TexasCHLforum.com

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 83378.html
I'm sure this is bogus. It's on all the flakey websites. Go to redflag and read the comments - priceless.
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/1- ... k-massacre

Strange. Your post lead me to the below link in about 15 minutes.

Here's the 2012 link to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2012 by City/State. Shows 7 violent crimes with 0 people murdered in Newtown:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... y_2012.xls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rbwhatever1 wrote:Strange. Your post lead me to the below link in about 15 minutes.

Here's the 2012 link to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2012 by City/State. Shows 7 violent crimes with 0 people murdered in Newtown:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... y_2012.xls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is strange.

Strange to be sure. Is Glen Beck part of this deception?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01 ... was-there/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The alternative is that we can no longer rely on FBI crime stats. And this is one stat you'd think they wouldn't mess up.

Alright, before you guys get too carried away, the Sandy Hook death statistics are included in the state records, because the CT State Police led the investigation, not the local police. There is no conspiracy here. Just a bunch of deluded idiots similar to the 911 Truthers.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

baldeagle wrote:Alright, before you guys get too carried away, the Sandy Hook death statistics are included in the state records, because the CT State Police led the investigation, not the local police. There is no conspiracy here. Just a bunch of deluded idiots similar to the 911 Truthers.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yup,

I get it. The FBI posts all of the data it receives from different sources on different tables. That data doesn't match other tables and may or may not be accurate.
One needs to find the right table. That's 15 minutes lost forever!

Perhaps the FBI could link the "Snopes data" next time and save me 15 minutes...

Why would this judge allow this to continue and put the families through this when they're going to loose? Bushmaster is no more responsible for this that Ford is responsible for what the Affluenza Moron did.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/15/ju ... cmp=hplnws

C-dub wrote:Why would this judge allow this to continue and put the families through this when they're going to loose? Bushmaster is no more responsible for this that Ford is responsible for what the Affluenza Moron did.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/15/ju ... cmp=hplnws

"Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis said that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians."

They're letting them argue the gun shouldn't be sold in the first place. Completely bogus, but it's similar to Texas law that while you have criminal/civil immunity you can still be sued.

So I know this isn't the point, but if you are going to sue for it being sold because it shouldn't have been sold to that person, wouldn't the gun store be on the hook ? The Manufacture had no control of who it was sold to after it went to the distributor.

Am I wrong, but doesn't Connecticut have a requirement that every gun purchase be approved by the Chief of Police in the area.

Wasn't it well known that the mom's son was crazy and he lived in her house.

I mean if your looking for a cause of action, wouldn't this one be easier.

Pariah3j wrote:So I know this isn't the point, but if you are going to sue for it being sold because it shouldn't have been sold to that person, wouldn't the gun store be on the hook ? The Manufacture had no control of who it was sold to after it went to the distributor.

The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

aero10 wrote: The lawsuit's claim is that the firearm is a military weapon and should not be sold to the general public. They're suing the manufacturer for making it available to the public. The manufacturer has immunity from being sued based on who it is sold to, but can be sued for making firearms available to the public that should not be made available to the public. The people filing the lawsuit claim the firearm was originally designed for the military and as such should not be made available to the public; forgetting the fact that the manufacturer modified the 'militarized' firearm to be only semi-automatic.

I know what they are claiming, but once again the Manufacturer didn't make it available to the public, it sold it to distributors who then sold it to gun stores who sold it to the public.

And I love the 'military weapon' claim. Name a modern weapon that wasn't originally designed for war.

I don't understand why these straw-man arguments and straw man lawsuits are even allowed. Hell I'm surprised they aren't trying to sue the federal government because the 2A allows them to be sold.