Newtown Ct Families File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Bushmaster

[Killerdude 730]

Doesnt mean I need 30 rounds to take down a deer. Its the preference of the owner whether or not they want to use a lower capacity magazine or a standard capacity magazine

 

 

30 dead school children right there.

Because you know those crazy people out there aren't taking basic hunting rifles to their public massacres.

 

What about police officers, or even security guards? hmm? you dont need 30 rounds to kill a harmful person do you?

might as well limit their guns mag capacity to 5 rounds too

 

 

30 dead school children right there.

Because you know those crazy people out there aren't taking basic hunting rifles to their public massacres.

your point is?

I could kill 30 people using a 5 round magazine. I just have to reload 6 times instead of once

I absolutely agree with that. If you are not Military, You should not have such firepower available to you.

[Dottie 9,262]

Actually you can own a tank or other pieces of military equipment legally, but it must be demilitarized first

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[Frank Brown 2,420]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, Anybody gonna give me a LOGICAL reason THIS should be available to the masses?

This isn't a Hunting rifle, it's a god damned assault rifle, a Weapon with the SOLE purpose to end another Humans life.

 

Can you give me a reason why that specific weapon shouldn't be available to the masses, or at least those who meet certain requirements, such as a background check or training? Handguns are the cause of most firearm homicides in the United States.

 

Because it's a f*cking semi auto rifle with a large magazine!

 

The most Civillians should be able to legally buy is a simple Break Action Hunting Rifle, None of this semi-auto/full-auto bullsh*t.

 

you think 30 rounds is a large magazine. How absurd does that sound.....

30 round magazines have been the standard intermediate cartridge magazine size since WWII

 

please save the embarassment and take your liberal agenda elsewhere. you just sound so silly right now

 

30 dead school children right there.

Because you know those crazy people out there aren't taking basic hunting rifles to their public massacres.

 

 

Will public massacres be stopped because this scary piece of machinery is no longer available? Why wouldn't a homicidal maniac replace this weapon with a knife, or use a hunting rifle to pick-off innocents from a distance? What about home defense?

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

Edited December 18, 2014 by Frank Brown

[Dottie 9,262]

I absolutely agree with that. If you are not Military, You should not have such firepower available to you.

 

 

 

but I dont. I cant just go to the gun store and buy a military grade M4A1 carbine

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

Well duh... they're obviously the same damn thing right?

/sarcasm to the max

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[Killerdude 730]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, Anybody gonna give me a LOGICAL reason THIS should be available to the masses?

This isn't a Hunting rifle, it's a god damned assault rifle, a Weapon with the SOLE purpose to end another Humans life.

 

Can you give me a reason why that specific weapon shouldn't be available to the masses, or at least those who meet certain requirements, such as a background check or training? Handguns are the cause of most firearm homicides in the United States.

 

Because it's a f*cking semi auto rifle with a large magazine!

 

The most Civillians should be able to legally buy is a simple Break Action Hunting Rifle, None of this semi-auto/full-auto bullsh*t.

 

you think 30 rounds is a large magazine. How absurd does that sound.....

30 round magazines have been the standard intermediate cartridge magazine size since WWII

 

please save the embarassment and take your liberal agenda elsewhere. you just sound so silly right now

 

30 dead school children right there.

Because you know those crazy people out there aren't taking basic hunting rifles to their public massacres.

 

 

Will public massacres be stopped because this scary piece of machinery is no longer available? Why wouldn't a homicidal maniac replace this weapon with a knife, or use a hunting rifle to pick-off innocents from a distance? What about home defense?

 

Will they be stopped? No.

But will the casualty rate drop? Significantly.

 

It's easier for a man with a knife to be subdued than a man with an automatic rifle. Just use common sense with that one.

 

A lone man with a knife will be able to kill far fewer people than if he had a semi-auto/full-auto rifle.

[Kampioen 1,768]

What kind of mafia lifestyles are you guys living that you need to protect yourself with guns? Besides, pulling your gun on another guy with a gun is probably just gonna make him more likely to shoot.

[Dottie 9,262]

What kind of mafia lifestyles are you guys living that you need to protect yourself with guns? Besides, pulling your gun on another guy with a gun is probably just gonna make him more likely to shoot.

Try living in the ghetto and you'll see why people need self/home defense measures

[AlienTwo 30,223]

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

[VCRules86 47]

Typical left wing nut job who has no firearm knowledge what-so-ever....

This left wing nut job would like to point out that being pro-gun isn't just for conservatives. I'm pro choice, you should have the right to use 30 round mags in the weapon you use to abort a violent attacker.

[Dottie 9,262]

 

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

 

lol the AR15 is not used by the military. Go do some research

Typical left wing nut job who has no firearm knowledge what-so-ever....

This left wing nut job would like to point out that being pro-gun isn't just for conservatives. I'm pro choice, you should have the right to use 30 round mags in the weapon you use to abort a violent attacker.

 

good point. That looks like flame bait anyway, Dont want to be starting a flame war do we? Just gonna toss that one

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[Kampioen 1,768]

 

What kind of mafia lifestyles are you guys living that you need to protect yourself with guns? Besides, pulling your gun on another guy with a gun is probably just gonna make him more likely to shoot.

Try living in the ghetto and you'll see why people need self/home defense measures

 

 

Because everybody's got guns? It's quite a deadly form of circular logic.

[Dottie 9,262]

.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[AlienTwo 30,223]

 

 

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

 

lol the AR15 is not used by the military. Go do some research

 

Dude... I was in the f*cking army, I don't need lectures about what they use. The military doesn't use anything from Bushmaster. I was using that rifle as an example because this topic is directly referencing that gun.

 

Go do some research.

[Dottie 9,262]

This thread spiraled nowhere fast...

[Crazyeighties 472]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, Anybody gonna give me a LOGICAL reason THIS should be available to the masses?

This isn't a Hunting rifle, it's a god damned assault rifle, a Weapon with the SOLE purpose to end another Humans life.

 

Can you give me a reason why that specific weapon shouldn't be available to the masses, or at least those who meet certain requirements, such as a background check or training? Handguns are the cause of most firearm homicides in the United States.

 

Because it's a f*cking semi auto rifle with a large magazine!

 

The most Civillians should be able to legally buy is a simple Break Action Hunting Rifle, None of this semi-auto/full-auto bullsh*t.

 

you think 30 rounds is a large magazine. How absurd does that sound.....

30 round magazines have been the standard intermediate cartridge magazine size since WWII

 

please save the embarassment and take your liberal agenda elsewhere. you just sound so silly right now

 

30 dead school children right there.

Because you know those crazy people out there aren't taking basic hunting rifles to their public massacres.

 

 

Will public massacres be stopped because this scary piece of machinery is no longer available? Why wouldn't a homicidal maniac replace this weapon with a knife, or use a hunting rifle to pick-off innocents from a distance? What about home defense?

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

What if you live in the Alaskan Bush EVERYONE well most people in Alaska especially those that live in the middle of nowhere need weapons like this because of the wild life you half to if you want to survive the walk to you car if a bear comes onto your property and decides it wants to eat you or your kids, If a bear was running towards you or your child wouldn't you want to have a gun with stopping power? of course you would and if you wouldn't you should not have kids

[Dottie 9,262]

all aboard the Quote train express!

Seriously this thread has derailed into another galaxy. Thats how far off topic we went

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[Killerdude 730]

What if you live in the Alaskan Bush EVERYONE well most people in Alaska especially those that live in the middle of nowhere need weapons like this because of the wild life you half to if you want to survive the walk to you car if a bear comes onto your property and decides it wants to eat you or your kids, If a bear was running towards you or your child wouldn't you want to have a gun with stopping power? of course you would and if you wouldn't you should not have kids

 

 

If you have kids and live in the Alaskan Bush, you shouldn't have kids.

[Dottie 9,262]

 

What if you live in the Alaskan Bush EVERYONE well most people in Alaska especially those that live in the middle of nowhere need weapons like this because of the wild life you half to if you want to survive the walk to you car if a bear comes onto your property and decides it wants to eat you or your kids, If a bear was running towards you or your child wouldn't you want to have a gun with stopping power? of course you would and if you wouldn't you should not have kids

 

 

If you have kids and live in the Alaskan Bush, you shouldn't have kids.

 

/problem solved

no children. no nonsense debates

we're done here. Thats the solution

in the words of LSPD "ITS OVVVVEEERRRR!"

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[VCRules86 47]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

 

lol the AR15 is not used by the military. Go do some research

 

 

Typical left wing nut job who has no firearm knowledge what-so-ever....

This left wing nut job would like to point out that being pro-gun isn't just for conservatives. I'm pro choice, you should have the right to use 30 round mags in the weapon you use to abort a violent attacker.

 

good point. That looks like flame bait anyway, Dont want to be starting a flame war do we? Just gonna toss that one

No flaming here. Just busting balls.

[Dottie 9,262]

I felt that my post was flame bait instead of contribution to the derailment. So i tossed it

Edited December 18, 2014 by Winning001

[Frank Brown 2,420]

KD:

Will they be stopped? No.

But will the casualty rate drop? Significantly.

 

 

Firearm casualty rate, sure. Homicide rate? Possibly. You're comparing a country like Iceland to the United States. They are not the same. and they are much different culturally. Are gang violence and mental illness a large issue in that country?

It's easier for a man with a knife to be subdued than a man with an automatic rifle. Just use common sense with that one.

A lone man with a knife will be able to kill far fewer people than if he had a semi-auto/full-auto rifle.

 

 

You're assuming that no one else in the vicinity is armed with a weapon, trained properly, and able to use it. If the bad guy has legal access to a weapon like this, the good guys do as well. If personal carry is allowed, it's possible that the good guy is able to intervene.

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/02/knife-massacre-in-chinese-railway-station-leaves-34-dead-4371846/

Alien:

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

 

 

 

 

It is a hand-held weapon. They're not tools of war, you're categorizing them as such. They have other uses outside of war. They can easily be used for home or self defense.

[AlienTwo 30,223]

So can a shotgun to much better effect.

 

You were able to find three examples of knife attacks with deaths involved, you realize that's a drop in the bucket related to the mass shootings from the past 5 years alone I could dig up, don't you?

[Dottie 9,262]

I just use mah tank I bought off of Craig's List for self defense you know...

Same thing as owning an AR15 right?

/sarcasm

[El Dildo 14,389]

legally speaking it's an interesting case.

3 pages in and we're already completely off topic.

 

a lot of the time these and similar cases seem to boil down much more simply than all the inflated rhetoric would have you believe.

on the one hand, you have the apparent right to own firearms.

on the other hand, you have the apparent right to safely walk down the street without a psychopath carrying firearms under their jacket.

 

but we cannot know for sure what is going on inside the mind of every person we pass in public.

aside from my inability to read crazy people's minds, I'm aware that perfectly sane people can also snap and commit wanton violence out of character. in attempting to stop a crazy person's access to firearms you can't really win. so, can dangerous people just start wearing big, flashy, neon signs over their heads? that way we know who to avoid as we go about our daily business... firearms or not... yeah, I dunno man, that's obviously not going to happen, so whose right is more important? whose right is more tangible? your ability to buy a murder machine from Wal-Mart or my ability to feel safe at the local bank?

 

I'm not sure those rights are equal.

 

society is what it is, ok? and I appreciate my Glock in the safe in the closet.

I appreciate the Remington pump action locked in the case under our bed, especially when I hunt birds and rabbits with my uncle.

 

but honestly, after reading a little bit of the PDF of the actual lawsuit posted on the first page, I more or less agree with the Newtown parents.

it's actually a well-reasoned, well researched, and logically written class action. I wouldn't mind if the AR15 was no longer sold to civilians, for instance. ultimately firearms will exist in society and there are some that I would like access to myself. hunting, target shooting, and self defense are all great reasons to own and enjoy firearms. but the civilian doesn't need the kind of weapons that the military employs on the modern battlefield for any of those things.

[universetwisters 29,301]

That's a bit odd. That's like suing the car manufacturer after your car got stolen and the car thief ran you over with it. "It would have never happened to me if that car was never made!"

 

 

I can imagine that analogy was used quite a lot already, though.

[Frank Brown 2,420]

So can a shotgun to much better effect.

 

You were able to find three examples of knife attacks with deaths involved, you realize that's a drop in the bucket related to the mass shootings from the past 5 years alone I could dig up, don't you?

 

Why is a shotgun that holds x amount of shells okay, but a rifle isn't?

 

The point is, those countries have strict gun control laws. They resorted to melee weapons instead of firearms. Why wouldn't that happen here?

[Killerdude 730]

 

KD:

Will they be stopped? No.

But will the casualty rate drop? Significantly.

 

 

Firearm casualty rate, sure. Homicide rate? Possibly. You're comparing a country like Iceland to the United States. They are not the same. and they are much different culturally. Are gang violence and mental illness a large issue in that country?

It's easier for a man with a knife to be subdued than a man with an automatic rifle. Just use common sense with that one.

A lone man with a knife will be able to kill far fewer people than if he had a semi-auto/full-auto rifle.

 

 

You're assuming that no one else in the vicinity is armed with a weapon, trained properly, and able to use it. If the bad guy has legal access to a weapon like this, the good guys do as well. If personal carry is allowed, it's possible that the good guy is able to intervene.

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/02/knife-massacre-in-chinese-railway-station-leaves-34-dead-4371846/

 

Difference in culture does not in no way invalidate the fact that incredibly strict gun control reduces crime by proxy to a lack of guns. I also understand that a large part of the US crime problem isn't entirely gun based, But they certainly do not help the situation whatsoever.

 

I am not against guns entirely, Just simply nobody should have access to Semi-Auto/Full-Auto rifles.

It should be limited to small calibre pistols and single shot hunting rifles. You have self defence weapons and hunting tools without the retarded military grade bullsh*t.

 

 

The good guys never have a weapon capable of matching the mass shooter, because the mass shooter is almost always carrying a fully automatic assault rifle. If you think being able to legally carrying a weapon of that calibre is the solution to crime in your country, Your country needs a major f*cking reform.

 

 

Found this little website, Mass shootings in JUST 2014 in JUST the USA.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

 

In case you didn't visit the link.

278 mass shootings.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Killerdude8

[Frank Brown 2,420]

Difference in culture does not in no way invalidate the fact that incredibly strict gun control reduces crime by proxy to a lack of guns. I also understand that a large part of the US crime problem isn't entirely gun based, But they certainly do not help the situation whatsoever.

Of course it does. Domestic policy also plays a role. Mental health care, gang violence, etc. are all contributing factors to violence within a nation's borders.

The good guys never have a weapon capable of matching the mass shooter, because the mass shooter is almost always carrying a fully automatic assault rifle. If you think being able to legally carrying a weapon of that calibre is the solution to crime in your country, Your country needs a major f*cking reform.

 

 

Can you link me a mass shooting in recent history where the shooter used an automatic rifle? You don't need an assault rifle to combat an assault rifle. If someone had a handgun and was trained to use it, they could at least wound the shooter. When someone is randomly firing into a crowd of civilians, it probably isn't too difficult to discern who the bad guy is.

 

Found this little website, Mass shootings in JUST 2014 in JUST the USA.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

In case you didn't visit the link.

278 mass shootings.

 

 

Again, how do you know that a firearm wouldn't be replaced with a knife, or an axe, or another weapon? China and Japan have strict firearm control, but they still have massacres in rural areas. You're too quick to attribute all of these deaths to guns being available, and not to the lack of mental health, or the prevalence of gang violence/poverty.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Frank Brown

[Killerdude 730]

I had a response, but the forums ate it.

 

In summary: I exaggerated assault rifles, If guns were banned, or significantly stricter gun laws were enforced, crazy people would have a much harder time killing large amounts of people. Knives are a lot less capable of mass death compared to a firearm. 5 dead children is a lot better than 30 dead children.(0 dead children in a perfect world..)

Edited December 18, 2014 by Killerdude8

[Dingdongs 2,658]

 

 

Alien, on 17 Dec 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

For the exact same reason a civilian can't own a tank, RPG or F-14. They are weapons of war, not to be put in the hand of whatever untrained idiot can scrape together the money to buy one.

 

 

Are you honestly comparing an explosive device and a jet fighter to a hand-held weapon that can be used in close-quarters for self defense?

 

Are you honestly trying to downplay the power of a Bushmaster AR-15 to that of a "hand-held weapon"?? These are all tools of war on various scales, none should be in the hands of civilians. Same story with landmines, hand grenades and nuclear bombs.

 

Lol, and have you ever fired an AR-15 or even seen one before? "Tool of war"... it's a f*cking civilian purpose rifle. AR-15 is probably less dangerous than any handgun I would argue due to its size preventing it from being concealed. The two we have are specifically built to adhere to NYS law, no flash suppressors, 10 round magazines, no pistol grip... just a lot of fun at the range. It's not the gunmaker nor is it those in law enforcement/civilians gun owner fault when someone uses a gun to kill someone. If a 2007 Ford Taurus is in a fatal accident, do you protest against Ford and against the other owners of 07 Tauruses?

 

 

 

Drugs and guns are totally different, as I stated before. Yes there are thousands of guns out there, but that is the single stupidest reason to not ban creating more. It'll take time, but they can be excised from our society if we try. And don't give me the 2nd amendment bullsh*t, because it is just that, bullsh*t. The Constitution was a document written by humans and is able to be altered by humans and is in desperate need of some updating.

 

There is no reason at all that we should be able to own devices that are made to specifically end human life.

 

No reason.

 

Alright dude, if we lived in a world where people weren't killing and stealing every single second of the day then maybe we wouldn't. But guess what, there are dangerous people out there. There is dangerous stuff out there. Banning guns is not the answer, and truthfully from a purely utilitarian perspective, I don't care how liberal you are, but you should know that it is a completely unrealistic/ridiculous notion. It's like if PETA changed their lobbying efforts from ending animal testing/ensuring ethical treatment of animals being slaughtered to having people who possess meat in their house locked up. Talk about realistic things we can do to lower gun violence and make the country safer. Not silly fantasy bullsh*t about "not being able to own devices that end human life".

 

 

 

 

If guns were banned, or significantly stricter gun laws were enforced, crazy people would have a much harder time killing large amounts of people.

No they wouldn't. Stop living in the clouds... in cities if you know the right people it's quite easy to get illegal guns. The answer isn't just banning civilian guns. That's just as ridiculous as drug bans, plain and simple. As Frank has pointed out, violence is not due to guns but it is due to areas already being ridden with crime as well as issues with peoples' mental health. Look at middle class communities in the US and their respective gun ownership ratios, then look at their gun crime. It simply isn't there when most people are law abiding civilian gun owners. It is there in communities ridden with crime. Talk about how to deal with that, not how to take away law abiding peoples' hobbies and rights to self defense.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Irviding