Sandy Hook Parents, Remington agree to $73 million settlement

[JoeB131]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Clearly YOU can't

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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]

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]

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]

Marketing, dumbass.

Sounds something protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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]

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]

Is the SUV marketed to kill?

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

 

[Flash]

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]

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.



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..



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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.