The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[beretta304]

Goodbye, Joey. Not wasting another day with someone who can never concede that he doesn't know everything.

Are you kidding? JoeBigot doesn't know anything about anything.

Or nothing about everything.

 

[jtpr312]

[
That's because it's not a fact dumbass. Kellerman's study, which this is taken from, has been debunked and discredited years ago. Try looking at Lott's study, University of Chicago, to get REAL look at this number and the rest of the nonsense this moron spoon feeds leftist morons like you who never care what they take in and regurgitate as "fact". Of the 45x's number you have here, 86% are suicides, and with or without a gun, a person intent on killing themselves will do so using pills, poison or whatever else they can. This "study" also never takes into account the millions of times a firearm is used in the home to PREVENT a crime or a potential killing when the armed homeowmer does not kill the bad guy but wounds him, holds him at gun point until the police arrive or chases the bad guy away before anyone is killed or robbed. See we usually don't talk about this "fact", because we don't see any reason to argue with a moron stupid enough to call this nonsense a "fact" without first looking to see if it's factual or truthful. We, inteligent firearms owners, know the waste of time it is to argue with people dumb enough to believe whatever some other moron tells them is a fact.

The CDC doesn't accept Lott's Study. It accepts Kellerman's study. Kellerman's study has been replicated in other cities and the same results were found. Bullcrap.
Lott has all the credibility of those "Scientists" who deny Global Warming or said that Cigarettes don't cause cancer. You just have to look at who was paying his freight. More bullcrap

A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a member of the family. Only if you count suicides and a person who is intent of killing themselves will do with our without a gun in the house, and this number also ignores the millions of times a gun is used to defend the home but nobody is killed, so this is irelevent to the discussion.

And frankly, having known more than a few parents who buried a loved one who killed himself with that gun they bought for home protection, you realize just how retarded the gun nuts arguments are...If a person is weak and/or mentally unstable, they will kill themselves using poison, hanging, drugs, a car exhaust, or some other means. And I also doubt you know more than few parents who buried loved ones who killed themselves with guns and if by some remote chance you do, that says a lot more about the type of morons you know, than it does about firearms.

.

 

[jtpr312]

[ Liberal Fascism at it's best. Don't hold the scumbag responsible for their own actions, look somewhere else to place the blame. The scumbag wouldn't be a scumbag if the honest business owner never sold them a gun.

If Hobby Lobby is willing to lose money on principle, why not Bushmaster? Neither should, nor should they have to. Much better for us to defend what our Founder's gave their lives, fortunes and liberty to attain.

.

I'm sorry, the Founders were a bunch of slave-raping assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes... Showing this country was pretty much dysfunctional from the get-go. You're a piece of crap who seems to enjoy the freedom to run your mouth that those slave raping, no tax paying a-holes gave their lives, fortunes and liberty to get and hold for you.

Oh, the scumbag will still be a scumbag. Or maybe just a poor person who wants to eat. But if he can't get a gun, he won't be that dangerous. Yes, you're soooo right. Nobody raped, robbed, murdered and pillaged until the invention of the gun. You're such a dumbass it's a wonder you can even feed yourself.

Of course, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments, where that gun bought to protect the family destroys it... Again, the Gun Industry sells fear, not freedom. No, you're wrong about the domestic violence argument, and as far as suicides go, so what? If you want to kill yourself you'll do it with or without a gun and the number of firearm related suicides is about the same as the number who do use a gun.

Take out their money motive, you'll be AMAZED how fast they become good corporate citizens. Take out their brains and you'll be surprised how fast they become good little liberal democrat citizens.[/QUOTE].

 

[jtpr312]

Manufacturers are only liable if they manufacture defective items. ...?

That's simply not true. The Cigarette companies were held liable because of how they aggressively marketted their products towards children. No, it was because they KNEW the adverse effects of their products and chose to hide those facts.

We can do the same to the Gun Companies. They entirely based their argument that you need that gun to keep you safe from bad guys, when they increase the danger. Lol. What moronic pov.

When Nancy Lanza bought those guns, she probably had no idea her own son would kill her with one of them. She was just some scared Suburban Mom who bought into the gun manufacturers' propaganda about the hoard of bad guys out there ready to rape her. Where are all these gun advertisements you're seeing slick? Where are all these fear based commercials aimed at children? You're a liar.

When in fact, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. Why do you keep saying this when you KNOW it's been proven to be a lie? You liberals are so stuck on that, tell a lie often enough and people may start to believe you BS that you can't help yourself can you?

.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The .0001% are usually already criminals, so we do police them already. And if you knew about risk analysis, sometimes there is nothing you can do about that .0001%.

You are trying to take away one of my rights. I should go quietly into the night because you think your ideas are better than mine? If I didn't get pissed off I would think there is more wrong with me at that point than the fact you trying to be all police state on me makes me mad.

You can be a government cared for sheep if you want. I prefer freedom, and with freedom comes risk.

Those "dead slave rapists" also thought protection from illegal search, freedom of press and religion, and trial by jury were good ideas. I guess we should toss them as well based on your "opinions"

Freedom of religion, absolutely... letting any crazy asshole with a bible run around and fleece people, that's just fuckin' nutz.

Frankly, guy, if you are out there, cowering with a gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your household because you fear imaginary "criminals" (sorry, most gun deaths are suicides, or domestic arguments) you are not living in "Freedom", you are a fearful little animal cowering in your cave.

 

[JoeB131]

The best argument for Gun Control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut. Seriously, you guys make the argument of why average folks shouldn't have guns better than I ever could.

I'm sorry, the Founders were a bunch of slave-raping assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes... Showing this country was pretty much dysfunctional from the get-go. You're a piece of crap who seems to enjoy the freedom to run your mouth that those slave raping, no tax paying a-holes gave their lives, fortunes and liberty to get and hold for you.

Oh, bullshit. If Washington and his boys got put at the end of the King's Rope, we'd be Canadians today.

Hey, guess what, I've been to Canada. A bunch of times. They are just as free as we are. Except they don't let every asshole who wants a gun have one, they have universal health care, and they don't have a fraction of our crime.

Oh, the scumbag will still be a scumbag. Or maybe just a poor person who wants to eat. But if he can't get a gun, he won't be that dangerous. Yes, you're soooo right. Nobody raped, robbed, murdered and pillaged until the invention of the gun. You're such a dumbass it's a wonder you can even feed yourself.

Again, I have to ask my self, why is it these European countries, Japan and Canada don't have as many murders, don't have as many prisons, don't have as much crime...

Oh, yeah, they have a strong welfare state and strong gun control. And they are just as free as we are.

Of course, being a stupid, gun toting redneck, you just chang "USA,USA" and pretend the world doesn't exist. I kind of suspect you don't even have a passport.

Of course, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments, where that gun bought to protect the family destroys it... Again, the Gun Industry sells fear, not freedom. No, you're wrong about the domestic violence argument, and as far as suicides go, so what? If you want to kill yourself you'll do it with or without a gun and the number of firearm related suicides is about the same as the number who do use a gun.

Again, most gun suicides are teens who have no appreciation of what they are doing. Guns make it too easy to kill themselves. Same with a lot of the murders.

Take out their money motive, you'll be AMAZED how fast they become good corporate citizens. Take out their brains and you'll be surprised how fast they become good little liberal democrat citizens.

.[/QUOTE]

Well, Cleetus, if that's the case, why do the Dems dominate the cities and places with education, and the Repukes dominate the places that look like Deliverence was filmed there?

 

[martybegan]

[

The .0001% are usually already criminals, so we do police them already. And if you knew about risk analysis, sometimes there is nothing you can do about that .0001%.

You are trying to take away one of my rights. I should go quietly into the night because you think your ideas are better than mine? If I didn't get pissed off I would think there is more wrong with me at that point than the fact you trying to be all police state on me makes me mad.

You can be a government cared for sheep if you want. I prefer freedom, and with freedom comes risk.

Those "dead slave rapists" also thought protection from illegal search, freedom of press and religion, and trial by jury were good ideas. I guess we should toss them as well based on your "opinions"

Freedom of religion, absolutely... letting any crazy asshole with a bible run around and fleece people, that's just fuckin' nutz.

Frankly, guy, if you are out there, cowering with a gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your household because you fear imaginary "criminals" (sorry, most gun deaths are suicides, or domestic arguments) you are not living in "Freedom", you are a fearful little animal cowering in your cave.

The difference is the person going around fleecing people has to commit some act, say fraud, and then and only then can they be prosecuted. What you are doing is punishing gun owners because SOMEONE ELSE did something wrong with a gun. It would be like arresting an entire catholic congregation because some baptist minister 1000 miles away ran off with the church's collection money.

And that number is still bullshit..... of the "43 times" 90% is the guy offing himself, and it does not eliminate illegal guns.

And again, I do not own a gun, I just refuse to give up the right, or force others to give up thier rights. I don't refuse others a right just because I choose not to excercise it.

Of course, progressives such as youself often don't see it that way. Your type is a big fan of "Well if I dont use something, no one else has to either."

 

[JoeB131]

[


The difference is the person going around fleecing people has to commit some act, say fraud, and then and only then can they be prosecuted. What you are doing is punishing gun owners because SOMEONE ELSE did something wrong with a gun. It would be like arresting an entire catholic congregation because some baptist minister 1000 miles away ran off with the church's collection money.

And that number is still bullshit..... of the "43 times" 90% is the guy offing himself, and it does not eliminate illegal guns.

And again, I do not own a gun, I just refuse to give up the right, or force others to give up thier rights. I don't refuse others a right just because I choose not to excercise it.

Of course, progressives such as youself often don't see it that way. Your type is a big fan of "Well if I dont use something, no one else has to either."

Actually, we don't prosecute religious fraud... that's the problem. I'd love to apply the consumer fraud laws to churches... that would be awesome.

"Okay, you claimed your religion can get me into heaven, can you actually PROVE there is a Heaven?"

Seriously, the world would be better off if we got rid of religion. It's never done a good thing, not once.



No, my type is a big fan of, "I don't want crazy people running around with things that can kill me or kids".

Trying to parse Kellerman by disallowing suicides or murders committed during Lent or whatever other silly bullshit you want tothrow out there, the fact is, a gun in the home is more likely to kill someone in the home than an invader.

 

[martybegan]

[


The difference is the person going around fleecing people has to commit some act, say fraud, and then and only then can they be prosecuted. What you are doing is punishing gun owners because SOMEONE ELSE did something wrong with a gun. It would be like arresting an entire catholic congregation because some baptist minister 1000 miles away ran off with the church's collection money.

And that number is still bullshit..... of the "43 times" 90% is the guy offing himself, and it does not eliminate illegal guns.

And again, I do not own a gun, I just refuse to give up the right, or force others to give up thier rights. I don't refuse others a right just because I choose not to excercise it.

Of course, progressives such as youself often don't see it that way. Your type is a big fan of "Well if I dont use something, no one else has to either."

Actually, we don't prosecute religious fraud... that's the problem. I'd love to apply the consumer fraud laws to churches... that would be awesome.

"Okay, you claimed your religion can get me into heaven, can you actually PROVE there is a Heaven?"

Seriously, the world would be better off if we got rid of religion. It's never done a good thing, not once.



No, my type is a big fan of, "I don't want crazy people running around with things that can kill me or kids".

Trying to parse Kellerman by disallowing suicides or murders committed during Lent or whatever other silly bullshit you want tothrow out there, the fact is, a gun in the home is more likely to kill someone in the home than an invader.

To prove fraud you would have to prove that 100% that there is NO heaven, not prove there may not be one. Good luck with that.

And basing a statement on a flawed study even without mentioning the number is still flawed. Again, 99.9999% of all guns sit in thier owners homes without so much as a peep.

 

[zeke]

[
That's because it's not a fact dumbass. Kellerman's study, which this is taken from, has been debunked and discredited years ago. Try looking at Lott's study, University of Chicago, to get REAL look at this number and the rest of the nonsense this moron spoon feeds leftist morons like you who never care what they take in and regurgitate as "fact". Of the 45x's number you have here, 86% are suicides, and with or without a gun, a person intent on killing themselves will do so using pills, poison or whatever else they can. This "study" also never takes into account the millions of times a firearm is used in the home to PREVENT a crime or a potential killing when the armed homeowmer does not kill the bad guy but wounds him, holds him at gun point until the police arrive or chases the bad guy away before anyone is killed or robbed. See we usually don't talk about this "fact", because we don't see any reason to argue with a moron stupid enough to call this nonsense a "fact" without first looking to see if it's factual or truthful. We, inteligent firearms owners, know the waste of time it is to argue with people dumb enough to believe whatever some other moron tells them is a fact.

The CDC doesn't accept Lott's Study. It accepts Kellerman's study. Kellerman's study has been replicated in other cities and the same results were found. Bullcrap.
Lott has all the credibility of those "Scientists" who deny Global Warming or said that Cigarettes don't cause cancer. You just have to look at who was paying his freight. More bullcrap

A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a member of the family. Only if you count suicides and a person who is intent of killing themselves will do with our without a gun in the house, and this number also ignores the millions of times a gun is used to defend the home but nobody is killed, so this is irelevent to the discussion. And frankly, having known more than a few parents who buried a loved one who killed himself with that gun they bought for home protection, you realize just how retarded the gun nuts arguments are...If a person is weak and/or mentally unstable, they will kill themselves using poison, hanging, drugs, a car exhaust, or some other means. And I also doubt you know more than few parents who buried loved ones who killed themselves with guns and if by some remote chance you do, that says a lot more about the type of morons you know, than it does about firearms.

.

Hey hey, here is the dude that knows all about guns. You don't believe that? Ask him.


But jtpr, I have asked the gun nuts on here many many many times to point me in the direction where the info is supporting your claims that, I think I read, millions of crimes stopped by homeowners with their guns.

SO where is that information to be found? Or are you just making shit up becaue it sounds good?

How many crimes have you stopped?

I know around 30 people with guns. Long time gun owners. Not a one has stopped a crime
(including me) with the guns they own.

But you have? And you say there are millions of times this is happening.

Prove it. Should be easy. Million of times. Every year. (are you including drug deals and gangbangers?)

 

[JoeB131]

[

To prove fraud you would have to prove that 100% that there is NO heaven, not prove there may not be one. Good luck with that.

And basing a statement on a flawed study even without mentioning the number is still flawed. Again, 99.9999% of all guns sit in thier owners homes without so much as a peep.

Yawn... "WAAAAAHHHHH, Kellerman debunks the gun industry's selling point". Yawn.

Hey, guess what we are finding out about Nancy Lanza. Turns out she was a survivalist "prepper".

Connecticut school shooting: Adam Lanza's mother was preparing for disaster - Telegraph

Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam for Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

“She prepared for the worst,” her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza told reporters. “Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?”

Hmmmmm.... who is pushing this line of reasoning to make a quick buck?

Again, I would LOVE to get the gun industry in a court room after we've had a chance to look at their internal documents.

 

[martybegan]

[

To prove fraud you would have to prove that 100% that there is NO heaven, not prove there may not be one. Good luck with that.

And basing a statement on a flawed study even without mentioning the number is still flawed. Again, 99.9999% of all guns sit in thier owners homes without so much as a peep.

Yawn... "WAAAAAHHHHH, Kellerman debunks the gun industry's selling point". Yawn.

Hey, guess what we are finding out about Nancy Lanza. Turns out she was a survivalist "prepper".

Connecticut school shooting: Adam Lanza's mother was preparing for disaster - Telegraph

Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam for Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

“She prepared for the worst,” her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza told reporters. “Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?”

Hmmmmm.... who is pushing this line of reasoning to make a quick buck?

Again, I would LOVE to get the gun industry in a court room after we've had a chance to look at their internal documents.

Are you going to blame the freeze dried food, water reverse-osmosis kit maker, and "go bag" sellers as well?

Kellerman still does shit, and you are too dense to realize it.

 

[zeke]

[


The difference is the person going around fleecing people has to commit some act, say fraud, and then and only then can they be prosecuted. What you are doing is punishing gun owners because SOMEONE ELSE did something wrong with a gun. It would be like arresting an entire catholic congregation because some baptist minister 1000 miles away ran off with the church's collection money.

And that number is still bullshit..... of the "43 times" 90% is the guy offing himself, and it does not eliminate illegal guns.

And again, I do not own a gun, I just refuse to give up the right, or force others to give up thier rights. I don't refuse others a right just because I choose not to excercise it.

Of course, progressives such as youself often don't see it that way. Your type is a big fan of "Well if I dont use something, no one else has to either."

Actually, we don't prosecute religious fraud... that's the problem. I'd love to apply the consumer fraud laws to churches... that would be awesome.

"Okay, you claimed your religion can get me into heaven, can you actually PROVE there is a Heaven?"

Seriously, the world would be better off if we got rid of religion. It's never done a good thing, not once.



No, my type is a big fan of, "I don't want crazy people running around with things that can kill me or kids".

Trying to parse Kellerman by disallowing suicides or murders committed during Lent or whatever other silly bullshit you want tothrow out there, the fact is, a gun in the home is more likely to kill someone in the home than an invader.

To prove fraud you would have to prove that 100% that there is NO heaven, not prove there may not be one. Good luck with that.

And basing a statement on a flawed study even without mentioning the number is still flawed. Again, 99.9999% of all guns sit in thier owners homes without so much as a peep.[/QUOTE]


Marty, where do you get the number 99.999%? Haven't you read what the gun nut jtpr says about gun owners. He says MILLIONS of crimes are stopped by homeowners with guns. MILLIONS Marty.

So, how could it be that 99.999% of guns are just sitting? When millions of times they are being used to stop crimes.

The numbers don't add up Marty.

 

[Euroconservativ]

If i'm not wrong, Chuck Hagel voted for it. He was one of the most conservative senators.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Are you going to blame the freeze dried food, water reverse-osmosis kit maker, and "go bag" sellers as well?

Kellerman still does shit, and you are too dense to realize it.

While I find those guys a bit less noxious, not really. THeir products don't kill people.

Fact is, Nancy was out there stockpiling for the Zombie Apocolypse, and she should have been worried about the Zombie she lived with...

Oddly, no one is counting her as a victim anymore...

 

[Contumacious]

I know around 30 people with guns. Long time gun owners. Not a one has stopped a crime(including me) with the guns they own.

Shock Revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado Would Have Arrested Anyone Who Stopped the Batman Massacre With a Concealed Weapon

by Mike Adams
Natural News

Recently by Mike Adams: Why Did No One Fight Back? Questions Linger Over James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting

Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

.

 

[zeke]

I know around 30 people with guns. Long time gun owners. Not a one has stopped a crime(including me) with the guns they own.

Shock Revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado Would Have Arrested Anyone Who Stopped the Batman Massacre With a Concealed Weapon

by Mike Adams
Natural News

Recently by Mike Adams: Why Did No One Fight Back? Questions Linger Over James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting

Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

.

Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

The gun nut jtpr says MILLIONS OF CRIMES ARE STOPPED BY GUN OWNERS.

Where can that statistic be verified? Do you know?

Or are you just making comments? If that is the case. IF you were armed when the Aurora CO shooting was taking place, you would have simply stood by and let the shooter have at it. Because you were more afraid of the gun laws than you were of being shot. Or keeping others from being shot.

YOU definitley don't need to be carrying a gun. In any circumstance.

 

[Gadawg73]

I know around 30 people with guns. Long time gun owners. Not a one has stopped a crime(including me) with the guns they own.

Shock Revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado Would Have Arrested Anyone Who Stopped the Batman Massacre With a Concealed Weapon

by Mike Adams
Natural News

Recently by Mike Adams: Why Did No One Fight Back? Questions Linger Over James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting

Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

.

Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

The gun nut jtpr says MILLIONS OF CRIMES ARE STOPPED BY GUN OWNERS.

Where can that statistic be verified? Do you know?

Or are you just making comments? If that is the case. IF you were armed when the Aurora CO shooting was taking place, you would have simply stood by and let the shooter have at it. Because you were more afraid of the gun laws than you were of being shot. Or keeping others from being shot.

YOU definitley don't need to be carrying a gun. In any circumstance.

Has ONE crime been stopped by a gun owner?
Good enough for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

Try again..page 6 and footnote 2.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf

Gun Nut websites I don't even bother clicking on.

Kellerman's study has been validated by the CDC and it's just fucking common sense.

I've never known anyone who killed a bad guy in self defense.

I've known a few people who've killed themselves with that gun someone brought into the house for "protection". In fact, it happened to a guy who lived next door to me.

I know. You're brighter, better and smarter than everyone and every study. A walking encyclopedia.

You're also a jackass with that reply.

If one wants to kill himself with a gun, he or she will obtain one and do it.

Convenience didn't make them kill themselves...mental illness did.

Your story is highly suspect anyway.

Want me to make one up?

I believe I'd like to see some proof that the CDC "validated" that pile of shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

The reason it should not be included is that when usually stated, it is made to imply someone being accidentally shot, the classic "I shot my son by the fridge because i thought he was a burglar" story. The people who often use this study use it to make it appear you are going to shoot your cousin ed well before you shoot an intruder. Using suicides to bolster the ratio is intellectually dishonest if you intend to use the numbers this way.

Basically, the study billed itself as proof that "Guns in the home INCREASE danger". But it's been proven conclusively that the presence of a gun does not increase the danger from suicide whatsoever, and they are actually MORE likely in places where there are no legally-owned guns. Therefore, since suicides have no relation to the point the study is allegedly "proving", they have no business being included in the study.