Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Ray From Cleveland]

he fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home

28 percent of burglaries involve people at home: good doors-windows prevent violent crime

 

[JoeB131]

Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.

First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....

Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook. Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.

The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...

Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.

The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....

The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years. That wasn't calculated, it was personal.

the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...

He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.

So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.

here's the main problem. ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.

Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.

Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.

 

[eagle1462010]

[

Again, we've hunted the wolf into near extinction, and farmers rarely lose livestock to wolves anymore.

So what would be the result if we hunted the privately owned gun into extinction.

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

 

[JoeB131]

And I had to use that to defend my daughter and grand child from a drug addict who broke into her home. Luckily she lives close enough for me to be there before the police.

I could have put him down but chose to hold him until the police arrived. I didn't want to clean up the mess, not have my daughter living in her home where her father killed someone.

Whatever, I dont believe you.

Sorry, I just don't. I simply can't believe you gun fetishists when given the opportunity to orgamically kill a bad guy would pass up on the opportunity.

 

[2aguy]

Why is it that those who own firearms are nutters?

What are we going to do about this travesty? We elect people to do that job. If they fail at it would you like us to take matters into our own hands. We don't believe in vigilante justice.

Taking my tool/firearms is not going to do anything but piss us off and have us make sure we elect those who will not disarm us. In the event that it should happen you are still not getting them.

We are not putting our guns where our mouths are.

I am the military. I am the malitia and I am the NRA. And, I am a Democrat.

It's not the fact you have guns that makes you a nutter. It's the WHY you want the guns that makes you a nutter.

The two reasons why you guys want guns are 1) To protect yourself against criminals and 2) to fight the government.

The first one is just stupid. The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household through suicide, accident or domestic argument than a bad guy, who rarely breaks in when someone is home and even if he does, will have the advantage of surprise and planning on his side.

The second one is even dumber. The government is ALWAYS going to have more guns, better guns and be better trained with them. In fact, even with the gun industry marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. the fact is, 40% of gun sales are STILL to government agencies.

That 43 times lie again....do you never get tired of lying joe...

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

---------

Are There Benefits of Firearms?

What we do know, thanks to the meticulous scholarship of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), is that the benefits of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens have been greatly underestimated. In Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991),11 myriads of scientific publications, and his latest book, Targeting Guns (1997),9 Prof. Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.5***

Incidentally, the health care costs incurred by gun shootings have been greatly exaggerated. DIPR, in an article published in the June 1995 issue of the JMAG, estimated that the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion which amounts to 0.2 percent of annual health care expenditures. The $20-$40 billion figure, so frequently cited by the mass media, and even medical journals, is an exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost where criminals are given inflated, unrealistic life productivity estimates, as if their careers were suddenly expected to blossom into that of pillars of the community12 with projected salaries equaling those of managed care CEOs. Yet, despite these major detractions, the health advocacy establishment clings to the erroneous figures and extrapolations of Dr. Kellermann and other public health researchers, and use these erroneous figures in propounding health and gun control policies, to the detriment of public policy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......

Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders) so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....

And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...

So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.

Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....

So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....

So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.

You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?

I did answer....you have to eliminate his targets...since even in Britain a 19 year old was able to get a glock pistol, and ammunition through the mail. You have to make schools non gun free...so that they are not targets for attack. The psychology of all of these mass shooters is the desire to kill....in large numbers. They seek out gun free zones to do their killing. If they know that there are normal people, carrying guns for self defense...and that they will never know when a normal person with a gun is on the premises of school...a parent dropping off kids...or and armed police officer or security guard....they will not attack that building......I have shown you how just the threat of an armed resistor makes them change targets.

As to highly efficient killing machines......the worst mass shooter in Britain used a shotgun......the killings in Sandy Hook could just as easily been done with a pump action shotgun....he targeted the lower grade levels because those kids would not be able to fight back....he could have gone to the 6th grade...but they are bigger kids........keep in mind..even that influenced his choice of victim.....and it only took 5 minutes...as soon as he heard the police sirens....he stopped shooting and committed suicide. The one thing we have learned.....immediate armed response to these attacks stops them cold....the killer either surrenders immediately...the colorado shooter, or they commit suicide..Sandy Hook.

I understand what you are saying but essentially you are just shifting the target. How do you stop him getting a gun ?

You can't. if a criminal wants a gun, or a mass shooter wants a gun, they will get it....

What stopped the 19 year old in Britain from getting his gun, ammunition and explosives? Nothing. How was he stopped? Your gun control laws? No. He was stopped because he posted on the internet.........sadly, the next one won't do that...and you will have a mass shooting......

But the British gun laws do actually work in that we have a lot lower murder rate than the US. There are guns but they are harder to get. Britain is a lot safer than the US. We can go the cinema,take our kids to school and have a row with a neighbour without getting shot.

 

[JoeB131]

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for. In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.

 

[JoeB131]

Americans love Guns, God, Tits and Ass.........and not in that order.............

Go to Europe where your castrated ass needs to be........they will accept you there.

Here......not so much as you demand we fucking comply to your Views............not gonna happen.

Only 22% of Americans own guns. You are in the minority. the only problem is, the rest of us put up with your screaming tantrums like a parent who buys their kid candy to shut them up.

 

[Centinel]

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for. In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.

Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Yes.....this is what would actually help......when someone commits a crime with a gun....especially a felon caught in illegal possession of a gun, put them in prison for a long time. The problem we actually have is that prosecutors and judges are not putting violent criminals, charged on illegal gun possession, and other crimes, in jail for long periods of time. The prosectuors are throwing out the gun charges as bargaining chips.....when they could get 10 years for just the possession by a felon....it is just nuts.

Normal people are not using guns to commit crimes.....but the legal system is not dealing with actual violent gun criminals.....I posted before that the criminals who shot up the Back of the Yards neighborhood park....had both had previous gun possession and violent crime convictions...they should have been in jail for at least 10 years.....the prosecutors and the judge redirected them to "Boot camps" and they were out in under 3 years...and months after their release they shot up a park in Chicago.....

The gang member, convicted felon, who shot the girl in Obama's chicago neighborhood....he had been arrested as a felon on a felony weapons possession charge...was out in 3 days pending trial, and used a gun to accidentally shoot the girl not a month later.......

We can do a lot to reduce the gun violence we have...we just have to focus on the actual problem...actual criminals.

Your solution would not have had any effect on the Sandy Hook child massacre. What can be done to prevent events like these ?

First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....

The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...

The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....

the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...

And recently, an isis inspired jihadi was caught...he said he was going to shoot up a mega church, with 6,000 people...because he knew guns were not allowed there......

Gun free zones have to end.

What about preventing the killers access to guns ?

We already have that....we have federally mandated background checks at all licensed gun sellers.....and the criminals ignore them by simply getting people with clean records to buy guns for them...or they steal the guns....recently they have been driving trucks and construction vehicles into the doors of gun stores to gain access......

Keep in mind....there are over 357,000,000 guns in private hands in the United States....and only 8,124 gun murders...that means that fewer than 8,124 guns are used for murder (since often one gun is used for multiple murders) so 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding people are not used to commit murder....

And on top of that, Americans actually use guns to stop crime...1,500,000 times a year according to a study conducted by bill clinton's Department of Justice...

So if you compare total number of guns.....357,000,000 to gun murders, 8,124 vs. guns used for self defense....1,500,000 million....the picture is completely different than our press would have you believe.

Also, the people committing the murder are not normal people who own guns....90% are criminals who have illegal guns who murder other criminals 80% of the murder victims...who have long criminal histories....

So if you take 80% of the 8,124 gun murders....that is about 1643 innocent people......and those are still concentrated in tiny, multi block areas of our inner cities....

So you have to see all the facts.....rather than the hype about guns in America.

You are skirting around my question. This youngster was not a criminal as far as I am aware. And yet he had access to a highly efficient killing machine. How could that be prevented ?

A police state surely is not the answer.

These families know they have deranged members. They are the front line to prevent this.

Expecting the rest of us to just give up our firearms is not the answer.

 

[eagle1462010]

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for. In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.

Which is exactly why the Founders put in the 2nd Amendment...............................

For people like you and your precious ATF.............your little brown shirt army...................while you are a cheer leader on the sidelines.........calling people pussies from the safety of your little computer.......................

 

[2aguy]

Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.

First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....

Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook. Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.

The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...

Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.

The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....

The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years. That wasn't calculated, it was personal.

the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...

He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.

So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.

here's the main problem. ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.

Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.

Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.

Wrong on all counts joe....lanza's notes were not destroyed...they were recovered....he had giant wall to wall charts of mass shootings.....and they found he conducted recon on the 3 schools...


************************


http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

Lupica: Lanza plotted massacre for years

They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list.

They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

The man paused and said, “They believe that (Lanza) believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points. It’s why he didn’t want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that’s why he killed himself.

-----

It really was like he was lost in one of his own sick games. That’s what we heard. That he learned something from his game that you learn in (police) school, about how if you’re moving from room to room — the way he was in that school — you have to reload before you get to the next room. Maybe he has a 30-round magazine clip, and he’s only used half of it. But he’s willing to dump 15 rounds and have a new clip before he arrives in the next room.”
*****************

----------



-------

 

[eagle1462010]

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for. In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.

Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?

The tooth fairy.....................LOL

Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........

Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or his father abandoned his kid because he was an asshole

No, the father wanted to get him committed. Mom was the one who decided to give him guns.

And you know this how?

If he was so concerned why didn't he take custody of his kid?

 

[JoeB131]

You do know who that sounds like Joe........................

Think about that one for a bit Joe............

Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?

that's what it sounds like to me.
You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point. but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.

 

[Centinel]

That comment just earned a new signature from me........

Are you going to hunt them down all by yourself....

No, guy, that's what we have an ATF for. In my world, the ATF would be as big as the Army and twice as ruthless.

Who is going to supply the ATF with firearms?

The tooth fairy.....................LOL

Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........

Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.

He sounds like a violent sociopath.

 

[2aguy]

Dick Tiny speculating on murder sprees.

First....they need to end gun free zones......gun free zones are the targets of guys like this....every mass shooting we have had was in a gun free zone. The shooter at Sandy Hook also had attended the middle school and the high school...and had scouted all 3 locations....why did he choose Sandy hook....because the middle school and the high school had armed security....

Since Lanza destroyed his computers and notebooks, we dont know why he picked Sandy Hook. Maybe it was because his mom worked there. Maybe it was because he was going for a maximum horror effect and shooting preschoolers is more horrible than high-schoolers.

The same goes for the Colorado theater shooter...picked a gun free zone theater over an airport because he had in his notes the airport had armed security...

Uh, guy, he picked a theatre because he thought he was the Joker and they were playing a Batman movie.

The same goes or the Santa barbara shooter who wanted to shoot up an outdoor fair but knew there would be armed police there.....

The Santa Barbera shooter shot up his co-workers who probably gave him shit for years. That wasn't calculated, it was personal.

the same for the Carolina church shooter...he wanted to shoot up a university but decided not to because of the armed security...so he chose the unarmed church...

He choose a church because he wanted to kill BLACK PEOPLE.

So you've given four of your best examples, and they ALL had other reasons for being picked.

here's the main problem. ALL FOUR of these people were crazy.
ALL FOUR of them were able to get guns despite being crazy.

Because the gun industry has made it impossible to keep guns away from crazy people.

Maybe when they pay out a few billion in damages, they'll fix that.

The other Santa Barbara shooter....

Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

 

[2aguy]

You do know who that sounds like Joe........................

Think about that one for a bit Joe............

Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?

that's what it sounds like to me.
You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point. but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.

Britain has 2 x times the violent crime rate that we do...according to politifact...left wing nutters....

 

[eagle1462010]

You do know who that sounds like Joe........................

Think about that one for a bit Joe............

Like a resident of a European Democracy where most citizens don't have guns and they have almost no crime?

that's what it sounds like to me.
You see, if we had no other countries where this had been done, you might have a point. but the fact is, the US is kind of unique in having widespread gun ownership and a lot of fucking crazy people shooting up schools and theaters and offices.

By criminals none the less..........

The Constitution tells you to pound sand until you can stack the court...............which of course is your agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

The tooth fairy.....................LOL

Joe always goes here......on how he is gonna take all our weapons.............and without directly saying it.......he's gonna kill us if we resist...........

Then he has the nerve to say he's for liberty and justice.

Guy, most laws require the use of force to enforce, you realize that, right?

In fact, the very threat that a IRS agent might show up at his house with a gun has 2AGuy pissing himself into complete tax comliance... right after he goes around screaming about freedom and socialism and no one is going take away his penis substitute.