Newtown victims gets million from murdered woman

[2aguy]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

 

[2aguy]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

Yes or no....do anti gun extremists fight to keep gun safety out of public schools?

Little idiot, I have helped teach gun safety in Scouts. I am, and have been a gun owner for 60 years. But you kind of extremism about guns is what is one of the drivers of gun violence in this nation. We are a first world nation with a third world nation death rate from gun violence.

Didn't answer the question....do anti gunners fight to keep gun safety out of public schools....a simple question even for you...yes or no?

No...we have violent criminals who murder people....

In Europe, they marched 12 million people into gas chambers.......

 

[2aguy]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

no....morons like you giving a little each time they demand a lot will eventually give them all of it......

 

[Old Rocks]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

 

[2aguy]

They don't care about the dead kids….they just want to be able to go after the guns owned by actual sinners…those who own guns. That sin will never be forgiven, forgotten or allowed to continue if they can help it.

They have to be fought each step they take….

Such a lying bastard you are. You are the kind that will bring about stringent gun control in this nation.

Yes or no....do anti gun extremists fight to keep gun safety out of public schools?

Little idiot, I have helped teach gun safety in Scouts. I am, and have been a gun owner for 60 years. But you kind of extremism about guns is what is one of the drivers of gun violence in this nation. We are a first world nation with a third world nation death rate from gun violence.

Okay, Genius....where do you draw the line....what new laws they are proposing do you oppose........? What gun laws they are proposing will actually stop gun crime or stop a mass shooter...genius?

What gun laws will not target gun owners who do not commit crimes? Genius...

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

Yeah genius....so the killings wouldn't have happened...right? You, the gun owner, don't know he could have done the same killing, in the gun free zone your gun grabbing buddies enacted, with his pistols...right.......

See...I knew it.........you will give them everything and think they will stop at 5 shot revolvers.....you are a real twit.

It was a gun free zone and he targeted the smallest kids...twit.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson

Hey...genius.....what licensing for fully automatic, select fire military weapons do they have in France.......? You know...where the terrorists have murdered over 140 people this year...with illegal, banned, military rifles........

genius.

 

[2aguy]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

No I am saying you lied about him murdering her to get the guns.

 

[2aguy]

Did the mother break the law?

Did she give the gun to her son to commit murder?

Since the answer to both questions is no, no reward should have been given...at least in a sane country.

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

No I am saying you lied about him murdering her to get the guns.

He did......she would have tried to stop him, but he murdered her....

 

[WheelieAddict]

2aguy lies then when called out on it tries to put words in your mouth you didn't say. What an asshole.

 

[WheelieAddict]

^^^Thinks the USA isn't a sane country because you can be sued for negligence under civil law.

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

No I am saying you lied about him murdering her to get the guns.

He did......she would have tried to stop him, but he murdered her....

You said he murdered her to get the guns. You lied. He used one of the guns to shoot her to death.

 

[candycorn]

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

No I am saying you lied about him murdering her to get the guns.

He did......she would have tried to stop him, but he murdered her....

You said he murdered her to get the guns. You lied. He used one of the guns to shoot her to death.

2a"guy" is a habitual liar.

 

[candycorn]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

Simply reduce the capacity and increase the times necessary to re-load. During the times of re-loading and changing weaponry, there is a chance some can escape or physically challenge the shooter/return fire even.

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

Simply reduce the capacity and increase the times necessary to re-load. During the times of re-loading and changing weaponry, there is a chance some can escape or physically challenge the shooter/return fire even.

Nope.....you have no idea how a gun works, there is nothing a magazine limit would do to save lives.....the Sandy Hook shooter switched magazines repeatedly as combat reloads and murdered over 26.....the Long Island shooter changed magazines on a crowded train and they only tackled him when he ran out of ammo completely, the South Carolina church shooter changed magazines several times to kill 9 people in the church in close quarters.....

Magazine reloads are a myth of the anti gunner and for the really anti gun extremists they are just a way to ban certain types of gun without having to actually ban the gun itself.

 

[2aguy]

^^^ No to both questions that you asked here, but the boy's access to the gun that he used did come from his mom.

God bless you and the families of his victims always!!!

Holly

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

Simply reduce the capacity and increase the times necessary to re-load. During the times of re-loading and changing weaponry, there is a chance some can escape or physically challenge the shooter/return fire even.

Here you go...actual research....

KLECK: Magazine Size Limits Have No Effect On Mass Shootings - Bearing Arms - Gary Kleck, High capacity magazines



Criminologist Gary Kleck is a legend in his field, and a thorn in the side of gun control supporters for his rigid insistence on listening to what the data tells us, instead of attempting to twist the data to suit his political agenda. His latest study looks like it will crush the gun control conceit that magazine size limits have anything at all to do with casualty counts.

Magazine size limits are irrelevant in mass shootings.

Kleck identified and examined 88 mass shooting incidents in which more than six people were killed or wounded for the 20 year period from 1994 through 2013. He looked at incidents with more than six victims because six or fewer people could be shot with a traditional six-shot revolver with no large-capacity magazine needed. So he wanted to look at those events in which possession of large-capacity magazines would be most relevant.

Even with this restrictive definition of a mass shooting, Kleck found that large capacity magazines – defined as holding over 10 rounds – were used in only 21 of the 88 incidents (24%). So, in 76% of the incidents, a large-capacity magazine ban would have made no difference in any event.

Kleck then goes on to analyze further the 21 incidents in which a large-capacity magazine was used. In every case, the shooters carried either multiple guns or multiple magazines. Therefore, even without a large-capacity magazine, the shooters could easily switch guns or magazines.

Kleck also marshals evidence to show that the rate of fire of most mass shooters is so slow that having to change guns or magazines more frequently would not diminish their casualty counts.



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



Another short essay by Kleck and a partner....



http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/Banning Large Capacity Magazines Will Not Reduce Crime.pdf


Nevertheless, supporters might still argue that banning LCM’s could save lives by reducing the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings. If there were nearby persons willing to tackle the shooter, limits on magazine capacity might limit how much death and injury a shooter could inflict with the initial magazine; the smaller the magazine, the fewer the victims shot before the killer was stopped by interveners.

Even in these rare events, however, LCM’s are irrelevant to the number of victims shot.

For example, in the decade before the expired AW ban, in the entire U.S. there were 15 mass shooting incidents in which more than 6 victims were killed or more than 12 were killed or wounded. Of the 15 cases, in 14 of them either the shooter possessed multiple guns, which made it unnecessary for him to reload once one gun was empty, or the shooter in fact reloaded.

Recent history also casts doubt on whether a ban on LCM’s would alter the number of persons killed and wounded in mass public shootings. While one of the Columbine shooters used a 995 Hi-Point carbine rifle with a 10-round limit on magazine capacity (during the AW ban), he simply brought additional magazines to the attack—13 to be exact.

The Virginia Tech shooter had 17 magazines for his handguns and most were of the 10- round variety.

The Newtown shooter brought three guns to the school and fired at least two of them.

Simply put, these killers do not need LCM’s to fire many rounds without reloading – they simply bring plenty of magazines with them or drop one gun when its ammunition is exhausted and start firing another.

Further, there are virtually no mass killings in which there is a bystander or victim willing to tackle the killer even if he does need to reload.


And don't forget the Santa Barbara shooter, he also used the California limited 10 round magazines.....

We have yet to learn if the San Bernadino shooters also used the 10 round California limited magazines....

 

[2aguy]

And then there is this.....the other side of limiting magazines......think the Paris attack where you had 8 attackers, with fully automatic rifles...illegal in France, not sold in gun stores, because France doesn't have any, not sold in gun shows, because France doesn't have any, and not sold in individual sales, because France doesn't have any.......and the terrorists were able to get 30 round magazines for all of their rifles....but the good guys couldn't....

Kleck and his co researcher make this point as well........

Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey reveal that roughly 20 percent of all violent crime victims in a given year will be attacked by two or more offenders. One can easily imagine a scenario in which an armed victim facing multiple attackers is able to save their own life by having enough rounds to thwart multiple attackers. And there is strong empirical evidence showing that the use of guns for self-protection is both frequent and effective. Making LCM’s unavailable for self-defense can therefore cost lives, and this cost must be taken into account when considering the possible benefit of limiting on magazine capacity that could save lives in only the rarest of crimes.

 

[2aguy]

Nope.....never said that. Where was the negligence...she did not hand the gun to the kid...he murdered her to get it......do you think she would have given him the gun freely?

So....you are murdered and your car is used as a car bomb...should you be sued for negligence?

False. Lanza shot and killed his mother. He did not murder her to get it.

You are saying she wouldn't have tried to prevent him from leaving, had he not murdered her..right?

No I am saying you lied about him murdering her to get the guns.

He did......she would have tried to stop him, but he murdered her....

You said he murdered her to get the guns. You lied. He used one of the guns to shoot her to death.

He murdered her to get the guns out of the house unmolested........and to keep her from stopping him by calling the police.

 

[candycorn]

And had the boy, who actually did the shooting been captured, he should have been punished.

And that would have helped the dead kids? You are bordering on insane.

And what would you have done to stop him before the act......? There is nothing you could have done or passed into law to stop the kid.

You are insane...you want laws that prevent crime before they happen...that is not what laws do...they tell you what you cannot do and what your punishment will be if you do it anyway.......

If one had to pass the same licensing requirements to own an assault weapon as to own a .45 Thompson, that stupid mother would not have had that weapon. And the kid might have been forced to try something like that with a gun that would have to be reloaded after five shots, some of the kids might have gotten away.

Simply reduce the capacity and increase the times necessary to re-load. During the times of re-loading and changing weaponry, there is a chance some can escape or physically challenge the shooter/return fire even.

Nope.....you have no idea how a gun works, there is nothing a magazine limit would do to save lives.....the Sandy Hook shooter switched magazines repeatedly as combat reloads and murdered over 26.....the Long Island shooter changed magazines on a crowded train and they only tackled him when he ran out of ammo completely, the South Carolina church shooter changed magazines several times to kill 9 people in the church in close quarters.....

Magazine reloads are a myth of the anti gunner and for the really anti gun extremists they are just a way to ban certain types of gun without having to actually ban the gun itself.

True or false, while changing magazines the gun isn't firing. True

True or false, while the gun isn't firing, it isn't killing people. True

Shut the **** up