America`s Gun Culture

[stew]

You have to watch Fox?

Yes I do, I like to watch them all to get different perspective on the same issues, what I cant do is watch msnbc, I would end up putting my foot through my flat screen, communist arsehole the lot of them.

Why would you not watch Fox, you would be able to pick their lies apart surely muppet?

I would prefer to glean information from many outlets but hey, you keep drinking the leftist kool aid and stick to your left is right mantra!

Jesus wept!

[whitey]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

[stew]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

Thank you whitey, he accused me the fecking muppet! 

[gallsman]

Yet you still can't post the source. "It was on the conservative tribune" is all you can muster.

Careful now. Last week he posted a Facebook page as evidence that 90% of Americans own guns. This one was probably on Justin Bieber's Twitter.

You ever quoted from wiki you numpty?

Probably. Then again, wiki is at least edited to some extent. The worst bit is that even after some posters offered to correct your awful attempt at maths and suggest that what you meant to claim was (as is often cited) that there are 90 guns for every 100 Americans (in case you still don't get it, which I imagine you don't, this is vastly different from 90% of Americans owning guns), you didn't even appreciate the get out of jail free card you were being offered and continued to ramble on illogically and incoherently about liberals, loony lefties, communists etc.

Yet you call me a numpty. Interesting. I've always joked about how easy it must be to make it America but Christ you prove the theory.

[gallsman]

What is maths? Do you mean math you illiterate piece of shite?
[/quote]

No, no I don't. You forgotten where you come from or something? You generally don't know or remember much, so it wouldn't surprise me.

[stew]

What is maths? Do you mean math you illiterate piece of shite?

No, no I don't. You forgotten where you come from or something? You generally don't know or remember much, so it wouldn't surprise me.
[/quote]

In fairness I do suffer from epilepsy and had to learn to read and write again back in the day after being hit by a drunk driver so you might be right!

Maths! 

[muppet]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

You need to read the thread again, as usual.

Here is exactly what I said: "Now either you lied to us, or you made a mistake and believed someone else who lied. But it is not NBC's lie."

What is it with Republican supports and their difficult relationship with the truth?

[blewuporstuffed]

Yet you still can't post the source. "It was on the conservative tribune" is all you can muster.

Careful now. Last week he posted a Facebook page as evidence that 90% of Americans own guns. This one was probably on Justin Bieber's Twitter.

You ever quoted from wiki you numpty?

I do not have to, it has been verified ya **** ya!


Probably. Then again, wiki is at least edited to some extent. The worst bit is that even sheet some posters offered to correct your awful attempt at maths and suggest that what you meant to claim was (as is often cited) that there are 90 guns for every 100 Americans (in case you still don't get it, which I imagine you don't, this is vastly different from 90% of Americans owning guns), you didn't even appreciate the get out of jail free card you being offered and continued to ramble on illogically and incoherently about liberals, loony lefties, communists etc.

Yet you call me a numpty. Interesting. I've always joked about how easy it must be to make it America but Christ you prove the theory.

What is maths? Do you mean math you illiterate piece of shite?

You would know nothing about making it, I would so f**k off  and die you absolute piece of shite!

Stay classy Stew

[stew]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

You need to read the thread again, as usual.

Here is exactly what I said: "Now either you lied to us, or you made a mistake and believed someone else who lied. But it is not NBC's lie."

What is it with Republican supports and their difficult relationship with the truth?

This coming from a man who would support HC as president! That bastard would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit her on her arse!

[muppet]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

You need to read the thread again, as usual.

Here is exactly what I said: "Now either you lied to us, or you made a mistake and believed someone else who lied. But it is not NBC's lie."

What is it with Republican supports and their difficult relationship with the truth?

This coming from a man who would support HC as president! That b**tard would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit her on her arse!

Ah go on Stew. 

Please post where I said I'd support Hillary.

[stew]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

You need to read the thread again, as usual.

Here is exactly what I said: "Now either you lied to us, or you made a mistake and believed someone else who lied. But it is not NBC's lie."

What is it with Republican supports and their difficult relationship with the truth?

This coming from a man who would support HC as president! That b**tard would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit her on her arse!

Ah go on Stew. 

Please post where I said I'd support Hillary.

If she got the Dems vote to run for President and you had a vote who would you vote for?

Hmmm, Carson? Nah, Trump? Hell Nah, How about ANY Republican? Nah. That would leave Hillary and I would never believe you if you said you would vote for any conservative, the next good word you say about any of them will be the first.

I also do not believe you would not vote, you lot cant help yourselves.

[J70]

I've voted Republican in NYC elections.

In a national election, not a hope in hell, at least until the national GOP sheds the lunatic element which has seized control of their party.

[whitey]

I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.

"Stood down" may be a stretch but that's how it was actually reported, so Stew is not making this up. He Was directed by school authorities not to intervene as no one quite knew where the shooter was. The shooter was 200 yards away in another building, so he was not directly engaged with him.

The armed vet did say in another interview, that if the shooter had entered his location, he would have taken action to protect those around him

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwL4_KDDuhg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I93N6H_eM

This is what he said: "There was a veteran who had a legal weapon, concealed carry permit 200 yards away, he wanted to go help but was told to stay put by staff members on campus".

'He wanted to go help', is different to 'we made the choice not to get involved'.

And a good decision it was too, Parker said himself it was likely that the SWAT team might think he was the shooter and blow him to bits.

You accused anther poster of lying when he said he either read or saw a report where the Vet was ordered to stand down. He wasn't lying.....it was widely reported as such in several media outlets

You need to read the thread again, as usual.

Here is exactly what I said: "Now either you lied to us, or you made a mistake and believed someone else who lied. But it is not NBC's lie."

What is it with Republican supports and their difficult relationship with the truth?

Quote from: stew on October 13, 2015, 02:03:09 PM
I didn't lie, I never said you used the term peelers and I saw an interview where he tells a different tale.

Post it.


By demanding he post it (which you did on numerous occasions) you are calling him a liar in my book

[heganboy]

Very interesting decision today in a landmark legal case in the US. Its going to go to a few appeals I would imagine,

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/14/the-multimillion-dollar-wisconsin-gun-store-verdict-that-could-reverberate-in-the-gun-debate/

The multimillion dollar Wisconsin gun store verdict that could reverberate in the gun debate


In an unusual case, a jury in Wisconsin declared Tuesday that a gun store had to pay millions of dollars to Milwaukee police officers who were shot by a firearm bought at the store.

The case offered an attention-grabbing combination of factors, including a rare loss for the firearms industry, a verdict awarding more than $5 million in damages, injured police officers and a contested gun sale. And it also arrived as the country discusses gun violence in the wake of another mass shooting, an ongoing conversation that has led to presidential candidates debating a federal law that protects gun sellers and manufacturers from liability.

Experts say the Wisconsin verdict's long-term impact could be significant if it prompts a surge in new lawsuits aimed at the firearms industry and at the federal law's exemptions, though they caution that the case is far from over, as the lawyer for the gun store says he plans to appeal.

"We may be at the threshold of something, but you can't predict it right now," said Marshall S. Shapo, a law professor at Northwestern University and an expert in product liability. "When you get a blip like this, it may signal that there's a target of opportunity but you have a long way to go."


The case centered on a gun that was sold to one person, given to another and then used not long after to shoot two police officers.

In 2009, two Milwaukee police officers named Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch were attempting to stop an 18-year-old named Julius Burton for riding his bicycle on a sidewalk. Burton opened fire at the officers, hitting both of them. Norberg was shot in the face, shoulder and knee, while Knusch was shot in the face, hand, shoulder and neck, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's account of the case.

Burton was found guilty in 2010 and sentenced to 80 years. He pleaded guilty and later tried to withdraw these pleas, but the state Supreme Court denied that request. Jacob Collins, who bought the gun, was convicted of violating federal gun laws and sentenced to two years in prison.


Norberg and Kunisch both survived and filed a civil lawsuit against Badger Guns, the store that sold the gun Burton later used to shoot them. They argued in the lawsuit that the store knew or should have known that Collins was buying the firearm for Burton, who was too young to buy the gun.

Jurors on Tuesday deliberated for about nine hours before coming to a decision that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John DiMotto read from the bench. Among other things, DiMotto said that the jury had found the sale to be negligent and that this was responsible for the injuries to both officers.

James B. Vogts, the attorney for Badger Guns, said in an e-mailed statement late Tuesday that he and his clients expected it to wind up in the appellate courts.

"Significant legal issues were decided in the case that impacted the evidence the jury was permitted to consider and the legal standards they were told to apply," Vogts said. "We will appeal."

The same night the verdict was read, Democratic presidential candidates participating in a debate in Las Vegas sparred over gun violence and the federal law that provides rare protection for companies that sell or make firearms.

This shield law — known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — has been praised by the firearms industry and decried by supporters of gun-control. The law was passed in 2005 following a wave of lawsuits from victims of gun violence and cities. More than 30 states also enacted similar statutes, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The federal measure also offers some exceptions that allow for civil lawsuits, including when someone knows a firearm will be used for violence, when a sale could violate a law or when the seller is negligent. The civil complaint filed by Norberg and Kunisch highlighted some of the exceptions in the federal law.

This liability protection has drawn new coverage recently as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who voted against the 2005 law as a senator, said she would push to repeal the federal law if elected president.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted for the bill while he was in the House, has come under fire for his stance on guns.

During the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sanders said he did not support shielding gun companies from lawsuits, but he did say action was needed to stop manufacturers for knowingly allowing criminals to get guns.

Sanders also said the country had to deal with the straw purchasing issue at work in the Wisconsin case. (A "straw purchase" is when one person who can legally buy a gun purchases it for someone who cannot or will not.)

Attorneys for victims of mass shootings have been critical of the federal law for limiting their ability to file lawsuits after such violence, but the gun industry contends that it is necessary. The National Rifle Association, which pushed for the law, says the shield protects the industry from lawsuits it describes as unfair.

The law is needed to protect companies from being blamed for the "criminal misuse of lawfully sold, non-defective firearms," said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the the firearms industry's trade association. Since 2000, the foundation has run a campaign aimed at stopping straw purchases, he said.

Keane said the federal law was never intended to offer blanket immunity, and said that the jury verdict in Wisconsin shows that the law is functioning as it should.

"The Badger Guns case makes the case that the statute works exactly as Congress intended," Keane said. "If a law pertaining to the sale of firearms has been violated, they can be sued. There's no need to repeal the statute, it works exactly as intended."

Keane said that his group would fight any effort to repeal the law. "Even Bernie Sanders has said it's wrong to sue a manufacturer," he said. "You wouldn't sue Budweiser for a drunk driving accident."

The Wisconsin verdict was believed to be the first such jury verdict since the 2005 shield law was passed. In June, jurors in Alaska cleared a gun shop owner accused of illegally selling a gun later used to kill a man.

"Lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers really died down to a trickle after the immunity bill was passed in 2005," said Timothy D. Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta.


Lytton said that some suits were still filed, but nothing liked the dozens of cases that had been filed in the years before the law. This verdict "may actually encourage plaintiffs' attorneys to bring lawsuits" under these exceptions.

"This looks like a possible resurgence," he said.

Lytton said that in the wake of high-profile shootings like the violent rampages at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon earlier this month, the public does not expect new legislation pushing for gun control.

"Given that you're not likely to have legislative responses, where are you going to get pressure?" he said. "The answer is civil liability. It provides incentive to gun stores to follow these sorts of guidelines and for an industry to try and police them."

Keane said the Wisconsin verdict is "absolutely an outlier" and said that he expected gun control groups to push for more lawsuits in the future, even though he did not expect a wave of verdicts ruling against gun stores.

"Whether this sort of opens the proverbial floodgates, that is unlikely because it's very, very rare that you would find this sort of set of facts that they appear to have, that the jury found in the Badger Guns case," he said. "The vast, overwhelming majority of dealers are law-abiding."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has sharply criticized the 2005 federal law, also said that most gun dealers were not breaking the law, adding that it hoped the verdict would be a cautionary tale for any other gun sellers who may try to skirt the law.

"Most gun dealers are decent, responsible business people who already do what they can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence's Legal Action Project, said in a statement.

He continued: "But to those dealers who choose to irresponsibly supply and profit from the criminal market, the message from Milwaukee is clear: protect people over profits, or you will have to pay the consequences to your victims."

[stew]

Unbelievably I coached the store owners son in the football, they have a mansion in Howard, a few mile from where I lived.