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

[2aguy]

The gun violence archive...you dope....they add every gang banger shooting at a pool party in their numbers, you moron...those are not mass public shootings you idiot.

See, you made my point. "That mass shooting doesn't count, it's only black people".

No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018. A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.

 

[hjmick]

I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...

33,000 gun deaths. 70,000 gun injuries. $270 BILLION in gun related economic losses.

I'm glad you think this is funny. I don't.

It's your abject ignorance in the face of indisputable facts that makes you funny...

 

[JoeB131]

Um, no, I did not. His being there with a Native American group was circumstantial. That's why I asked the question. So, what did his ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?

You mean why did the right viciously attack a person of color because he was the focus of a Entitled White Person's rudeness?

I think you answered your own question.

You did notice I posted the Fortune.com article

Nope, I ignore all right wing links... they are meaningless to me.

That's kind of the definition of a •MASS• shooting.

Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?

Because "Gangbanger" it the word you chose when you found out using the N-word outside your cult would get you fired.

Once again- Mormonism didn't let black people join until 1979 and considers dark skin a curse from God.

 

[JoeB131]

No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018. A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.

No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...

Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.

 

[2aguy]

No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018. A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.

No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...

Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.

No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....

 

[JoeB131]

No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....

Right. We've already determined as a racist society we don't care when people of color are slaughtered. It's just when they shoot up nice clean white people someone cares.

That's kind of fucked up.

 

[2aguy]

No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....

Right. We've already determined as a racist society we don't care when people of color are slaughtered. It's just when they shoot up nice clean white people someone cares.

That's kind of fucked up.

No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......

This Republican is trying to save Baltimore from people like you...and save the lives of thousands of Black men, women and childern....

Maryland Governor Hogan Provides Blueprint For Chicago Violence

What Hogan realizes and as I have long pointed out is that job one is to get control of the city streets. Criminals are operating in plain sight and with no fear of an embattled police department still reeling from their political all activist State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby who is more determined to get indictments on police officers for doing their job than on prosecuting career criminals. Hogan pointed out that 85% of homicide suspects had a prior criminal record and had been arrested an average of seven times. So much for second chances. Additionally, over 50% have been arrested for violent offenses. So much for giving second chances for low-level offenders and 40% had previously been arrested for a crime committed with a gun. The plan is correctly heavy on providing millions for resources like additional officers for street patrols, prosecutors, judges, probation and parole agents all focused on going after career criminals.


The key will be changing the culture in the prosecutor’s office to actually bring criminal charges, keeping them in jail with high bail while awaiting trial and getting lenient judges to not accept watered-down prosecutions in exchange for plea bargains and sentencing them to long periods of incarceration.

 

[JoeB131]

No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......

They tried to do something about it. We enacted gun laws and the National Rampage Society ran to the courts and said, "But, but ,but, the Founding Slave Rapists said we can have guns!"

So how's this for an idea. Let the big cities completely ban guns and allow them to be as ruthless as they want in enforcing the gun laws. If we still have lots of murder, then you can complain.

 

[2aguy]

No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......

They tried to do something about it. We enacted gun laws and the National Rampage Society ran to the courts and said, "But, but ,but, the Founding Slave Rapists said we can have guns!"

So how's this for an idea. Let the big cities completely ban guns and allow them to be as ruthless as they want in enforcing the gun laws. If we still have lots of murder, then you can complain.

No, moron...the problem isn't law abiding gun owners, it is asshats like you who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again........

Maryland Governor Hogan Provides Blueprint For Chicago Violence

It is not the government’s or taxpayer’s responsibility to step in and raise children abandoned by their mothers and fathers. It is, however, the responsibility for the government to use tax dollars to protect law-abiding people from being victimized by ineffective parenting and separate them from society for the longest time allowable by law. Then bleeding heart liberals turned what was proven strategies to control crime into something racist.

They turned safe streets, schools, and communities into a political movement by claiming that this was a thinly veiled attempt by tough on crime advocates to systematically lock up black males.


Liberals screamed about a mass incarceration campaign and went away from the use of jails and prisons as crime control tools. They indoctrinated criminal justice practitioners including prosecutors, police and probation and parole agents about some inane idea about inherent bias theory. That led to discouraging prosecutors from issuing charges against drug dealers and gun-toting repeat offenders. They urged judges away from high bail and lengthy sentences even though these are some of the tactics at the heart of the great crime declines of the 1980s to the mid-2000s. There is no argument about that. It has been proven over and over by criminologists and economists on either side of what works best argument, programming or incarceration.

 

[2aguy]

No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......

They tried to do something about it. We enacted gun laws and the National Rampage Society ran to the courts and said, "But, but ,but, the Founding Slave Rapists said we can have guns!"

So how's this for an idea. Let the big cities completely ban guns and allow them to be as ruthless as they want in enforcing the gun laws. If we still have lots of murder, then you can complain.

Real life shows you are wrong about guns......completely wrong....and you are wrong about locking up criminals too....

Normal people with guns...lots of guns...do not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate....as actual facts, truth and reality show.

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Um, no, I did not. His being there with a Native American group was circumstantial. That's why I asked the question. So, what did his ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?

You mean why did the right viciously attack a person of color because he was the focus of a Entitled White Person's rudeness?

I think you answered your own question.

Negative. Don't answer the question with a question. Besides, even if true (it's not), all this happened after the incident. So, once again: What did Phillip's ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?

You did notice I posted the Fortune.com article

Nope, I ignore all right wing links... they are meaningless to me.

Don't be an idiot. Fortune.com is an offshoot of Fortune magazine that was started in 1929 by Henry Robinson Luce, who also cofounded Time magazine. It focuses on business and finance and is also the author and publisher of the Fortune 500 lists.

Try again.

That's kind of the definition of a •MASS• shooting.

Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.

Every one of the lists I cited to you included shootings with as few as three people killed and you refused to look at them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's kind of the definition of a •MASS• shooting.

Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.

No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...
Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.

Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a “mass shooting”.

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term mass shooting. The United States' FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s).

Different media outlets and research groups use different definitions for the term "mass shooting" For example, crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive defines a "mass shooting" as " FOUR or more shot (injured or killed) in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter,” differentiating between mass shooting and mass murder and not counting shooters as victims.

The United States’ Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition and defines a "public mass shooting" as an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner, echoing the FBI's definition of the term "mass murder." But adding the indiscriminate factor.​

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?

Because "Gangbanger" it the word you chose when you found out using the N-word outside your cult would get you fired.

I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that “Gangbanger” denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied. That would be you.

 

[2aguy]

That's kind of the definition of a •MASS• shooting.

Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.

No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...
Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.

Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a “mass shooting”.

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term mass shooting. The United States' FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s).

Different media outlets and research groups use different definitions for the term "mass shooting" For example, crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive defines a "mass shooting" as " FOUR or more shot (injured or killed) in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter,” differentiating between mass shooting and mass murder and not counting shooters as victims.

The United States’ Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition and defines a "public mass shooting" as an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner, echoing the FBI's definition of the term "mass murder." But adding the indiscriminate factor.​

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?

Because "Gangbanger" it the word you chose when you found out using the N-word outside your cult would get you fired.

I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that “Gangbanger” denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied. That would be you.

Obama had the Dept. of Justice lower the number to 3 or more victims....they were hoping to increase the number of mass public shootings recorded each year as he was trying to revitalize the anti-gun movement......he also allowed over 3,000 guns to get to drug cartels to help this effort.......

I don't have a problem with the 3 number, but when they throw in every gang shooting to get the number up that is just blatant lying...

 

[JoeB131]

No, moron...the problem isn't law abiding gun owners, it is asshats like you who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again........

Again, getting repetitive.

We lock up 2 million people. Locking people up isn't a solution.

Real life shows you are wrong about guns......completely wrong....and you are wrong about locking up criminals too....

Normal people with guns...lots of guns...do not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate....as actual facts, truth and reality show.

Here's the problem... you think you gun nuts are "Normal".

Most Americans don't own guns. That's Normal.

Most Americans who do own guns really don't have a problem with common sense gun laws.

The "abnormal" are people like you and your pinup girl Nancy Lanza, stocking enough high-powered guns to fight off the zombies and terrifying the rest of us.

 

[JoeB131]

Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a “mass shooting”.

Awesome. Even by that standard, we still have hundreds of mass shootings. Certainly a lot more than 12, Mormon Bob.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama had the Dept. of Justice lower the number to 3 or more victims....they were hoping to increase the number of mass public shootings recorded each year as he was trying to revitalize the anti-gun movement......he also allowed over 3,000 guns to get to drug cartels to help this effort.......

Guy, 250,000 guns cross the border every year. When Mexico caught that crooked Ex-Marine smuggling guns into their country, you practically wanted to go to war with them.

 

[JoeB131]

I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that “Gangbanger” denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied. That would be you.

Yes, we know, this is the thing you guys do... pretend your racism isn't racist.

You know, never met any white gangbangers in my life... and I'm old.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, we know, this is the thing you guys do... pretend your racism isn't racist.

You're the only one here, who has expressed any racism, and you do so almost constantly.

I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.

 

[JoeB131]

You're the only one here, who has expressed any racism, and you do so almost constantly.

I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.

Yes, it's the one who belongs to a cult that says Dark Skin is a curse from God... that would be you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.

Yes, it's the one who belongs to a cult that says Dark Skin is a curse from God... that would be you.

So far as I know, nobody here belongs to any cult that says that.

I say that the obvious racist is the one who continually makes racist remarks, while falsely accusing others of racism. Also the same person who is a religious bigot, who continually tells blatant, hateful lies about other people's religions, while falsely accusing others of bigotry.