Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington

[bluesmoke]

Instead of accusing the poster of lying and running off, why not provide a counter example? An accusation of lying is pretty worthless without that.

The poster made a claim which they could not support and which I refuted. In debate, I need not do any more than that.

I did not accuse the poster of lying. I stated, as a matter of fact, that the poster was repeating a lie, not necessarily his own. Perhaps out of ignorance, I don't know. If the poster continues to repeat the lie after having been informed of the facts and cannot counter my refutation with anything of significance that puts the matter back into question, I might then advise the poster they are lying.

 

[American]

Of course the money can never make up for the horrific loss of their loved ones life’s, but
At least it does hold Remington partly responsibile for the way they marketed their A-15s.

…………
From the article :


But attorneys for the families pushed a different approach: trying to hold Remington partly responsible because of its marketing strategy.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.
……
Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington
The families had filed a lawsuit in 2014.



https://apple.news/A1bcDbqBBRyubiQrcO6HgRA

Were the guns and/or ammo defective?

 

[bluesmoke]

Looking back, his reply was a direct answer to your question: "What civilized country has passed law to confiscate AR style rifles, in addition to banning the gun?"

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but my review definitively shows that Rucker wasn't the one with a dishonest approach here.

The poster stated: "Every civilized country that has banned the AR-15 included confiscation in that same law." To which claim I referred to in my reply. The poster's thereafter reply was disingenuous for simply repeating themself, which reply obviously did not recognize that fact. The poster's reply was anything but direct to the point of their own claim having been proved false yet repeating the lie in question.

 

[RF667799]

The poster stated: "Every civilized country that has banned the AR-15 included confiscation in that same law." To which claim I referred to in my reply. The poster's thereafter reply was disingenuous for simply repeating themself, which reply obviously did not recognize that fact. The poster's reply was anything but direct to the point of their own claim having been proved false yet repeating the lie in question.

You asked a question (as quoted above) and he gave a direct answer. Word salad is obvious attempt to obscure.

 

[RF667799]

The poster made a claim which they could not support and which I refuted. In debate, I need not do any more than that.

I did not accuse the poster of lying. I stated, as a matter of fact, that the poster was repeating a lie, not necessarily his own. Perhaps out of ignorance, I don't know. If the poster continues to repeat the lie after having been informed of the facts and cannot counter my refutation with anything of significance that puts the matter back into question, I might then advise the poster they are lying.

Yeah, whatever.

Try to answer in a more timely fashion next time.

 

[Rucker61]

The poster stated: "Every civilized country that has banned the AR-15 included confiscation in that same law." To which claim I referred to in my reply. The poster's thereafter reply was disingenuous for simply repeating themself, which reply obviously did not recognize that fact. The poster's reply was anything but direct to the point of their own claim having been proved false yet repeating the lie in question.

Is there a country that banned the AR-15 and didn't include confiscation?

 

[bluesmoke]

In 2008, the weapon of choice of the "deadliest mass shooters" was the handgun. Our worst two mass shootings at that time, the Luby's shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting had 24 and 32 dead, respectively. SCOTUS still held that the Second Amendment protected handguns.

Funny, Australia still allows 9mm handguns, so they can still have mass shootings with 32 dead.
The UK's response to Cumbria where a .22 bolt action rifle and an antique 12 bore double barrel shotgun was use to kill 12 people was to ban nothing.

What do you think would happen if the 2021-2022 AWB in Congress was passed and upheld by SCOTUS?

You're picking out single incidents when statistically, past yrs have shown the incidents of most killed in mass shootings have been killed by AR style guns than any other.

What guns are banned leave more likely guns that aren't banned. Hence, more mass shootings by less AR style guns than in the past.

What do you think would happen if AWB was passed in Congress? You expect me to give my position in a matter before you give yours? Show me yours, I'll show you mine.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yeah, whatever.

Try to answer in a more timely fashion next time.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[bluesmoke]

More goalposts moving by cherry picking the data, such as:

"They have become the weapon of choice for the deadliest mass shooters."

You always have stipulations to your argument which essentially makes it moot.

Weapon of choice (AR-15) only applies if they are actually used. But the fact is, they are rarely used in mass shootings, which is handguns by far.

My point remains the same. The AR style gun has become the weapon of choice for the worst mass shootings. Do you say we should be more concerned with handguns? Revolvers? I'm picking out something very specific. Though I'm mostly concerned with high-capacity magazines, whether rifles or handguns. Is that "moving the goal posts"?

 

[Rucker61]

You're picking out single incidents when statistically, past yrs have shown the incidents of most killed in mass shootings have been killed by AR style guns than any other.

What guns are banned leave more likely guns that aren't banned. Hence, more mass shootings by less AR style guns than in the past.

What do you think would happen if AWB was passed in Congress? You expect me to give my position in a matter before you give yours? Show me yours, I'll show you mine.

If Congress passed the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2021" and Biden signed it, citizens would buy another 5 to 10 million of them before the ban went into effect. Eventually it would get to SCOTUS where it would overturned.

 

[bluesmoke]

In regards to mass shootings? No...statistically mass shooting are still less than 1% nationally.

Yes. CA gun laws are working in the respect I mentioned. What you say has no relevance to that fact.

You didn't answer my question. In respect, I'll ask again: Why mention "inner city blacks"? What's the relevance?

 

[bluesmoke]

are you going to be part of the storm troopers who confiscate guns or are you going to sit back and hide while others do it?

Neither.

 

[bluesmoke]

If Congress passed the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2021" and Biden signed it, citizens would buy another 5 to 10 million of them before the ban went into effect. Eventually it would get to SCOTUS where it would overturned.

It takes generations to change the nature of a gun culture such as our own.

 

[Rucker61]

It takes generations to change the nature of a gun culture such as our own.

We don't have a monolithic "gun culture".

We know that those who wish to impose new gun control regardless of Constitutionality, efficacy and enforceability don't have the patience to wait generations before trying to impose even more.

Let's say that we have a national AWB, and it withstands SCOTUS scrutiny. What happens after the next major shooting where an "assault weapon" is used? Status quo?

 

[bluesmoke]

We don't have a monolithic "gun culture".

We know that those who wish to impose new gun control regardless of Constitutionality, efficacy and enforceability don't have the patience to wait generations before trying to impose even more.

Let's say that we have a national AWB, and it withstands SCOTUS scrutiny. What happens after the next major shooting where an "assault weapon" is used? Status quo?

The notion of a monolithic gun culture is Americans’ unique belief in the "...that the people’s right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights and a firm safeguard of democracy" (Hofstadter, 1970).

New law is assumed to have been established with regard to constitutionality. That's what the legislative branch of govt does. Until determined otherwise by the judicial branch, said law is considered constitutional.

Studies do show efficacy of gun law. States with the strongest firearm laws have fewer gun-related murders and fewer firearm suicides.

Gun safety laws are more enforceable than laws against murder, theft, etc.

As our society progresses, we'll more likely take action after successive major shootings by assault weapons, like advanced societies do.

 

[Rucker61]

The notion of a monolithic gun culture is Americans’ unique belief in the "...that the people’s right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights and a firm safeguard of democracy" (Hofstadter, 1970).

The vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who don't have a right to even possess firearms.

New law is assumed to have been established with regard to constitutionality. That's what the legislative branch of govt does. Until determined otherwise by the judicial branch, said law is considered constitutional.

Precedence can give a good view as to whether a new law meets the criteria for Constitutionality. A national ban on handguns would be clearly unconstitutional.

Studies do show efficacy of gun law. States with the strongest firearm laws have fewer gun-related murders and fewer firearm suicides.

Except for the exceptions, of course, and even in those states with strong laws there are pockets with high levels of gun violence.

Gun safety laws are more enforceable than laws against murder, theft, etc.

That's a low bar.

As our society progresses, we'll more likely take action after successive major shootings by assault weapons, like advanced societies do.

Likely so, and we'll find out that the steps taken by those "advanced societies" don't have the same effect in the US.

That debate is why we're here.

What homicide rate would the US have to achieve before the gun control advocates stopped pushing for more gun control?

 

[TurtleDude]

The notion of a monolithic gun culture is Americans’ unique belief in the "...that the people’s right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights and a firm safeguard of democracy" (Hofstadter, 1970).

New law is assumed to have been established with regard to constitutionality. That's what the legislative branch of govt does. Until determined otherwise by the judicial branch, said law is considered constitutional.

Studies do show efficacy of gun law. States with the strongest firearm laws have fewer gun-related murders and fewer firearm suicides.

Gun safety laws are more enforceable than laws against murder, theft, etc.

As our society progresses, we'll more likely take action after successive major shootings by assault weapons, like advanced societies do.

think about that statement and tell us why it is true. and prove it

 

[bluesmoke]

I'm not sure what your point is here with this sentence fragment.

Many on the RW are talking up teachers carrying guns. The "janitors" comment was SNARK, but I've seen laws popping up from the right just as ridiculous on other issues. Nonetheless, according to Heller, teachers carrying guns in school can be made illegal.

 

[Rucker61]

Many on the RW are talking up teachers carrying guns. The "janitors" comment was SNARK, but I've seen laws popping up from the right just as ridiculous on other issues. Nonetheless, according to Heller, teachers carrying guns in school can be made illegal.

They can be made legal, too. It's a state's rights issue.

 

[bluesmoke]

England and Australia both used one incident each to engage in a collective bed wetting

One incident in Scotland also caused passage of gun safety law. Both mass shooting and homicide have gone down, though always considerably lower than in the US.

America has yet to learn from more civilized countries with advanced societies and culture. The RW is circle-jerking to the vision of reversing the advancement of American society and culture back to the 1950s, only with more liberalized gun law.

 

[Rucker61]

One incident in Scotland also caused passage of gun safety law. Both mass shooting and homicide have gone down, though always considerably lower than in the US.

America has yet to learn from more civilized countries with advanced societies and culture. The RW is circle-jerking to the vision of reversing the advancement of American society and culture back to the 1950s, only with more liberalized gun law.

In those situations, the governments implemented mass confiscations of firearms. We've had mass shootings with "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles not classified as "assault weapons", bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and rimfire firearms.

That's a lot of guns to confiscate.

 

[bluesmoke]

Try again. That response wasn't parsable either.

You asked the question "Doesn't every gun crime in a gun free zone provide evidence that gun free zones don't work?", which implies a claim that gun-free zones don't work. One gun crime compared to 100 would be significant, compared as rates. 1 changing to 100 would be significant evidence against a gun-free zone while 100 going to 1 would support a gun-free zone, as extreme examples to make a point. What is your evidence of any significance that supports a claim that gun-free zones don't work?

 

[CaughtInThe]

My group of friends range anywhere from 40 years old to 65 years old.

I, personally, don't have any ex-military friends who have an arsenal in their house. I do have four friends that are loaded for bear who didn't serve. One makes his own ammo. Maybe these are the people that the marketing campaign was after.

 

[Rucker61]

You asked the question "Doesn't every gun crime in a gun free zone provide evidence that gun free zones don't work?", which implies a claim that gun-free zones don't work. One gun crime compared to 100 would be significant, compared as rates. 1 changing to 100 would be significant evidence against a gun-free zone while 100 going to 1 would support a gun-free zone, as extreme examples to make a point. What is your evidence of any significance that supports a claim that gun-free zones don't work?

Did a gun free zone keep the latest shooter out of a gun free zone?

 

[bluesmoke]

Did a gun free zone keep the latest shooter out of a gun free zone?

You keep asking me questions and posting without answering mine. Yet, you keep posting and expect that I respond. I'll ask for the third time: Why mention "inner city blacks"? What's the relevance?

You're not respecting the debate process. You don't deserve replies if you can't give an honest, forthright answer/response.