Families can sue gun maker for Sandy Hook school massacre: court
Families of schoolchildren gunned down in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre can sue Remington Outdoor Co Inc, a Connecticut court ruled on Thursday, in a setback for gun makers long shielded from liability in mass shootings.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a 4-3 ruling widely expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut’s highest court found the lawsuit could proceed based on a state law protecting consumers against fraudulent marketing.
“The Connecticut Supreme Court has blown a very large hole into the federal immunity for firearms manufacturers in lawsuits alleging criminal misuse of the products they sell,” said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University and author of a book on gun litigation.
Remington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
Look at the gun in the image.
What possible use can it have, with such a big magazine, other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible?
No hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading. No Target shooter needs more than one.
Big magazines... and guns designed to empty them as fast as possible... are only useful for killing lots of people very quickly.
ummmm, the Remington Model 870 DM is a pump-action shotgun. It comes with two sizes of magazines, a 3 round and a 6 round magazine. Hardly a "big" magazine.
You make my point. Why does anyone need three rounds... much less six?
Nope, didn't make your point. You tried to imply that the big scary gun "with such a big magazine" would have no use except to kill large numbers of people quickly.
I pointed out several things. Such as this is a shotgun, and that big magazine only holds either 3 or 6 rounds. Hardly what someone would use to kill large numbers of people quickly. And why would anybody need three rounds, must less six? You ever go partridge hunting? Bird hunting of any type? Hell, try dove hunting. Those little buggers are fast and can change directions within a half a body length.
To be honest, you present your arguments like you have no experience with guns at all. I don't know you and don't know what experience you have, but IMO you present these arguments as if you have no real knowledge of the subject.
So you're going to shoot the duck six times...
No. There are lots of things that are prohibited for private ownership.
Didn't mention ducks, I said doves. But you said ducks so I'll stay on your topic ..
No, if the duck I shoot actually falls and dies with one shot I will not shoot that duck again. But ducks seldom fly alone and while every state has different daily bag limits most states allow for multiple ducks to be taken each day. So if I kill one duck and still have more shells in my shotgun I will try for more ducks.
Amazing!
[deleted]
The Wisdom of Archie.....
You're saying that you fire six rounds in quick succession... at ducks and doves.
Right.......
"France flat"
Nowhere in my posts did I say anything about firing all rounds in quick succession. You are just adding nonsense and throwing things out there to try to make your posting make sense. But all you are doing is proving that you really have no knowledge of what you are talking about.
There is a phrase for people who participate in online forums who just toss out crap and and who appear to be without an understanding of the subject or the person they are talking to, so to you all I can say is 'Have a nice day'.
Do you agree, then, that no hunter needs more than two rounds before reloading?
As a hunter, you sometimes need more than two rounds before reloading...
Oh.
Do you need more than two rounds for deer? For squirrel? For fish in a barrel?
For what, oh great hunter?
When are you going to learn how to carry on a discussion Bob? So far, on this thread, you've not said a thing regarding the pros/cons of the thread and are starting to sound like a badly broken record.
Some people who hunt will usually go to a range to practice to ensure their sights are calibrated for the proposed distance they will be shooting/hunting.
I will usually go to the range with a box of ammo (50 cartridges) for sighting and fun. When I go hunting, I will usually carry 10 rounds that, more than likely, I'll never need. BUT, when other hunters advise me of the potential hazards, i.e. bears, rhumba of snakes, cougars/pumas, bob cats, stupid azz drunks, that/those round(s) not needed for game are my potential protection factor.
Now, this thread is about a ridiculous decision made by a CT court - which will be appealed and remanded. How 'bout getting off your "digging" phase and start discussing the topic.
How many times have you fired more than two rounds at an animal?
How often have you fired more than two rounds at a game animal?
Because the bad guys tend to carry AR-15s that can shoot 100 rounds without reloading.
My extreme long range rifle only holds 1 round.
That's sensible.
Never Bob - 'course I'm a former Marine, was on the Marine Corps and the U.S.C.G rifle teams, am a recipient of the Gold Distinguished Shooting Medal, spent 27 months in 'Nam in the mud and "stuff" and have always come home with game that I shot with ONE shot. "Course, again, I'm a firm believer of "One Shot, One Kill" - but I'll never wear the white feather.
An honorable ideal. I mean that very seriously.
... and it doesn't require a thirty-round magazine ...
More than one assailant perhaps?
OK... Let's look at this seriously.
Are you saying that you would aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire-aim-fire... while your adversaries do nothing?
If there's more than one armed adversary, then the best thing to do is bug out!
And if your adversaries are not armed, then a two-shot weapon is quite enough.
Some prey fight back and are pretty deadly. Heck, even if you aren't hunting the really dangerous animals, they're still out there in the wilderness. If I'm in the back country, I have a weapon even if I'm only fishing, hiking, or camping.
How often do you think you need thirty rounds?
Statistically just introducing a gun into a home multiplies the chances that a family member will die of gunfire. By far and away, your family is much safer not having any guns in your home. Gun aficionados just cannot grasp this simple fact.
So, would you take an AR-15 full auto capable to go duck hunting or, a shotgun?
Total Nonsense
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. There are approx 350 Million firearms owned by Americans. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.
You have onbiously never been in a situation requiring shooting at more than one armed assailant or you would know better. I have and believe me I was damned glad I had the firepower and the ammo needed or I would not be here typing this!
Actually, I have been. Several times. Vietnam.
[deleted]
You are not the only one who was in Vietnam Bob. I flew as medical aircrew on Marine UH-1 SAR and medevac birds. Including the one shot out from underneath me resulting in a not so gentle landing in dry rice paddy outside Danang. Was pinned in the aircraft for over an hour with Charlie closing in and trying to protect my patient at the same time. I left a piece of me and a lot of my blood in that Huey before I was done. Alternated my fire between a M-16 and a .45 to keep the bad guys back while waiting for a rescue bird. So yes, I do know what it it like both in and out of 20 years oh military service. I took a solemb oath to preserve and defend life many years ago. I took that oath very seriously then and I still take it very seriously even today! And by the way, your comment about the drug business was a pretty low brow and unwarranted comment.
That was a joke, Doc... I assumed you were talking about action in service.
What happens in service is different. We had weapons whose announced purpose was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Very similar to an AR15...
Those are exactly the kind of arm that should not be in civilian hands.
A lot of people think any all-black gun with a curved magazine is some cutting edge military-issue weapon. And some of them think that weapon will kill people all by itself or turn ordinary people into mass murderers.
Depends on just how determined the bear is.
Is this really your reasoned justification for allowing more or less free circulation of hundreds of millions of firearms ?
I don't understand. In 1.1.19 you show that you actually have some knowledge of weapons and have some experience. And then you ask this question when in 1.2.7 the only gun mentioned is a shotgun. Now the only reason I can think of for such an obviously troll-like question is that you want to instigate something. Seems to me a conversation would do more good then this. After all, you can state your stance on gun control AND have a conversation at the same time.
I might actually surrender my weapons before I'd surrender cheeseburgers. I'm not 100% positive, but it's definitely something I gotta think about.
No, it's just one reason. The main legal reason is the preservation of liberty as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. Governments can not be trusted.
My main personal reason is as a tool to protect my life and the life of my family from violent criminals. Cops do not magically appear the instant a burglar enters a home so I need to be prepared to take care of things on my own.
Walking in the woods and keeping my head up for bears is just recreation for me, although I do have relatives in other parts of the country who actually shoot to put food on the table every year.
If that was a joke, it was a very bad one and highly uncalled for!
Aliens from Vega?
Call out the militia!
The law is not a justification. The law follows need.
If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense against some mythical government takeover... we need not waste any more time.
Yes, and I explained the need. Governments cannot be trusted. I said that. C'mon Bob, read the comments before replying.
They are. You just haven't it thought it through. The framers understood that the government military force might be better armed and better trained, but they would be vastly outnumbered by an armed citizenry united in the purpose of liberty and justice. James Madison explained this when he wrote Federalist Paper No. 46 .
Today, the numbers have grown, but the proportions and the logic derived thereby remain similar. Current active military in the United States Armed Forces is about 1.4 million people. Over 1/10th of them are scattered around the world. Within the United States, though, there is at least one gun for every man, woman, and child. By most estimates, over a third of households has a gun (not long ago, it was half).
There's a reason it's mythical - an armed citizenry. That's what Madison was talking about when he wrote of the need:
If you truly believe that civilians with AR15s are our defense against some mythical government takeover... we need not waste any more time.
Lemme see.... "We" always includes the speaker. That would be me. "We" also always includes the person spoken to, in this case Tacos!. There could be others, but I see no indication of that.
So it seems pretty obvious that this "we" is just Tacos! and I.
Why did you ask?
What technique did you learn from me? I'm profoundly honored, of course, since I have learned so very much from you...
Snuffy, it's a question any hunter should be able to answer immediately, just as you did, I was making it simple for those who wouldn't know the answer to make an "educated" guess. The only time I ever hunted duck with anything other than a shotgun was when I had my .22 single action and, caught some ducks swimming in a pond, I got two before they flew off, they went well with the rabbits I got earlier.
Remington, Colt and, Bushmaster have all advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon, below is a sample of the advertisements for this weapon by the company's so, since you answered my post I have a question for you, why would a civilian need a combat weapon who's only purpose is to kill people for "target practice" or, "hunting"?
I guess I'm too naive. When I ask, it's because I don't know. Too often, people use pronouns without thought, so I ask.
In this particular case, I could have said "I need not waste any more time" but I thought it more polite to indicate that Tacos! could also save time.
Then, too, there are people who use "we" to include the addressee without their permission. This may be thoughtlessness, or may be an an attempt at intellectual entrapment. In these cases, with their own special obscurity, asking "who" sometimes clarifies the situation.
Naive.....
ah, but you should know that just because something is advertised one way does not make it true. Hell, Dodge advertises my 2014 Challenger as having comfortable seating for five adults. Having been in my back seat, the only way three adults can be comfortable back their is if they are all the size of Billy Barty or Warwick Davis.
As for your question, I object to two pieces of your question. First you want to talk about need and IMO need doesn't have any place in this type of conversation. There are only a few things that people "need" and everything else is a desire. Like all desires, if you can afford it, there are no laws against it, you are not prohibited from having it and you don't mis-use it then the desire is not an issue. The second piece I object to is that you want to define a combat weapon as a weapon who's only purpose is to kill people. Now maybe we went to different schools but I always understood desire, such as who's only purpose in life is to kill people, to be a conscious thought which really cannot be ascribed to an inanimate object like a weapon.
So for me to properly answer your question I need to change it to "why would a civilian desire a combat weapon, which is highly effective in killing people and animals, for target practice or hunting?"
And my answer is so long as the person is an honest and moral person, who passes all legal background checks, the weapon in question is legal and the person does not plan on mis-using it, then I would have no issue with said civilian owning a military combat weapon.
Oh gosh, I don't know, if you can have any weapon you want why not a small Nuke as well, I mean let's go all the way.
Does Dodge advertise its Challenger as the perfect car to run down pedestrians?
You mean like all of the mass shooters before they went on their rampages were? I'm sure every one of them passed their background checks just fine when they bought their guns.
I'll say it again. It's not mythical. Study history. Study current events around the world. It happens. It doesn't happen where the people cannot be bullied.
Seeing how my earlier response on this was to your statement on how they had advertised the AR-15 as a combat weapon and as nowhere in that advertisement did it state that the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to kill pedestrians, then your attempt to reply with hyperbole can be ignored.
I stand by what I stated earlier. However if they were planning on a rampage when they purchased the weapon then they did not meet with the criteria I laid out and therefor yes, I would have issue with them owning ANY weapon.
Please read this next paragraph before you respond. I understand that you feel the best approach is to remove certain types of weapons from public ownership and use. And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions on this. I hold different beliefs and prefer to hold the individual accountable and not pre-judge people by removing choices from them. There are many objects in this world that can be mis-used and can cause damage and death to large groups of people. We can't remove all of these objects from public use, and IMO the reason why we don't have half the worlds population killed off weekly is that most people are honest and moral. So I would rather not get into a back and forth on trying to make points based on cherry-picking your comments. A conversation on possible solutions, how they could be implemented and what the impact of existing laws would be, or a conversation on other solutions would be good. A conversation based on hyperbole is nothing more than mental masturbation in an attempt to make points. Now if this means you don't want to respond to me anymore, that's ok and I can live with that. But I don't want to play a game of back and forth based on cherry picking parts of sentences and exaggerate in a reply.
I was trying to make a point Snuffy. In the lawsuit filed by the family's of the Sandy Hook shooting it is stated that Remington advertised that the AR-15 is a "combat weapon" for civilians, now anyone using logic and, nothing more can say that what Remington did was say that the AR-15 has one purpose in its existence, to kill people, any other manufacturer of anything, if they were to advertise that their product was "great for killing humans" would either be sued or, would be required to remove that product from the shelves of stores immediately. Now, my using your comment was an inspirational moment for me since it was a Dodge Challenger that was used at Charlottesville to run over counter protesters there, if Dodge had advertised before Charlottesville that there Challenger was "great for running over pedestrians" don't you think that the people who were run over by that car that day would have legal standing to sue Dodge? If you do then, why not Remington for its advertising?
I'm glad we can agree on this, however, how does anyone know what is anyones mind when they go to purchase a firearm, that being said, should a company like Remington be allowed to advertise their weapons as "combat weapons"?
And, yes, I do believe that some weapons shouldn't be in the market place for civilians, one of those is indeed the AR-15 and, the past two years has given us more than enough evidence of this with the rise of domestic terrorism. That being said, I also believe that there are certain people who should never be allowed to own any guns at all.
I agree with you in this, the proof is in the amount of people in this country who actually support Donald Trump. Out of that group I would say that there are about 30% who actually think he is speaking to them directly and, that 30% is the group that worry's me most since they are the ones who would walk into a Mosque or, Synagogue and, shoot it up.
I have long believed that any mass shooting like Sandy Hook or, Los Vegas needed to be listed as a terrorist act and, any group or, organization that condones such an act should be put on the terrorist watch list as well as any members of said groups.
Agreed and, to let you know, the only reason I do that is to try to make a point, to get people to think beyond there support of one man or, an idea so, think about the idea of any car maker advertising that their vehicles would make great killing machines and, think what that impact would be on society and, whether you would support that company's advertisement or, if you would condemn it and, support someone suing them over it.
We'll have to wait and, see if anyone does sue them for it and, if they win the case. So far, the state of Connecticut agrees with the Sandy Hook family's in their suit against Remington Arms.
The Connecticut courts already made their rulings, it went to the highest court in the state, the only one left is the SCOTUS so, Roberts is more than likely to look at this without Constitutional protection, since the case involves the advertisement of the product and, isn't involving the second amendment.
Sometimes people do miss...
The next one is the appellate court - then, possibly, SCOTUS.
So they have a second round ....
I think you're reading in what you want to see to be honest. The ad didn't say anything about a weapon that was great for killing people, it could just as easily be read as 'a combat weapon for civilians to allow you to help defend freedom in this great country'. All depends on how you want to look at it and I submit that with your desire to see these types of guns removed from the public can aid you in seeing your interpretation of the ad. Don't think we're going to come to any agreement on this point to be honest. But that's why we have courts.
I think this goes hand in hand with the above. As we do not have the ability to read minds, so long as they have not committed any infraction that would legally prevent them from owning or possessing any weapon then I don't agree with not allowing them to purchase an AR-15 regardless of how the weapon is advertised. I still strongly believe in holding the individual responsible. Even if an advertisement stated that it makes the killing of other people so much easier, murder is still illegal and morally wrong. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to an honest and moral person, no advertisement is going to make them go out and kill people, but to a dishonest or moral person the absence of any such advertisement is not going to prevent them either.
I agree that they were terrorist acts, but I think we have to be careful about placing any group on a watch list. I think the government has made it too easy to be put on a terrorist watch list now. IMO they need to come up with a better definition of who or what would belong on there than the current process which only needs one complaint made.
I agree with your final point, but want to remind you that preconceived ideas can influence any outcome. If a person is predisposed to believe, for example, that semi-automatic guns are too dangerous and should be removed from public ownership, then I can see where that person may be unconsciously willing to believe something from an advertisement that really isn't there. Truth like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I know you got my meaning. You just cannot admit it and are probably just being obtuse just for your own s & g's...
No. You do not know what is going on in my head.
That's a big problem on NT: members thinking they know what's going on in another's head... but not bothering to ask.
I took your post at level zero: "Sometimes people miss." That seemed to me to mean, they sometimes need another shot... so I recalled that they would always have a second round.
Now... if you meant something else... you probably should reformulate.
We will see what happens but, I think you will be crying over the answer.
When I was young simi-automatic guns would hold about five or, six rounds in them, now they can hold as many as a hundred, there is no reason for that kind of fire power at any time, unless you have a criminal intent in mind.
Actually, truth like facts, can't be truth for one and, a lie for another, if it is true that the sky is blue for me, then that same sky has to blue for everyone. Opinions can be like beauty but, not truth.
The box magazine similar to what we have with today's firearms was patented in Britain (No. 483) by Mowbray Walker, George Henry Money and Francis Little in 1867. The M-1 Garand held a fixed magazine that was fed by an 8 round clip. The Soviet SKS carbine (also introduced in WW2) also had a fixed magazine that held 10 rounds. Both riles were semi-automatics. The M1911 came standard with a 7 round detachable magazine. So while the larger pan and drum magazines of the early 20th Century were normally held for fully automatic rifles, only some semi-automatic rifles from the 40's and 50's were built that internal magazines small. Even my much newer (purchased 4 years ago) Ruger 10/22 initially came with a 6 round magazine. But I also picked up two 50 round magazines as that little 22 is fun to take to the range. And I really don't have a criminal intent in mind.
I simply must reject your above statement that there is no reason for a large magazine unless you have criminal intent in mind. A very simple reason is the desire to shoot more rounds at a range without having to stop every minute to reload. Again, the size of the tool should not be the issue but the intent of the person wielding the tool is the deciding factor.
Yes, you are correct. I phrased that poorly. What I was trying to say is that having preconceived ideas can color what someone accepts as truth. You are very much correct that doing so does not change facts, but if someone tries hard to accept only one vision then they can skew the truth to what they want it to be. Hell, we see that every day in Washington.
We are very likely not going to change each others minds on this but I have enjoyed our conversation. I accept that you feel some weapons should not be in the hands of the public and I feel that the public (so long as you are not legally prevented by past actions from possessing) should be able to own and possess the same individual firearms that our military uses.
I understand that you feel if these weapons were not in public use then the number of mass shootings would be reduced. I disagree, I feel that people who want to kill will just move to different weapons and that will not change. In my opinion, the only way to really reduce the occurence is to outlaw ALL guns and go door to door to collect them. And the likelihood of that occurring is slim to none.
I would rather that we try to change behavior from the other end.
Out of the five initial suggestions I feel that number 3 would make the largest impact. We hear all the time about children finding a gun in their families home and playing with it, usually to a disasterous ending. I grew up in a home where the guns were not hidden away. I knew from a very young age where the guns were and where the ammunition was. My dad kept his guns in a very pretty glass front gun case that was not locked. I was also trained from a very young age that I was not to touch them and that they were not toys. My father took me out when he went shooting so there wasn't any unbridled curiousity about guns, I knew early on what they could do. I think that's missing from so many of our children and their entire knowledge at an early age is what they see on TV where a guy who was shot last night is on a new movie tonight.
Short of banning guns (or even only some types of guns), what other ideas do you have that you think might help?
Your first paragraph I'm not going to dispute since I know that those weapons came with the magazines you describe there, however, those are not the magazines that I was talking about, seven rounds or, ten rounds is sufficient for their use, what I am talking about are those magazines that can be sold separately that hold 30 to 100 rounds in them. There is no reason for these except to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time, as was done at Sandy Hook and, in Los Vegas. Now, like I've said, it's up to the company to decide how they will advertise their product but, they must be made libel for any thing that happens because of that advertising, if someone looks at it and, see's advertising that even seems to condone the killing of people in mass then the company must be held accountable for that advertising.
One thing that can be done to DISCOURAGE mass shootings is to stop selling the large magazines I mentioned in my above paragraph, also, there has been no one who has given a VALID reason to own an AR-15 or, similar weapon on this or, any other site I visit, except for the killing of humans.
My father kept his 1911 in his desk in the living room until he sold it after I was born, it wasn't until I was old enough to understand the use of firearms that any reappeared in his home my mom refused to have them in the home and, my brother-in-law had many in his, I learned to shoot from my brother in law and, my father, my brother in law taught me to hunt and, track, set traps and, find my way in the woods without a compass. I learned early that each firearm had a purpose in existence, none of them were used out of that purpose in the home and, all but one was meant for hunting animals, not men.
Well, to be honest, with all the shit that has gone down over the past two years I'm beginning to think it might not be a bad idea to consider banning all guns but, I also understand that as long as we have the Second Amendment that won't and, shouldn't happen. That doesn't mean we can't ban certain weapons from ownership and, we can't ban certain magazines from ownership as well. I have said from the beginning that certain people, those with mental illness's should be banned from owning guns of any kind and, so that you know I'm not singling them out because of some prejudice, I suffer from mental illness and, I feel that I shouldn't own guns because of that, I haven't owned a gun for close to twenty years now. All of the five ideas that you listed are good except I'm not sure how number 3 would fit into the school system or, anywhere else, it worries me, a group of kids with weapons and, only one or, two adults to supervise them during that time, I'm thinking more of a school prank than a Columbine situation. Some kid gets it into his mind it would be "fun" to point a gun at another student or something like that.
the rightwing controlled scotus which just ruled painful executions are constitutional is going to rule that the is unconstitutional?
are ya sure you have thought this thru?
Thanks for admitting that Trump and, McConnell have an agenda to stack the courts with Reich wing judges and, justices. Oops, sorry, I meant to say Rightwing judges and, justices.
I suppose its a matter of how many people you want to kill-- and how quickly you want to do it!
If you're a good shot-- or can get close enough, you might be able to shoot 5 people with the larger magazine. I'm no expert on the subject-- but I wonder-- how long does it take to load a second 6 round magazine so you can up your kill score to 12 people?
like its any kind of secret plot
and
OMG, you have cracked the code... alert cnn asap
Bahahahaha LMAO that is one of the main reasons I voted for President Trump. I would much rather have a constitutionalist judge than a left wing one that decides cases on feelings.
Trump bringing back the balance to are appointed Judges is a awesome thing. We have a new fear though of coastal flooding, not from global warming but all the liberal tears.
Eight Ball maybe you forgot or, maybe it doesn't bother you that a Republican majority leader in the Senate blocked a SCOTUS nominee's hearing for almost a year to, "See who would be elected president", which is the first time that has happened in ever and, that that same Senator decided he would do everything he could to block, disrupt and, prevent a president from getting anything done because he didn't like that president either because of his skin color or, because of what party he belonged to, either way, it was the wrong reason to block the nominations that he did block and, yes, there was more than one nomination blocked during Obama's administration and, not for any reason other than the president who made the nominations. What would you have been saying if it was a Democrat leader of the Senate who did that to a Republican president?
Too bad he has a different idea in mind.
So, what is a Constitutionalist judge to you? Someone who see's things your way and, no other? The Constitution has been followed by Ginsburgh and, all the other justices on the court, up to now, you can't prove otherwise, just because you disagree with what some of them have ruled doesn't mean they aren't following the law and, the Constitution.
Trump has a problem, he requires a "loyalty oath" from those he appoints, not an oath to the Constitution and, the United States an oath to Donald J. Trump.
Remington 870 Wingmaster....improved cylinder......No2 shot or larger for home protection, and you don't really have to aim!
Common sense says we should be able to limit ALL magazines to nothing more than nine rounds.... that of a 9mm semi-auto handgun. We as a country should be able to start the discussions there.
For the record, I've hunted Ruffeled Grouse, Chukar, and Quail..... I cant ever remember squeezing off more than three rounds at any time.
Hope you've been well Doc....
the 2nd amendment is not about hunting... end of that discussion.
the entire bill of rights protects the states from a potentially rouge federal government.
being necessary to the security of a free state
any who would undermine, limit, or remove any part of our bill of rights cannot be trusted.
does not bother me because its not true.
we blocked obamas supreme court pick simply because he did not have our consent.
Q) in this last election why do you think the right focused on holding the senate?
A) judical power. (nominees to the courts are moving right along as we speak)
Q) when we said we are going to take our country back did we really mean "ask" if we can take our country back?
A) of course not, this is not a game. this is political warfare at its finest.
cheers
.....on the books laws...
Sorry XD.... That's the same old tired mindless NRA bullshit. I burned my card in "92".
Responsible hunting...fine.
Household & personal protection....works for me.
Precision, practice and control related to target shooting.... excellent.
Shooting shit up cause' you can....... irresponsible gun ownership.
So like so many other topics, your mind is a closed as your prepper bunker is....
And like so many that want to cite the 2nd, you fail to read and consider the whole amendment.
We'll leave it at that.
sorry brudda,
I'm immune to sophist arguments.
but in case your wondering...
the states militias are well regulated via the states gun laws.
don't like it? talk to your state govt.
letting a potentially rogue future federal govt regulate the arms state militias have would be absurd and in direct conflict with the intent to secure the states from tyrannical bs
have a great day
cheers
Really? Try again.
Now, if this had been Harry Reid doing this to Bush you all would have been up in arms.
Because the Right knew they would lose the House and, didn't want to lose the Senate as well, that is also why there was rampant election fraud by the Republicans in certain areas.
This still bothers me, take it back from whom exactly?
This answer also bothers me, "warfare" is something you fight if you have an enemy, I have differing opinions from folks, especially on here but, I don't consider them an enemy, I consider them Americans like me with different political views. In case you didn't know, that is allowed in this country and, it doesn't make us enemy's that is an alt-Right fallacy.
Not an unnamed source but, there is this,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/12/reports-say-trump-sought-a-loyalty-pledge-from-comey-the-fbi-says-this-too-easily-leads-to-tyranny/?utm_term=.4b486d4b225f
Ok, let's look at the Second Amendment.....as written.
"A well regulated Militia", translates to a well regulated civilian army with ties to the official military.
In other words, the National Guard of each state. At the time there were no real arms manufacturers in the U.S. so, those who could afford to buy guns usually enlisted in the militia or, as we call it today, the National Guard.
It's amazing to me that folks like you loved Comey when he came out with his October surprise but, as soon as he goes against Donald Trump and, says that Trump is lying and, that Trump wanted him to take a loyalty oath it's "Oh my god that lying piece of shit Comey", "Hang him from the nearest tree, how dare he speak out against the Great Trump our new god!"
It's amazing how you come on here and, half quote things that people have said to try to make a point, I believe the full sentence in that post was this,
And, that was in reference to this quote from my post,
Which was in response to your answer to your own question,
Now, 9mm, let's look at what was said by both of us. You, according to your own words, consider some Americans your enemy since you consider politics, warfare. I replied that I don't consider politics warfare, I consider it a difference of opinion, then I stated that it is the Alt-Right that believes in political warfare and, considers those "on the other side" as the enemy. Do you consider most Americans your enemy?
I think you are the one that is doing all the digging here, are you really trying to tell us that you didn't think Comey was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he decided to open up the email investigation again when Weiners emails were discovered and, Comey pulled his October surprise? Really?
And, here we have a case of foot in mouth disease by 9mm, who originally stated, after I asked him,
And, so that there was no mistake as to what the Founders had in mind I added the law of the time which clarified what was meant by Militia.
The Founders were explicit in what they meant, not what you 9mm or, anyone else thinks they meant, a militia that is controlled by the states and, by the president, in other words, the National Guard.
Interesting Bob - A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven.
The Bushmaster rifle was/is not made by Remington and the rifle you have used for your thread has absolutely no bearing on the "attempted" discussion for the thread.
If the "Court" is specifically stating Remington - definitely gonna be appealed and remanded to the lower court.
But Remington does make the .223 ammo which was also found in the school
And Bushmasters are designated as either .223 Remington or .556 Nato....
so that could cause some confusion....
And so do the following companies:
The Bushmaster's shoot any .223 ammo - not just Remington.
and as I said, without being difficult,
Bushmasters are often designated as either Remington or NATO.
and apparently the courts believe that, as advertised, Remington Outdoor Company owns Bushmaster Firearms.
My Bushmaster Carbon 15 is designated .556 NATO but actually shoots some .223 more accurately.
Bushmaster Firearms was a company in Bangor, Maine, that went bankrupt and was purchased by Richard Dyke in 1976 and moved to Windham, Maine. According to a Maine newspaper, it was later sold by Dyke to Cerberus while Krause Publications says it was first acquired by Quality Products Company, in 1990. [1] Dyke would sell the business in 2006 for 70 million dollars to Cerberus Capital Management. The company became part of the Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital Management, in April 2006. [2] In December 2010, Freedom Group announced that operations at the Windham, Maine, facility would cease as of March 2011. [3] Windham Weaponry was founded by the former Bushmaster owners in 2011 in Windham, ME in order "to put Maine people back to work who lost their jobs" when Bushmaster moved out of state in March 2011. [4]
In December 2012, Cerberus Capital Management announced its intention to sell Bushmaster's parent company, Freedom Group. [8] In a press release, Cerberus stated that they would "retain a financial advisor to design and execute a process to sell [their] interests in Freedom Group" (Freedom includes the former Bushmaster company). [9] Cerberus indicated that the decision to sell the company stemmed from publicity surrounding the use of a Bushmaster rifle in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. According to the company: "It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level." [8] [10]
Cerberus announced in late 2013 that it had failed to deliver on its promise to divest itself of the Freedom Arms group and has come up with a plan to buy out some Cerberus investors. Those who chose to give up their shares would get paid off by an unidentified lender. [11]
Don't see anything 'bout Remington in the above.
Like I said, I am NOT trying to be being difficult, here.
Go to the same page and look at the company logo to the right of your excerpt from Wiki. It's staring right at you.
BushMaster is a subsidiary of Remington Outdoor Company.
Hence, the lawsuits are against Remington.
or search on Remington Outdoor Company
Never shot skeet, have you?
Actually, I have... a very long time ago.
Do you really fire more than two rounds on a single "Pull!"? That's pretty good!
What's the most you've fired?
It's grins and giggles to throw up a handful of blue rock and see how many I can hit in the air with my Berretta semi-auto shotgun. Used to play shotgun golf with a reprobate author in Aspen. Have a device that screws onto the end of a AR-15 that launches golf balls. Used to shoot in long range pistol competition out to 500 meters with a 7mm single shot pistol.
We agree on most things Bob but I grew up in a small town culture that has fun with guns so we will have to disagree on this one.
If we want to get down to brass tacks... this kind of thing can be managed.
(Full disclosure: I had an M3 "Grease Gun" in Vietnam, and got a great kick out of loading magazines "all tracer"... The barrel didn't do very well, though.)
I see no problem with "gun clubs", where "more than two-shot" guns could be kept safely under lock and key... with serious penalties for violations. At such a place, you could play sparklers, or blast away with a .50 caliber machine gun, or whatever.
The problem is that guns capable of mass murder are too available. That problem of mass murder will not be solved as long as those guns remain... available.
You said no target shooter needs more than one. Your words.
And .. if you're hunting or just camping or fishing in the backwoods with a rifle, you might want to have more than two shots available if you're charged by a bear. Does this happen often? No, but you'd better be prepared if it does. My ground tour of a native site in Alaska with my Mom years ago .. our little 23 year old guide had her rifle with her, just in case. And I'm pretty sure it had more than just 2 rounds in it. Not one person complained when she explained why she had it. It was more for female moose that time of year than bears.
If 3 men break into your house .. you want 2 bullets to confront them with? Hell, do you want 2 bullets if it's just 2 men? Are you that good of a shot?
You're acting hysterical. I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, but when you make statements like this, you lose all credibility.
And when I target shoot with a rifle at my annual BOW weekend, I have six rounds in the magazine. We all do. The instructors work with us after they see our first shot, and then help us improve as we continue shooting. Then we all clear our guns, announce that the range is cold, and go check our targets. The next time it's our turn, the instructors help us improve further. It's stupid to have one bullet in a magazine and then have to change it out each time we shoot. Because of safety rules, that would add a long time to the class; I can't be reloading my gun while other people are shooting in a class.
You really need to learn more before you argue so much. I am for more gun control than you might think, and people like you do not help people like me get our points across. AR-15s are not these magical demon guns which are dramatically different than any other semi-auto.
Every state has a Becoming an Outdoor Woman workshop, btw. These are amazing! Last year I enjoyed the archery the most; couldn't make it into the blacksmith workshop, alas. The chainsaw class was cool. We had options for rifle, handgun, muzzle loader, shotgun, tree identification, outdoor cooking, fly tying, fly fishing, outdoor photography, Appalachian basket weaving, and much more ... simply wonderful.
Some states' workshops teach you how to butcher a deer, sail a sailboat, and more. All depends on where you live, but apparently each state has one. Sponsored in part by hunting and fishing licenses. Tell the women in your lives about these! Very affordable and the price includes the lodging, craft materials, instructors, ammo, food, all supplies for all classes ... under $200 for an entire weekend.
In an emergency self-defense situation, a larger magazine is good if you want to be more confident about your ability to disable or kill just one or two people. In a crisis, people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away.
That's probably a very good argument for not letting people have weapons that can spray bullets all over hell and gone!
When does that happen? People defend themselves with guns (often without firing a shot) every day. It doesn't typically result in bullets being sprayed all over etc.
I'm sorry... I thought that's what you meant by "people are horribly inaccurate shots - even from just a few feet away".
There have indeed been a few cases of guns being used to chase off (or wound, or kill) intruders. A few cases, over the years, in a country of 325 million people... do not really convince me.
There have also been a few cases of Black people being shot by police for no apparent reason. Would you draw the general conclusion that police randomly shoot Black people? No. You contextualize.
"Stand your ground" success stories are the same thing. Very rare instances being generalized. Statistics tell us that homes without guns are safer than homes with guns, primarily because of accidents.
Hey, no offense there Tacos! (really, no offense), but speak for yourself there. lol.
A few? That’s a lie perpetuated by those who don’t believe in our natural rights
Here are the real facts that matter on firearms
Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12
Unearthed Government Data: Defensive Firearm Uses Far More Frequent Than Gun Control Advocates Claim
To answer that question, let's first recall that a 2013 Obama administration-commissioned review, executed in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), pegged the relevant number at between half-a-million and three million:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press. The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
... and thirty thousand deaths by firearm every year...
Uh, you should review the number of shots fired and number of shots that actually hit their target in police shootings. In one police shooting in my city, something like 8 police officers shot 22 rounds and only hit the perp 3 times. The others went all over the place.
I own a Mossberg M702 Tactical Plinkster. It is .22 caliber, is black and generally resembles a AR-15. Comes with a 10 round magazine. I bought it for target shooting and home protection. One day, I was coming back from the range and stopped at Wal-Mart to get some milk on the way home in Southeastern AZ. The gun was laying in the back of my SUV. When I raised the tailgate to put the milk in the back, the lady parked next to me was putting her groceries in her trunk notices my rifle and demanded to know why I had a assault rifle in my car? I patiently tried to explain to her that it was only a .22 caliber rifle that was semi auto and only for target practice. She then stated "But it is black and shaped like a assault rifle, so it must be one!" I just told whatever, got in my car car and drove away. All the while this woman is calling me a redneck right wing gun nut. I looked at the back of her car. She had CA plates, and Obama/Biden and Greenpeace bumper stickers. Go figure...
Conversely, I have a Mini-14 I inherited, which is basically an AR-15, but it comes with a wooden stock, and I don't have a bunch of accessories on it, so it's not scary.
Looks like they need more range rime...
I perceive a difference between missing the target and "spraying bullets all over hell and gone." You make it sound like scores of innocent bystanders drop dead every time a person uses a gun to defend themselves.
I understand, but I am speaking to the statistics. People who study gun fights have produced ample evidence of what I am talking about. Whether it's the old West or the modern day city, combatants have emptied their guns at their opponents and hit nothing. In a crisis, I could grab the gun with five shots, but I'd rather have the one with 17.
Oh? I said nothing like that.
Then there's not much point to the spraying bullets talk or being concerned about it.
Nope
Without that thing wearing the hat, that gun won't do a damn thing. But, hey, lets keep going after the inanimate object.
What business is it of yours?
It took the Connecticut Court a long time to act. I'm not sure how much consolation it gives to the families of victims, but I hope the lawsuit proceeds.
Well that's a nice piece of legal sounding bullshite.....
It is not just an exemption for firearms manufacturers, it is an exemption that has been in legal existence for hundreds of years hearkening back to English common law...
A manufacturer cannot be held legally liable for deliberate misuse of their product......
It will go up the federal chain of courts and be struck down..... probably long before it reaches the Supreme Court....
Otherwise, expect 40,000+ lawsuits a year from the drunk driver victims families suing the car manufacturers for not making their cars drunk driving proof.....
Cars are not intended to be driven drunk....
Eliminate the principle for one industry, you eliminate it for all....
I have to agree. If the guns are legal when manufactured and sold, how can the manufacturers legally be sued?
There are now blow-and-go options available for cars, to use your example - should we sue all car manufacturers who aren't making those standard equipment in all their vehicles?
Of course, cigarette companies were sued, but I seem to recall that had a lot to do with them deliberately making their products more addictive ... but I still thought it was weird. The people who sued knew how bad smoking was for them. And now I think there are lawsuits against opioid manufacturers.
Agreed. But this is what we have come to expect when you have a segment of the population that would rather not hold a person responsible for what they do. IMO, this is as bad as OAC who's suggestion around holding banks responsible would also include holding them accountable for financing the purchase of the car that a drunk drove.
... but if the only logical purpose for the product is to slaughter people, then there has been no "misuse".
The AR 15 and its brethren have no logical purpose other than to slaughter people. Their manufacturers should be held responsible for the results.
The AR-15 is likely the most perfect all around rifle ever made (next to the AK-74). It is America's rifle.
I believe in thorough background checks for all gun purchases (like that's going to do any good).
Used to be a NRA member but quit when they became just a shill for the gun industry.
Here in the land of OZ one does not even need a carry permit anymore for open or concealed carry.
I would actually prefer more stringent laws on who could carry.
There are millions of responsible AR-15 owners for every one who develops a case of bad wiring.
I agree with the ban on bump stocks (turned mine in as per law to the local marshal, he gave it back).
Live way out here where friendship rather than strict interpretation of laws rule.
One of the few bastions of the old west left.
I concur. I'd have one, but I live in California and the state regs have taken a lot of the joy out of owning and operating one.
I agree that it would not do any good as long as it has no teeth. How about this: Every gun sold must be test-fired and it's characteristics entered into a database... and then linked to the buyer, who will be considered an accessory in any crime committed with that gun.
Gun owners might get a bit more serious about storing their weapons.
One of the few times where we are in complete agreement. I also am all for strict background checks as you said. Here in Arizona we have open carry, but I prefer to have a state approved concealed carry permit as there are situations that are covered during the course that many are not aware of. I live in the middle of the Sonora Desert on the Arizona/Mexican border. Lots of drug and illegal smuggling going on in my area. I will soon be moving to a 135 acre piece of property out in the desert and I need firearms for protection for my property and my family and the AR-15 style weapon suits my purposes.
About the only thing I see this might slow down is the straw purchaser who goes into a gun store and legally purchases several guns and then sells said guns out of his trunk to people who cannot legally purchase guns. But do to this would require changing federal laws as it's currently illegal for the feds to maintain a database of who owns what gun. Additionally with the slow and poor performance of some federal workers, I would hate for someone who purchased a gun, then sold it to another person (how do you force this test at a federal level if the sale is made within the state as the federal government can't interfere with intrastate commerce) and then the gun was stolen from the new owner and used in a crime. Does the original owner volunteer the information that he sold his gun to this person? Or does the new owner have to register it? And what happens if the paperwork is sent in, but the federal workers are lax in getting the information entered into the database? In this case the original owner would be held responsible when he should not have.
that part is true enough...
the bill of rights protects the states from a rouge federal government.
to do that we need the same arms the feds have.
if the fed's do not fear us, they will own us.
the founder's intentions could not be more clear on this subject
anyone who would undermine, limit, or remove any part of our bill of rights simply cannot be trusted.
so, now you know why we need the same arms the feds have. and why we don't trust liberals.
btw california's high capacity magazine ban just got shot down as well
cheers
And the purpose of most guns is to kill. Kill large animals. Mostly mammals but large birds and reptiles too.
So how are they being misused?
Which is why we have civil courts in addittion to criminal courts.
Exactly. So what problem do the two things have in common?
People.
Really?
Do you know many hunters who fire more than two rounds at the animal they are hunting?
What is the purpose of a thirty-round magazine? Or even a six-round magazine?
To kill people.
Really?
Was there something I didn't make clear in that post?
People ARE large Mammals/animals are they not?
People are large mammals, but larger mammals are not necessarily people .
That was unclear.
If a person doesn't want to kill people, they don't need more than two rounds. How is that not logical?
If anyone wants to kill people, 2 rounds are 2 too many, right?
If anyone wants to kill lots of people, two rounds definitely are not enough.
I shoot at targets a mile away just for the fun of it.
That's very cool!
The normal purpose of a car is not deadly. The normal purpose of rapid-fire gun with big magazine is to slaughter people. Do you see the difference now?
Give us a different reason... if you can.
The AR 15 has proven itself to be very effective for slaughtering people.
Thirty rounds for target shooting...
... head for shelter!!
So were rocks, spears, knives, axes, and halbreds in the middle ages to name a few and they killed more people than guns ever have so what's your point?
You equate rocks and AR15s... Interesting.
You deny that a well placed rock can kill? I've seen it...
Are you really equating rocks and AR15s? Seriously?
I am stating that a rock can kill you just as dead as a AR-15. So my answer is that, under certain circumstances, yes I am. Again, are you denying that a well placed rock can kill you just as dead?
OK. Your "honesty" is... also interesting.
True Ed - hell, I've seen folks with butter knives who can put the fear of death in ya.
Yep. That's why airlines don't even allow nail clippers.
Slippery perhaps, but still relevant.
Not sure how I feel about this.....I'm torn......
No as badly as the children of Sandy Hook.
A car has a worthwhile purpose. It can be misused.
An AR15 has no worthwhile purpose. It is meant to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Assimilating the two is despicable intellectual dishonesty.
Which are what?
Cool!
Once again, you have implied that you have pertinent experience... without ever explicitly saying so... and then when asked for details, you fade away.
[deleted]
[deleted/taunting]
[deleted]
Yep, I own several AR-15 AR-10 platforms. It's fun to stretch them out to a 1000 yards.
Would a single-shot rifle be less fun?
Excellent Comment. Great pertinence!
Excellent Comment. Great pertinence!
of course it is less fun, why do you think they sell a lot of them and extra magazines? People like them and are willing to pay money for them
My single shot Barrett in .50 cal is lots of fun even though my shoulder hurts after a few shots.
That's an "elephant gun", isn't it? I seem to remember the name.
I'm sure there'd be an even greater adrenaline rush from a bazooka.
The problem, Bf, is that there are many on the right who think your words are serious.
They really imagine themselves in a pickup truck full o' good 'ol buddies, blazin' away at them Commies!
….that "LEGALLY" own guns, If there was a REAL Gun Problem, we'd KNOW IT !
Seems we have MORE a "NUT JOB People" problem.....but that doesn't make for a good "News?.....STORY !
This whole thread is ridiculous.
I don't see anything in there about how many bullets are needed to shoot a deer or duck.
Seems to me when we have a certain group of people touting the greatness of socialism, the 2nd Amendment is never more necessary and is why the founding fathers stipulated it.
How many would be needed to take out a home invasion crew? Coming from a banking family who has been trained in hostage negotiation, I say shoot first and shoot accurately.
Sue away! I don't think anything will come of it, but we have more lawyers than any other country. Might as well give some of them some work.
Our well armed citizens are what protect us from criminals and would be dictators, since the armed citizens took their freedom, very few other countries have had kept the same form of government and freedom as long as we have
and the supreme court will overturn this ruling. count on it.
cheers
"a very large hole"? By that wacky reasoning, we can sue manufacturers when we're guilty of misusing:
I stand properly rebuked. My apologies. Thank you for your service and have a good day.
The question is often asked - and has been asked here: "Why do you need so many rounds?" The simple answer is: shooters miss. But they need to hit their target, so they need to be able to shoot again . Immediately.
Here is a link to a report on shootings by New York City police officers. It's kind of old, but the findings are still relevant to our discussion because the basic facets of combat shooting haven't really changed.
So, if you want to a hit a person one time - and you're within ten feet of them - you can reasonably expect to have to fire four times. If they're across the room or down the hall, you might fire ten times or more and still miss.
And this is for cops who have been trained in the combat use of their firearm, practice frequently, and encounter life-threatening situations on a daily basis. Just imagine the contrast in emotional state for an ordinary civilian who has just had someone break into their house in the middle of the night.
So if you have a firearm for self-defense, it's perfectly reasonable that you might want a magazine with 10, 20, 30 or more rounds in it. After all, this is the device that is intended to save your life. You don't want to run out of ammo in the middle of that fight.
So not only are people STILL blaming an inanimate object, now they can go after the maker of that inanimate object.
If one can sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on their lap, why not this?
To people like that, it is so much easier to deny that people with guns kill people rather than guns alone kill people. That kind of logic escapes most thinking people...
Sometimes you miss...