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

[JoeB131]

You don’t know that she was “stocking up“ for anything and the neighbors never alluded to this. All they said was that she was a gun enthusiast.

Gun Enthusiast = nut.

This thread kind of proves that.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that the neighbors did not say or imply in any way that she was crazy and your own article proved that. She was clearly stressed at having to deal with her autistic son and nothing more. Your hatred of gun owners is such that you couldn’t even bring yourself to allow for that possibility, even knowing the boy was autistic.

Sorry, I realize that she was the Gun-Nut Pinup Girl of 2012, but the bitch really was nuts.

Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns, food as part of 'prepper' movement, says sister-in-law

Nancy Lanza's sister-in-law, Marsha, said the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a gun-hoarding survivalist who had been stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.

Nancy Lanza was a "prepper"

Connecticut school shooting: Preparing for the end of the world

 

[JoeB131]

She didn't, they were locked up, he killed her to get access to the rifles and shotguns. And none of them were machine guys you lying asshat.

Actually, they were out in the open... Sorry, locked up with a key anyone can take... isn't locked up.

He shot her when she was in bed. That means he had THE GUN BEFORE HE KILLED HER.

 

[JoeB131]

Kellerman changed his number

No, he didn't...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You don’t know that she was “stocking up“ for anything and the neighbors never alluded to this. All they said was that she was a gun enthusiast.

Gun Enthusiast = nut.

Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?

In any case, that is no more than your opinion.

This thread kind of proves that.

I don’t see how.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that the neighbors did not say or imply in any way that she was crazy and your own article proved that. She was clearly stressed at having to deal with her autistic son and nothing more. Your hatred of gun owners is such that you couldn’t even bring yourself to allow for that possibility, even knowing the boy was autistic.

Sorry, I realize that she was the Gun-Nut Pinup Girl of 2012, but the bitch really was nuts.

Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns, food as part of 'prepper' movement, says sister-in-law

Nancy Lanza's sister-in-law, Marsha, said the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a gun-hoarding survivalist who had been stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.

Nancy Lanza was a "prepper"

Connecticut school shooting: Preparing for the end of the world

I can’t find the video or article that directly quotes Marsha Lanza as having said this. What reporter, TV station, newspaper or website did she say this to?

Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.

Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.

The video factually proves that Phillips initiated the confrontation and that neither Sandmann nor any of the other Covington kids interacted with him at all before this. Yet you claim they harassed him.

The video also provides no basis whatsoever to assume that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet or that he should have known.Yet you assume this anyway.

The video factually proves that the Black Israelites were the ones haranguing people, including the Covington kids, all afternoon with racial taunts and insults. Yet you say nothing of this.

Your interpretations and conclusions about the events in D.C. in 2018 are not supported by facts and thus are simply not rational.

 

[JoeB131]

Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?

In any case, that is no more than your opinion.

When you stock up guns and food because you think the world is about to end, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.

No, you see, two people seeing the same video and having two different opinions on it, really doens't mean that much.

Someone who stocks up on food and ammo like the Zombies are coming, and gets killed by her strung out kid she left alone for days at a time... that's nuts.

Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.

Because he was a little smirking punk who disrespected a vet...

Little punk needs a good slapping...

 

[2aguy]

Their criminals can get guns.......moron.

I'm sure they can. So fucking what.

I'm not worried about "the criminals". The criminals are mostly rational. They only kill each other if they kill at all, and they know killing will bring undue attention on them.

I worry about the disaffected nut who shoots up a theater or a mall or a school.

Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....

2018, mass public shootings ....12.... 12 deranged people out of over 320 million. Total killed....93.

Criminals murdered 10,265 in 2018. Criminals do kill mostly other criminals you doofus....but your desire to ban guns over 93 deaths vs. the criminals who kill 10,265 but are continuosly released by democrat judges, politicians and prosecutors shows how irrational you are......you don't care about actual gun murder, you just hate normal gun owners....you are insane.

 

[2aguy]

Kellerman changed his number

No, he didn't...

Yes...he did.......you have been shown this over and over again...you moron...

First...

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

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.



The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

 

[2aguy]

Kellerman changed his number

No, he didn't...

The first link is to the research he did after he was called out on his bad research techniques......the new number was 2.7

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;

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


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

 

[JoeB131]

Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....

Nope, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.

We've been over this.

The first link is to the research he did after he was called out on his bad research techniques......the new number was 2.7

He researched a completely different subject... overall gun violence, not just gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....

Nope, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.

We've been over this.

The first link is to the research he did after he was called out on his bad research techniques......the new number was 2.7

He researched a completely different subject... overall gun violence, not just gun ownership.

Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?
In any case, that is no more than your opinion.

When you stock up guns and food because you think the world is about to end, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.

No, you see, two people seeing the same video and having two different opinions on it, really doens't mean that much.

It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

Someone who stocks up on food and ammo like the Zombies are coming, and gets killed by her strung out kid she left alone for days at a time... that's nuts.

No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?

Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.

Because he was a little smirking punk who disrespected a vet...

You have yet to show how Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet.

Little punk needs a good slapping...

I know of another little punk that could use some education on critical thinking...

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....

Where did he specifically say, "I got it totally wrong the first time!"

 

[2aguy]

Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....

Where did he specifically say, "I got it totally wrong the first time!"

When he did a new paper and changed the number from 43 to 2.7 you nimrod....right there in the post.....

 

[2aguy]

Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....

Where did he specifically say, "I got it totally wrong the first time!"

And yes......most gun deaths are suicides....a mental health issue. Suicide doesn't count since Japan, China and South Korea have extreme gun control and higher suicide rates...as do Canada and many countries in Europe...



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;

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


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

Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendme

 

[JoeB131]

When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

Oh, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

More importantly, do you really think you are being clever... because you aren't.

It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

Hey, here's how I know my interpretation is correct. The little fucking entitled bastard is suing everyone and his brother for making him look bad. You know, instead of manning up, admitting he was wrong, and apologizing to anyone who was offended by his behavior.

Oh, yeah, and the archdiocese apologized for their conduct before the wingnuts started pressuring them, anyway.

Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life

When he did a new paper and changed the number from 43 to 2.7 you nimrod....right there in the post.....

Here's my standard... Video of Kellerman saying, "I was totally wrong. Guns are wonderful. 2AGuy has a huge dick, don't let anyone tell you differently."

When you come back with that... let me know. Not two pages of spooge of other people interpreting his results with whataboutisms.

No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?

It was in one of the articles I posted, I'm not doing anymore research for you.

I'm sorry, I missed the economic collapse where people were having to defend their houses from people roaming around looking for food... I mean, 2008 kind of sucked... but we still had no problem with food distribution.

Bitch was fucking nuts...

 

[2aguy]

When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

Oh, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

More importantly, do you really think you are being clever... because you aren't.

It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

Hey, here's how I know my interpretation is correct. The little fucking entitled bastard is suing everyone and his brother for making him look bad. You know, instead of manning up, admitting he was wrong, and apologizing to anyone who was offended by his behavior.

Oh, yeah, and the archdiocese apologized for their conduct before the wingnuts started pressuring them, anyway.

Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life

When he did a new paper and changed the number from 43 to 2.7 you nimrod....right there in the post.....

Here's my standard... Video of Kellerman saying, "I was totally wrong. Guns are wonderful. 2AGuy has a huge dick, don't let anyone tell you differently."

When you come back with that... let me know. Not two pages of spooge of other people interpreting his results with whataboutisms.

No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?

It was in one of the articles I posted, I'm not doing anymore research for you.

I'm sorry, I missed the economic collapse where people were having to defend their houses from people roaming around looking for food... I mean, 2008 kind of sucked... but we still had no problem with food distribution.

Bitch was fucking nuts...

Wow....did you ever find a sex therapist to help you with your "Dick" fixation?...cause, really, you need help....fast.

I gave you his follow up study...and the change......you got caught, you are unable to cope....so you go to your "Dick" fixation....where you seem to find comfort for some reason...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.

Oh, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

Not me. I’m having too much fun anyway.

Were you hoping you had?

More importantly, do you really think you are being clever... because you aren't.

That you’re asking the question tells me that maybe you think it is.

It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

Hey, here's how I know my interpretation is correct. The little fucking entitled bastard is suing everyone and his brother for making him look bad. You know, instead of manning up, admitting he was wrong, and apologizing to anyone who was offended by his behavior.

I understand that it is disconcerting to you when Little Catholic Bastards defend themselves against unjustified vilification but that doesn’t answer the question: On what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

Oh, yeah, and the archdiocese apologized for their conduct before the wingnuts started pressuring them, anyway.

Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life

The archdiocese apologized and condemned their actions the day after the first, shorter video came out and at that time, no one, including the archdiocese, knew what really happened.

Roger Foys, the bishop of the Covington archdiocese and the one who wrote the condemnation said later he felt “bullied and pressured to issue a statement prematurely”.

When the longer video came out they removed their initial statement from the website and issued a new statement saying they would investigate the matter.

The archdiocese then commissioned an investigative firm out of Cincinnati to look into the matter and after spending a total of 240 hours reviewing the video and speaking to witnesses, the firm’s report completely exonerated sandmann and the Covington boys.

Diocese probe finds no evidence of ‘racist or offensive statements’ by Covington Catholic students during Mall incident

Oh, and the article you linked also erroneously claimed that Phillips served in Vietnam, which we all now know to be untrue. If you’re going to cite bullshit articles, at least find one where the bullshit is a little more subtle and harder to spot.

No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?

It was in one of the articles I posted, I'm not doing anymore research for you.

Was this someone who knew her or another conservative-hating bitter reactionary like yourself?

And you didn’t answer the question: What is your source for the claim that she left Adam alone for days at a time?

I'm sorry, I missed the economic collapse where people were having to defend their houses from people roaming around looking for food... I mean, 2008 kind of sucked... but we still had no problem with food distribution.

No one, including Lanza, ever said there had been an economic collapse.

Bitch was fucking nuts...

A rather astute analysis from someone who is too fucking lazy to find and cite a currently relevant article.

One other thing: The longer video shows that the Black Israelites were shouting at members of the Indigenous Peoples’ March, of which Phillips was a participant. If you saw the video, you know this too.

This begs the question as to why Phillips chose to approach the Covington boys rather than the BIs. It also begs the question as to why you chose to ignore it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

This part really needs to be restated and emphasized, for it truly exposes the deceit involved in Kellerman's hoax.

He counted, as a “gun in the home”, a gun that was brought into the home by the criminal, and used by that criminal to murder an occupant of the home.

436 times, a criminal brought a gun into someone else's home, and used it there to commit a murder.

Now, I don't know if there's any control to which to make a comparison, but it does seem very likely that if a criminal breaks into your home, carrying a gun, that that “gun in your home” is indeed more likely to be used to murder you or a member of your family, than to defend you or otherwise prevent a crime.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

2AGuy has a huge dick, don't let anyone tell you differently.

Why are you so obsessed with other guy's dicks, and what makes you think you know anything about the size of any of them?

 

[JoeB131]

I understand that it is disconcerting to you when Little Catholic Bastards defend themselves against unjustified vilification but that doesn’t answer the question: On what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?

He was at a veterans event with a lot of other vets, all wearing vet stuff like campaign hats..

The archdiocese apologized and condemned their actions the day after the first, shorter video came out and at that time, no one, including the archdiocese, knew what really happened.

So what? YOu mean the parents of the LCB's complained, and they knuckled under... Ah, not the kind of Catholic School I went to.. they'd have knocked some sense into those little bastards.

No one, including Lanza, ever said there had been an economic collapse.

You just did. you said it happened before. Oh, stockpiling guns and food because you expect the world to end...that's kind of crazy.

This begs the question as to why Phillips chose to approach the Covington boys rather than the BIs. It also begs the question as to why you chose to ignore it.

Because they were smug little bastards disrupting their event... that's why. They were the larger group, who apparently couldn't take a few taunts.