Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[2aguy]

First, she facilitated the murder of all those children by making the gun avaliable to her sick offspring. In most states had she not been shot she would have had charges brought and rightfully so. So fuck yo, fuck you big time. She is just as guilty for those dead kids as her son.deal with it.

Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.

So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?

Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

Her guns were locked in a safe.

Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.

Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.

 

[2aguy]

Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.


Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

really? under what theory? how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner. we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container

Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.

He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.

We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.

So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?

Watch this before you answer:



Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?

Do you realize that with all those shots fired....no one was killed...or even seriously wounded.....

 

[2aguy]

Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.


Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

really? under what theory? how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner. we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container

Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.

He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.

We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.

So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?

Watch this before you answer:



Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?

You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right? Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

And again...with all that fire....they didn't kill anyone......

We have gun control to handle these guys...had they survived they would be arrested and put in prison......

And notice...all the Rifles that were not used that day to commit an illegal act...

 

[2aguy]

Fuck you. Fuck you big mother fucking time.


Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

really? under what theory? how did he get the guns? HE KILLED the owner. we don't know if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe but I will tell you something. If I have the power to KILL someone, I have the power to make them open a locked container

Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.

He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.

We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.

So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?

Watch this before you answer:



Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?

The north hollywood shootout......no one was killed.....it was after the Assault Weapon Ban...how did that work out....?

It happened 3 years after you morons said Assault Rifles were illegal......twits...

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally-modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s (an AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol.

 

[g5000]

Idiot.

Nothing we can do would have stopped what happened. If any of those parents think that the way to end their suffering is to take away the rights of others, then they deserve to suffer. Mostly, they are looking to cash in.

Bush Master, which was owned by the Cerberus group, was the ones who were "profiteering" here. They took a weapon designed for a battlefield and sold it to a mentally unstable woman who was unable to control her mentally unstable son. They didn't say, "How do we keep a Nancy Lanza from getting a gun", they saw Nancy Lanza and people like her as a key market.

Only 22% of households own guns. Most of them buy one gun they put in a closet and almost never use. That's not the gun industries key market. Their key market is people who are all scared of darkies and teh government and want more and more guns. The fact most of these people are batshit crazy makes shooting incidents inevitable. But that's who the gun industry markets to.

Connecticut law did not ban the Bush Master. Therefore, the families have no case against the gun manufacturer.

 

[g5000]

You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right? Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

The AWB banned the sale of new weapons. It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines. And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.

 

[2aguy]

T

Well then it's hopeless? This didn't just happen all of a sudden. The kid had a history. If anyone should have known better it would have been her. It's sad, she did not deserve to die, but in the end she was the adult.

He had no "history" of violence. He was a withdrawn kid with autism. If she thought for a moment that he would KILL her, I'm sure she would have done something immediately. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.

Also, HE was an adult. He was 20 years old. You cannot just commit an adult. You have to go through court proceedings or they have to be an IMMEDIATE threat. IOW, they have to have made serious homicidal/suicidal threats.

We take car keys from good folks who drank to much. Bartenders who serve folks who drink to much and have an accident can be sued for serving them. I could see trying to sue the gun shop, but not the manufacturer. I agree hindsight is 20/20.

So you support the NRA position that any gun control is a violation of the 2nd A. and big governments effort to suppress the liberty of gun owners. It that correct?

Watch this before you answer:



Should the manufacturer of such weapons and armor be controlled, or does laissez faire rule the day?

Awesome vedio. When the shooting happened I could see 8 cope. Vato Loco was dropped with one shot kind of center mass. Good on them. So what's the point?

The point is obvious. Those who manufacture and sell to the public weapons used in the video and the personal body armor ought to be held responsible. These are the elements necessary to file a law suit and should apply:

• Duty - does the maker of military style weapons and armor have a duty to the general public?
• Breach, did the manufacturer provide their product to a retail or wholesale purveyor of weapons to the public?
• Was someone harmed?

Twit.......those weapons were already illegal because of you guys....and guess what..........they robbed a bank and attempted to murder people....they could already be arrested for that, and could have done the same thing with pistols.......

As long as they are not selling guns to known felons...which is already illegal...no....they don't have a duty...since civilians can also own those weapons and armor...or should be able to anyway...

The police and military do not get the monopoly on weapons and armor........that is how you end up with mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing...do you nuts ever study human history.....?

 

[2aguy]

You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right? Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

The AWB banned the sale of new weapons. It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines. And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.

They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....

The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....

 

[Crixus]

Yeah, that will teach her to get killed and have her gun safe keys stolen from her.

So, this nutter is saying that killing the mother, stealing the keys, then stealing the guns, makes the mom responsible? Where does this stupid logic come from? Ray, how the hell can anyone deal with such a stupid premise?

Stop making excuses for stupid. Had she lived she likely would have been prosicuted and rightfully so. It's called acountability. You don't manage your guns, you are acountable.

Her guns were locked in a safe.

Her son got them so they weren't secure enough. That aside, the act was done, she is dead, he is dead, those children and teachers are dead. Won't wast breath saying the same stuff over and over. Especially since the thread was about Sandy Hook parents seeing gun makers, specifically Cerebus, Remington, Bushmaster.

Wrong....her kid was planning the attack for 2 years.....most of these killers plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, so even if his mother didn't have any guns in the home he would have gotten weapons...just like the 19 year old kid in Britain who ordered a Glock 19 over the Dark Web....in a country that is an island, confiscated guns and has extreme gun control laws.....any other gun would have killed as many people at Sandy Hook...it was a gun free zone...no one was armed to stop him.

It was his mother's fault. She knew he was unstable. She and the "well he shot his mom and took her keys" is no excuse because he had to have a gun to shoot her with in order to get the keys to go shoot a bunch of little kids. Mrs. Lanze, no matter how tragic enabled her son to arm him self and shoot up a school.

 

[g5000]

You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right? Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

The AWB banned the sale of new weapons. It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines. And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.

They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....

The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....

You have extremely selective vision. Strict gun laws are very effective at reducing violent crime and homicides "in Europe....in Britain and France". This is a fact. To deny this fact is to destroy your integrity and undermine your arguments.

 

[g5000]

I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.

 

[2aguy]

And here you have the myth that these rifles with normal magazines pose more of a public threat.....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Abstract:
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.

Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

 

[2aguy]

You realize that happened during the assault weapon ban...right? Those weapons were illegal...but somehow they managed to get them...right?

The AWB banned the sale of new weapons. It did not ban the resale of existing weapons and magazines. And since there were tens of millions already out there, the AWB was ineffective.

They have absolute bans on fully automatic weapons in Europe....in Britain and France....and fully automatic weapons are the most common tool of their criminal groups....in fact I just posted about the increase in fully automatic weapons showing up in London crime....and how they are being used to shoot at police more often.....

The assault weapon ban didn't do anything because normal people were not using them for crime, and neither were criminals....

You have extremely selective vision. Strict gun laws are very effective at reducing violent crime and homicides "in Europe....in Britain and France". This is a fact. To deny this fact is to destroy your integrity and undermine your arguments.

Wrong....violent crime is 2 x ours in Britain......their criminals just don't commit murder as much....and again...their criminals get all the guns they want.....I have posted over and over how easy it is to get fully automatic weapons in Britain...and how the gun crime level in britain did not change after they conficated guns and imposed extreme gun contrtol..


IN Fact..I also posted that their gun crime rate went up 4% last year....which according to you is not possible.....

 

[paulitician]

Tyranny in the name of the 'Poor Children.' The Gun Grabbers are truly shameful folks. They continue to use these poor dead children and their families, to thwart the Constitution. Can't stoop any lower... Or can they?

 

[g5000]

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43

 

[2aguy]

I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.

They haven't......you are wrong.......more AMericans own and carry guns...the gun crime rate has gone down, not up......and not one of your gun control laws keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, or mass shooters......

Did you understand the point.....the British gun crime rate did not change after the guns were confiscated.......? Do you understand that......?

Those European countries had low gun murder rates before they enacted their gun control.....and the criminals still get the guns they want and need...the only people who can't get the guns are the normal, law abiding people who don't use them for crime.....gun control does not work.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.......

More liberal stupidity on display. If a drunk driver kills your family, can you sue GM? Duh

 

[2aguy]

I am pro-gun, but I am not so stupid as to go around denying the fact that strict gun laws have had a dramatic impact on reducing violent crime and homicide rates in the countries which have enacted them.

Here you go....more on fully automatic weapons in the land of confiscation and extreme gun control....Britain...

4/19/16 auto weapons increase

Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets

Scotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
-------

New figures seen by the Standard show that police seized 18 sub-machine guns from criminals in the capital last year, compared to 13 similar weapons in 2014.

Police also revealed that sub-machine guns had been fired in London 11 times in the last 12 months, compared to seven times the year before.

In October last year three plain clothes officers escaped injury despite being shot at by a sub-machine gun - also thought to be a Skorpion - when they were carrying out inquiries in Willesden.

Today police said there had been a “worrying” increase in the use of automatic weapons but they were seizing more of the weapons from criminals.

 

[g5000]

Intentional homicide rate in the UK: 1.0

Intentional homicide rate in France: 1.0

Intentional homicide rate in the US: 3.8

 

[2aguy]

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the UK: 0.06

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in France: 0.21

Gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US: 3.43

Look.......they don't use guns to commit murder....but their gun crime rate is the same as it was before they confiscated their guns......their criminals get guns...they don't use them to commit murder.......why is that so hard for you nutters to understand......?