Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[JoeB131]

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

Yes, AFTER she showed him how to use them.
AFTER she took him to a gun range
AFTER she let him play violent video games for hours
AFTER she started talking openly about having him committed without securing her guns first.

 

[JoeB131]

And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....

Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight. LIke those guys in Oregon did.

 

[jillian]

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry

BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.


“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.

“I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.

Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.

Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.

Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.

“It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”


This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......

they can sue.

but people beat the cigarette companies, too, for making a product that was inherently dangerous.

will they win? never know. but they must have drafted their case really well.

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

 

[jillian]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

 

[xband]

Shoot at the flash.

 

[2aguy]

Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.

---
That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
.

A wake up call to what?

All her firearms were legal and legally purchased.
The state had strict firearm laws to purchase and own guns.
Her guns were locked up in a gun cabinet which is why her son killed her--to get the keys.

Other than not teaching her son about firearms, I don't know what else she could have done. Guns are a dangerous product like poison, like knives, like electricity, like swimming pools, like cars........

Except guns in the home are less dangerous than cars, poison and swimming pools....

 

[jillian]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

 

[2aguy]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....

 

[jillian]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......

everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Yousaidwhat]

And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....

Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight. LIke those guys in Oregon did.

Pussies?

Give them up without a fight?

Are you suggesting a Civil War?

That is where this will lead. Everyone I know, former and current military and police will not just give them up that easily.

 

[2aguy]

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......

everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.

Everyone knew he had mental issues.....no one realized he was violent since he wasn't violent....and the majority of mentally ill people have their problems and are non violent.......

 

[JoeB131]

WTF is this "supposed to" stuff?

Supposed to by who's ruling......yours????

Sorry Joe, but that's why we have lawmakers in this country; so we don't have tyranny because of people like you. I don't think companies that manufacture swimming polls should be allowed to sell them to households that have children. Children die from drowning all the time. I don't think any American should own a pit bull either. They kill and harm people all the time. There are plenty of other less violent breeds to own that are not nearly as dangerous.

Is that the path you think our country should be on?

Guy, 3/4 of the planet is covered in water, and we only have 3000 drownings a year.

We only have 45 deaths a year due to Dog Bites.

Your "other things are dangerous, too" act doesn't really fly here. Pools and Dogs aren't designed to kill people. Guns are.

 

[JoeB131]

Pussies?

Give them up without a fight?

Are you suggesting a Civil War?

That is where this will lead. Everyone I know, former and current military and police will not just give them up that easily.

I'm sure there are some nuts who will go out like the Branch Davidians.

No great loss.

 

[eagle1462010]

And you want to take law abiding citizens weapons away from them because of that nut bag.....................As I just said come and take them Joe..............................You want a Civil War go ahead.....

Most of you guys are pussies and will give up without a fight. LIke those guys in Oregon did.

Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................

You keep pushing the GRAB ALL GUNS.............and you will not get what happened in Oregon...........and it sure as hell isn't just me saying that...................

You will not be grabbing guns......you will be praising it from your computer room calling others pussies.....

Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......

Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....

And you want to take them all............

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...the kid wasn't violent...at all...until the killing...moron. He was passive and non aggressive......and picked Sandy Hook because it was a gun free zone....so the school district should be sued for creating a killing zone.

Actually he picked it because he used to go there and it was some kind of childhood trauma. But your fantasies about heat-packing preschoolers aside, he's someone who never should have had access to a gun.

So why did he?

 

[jillian]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

your so called sources are not sources.

and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist

feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.

and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.