The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[bendog]

OPINION ^^^. Keys has no clue how much money was donated to the NRA subsequent to every mass murder at school, theaters and malls!!




A non sequitur ^^^ irrelevant and untrue.

It seems to me that people are responding to the Leftists capitalizing on tragedy to pass gun control legislation that wouldn't have prevented the event to begin with. Amazing how the demonic Left accuses the NRA of doing precisely what the Left is doing, exploiting a tragedy to further an ulterior agenda.

Being Left or Right has no bearing on having empathy (only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion). I hesitate (only for a moment) in characterizing this obsession with guns and gun rights as a mental disorder, but the more callous and angry are those so afflicted, suggests they are not humane and thus mentally 'different' than the rest of us.

I reflect on the horror of the murder yesterday of over 130 children, it's obvious that those who carried out this mass murder also lack empathy, are also callous and their mental state is little different than that of those who dismiss the annihilation of human life in mass killings in the US with an "Oh well, shit happens" attitude. Something is wrong with them and I doubt it is fixable.

Sorry, didn't make it past your claim that only conservatives can lack empathy. You're a leftwat hack. Bye.

I'm so sorry you cannot comprehend the written word. I will copy what I wrote and color in the words which you seem unable to understand, adding a short sentence or two to help you get past your disabilities:

Being Left or Right has no bearing on having empathy (only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion). Now read this slowly: "only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion" Devoid means you ain't go empathy, if you are a Callous Conservative. Understand now?

I read it just fine and relayed back exactly what was tendered. Clearly you think only conservatives can lack empathy.

Actually, I think you're neither conservative or liberal, but merely an uncompassionate azzhole

 

[Brain357]

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Post the extremely long list you speak of. And you don't know how many rounds everyone used. Averages are just that, nothing more. Bottom line, it isn't your call.

Here is a start:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

Looks like maybe 25 cases in all (if accurate) and most of those wouldn't have made a difference with 10 rounders. When people are unarmed there isn't much you can do. 25 in our history isn't a lot.

Given that the older style handguns were mostly revolvers and 1911s of course the average capacity is up. Speed loaders and 1911 mags are fast to change out though. Thugs will have more than 10 rounds so I want more too.

That's just a start. But now you match those with people needing a hi cap mag for defense. Then I will provide more. Until then I'm winning.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Our justice system leaves it up to civil jurisdiction to address many issues. Allowing someone to get away with a wrong "just because you don't want to be one of those who files a lawsuit" is just letting folks get away with a wrong.

Sure, some frivolous lawsuits are filed, and we should put something more in place to discourage that. But without a lot of these lawsuits, we'd all be at higher risk from all kinds of things.

 

[bendog]

Our justice system leaves it up to civil jurisdiction to address many issues. Allowing someone to get away with a wrong "just because you don't want to be one of those who files a lawsuit" is just letting folks get away with a wrong.

Sure, some frivolous lawsuits are filed, and we should put something more in place to discourage that. But without a lot of these lawsuits, we'd all be at higher risk from all kinds of things.

It's an interesting argument. I don't think it'll succeed. I own guns myself, and imo while background checks are not offensive, I doubt they're really that efficient. But, legally, the plaintiffs would have to show that the weapon(s) at issue are inherently and unreasonably dangerous and/or they do not serve to accomplish their intended purpose ... or I suppose there's no protected purpose. I don't think there's any debate that .223 semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are neither the first tool of choice for either hunting or self-defense, and really the only thing they do better than any other tool is in rural areas to kill varmits like coyotes. But, is that a reason to hold a maftr liable for dead kids? I don't see it. I think I can imagine the sorrow of those parents, but then I suspect it's probably something unfathomable to grasp. Even losing a child to an accident or illness wouldn't really compare.

 

[Flash]

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Actually you are wrong. That list is not very long. What is refereed to as "assault weapons" are very seldom used in crime relative to pistols and shotguns. Most crimes with pistols only involeve a few shots fired.

Mass shootings in the US peaked in the 1930s and have been declining ever since despite the tremendous increase in the number of semi auto firearms so there is imminent public threat that would warrant suspending the Bill of Rights to keep and bear arms.

If the cops need "high capacity" magazines for defense then so do the average citizen because they are both faced with the same threat.

However, this is not about need. I have over 300 AR magazines and I have absolutely no plans (or inclination) to ever use one in a crime. The filthy ass government has no right to take the magazines away from me because somebody else may possibly use them in a crime. You do understand the concept of freedom, don't you? Probably not.

 

[Brain357]

The list of murderers using hi cap magazines is extremely long, while there are no examples I know of anyone needing one for defense. I guess you want to keep the bad guys very well armed.

Actually you are wrong. That list is not very long. What is refereed to as "assault weapons" are very seldom used in crime relative to pistols and shotguns. Most crimes with pistols only involeve a few shots fired.

Mass shootings in the US peaked in the 1930s and have been declining ever since despite the tremendous increase in the number of semi auto firearms so there is imminent public threat that would warrant suspending the Bill of Rights to keep and bear arms.

If the cops need "high capacity" magazines for defense then so do the average citizen because they are both faced with the same threat.

However, this is not about need. I have over 300 AR magazines and I have absolutely no plans (or inclination) to ever use one in a crime. The filthy ass government has no right to take the magazines away from me because somebody else may possibly use them in a crime. You do understand the concept of freedom, don't you? Probably not.

Cops need to apprehend criminals. That is completely different from defense.:

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Our justice system leaves it up to civil jurisdiction to address many issues. Allowing someone to get away with a wrong "just because you don't want to be one of those who files a lawsuit" is just letting folks get away with a wrong.

Sure, some frivolous lawsuits are filed, and we should put something more in place to discourage that. But without a lot of these lawsuits, we'd all be at higher risk from all kinds of things.

I would have no issue with a lawsuit filed against someone who is resonably responsible, who had direct complicity in the crime, but the gun manufacturer? A law firm wants to get rich so they'll sue whoever they can. I blame the parents who are helping them and helping themseves and point out there are other families that didn't join the suit, that don't want to cash in. I have 4 kids that I love dearly, but I would never join a frivolous lawsuit if one of them were killed. I would have to know that the person I'm suing was truly responsible. Apparently there are Sandy Hook parents who agree.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Our justice system leaves it up to civil jurisdiction to address many issues. Allowing someone to get away with a wrong "just because you don't want to be one of those who files a lawsuit" is just letting folks get away with a wrong.

Sure, some frivolous lawsuits are filed, and we should put something more in place to discourage that. But without a lot of these lawsuits, we'd all be at higher risk from all kinds of things.

It's an interesting argument. I don't think it'll succeed. I own guns myself, and imo while background checks are not offensive, I doubt they're really that efficient. But, legally, the plaintiffs would have to show that the weapon(s) at issue are inherently and unreasonably dangerous and/or they do not serve to accomplish their intended purpose ... or I suppose there's no protected purpose. I don't think there's any debate that .223 semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are neither the first tool of choice for either hunting or self-defense, and really the only thing they do better than any other tool is in rural areas to kill varmits like coyotes. But, is that a reason to hold a maftr liable for dead kids? I don't see it. I think I can imagine the sorrow of those parents, but then I suspect it's probably something unfathomable to grasp. Even losing a child to an accident or illness wouldn't really compare.

Good points, I wasn't really addressing this specific lawsuit, just the complaint of "we live in such a litigious society" in general.

And yes, nothing is going to bring those children back. maybe they believe if they can succeed they may spare another parent the same grief - who knows. But I have a hard time slapping them with an accusation of trying to profiteer from the death of their child. To me that is just too mean-spirited.

I try to give people a lot of space to express their grief and work through it in their own way. Calling them assholes and accusing them of trying to profit from the death of their children .... well ... that's pretty low imho.

 

[Wry Catcher]

..they became assholes. Some law firm enticed them with a bunch of zeros and now they're going to exploit the "good fortune" of their children being killed and laugh all the way to the bank.

I have the utmost compassion for anyone who loses a child, especially to a senseless act of violence. But that compassion dries up quickly when the victims become the agressors, filing a lawsuit that has no merit because people generally understand you can't hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product because that is entirely out of their control.

So to those nine families I would say, don't plan on meeting your little angels in heaven because avarice is the shortest route to hell.

I doubt you're the arbitrator of the afterlife. And avarice is probably not a motivating factor for them.

Which is why they didn't sue until a law firm got involved, right? And one thing is certain, the lawyers are in it for the money and will seek damages in the hundreds of millions. Why did only 9 families join the suit? Because not all of them want to get rich off their dead child.

You're an absolute Kreskin in being able to ascertain others' motives from your own preconceptions.

Motives aren't so hard to discern. Juries do it all the time. People's motives are revealed by their actions. If this goes to trial, a jury will be discussing the motives of these parents, so cut the "you can't know" bullshit.

See: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Pattern_Jury_Instr/pjury.pdf


1.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE-INFERENCES
You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.

In our lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists.

In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences.

Any inferences you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case.

Some of you have heard the phrases “circumstantial evidence” and “direct evidence.”

Direct evidence is the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime which has been charged, such as an eyewitness.

Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a series of facts which tend to show whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence.

You should decide how much weight to give to any evidence. All the
evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence, should be considered by you in reaching your verdict.

Thus knowing the motive is not truly known, unless by direct testimony by the defendant, a rare event in criminal law. Your "bullshit comment" is thereby confirmed as bullshit.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

..they became assholes. Some law firm enticed them with a bunch of zeros and now they're going to exploit the "good fortune" of their children being killed and laugh all the way to the bank.

I have the utmost compassion for anyone who loses a child, especially to a senseless act of violence. But that compassion dries up quickly when the victims become the agressors, filing a lawsuit that has no merit because people generally understand you can't hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product because that is entirely out of their control.

So to those nine families I would say, don't plan on meeting your little angels in heaven because avarice is the shortest route to hell.

I doubt you're the arbitrator of the afterlife. And avarice is probably not a motivating factor for them.

Which is why they didn't sue until a law firm got involved, right? And one thing is certain, the lawyers are in it for the money and will seek damages in the hundreds of millions. Why did only 9 families join the suit? Because not all of them want to get rich off their dead child.

You're an absolute Kreskin in being able to ascertain others' motives from your own preconceptions.

Motives aren't so hard to discern. Juries do it all the time. People's motives are revealed by their actions. If this goes to trial, a jury will be discussing the motives of these parents, so cut the "you can't know" bullshit.

See: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Pattern_Jury_Instr/pjury.pdf


1.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE-INFERENCES
You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.

In our lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists.

In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences.

Any inferences you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case.

Some of you have heard the phrases “circumstantial evidence” and “direct evidence.”

Direct evidence is the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime which has been charged, such as an eyewitness.

Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a series of facts which tend to show whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence.

You should decide how much weight to give to any evidence. All the
evidence in the case, including the circumstantial evidence, should be considered by you in reaching your verdict.

Thus knowing the motive is not truly known, unless by direct testimony by the defendant, a rare event in criminal law. Your "bullshit comment" is thereby confirmed as bullshit.

The jury won't ignore the elephant in the room however much you want them to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

OPINION ^^^. Keys has no clue how much money was donated to the NRA subsequent to every mass murder at school, theaters and malls!!




A non sequitur ^^^ irrelevant and untrue.

It seems to me that people are responding to the Leftists capitalizing on tragedy to pass gun control legislation that wouldn't have prevented the event to begin with. Amazing how the demonic Left accuses the NRA of doing precisely what the Left is doing, exploiting a tragedy to further an ulterior agenda.

Being Left or Right has no bearing on having empathy (only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion). I hesitate (only for a moment) in characterizing this obsession with guns and gun rights as a mental disorder, but the more callous and angry are those so afflicted, suggests they are not humane and thus mentally 'different' than the rest of us.

I reflect on the horror of the murder yesterday of over 130 children, it's obvious that those who carried out this mass murder also lack empathy, are also callous and their mental state is little different than that of those who dismiss the annihilation of human life in mass killings in the US with an "Oh well, shit happens" attitude. Something is wrong with them and I doubt it is fixable.

Sorry, didn't make it past your claim that only conservatives can lack empathy. You're a leftwat hack. Bye.

I'm so sorry you cannot comprehend the written word. I will copy what I wrote and color in the words which you seem unable to understand, adding a short sentence or two to help you get past your disabilities:

Being Left or Right has no bearing on having empathy (only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion). Now read this slowly: "only callous conservatives are devoid of this very human emotion" Devoid means you ain't go empathy, if you are a Callous Conservative. Understand now?

I read it just fine and relayed back exactly what was tendered. Clearly you think only conservatives can lack empathy.

You are either very stupid, very dishonest, or both.

 

[Howey]

The filthy ass government

This is your problem. Your type are the ones guns need to be taken from.

 

[Flash]

Cops need to apprehend criminals. That is completely different from defense.:

That distinction is lost when you or your family is being threatened. Besides, the great majority of apprehensions are made without a shot being fired. The police don't have the need for high capacity magazines anymore than the average citizen in a crisis situation. Most police never fire a shot in their career. i know because I am firearms instructor and teach police.

I think it is pretty dangerous and a threat to freedom when the government and the bad guys are the only ones with the means to shoot multiple rounds, Why give up that freedom? It is not like law abiding citizens turning in their high capacity magazines will ever prevent a mass shooting. The bad guys will still continue to do it.

You are not thinking clearly.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just the other day Wilson needed 12 rounds in one magazine to stop an unarmed teenager named Mike Brown. What if the other guy Mike Brown was with came at him too? Simple math says Wilson would have needed 24 rounds. What if there were three thugs? Should we condemn Wilson to death? Refuse Wilson the right to defend himself from thugs?

That is not a civilian defense. Stats show 2-3 shots for defense. Now mass shooters they love the hi cap mags.

I see so you are saying civilians are more efficient and effective at using their guns for self defense than trained cops.

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

Huh? The cop only needed 12 rounds because he was messing with Mike Brown? Huh?

Would a citizen have been stopping him? Waiting for you examples.

Can you speak in English please?

 

[Brain357]

Cops need to apprehend criminals. That is completely different from defense.:

That distinction is lost when you or your family is being threatened. Besides, the great majority of apprehensions are made without a shot being fired. The police don't have the need for high capacity magazines anymore than the average citizen in a crisis situation. Most police never fire a shot in their career. i know because I am firearms instructor and teach police.

I think it is pretty dangerous and a threat to freedom when the government and the bad guys are the only ones with the means to shoot multiple rounds, Why give up that freedom? It is not like law abiding citizens turning in their high capacity magazines will ever prevent a mass shooting. The bad guys will still continue to do it.

You are not thinking clearly.

It seems you are not thinking clearly. Lets look at the facts. Hi cap magazines are used in lots of mass shootings as well as gang shootings. Nobody has needed a hi cap magazine for defense. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. Children escaped while the Newtown shooter reloaded. See we could save lives without any negative effect. I see no reason not to.

 

[Brain357]

That is not a civilian defense. Stats show 2-3 shots for defense. Now mass shooters they love the hi cap mags.

I see so you are saying civilians are more efficient and effective at using their guns for self defense than trained cops.

I'm saying defending yourself and police work are very different. A citizen wouldn't have been messing with him in the first place. Please share examples of civilian defenders needing more than 10 rds for defense.

Huh? The cop only needed 12 rounds because he was messing with Mike Brown? Huh?

Would a citizen have been stopping him? Waiting for you examples.

Can you speak in English please?

You must not be very smart.

 

[Flash]

[


It seems you are not thinking clearly. Lets look at the facts. Hi cap magazines are used in lots of mass shootings as well as gang shootings. Nobody has needed a hi cap magazine for defense. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. Children escaped while the Newtown shooter reloaded. See we could save lives without any negative effect. I see no reason not to.

Not they are not "used a lot in mass shootings". That is a not a fact. Mass shootings are actually rare. By far most shootings in this country are done with cheap stolen or illegal pistols and only one or two shots fired.

Do you actually think that any law in this country is actually going to stop gang shootings? There are probably at least a half billion high capacity magazines in this country and if a law was enacted tomorrow to ban them there would still be hundreds of millions of them around many decades from now.

I doubt if there was a ban very few people would turn them in. I know I wouldn't. The sheriff of my country said that if there was a high capacity magazine ban he would not enforce it and he got every sheriff in the state to sign a letter saying they wouldn't do it either. i think it would be that way all across the country. At least in the non commie states. Even if they were banned they would come in illegally across the border like everything else.

In other words a high capacity magazine ban would not work.

As far as needing them I have over 300 AR magazines and about 150 other magazines. When I go to the range I usually take one retro 20 rd AR magazine. I never bother to take my 30 rd mags unless I am shooting my Class III M-16. I don't need the magazines but the government has no right whatsoever to prevent me from owning them. The Second Amendment is not a needs based right. There are no qualifications to individual rights. Not only is a mag ban against the Bill of Rights because they are considered to be "arms" as part of a weapon system but by banning them there is perception that I am guilty without committing a crime, which is also against the Constitution. You do know that we have a Constitution, don't you?

It is a question of freedom. Do we want to be free or do we want the filthy government controlling our lives?

If I thought for one second my 50 firearms or hundreds of magazines would ever harm a child I would gladly take them over to Tampa Bay and dump them in the ocean. However, they are not ever going to be a threat to any innocent person and the government can just kiss my ass and leave me alone.

 

[Brain357]

[


It seems you are not thinking clearly. Lets look at the facts. Hi cap magazines are used in lots of mass shootings as well as gang shootings. Nobody has needed a hi cap magazine for defense. The Giffords shooter was stopped at reload. Children escaped while the Newtown shooter reloaded. See we could save lives without any negative effect. I see no reason not to.

Not they are not "used a lot in mass shootings". That is a not a fact. Mass shootings are actually rare. By far most shootings in this country are done with cheap stolen or illegal pistols and only one or two shots fired.

Do you actually think that any law in this country is actually going to stop gang shootings? There are probably at least a half billion high capacity magazines in this country and if a law was enacted tomorrow to ban them there would still be hundreds of millions of them around many decades from now.

I doubt if there was a ban very few people would turn them in. I know I wouldn't. The sheriff of my country said that if there was a high capacity magazine ban he would not enforce it and he got every sheriff in the state to sign a letter saying they wouldn't do it either. i think it would be that way all across the country. At least in the non commie states. Even if they were banned they would come in illegally across the border like everything else.

In other words a high capacity magazine ban would not work.

As far as needing them I have over 300 AR magazines and about 150 other magazines. When I go to the range I usually take one retro 20 rd AR magazine. I never bother to take my 30 rd mags unless I am shooting my Class III M-16. I don't need the magazines but the government has no right whatsoever to prevent me from owning them. The Second Amendment is not a needs based right. There are no qualifications to individual rights. Not only is a mag ban against the Bill of Rights because they are considered to be "arms" as part of a weapon system but by banning them there is perception that I am guilty without committing a crime, which is also against the Constitution. You do know that we have a Constitution, don't you?

It is a question of freedom. Do we want to be free or do we want the filthy government controlling our lives?

If I thought for one second my 50 firearms or hundreds of magazines would ever harm a child I would gladly take them over to Tampa Bay and dump them in the ocean. However, they are not ever going to be a threat to any innocent person and the government can just kiss my ass and leave me alone.

None of that touches on any of the facts. I get you want to be able to have them. Obviously you don't care that banning them would save lives. A ban would not get rid of them completely, but it would save lives. The mass shooter in CA that was the movie producers son or whatever didn't use hi cap magazines because they have a ban on them in CA So it is proven to work. Our machine gun laws have virtually eliminated those from murder.

With 230,000 guns stolen each year I don't think you can say your guns will never be used for murder.

 

[Flash]

None of that touches on any of the facts. I get you want to be able to have them. Obviously you don't care that banning them would save lives. A ban would not get rid of them completely, but it would save lives. The mass shooter in CA that was the movie producers son or whatever didn't use hi cap magazines because they have a ban on them in CA So it is proven to work. Our machine gun laws have virtually eliminated those from murder.

With 230,000 guns stolen each year I don't think you can say your guns will never be used for murder.

Banning swimming pools will save a lot more children's lives each year than banning high capacity magazines. Banning children from going near rivers, lakes or the ocean would save the lives of many more kids each year than get killed by firearms using high capacity magazine. So would banning cars. So would banning hundreds of other things.

Banning high capacity magazines will never stop one bad guy from doing a bad thing. it will, however, take freedom away from law abiding citizens.

I lock up my firearms. If you don't lock up yours and they get stolen and used in a crime then that is partially your fault for not being responsible. You do take personal responsibility for your actions, don't you? Maybe it is even the responsibility of the person that stole the weapon and used it in a crime, don't you think?

 

[Brain357]

None of that touches on any of the facts. I get you want to be able to have them. Obviously you don't care that banning them would save lives. A ban would not get rid of them completely, but it would save lives. The mass shooter in CA that was the movie producers son or whatever didn't use hi cap magazines because they have a ban on them in CA So it is proven to work. Our machine gun laws have virtually eliminated those from murder.

With 230,000 guns stolen each year I don't think you can say your guns will never be used for murder.

Banning swimming pools will save a lot more children's lives each year than banning high capacity magazines. Banning children from going near rivers, lakes or the ocean would save the lives of many more kids each year than get killed by firearms using high capacity magazine. So would banning cars. So would banning hundreds of other things.

Banning high capacity magazines will never stop one bad guy from doing a bad thing. it will, however, take freedom away from law abiding citizens.

I lock up my firearms. If you don't lock up yours and they get stolen and used in a crime then that is partially your fault for not being responsible. You do take personal responsibility for your actions, don't you? Maybe it is even the responsibility of the person that stole the weapon and used it in a crime, don't you think?

What do those things have to do with our topic? Stay on topic. Only bad people are using hi cap magazines. The good guys don't need them. I don't put value in owning a weapon that you can mass kill people with. Why do you put so much value on this freedom?

None of that changes that one of your guns may be stolen one day and used to murder somebody. It is always a possibility.