2 cheerleaders were shot in a Texas supermarket parking lot

And if you didn't get a "paying you isn't an admission of fault and you can't disclose the settlement" agreement as part of the pay out, that's exactly what you legally allow them to claim and it not be a lie from then on.
This is basic **** dude. You get it confidential, or the party who got paid gets to say you paid them and that's an indication of your guilt and their damage.

 

I know that. what I had issues with is claiming that the amount of the settlement was a reflection of actual damages.

 

That's what a lawyer who does not get it confidential and with the "no admission of fault" rep in it allows.
This is why that is standard. When you don't do it, there are issues. Just like these. For a reason.

 

How about you go look it up if you're interested.

 

I don't recall you ever posting a source disputing my sources.

 

It is a fact that the typical red state with weak gun laws have high homicide rates. Cities like Chicago and Baltimore can trace the bulk of the guns used by criminals back to red states with weak gun laws. To answer your question, no law is going to prohibit somebody from breaking it. Life doesn't guarantee you sh**. It is not as if this is new to you, so your question is disingenuous. But as a whole, stronger gun laws help to curb a lot of exactly this kind violence compared to just being happy with weak gun laws.

 

what is your source that proves YOUR OPINION that our gun laws are weak. that is purely a subjective opinion

 

so what-it appears you pretend there is no value to honest people being able to buy firearms and use them free of bullshit restrictions that are designed purely to harass gun ownership

 

Now you're just being rather petty by saying all along that blue states want to take the guns away compared to red states.
And now you want me to explain how red states are different from blue states with weak and strong gun laws?... lol

You lost the debate ages ago. Typical red states simply got higher homicide rates because of their gun laws. Get over it already.

 

So there! lol
Gun policies of red states cause high homicide rates. And the people in the US are fed up with that. I already sourced that too.

 

You said that weak gun laws caused this. I asked what law would prevent it. So you call my question disingenuous. I think it is you who is being disingenuous. It had nothing to do weak gun laws. It had everything to do with the poor judgment of the gun owner who was charged with deadly conduct. No gun law can address that. BTW, this was in Texas, a red state.

 

I'm not quite sure who you mean when you wrote: "...but they won’t address it."

If by they, you mean MSM, I just read 2 perfect examples this morning:

1. "Crickets from media on horrific mass shooting at sweet 16 birthday party. Why?
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/0...letter&utm_source=Get Response&utm_term=EMAIL

EXCERPT "Yet despite the large number of injuries, casualties, weapons, and ammo, the mass shooting has been the topic of few discussions and even fewer outraged columns.

“No one is talking about the recent shooting in Alabama. Complete silence! 4 teenagers were shot and killed. Over 30 people were injured. These monsters shot up a sweet 16 birthday party but I guess it doesn’t matter since the shooters are black,” conservative comedian Terrence K. Williams tweeted Wednesday.

“The gun control activist & the mainstream media have nothing to say! These thugs who murdered innocent people were not NRA members or registered gun owners. People are silent because it don’t fit the agenda. Am I RIGHT or Am I Right?” he added." CONTINUED


Where is Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson & the recently famous "Tennessee Three"?

Has Biden invited the families of the victims to the White House for dinner...................not a chance.

The following flash in the pan in which a Black woman shot and killed a 12 year old, White child for playing didn't last long either:

2. "Alabama Woman Admits to Killing Child Who Was Playing on Her Property"
https://nationalfile.com/alabama-woman-admits-to-killing-child-who-was-playing-on-her-property/



Finally, you don't need a crystal ball to predict that the parents of the dead boy will never see the inside of the White House either.

What do you think?

Thanks

 

Ok so tell us which stronger gun law would've stopped this one.

 

You got everything to do with trying to pin 1 specific gun law on why it's a weak gun law. It's disingenuous because you know or should have been aware that any state has dozens of gun laws in place and the sum of it all matters.

 

I already explained that in my previous post

 

And yet you did not name a law or laws.

 

indeed, and I explained it in that post.

 

It was on CNN, and you did not bother to look and just randomly rant in that it's not on MSM.

Thanks for making me feel smart.

 

msm and the lefties refuse to address this amount of violence from certain groups, which is one step from endorsing it. They won’t talk about it, will obfuscate details and generally blame anything other than cultural issues.
I guess keeping a protected class of people seems like the sjw thing to do, despite whomever it hurts.

 

Did cnn address it? You were doing that regardless of what you post.

 

You have already admitted that no law would have prevented the mans poor judgment. And what is a "weak gun law" anyway. In Illinois, if you're 21, go thru a background check, take a 16 hour ownership course, and wait three days, you can go home with a fourteen round semi automatic handgun. It's about the same everywhere in the country.

 

You already admitted that no law would prevent anybody form committing a crime.

Illinois is pretty much a blue state. So yeah. You shouldn't be surprised they got some good laws there.
But this topic is about Texas.

A person in Texas can unexpectedly sell their firearms to hard core criminals, since they don't need to do background checks there for private sales. So that's a gun law. You're free to argue how this is a strong law preventing criminals from obtaining firearms.

 

Sorry for the late response. Regarding your points above Zero speculation required. Name one single area of human endeavor from finger paining through to space flight where training/repetition and (if required) safety procedures don't improve outcomes. If you can only 'speculate' that receiving training in the safe handling and use of firearms is effective why are those courses even offered? Without proof they work they're potentially just a waste of money.

Also I didn't say anyone was 'guilty' in the scenario discussed. There is no question that access to their firearms should be restored asap if no charges are forthcoming. Any loss of access should and would at law be A) temporary, B) quickly resolved C) not be matter of legal record with no legal consequences moving forward effecting their right to carry.

 

well where your argument fails is on two planes. 1) most gunshot injuries are intentional. training mitigates against ACCIDENTS. 2) people most likely to be irresponsible with guns are invariably the ones least likely to avail themselves of training.

 

that's true in any state. if Illinois has a drug abuse problem, your argument fails