not Remington.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How is telling them to peacefully go to the capitol geting them worked up? Blm, antifa....7 months of violence, burning, looting and killing...with threats they would do more and worse if Trump won............Trump supporters 6 years of massive rallies of over 70, 000 people...no violence....



93% of BLM protests were peaceful, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project









						93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds
					

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project analyzed more than 7,750 BLM demonstrations in all 50 states and D.C.




					time.com
				




During those whole 7 months of riots, only 25 people were killed, many of them demonstrators. 

In one day of Trump Insurrection(TM) five people were killed and 140 Capitol Police officers injured. 



2aguy said:


> The guy with the flag, likely blm/antifa thug....planted there for the specific purpose of giving the democrat party media a photo.......just like bob craemer, the democrat party operative who sent thugs in to start violence at Trump rallies....which he admitted to doing on video...



So the Antifa Ninja snuck in there and put the Confederate flag into the hands of a known Trump supporter... got it.  

Hey, maybe you and Dale Smith need to have a Love Connection.  He thinks all the Sandy Hook Parents were Crisis Actors!!!


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> 93% of BLM protests were peaceful, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The blm/antifa riots burned, looted and killed Americans......for 7 months......

Over 40 people were killed...the only person killed on Jan. 6 was an unarmed woman, shot without warning....

You just lied about people killed at the Trump rally....and you don't think you will be called out?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The racists were never thrown out of the democrat party.....and that photo of the blm, antifa, democrat party thug holding that flag is great.........you vile assholes will do anything to take power.......


No one is going to ‘ban’ guns, no one is going to ‘confiscate’ guns – those are ridiculous lies propagated by the right.

And no one is going to use civil suits against gun makers to ‘ban’ AR 15s – that’s another ridiculous rightwing lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The blm/antifa riots burned, looted and killed Americans......for 7 months......
> 
> Over 40 people were killed...the only person killed on Jan. 6 was an unarmed woman, shot without warning....
> 
> You just lied about people killed at the Trump rally....and you don't think you will be called out?



Actually, five people died.  

And you only seem upset when someone gets shot by police without warning when they are white.  

25 people died during ANTIFA riots, but a lot of them were demonstrators killed by the police.  

Again, it's a matter of morality. 

Rioting because your children are being murdered by police.  Understandable. 

Rioting because you didn't get your way on an election.  Reprehensible and treasonous.


----------



## initforme (Feb 21, 2022)

Lawsuits are settled all the time.   What is the big deal here?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, five people died.
> 
> And you only seem upset when someone gets shot by police without warning when they are white.
> 
> ...




Wrong...that is a lie......only one person died the day of the protest, and she was an unarmed woman shot without warning by pelosi's police force.....

over 40 died during the 7 months that the democrat party used blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in black neighborhoods....

Children are not being murdered by police....dumb ass criminals who fight with the police and then die because of their stupid actions are dying..........and if they didn't fight the police during their lawful, justified arrest......since they are all violent criminal assholes.....they would still be alive today...except for George Floyd who likely would still be dead from heart disease and drug overdose...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is going to ‘ban’ guns, no one is going to ‘confiscate’ guns – those are ridiculous lies propagated by the right.


As you know, this is only true if those on the right know the Democrats who claim they will do exactly hat are lying.
Why are the Democrats lying?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong...that is a lie......only one person died the day of the protest, and she was an unarmed woman shot without warning by pelosi's police force.....


People who died of their injuries later, including one Capitol Cop, were still killed as a result of Trump Treason(TM).  



2aguy said:


> over 40 died during the 7 months that the democrat party used blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in black neighborhoods....



More like 25, and a lot of those were killed by the cops.  Of course, nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands that died in TRUMP PLAGUE.  



2aguy said:


> Children are not being murdered by police....dumb ass criminals who fight with the police and then die because of their stupid actions are dying..........and if they didn't fight the police during their lawful, justified arrest......since they are all violent criminal assholes.....they would still be alive today...except for George Floyd who likely would still be dead from heart disease and drug overdose...



Tamir Rice.  Laquan McDonald. Adam Toledo.   

Um... no. Cops are killing children for no good reason.  That's why people are upset.


----------



## Brick Gold (Feb 22, 2022)

"You gotta poo fogejter themir shit and make us beleieve it although we already knoe youre always lying.unquote


----------



## Peace (Feb 22, 2022)

odanny said:


> If Ford markets their Mustangs that they are safe to drive after drinking, or has a commercial showing it being driven 120 mph, they will be.


No they wouldn’t and holding the manufacturers responsible for what someone like you does with the object they sold you is beyond stupid.

Gun manufacturers do not go out of their way to say “ Buy our firearms because it is the best way to do mass shootings at schools “…


----------



## Peace (Feb 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> People who died of their injuries later, including one Capitol Cop, were still killed as a result of Trump Treason(TM).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


China gave you one extra dumpling I see for your lie about their plague being Trump plague…


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 22, 2022)

Bruce_Almighty said:


> No they wouldn’t and holding the manufacturers responsible for what someone like you does with the object they sold you is beyond stupid.
> 
> Gun manufacturers do not go out of their way to say “ Buy our firearms because it is the best way to do mass shootings at schools “…



No, but what they do is almost as bad.  They specifically market to the mentally unstable and then fight any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.  

Actually, I wasn't even sure that this was even the best case to sue to gun industry, as the person who bought the gun wasn't the one who did the shooting. 

But the flood gates are now open.  UNLEASH THE LAWYERS!!!! 







Bruce_Almighty said:


> China gave you one extra dumpling I see for your lie about their plague being Trump plague…


What makes it Trump Plague is his criminal mismanagement of the crisis.


----------



## Peace (Feb 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, but what they do is almost as bad.  They specifically market to the mentally unstable and then fight any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
> 
> Actually, I wasn't even sure that this was even the best case to sue to gun industry, as the person who bought the gun wasn't the one who did the shooting.
> 
> ...


And yet people keep on dying from the Chinese plague, so Biden is as much to blame as Trump…

As for the gun manufacturer settling, well it was the insurance company but I feel this is a big mistake!


----------



## McRib (Feb 22, 2022)

Bruce_Almighty said:


> No they wouldn’t and holding the manufacturers responsible for what someone like you does with the object they sold you is beyond stupid.
> 
> Gun manufacturers do not go out of their way to say “ Buy our firearms because it is the best way to do mass shootings at schools “…


DERP


----------



## playtime (Feb 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> Why can't Ford be held liable when some drunk guy steals a Mustang and runs a school bus over a cliff?



because ford didn't market to those who could be  influenced into thinking that getting drunk & then getting behind the wheel of one of their vehicles would make them an alpha; & not doing that makes them weak.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2022)

playtime said:


> because ford didn't market to those who could be  influenced into thinking that getting drunk & then getting behind the wheel of one of their vehicles would make them an alpha; & not doing that makes them weak.


So...  where did Remington advertise that murdering your mother, stealing her AR and shooting up a school would make you an Alpha male, and not doing so makes you weak?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> People who died of their injuries later, including one Capitol Cop, were still killed as a result of Trump Treason(TM).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wrong...no one died from their injuries, in particular, any cops....two committed suicide weeks to months later...you lying asshole..


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong...no one died from their injuries, in particular, any cops....two committed suicide weeks to months later...you lying asshole..



Really, I seem to remember a state funeral for a cop who died right after the riot... but that's okay, man, you keep pretending a bunch of entitled white people shitting on the capitol were "patriots" or something.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really, I seem to remember a state funeral for a cop who died right after the riot... but that's okay, man, you keep pretending a bunch of entitled white people shitting on the capitol were "patriots" or something.




He had a stroke, you dumbass.....and your hitler buddies paraded him around to justify their Reichstag fire moment...


----------



## playtime (Feb 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...  where did Remington advertise that murdering your mother, stealing her AR and shooting up a school would make you an Alpha male, and not doing so makes you weak?



lol ..  it doesn't matter. 

they lost.  bigley.

no worries, yer phallic symbol is safe in yer little hands, jethro; nobody is gonna come ' grab it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 23, 2022)

playtime said:


> lol ..  it doesn't matter.


So...   you can't show where Remington met the stamdard you laid out for Ford.
Got it.
Thanks.


----------



## playtime (Feb 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> So...   you can't show where Remington met the stamdard you laid out for Ford.
> Got it.
> Thanks.



it was a ridiculous comparison.  anyhoo -  the point i was making was that the jurors thought remington was liable.   reminds me of Joe Camel...

that 'logo' & it's ads were marketed to young kids -  to get them to start smoking & hooked on an addictive drug.  apparently killing that campaign was also a win for those who sued to get it off the air, & outa print.

*Repositioning Camel to Attract Younger Smokers *

R.J. Reynolds’ once-secret internal documents show that attracting underage smokers has long been a top corporate objective. In one 1973 memo that foreshadowed Joe Camel, an R.J. Reynolds official wrote, “In view of the need to reverse the preference for Marlboros among younger smokers, I wonder whether comic strip-type copy might get a much higher readership among younger people than any other type of copy.”6 A 1976 company document warned, “Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14-to-18- year-old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR-T must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained over the long term."7 And another memo read, "To ensure increased and longer-term growth for Camel Filter, the brand must increase its share penetration among the 14-24 age group which have a new set of more liberal values and which represent tomorrow's cigarette business."8 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in a 1997 unfair practice complaint against R.J. Reynolds, and U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, in a 2006 judgment that R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies violated civil racketeering laws, both concluded that the company’s perceived need to attract more of the youth market led to the launch of the Joe Camel campaign in 1988. Their conclusions:  The FTC: “The purpose of the Joe Camel campaign was to reposition the Camel brand to make it attractive to younger smokers.” The FTC also charged that the Joe Camel campaign was successful
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/microsites/camel/Camel_History.pdf


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 23, 2022)

playtime said:


> it was a ridiculous comparison.  anyhoo -  the point i was making was that the jurors thought remington was liable.



Jurors?

In a case that was settled out of court?

You better quit while you're behind, lest you risk making it even more clear you have no ide what you;re talking about.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 23, 2022)

This thread would have a fraction of posts if people read the link in the op.

It explains where Remington fell foul.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He had a stroke, you dumbass.....and your hitler buddies paraded him around to justify their Reichstag fire moment...



He had a stroke after being involved in a violent altercation with rioters...


----------



## Abatis (Feb 23, 2022)

playtime said:


> the point i was making was that the jurors thought remington was liable.



What jurors?


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 23, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> That's an absolutely disgusting outcome...


No it's not.  Some one must be held responsible.  They're the one with the money and the NRA are in theirs sites next.
I hope they screw the arse off both of them. This is just the beginning.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


another win for the good guys.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> No it's not.  Some one must be held responsible.  They're the one with the money and the NRA are in theirs sites next.
> I hope they screw the arse off both of them. This is just the beginning.



It's time to start holding Ford and Chevy responsible for DUI's...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> He had a stroke after being involved in a violent altercation with rioters...




Moron, he had the stroke over a day later....you idiot.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 24, 2022)

candycorn said:


> another win for the good guys.




Yes.....you have reality dyslexia.........the good guys for you are the ones who are really the bad guys.......lawyers and foolish parents who seek to make money off the deaths of their children by persecuting innocent people who had no role in their children's deaths...

That is evil....not good.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> It's time to start holding Ford and Chevy responsible for DUI's...




These other industries better get on board and defend the gun companies....because this won't stop at the gun companies..........


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron, he had the stroke over a day later....you idiot.....


You mean after he got the shit beaten out of him by protestors... um, yeah... that's what happens when you go through a traumatic experience. 



2aguy said:


> Yes.....you have reality dyslexia.........the good guys for you are the ones who are really the bad guys.......lawyers and foolish parents who seek to make money off the deaths of their children by persecuting innocent people who had no role in their children's deaths...
> 
> That is evil....not good.



Except the gun industry isn't "innocent".  They put profit over people's lives.   They made it easy for the bad guys to get guns, opposing even the most benign gun control measure that would have kept guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza.  



2aguy said:


> These other industries better get on board and defend the gun companies....because this won't stop at the gun companies..........



Actually, other industries are already liable.  Only the gun industry had to run to Congress to get special protections for their negligence


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes.....you have reality dyslexia.........the good guys for you are the ones who are really the bad guys.......lawyers and foolish parents who seek to make money off the deaths of their children by persecuting innocent people who had no role in their children's deaths...
> 
> That is evil....not good.



I guess since Adam Lanza didn't state a motive when he mowed down 26 people, you would think he should get no jail time too?


----------



## playtime (Feb 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jurors?
> 
> In a case that was settled out of court?



i didn't realize it was settled outa court -  BECAUSE it was gonna go to trial.  oh well ... remington pussied out, cause they were gonna get slammed even harder.



M14 Shooter said:


> You better quit while you're behind, lest you risk making it even more clear you have no ide what you;re talking about.



it matters not -  cause remington lost.

lost bigley & the precedent has been set.  whine all YOU want, 'cause it's now a done deal.

accept it.  now go shoot something to soothe 'yer' loss


----------



## playtime (Feb 24, 2022)

Abatis said:


> What jurors?



last i read, it was gonna go to court.  my bad, but either way -  they lost bigley.

& now the door has been opened for other future cases


----------



## playtime (Feb 24, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> It's time to start holding Ford and Chevy responsible for DUI's...



when they market that drinking & driving makes you a 'man' ... then that may come to fruition.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 24, 2022)

playtime said:


> last i read, it was gonna go to court.  my bad, but either way -  they lost bigley.
> 
> & now the door has been opened for other future cases



The insurance companies made a business decision.  The insurance companies had no horse in the race, no reason to fight / defend against the lawsuit on its merits.  All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement.

Upon writing the checks and giving the corporate documents to the plaintiffs (from a company that no longer exists), the lawsuit is *WITHDRAWN*.

No entity was found legally responsible under the _claims_ of the lawsuit -- there is no legal decision or agreement that the claims of the lawsuit were proven / sustained.  After the requirements of the settlement are satisfied, the claims made in the suit, as legal arguments, _evaporate_.

No "precedent" is created, no grounds for lawsuits were created that extend to other states.    The settlement is _legally_ just a "go away" surrender to fancy lawyering extortion, nothing else.

All that can be said to survive is a new litigation being filed in CT, under the specific law cited in CT, against a gun company chartered / incorporated  / registered in CT.

.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except the gun industry isn't "innocent".  They put profit over people's lives.   They made it easy for the bad guys to get guns, opposing even the most benign gun control measure that would have kept guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza.



In Connecticut, it's illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza had a Glock 20SF handgun.

Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Please, pray tell, what "benign gun control measure" would've kept Lanza from obtaining that handgun? Furthermore, Connecticut does not allow private ownership of so-called "assault weapons" except by law enforcement officers. Given that's the case, how on earth did he ever get a hold of that Bushmaster?

The fact of that matter is that someone's who's determined enough can get pretty much whatever he wants. The sad reality is that laws only impact the law-abiding...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You mean after he got the shit beaten out of him by protestors... um, yeah... that's what happens when you go through a traumatic experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron...dying over a day later had nothing to do with his stroke...not going to the gym did him in....

The gun industry didn't pull the trigger you asshole.....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by two slave owners, that keeps releasing violent gun offenders, the ones who are doing almost all of the shooting...you and your party keep letting them out to shoot more people....

The gun industry has no special protections you lying asshole....if they put out a defective product they can already be sued....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 24, 2022)

candycorn said:


> I guess since Adam Lanza didn't state a motive when he mowed down 26 people, you would think he should get no jail time too?




Again...once you state the motive in the amber guyger case, you will be able to take this forward.....you refuse to tell us the motive, even with the trial over....which shows that this was a lynching of a police officer...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

The most pathetic part of all of this is that the parents said that, in the long run "it was never about the money", yet they turned down a settlement offer of $33 million dollars...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> No it's not.  Some one must be held responsible.  They're the one with the money and the NRA are in theirs sites next.
> I hope they screw the arse off both of them. This is just the beginning.


Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry, and irrational fear.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

playtime said:


> lost bigley & the precedent has been set.


"Precedent" is set when a court rules on an issue.
There's no precedent set in a case settled out of court.
Please - try harder.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

playtime said:


> i didn't realize it was settled outa court -


Because you chose to remain ignorant of the issue at hand, and illustrate that ignorance in your post.
Well done.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 24, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The insurance companies made a business decision. The insurance companies had no horse in the race, no reason to fight / defend against the lawsuit on its merits. All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement.



Obviously, you've never had to try to get money out of an insurance company.  They have armies of lawyers to fight these kinds of battles on retainer.   If they gave up, it's because once they realized the "Crisis Actors" (joke on Dale Smith ) had access to their records, they were well and screwed.  Except now we all have access to their internal memos.  



Abatis said:


> Upon writing the checks and giving the corporate documents to the plaintiffs (from a company that no longer exists), the lawsuit is *WITHDRAWN*.
> 
> No entity was found legally responsible under the _claims_ of the lawsuit -- there is no legal decision or agreement that the claims of the lawsuit were proven / sustained. After the requirements of the settlement are satisfied, the claims made in the suit, as legal arguments, _evaporate_.



Okay, if you really need to believe that.   But there are 43,000 people who die of gun violence every year, and if this could be sued over, so could a lot of others... 



Canon Shooter said:


> In Connecticut, it's illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza had a Glock 20SF handgun.
> 
> Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Please, pray tell, what "benign gun control measure" would've kept Lanza from obtaining that handgun? *Furthermore, Connecticut does not allow private ownership of so-called "assault weapons" except by law enforcement officers.* Given that's the case, how on earth did he ever get a hold of that Bushmaster?
> 
> The fact of that matter is that someone's who's determined enough can get pretty much whatever he wants. The sad reality is that laws only impact the law-abiding...



His mother was able to buy one.  That's the point.  She was able to buy one because Remington decided that crazy preppers were a key market, as they buy lots of guns and lots of ammo.  They made sure that it was very easy to circumvent the law through gun show loopholes, out of state sellers and other tricks to make sure the crazies got their guns.  And the thing was, this is what the internal memos would have shown. 

Oh, back on ignore you go...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron...dying over a day later had nothing to do with his stroke...not going to the gym did him in....
> 
> The gun industry didn't pull the trigger you asshole.....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by two slave owners, that keeps releasing violent gun offenders, the ones who are doing almost all of the shooting...you and your party keep letting them out to shoot more people....



Uh, DickTiny, if I'm in a fight on Tuesday and I die on Wednesday, most sensible people would realize those two things are related. 

Adam Lanza was never let go by a "Democratic Judge".   We lock up 2 million people and arm ourselves with guns, and we are hte most dangerous advanced country in the world to live in.  



2aguy said:


> The gun industry has no special protections you lying asshole....if they put out a defective product they can already be sued....



They put out a dangerous product and marketed it to dangerous people.  Shit, we show more concern with TOYS than we do guns.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Obviously, you've never had to try to get money out of an insurance company.  They have armies of lawyers to fight these kinds of battles on retainer.



Exactly! Whose retainer were these lawyers on? 

Remington is no more, Remington wasn't keeping the lawyers; it was the insurance companies paying for the legal defense against the lawsuit.  But this wasn't a normal legal defense against a lawsuit;  the insurance companies had no interest in defending Remington or trying to defeat the lawsuit's legal arguments. 

The insurance companies' legal interest, their only reason for paying the "armies of lawyers" was to mitigate their exposure to a monetary settlement that THEY were on the hook for.

The settlement had nothing to do with the lawsuit's arguments or even Remington's actions.



JoeB131 said:


> If they gave up, it's because once they realized the [victim families] had access to their records, they were well and screwed.



From my understanding, those documents are a part of the settlement, to be surrendered upon closure; not something the plaintiffs had in their possession and were using for leverage.



JoeB131 said:


> Except now we all have access to their internal memos.



Maybe if they burn them in a barrel it will keep them warm for a while . . .   Beyond that they are worthless. 



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, if you really need to believe that.



Huh?  The word "withdrawn" is in the announcement of the settlement; future appearances of the parties in court will finalize the specifics, ending with the suit being withdrawn:







JoeB131 said:


> But there are 43,000 people who die of gun violence every year, and if this could be sued over, so could a lot of others...



I've already explained why you are wrong.  There is only one thing this settlement can be argued to do; that is to chill the insurance marketplace for gun companies. 

But, as long as a state doesn't have an Unfair Trade Practices Act like
 Connecticut does, with the language that can be exploited against the PLCCA like this suit did, on what grounds will your hypothetical suits be filed? 

You need to understand that in this instance, in this particular suit testing the PLCCA's exception of immunity for wrongful marketing*, the right of action is created by the CT law and only that law, it does not exist at common law in all states.

 *The law excepts:

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—​​(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or​​(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;​


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> His mother was able to buy one.  That's the point.  She was able to buy one because Remington decided that crazy preppers were a key market, as they buy lots of guns and lots of ammo.  They made sure that it was very easy to circumvent the law through gun show loopholes, out of state sellers and other tricks to make sure the crazies got their guns.  And the thing was, this is what the internal memos would have shown.



Did she buy the guns at a gun show from an out of state seller? Connecticut's laws are pretty harsh. I'd be surprised if such a purchase was legal...



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, back on ignore you go...



That's right, I forgot how big a whiny pussy you are...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, DickTiny, if I'm in a fight on Tuesday and I die on Wednesday, most sensible people would realize those two things are related.
> 
> Adam Lanza was never let go by a "Democratic Judge".   We lock up 2 million people and arm ourselves with guns, and we are hte most dangerous advanced country in the world to live in.
> 
> ...




Total killed by mass public shooters?

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

Number murdered by criminals in 2019?

10,258......

That means, you idiot....that the democrat party judges and prosecutors, the people you vote for, the members of the political party created by slave owners, caused the majority of those 10,258 murders by releasing repeat gun offenders over and over again......

So you, trying to use mass public shootings to make your point is just fucking stupid.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Exactly! Whose retainer were these lawyers on?
> 
> Remington is no more, Remington wasn't keeping the lawyers; it was the insurance companies paying for the legal defense against the lawsuit. But this wasn't a normal legal defense against a lawsuit; the insurance companies had no interest in defending Remington or trying to defeat the lawsuit's legal arguments.
> 
> ...



Uh, they paid out 73 million dollars... because they knew if this ever got in front of a jury, they'd be screwed. 



Abatis said:


> From my understanding, those documents are a part of the settlement, to be surrendered upon closure; not something the plaintiffs had in their possession and were using for leverage.



Actually, more like they got them during discovery.  Which is why they settled.  



Abatis said:


> Maybe if they burn them in a barrel it will keep them warm for a while . . . Beyond that they are worthless.



Except for showing the recklessness of the gun industry.  



Abatis said:


> Huh? The word "withdrawn" is in the announcement of the settlement; future appearances of the parties in court will finalize the specifics, ending with the suit being withdrawn:





Abatis said:


> I've already explained why you are wrong. There is only one thing this settlement can be argued to do; that is to chill the insurance marketplace for gun companies.



Works for me.   If gunmakers can't get insurance, they can't get business loans to keep operating. Unless they change their business practices.  



Abatis said:


> But, as long as a state doesn't have an Unfair Trade Practices Act like
> Connecticut does, with the language that can be exploited against the PLCCA like this suit did, on what grounds will your hypothetical suits be filed?
> 
> You need to understand that in this instance, in this particular suit testing the PLCCA's exception of immunity for wrongful marketing*, the right of action is created by the CT law and only that law, it does not exist at common law in all states.



It doesn't have to exist in all states.  Just a few states where some of the 43,000 gun deaths happen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Total killed by mass public shooters?








						List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




703 in 2021


----------



## Canon Shooter (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."

By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims. 

I blame Biden...


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, they paid out 73 million dollars... because they knew if this ever got in front of a jury, they'd be screwed.



I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,: 

"All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement."​​


JoeB131 said:


> Actually, more like they got them during discovery.  Which is why they settled.



Since there was no trial how could the plaintiffs have received any discovery?  The entire legal battle, including the CT supreme court decision preceding the settlement, was to decide *IF* there would be a trial. 



JoeB131 said:


> Except for showing the recklessness of the gun industry.



Which will be useless . . .  Did the negligence of Ford putting the gas tank in the cab, behind the seat of F150's, burning people to death, help people suing Chevrolet or Toyota or Kia for gas tank caused wrongful deaths? 

You are arguing a theory that has never been heard, let alone decided upon in any court. You believe the lawsuit's theory might be proven in the corporate records of a company that _a)_ no longer exists and _b)_ no one remains to speak for, or defend their interests . . . To what end? Do you think Remington's records will be introduced as evidence in a lawsuit against another company for their actions?

You don't even understand how goofy your main argument is; that you want to apply a theory that's never been argued or proven, to hold other companies liable citing claims against Remington for 'proximate cause' damages that were never proven.



JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.   If gunmakers can't get insurance, they can't get business loans to keep operating. Unless they change their business practices.



Well, the simple cure for it would be a disclaimer on any gun advertisement that the maker, distributor and retail seller does not endorse or promote any illegal or irresponsible use.  Kind of like a car commercial showing a car being driven recklessly (under any law for a public road in the USA) and then the script rolls, "_*professional driver on a closed course, do not attempt*_" . . .



JoeB131 said:


> It doesn't have to exist in all states.  Just a few states where some of the 43,000 gun deaths happen.



Saying that proves you have no knowledge of the fundamental principles of law, especially applied to the the particulars of this case.  This case was allowed to advance *ONLY* because of the novel interpretation of CT's law in the suit. 

No common law right to action exists for the reasoning offered in this case. The right to action is created by the CT law being applied to the PLCCA's exemptions . . .  In particular allowing suits to be brought if the, "_manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was _*a proximate cause of the harm*" . . .

No new general rule for the nation that carves out of the PLCCA a new path to sue was created by this settlement.  Add in that the lawsuit will be *withdrawn*, that the suit will no longer exist and and its arguments will evaporate, means you are trying to catch smoke in a bucket.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,:
> 
> "All they wanted to do was get out from under the financial burden of open-ended litigation of the lawsuit and (possible to likely) emotionally driven, jury awarded compensation to the plaintiffs, far exceeding the settlement."​


It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.



I've enjoyed debating gun rights _vs_ gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.

I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that *everything* anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.

 I post that way because gun-control / gun rights threads on political boards are among the more heavily read, they always lead in page views (on boards that display that).

I know that my technique looks like I give them too much respect, but really my respect is for the interested people reading this topic who may not be ideologues, those that just want (need) to read the best answer and the best information.  We gun rights posters should hold ourselves to a higher standard, to refrain from the petty because the larger _real_ debate (constitutional government) is too damn important.

I do lose my patience sometimes but I can't really get mad at an anti-gunner's purposeful obtuseness and refusal to understand.  They are some of the most dishonest people in political discussion; I have to remind myself that just exposing how duplicitous they and their arguments are is the ultimate objective.

I can't take their repetition of idiocy and trolling comments personally; exposing them as the policy charlatans they are is its own reward.

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> "As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."
> 
> By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims.
> 
> I blame Biden...


    The criteria used, _--4 or more people shot-- _in one incident is a big net that catches a lot of incidents that are just the everyday violence that happens a few times a week where most shootings happen and are the kind of shootings one doesn't really pay much attention to, except that they lead the local news in just about any large city.

They are the drug corner drive-by's, the drug house rip squads, retaliation shootings at candlelight vigils for other shooting victims and just general mayhem of thug life.

In other words, the _--4 or more people shot_-- is great for the DEMedia to throw out histrionic numbers as you cite above, but a close examination destroys their "Whitey on a rampage" narrative.  These "mass shootings" are what most shooting are, inner-city young Black guys shooting other inner-city young Black guys over stupid shit that nobody but inner-city young Black guys care about.








__





						Mass shooting database
					






					www.mass-shootings.info
				




And the ultimate truth is, there ain't a gun control law that will EVER slow that down because it is a rot in culture that celebrates the criminal lifestyle and has zero respect for life . . .

And yes, that is directly attributable to leftist / Progressive / Democrat policies so yes, I too blame Joe Xiden.

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> 703 in 2021



Here is a collage of photos of every person convicted, charged or wanted in connection with the shooting of 4+ people or who were killed or killed themselves before they could be charged in 2021.  





There is a clickable mirror of this image that shows the particulars of each shooter/shooting.





__





						Mass shooting database
					






					www.mass-shootings.info


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wrong, dipshit.....they include gang members shooting each other over gang territory, drugs, and girlfriends.....those are not mass public shootings in any sense of the meaning of the term....

A mass public shooting is when an individual or individuals enter a public space to murder random strangers........and that was 6 times in 2021...out of over 330 million Americans..

You can't stampede Americans into giving up their Right to guns......especially now with your buddy putin and Ukraine right in front of everyone....with 6 mass public shootings. out of 330 million people.......

So, you lie....and add gang members in democrat party controlled cities where they keep releasing the shooters over and over again so they can keep shooting people, to increase your fake number....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*




Deaths in actual mass public shootings... ( someone do the math and tell us what percent of 10,235 the number 73 equals.....)

*Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...


 Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...

*
2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 25, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> "As of December 2021, 693 (of which 303 resulted in zero deaths) fit the Mass Shooting Tracker project criterion, leaving 703 people dead and 2,842 injured, for a total of 3,545 total victims, some including the shooter(s)."
> 
> By comparison, there were 614 mass shootings in 2020, resulting in 446 deaths and 2,515 injuries, for a total of 3,061 victims.
> 
> I blame Biden...




And the Mass shooting tracker is wrong....they mix criminals shooting each other with individuals who target random strangers...the two are not the same, but if they don't mix up the two categories...you get these actual results...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*




Deaths in actual mass public shootings... ( someone do the math and tell us what percent of 10,235 the number 73 equals.....)

*Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...


 Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...

*
2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It is impossible to explain things to people who refuse to understand.




He understands...he just doesn't care...he is a racist and a fascist.....he wants people disarmed so they can't defend themselves against him and his leftist goon squads...


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I've enjoyed debating gun rights _vs_ gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.
> 
> I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that *everything* anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.
> 
> ...




Exactly....this is why I engage this lunatics as well...


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I've said that repeatedly, e.g.,:



Yawn... your argument ignores the fact that Remington raised the white flag. 



Abatis said:


> Which will be useless . . . Did the negligence of Ford putting the gas tank in the cab, behind the seat of F150's, burning people to death, help people suing Chevrolet or Toyota or Kia for gas tank caused wrongful deaths?



Since the other gun makers engage in the same reckeless behavior... um, yeah, the other gun makers are screwed.  



Abatis said:


> Well, the simple cure for it would be a disclaimer on any gun advertisement that the maker, distributor and retail seller does not endorse or promote any illegal or irresponsible use. Kind of like a car commercial showing a car being driven recklessly (under any law for a public road in the USA) and then the script rolls, "_*professional driver on a closed course, do not attempt*_" . . .



Except the gun makers market specifically to the crazies, that's kind of the point.  There's really no market for the guy who bought a gun once because he was nervous during a crime spike, put it in the closet and forgot about it. 

The real money to be made is marketing to the crazies...  

Come on, tell us true, how many guns do you own? 



Abatis said:


> Saying that proves you have no knowledge of the fundamental principles of law, especially applied to the the particulars of this case. This case was allowed to advance *ONLY* because of the novel interpretation of CT's law in the suit.



Okay, didn't you clowns say that this would never get to a settlement?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He understands...he just doesn't care...he is a racist and a fascist.....he wants people disarmed so they can't defend themselves against him and his leftist goon squads...



Nope, I worry about crazy fucks like you with guns.  Frankly, the best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun fetishist.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Here is a collage of photos of every person convicted, charged or wanted in connection with the shooting of 4+ people or who were killed or killed themselves before they could be charged in 2021.



Yes, we know you are racist.  We got that.  You needs you your guns to protect you from the darkies!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I've enjoyed debating gun rights _vs_ gun control for over 30 years. My replies to a person like @JoeB131 are rarely directed to them and are never made with any expectation that I would convince them of anything.
> 
> I quote their statements and arguments the way I do to deconstruct them and I rebut / refute / destroy them precisely point by point, to show to people interested in the topic that *everything* anti-gun rights people say is wrong or a least emotional drivel, unconnected to any legal principle.



Yawn, guy, you are a legend in your own mind. 

The reality- when the gun industry was exposed for what it is, someone selling a dangerous product to unstable people, they folded like a cheap suit.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn... your argument ignores the fact that Remington raised the white flag.



Whatever, you are very experienced in constructing false narratives to maintain your incorrect opinions so nothing new here.  Remington declared bankruptcy and liquidated leaving the insurance companies to resolve the case.  No liability or responsibility was ever assigned to or assumed by Remington and soon the entire suit will be withdrawn.  



JoeB131 said:


> Since the other gun makers engage in the same reckeless behavior... um, yeah, the other gun makers are screwed.



I would recomend you read the CT supreme court opinion rendered before the settlement.  At least then you might act like you know what the kitchen sink was initially being argued by the plaintiffs, what the court said was a no-go and what theory actually survived to be heard at trial (that never happened) and perhaps you would then realize you don't have any clue what the F you are talking about.



JoeB131 said:


> Except the gun makers market specifically to the crazies, that's kind of the point.  There's really no market for the guy who bought a gun once because he was nervous during a crime spike, put it in the closet and forgot about it.
> 
> The real money to be made is marketing to the crazies...



Well, that's all wild conjecture and wishful thinking garbage with zero relationship to any legal argument from the Remington lawsuit.



JoeB131 said:


> Come on, tell us true, how many guns do you own?



Between one and fifty.



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, didn't you clowns say that this would never get to a settlement?



I never did, my only comments on this lawsuit are in this thread.  
.


JoeB131 said:


> Yes, we know you are racist.  We got that.  You needs you your guns to protect you from the darkies!!!



And that's how a leftist wackjob tells everyone they have nothing worthwhile to say and knows they lost the debate.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, you are a legend in your own mind.



It is a pity the stupidity anti-gunner argument has devolved into.  

Back in the early 90's you guys had the lower federal court case law on your side and there were many good debaters that could formulate logical, reasoned and supported, law-based argument. Ahhh, the good old days on USENET, the talk.politics.guns newsgroup.

And then _Emerson_ came down and then _Heller_ and whew! Your brains broke.



JoeB131 said:


> The reality- when the gun industry was exposed for what it is, someone selling a dangerous product to unstable people, they folded like a cheap suit.



Just because you preface your statement with "reality" doesn't' mean it is.  In fact I can be sure it is your personal fantasy, disconnected from law or the Constitution and usually, common sense.  

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 26, 2022)

Wow, it's fun watching the gun nuts cry in their beer. 



Abatis said:


> Whatever, you are very experienced in constructing false narratives to maintain your incorrect opinions so nothing new here. Remington declared bankruptcy and liquidated leaving the insurance companies to resolve the case. No liability or responsibility was ever assigned to or assumed by Remington and soon the entire suit will be withdrawn.



Uh, guy, when your forced to declare bankruptcy AND your insurance companies fold like a cheap suit, that means you lost. 



Abatis said:


> I would recomend you read the CT supreme court opinion rendered before the settlement. At least then you might act like you know what the kitchen sink was initially being argued by the plaintiffs, what the court said was a no-go and what theory actually survived to be heard at trial (that never happened) and perhaps you would then realize you don't have any clue what the F you are talking about.



Okay, you keep telling yourself that you didn't get completely spanked on this one.  I imagine it's only a matter of time before we see lawyers on TV with commercials, "Did you or a loved one suffer because of gun violence? You may be entitled to compensation!!!"  



Abatis said:


> And that's how a leftist wackjob tells everyone they have nothing worthwhile to say and knows they lost the debate.



Oh, get real, the person who lost the debate is the one who says, "It's okay that we have gun violence, because it was a bunch of darkies involved!" 

And to a degree, you have a point.  If we gave as much of a shit about the black children being mowed down by "Second Amendment Enthusiasts" as we do about some white preschoolers, we'd have banned guns by now.


----------



## playtime (Feb 26, 2022)

Abatis said:


> No "precedent" is created, no grounds for lawsuits were created that extend to other states.    The settlement is _legally_ just a "go away" surrender to fancy lawyering extortion, nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> .



uh-huh.  just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.


----------



## playtime (Feb 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Precedent" is set when a court rules on an issue.
> There's no precedent set in a case settled out of court.
> Please - try harder.



BREAKING|Feb 18, 2022,03:22pm EST|9,699 views
California Moves Forward With Gun Control Bill That Mimics Structure Of Texas Abortion Ban​Updated Feb 18, 2022, 03:26pm EST
TOPLINE​
California officials on Friday threw their weight behind legislation that would let private citizens sue firearm manufacturers and distributors if they violate the state’s assault weapons ban or other gun control measures—the first state effort to mimic the structure of Texas’ near-total ban on abortions for a different political issue.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced Assembly Bill 1594 (AB 1594) Friday and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) spoke out in support of it at a press conference, promoting the legislation after the governor first suggested it in December and state lawmakers introduced it in January.
The bill would let anyone, including private citizens, bring civil lawsuits against “gun industry members” whose violations of federal, state or local gun control laws “[cause]
injury or death,” or who have engaged in “unfair business practices.”

The Associated Press notes the bill would let people sue over violations of California’s assault weapons ban, or if gun dealers knowingly sell firearms to people who can’t legally own them.
Newsom noted Friday the bill could also help people sue over “ghost guns”—untraceable firearm kits that people can buy without a background check and assemble at home—which have become a growing issue in California and have already prompted multiple local bans and lawsuits for deceptive trade practices.
The bill’s provision allowing lawsuits copies Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), which bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks into a pregnancy and is enforced through private lawsuits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion.

Newsom said Friday he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court, which has repeatedly declined to strike down SB 8, could not overturn AB 1594, because “it is quite literally modeled after the law they just upheld in Texas.”
California Moves Forward With Gun Control Bill That Mimics Structure Of Texas Abortion Ban

that precedent was set using a court ruling & is now applied to a completely different subject.  so are you saying that since the remington 'settlement' was outa court, the framework cannot be used in another case that involves the manufacturing & marketing of other firearms?


----------



## playtime (Feb 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because you chose to remain ignorant of the issue at hand, and illustrate that ignorance in your post.
> Well done.



seems yer ignorant of the precedent the texas law set up allowing other states to use & now 'marketing' no doubt will also re: yer special phallic symbols.

lol ...  you sound a tad CONcerned there shooter boy.

good.


----------



## playtime (Feb 26, 2022)

btw -  CT doesn't have some of the 'strictest' gun 'restrictions' in the nation .... they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS.

i live in CT, & have several firearms in my home, legally owned by hubby; from simmple BB guns & air pistols to a glock to .22 long guns & shot guns.  he has NEVER had a problem obtaining one or getting ammo. & he has a license to carry.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 26, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, it's fun watching the gun nuts cry in their beer.



It's even more fun watching leftist anti-gunners dissemble, deflect and discombobulate.



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, when your forced to declare bankruptcy AND your insurance companies fold like a cheap suit, that means you lost.



I've only explained the settlement and the law; I can't "lose" anything. You are simply wrong and inflating what happened and its effect far beyond what it  is.  Just like Kash Patel was wrong in claiming Durham's filing said Trumps servers were "infiltrated", you are doing the exact same stupid fucking shit with this.



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, you keep telling yourself that you didn't get completely spanked on this one.



You have yet to show exactly what I'm wrong about in the law or how I have explained the settlement incorrectly.



JoeB131 said:


> I imagine it's only a matter of time before we see lawyers on TV with commercials, "Did you or a loved one suffer because of gun violence? You may be entitled to compensation!!!"



No doubt for opportunistic vultures, but without a law like CT's they are wasting their time.



JoeB131 said:


> Oh, get real, the person who lost the debate is the one who says, "It's okay that we have gun violence, because it was a bunch of darkies involved!"



No, the person who loses the debate is always the one that continuously violates _Fundamentals of Debate 101_; throwing out logical fallacies is the practice of low intellect losers.

The person who loses the debate is _always_ the one that never actually rebuts he argument presented to him and instead invents statements and positions for his opponent that were never uttered by his opponent.




JoeB131 said:


> And to a degree, you have a point.  If we gave as much of a shit about the black children being mowed down by "Second Amendment Enthusiasts" as we do about some white preschoolers, we'd have banned guns by now.



You are incapable of understanding my point.  Your thinking is so polluted and corrupted by leftist ideological dogma you are immune to rational, fact based discussion.   All you can compose in that crippled brain is "racist!"

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 26, 2022)

playtime said:


> uh-huh.  just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.



So you're another one of them, huh; you find it impossible to maintain continuity . . .  As soon as one of your asinine opinions is demonstrated to be, well, _asinine_, you jet off onto another tangent.

So no, there is no "just like" and certainly not "just like" the hyperbolic way you characterize the Texas law.

Is being so disingenuous a natural thing or is it taught at '_how to become an obnoxious leftist anti-gunner_' school?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

playtime said:


> uh-huh.  just like the 'law' in texas re: putting bounties on the heads of women & those that help them obtain a legal procedure...


Illegal procedure.


playtime said:


> can now be used in other states when it comes to firearms.


Only if it  is illegal for them to own a firearm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

playtime said:


> California officials on Friday threw their weight behind legislation that would let private citizens sue firearm manufacturers and distributors if they violate the state’s assault weapons ban or other gun control measures


Yes.  And so, someone has to violate the law.
If no one violates the law, there's no lawsuit.
Just like in TX.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

playtime said:


> seems yer ignorant of the precedent the texas law set up allowing other states to use & now 'marketing' no doubt will also re: yer special phallic symbols.


Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

playtime said:


> btw -  CT doesn't have some of the 'strictest' gun 'restrictions' in the nation .... they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS.


CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
Remember Sandyhook?  Happened in CT.
Why?
CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 27, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I've only explained the settlement and the law; I can't "lose" anything. You are simply wrong and inflating what happened and its effect far beyond what it is. Just like Kash Patel was wrong in claiming Durham's filing said Trumps servers were "infiltrated", you are doing the exact same stupid fucking shit with this.


Oh, please, we've had 14 pages of gun fetishists screaming like stuck pigs, because the gun industry might actually clean up their act.  



Abatis said:


> No, the person who loses the debate is always the one that continuously violates _Fundamentals of Debate 101_; throwing out logical fallacies is the practice of low intellect losers.



This isn't some pussy-ass high school debate, buddy.  



Abatis said:


> You are incapable of understanding my point. Your thinking is so polluted and corrupted by leftist ideological dogma you are immune to rational, fact based discussion. All you can compose in that crippled brain is "racist!"



uh, you are the one who put up a bunch of pictures of people of color... not me.


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Illegal procedure.



false.


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  And so, someone has to violate the law.
> If no one violates the law, there's no lawsuit.
> Just like in TX.



federal law  -  which supersedes state laws 

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that *the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions*.

states that abortion is legal until viability.

' 6 weeks ' gestation  is well below viability.


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance.



& yet remington lost.

seems you can't get over that factoid.

that case was the 'first' & you think there will never be another one?

_lol...._


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
> Remember Sandyhook?  Happened in CT.
> Why?
> CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.



because adam lanza's mother was a survivalist nutter, who even despite adam's increasingly nutter behavior, who literally IGNORED the shrinks who said he was a nutter  went with him on several occasions to firing ranges & let him know where the key was to the gun safe.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, please, we've had 14 pages of gun fetishists screaming like stuck pigs, because the gun industry might actually clean up their act.



No, we have had 14 pages of rational, fact based corrections of you and your ilk's continuous hysterical exaggerations and misrepresentations of what the settlement was and what it means going forward  _legally_.



JoeB131 said:


> This isn't some pussy-ass high school debate, buddy.



It's excruciatingly worse, _because_ there's nobody keeping score and maintaining decorum. You are your ilk are free to say the most ridiculous things and promote profoundly incorrect legal theories tethered to no other principle but your corrupt, leftist, anti-constitutional political agenda.



JoeB131 said:


> uh, you are the one who put up a bunch of pictures of people of color... not me.



I did not post any pictures of people because of their race . . . 

I posted a collage of portraits/mug shots of those believed responsible for every 2021 mass shooting for which the identity of the perp/suspect is known.

Do you have any real challenge to what I posed on a factual basis or is it just emotional overreaction?

What was *your* intent, what were you trying to convey posting "_*703 in 2021*_" in response to 2aguy asking, "_Total killed by mass public shooters?_"???

Not only is your answer egregiously, dishonestly wrong, you posted it to make a particular statement in support of your, '_get rid of guns, that'll cure everything_' agenda . . .

When regular people hear the term "mass shooting" a mental image of what that is and who is doing it comes to mind.  That image is closer to what Mother Jones presents, a random, lone-wolf (usually white guy) spree shooting event, *not* associated with criminal acts like stash house rip-squads or good ol' drive-bys . . .

So the two part question is, why are *you* lying about how many people are killed in "mass shootings"?

Second, are you arguing that the same policy remedies to address lone 35 y.o. white incel random spree "mass shooters" will also address 15 -24 y.o. gang-banger's shooting each other over drug corners?

Final questions, why do you feel the need to be such a disingenuous shit-talker?  Why do you feel he need to call me a racist just because you can't defend your stupid anti-gun position from simple logical and legal challenge?

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> & yet remington lost.



You are either talking out of your ass from complete ignorance or you are lying . . .

Which is it?










"*dismiss the pending . . . action, with prejudice, against the Remington defendants.*"

Please, oh wise one, explain to me how has Remington "lost"?

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 27, 2022)

Abatis said:


> No, 14 pages of rational, fact based corrections of you and your ilk's continuous hysterical exaggerations and misrepresentations of what the settlement was and what it means going forward _legally_.



Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?   



Abatis said:


> It's excruciatingly worse, _because_ there's nobody keeping score and maintaining decorum. You are your ilk are free to say the most ridiculous things and promote profoundly incorrect legal theories tethered to no other principle but your corrupt, leftist, anti-constitutional political agenda.



The Constitution is not a suicide pact.   Most people aren't comfortable with Adam Lanza running around with an assault rifle because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.  




Abatis said:


> What was *your* intent, what were you trying to convey posting "_*703 in 2021*_" in response to @2aguy asking, "_Total killed by mass public shooters?_"???



That we have too many assholes with guns shooting up more than one person.   



Abatis said:


> When regular people hear the term "mass shooting" a mental image of what that is and who is doing it comes to mind. That image is closer to what Mother Jones presents, a random, lone-wolf (usually white guy) spree shooting events *not* associated with criminal acts like stash house rip-squads or good ol' drive-bys . . .



And what is your point?  We've already established that this racist society doesn't care about people of color. 

They only get upset when it's some little white kids getting shot up.   That's when the mutants go to battle stations, living in fear that the majority of us who don't feel a need to own a gun might finally get sick of your fetish.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 27, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Please, oh wise one, explain to me how has Remington "lost"?



Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No....the democrat party, the party whose judges and prosecutors keep releasing violent, repeat gun offenders back into black communities over and over again, do not care about people of color....as they do their best to resegregate society and try to keep Asians from getting into the best schools in the country.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....the democrat party, the party whose judges and prosecutors k



we lock up 2 million people in this country.  We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and 100 million with police records.  

We are not going to fix this problem by locking people up.


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

Abatis said:


> You are either talking out of your ass from complete ignorance or you are lying . . .
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> ...



*are they paying out cash?  or should i say their insurers?*

The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers.


"This victory should serve as a wake up call, not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up," he added. "For the insurance and banking industries, it's time to recognise the financial cost of underwriting companies that elevate profit by escalating risk."

Last July, Remington - the oldest gun-maker in the US - offered $33 million to (£24m) to the families, falling far short of the $225m they'd sought in court. They rejected the offer and said they had collected enough evidence to prove misconduct from Remington.

This settlement may encourage state governments and gun-control advocates who want to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence to press on - offering them hope that existing legal protections won't always be an insurmountable obstacle.
Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington

*& like i said -  a precedent has been established.*

_now go hug yer guns._


----------



## playtime (Feb 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.



they maxed out their insurers....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> false.


False?
You don't know the only time the TX abortion law allows for a lawsuit is if there is an illegal abortion procedure?
How can this be?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> federal law  -  which supersedes state laws
> Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that *the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions*.
> states that abortion is legal until viability.


No federal law states this.
So, the fact remains:
In CA, someone has to violate the law w/ respect to firearms before there can be a lawsuit.
If no one violates the law, there can be no lawsuit.
Just like in TX.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> & yet remington lost.


Remington didn't lose anyting - there was no judgement against them.
And they didn't pay anything - the insurance companies did.
And there was no judgement or admission of fault.
You can't seem to get over that factoid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> *& like i said -  a precedent has been established.*


Your is a statement of ignorance.
Precedent comes for rulings of a court.
There was no judicial ruling here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 27, 2022)

playtime said:


> because adam lanza's mother was a survivalist nutter, who even despite adam's increasingly nutter behavior, who literally IGNORED the shrinks who said he was a nutter  went with him on several occasions to firing ranges & let him know where the key was to the gun safe.


And thus, you admit:
-CT gun laws do nothing to protect the rights of the law abiding - gun owners or otherwise.
-CT's unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding do not work.       

This means your claim CT has "they have some of the strongest PROTECTIONS." is vapid nonsense.
Well done.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, so why are you so worried?



What do I have to be worried about?  

I have the truth and the law on my side.



JoeB131 said:


> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.



Why do you demand the government violate it then?



JoeB131 said:


> Most people aren't comfortable with Adam Lanza running around with an assault rifle because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.



This is exactly the brain breakage I spoke of before.  

You are unhinged and have abandoned composure and shunned all reason.



JoeB131 said:


> That we have too many assholes with guns shooting up more than one person.



I agree but your remedy of forced citizen disarmament is unworkable because it is not legally possible.  What government is allowed to do and is granted wide powers to do and what will work, you reject, saying we can't fix this problem by locking people up. 



JoeB131 said:


> And what is your point?  We've already established that this racist society doesn't care about people of color.



Especially true in the Democrat run jurisdictions where POC's, especially young men, are being killed at rates 20X that of whites.  

Even worse, it is in these jurisdictions that Democrats have often enjoyed unchallenged power for decades that the most brutal and discriminatory policing occurs.  



JoeB131 said:


> They only get upset when it's some little white kids getting shot up.



Or a pretty white blonde girl goes missing . . . 



JoeB131 said:


> That's when the mutants go to battle stations, living in fear that the majority of us who don't feel a need to own a gun might finally get sick of your fetish.



Gun control is dead.  No amount of histrionics and hand-waving freakoutery will alter that political and legal reality.  

2022 will be the year the gun control movement is crushed.  First smash will be by SCOTUS in June which will herald a tidal wave of challenges in the Circuits and then waves of invalidations, especially in the 9th, 3rd and the 4th Circuits, of earlier decisions that sustained various "assault weapon" bans and Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) Bans.  That will just be the beginning; the restrictive purchase permitting  and the licensing of simple ownership in states like NJ, NY, CA and MD will also be invalidated.

You really have no clue what is coming do you?

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Their insurers are paying out 73 million... that's how they lost.



You have to know that makes no sense either as a logical or legal statement . . .

What if some wacko teenager steals a big delivery box truck and smashes it into a school bus, killing himself and 26 kids and teachers.

The trucking company goes into bankruptcy and is liquidated.

The various insurers of the now defunct company are still on the hook for the wreck and the victim's families decide to sue, saying the company made a dangerous product, not suitable for the roads and marketed their large, powerful trucks which regular drivers, let alone teenagers, have no reason to drive such a vehicle.

The plaintiffs find a sympathetic court that allows the novel, inventive, crazy suit to proceed. The insurance companies, companies who never built, sold or drove a truck and have no interest in defending trucking or trucks, are responsible to settle the claims, as a matter of law the suit must be resolved in some manner . . .

The insurance companies decide to settle at the limits of the policies in force when the wreck happened in an agreement that compensates the families of the victims and then the lawsuit with all of its claims, is withdrawn, closed with prejudice and can never be revisited.

No admission of responsibility was ever made, no court ever found any direct legal culpability for the truck maker, buyer, or trucking company, ending the lawsuit was just a business decision by the insurance companies to release themselves from a possibility of limitless, open-ended monetary exposure.

In other words, nobody was ever held or ever said, _my fault_; the insurance companies just cried uncle.

Nobody_ lost_, the insurance carriers just paid the limits of the policies in force.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 28, 2022)

playtime said:


> *are they paying out cash?  or should i say their insurers?*



Yes, the various insurance carriers are simply paying up to the limits of the polices in force on the date the Sandy Hook Shooting happened.



playtime said:


> The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers.



No, $73 million is the remainder of policy funds, after $2.5 million was paid previously to another entity not part of the _Sota_ action and with $500,000 being held to pay another claim.  The total amount of the limits of all policies in force was $76 million.








playtime said:


> This settlement may encourage state governments and gun-control advocates who want to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence to press on - offering them hope that existing legal protections won't always be an insurmountable obstacle.
> Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington
> 
> *& like i said -  a precedent has been established.*



The only thing that "has been established" is that you do not know what "precedent" means.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 28, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Why do you demand the government violate it then?



Because I am tired of sharing my streets with gun toting maniacs...  



Abatis said:


> This is exactly the brain breakage I spoke of before.
> 
> You are unhinged and have abandoned composure and shunned all reason.



yes, I tend to lose composure when I see small children being wheeled out in body bags because some dickless wonder like you needs to compensate for his "shortcomings".  




Abatis said:


> I agree but your remedy of forced citizen disarmament is unworkable because it is not legally possible. What government is allowed to do and is granted wide powers to do and what will work, you reject, saying we can't fix this problem by locking people up.



Except we know gun control works just fine- in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan.  







Abatis said:


> Especially true in the Democrat run jurisdictions where POC's, especially young men, are being killed at rates 20X that of whites.
> 
> Even worse, it is in these jurisdictions that Democrats have often enjoyed unchallenged power for decades that the most brutal and discriminatory policing occurs.


You mean- places where people actually live?   Hey, I admit, banning guns and putting the criminal gun industry out of business will only solve part of the problem.  We also need police reform, we need legal reform, we need treatment programs for addiction and mental illness, and we need poverty relief that is meaningful.  


Abatis said:


> 2022 will be the year the gun control movement is crushed. First smash will be by SCOTUS in June which will herald a tidal wave of challenges in the Circuits and then waves of invalidations, especially in the 9th, 3rd and the 4th Circuits, of earlier decisions that sustained various "assault weapon" bans and Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) Bans. That will just be the beginning; the restrictive purchase permitting and the licensing of simple ownership in states like NJ, NY, CA and MD will also be invalidated.



And won't do much good if the other gun companies are sued out of existence.  There might be a point where the government will have to take them over just to keep a supply of weapons for the military and law enforcement. 



Abatis said:


> Nobody_ lost_, the insurance carriers just paid the limits of the policies in force.



Uh, sorry, guy, when an insurance company pays the max, and turns over all the documents of the now defunct company, the company LOST.  Lost big time. 

Those carriers are going to go back to the other gun makers and jack up their policies to the roof.   They'll be spending more on insurance than they will on metal and manufacturing.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> we lock up 2 million people in this country.  We have another 7 million on probation or parole, and 100 million with police records.
> 
> We are not going to fix this problem by locking people up.




We aren't fixing this problem by releasing the actual criminals who keep shooting people...you idiot....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by slave owning rapists, that keep releasing these violent criminals back into black neighborhoods....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We aren't fixing this problem by releasing the actual criminals who keep shooting people...you idiot....and it is your party, the democrat party, the party created by slave owning rapists, that keep releasing these violent criminals back into black neighborhoods....



We lock up 2 million people.  We lock up so many people we have to create a whole Parole Industry to keep track of the ones we don't have cells for.  

If guns and prisons brought us security, we'd have the safest streets in teh world, not the most deadly.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Because I am tired of sharing my streets with gun toting maniacs...



So your solution is to write new laws on the sale and possession of firearms to be enforced on people who aren't the problem, making new criminals were they didn't exist before . . .  While refusing to prosecute those who have proven they can not abide by society's rules.

So you argue we can't arrest our way out of the gun violence problem so we should make new laws, broadening the scope of arrestable offenses?

It seems you want to stop giving chemo to actual cancer patients and instead give it to the healthy, in the hopes the cancer sufferers get better.



JoeB131 said:


> yes, I tend to lose composure when I see small children being wheeled out in body bags because some dickless wonder like you needs to compensate for his "shortcomings".



Goddamn, just when I thought you couldn't stoop any lower to show you truly are the lowest form of passive, anti-social human garbage!  You really should not scream your projection so loudly; if your deep-seated self-hatred of your latent homosexuality is so strong and your desire to be violent, even genocidal is even deeper, you should seek help . . .



JoeB131 said:


> Except we know gun control works just fine- in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan.



All originally enacted for political control.  Whatever crime control their disarmament laws seem to impart, is only evidence that long-subjugated and controlled populations are compliant and well behaved.  We do see when nations allow people to be introduced who do not abide or respect the traditions, culture and morality of the fatherland, prohibitory gun laws are useless and gun crime rises.



JoeB131 said:


> You mean- places where people actually live?



Well, there is a reason why the urban areas vote Democrat!  That electorate reliably votes for people who will reward anti-social /criminal behavior, e.g., Larry Krasner being reelected in Philly last November and Alvin Bragg elected in Manhattan.



JoeB131 said:


> Hey, I admit, banning guns and putting the criminal gun industry out of business will only solve part of the problem.



Your focus on doing that, excuses and emboldens criminals and generates a disdain for the law, in criminals and regular citizens alike.



JoeB131 said:


> We also need police reform, we need legal reform, we need treatment programs for addiction and mental illness, and we need poverty relief that is meaningful.



And if any of that worked or if it was ever a true priority, it would have been implemented years ago in places leftists have held absolute power for decades.  You would be heralding the overwhelming proof of the results of those policies citing dozens of studies.

Instead we have complete chaos in Democrat run, hug-a-thug hellholes with woke mayors and Soros backed, cop-hating-social-justice-let-em-loose DA's . . .

Look at Minneapolis, a leftist, socially conscious city if there ever was one . . . If ever a police force existed that should have been operating without deviation within the social justice rulebook, that should have been it.

Every possible top down reform, written by leftist academics and restorative justice warriors was implemented by -_promise-everything-deliver-nothing_- liberal politicians and their politically correct appointees in the police command structure.

Of course what we see in practice is a Derick Chauvin as a training officer and ill-trained cops *still* doing no-knock warrants and *still* killing innocent POC's, even in their beds.

How is that possible?



JoeB131 said:


> And won't do much good if the other gun companies are sued out of existence.  There might be a point where the government will have to take them over just to keep a supply of weapons for the military and law enforcement.



LMAO!



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry, guy, when an insurance company pays the max, and turns over all the documents of the now defunct company, the company LOST.  Lost big time.



Not in any legal sense.  No liability or responsibility was assigned to or accepted by any party on the "defense" side.  In fact, the cause of action (the arguments made by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) will be withdrawn and dismissed "with prejudice", meaning they can never be revived or pointed to as establishing any principle or practice in law.

While there isn't a "loser" in any honest definition of the word, that doesn't mean there isn't a winner . . .  The insurance companies simply cried uncle under the weight of highly motivated,  extortive litigation -- as is done many times a day across the country . . .  And the _lawyers_ get to walk away with a check for $30 million or so.



JoeB131 said:


> Those carriers are going to go back to the other gun makers and jack up their policies to the roof.   They'll be spending more on insurance than they will on metal and manufacturing.



Which will be passed on to the consumer. Even if gun prices double, don't worry, there will still be demand and sales . . . maybe not 3 million a month but whatever, cost has never been a factor for me.  You policies will only impact the less forutnate and arguably the people who need the RKBA / self defense the most.  Yay you!

.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.  We lock up so many people we have to create a whole Parole Industry to keep track of the ones we don't have cells for.
> 
> If guns and prisons brought us security, we'd have the safest streets in teh world, not the most deadly.




The democrat party keeps releasing the most violent, repeat gun offenders.......the political party you vote for...the political party created by slave owners......how about they just stop letting out the actual killers who shoot people...we could start there.......


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 28, 2022)

Abatis said:


> So your solution is to write new laws on the sale and possession of firearms to be enforced on people who aren't the problem, making new criminals were they didn't exist before . . . While refusing to prosecute those who have proven they can not abide by society's rules.



the vast majority of gun homicides are domestic violence, not gang violence.  In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only about 1800-2300 homicides a year can be classified as "Gang Related" (which of course, means anyone involved having belonged to a gang any time in his life.) 

I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for having a gun after we outlaw them. Just take the fucking gun and slap them with a fine.  



Abatis said:


> So you argue we can't arrest our way out of the gun violence problem so we should make new laws, broadening the scope of arrestable offenses?



Not what I argued at all.  The guns are the problem here, not the anti-social behavior of poor people.  



Abatis said:


> Goddamn, just when I thought you couldn't stoop any lower to show you truly are the lowest form of passive, anti-social human garbage! You really should not scream your projection so loudly; if your deep-seated self-hatred of your latent homosexuality is so strong and your desire to be violent, even genocidal is even deeper, you should seek help . . .



Wow... you guys get really upset when we point out you gun nuts all were cursed by God in that department. 





Abatis said:


> All originally enacted for political control. Whatever crime control their disarmament laws seem to impart, is only evidence that long-subjugated and controlled populations are compliant and well behaved. We do see when nations allow people to be introduced who do not abide or respect the traditions, culture and morality of the fatherland, prohibitory gun laws are useless and gun crime rises.



Sorry, man, we live in more of a police state than the rest of the Free World...  Trigger happy cops, prisons as far as the eye can see, active shooter drills, etc.    And they don't have anywhere near our crime levels. 



Abatis said:


> And if any of that worked or if it was ever a true priority, it would have been implemented years ago in places leftists have held absolute power for decades. You would be heralding the overwhelming proof of the results of those policies citing dozens of studies.



Again, works fine in the European countries.  No guns, few prisons, they treat addiction as a medical issue, they have extensive programs for mental health treatment.  To say a city which can't even have a gun law can't get these problems under control is silly when you can simply get guns in the town next door.  

Chicago Police traced over 800 guns to ONE gun store in Indiana....  You really think that gun store doesn't know exactly what is going on?  Do you think they would change their practices if they got sued a couple of times?  




Abatis said:


> Look at Minneapolis, a leftist, socially conscious city if there ever was one . . . If ever a police force existed that should have been operating without deviation within the social justice rulebook, that should have been it.
> 
> Every possible top down reform, written by leftist academics and restorative justice warriors was implemented by -_promise-everything-deliver-nothing_- liberal politicians and their politically correct appointees in the police command structure.
> 
> Of course what we see in practice is a Derick Chauvin as a training officer and ill-trained cops *still* doing no-knock warrants and *still* killing innocent POC's, even in their beds.



Okay, let's look at that.  Why are American cops so awful?  

Here's the thing.  British cops kill less than 5 people a year compared to American cops, who kill nearly a thousand.  Why, because cops don't have to approach every traffic stop as a potential shootout.  They know it's very unlikely they will encounter a gun in a traffic stop or a domestic disturbance.  





Abatis said:


> Which will be passed on to the consumer. Even if gun prices double, don't worry, there will still be demand and sales . . . maybe not 3 million a month but whatever, cost has never been a factor for me. You policies will only impact the less forutnate and arguably the people who need the RKBA / self defense the most. Yay you!



Nobody NEEDS a gun.  And I have no problem making guns prohibitively expensive.  

Look at cigarettes....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> the vast majority of gun homicides are domestic violence, not gang violence.  In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only about 1800-2300 homicides a year can be classified as "Gang Related" (which of course, means anyone involved having belonged to a gang any time in his life.)
> 
> I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for having a gun after we outlaw them. Just take the fucking gun and slap them with a fine.
> 
> ...




You keep lying.....

Even in domestic violence, the killers are criminals who should be in jail who kill their baby mommas....also, the stats you use lie.....


The British cops haven't had to deal with violent criminals who are willing to kill.......the 2nd World War wreched their societies for decades, something we didn't have to contend with, so the democrat here were able to destroy poor families with their "Great Society," creating fatherless homes that bred criminals....violent criminals....our violent criminals began gunning up in the 1960s......British criminals are gunning up now.....now that their welfare state has finally ruined their nuclear families and created fatherless homes....add in violent immigrant males who now control the British illegal drug trade and you have violence ramping up in merry old England...you idiot....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> the vast majority of gun homicides are domestic violence, not gang violence.  In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only about 1800-2300 homicides a year can be classified as "Gang Related" (which of course, means anyone involved having belonged to a gang any time in his life.)
> 
> I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for having a gun after we outlaw them. Just take the fucking gun and slap them with a fine.
> 
> ...




*Chicago Police traced over 800 guns to ONE gun store in Indiana.... You really think that gun store doesn't know exactly what is going on? Do you think they would change their practices if they got sued a couple of times?  

Then explain why Indiana doesn't have the same murder problem that Chicago has....you idiot...you morons can never explain why the states where the criminals go to buy their guns don't have the same levels of gun murder that the democrat controlled cities do.....

And that gun store can't deny the baby mommas buying those guns for their gang banger baby daddy's when those baby mommas, and mothers and grandmothers of gang members who buy the guns, can pass the Federally mandated background checks.....

Had they denied those women their guns, you would be calling them racists....you lying sack of crap.....*


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You keep lying.....
> 
> Even in domestic violence, the killers are criminals who should be in jail who kill their baby mommas....also, the stats you use lie.....



Ah, yes, if it's just the darkies killing each other, that's okay, and OH MY GOD, SOMEONE JUST SHOT UP A PRESCHOOL OF WHITE KIDS!!!! 

Maybe if we got as upset about all the gun violence, we'd have banned guns by now. 



2aguy said:


> The British cops haven't had to deal with violent criminals who are willing to kill.......


True.  BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET GUNS.  




2aguy said:


> the 2nd World War wreched their societies for decades, something we didn't have to contend with, so the democrat here were able to destroy poor families with their "Great Society," creating fatherless homes that bred criminals....violent criminals....our violent criminals began gunning up in the 1960s......



No one ever killed someone by screaming "I didn't have a DAD!" 
They usually need a gun to do that. 

Take away the guns, we can all safely say, "Stop being a whiner". 




2aguy said:


> British criminals are gunning up now.....now that their welfare state has finally ruined their nuclear families and created fatherless homes....add in violent immigrant males who now control the British illegal drug trade and you have violence ramping up in merry old England...you idiot....



You've been saying that for a decade, Guy.  

The British still have less than 60 gun homicides a year.  



2aguy said:


> And that gun store can't deny the baby mommas buying those guns for their gang banger baby daddy's when those baby mommas, and mothers and grandmothers of gang members who buy the guns, can pass the Federally mandated background checks.....



Sure they can.  "You don't live in this town and I don't trust your fake ID"   Done. 

Again, let the victims of gun violence start selling the gun sellers, you'd be AMAZED how quickly they clean up their act.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 1, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Ah, yes, if it's just the darkies killing each other, that's okay, and OH MY GOD, SOMEONE JUST SHOT UP A PRESCHOOL OF WHITE KIDS!!!!
> 
> Maybe if we got as upset about all the gun violence, we'd have banned guns by now.
> 
> ...




Yeah...tell the Ukrainians your plans for gun control.....you idiot....

And you know, you are the only one using the word "Darkies," to describe blacks.....you and the political party you vote for, the democrat party, the party created by slave rapists.........use blacks as tools to gain money and power, and then don't care when they are really suffering...you are vile.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 1, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> the vast majority of gun homicides are domestic violence,



Why do you lie?



JoeB131 said:


> not gang violence.   In fact, according to the National Gang Center, only about 1800-2300 homicides a year can be classified as "Gang Related" (which of course, means anyone involved having belonged to a gang any time in his life.)



I never made any statement about what percentage of murders are gang related.  What exactly do you think your muttering is rebutting?



JoeB131 said:


> I don't think anyone should be thrown in jail for having a gun after we outlaw them. Just take the fucking gun and slap them with a fine.



And if they refuse to pay the fine?  Do you understand that there are a significant percentage of people who will _*never*_ accept the proposition that the government has any legitimate power to "outlaw" guns?  

What do you do with those who do not comply?  

There is no doubt in California a majority of citizens have no affection for guns or respect for anyone who believes they possess a right to own one, and the government responds to that mandate passing laws at will on guns.  Thing is, the vast majority of citizens who own "banned" (but grandfathered) guns, have refused to comply with laws mandating registration.  Whatchagonnado?



JoeB131 said:


> Not what I argued at all.  The guns are the problem here, not the anti-social behavior of poor people.



Of course that's what you argue . . .   How do you separate the "problem" gun from the person owning it in the law?  

It seems as though you want to avoid inconveniencing criminals; you just want to target and impact "law-abiding" people who think they have a right to own a gun (well, law-abiding until you get done with them) . . .

You really are fucked up.



JoeB131 said:


> Wow... you guys get really upset when we point out you gun nuts all were cursed by God in that department.



It's just disgust a you leftist pieces of shit who demonize people who defend rights more than the actual perpetrators of criminal violence.  You obviously feel deep hate and assign to others the violent tendencies you feel (projection).



JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, we live in more of a police state than the rest of the Free World...



I agree.  I don't agree that the solution is absolving criminals and abandoning law and order.



JoeB131 said:


> Trigger happy cops, prisons as far as the eye can see, active shooter drills, etc.    And they don't have anywhere near our crime levels.



For all crime?  You might wanna check on that.



JoeB131 said:


> Again, works fine in the European countries.



As I said, the gun control in those nations was first enacted for political control (someitmes cenuries ago) and then augmented, justified in modern times as crime control.  You lefists are trying to reverse engineer that in the USA, enact gun control predicated on crime, but the end gme for gun control is always political control.  

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, in the USA such effort is prohibited by law and rejected by the population.



JoeB131 said:


> To say a city which can't even have a gun law can't get these problems under control is silly when you can simply get guns in the town next door.



Unfortunately for you and your ilk, in the USA laws are applied equally and rights are respected everywhere.  There is no "rights free" zone in the USA where more restrictive laws are allowed.



JoeB131 said:


> Chicago Police traced over 800 guns to ONE gun store in Indiana....  You really think that gun store doesn't know exactly what is going on?  Do you think they would change their practices if they got sued a couple of times?



Well, if you and your ilk are correct and a new "precedent" is set and now a new cause of action to sue a company is recognized for just doing business following the applicable laws, you might someday see such an outcome.  Bring it on!




JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.  Why are American cops so awful?



Bad cops are cultivated and nurtured, bad behavior is not corrected and a deeply entrenched corrupt command structure resists reform.  

Recent social pressure has only made bad leadership less responsive and has polluted young people's minds; bad cops will never be replaced by people who want policing to be something different.

Fundamental, institutional change must start and be enforced in the ranks and as long as Black youth and young adults consider police their sworn enemy, that will never happen. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy; the only people who want to be police are the Derek Chauvin's who want to make sure "thugs" get what they deserve and unremarkably, amass an unpunished cop “rap sheet” of multiple excessive force complaints and are actually entrusted to teach rookies the same tactics.

The amazing thing is, the reforms BLM and other SJW's demand are already written (as I mentioned before) but are ineffectual, mostly because of the stranglehold public unions have on Democrats in government.

Philly is a perfect example, can’t piss of the police union because that means the firemen and then blue-collar and then white collar city workers all threaten political backlash.  We see political leadership bending over backwards to circumstances and situations that could never be justified or suffered under any other condition except for politicians and police command wilting to union pressure (and I'm saying that as a union member for 42 years and counting).  



JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.  British cops kill less than 5 people a year compared to American cops, who kill nearly a thousand.



Care to talk about Jamaica? 
There's a nation with strict gun control, it's had it since the Gun Court Act of 1974.  Kingston now has a homicide rate over 170/100K; every year Amnesty International condemns the nation for its extra-judicial police killings. On an island of 2.8 million people, police killed 168 people in 2017.  

All good in the pursuit of strict gun control right?  Hey Mon, it'll work next year, no problem!



JoeB131 said:


> Why, because cops don't have to approach every traffic stop as a potential shootout.  They know it's very unlikely they will encounter a gun in a traffic stop or a domestic disturbance.



What law and what enforcement actions will change that, what will make bad guys stop carrying guns and using them without hesitation?



JoeB131 said:


> Nobody NEEDS a gun.  And I have no problem making guns prohibitively expensive.



You will never price violent criminals who need a gun, out of the market.

You have adopted the stupidest public safety argument ever made . . .  If we can make good people helpless, that will make bad people harmless.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...tell the Ukrainians your plans for gun control.....you idiot....
> 
> And you know, you are the only one using the word "Darkies," to describe blacks.....you and the political party you vote for,



I'm just translating your thoughts... whenever you guys try to excuse the absolute CARNAGE your fetish inflicts onthis country, you blame the darkies...   I mean, you use code words like "inner city", but we all know what you really mean.  

Ukraine is showing why you gun fetishists are full of shit. Tank beats gun.  Bomber beats gun.  Thermobaric Charge Beats gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 2, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And if they refuse to pay the fine? Do you understand that there are a significant percentage of people who will _*never*_ accept the proposition that the government has any legitimate power to "outlaw" guns?



You place a lien against their taxes, just like you do anyone else who refuses to pay a fine.  



Abatis said:


> There is no doubt in California a majority of citizens have no affection for guns or respect for anyone who believes they possess a right to own one, and the government responds to that mandate passing laws at will on guns. Thing is, the vast majority of citizens who own "banned" (but grandfathered) guns, have refused to comply with laws mandating registration. Whatchagonnado?



Well, a lot of things.  First, I am a little less worried about guns that have been sitting in someone's closet for years.  Whenever you have a "Celebration of Second Amendment Rights*" at a Preschool or a Movie Theater by a Lanza or a Holmes, it's almost always a recently purchased gun.  So just keeping NEW guns out of circulation by suing the gun makers into compliance and making them really hard to get would be a big help.  

(*- Called a "Mass Shooting" by normal people) 

We can also use "red flag" laws to get family and neighbors to rat out these people and take their guns. 



Abatis said:


> It seems as though you want to avoid inconveniencing criminals; you just want to target and impact "law-abiding" people who think they have a right to own a gun (well, law-abiding until you get done with them) . . .



Most murder is domestic violence.  The "law abiding" are part of the problem, either because they are shooting their friends and family, or because they are providing an easy source for the criminals.  500K guns are stolen from "law abiding" citizens every year. 



Abatis said:


> It's just disgust a you leftist pieces of shit who demonize people who defend rights more than the actual perpetrators of criminal violence. You obviously feel deep hate and assign to others the violent tendencies you feel (projection).


Except you guys are the perpetrators of violence.  By making guns as easy to get as you have, you've made it too easy for people who shouldn't have them to get them. 



Abatis said:


> For all crime? You might wanna check on that.



I have.  Stop reading NRA propaganda.  



Abatis said:


> Well, if you and your ilk are correct and a new "precedent" is set and now a new cause of action to sue a company is recognized for just doing business following the applicable laws, you might someday see such an outcome. Bring it on!



If we had an industry that was selling dangerous products to unstable people, I'd have no problem putting them out of business, too.   If you want to talk about a precedent, it was the tobacco companies, where after internal documents were reviewed, we figured out that they were intentionally marketing to children and intentionally formulating cigarettes to make them more addictive. Eventually, they reached agreements to knock that shit off, and as a result, we are seeing Youth Smoking down to 8%. We make smokers stand outside in the cold, and have banned indoor smoking everywhere. Nearly everyone is fine with that. 

(This is the part where you whine about "Freedom" and "rights"....)  



Abatis said:


> Fundamental, institutional change must start and be enforced in the ranks and as long as Black youth and young adults consider police their sworn enemy, that will never happen. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy; the only people who want to be police are the Derek Chauvin's who want to make sure "thugs" get what they deserve and unremarkably, amass an unpunished cop “rap sheet” of multiple excessive force complaints and are actually entrusted to teach rookies the same tactics.



Actually, a lot of progress has been made.  The fact that Chauvin not only went to jail for 22 years but the three idiots who stood there and watched him do it are also going to prison, will make a lot of the thugs think twice about their career choices. 



Abatis said:


> Philly is a perfect example, can’t piss of the police union because that means the firemen and then blue-collar and then white collar city workers all threaten political backlash. We see political leadership bending over backwards to circumstances and situations that could never be justified or suffered under any other condition except for politicians and police command wilting to union pressure (and I'm saying that as a union member for 42 years and counting).



I do see police unions as part of the problem.  Doesn't mean you throw up your hands and live with it. 



Abatis said:


> Care to talk about Jamaica?



Nope.  I only compare America to OTHER G-7 nations, and compared to them, we are doing awfully.  



Abatis said:


> You will never price violent criminals who need a gun, out of the market.
> 
> You have adopted the stupidest public safety argument ever made . . . If we can make good people helpless, that will make bad people harmless.



Gun fetishists aren't "good people".  Most of them are racists, and nearly all of htem are fucking nuts.   Again, most murder is domestic violence, not "crime".


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm just translating your thoughts... whenever you guys try to excuse the absolute CARNAGE your fetish inflicts onthis country, you blame the darkies...   I mean, you use code words like "inner city", but we all know what you really mean.
> 
> Ukraine is showing why you gun fetishists are full of shit. Tank beats gun.  Bomber beats gun.  Thermobaric Charge Beats gun.




No....we blame the democrat party, the party you vote for...the party that has attacked the police, the party that unleashed their brownshirts, blm and antifa to burn, loot and murder in primarily black neighborhoods for 7 months, the party that keeps releasing violent gun offenders, over and over again, back into the very black communities where they kill and kill over and over again, communities under the total control of the democrat party.........

The democrat party is creating the carnage, not American gun owners....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....we blame the democrat party, the party you vote for...the party that has attacked the police



Dude, you are moving into slogan territory, and not rational debate. 

We have 300 million guns out there and 2 million people in prison.   Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.  

One could LOGICALLY conclude that guns and prisons don't make us safer.  

While "locking up the darkies" gives you a chubby, the reality is we don't have prison space to lock people up for "merely having a gun".   

When 64% of unemployed men have a criminal record, then you have created a self-perpetuating Prison-Industrial Complex.  









						64% of unemployed men in their 30s have criminal records, a barrier to landing a job
					

Most jobless men in their mid-30s have a criminal record, according to a new study. That has implications for hiring and the current labor crunch.




					www.cnbc.com
				




We tried it your way, and things have gotten worse, not better.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, you are moving into slogan territory, and not rational debate.
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there and 2 million people in prison.   Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.
> 
> ...




No....when the democrat party keeps releasing the most violent of the violent criminals, over and over again, an intelligent person would say our problem is the democrat party releasing the most violent of the violent criminals over and over again.....that doesn't happen in Japan....or Europe...yet.......

When the democrat party attacks the police to the point they will no longer proactively stop criminals...an intelligent person would say that our problem is the democrat party attacking the police to the point they can't, and won't, do their jobs...which allows violent criminals in democrat party controlled cities to rape, rob and murder without anyone stopping them....

You are an idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....when the democrat party keeps releasing the most violent of the violent criminals, over and over again



You keep repeating the same point, over and over again. 

The Prison-Industrial Complex does not make us safer.   Other countries don't lock up millions of people and they don't have anywhere near our crime levels.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 3, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You keep repeating the same point, over and over again.
> 
> The Prison-Industrial Complex does not make us safer.   Other countries don't lock up millions of people and they don't have anywhere near our crime levels.




Othere countries don't have the violent criminals we have...but they are getting them.....their welfare states and immigration policies, as well as relying on their leftist criminal justice beliefs control their police and judicial systems are putting them on the same path we are on.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Othere countries don't have the violent criminals we have...



Exactly. 

They don't let people live in grinding poverty. 
They treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
They have programs to treat mental illness
They don't let the gun companies flood their streets with guns. 



2aguy said:


> but they are getting them.....their welfare states and immigration policies, as well as relying on their leftist criminal justice beliefs control their police and judicial systems are putting them on the same path we are on.....



Except they've been following this "Leftist" policies since the end of World War II.  And while we have been regressing they have been progressing. It's why you don't see lots of people emigrating here from Western Europe anymore.  They are vastly better off where they are.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 3, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> They don't let people live in grinding poverty.
> They treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
> ...




They have only been able to sustain those policies because we paid for their national defense, their medical and technological innovation, and we kept Russia from turning Britain into a sattelite......

Remove the U.S....and their country goes to crap faster than it is now...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They have only been able to sustain those policies because we paid for their national defense, their medical and technological innovation, and we kept Russia from turning Britain into a sattelite......
> 
> Remove the U.S....and their country goes to crap faster than it is now...



Oh, please...  Everyone spends less on their military now than they have in the past, including us.  

They don't have the crime problems we have because they don't have stupid policies like, "Treating addiction like a crimes" and "letting any asshole who wants a gun have one becuase the Founding Slave Rapists said so."


----------



## Abatis (Mar 3, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They don't have the crime problems we have because they don't have stupid policies like, . . .



LAS VEGAS (KSNV) — We’re learning new details about the suspect charged in the shooting that left one dead and 13 others injured at a local hookah lounge.​​It turns out the suspect, Lee Wilson, has a significant criminal history.​​He’s been arrested more than 80 times since 1995 and has nine prior felony convictions.​​The most recent was in 2020.​​







						Deadly hookah lounge shooting suspect previously arrested more than 80 times
					

We’re learning new details about the suspect charged in the shooting that left one dead and 13 others injured at a local hookah lounge. It turns out the suspect, Lee Wilson, has a significant criminal history. He’s been arrested more than 80 times since 1995 and has nine prior felony...




					news3lv.com
				


​
Yes, . . .  stupid policies indeed.

,


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 3, 2022)

Abatis said:


> LAS VEGAS (KSNV) — We’re learning new details about the suspect charged in the shooting that left one dead and 13 others injured at a local hookah lounge.It turns out the suspect, Lee Wilson, has a significant criminal history.He’s been arrested more than 80 times since 1995 and has nine prior felony convictions.The most recent was in 2020.



I agree, it was too easy for this guy to get a gun.  

Yet the gun industry makes guns relatively available.  

Let's leave countries like the UK and Japan off to the side for the moment.  Countries that realize that if you aren't a cop or a soldier, there's really no good reason for you to have a gun.  

Let's take a country like Germany.   You can buy a gun in Germany, but it isn't a "right", and people are scrutinized.  Gun sellers know there will be consequences for them if they sell guns to the wrong people.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, please...  Everyone spends less on their military now than they have in the past, including us.
> 
> They don't have the crime problems we have because they don't have stupid policies like, "Treating addiction like a crimes" and "letting any asshole who wants a gun have one becuase the Founding Slave Rapists said so."




Moron, you vote for the democrat party, the political party created by two slave rapists...you moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I agree, it was too easy for this guy to get a gun.
> 
> Yet the gun industry makes guns relatively available.
> 
> ...




Germany?  The country that took guns away from their citizens, then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children?  That is your example?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Germany? The country that took guns away from their citizens, then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children? That is your example?



Nazi Germany never took guns away from GERMAN citizens. (they didn't consider the Jews to be citizens). The German people fought to the last old man and little boy for Hitler with those guns.  In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had to order gun confiscation after the war because they were taking pot-shots at US Troops.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nazi Germany never took guns away from GERMAN citizens. (they didn't consider the Jews to be citizens). The German people fought to the last old man and little boy for Hitler with those guns.  In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had to order gun confiscation after the war because they were taking pot-shots at US Troops.




Yeah....they took guns away from the groups they planned on murdering, you idiot...the brown shirt blm/antifa types had guns...the Jews and the political enemies of the democrats.....I mean national socialists, had their guns taken, and then they were murdered......the national socialists and the governments of Europe disarmed their citizens, then  murdered or allowed to be murdered 15 million men, women and children....you idiot.

After they were disarmed, on the promise that giving up their guns would make them safer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah....they took guns away from the groups they planned on murdering,



Uh, no. They invaded the countries of the people they planned on murdering.  Most of the people killed in the Holocaust WERE NOT GERMANS!!!  

Fuck, are you dense.  

If the government decides it wants to kill you, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE.  

The government has tanks.  Tank beats gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no. They invaded the countries of the people they planned on murdering.  Most of the people killed in the Holocaust WERE NOT GERMANS!!!
> 
> Fuck, are you dense.
> 
> ...



Yes, you idiot…..the socialists murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children after their countries disarmed them in the 20s and 30s….all across Europe…..including the 6 million Jews……many of them Germans….


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes, you idiot…..the socialists murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children after their countries disarmed them in the 20s and 30s….all across Europe…..including the 6 million Jews……many of them Germans….



And we genocided the Native Americans... so what is your point?  

People tend to be shitty towards each other no matter what the economic or political system is.  

Actually, most of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Polish.  The next biggest were Russians.  The Poles had plenty of guns before the war, it didn't do them a bit of good because the Germans had tanks.  

Only 165,000 German Jews were killed. It's still awful and stuff, but it had nothing to do with gun control.  German Jews actually were lucky, in that Hitler was willing to deport them to Palestine at that point.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> And we genocided the Native Americans... so what is your point?
> 
> People tend to be shitty towards each other no matter what the economic or political system is.
> 
> ...


We didn’t commit genicide they died from viruses, you lying piece of crap.

Wow…….lucky German Jews……….did you even pause before you posted that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We didn’t commit genicide they died from viruses, you lying piece of crap.
> 
> Wow…….lucky German Jews……….did you even pause before you posted that?



We totally committed Genocide.  Hitler didn't come up with the idea of Concentration Camps on his own.  He looked at American Indian Reservations and said, "What a neat idea!"  We stole their land, we exterminated the American Bison to cut off their food supply.  






(or the German equivalent, anyway). 

Yes, German Jews were lucky.  They had a six year period when they could get the hell out of Germany and most of them did.  Of course, there really weren't a lot of Jews in Germany to start with, because German hatred of Jews didn't really start with Hitler any more than American Racism started with Trump. 

Polish Jews, not so lucky.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Mar 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We didn’t commit genicide they died from viruses, you lying piece of crap.


Oh, yes, those viruses like Smallpox from infected blankets...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Germany?  The country that took guns away from their citizens, then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children?  That is your example?


This is a lie.

Hitler didn’t ‘confiscate’ guns.

And the idea that armed German Jews would have ‘prevented’ war and the Holocaust is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.









						The Hitler gun control lie
					

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong




					www.salon.com


----------



## candycorn (Mar 5, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another win for the good guys


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 5, 2022)

odanny said:


> Finally, a gun maker held liable. Who woulda thunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Back to the two themes of the thread topic…

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Dishonest conservatives [redundant] are going to continue to propagate the lie that lawsuits will be used to ‘ban’ assault weapons.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Mar 5, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nazi Germany never took guns away from GERMAN citizens. (they didn't consider the Jews to be citizens). The German people fought to the last old man and little boy for Hitler with those guns.  In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had to order gun confiscation after the war because they were taking pot-shots at US Troops.


They took guns away from the people they murdered en masse.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 5, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh, yes, those viruses like Smallpox from infected blankets...




That is a lie.....you idiot......one incident that may have happened at a fort where small pox was already in the area.......

And you posting about genocide when your country is responsible for colonialism, imperialism, the Trans-atlantic slave trade and many of the other evils of the world......hmmmmmm.....how about those crusades, the persecution of Catholics in Ireland...

That glass house of yours needs some work...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 5, 2022)

candycorn said:


> Another win for the good guys




When you are persecuting people who didn't do anything wrong, you are not the good guys...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Hitler didn’t ‘confiscate’ guns.
> 
> ...




You guys keep posting that link without reading the freaking link....are you really this stupid?

The confiscation began before Hitler...using the same excuses you idiots use.....the German people would be safer if they gave up their guns...the government would protect them...

The German government then murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children after using the laws from the 1920s to confiscate guns from Jews and the political enemies of the nazis.......

We understand history, we know that mass murder is always preceded by first taking weapons away from the victims......you are a fool....

*After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation.
------

 many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether,
-----
The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.


And the whole point to gun ownership is to keep political parties like the national socialists from using violence to gain power......the nazis used blm/antifa........I mean brown shirts, to beat and murder their early political opponents...and to intimidate regular citizens into not resisting them.....they took control of the police so that when their blm/antifa........I mean brownshirts, targeted people for beatings, destruction of businesses and murder....the police would not intervene, leaving the innocent people helpless in the face of the violent attacks by blm/antifa.....I mean brownshirts.....*

*Guns would have prevented this the way guns stopped blm and antifa from attacking that couple in Missouri......

This is also why blm and antifa mainly rampage through black and minority neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities...they know that there are more guns in suburban neighborhoods....since the democrats have made it all but impossible for blacks and other poor minorities to get guns in the cities they control...*


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

sealybobo said:


> The lawsuit argued that Remington should not have sold such a dangerous weapon to the public


That is incorrect.  The lawsuit argued that Remington's advertising caused Adam Lanza to go on a killing spree.




sealybobo said:


> Remington must have agreed.  They paid up $73 million to make the case go away.


Remington didn't pay anything.  Their insurers foolishly settled.




sealybobo said:


> Remington filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to escape responsibility from the lawsuit.


That is incorrect.  They filed for bankruptcy because, under their then owners, they were producing a shoddy product.

Said bankruptcy had the effect of giving Remington new owners who care more about their customers.

The bankruptcy did also shield Remington from the lawsuit, but that was more of a side effect.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I agree, but at the end of the day they chose to settle, so it’s on them


Remington didn't choose to settle.  Their insurers did.

I'd be unhappy if I owned stock in any of those insurers.  Thankfully I do not.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

JLW said:


> Remington actually settled the case  in the worst possible way for gun manufacturers IMHO.


Remington didn't decide to settle.  Their insurers did.




JLW said:


> Here is why:  while it is true Remington is in bankruptcy, it is Remington's 4 insurance carriers  that will pay the 73 million. What do think those insurance carriers will do now? Raise their premiums of course. Those premiums will now skyrocket.


Presumably in the future gun makers will choose other insurers who are not so stupid as to pay $73 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit.




JLW said:


> Remember the insurance companies settled for 73 million because they most likely believed  that if this case went in front of a jury they would be dishing out between 100 million to a billion dollars in damages.


Actually no.  $73 million was the limit of the insurance policies.  The insurers paid the maximum that they ever could have paid on this lawsuit.




JLW said:


> Gun manufacturers that can not afford the premiums will now go under.  Banks will not lend money to businesses if they can not obtain insurance. Those that can pay the insurance will pass the additional costs on to you, the consumer. Of course, these insurance companies will also want to scrutinize the marketing activities of these companies more closely to prevent or as a defense to future law suits.


Yes, but as I said above, presumably in the future gun makers will choose other insurers who are not so stupid as to pay $73 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Actually, this thread is in the wrong forum – the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; the issue doesn’t concern the regulation of firearms or the courts determining the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures.


The issue is about leftists wanting to use frivolous lawsuits to violate the Second Amendment.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What the thread is about is the usual lies and demagoguery from the right – the lie that civil suits will be used to manifest a _de facto_ ‘ban’ of assault weapons.


While the left will not succeed in doing this, it is no lie that the left is trying to do it.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Remington settled because it realized it engaged in reckless, irresponsible advertising – Remington has only itself to blame.


Remington did no such thing.  Neither did they settle.  Their insurance companies settled.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is going to ‘ban’ guns, no one is going to ‘confiscate’ guns – those are ridiculous lies propagated by the right.
> And no one is going to use civil suits against gun makers to ‘ban’ AR 15s – that’s another ridiculous rightwing lie.


While it is true that no one is going to do it, it is also true that the left is trying to do it.

That their attempts will fail does not mean they are not trying.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

playtime said:


> i didn't realize it was settled outa court -  BECAUSE it was gonna go to trial.  oh well ... remington pussied out, cause they were gonna get slammed even harder.
> it matters not -  cause remington lost.
> lost bigley & the precedent has been set.


Remington didn't pay anything and no precedent was set.




playtime said:


> Newsom said Friday he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court, which has repeatedly declined to strike down SB 8, could not overturn AB 1594, because “it is quite literally modeled after the law they just upheld in Texas.”


Misplaced confidence.  Watch the Supreme Court strike it down.




playtime said:


> that precedent was set using a court ruling & is now applied to a completely different subject.  so are you saying that since the remington 'settlement' was outa court, the framework cannot be used in another case that involves the manufacturing & marketing of other firearms?


The grounds for the Remington lawsuit were pretty narrow.  And lawsuits that fit in those narrow grounds are frivolous and easily defended against.  It isn't likely that future defendants will be dumb enough to settle.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 14, 2022)

Jets said:


> Still trying to figure out why Remington settled this.


They didn't.  Their insurers did.

Their insurers were pretty dumb to have done so, but you know what they say about a fool and his money.


----------

