# Defensive use of guns.



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been 
*213,000 gun homicides
336,500 gun suicides*
Here.

In USA there are about 201 to 265 justifiable gun homicides per year. Here.

Sadly, many people base their support for guns on Popular Culture rather then reality.  For example, most Gen X and Y people have seen thousands of acts of *justifiable homicide* in action movies.  These people may identify more with film heroes then with real people.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


My support comes from the Constitution, you know that pesky little document that tells the Government what they can and can not do, like not infringing on my right to bear arms.  Those statistics leave out how many people stop themselves from being a victim by having a firearm and not pulling the trigger. 









						Unpublished CDC Study Confirms More than 2 Million Defensive Handgun Uses Annually
					

An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.




					www.lawenforcementtoday.com


----------



## Penelope (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*


			https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


----------



## Penelope (Sep 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My support comes from the Constitution, you know that pesky little document that tells the Government what they can and can not do, like not infringing on my right to bear arms.  Those statistics leave out how many people stop themselves from being a victim by having a firearm and not pulling the trigger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you setting up a military's op. NO.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


Down here in Floor E Da every day is a day that a firearm is used in self-defense, as we have stand your ground laws, so everyone treats everyone else with RESPECT. Unlike Marxist run blue states and cities that have the highest amounts of gun violence because of the gun free zones established there.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Are you setting up a military's op. NO.


What the fuck are you babbling about ?


----------



## Batcat (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


We have no idea how many times firearms are used for legitimate self defense. 

I remember one time a co-worker arrived at work on the graveyard shift and looked upset.

I asked him what had happened.

He said, “I was driving to work when for some reason I pissed off another driver. He closely followed me flashing his lights. We came to an intersection with a red light and I was stopped behind another driver with a car on my left side and a deep ditch on my right. 

“I noticed the road raged person had left his car. He walked up to mine with a tire iron in his hand. I reached inside my glove box and removed my 9mm pistol and held it in my hand on the steering wheel. I didn’t point it at the individual. He saw the pistol and returned to his vehicle and I continued to work.”

”If I could have I would have just drove away when he approached my vehicle but I was stuck in traffic.“

****************

One night when I was at work some fool attempt to force the sliding glass door of our home open. A burglar alarm was sounding but that didn’t deter him. My 18 year old daughter walked into the kitchen and confronted him. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he wisely fled. She then called the police and they arrived quickly but never caught the guy. 

When the police arrived at the door my daughter told them she had a gun in her hand but couldn’t release it. The officers told her to point the gun at the floor and open the door. Then one officer had her sit on the couch and he carefull pried her fingers off the gun. Adrenaline can cause unusual effects on the body. 

I asked her why she didn’t shoot the guy. She said, “Dad you told me not to shoot anyone unless they were in the house. He was only half way in.“

****************

Neither of those instances of the use of firearms for self defense were ever tallied in any statistics about self defense. The ones that are are usually only those where someone is shot.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


Agree 100%.  Very interesting statistics.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My support comes from the Constitution, you know that pesky little document that tells the Government what they can and can not do, like not infringing on my right to bear arms.


Sadly, over 30,000 lives per year are sacrificed to guns in USA alone.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...




Yes......you have to go from 1999 to 2016 to make the number scary looking.......

The vast majority of gun homicides are not innocent people being murdered...they are criminals murdered by other criminals.

Then, of course, you completely ignore the truth, fact and reality, that the majority of gun self defense never requires the gun to be fired.....that is why the gun self defense killing number is so low.....the majority of criminals don't want to get shot, so as soon as their victim shows a gun, or points a gun at them they run away....rather than get shot, then they simply find an unarmed victim to attack.

The Centers for Disease Control Research puts the number of defensive gun uses at 1.2 million times a year.....

The Department of Justice research puts the number of defensive gun uses at 1.5 million times a year......

And, gun suicides do not count, since you have to explain how it is that South Korea, Japan and China have higher suicide rates than we do, with their extreme gun control laws......

Then, you would have to explain how it is that you don't care that the countries of Europe, after taking guns away from people in the 1920s.....went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children.....innocent, not criminals.....in just 6 years....1939-1945.....

Those 15 million murders by their governments is more than the gun murder of criminals in the U.S. in our entire 246 years........

Explain that.....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly, over 30,000 lives per year are sacrificed to guns in USA alone.


Sad, but does not negate my Constitutional rights. I will not give up my right to bear arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/




The Violence Policy Center?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly, over 30,000 lives per year are sacrificed to guns in USA alone.




No.....most of those are suicides....cars actually kill more people but you don't want to ban cars.....


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


The VPC is a partisan hack organization. The data for the 2 million defensive gun use comes from the CDC.

_"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons"._ -
Josh Sugarmann Executive Director of The Violence Policy Center


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Are you setting up a military's op. NO.


so retards like you dont believe in living by the AMERICAN constitution?

IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly, over 30,000 lives per year are sacrificed to guns in USA alone.


98% by CRIMINALS....not law abiding gun owners----
IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


----------



## Penelope (Sep 21, 2022)

WTF19 said:


> so retards like you dont believe in living by the AMERICAN constitution?
> 
> IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


I went right to the source.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The VPC is a partisan hack organization. The data for the 2 million defensive gun use comes from the CDC.
> 
> _"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons"._ -
> Josh Sugarmann Executive Director of The Violence Policy Center


There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.



such as?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


You don't even know what a fucking military weapon is. I served in the military and I can not buy the weapons I fired at my local gun store.  My Maternal Grandfather, Father and two uncles served in Vietnam. A cousin who did tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, and two of my children are serving now. None of my family has ever been issued an AR-15. No country in the world fields an AR-15. 

 I draw from a vast history of experience on the subject of firearms, people like yourself listen to your handlers who either know they are lying or just as ignorant as you are.  .


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 21, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> such as?


Anything other than a black powder muzzle loader. Anti-2nd loons like Penelope just parrot what they are told.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.  Very interesting statistics.


Most Marxists do agree...That is why they are Marxists.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> I went right to the source.



I can believe that...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


What military weapons are among the citizens?

Now for the stuttering and stammering...


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Sep 21, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> What military weapons are among the citizens?
> 
> Now for the stuttering and stammering...


Uneducated, lying old stank.

That man is brilliant.


----------



## night_son (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...



You should try and get with the culture—_real_ American gun culture, that is.

Many of us rural folk grew up with guns as everyday use items—tools—in constant use by our most respected elders: great grandfathers, grandfathers, father, uncles and so on. We were entrusted very early in our lives with learning to shoot (safely), breaking down and cleaning firearms, hunting, controlling wildlife on private property, shooting in school, the Boy Scouts, competitions and standing ready to defend the family spread—if necessary.

Many of us volunteered for military service and found our lifelong use of firearms forged into professional level gun handling and marksmanship and beyond. Some of us carried our use of firearms over into war, following in the footsteps of our great grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers—and into law enforcement, defending the gates so to speak of our beloved nation and sometimes keeping its streets safe, domestically.

While I agree many young American men are hopelessly enamored with guns for all the wrong reasons and are misled on a daily basis by social media crack dealers like Quora and You Tube, the culture of the American rifleman *must endure *and be renewed with each subsequent generation or America at large is surely doomed.

You Tube and other social media "gun porn" makes me sick, this is true, however probably not for the same reason(s) it intimidates the shit out of most liberals/anti-gun folks. I see legions of child men practically masturbating over guns and war and killing in You Tube video gun comment sections and part of me wants to introduce such punks to the *reality *of war while the rest of me is silently thrilled most of them will never have to know it, that the closest they'll ever get is fucking video games.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Sad, but does not negate my Constitutional rights. I will not give up my right to bear arms.


its a human right,, the constitution just protects it,,

just saying,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


all guns are military weapons and what the 2nd A is intended,,


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 21, 2022)

night_son said:


> You should try and get with the culture—_real_ American gun culture, that is.
> 
> Many of us rural folk grew up with guns as everyday use items—tools—in constant use by our most respected elders: great grandfathers, grandfathers, father, uncles and so on. We were entrusted very early in our lives with learning to shoot (safely), breaking down and cleaning firearms, hunting, controlling wildlife on private property, shooting in school, the Boy Scouts, competitions and standing ready to defend the family spread—if necessary.
> 
> ...


Peabrainopea thinks this is the way Americans use their weapons.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Sep 21, 2022)

WTF19 said:


> so retards like you dont believe in living by the AMERICAN constitution?
> 
> *IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN*


Long established fact ^^ ^ ^ ^


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.




So no pump action shotguns or deer rifles?  Both of which are in current use by all branches of the U.S. military as are semi-automatic pistols.......

Meanwhile, the AR-15 has never been a military rifle...so we can own that.....right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> In USA there are about 201 to 265 justifiable gun homicides per year.


Ok?  So?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*


Firearms are used in self-defense 10x more often than for murder
Firearms  are used in self-defense 4x more often than suicide
If the use of a firearm in self-defense can be soundly described as  "rare", how then can we soundly describe the use of a firearm for murder / suicide?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> Are you setting up a military's op. NO.


Why do you think this matters?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly, over 30,000 lives per year are sacrificed to guns in USA alone.


The vast majority of which choose to die.
What's your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


Ah.
You want to ban revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.
Not a surprise.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Centers for Disease Control Research puts the number of defensive gun uses at 1.2 million times a year.....


This is a flagrant lie. The CDC never made any such claim. I've asked 2aguy time and again to provide a link to the actual text from the CDC, and he has failed to do so on every occasion.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 21, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Peabrainopea thinks this is the way Americans use their weapons.
> 
> View attachment 699274


It is the way a lot of gun crazies use their toys, sorry weapons, I assume he's using his other hand to jerk off with...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> This is a flagrant lie. The CDC never made any such claim. I've asked 2aguy time and again to provide a link to the actual text from the CDC, and he has failed to do so on every occasion.




They started then buried the research....1.2 is what their research showed before they buried it...because with only some of the research done, the number was already up to 1.2 million....

I provided you with all the details of how the CDC began the research then buried it....I have done this over and over again...

Then you would have to explain the Department of Justice Research that showed 1.5 million....

And Kleck's work, which the CDC and DOJ were trying to disprove, that showed about 2.5 million....

And then the other 15 studies on the topic.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> It is the way a lot of gun crazies use their toys, sorry weapons, I assume he's using his other hand to jerk off with...




What is it with you anti-gun assholes and linking guns and sex........see, my theory is that you have an undiagnosed sexual fixation on guns.....something that makes you get all hot and bothered whenever you hear about or talk about guns......so, instead of getting help, real help.....you push for banning and confiscating guns, in order to remove your temptation.......


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 21, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> It is the way a lot of gun crazies use their toys, sorry weapons, I assume he's using his other hand to jerk off with...




Wonder how this would have turned out if the victim hadn't had a gun....









						Man holds machete-weilding suspect at gun point, arrested
					

He was the good guy with a gun. The problem was he shouldn't have had that gun in the first place.




					bearingarms.com


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The vast majority of which choose to die.
> What's your point?


Enabling suicide by guns or by opioids is evil.  Drug dealers get long sentences.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ok?  So?


Those who sell guns enable murder and suicide.  Those who support guns share culpability for the loss of life.


----------



## miketx (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


You are a filthy liar.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 21, 2022)

night_son said:


> You should try and get with the culture—_real_ American gun culture, that is.
> 
> Many of us rural folk grew up with guns as everyday use items—tools—in constant use by our most respected elders: great grandfathers, grandfathers, father, uncles and so on. We were entrusted very early in our lives with learning to shoot (safely), breaking down and cleaning firearms, hunting, controlling wildlife on private property, shooting in school, the Boy Scouts, competitions and standing ready to defend the family spread—if necessary.


Sadly in this Century, too many people use guns to take lives.


----------



## miketx (Sep 21, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly in this Century, too many people use guns to take lives.


Too bad leftist scum like you keep letting them out of prison.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Enabling suicide by guns or by opioids is evil.  Drug dealers get long sentences.



People who sell rope must be evil as well….since hanging is on of the more popular methods of suicide…..anyone who sells rope should be arrested and all rope must be banned


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly in this Century, too many people use guns to take lives.


More people die in automobile accidents than by shootings.  Are we to ban automobiles?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Enabling suicide by guns or by opioids is evil.


The right to keep and bear arms does not enable suicide any more than the right to have a car or the right to walk across a bridge or the right to stand on a subway platform or the right to take an elevator the to the top of a tall building - if people want to die, they will find a way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Those who sell guns enable murder and suicide.


Mindless nonsense.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Enabling suicide by guns or by opioids is evil.  Drug dealers get long sentences.


why are you mad at the tool?? what about countries that have suicide programs and kill their people when asked??


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*



And... what?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


Why do you define defense with a gun as the killing of an attacker?

You can use a gun to defend yourself without ever firing a shot, or by firing a shot that doesn't result in a death or by firing a shot an missing.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Those who sell guns enable murder and suicide.



Those who sells forks and spoons enable obesity...


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 22, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


Define defensive gun use.

A defensive gun use does not necessarily mean you killed a person


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 22, 2022)

Penelope said:


> There should not be any military weapons allowed among citizens.


You do know that axes, clubs, knives, sticks, stones, bows and arrows, hammers, etc were all military weapons at one time right?

I could argue that a baseball bat was a military weapon.


----------



## miketx (Sep 22, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


Do you scum ever stop lying? You want guns, come get them.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Those who sell guns enable murder and suicide.  Those who support guns share culpability for the loss of life.


Those who sell alcohol enable alcoholism and drunk driving


----------



## miketx (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Those who sell guns enable murder and suicide.  Those who support guns share culpability for the loss of life.


Come get us traitor.


----------



## Flash (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


My "support" for guns is derived from the Constitution, not movies.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 22, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> This is a flagrant lie. The CDC never made any such claim. I've asked 2aguy time and again to provide a link to the actual text from the CDC, and he has failed to do so on every occasion.


The CDC removed it.  I have also seen the estimates at 2.1 million times per year.

It was here:




__





						Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
					

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.




					www.cdc.gov
				




but apparently, the cite has been  "updated" (scrubbed).

This Forbes article discusses it:








						That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
					

Why did the CDC fail to publish 1990s research on numbers of defensive gun uses?




					www.forbes.com


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 22, 2022)

Pointless, irrelevant thread.
They ARE taking away your guns.  Denial is irrelevant.  Makes no difference what you think or say.

If you were never gonna use them (and you are not), there was never any need for the 2A anyway.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 22, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Pointless, irrelevant thread.
> They ARE taking away your guns.  Denial is irrelevant.  Makes no difference what you think or say.
> 
> If you were never gonna use them, there was never any need for the 2A anyway.


We are nowhere near "critical mass" on gun rights.  Every state is moving in the right direction.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We are nowhere near "critical mass" on gun rights.  Every state is moving in the right direction.


Correct.   Its hard to see how Demcorats will manage to repeqal the 2nd when 25 states have permitless carry laws.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Those who sells forks and spoons enable obesity...




And heart disease, the actual leading killer of Americans.....we should sue farmers, ranchers, anyone who makes fast food.....and ban fast food to boot..


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.   Its hard to see how Demcorats will manage to repeqal the 2nd when 25 states have permitless carry laws.




That's why the left specializes in mass graves........


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And heart disease, the actual leading killer of Americans.....we should sue farmers, ranchers, anyone who makes fast food.....and ban fast food to boot..


Refined sugar manufacturers and grain farmers.  PERIOD.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Refined sugar manufacturers and grain farmers.  PERIOD.



Why?

If someone makes refined sugar, and you make the decision to use it, the sole responsibility for that decision is yours, and yours alone...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Why?
> 
> If someone makes refined sugar, and you make the decision to use it, the sole responsibility for that decision is yours, and yours alone...



Following the original thread logic


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Those who sell alcohol enable alcoholism and drunk driving


Alcohol is legal but somewhat very harmful -- like drugs.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 22, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> why are you mad at the tool??


The same can be said about opioids.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 22, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> More people die in automobile accidents than by shootings.  Are we to ban automobiles?


Automobiles are indispensable part of modern life.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> The same can be said about opioids.


I know ,, I just said that,,

why are you attacking the tool instead of the person??


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Automobiles are indispensable part of modern life.


no they arent,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Automobiles are indispensable part of modern life.


So are firearms.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Sep 22, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Why?
> 
> If someone makes refined sugar, and you make the decision to use it, the sole responsibility for that decision is yours, and yours alone...


If they hide and deliberately discredit research about its harmful effects, and deceitfully blame it on dietary fat, they are culpable.

Everybody knows or should know what a firearm does.


----------



## miketx (Sep 22, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Pointless, irrelevant thread.
> They ARE taking away your guns.  Denial is irrelevant.  Makes no difference what you think or say.
> 
> If you were never gonna use them (and you are not), there was never any need for the 2A anyway.


I can't wait for you to show up here. 95 percent of the town would fight you.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Automobiles are indispensable part of modern life.


So are guns....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 22, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Automobiles are indispensable part of modern life.


Ah.  Your ethics are situational.
What a surprise.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> but apparently, the cite has been "updated" (scrubbed).


Of course it has.....


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This Forbes article discusses it:


It discusses Kleck's thoughts/theories, and why and how they were disputed/debunked. There is no mention of any CDC figure of 1.2 million DGUs annually that 2aguy keeps plugging. The CDC never stated such a figure. 2aguy is lying every time he posts it.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Of course it has.....
> 
> It discusses Kleck's thoughts/theories, and why and how they were disputed/debunked. There is no mention of any CDC figure of 1.2 million DGUs annually that 2aguy keeps plugging. The CDC never stated such a figure. 2aguy is lying every time he posts it.



Klerk found their numbers which they buried…. Their job was to disprove Kleck and when the numbers for defensive gun use came back at 1.2, they stopped their research…..I keep posting the story and you keep denying it….as you also deny the other 17 studies on defensive gun use

The Department of Justice did their own research at the same time as the CDC and found 1.5 million…….they actually published their research…..as did the other 15 private and public read watch groups


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> I went right to the source.


thanx for supplying 'the source'----do you have a REAL source, that tells the TRUTH?----NO, NO you dont

IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 23, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly in this Century, too many people use guns to take lives.


sadly, theres retards like you that hate AMERICA---they are called SCUM demonRATS
put the barrel against your head and pull trigger...SAVE AMERICA from shit stains like YOU
IF YOU ONLY HAD A  BRAIN


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 23, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> More people die in automobile accidents than by shootings.  Are we to ban automobiles?


the SCUM demonRATS are working on that ban


----------



## Penelope (Sep 23, 2022)

WTF19 said:


> thanx for supplying 'the source'----do you have a REAL source, that tells the TRUTH?----NO, NO you dont
> 
> IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN



In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.




			https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
		


You think I would go to a conservative site, not on your life.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 23, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Alcohol is legal but somewhat very harmful -- like drugs.


And like guns


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.


You do know you do not have to actually shoot someone to use a gun in self-defense -- right?
Right?
Thus, you then must also know the number of people killed in self defense is irrelevant -- right?
Right?


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.


They are used 10x more often for self-defense than murder and 4x more often for self defense than suicide.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Sep 23, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My support comes from the Constitution, you know that pesky little document that tells the Government what they can and can not do, like not infringing on my right to bear arms.  Those statistics leave out how many people stop themselves from being a victim by having a firearm and not pulling the trigger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct, by reason and by logic, the gun culture is dreadful in America. Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows that to have to safe guns, you needs regulations that are found in Europe, UK, New Zealand and Australia. But because that's so blatant, the only defence against common sense is, "2nd Amendment", mouth froth, "Constitution".

You guys need a bit of paper to fight against logic and a safe gun culture. Simple as.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Klerk found their numbers which they buried….


Prove it.


2aguy said:


> I keep posting the story and you keep denying it…


I don't deny anything, I just keep asking you to provide a direct link to the CDC in which they state your 1.2 million figure. To date you keep claiming the CDC put out this figure, to date you have failed to provide the direct link. To date therefore, you have lied when you say the CDC stated there were 1.2 million DGUs.


2aguy said:


> as you also deny the other 17 studies on defensive gun use


I don't deny anything, I merely stated that the reality is that no-one knows how many DGUs occur every year in the USA, it could be 3 million, or 1/10th that figure or 10 times that figure. Your "studies" are nothing more than glorified opinion polls, to be taken with a pinch of salt. You are so gullible you treat them as holy writ.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> They are used 10x more often for self-defense than murder and 4x more often for self defense than suicide.


Prove it.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Prove it.
> 
> I don't deny anything, I just keep asking you to provide a direct link to the CDC in which they state your 1.2 million figure. To date you keep claiming the CDC put out this figure, to date you have failed to provide the direct link. To date therefore, you have lied when you say the CDC stated there were 1.2 million DGUs.
> 
> I don't deny anything, I merely stated that the reality is that no-one knows how many DGUs occur every year in the USA, it could be 3 million, or 1/10th that figure or 10 times that figure. Your "studies" are nothing more than glorified opinion polls, to be taken with a pinch of salt.




I provided the information on the data Kleck found at the CDC......where they tried to bury the 1.2 million defensive gun uses when it was going against their gun control agenda....at the same time as they were doing their research, the Department of Justice did the exact same research.....and found 1.5 million defensive gun uses...they just made the mistake of actually completing and publishing their research.......

Keep in mind, both agencies were working to disprove Gary Kleck's epic work on the subject where he found 2.5 defensive gun uses.....and they both failed.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, by reason and by logic, the gun culture is dreadful in America. Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows that to have to safe guns, you needs regulations that are found in Europe, UK, New Zealand and Australia. But because that's so blatant, the only defence against common sense is, "2nd Amendment", mouth froth, "Constitution".
> 
> You guys need a bit of paper to fight against logic and a safe gun culture. Simple as.




Since you have failed to answer this in all the other posts.....try this one...

How do you explain the fact that Europe, in the 1920s, banned and confiscated guns on the promise that this would make their people safer.....by the 1930s, the national socialists then used the lists of the registered guns to confiscate the rest, and then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children....most murdered in just 6 years between 1939-1945.....and the slaughter was only stopped when Americans....with their guns, forced the German socialists to stop murdering people......

In the United States we average around 10,000 gun murders a year, slightly more now because of the democrat party policies attacking our police, and releasing violent criminals wholesale.......

If we bump that up to a higher 20,000...and multiply that by the 246 years of the entire existence of the United States....our gun murder doesn't come close to matching the murder of those 15 million people.......and on top of that, the vast majority of gun murder victims in the U.S. are not innocent people...they are criminals, engaged in crime, and their friends, family and associates caught in the shooting.


How do you explain the 15 million murdered people?

How do you explain that this can never happen again?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.
> ...




And the vast majority, 70-80% of the gun murder victims were criminals murdered by other criminals.......

They were not normal Americans.  And of the other 20-30%, the vast majority are the friends and family of criminals murdered by mistake when their criminal friend or family member was attacked.....

Meanwhile....in Europe.....the governments of Europe under the control of the German socialists murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children, primarily in the 6 years between 1939 and 1945.......and those murders only ended when Americans, with guns, stopped it....

More murders than all of the gun murder in the United States in our entire 246 year history......and those victims, the 15 million, were not criminals engaged in the criminal lifestyle...they were innocent people...

You have to explain that....you doofus.....

Then explain how it could never happen again.....after it happened in the modern period after 1917....not at the hands of a Mongol horde....but by modern nation states....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.
> ...




The Violence Policey Center?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I provided the information on the data Kleck found at the CDC..


So you finally admit, the CDC never stated your 1.2 million figure, it was Kleck all along, who made that assertion, not the CDC 


2aguy said:


> where they tried to bury the 1.2 million defensive gun uses


Prove they tried to bury anything. They found the data they had accumulated was incomplete and inconclusive and flawed, so they filed it away on their website. Kleck made a big broo ha ha about needing a FOI to find it, when in fact he could have Googled it without any fuss or bother, still any publicity stunt to sell your book helps, I suppose.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.
> ...




The good research over at the Violence Policy Center...

Violence Policy Center

*Donohue and Education Fund Briefs do present anecdotes involving carry permit holders who have killed after becoming angry over insignificant issues ranging from cutting someone off on a highway to texting in a movie theater to playing loud music at a gas station. Another amicus brief, by the Violence Policy Center (VPC), presents more anecdotes. The VPC also cites statistics from its database Concealed Carry Killers.*
*
We haven't fact-checked the VPC database. But Clayton Cramer (coauthor of several law review articles with Kopel) did. Clayton E. Cramer, Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers: Less Than It Appears (2012). *

*Cramer found numerous instances of VPC incorrectly claiming that a perpetrator had a concealed carry permit, or VPC counting events that had nothing to do with the carry permit, such as a permit-holder committing suicide at home.*
*
Or consider this example from the VPC brief:
*


> *In May 2014, Michael Bowman, who also possessed a valid concealed carry handgun permit, shot and killed police officer Kevin Jordan in Griffon, Georgia. Officer Jordan was working an off-duty security job in uniform at a Waffle House restaurant. Bowman was drunk when he and his girlfriend Officer Jordan attempted to arrest Bowman's girlfriend. Officer Jordan—a father of seven—was on the ground attempting to restrain Bowman's girlfriend when Bowman shot him multiple times in the back. Bowman was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.42*


*Footnote 42 cites to the VPC's database. The database in turn cites: Former soldier gets life without parole for murdering police officer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 17, 2017 (article does not mention a permit); Griffin Tragedy; Drunk and armed at 2 a.m., Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 8, 2014 (we couldn't find this article in the newspaper's archive, or in Westlaw News, although both databases contain many articles on the crime); Funeral next Monday for slain Griffin police officer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 2, 2014 (found at 2014 WLNR 14878704). This last article explains who had the concealed carry permit: officer Kevin Jordan's brother, Raymond Jordan.
*


> *Raymond Jordan was in the parking lot when the gunfire erupted and grabbed his own gun, [police officer Mike] Richardson said. A civilian, he had a permit to carry a gun and was at the restaurant to visit his brother, who often worked there on weekends, police said. Raymond Jordan was not charged Saturday in Bowman's shooting, and police offered no explanation.*


*So in this case, the man with the concealed carry permit was not the criminal; the man with the carry permit was the person who shot the criminal who was attacking the officer.

There definitely are cases of persons with concealed carry permits perpetrating crimes in public places, including homicide. However, the VPC database is not necessarily a reliable guide. The better approach is to look at comprehensive datasets, such a statewide revocation figures, described above.

R*



Social science on the right to bear arms

=========

Debunking the Myth of "Concealed-Carry Killers"

*Beyond the immediately suspect nature of the Violence Policy Center’s claims, the database erroneously includes many deaths that are not attributable to the misuse of a concealed-carry permit. *
*The anti-gun group defines “non-self-defense incident” to include virtually any fatality involving a concealed-carry permit holder, including ones that do not remotely resemble the type of intentional homicide evoked by the Violence Policy Center’s strong claims about public safety. 
For example, roughly 40% of the deaths (534 of 1,335) are suicides. While tragic, firearm suicides are not what a term like “concealed-carry killer” brings to mind. 
Moreover, analysis of the remaining “non-self-defense” deaths also belies the group’s use of the term. 
The Violence Policy Center includes many fatalities where the shooter’s concealed-carry permit was irrelevant because he or she did not carry a concealed weapon in public while perpetrating the crime. 
For example, the database includes a Nov. 11, 2008, death where a permit holder fatally shot her husband in their own backyard, and a June 12, 2012, death where the permit holder fatally shot his wife while she slept in their own bedroom. 
Had their respective states never issued a concealed-carry permit to a single person, these shooters still would have been in lawful possession of these firearms inside their own homes. 
Also of dubious inclusion are at least 10 cases that involve someone other than the permit holder using the permit holder’s firearm, and a number of cases where the individual’s permit either should have been suspended or was actually suspended under state law at the time of the death.  
Finally, despite the Violence Policy Center’s claim that it only analyzed non-self-defense shootings, in 72 of the 801 homicide deaths included in the database, the shooter’s claim of self-defense is still pending in court.
---

The Data Paints a Different Picture
As a result of the report, the Violence Policy Center’s legislative director stated that “concealed-carry killers continue to claim innocent lives at a shocking pace.” 
The only shocking thing about the pace of crimes committed by concealed-carry permit holders is just how slow it is compared with the statistical expectation. 
According to the data, America’s 18 million concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time. 
That percentage drops even lower if any of the defendants in the 72 cases still pending in court are determined to have acted in lawful self-defense. 
Since 2007, when the Violence Policy Center started tracking these concealed-carry permit holder deaths, there has been a 304% increase in the number of Americans with a concealed-carry permit. 
At the same time, the national violent crime and homicide rates in 2018 were actually lower than they were in 2007, and substantially lower than their historical highs in the early 1990s, when far fewer Americans had concealed-carry permits.  
---
Similarly, despite the anti-gun group’s claim that concealed-carry permit holders represent a severe danger to law enforcement officers, the data indicates that they are accountable for a disproportionately small number of law enforcement deaths.
The FBI recorded 608 law enforcement officers who were killed in “felonious acts” between 2007 and 2018. According to the Violence Policy Center, 18 concealed-carry permit holders killed 23 law enforcement officers during that time. 
That accounts for roughly 3.7% of law enforcement officer felonious deaths, even though concealed-carry permit holders account for 5.5% of the population. 
Just as with non-law enforcement deaths, many of the cases the Violence Policy Center includes as law enforcement officer deaths involve scenarios where the killer’s status as a permit holder played no role in the crime. 
In fact, by our count, only 10 of the 24 law enforcement officer deaths between 2007 and the time of publication involved permit holders actually carrying concealable firearms in public places. 
For example, the database includes the case of Ryan Schlesinger, who in November 2018 used a rifle from inside his own home to kill an officer in Tucson, Arizona, serving him with an arrest warrant. *
*The concealed-carry permit was not only completely irrelevant in that situation—one does not need a concealed-carry permit to lawfully possess a rifle inside one’s home, nor is a rifle a “concealed carry” weapon—but Schlesinger was prohibited under state law from possessing firearms. *


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And the vast majority, 70-80% of the gun murder victims were criminals murdered by other criminals...


So in that case most "normal, law abiding" Americans don't need guns for self defence. You've destroyed your argument again.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So you finally admit, the CDC never stated your 1.2 million figure, it was Kleck all along, who made that assertion, not the CDC
> 
> Prove they tried to bury anything. They found the data they had accumulated was incomplete and inconclusive and flawed, so they filed it away on their website. Kleck made a big broo ha ha about needing a FOI to find it, when in fact he could have Googled it without any fuss or bother, still any publicity stunt to sell your book helps, I suppose.




Nope.....they did the collection of the data, then stopped and buried it....as you know.

No.....they found the data was not showing what they wanted to show, so they stopped the research and buried the data they already had....

Their job was to refute Kleck....the Clinton administration was pushing gun control and sent the CDC and the DOJ to attack Kleck...they both failed.......

Everytihing on the CDC and the way it buried data that didn't support what they wanted to push.....

*Forbes, why did the CDC hide the data?*

3) We don’t know why the CDC chose not to publish that data from the 1990s.

Kleck offers some ideas in his original paper. One possible explanation:



> Another factor, however, might also have played a role in the decision of CDC personnel to not report the DGU findings. For CDC’s own surveys to generate high estimates of DGU prevalence was clearly not helpful to efforts to enact stricter controls over firearms, since it implies that some such measures might disarm people who otherwise would have been able to use a gun for self-protection.


One CDC official in the 1990s openly told the Washington Post that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.” Given that history, I can’t dismiss Kleck’s critique.

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses



The Washington post column mentioned above...



"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol -- cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly -- and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...th-guns/6c7f2bd2-fa57-4d69-b927-5ceb4fa43cf4/

============





Revised paper 

SSRN Electronic Library



Abstract​In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

=========



Reason article on the revised paper..



in direct response to queries from _Reason,_ who first directly notified Kleck of his error, he worked through and has since issued a revised version of the paper, published as was the original as a working paper on the Social Science Research Network. In the new version, Kleck re-analyzes the BRFSS survey data accurately as limited to a small number of states, and ultimately concludes, when their surveys are analyzed in conjunction with his NSDS, that their surveys indicate likely over 1 million defensive uses of guns (DGUs) a year nationally, compared to the over 2 million of his own NSDS.

Here's how Kleck got to that new conclusion. The BRFSS, as Kleck describes it in his paper, "are high-quality telephone surveys of very large probability samples of U.S. adults…even just the subset of four to seven state surveys that asked about DGU in 1996-1998 interviewed 3,197-4,500 adults, depending on the year. This is more people than were asked about this topic in any other surveys, other than the National Self-Defense Survey conducted in 1993 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), who asked DGU questions of 4,977 people." The BRFSS asked about defensive uses of guns in seven states in 1996, seven in 1997, and four in 1998.

Kleck judged the "wording of the DGU question in the BRFSS surveys" as "also excellent, avoiding many problems with the wording that afflicted the DGU questions used in other surveys."

The BRFSS results were designed to exclude "uses by military, police and others with firearm-related jobs" and "uses against animals." The survey was designed to garner "yes" answers as long as a gun was used in presumed self-defense in any location (not just the home), whether or not the gun was actually fired (as, per Kleck's survey, around 3/4 of the time one needn't fire the gun to have found it useful in deterring an intruder or attacker).



A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use



-------



Original version before he went back to revise it...

The actual paper by Kleck revealing the CDC hiding data..



SSRN Electronic Library

The timing of CDC’s addition of a DGU question to the BRFSS is of some interest. Prior to 1996, the BRFSS had never included a question about DGU. Kleck and Gertz (1995) conducted their survey in February through April 1993, presented their estimate that there were over 2 million DGUs in 1992 at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology in November 1994, and published it in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Fall of 1995. CDC added a DGU question to the BRFSS the very first year they could do so after that 1995 publication, in the 1996 edition. CDC was not the only federal agency during the Clinton administration to field a survey addressing the prevalence of DGU at that particular time. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) financed a national survey devoting even more detailed attention to estimating DGU prevalence, which was fielded in November and December 1994, just months after preliminary results of the 1993 Kleck/Gertz survey became known. Neither CDC nor NIJ had ever financed research into DGU before 1996. Perhaps there was just “something in the air” that motivated the two agencies to suddenly decide in 1994 to address the topic. Another interpretation, however, is that fielding of the surveys was triggered by the Kleck/Gertz findings that DGU was common, and that these agencies hoped to obtain lower DGU prevalence estimates than those obtained by Kleck/Gertz. Low estimates would have implied fewer beneficial uses of firearms, results that would have been far more congenial to the strongly pro-control positions of the Clinton administration.


CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns



Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,



> are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).


Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."





Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:



> *The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. *
> 
> This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.




And the collection of 18 studies that also researched defensive gun use....over and above the CDC research....



A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope.....they did the collection of the data, then stopped and buried it....as you know.


You have proven you statement to your satisfaction.   All you need to do.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So in that case most "normal, law abiding" Americans don't need guns for self defence. You've destroyed your argument again.




Where do you get that....?  Are you really this stupid?

When a woman is attacked by a stronger, more aggressive male, armed or unarmed, a gun is the only weapon that gives her the best chance of defeating him....

Americans use their guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, mass public shootings, stabbings and beatings.......according to the CDC....or 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice...

What do you think would happen to those victims if they didn't have their gun with them?

Are you really this dumb?  Do you try to be that stupid?  Or does it come naturally for you?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You have proven you statement to your satisfaction.   All you need to do.




Its not for him....it is for the casual passerby....who normally only get gun control talking points in all of their media, movies and television shows....


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Americans use their guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, mass public shootings, stabbings and beatings.......according to the CDC....or 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice...


According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Its not for him....it is for the casual passerby....who normally only get gun control talking points in all of their media, movies and television shows....


Yes, the "casual passerby needs your propaganda BS, more than actual facts, we've known this from the start. Thanks for finally admitting it.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.




Yeah...I can, you doofus.....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

*Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.*
*


n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference  is due to sampling error.  to the  when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that  when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
 ----
*
*As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.*


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Yes, the "casual passerby needs your propaganda BS, more than actual facts, we've known this from the start. Thanks for finally admitting it.





I supply research...from 18 different studies, conducted  by both government and private researchers using modern research techniques...The CDC and the DOJ included...spending millions and millions of dollars to conduct the research, specifically to disprove defensive gun use.....

You?

The research isn't right........

Yeah...you really got me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Its not for him....


But it is - those are -his- words.
When -he- needs to prove something, "to my satisfaction" is sufficient.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope.....they did the collection of the data, then stopped and buried it....as you know.
> 
> No.....they found the data was not showing what they wanted to show, so they stopped the research and buried the data they already had....
> 
> ...


Oh, look, now Kleck claims 1.1 million from the CDC. He can't even be consistent!


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> According to Kleck, not the CDC. Oh, can you provide a link to the Department of Justice "study"? Just asking on the off chance it's not another Kleck fantasy.




Here is another one...

President Obama also wanted to do gun control...but after the democrats lost their 40 year control of Congress due to, in part, their assault rifle ban, he had to kick start new gun control...

The first thing he did was sell guns to Mexican Drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious....in order to have American guns show up at Drug Cartel crime scenes...but he and Eric Holder, the Attorney General were caught and exposed.....and had to stop....

The next thing he did was order his Centers For Disease Control to look at all gun research.....they spent 10 million dollars in 2013 to do this....

What did they find....between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses each year....

Here is that research...

Defensive Use of Guns

*Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). 


National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press.*






						Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press
					

Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...



					nap.nationalacademies.org


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh, look, now Kleck claims 1.1 million from the CDC. He can't even be consistent!




Is that all you have?  Really?  18 actual studies and you fart that out?



The inbreeding on your island is obviously getting worse.....


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I supply research...


NO, you regurgitate glorified opinion poll projections as hard fact. NONE of those studies claim hard numbers, uses of words like "implied", "estimated" "suggested", etc. are hardly factual. All they are is best guesses.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> NO, you regurgitate glorified opinion poll projections as hard fact. NONE of those studies claim hard numbers, uses of words like "implied", "estimated" "suggested", etc. are hardly factual. All they are is best guesses.




Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....

Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......

Please...tell us...


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....
> 
> Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......
> 
> Please...tell us...


NONE of these studies claim hard facts, they are all basically best guesses based on limited samples. That IS a fact.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 23, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Correct, by reason and by logic, the gun culture is dreadful in America. Anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size knows that to have to safe guns, you needs regulations that are found in Europe, UK, New Zealand and Australia. But because that's so blatant, the only defence against common sense is, "2nd Amendment", mouth froth, "Constitution".
> 
> You guys need a bit of paper to fight against logic and a safe gun culture. Simple as.


The people of the UK, New Zealand, and Australia never had a Constitutional right to own firearms and still practice a medieval form of Government. I don't give a fuck what they do.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So in that case most "normal, law abiding" Americans don't need guns for self defence. You've destroyed your argument again.



Most people never have their house burn down so I guess they don't need homeowners' insurance.  Most people never get into car accidents so I guess they don;t need car insurance

A gun is nothing but insurance.  You have it and you hope you never have to use it.

it only takes one time to die at the hands of a criminal.  You may be lucky enough not to have been the victim of a violent crime so you choose to live in ignorant bliss.  Those of us that have been victims of violent crimes know better


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 23, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> NONE of these studies claim hard facts, they are all basically best guesses based on limited samples. That IS a fact.




Over 5,000 interviews is not a limited sample...you doofus...that is a huge sample compared to any other study....

You moron...


*What is the ideal sample size in qualitative research?


We’ll answer it this time. Based on studies that have been done in academia on this very issue, 30 seems to be an ideal sample size for the most comprehensive view, but studies can have as little as 10 total participants and still yield extremely fruitful, and applicable, results. (This goes back to excellence in recruiting.)

Our general recommendation for in-depth interviews is a sample size of 30, if we’re building a study that includes similar segments within the population. A minimum size can be 10 – but again, this assumes the population integrity in recruiting.*







__





						What is the ideal Sample Size in Qualitative Research? | GreenBook | GreenBook.org
					





					www.greenbook.org
				




*For example, Green and Thorogood [38] maintain that the experience of most qualitative researchers conducting an interview-based study with a fairly specific research question is that little new information is generated after interviewing 20 people or so belonging to one analytically relevant participant ‘category’ (pp. 102–104). Ritchie et al. [39] suggest that studies employing individual interviews conduct no more than 50 interviews so that researchers are able to manage the complexity of the analytic task. Similarly, Britten [40] notes that large interview studies will often comprise of 50 to 60 people.*









						Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period - BMC Medical Research Methodology
					

Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication...




					bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com
				




*Remember....Kleck used 5,000 interviews....

Based on these estimates, assuming that the authors intended to test all of these associations, it would be necessary to choose the largest estimated sample size (2,630 subjects). 

In case the required sample size is larger than the target population, the investigators may decide to perform a multicenter study, lengthen the period for data collection, modify the research question or face the possibility of not having sufficient power to draw valid conclusions.*









						Sample size: how many participants do I need in my research?
					

The importance of estimating sample sizes is rarely understood by researchers, when planning a study. This paper aims to highlight the centrality of sample size estimations in health research. Examples that help in understanding the basic concepts involved ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Most people never have their house burn down so I guess they don't need homeowners' insurance.  Most people never get into car accidents so I guess they don;t need car insurance
> 
> A gun is nothing but insurance.  You have it and you hope you never have to use it.
> 
> it only takes one time to die at the hands of a criminal.  You may be lucky enough not to have been the victim of a violent crime so you choose to live in ignorant bliss.  Those of us that have been victims of violent crimes know better


Wow, I might be struck by lightning, so I'd best carry a lightning rod around with me, just in case!  I've no problem with people owning guns, for sport, or even self defence, if your society is that barbaric. However all societies need to control who has access to firearms. Anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be properly trained, have thorough background checks including mental health and the weapons need to be stored safely when not needed. You need a licence to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Tell us again that the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice don't know how to do research...please...tell us again.....
> 
> Then add in all the other anti-gun researchers from the other 16 studies, including Kleck, who was anti-gun when he did his research, and tell us again how they all got it wrong, and only you know the truth......
> 
> Please...tell us...


Oh dear... If you bothered to actually read any of these studies, rather than just regurgitate numbers, you might learn that in every case each study states the figures are estimates (aka best guesses) None of these studies claim their numbers are holy writ. All acknowledge that there are inherent errors and that more research is needed to get more accurate information.


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 24, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how _rarely_ firearms are used in self-defense.
> ...


IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


----------



## WTF19 (Sep 24, 2022)

s


Vagabond63 said:


> Oh dear... If you bothered to actually read any of these studies, rather than just regurgitate numbers, you might learn that in every case each study states the figures are estimates (aka best guesses) None of these studies claim their numbers are holy writ. All acknowledge that there are inherent errors and that more research is needed to get more accurate information.


so, you regurgitate a bunch of IFS--or just plain old lies---or best guesses----WTF are you spewing

IF YOU ONLY HAD A BRAIN


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Wow, I might be struck by lightning, so I'd best carry a lightning rod around with me, just in case!  I've no problem with people owning guns, for sport, or even self defence, if your society is that barbaric. However all societies need to control who has access to firearms. Anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be properly trained, have thorough background checks including mental health and the weapons need to be stored safely when not needed. You need a licence to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm.



Guns are not hard to use.  As we see in Britain and the rest of Europe, training requirements are simply a way to deny gun ownership and carry Rights for normal people, limiting gun ownership to the wealthy, famous and politically connected……so screw that.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh dear... If you bothered to actually read any of these studies, rather than just regurgitate numbers, you might learn that in every case each study states the figures are estimates (aka best guesses) None of these studies claim their numbers are holy writ. All acknowledge that there are inherent errors and that more research is needed to get more accurate information.



Having read the available studies, you doofus, the important point is the number of studies, the anti-gun bias of all of the researchers, including Kleck, the number of different organizations doing the research, the large amount of time the different studies cover, the fact that both private and government research groups have taken on the research, and that the research was conducted by trained researchers using actual, tried and tested research techniques….that the CDC and DOJ were included in the anti-gun research as well is just icing on the cake…….,

What the breadth and depth of the research does show is that defensive gun use by Americans who are not military or police is common and happens every day in this country….and each defensive gun use can and does save lives from rape, robbery, murder, mass public shootings, beatings and stabbings…..

but you sit there and put your fingers in your ears and scrunch your eyes shut and screech…”doesn’t count, doesn’t count,” and show yourself for the doofus you are……


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Having read the available studies, you doofus, the important point is the number of studies, the anti-gun bias of all of the researchers, including Kleck, the number of different organizations doing the research, the large amount of time the different studies cover, the fact that both private and government research groups have taken on the research, and that the research was conducted by trained researchers using actual, tried and tested research techniques….that the CDC and DOJ were included in the anti-gun research as well is just icing on the cake…….,
> 
> What the breadth and depth of the research does show is that defensive gun use by Americans who are not military or police is common and happens every day in this country….and each defensive gun use can and does save lives from rape, robbery, murder, mass public shootings, beatings and stabbings…..
> 
> but you sit there and put your fingers in your ears and scrunch your eyes shut and screech…”doesn’t count, doesn’t count,” and show yourself for the doofus you are……


My issue is purely that you cite numbers which are* basically guesswork* as actual fact. The fact is that although DGUs do occur (and I've never disputed that), nobody knows exactly (or even roughly) how many times they happen, or for that matter how many "DGUs" are actually attempts at murder. Even Kleck acknowledges that in a court of law many of his respondents could end up in prison.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Guns are not hard to use.


I've fired every calibre of handgun from .22LR to .44 Magnum in my time, along with SMGs, and SLRs during my military service, so I know just how easy it is to use a gun, thank you. 

There's using a gun, and using a gun at the right time, and more importantly with a fair degree of accuracy. There's also the matter of safe storage and making the gun safe when you don't need it.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 24, 2022)

2aguy said:


> As we see in Britain and the rest of Europe, training requirements are simply a way to deny gun ownership and carry Rights for normal people, limiting gun ownership to the wealthy, famous and politically connected…


Complete and utter drivel.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 24, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Wow, I might be struck by lightning, so I'd best carry a lightning rod around with me, just in case!  I've no problem with people owning guns, for sport, or even self defence, if your society is that barbaric. However all societies need to control who has access to firearms. Anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be properly trained, have thorough background checks including mental health and the weapons need to be stored safely when not needed. You need a licence to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm.


We have laws that spell out quite clearly who can and cannot own forearms.  Our government just chooses not to enforce them.

And in the US we have a right to own firearms but you will never understand that because you have to ask permission for things we Americans are free to do.  No one has a right to drive a car on public roads.  That is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for just about any reason.

And FYI if you walk around carrying a lightning rod you're more likely to get struck.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> My issue is purely that you cite numbers which are* basically guesswork* as actual fact. The fact is that although DGUs do occur (and I've never disputed that), nobody knows exactly (or even roughly) how many times they happen, or for that matter how many "DGUs" are actually attempts at murder. Even Kleck acknowledges that in a court of law many of his respondents could end up in prison.



Kleck states because at the time, merely having a gun on your person in public was a crime, so exposing yourself by defending yourself put you in legal peril....please try to read what he actually said.....


----------



## Captain Caveman (Sep 24, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The people of the UK, New Zealand, and Australia never had a Constitutional right to own firearms and still practice a medieval form of Government. I don't give a fuck what they do.


Let me correct your ignorance/retardism. You had the right to bear arms in the UK. In 1870, licensing came into effect. You still can own a shotgun, it's up to the police to prove if you're unsuitable. You can own any other type of firearm, you have to prove you're suitable. One day you might get more than 2 brain cells to understand guns, but I doubt it.

Guess what brains? If you are of clean character, shoot guns in the UK, there's no issue. In America, you let any Tom Dick Harry have guns, that's why you're a crazy country with dreadful gun stats and gun nuts that are taf.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 24, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Let me correct your ignorance/retardism. You had the right to bear arms in the UK. In 1870, licensing came into effect. You still can own a shotgun, it's up to the police to prove if you're unsuitable. You can own any other type of firearm, you have to prove you're suitable. One day you might get more than 2 brain cells to understand guns, but I doubt it.
> 
> Guess what brains? If you are of clean character, shoot guns in the UK, there's no issue. In America, you let any Tom Dick Harry have guns, that's why you're a crazy country with dreadful gun stats and gun nuts that are taf.



Yes… you had the Right to have guns and you had low gun crime rates…..you banned and confiscated guns and now your criminals are using now guns……..what you did has done nothing.

We have gun crime in the U.S. because our left wing political party, the democrats, are attacking and wrecking our local police and doing very thing they can to keep releasing the most violent criminals in the country….

We have over 600 million guns and over 21.5 million Americans can carry guns in public for self defense……normal gun owners are not the ones shooting people…..the people shooting each other are the criminals released from jail and prison by the democrats.  They are the ones in democrat party controlled cities shooting and killing each other……

You doofus


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Sadly, many people base their support for guns on Popular Culture rather then reality.


Correct.

Guns are rarely used in lawful self-defense.

‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – a fantasy of the dishonest right and a baseless ‘justification’ for possessing firearms.

Indeed, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a prerequisite to indeed do so – such as possessing a firearm.

Conservatives need to stop trying to gild the Second Amendment lily.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are rarely used in lawful self-defense.
> 
> ...


your premise is a lie,, guns are used in self defense thousands of times a day by the fact they exist and criminals are afraid and dont rob people that look like they are carrying,,


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are rarely used in lawful self-defense.
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – a fantasy of the dishonest right and a baseless ‘justification’ for possessing firearms.


Agree 100%.

‘Good guy with a gun’ very rarely exists in real life.  He/she is very common in Action Movies, but they are not Reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ very rarely exists in real life.  He/she is very common in Action Movies, but they are not Reality.


A "good guy with a gun" is --far-- more common than a murder with a gun or a suicide with a gun.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> A "good guy with a gun" is --far-- more common than a murder with a gun or a suicide with a gun.


Not in real life 


> I wish my life was non-stop Hollywood movie show
> A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes
> Because celluloid heroes never feel any pain
> And celluloid heroes never really die


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Not in real life


yes in real life,,,

everyday thousands  of crimes dont happen because guns exist and because nothing happened you never hear about it,,,


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> yes in real life,,,
> 
> everyday thousands if not millions of crimes dont happen because guns exist and because nothing happened you never hear about it,,,


I do not know.  Given the very low number of justifiable homicides, I do not find it believable.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> I do not know.  Given the very low number of justifiable homicides, I do not find it believable.


you dont have to kill someone to stop them from committing a crime,,,
just the fact that the criminal believes guns are in play stops them from doing the crime,,

and thats not even getting into the crimes a government commits after they take away guns,, just look at australia during covid,,,


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> you dont have to kill someone to stop them from committing a crime,,,
> just the fact that the criminal believes guns are in play stops them from doing the crime,,


Still, in my opinion, numbers given for gun self-defense are unrealistic.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Still, in my opinion, numbers given for gun self-defense are unrealistic.


sure would like to know why you think that???

is it just because youre a gun hater or do you have some proof??

I know it happens because I know criminals and was one myself at one time,,,


----------



## the other mike (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Between 1999 and 2016, in USA there have been
> *213,000 gun homicides
> 336,500 gun suicides*
> Here.
> ...


Why do criminals want to defund police and  take away guns from law abiding citizens? I really can't figure it out.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Not in real life


Yes.  In real life.  The Violence Policy Center says so.


			https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> I do not know.  Given the very low number of justifiable homicides, I do not find it believable.


So...  The VPC lied?


			https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Still, in my opinion, numbers given for gun self-defense are unrealistic.


Why would the VPC lie about the number of defensive gun uses?


			https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  In real life.  The Violence Policy Center says so.
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


According to the Table on p.6, only 1.1% of violent crimes resulted in self-defense by guns.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why would the VPC lie about the number of defensive gun uses?
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


They mentioned that gun self-defense was used only in 1.1% of all crimes.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 24, 2022)

Which would be worse ?
Complete the following statement....
It would be worse to kill someone 
1)  with an AK-47
2) with an AR 15
3) with poison or drugs
4) by throwing them out a window
5)  with explosives
6) with a covert drone strike
7) by stabbing them
8) by hanging them
9) with one of my homemade slingshots or poison dart guns
10) other


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 24, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Let me correct your ignorance/retardism. You had the right to bear arms in the UK. In 1870, licensing came into effect. You still can own a shotgun, it's up to the police to prove if you're unsuitable. You can own any other type of firearm, you have to prove you're suitable. One day you might get more than 2 brain cells to understand guns, but I doubt it.
> 
> Guess what brains? If you are of clean character, shoot guns in the UK, there's no issue. In America, you let any Tom Dick Harry have guns, that's why you're a crazy country with dreadful gun stats and gun nuts that are taf.


Understand guns ? I served in the military and come from a long line of people who served as well you moron and have owned firearms for over 40 years. I've fired everything from a .22 caliber revolver all the way up to and including heavy machine guns and grenade launchers. I've forgotten more about firearms than you loons will ever know.

I give zero fucks about what any other country in the world does. I live in the US and the Constitution that governs my country states my right to bears arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Over 5,000 interviews is not a limited sample...you doofus...that is a huge sample compared to any other study....
> 
> You moron...
> 
> ...


So you'd believe a sample size of 30 people, extrapolated to represent 300 million? Wow are you gullible...oh wait, you voted for Trump, got it.

As for this 5000, was that his entire set of positive respondants or just the total number of people interviewed?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 25, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> According to the Table on p.6, only 1.1% of violent crimes resulted in self-defense by guns.


According to the table on page 6, firearms  are used in self-defense more than 100,000 times per year.
That's 10x more often than murder and 4x more often than suicide.
Thus, a "good guy with a gun" is --far-- more common than a murder with a gun or a suicide with a gun.       
In real life.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So you'd believe a sample size of 30 people, extrapolated to represent 300 million? Wow are you gullible...oh wait, you voted for Trump, got it.
> 
> As for this 5000, was that his entire set of positive respondants or just the total number of people interviewed?



I showed you what actual researchers say about sample size and then show you that Kleck, and the Department of Justice, used 5,000 as their sample size……you are the one who claimed 5,000 was a tiny sample size…….you don’t know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  In real life.  The Violence Policy Center says so.
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf



And, of course, they use David Hemenway as their source…….,he is the guy who uses the National Crime Victim Survey to get his number for defensive gun use.  Why does he use that study as opposed to the other 18 studies that I always cite?

 The National Crime Victimization Survey is the one study that is not a gun self defense study……..it is a crime victim survey.

Why does he use it?  Because the NCVS doesn’t ask one question about using a gun for self defense……..it doesn’t even have the word “gun” anywhere in the survey……

Even then, without ever asking one question about guns, the survey finds defensive gun use at over 177,000 times a year…..

Sooo….the problem with Hemenway is he claims this is the most accurate survey on gun self defense……that would be the same as this….

You ask people about cars…..you ask them how they use cars…..they mention they sometimes use cars to go to the grocery store to buy orange juice……you then claim, from this car survey that orange juice is the most popular drink in the country…..

That is how stupid Hemenway gun self defense research is….and why the anti-gun fanatics always quote him and the Violence Policy Center….


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


I've used a gun twice in self-defense but not reported because no shit was fired.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Let me correct your ignorance/retardism. You had the right to bear arms in the UK. In 1870, licensing came into effect. You still can own a shotgun, it's up to the police to prove if you're unsuitable. You can own any other type of firearm, you have to prove you're suitable. One day you might get more than 2 brain cells to understand guns, but I doubt it.
> 
> Guess what brains? If you are of clean character, shoot guns in the UK, there's no issue. In America, you let any Tom Dick Harry have guns, that's why you're a crazy country with dreadful gun stats and gun nuts that are taf.


You never had a right to own firearms what you had was a privilege granted by your king and the government.  rights cannot be revoked by anyone as they belong to the person.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ very rarely exists in real life.  He/she is very common in Action Movies, but they are not Reality.


Tell that to the people saved by a civilian with a gun in that mall shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Tell that to the people saved by a civilian with a gun in that mall shooting.



Or at the party in West Virginia……

in both the Indiana mall shooting and in West Virginia a civilian man and woman stopped mass public shooters with their concealed carry pistol in seconds………even though the shooter was armed with a rifle……


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 25, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> According to the Table on p.6, only 1.1% of violent crimes resulted in self-defense by guns.



The Violence Policy Center uses David Hemenway……the guy who uses the National Crime Victimization Survey for his data…..it is the only study that is not an actual gun self defense study….the only study that doesn’t exclusively look at gun self defense…..in fact, it doesn’t ask one question about guns or gun self defense and yet he claims it is the only accurate survey on gun self defense….which is why he is a hack…….

There are at least 18 actual gun self defense studies and he ignores all of them……because they all show large numbers of gun self defense….


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2022)

Penelope said:


> I went right to the source.




Yes, a discredited source.

DURRRRRR


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 25, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ very rarely exists in real life.  He/she is very common in Action Movies, but they are not Reality.


How Often Are Guns Used in Self Defense? | Stats


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How Often Are Guns Used in Self Defense? | Stats
> View attachment 701313


And the thing is it doesn't matter how many DGUs there are.

We all know that at least one person a year prevents himself from becoming a victim of crime by using his firearm and that's enough for me.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Sep 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes… you had the Right to have guns and you had low gun crime rates…..you banned and confiscated guns and now your criminals are using now guns……..what you did has done nothing.
> 
> We have gun crime in the U.S. because our left wing political party, the democrats, are attacking and wrecking our local police and doing very thing they can to keep releasing the most violent criminals in the country….
> 
> ...


Fucking retard


----------



## Captain Caveman (Sep 25, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Understand guns ? I served in the military and come from a long line of people who served as well you moron and have owned firearms for over 40 years. I've fired everything from a .22 caliber revolver all the way up to and including heavy machine guns and grenade launchers. I've forgotten more about firearms than you loons will ever know.
> 
> I give zero fucks about what any other country in the world does. I live in the US and the Constitution that governs my country states my right to bears arms shall not be infringed.


That's just the point. You can just dribble out Constitution, Rights, 2nd Amendment. Theres nothing between your lugs to grasp the whole concept of the gun argument, you've just confirmed it.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Sep 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You never had a right to own firearms what you had was a privilege granted by your king and the government.  rights cannot be revoked by anyone as they belong to the person.


Another fucking retard with fuck all history knowledge. You're American, your concept of history is piss poor, at best. You've highlighted your bellend history knowledge in one post.

Run along child, do some reading, then come back to the adult forum because you're a prick about history.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Another fucking retard with fuck all history knowledge. You're American, your concept of history is piss poor, at best. You've highlighted your bellend history knowledge in one post.
> 
> Run along child, do some reading, then come back to the adult forum because you're a prick about history.


The US government is based on the premise that rights are inherent in each individual and cannot be granted not revoked by any other person or government.

Your government has never operated under any such premise.

You beg for privileges from your government like the fucking dogs you are.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 25, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> That's just the point. You can just dribble out Constitution, Rights, 2nd Amendment. Theres nothing between your lugs to grasp the whole concept of the gun argument, you've just confirmed it.


Quotes by the founding Fathers confirm the rights of the individual citzen to bear arms. Shall not be infringed, argument over you loons lose.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The US government is based on the premise that rights are inherent in each individual and cannot be granted not revoked by any other person or government.
> 
> Your government has never operated under any such premise.
> 
> You beg for privileges from your government like the fucking dogs you are.


Yes, but our current administration, like most of our politicians, our deep state, and nearly all of our federal and state politicians, are pawns and puppets of the crown.


I mean hell, look at the mass media, they indoctrinate our society with pro-crown propaganda, and this very forum is infiltrated with common-wealth agents.  There are just as many here, as there are from Russia and China, if not more.

Do not under-estimate what he is telling you.

One day ago;


The Rhodes Scholars Guiding Biden’s Presidency​








						The Rhodes Scholars Guiding Biden's Presidency
					

While the WEF's Young Global Leader program has recently become infamous, it follows the model of a much older program and think tank established with the ill-begotten gains of Cecil Rhodes.




					unlimitedhangout.com
				

















						The WWI Conspiracy - The Corbett Report
					

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4 What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this




					www.corbettreport.com
				




I really don't think the queen or the British Anglo-American ruling elites, had planned for Trump to win.  I think that is the source of most of the anti-Trump sentiment in the establishment.  IMO.









						British spies discovered Trump team’s alleged links to Russia: report
					

UK intelligence began sending information about Trump campaign officials’ contacts with Russia from 2015.




					www.politico.eu
				












						British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
					

Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015




					www.theguardian.com
				






			https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/14/napolitano_obama_admin_used_british_intel_service_to_spy_on_trump_during_campaign.html
		



Blowing this one wide open cost Judge Andrew Napolitano his career, IMO.   

If you do a routine search to this day, on most search engines, looking for the terms like GCHQ, or Obama used five eyes to spy on Trump, it is all scrubbed and fact checked now.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And FYI if you walk around carrying a lightning rod you're more likely to get struck.



Same applies to a gun. "They that live by the sword...."


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  In real life.  The Violence Policy Center says so.
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/studies/justifiable18.pdf


Your source disagrees with you, 
"The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 37.7 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2015 the persons shot and killed were known to the shooter. The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear. In 2016, guns killed more than 38,000 Americans and injured more than 116,000, leaving an untold number of lives traumatized and communities shattered.15 Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 26, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> Yes, but our current administration, like most of our politicians, our deep state, and nearly all of our federal and state politicians, are pawns and puppets of the crown.
> 
> 
> I mean hell, look at the mass media, they indoctrinate our society with pro-crown propaganda, and this very forum is infiltrated with common-wealth agents.  There are just as many here, as there are from Russia and China, if not more.
> ...


...and straight down the rabbit hole we go.... You still waiting for JFK jr to turn up in Dealey Plaza?


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 26, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> ...and straight down the rabbit hole we go.... You still waiting for JFK jr to turn up in Dealey Plaza?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 26, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Same applies to a gun. "They that live by the sword...."


Not at all.

I carry concealed so I could be standing right next to you and you would have no clue I was carrying along with all the other things you have no clue about.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 26, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Same applies to a gun. "They that live by the sword...."


On the other hand;

Luke 11:21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own mansion, his property is safe.”


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Hollie said:


> On the other hand;
> 
> Luke 11:21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own mansion, his property is safe.”



You missed a bit,
"When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."
What a barbarous society you must live in.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I carry concealed so I could be standing right next to you and you would have no clue I was carrying


So could the person next to you, and the one next to them, etc. If everyone carried guns, what use is your concealed weapon, when the person next to you, or behind you, pulls their gun and shoots you in the back of your head?

Or if every argument led to this, for example Argument leads to deadly shooting in Orlando, police say


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

I 


Vagabond63 said:


> Same applies to a gun. "They that live by the sword...."


I legally carry a firearm concealed and have for over a quarter of a century. I never have had a reason to pull my snub nosed revolver and hope I never have. The last thing I ever hope to do is to shoot someone to stop their attack. I don’t need the legal and psychological problems. 

I work by the philosophy that if you go looking for trouble it will find you. Unfortunately sometimes trouble goes looking for you. That’s why I carry concealed.

 It would be nice if one day I woke up and got a reminder in my email that today is the day I better carry when I go out because some fool is going to attack me. If I got that warning I would just stay home.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So could the person next to you, and the one next to them, etc. If everyone carried guns, what use is your concealed weapon, when the person next to you, or behind you, pulls their gun and shoots you in the back of your head?
> 
> Or if every argument led to this, for example Argument leads to deadly shooting in Orlando, police say


That’s like being an expert in the martial arts and someone sneaks up behind you and hits you full force with a baseball bat. It happens but not all that often. Recently we have seen such attacks on the streets of big blue cities where crime is getting out of control. Hopefully such attacks will not skyrocket but criminals are becoming more bold everyday. 

I avoid arguments when I am carrying a weapon. If someone starts one with me I will just walk away even if it makes me look like a coward. If the individual follows and attacks me with the intention of putting me in a hospital for an extended period of time or six feet under and has the ability or a weapon to accomplish this — then I will use my snub nosed revolver to attempt to stop his attack.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I
> 
> I legally carry a firearm concealed and have for over a quarter of a century. I never have had a reason to pull my snub nosed revolver and hope I never have. The last thing I ever hope to do is to shoot someone to stop their attack. I don’t need the legal and psychological problems.
> 
> ...


So you've never been attacked in 25 years, but carry a gun, just in case someone comes at you frontally to attack you? OK. Whatever makes you feel safe. Do you go out every day as if you were on patrol in a war zone? Do you scan the local vegetation for possible ambushes? Do you spin round every time you hear running footsteps behind you?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I avoid arguments when I am carrying a weapon.


So does that mean you don't avoid arguments when you are unarmed?


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> According to the Table on p.6, only 1.1% of violent crimes resulted in self-defense by guns.


Many instances of self defense with firearms never make it into any statistics. 

For example in the 1920 timeframe my mother was attacked by a man while she was walking home from work. She had a revolver in her purse and was able to draw it and fire two shots over the attackers head. He ran. 

One night while I was at work my daughter heard the alarm going off and walked into the kitchen to find a man halfway through the sliding glass door making entry. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he also ran off. 

I am not sure if my mother’s experience was ever reported to the police but I know was daughter’s was. Neither made it into any statistics. 

The instances that do make it into the statistics are more often those where someone is shot.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So does that mean you don't avoid arguments when you are unarmed?


I am usually armed every time I leave the house. I don’t normally get into arguments with strangers in the doctor’s office or the court house  when I don’t carry. It is wisest to avoid discussing religion or politics with strangers.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So you've never been attacked in 25 years, but carry a gun, just in case someone comes at you frontally to attack you? OK. Whatever makes you feel safe. Do you go out every day as if you were on patrol in a war zone? Do you scan the local vegetation for possible ambushes? Do you spin round every time you hear running footsteps behind you?


Nope. You have a vivid imagination but watch too many movies. I am not playing a vigilante. I realize the chances that I will actually have to use my firearm are very low. 

I do practice situational awareness, That mainly means I am aware of my surroundings and don’t walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear. I learned how to do that many years ago in a jujitsu class. Just being alert and making eye contact can convince a street thug to find an easier target. 

Observing people can be a fun game. It is surprising how much you can notice with practice. 

The following link describes situational awareness using a color code. I have been in condition orange just one time in the quarter century I have been carrying. 









						Cooper Color Code - The 4 Stages of Combat Mindset Readiness
					

The Cooper Color Code is timeless. It's a set of 4 progressing stages of combat mindset readiness. White, Yellow, Orange, and Red.




					modernsurvivalblog.com


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> You have a vivid imagination but watch too many movies.


Lol, thanks, but movies are a complete waste of timeif you are even slightly concerned about personal safety.


Batcat said:


> I do practice situational awareness, That mainly means I am aware of my surroundings and don’t walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear. I learned how to do that many years ago in a jujitsu class. Just being alert and making eye contact can convince a street thug to find an easier target.
> 
> Observing people can be a fun game. It is surprising how much you can notice with practice.


Me too. The best defence is never getting into situations where you need to defend yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> You missed a bit,
> "When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own dwelling, his goods are safe. But when someone stronger attacks him and overcomes him, he takes from him his whole armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."
> What a barbarous society you must live in.


You missed a bit. You "quoted" a Bible verse in the hopes of making some oddly inappropriate point. 

Everyone has the right to self-defense. There is no dispute over that issue except in the mind of the self-hating "social justice warriors" who are offended by their own existence.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Everyone has the right to self-defense.


Correct. It may come as a shock to you but that doesn't automatically mean shooting everything that moves.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. It may come as a shock to you but that doesn't automatically mean shooting everything that moves.


Rather frantic and desperate to suggest that "shooting everything that moves" is what is taking place. 

You're welcome to be a victim if you choose to be.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So could the person next to you, and the one next to them, etc. If everyone carried guns, what use is your concealed weapon, when the person next to you, or behind you, pulls their gun and shoots you in the back of your head?
> 
> Or if every argument led to this, for example Argument leads to deadly shooting in Orlando, police say


So what? Unlike you I'm not afraid of guns.

The fact is concealed carry permit holders are one of if not the most law abiding groups of people in the country.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Here's a candidate for gun ownership...


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. It may come as a shock to you but that doesn't automatically mean shooting everything that moves.


And if you knew anything about defensive gun use in the US you would know that isn't the case here.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Unlike you I'm not afraid of guns.


Whatever makes you think I'm afraid of guns? I used to own three when it was legal over here to  do so. I'm just happy we don't need to be armed to the teeth every time we leave our homes.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Whatever makes you think I'm afraid of guns? I used to own three when it was legal over here to  do so. I'm just happy we don't need to be armed to the teeth every time we leave our homes.


You just don't want law abiding citizens to carry them so maybe you're just afraid of everyone

And carrying one concealed weapon is hardly armed to the teeth but at least I have the choice to carry where you don't.  You actually like other people making your choices for you.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The fact is concealed carry permit holders are one of if not the most law abiding groups of people in the country.


I think I saw a website recently called Concealed Carry Killers, which would probably disagree with you. I'll look it up and get back to you.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> I think I saw a website recently called Concealed Carry Killers, which would probably disagree with you. I'll look it up and get back to you.











						Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You just don't want law abiding citizens to carry them so maybe you're just afraid of everyone


That's the point, I don't have to be afraid of everyone. "Law abiding citizens" are law abiding until they pull the trigger...








						UPDATE: Shots Fired At Chuck E. Cheese In Brandon, 3 Taken To Hospital | NewsRadio WFLA
					

3 women have been arrested after shots were fired.




					wflanews.iheart.com
				



Three women have been taken into custody after shots were fired at the Brandon Chuck E. Cheese today. Police report there was a fight inside. A security guard tried to move the fight outside. During the scuffle a woman pulled out a gun. She dropped it. A friend picked it up and allegedly fired one shot into the air. She lost the gun and then a few more shots were reportedly fired NOT hitting anyone.

The sheriff’s office said a white Audi crashed into the front of the building while the group was fighting as seen in photos. Two women and a child were taken to TGH with *non* life-threatening injuries. HCSO said a male driver was also taken to the hospital, but deputies aren’t sure how he was involved with the incident.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> That's the point, I don't have to be afraid of everyone. "Law abiding citizens" are law abiding until they pull the trigger...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ooooh 1 incident

And the everyone is a criminal until they aren't idea is just plain old flawed logic that people who like to be controlled use to justify taking other people's freedoms away


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country | The Daily Wire
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Saw John Lott and the CPRC and stopped reading.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> My support comes from the Constitution, you know that pesky little document that tells the Government what they can and can not do, like not infringing on my right to bear arms.  Those statistics leave out how many people stop themselves from being a victim by having a firearm and not pulling the trigger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe you should actually read the constitution.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Saw John Lott and the CPRC and stopped reading.


Your loss and your 1 incident proves what?  Nothing.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Here we go, told you they'd disagree with you.








						Concealed Carry Killers Background
					

No matter what the NRA and its financial patrons in the gun industry may claim, concealed carry permits are not just issued to “law-abiding citizens.” In fact, states have granted concealed carry p...



					concealedcarrykillers.org


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Your loss





Vagabond63 said:


> Here we go, told you they'd disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How does that prove that as a group CC permit holders are more criminal than the rest of society?

Oh yeah it doesn't.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> None of my family has ever been issued an AR-15. No country in the world fields an AR-15.


Maybe not yours. But  air force personel were issued some AR15s with select fire early in the Vietnam war…..
Only after the firearm was accepted as the m16 version was the AR15 name applied to the civilian version without select fire. The original AR15 HAD SELECT FIRE.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Your loss and your 1 incident proves what?  Nothing.


John Lott has been so thoroughly discredited, anything his "think tank" comes up with is just not worth my time, and I merely gave an example I found in a 20 seconds internet search, there are thousands more out there in America, sad.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Maybe not yours. But  air force personel were issued some AR15s with select fire early in the Vietnam war…..
> Only after the firearm was accepted as the m16 version was the AR15 name applied to the civilian version without select fire. The original AR15 HAD SELECT FIRE.


completely irrelevant as no civilian rifle is select fire


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How does that prove that as a group CC permit holders are more criminal than the rest of society?
> 
> Oh yeah it doesn't.


No one in this corner is arguing against qualified people from possessing a firearm arm. It’s the proliferation of firearms among non qualified peoples under the false guise of a constitutional edict that doesn’t exist. Every SC on the firearm question has supported that only those qualified should posses firearms. Every square inch of territory in the United States is regulated for firearm possessions. They’re just outdated given what’s available for firearms now.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> John Lott has been so thoroughly discredited, anything his "think tank" comes up with is just not worth my time, and I merely gave an example I found in a 20 seconds internet search, there are thousands more out there in America, sad.


So you can't refute the numbers so you ignore the source.  got it

You also haven't proven that CC permit holders are not more law abiding as a group than the rest of the country.  You just fall back to the flawed everyone is a criminal in waiting crap


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How does that prove that as a group CC permit holders are more criminal than the rest of society?


Where did I state they were?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Where did I state they were?


You disagreed with my statement that they are one of the most law abiding groups even though you cannot prove they aren't then you pull out the everyone is a criminal in waiting bullshit and you can't prove that either.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> completely irrelevant as no civilian rifle is select fire


Gee, and I thought you were referring to the AR15, inaccurately.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You disagreed with my statement that they are one of the most law abiding groups even though you cannot prove they aren't then you pull out the everyone is a criminal in waiting bullshit and you can't prove that either.


Of course they are law abiding. Who in his right mind would want to act in a way that would jeopardize a qualified right.
That’s why our rights are ALL QUALIFIED.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> completely irrelevant as no civilian rifle is select fire


Correct.
The AR15 Democrats and liberals keep screaming about banning is not the AR15 issued to the USAF and then developed into the M16.
Anti-gun loons, in a desperate attempt to gain support for the ban, lie about this, knowing the ignorant among them will never once think to find the truth.

Just another example of how the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> completely irrelevant as no civilian rifle is select fire


But there are AR15s with select fire still out there..


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> But there are AR15s with select fire still out there..


So the fuck what?


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So you can't refute the numbers so you ignore the source.  got it
> 
> You also haven't proven that CC permit holders are not more law abiding as a group than the rest of the country.  You just fall back to the flawed everyone is a criminal in waiting crap


So, you’d agree. Only those with CC permits should be allowed to posses a firearm. They are a much safer group. 
So, let’s do away with this bogus, constitutional carry crappolla.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> So, you’d agree. Only those with CC permits should be allowed to posses a firearm. They are a much safer group.
> So, let’s do away with this bogus, constitutional carry crappolla.


Sure if we require a permit , fees and other expenses as a qualification to exercise any other right.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.
> The AR15 Democrats and liberals keep screaming about banning is not the AR15 issued to the USAF and then developed into the M16.
> Anti-gun loons, in a desperate attempt to gain support for the ban, lie about this, knowing the ignorant among them will never once think to find the truth.
> 
> Just another example of how the (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.


Because, the AR15 was first designed to be a weapon of war. Aamof, even now, the m16 training those of us who have served, was training that utilized that 90% of the time the m16 be used in the same manor as the AR15 civilian version…..on semi auto mode.

Maybe more of you should have served.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Sure if we require a permit , fees and other expenses as a qualification to exercise any other right.


Ha ha,
we already do. Name one right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for….Name one, go ahead.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Because, the AR15 was first designed to be a weapon of war


And thus, you prove my point.
Well done.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 27, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha,
> we already do. Name one right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for….Name one, go ahead.


Name one right (other than 2nd amendment rights) you have to pay fees and take classes to exercise.  I had to take a class pay fees and travel an hour to the closest one of 2 state police barracks that issues permits

I can say that being 18 years old qualifies anyone to own a firearm but that's not what you want is it?  No you want people to pay for "training" pay for permits etc. don't you?

So when you support the idea that everyone who wants to exercise any protected right should have to pay for classes, pay for permits etc. let me know.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Name one right (other than 2nd amendment rights) you have to pay fees and take classes to exercise.  I had to take a class pay fees and travel an hour to the closest one of 2 state police barracks that issues permits
> 
> I can say that being 18 years old qualifies anyone to own a firearm but that's not what you want is it?  No you want people to pay for "training" pay for permits etc. don't you?
> 
> So when you support the idea that everyone who wants to exercise any protected right should have to pay for classes, pay for permits etc. let me know.


I guess you CAN’T name a right you don’t  have to be qualified and/or pay for. It’s no different then access to clean water, freedom of speech, represented in a court of law….you need to be qualified and / PAY FOR IT. 

Those of us who served in the military, don’t need to take all those’s  courses…you know, they paid us to get shot at.
Best training we ever had.

Go ahead, name a right you don’t have to be qualified or regulated to practice.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Name one right (other than 2nd amendment rights) you have to pay fees and take classes to exercise.


He's trolling you.  It's what he does.
Respond accordingly.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> He's trolling you. It's what he does.
> Respond accordingly.


Of course, when you can’t answer a simple question that proves you have no cred, it’s trolling according to gunaholics.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> He's trolling you. It's what he does.
> Respond accordingly.


So he should be afraid, like you.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Sep 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Many instances of self defense with firearms never make it into any statistics.
> 
> For example in the 1920 timeframe my mother was attacked by a man while she was walking home from work. She had a revolver in her purse and was able to draw it and fire two shots over the attackers head. He ran.
> 
> ...


Agree 100%.

I still doubt that self-defense by guns is common.  It happens, but not frequently.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I still doubt that self-defense by guns is common.  It happens, but not frequently.


Far more frequently than murder, or suicide, with a firearm.


----------



## Batcat (Sep 27, 2022)

Man of Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I still doubt that self-defense by guns is common.  It happens, but not frequently.


I have never had to use a gun for self defense. My mother did once during her life as has my daughter. If you find yourself frequently using a weapon for self defense you are probably doing something wrong Or bad.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I guess you CAN’T name a right you don’t  have to be qualified and/or pay for. It’s no different then access to clean water, freedom of speech, represented in a court of law….you need to be qualified and / PAY FOR IT.
> 
> Those of us who served in the military, don’t need to take all those’s  courses…you know, they paid us to get shot at.
> Best training we ever had.
> ...


Really?

You have to pay to vote?  How much? What qualifications are required?
You have to pay to exercise the 5th Amendment?  How much?  What qualifications are required?
You have to pay to exercise free speech?  How much? What qualifications are required?
You have to pay for protections against illegal search and seizures?  How much?  What qualifications are required?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So you can't refute the numbers so you ignore the source.


When it's John Lott, the source has no credibility.


Blues Man said:


> You disagreed with my statement that they are one of the most law abiding groups


..and demonstrated that they are not necessarily *more *law abiding than the rest of American society.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> When it's John Lott, the source has no credibility.
> 
> ..and demonstrated that they are not necessarily *more *law abiding than the rest of American society.


So then it should be easy for you to actually refute the numbers.
And as a GROUP they are.

You can't cherry pick one data point and apply it to literally millions of people


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You can't cherry pick one data point and apply it to literally millions of people


That's what Lott and Kleck do, but you believe them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So then it should be easy for you to actually refute the numbers.


Like every other troll, he's not interested in proving his claims to be true.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> That's what Lott and Kleck do, but you believe them.


And yet you haven't proven that on this metric have you?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Maybe you should actually read the constitution.


You mean the part that states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> When it's John Lott, the source has no credibility.
> 
> ..and demonstrated that they are not necessarily *more *law abiding than the rest of American society.




That's bullshit......Lott is one of the best experts on guns in the world......He began his look at guns as an anti-gunner...then, having published his landmark research, Mayor Daley, the democrat asshat, got him fired from the University of Chicago......he has sacrificed a lot for his research...you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> When it's John Lott, the source has no credibility.
> 
> ..and demonstrated that they are not necessarily *more *law abiding than the rest of American society.




Yes...they are, you idiot....you don't know what you are talking about.

You moron......


Compared to society at large, police officers are very safe on average, and represent a significant deterrent to crime. According to a study in Police Quarterly, police committed an average of 703 crimes (including 113 firearms violations) annually from 2005-2007.[v] With 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees nationwide in 2006, there were about 102 crimes by police per 100,000. That’s a low rate of crime comparedto the U.S. population as a whole, at 3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people, which is 37 times higher than the police crime rate.[vi]
But, concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than government police, on average. According to economist John R. Lott, Ph.D., formerly the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, it is extremely rare for concealed carry permit holders to break the law–it is difficult to think of other groups of adults anywhere in the U.S. nearly as law-abiding.[vii]
For example, in Florida between June 30, 2018, and July 31, 2019, Florida revoked 1,080 concealed handgun permits, including for permit-holder misdemeanors or felonies, with 100 of these revocations eventually being overturned.[viii] This represented an annual revocation rate of 10.4 permits per 100,000.[ix]
In 2018 within Texas (the last year for which data is available), 163 permit holders wereconvicted of a misdemeanor or felony, representing a conviction rate of 11.5 per 100,000.[x] Combining the Florida and Texas data, concealed carry permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than one-sixth the rate for police officers.[xi]
Focusing only on firearms violations, among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among concealed carry permit holders in Florida and Texas, the firearms violation rate is only 2.4 per 100,000 or one-seventh of the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states.[xii]



			https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/6128


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 28, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> That's what Lott and Kleck do, but you believe them.




No....moron, Lott didn't cherry pick, neither did Kleck.    Lott started out as an anti-gunner.  He was an economics professor at the University of Chicago and was tired of the actual cherry picking in the gun debate on whether implementing concealed carry reduced crime.  So, you doofus, he put together a study looking at every single county in the United States to analyze, as an economist, whether crime rates changed after implementation of concealed carry.........

You idiot.

Kleck was also an anti-gunner.  he wanted to see how often people used guns for self defense.   He took a sample of 5,000 AMericans....a huge sample size for research of this kind.......

So effective was he in his research that bill clinton, the rapist, decided he needed to debunk his work, so he told the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Justice to disprove Kleck......they both independently put together their own studies ....the CDC found 1.1 defensive gun uses every year, and the Department of Justice found 1.5 million.....

Those guys were punished for their screw ups.............

You don't know what you are talking about and you are lying on top of it....


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> You mean the part that states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ?


That’s made up shit. It doesn’t say that at all. 
A phrase of an entire statement is bogus. If you can’ t state the entire 2@, you’re just making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> You mean the part that states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ?


You obviously don’t have a fking  clue what the 2@ says.
I personally have always believed in the 2@. Entire families  did. That’s why all the male members should enlist  in the military then later after active duty stints, signed up for reserve and guard units. That’s what the 2@ is about. What about you. Many  2@ advocates are losers who avoid military service but live the life of chicken hawks……


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Really?
> 
> You have to pay to vote?  How much? What qualifications are required?
> You have to pay to exercise the 5th Amendment?  How much?  What qualifications are required?
> ...


you’re trolling aren’t you.
. When you register, you need to show proof of qualification. 
You do know what and/or means dumbo. Maybe not. All states require proof and most legal IDs. Are they free ? Absolutely not.

You aren’t  that bright are you ? Free speech is restricted and larger assembly needs a permit. Illegal search and seizure ? Get real dumbo. Any law enforcement agency can only be held accountable for such actions  by legal regress….you need a lawyer and legal action in the form of civil suits to hold public officials accountable. You are a novice.



foolish, your one phone call is a lawyer, otherwise you’ll have little chance without it. 


Geesus, you really didn’t expect to win this debate. You’re just trolling.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Really?
> 
> You have to pay to vote?  How much? What qualifications are required?
> You have to pay to exercise the 5th Amendment?  How much?  What qualifications are required?
> ...


What a dumb post…


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You obviously don’t have a fking  clue what the 2@ says.
> I personally have always believed in the 2@. Entire families  did. That’s why all the male members should enlist  in the military then later after active duty stints, signed up for reserve and guard units. That’s what the 2@ is about. What about you. Many  2@ advocates are losers who avoid military service but live the life of chicken hawks……


I've got 2 kids that are serving know. I served, my Father served, his Father and so on . I come from a military family you fucking moron.   The 2nd Amendment is a check against foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. You keep saying I don't understand the 2nd Amendment but never explain. Your just babbling bullshit.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> I've got 2 kids that are serving know. I served, my Father served, his Father and so on . I come from a military family you fucking moron.   The 2nd Amendment is a check against foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. You keep saying I don't understand the 2nd Amendment but never explain. Your just babbling bullshit.


Any you still can‘t read ? You came out knowing nothing. 
The 2@ is a check vs foreign powers…..why don’t  you just post it instead of pretending it’s just one phrase ? You can’t get away with that shift in the military. Why now ?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s made up shit. It doesn’t say that at all.
> A phrase of an entire statement is bogus. If you can’ t state the entire 2@, you’re just making up shit.


A few of the founding Fathers confirming the right of the people. I'll taking there opinion over whoever the fuck you are any day.

The said Constitution should be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. _Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration_

The right . . . of bearing arms . . . is declared to be inherent in the people. Fisher Ames, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress

The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . . In the several kingdoms of Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. _James Madison, U.S. President, Signer of the Constitution, a Framer of the Second Amendment in the first congress_

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them._ Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress
_


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> A few of the founding Fathers confirming the right of the people. I'll taking there opinion over whoever the fuck you are any day.
> 
> The said Constitution should be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. _Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration_
> 
> ...


A lot of babble. Now just post the 2@.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Sep 28, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> A lot of babble. Now just post the 2@.


“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” *

The founding Fathers confirmed the right of the people to bear arms and I proved that with just a few of the many quotes by them and you call what they confirm babble ? I'll stick to what the founders said and not some random troll on social media.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> you’re trolling aren’t you.
> . When you register, you need to show proof of qualification.
> You do know what and/or means dumbo. Maybe not. All states require proof and most legal IDs. Are they free ? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...


So just reaching the age of majority is qualification now?

But you just don't want a person to show an ID to buy a gun do you?

You are utterly disingenuous.

And you don't need a permits to assemble on private property do you?

So tell me exactly what "qualifications" you want to impose on the second and then we can impose those same "qualifications" on every other right


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What a dumb post…


Kind of like you stupid assertion that ALL rights have costs involved


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Quote me where I said it iggy.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Kind of like you stupid assertion that ALL rights have costs involved


That was your assertion not mine illiterate.


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Quote me where I said it iggy.





Dagosa said:


> Ha ha,
> _*we already do. Name one right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for….Name one, go ahead.*_


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So just reaching the age of majority is qualification now?
> 
> But you just don't want a person to show an ID to buy a gun do you?
> 
> ...


Read the Heller amendment fool. Heller had to qualify to possess a firearm. Don’t  be an idiot. 
EVERYONE has to qualify for all their rights.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Ha ha
You don’t know what “ and / or “ means ?
If you don’t   understand, I’ll give you a lesson.
Name one right you don’t have to qualify for….
and if you can’t show proof, you’ll then have to pay for the documentation to show it.

Name a right….just one fool….


----------



## Leo123 (Sep 29, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/


When criminals know people could be armed, they don't threaten them.


----------



## Dagosa (Sep 29, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> When criminals know people could be armed, they don't threaten them.


Gee, that logic makes no sense. We are the most heavily armed free nation in the  world and have the most firearm deaths. Having guns doesn’t  seem to work.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 29, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> So you finally admit, the CDC never stated your 1.2 million figure, it was Kleck all along, who made that assertion, not the CDC
> 
> Prove they tried to bury anything. They found the data they had accumulated was incomplete and inconclusive and flawed, so they filed it away on their website. Kleck made a big broo ha ha about needing a FOI to find it, when in fact he could have Googled it without any fuss or bother, still any publicity stunt to sell your book helps, I suppose.


The CDC stopped their research and buried the result because it didn't support their pre-decided conclusion.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 30, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> The CDC stopped their research and buried the result because it didn't support their pre-decided conclusion.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes...they are, you idiot....you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> You moron......
> 
> ...


More cherry picking. What about the other 48 states?


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 30, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Read the Heller amendment fool. Heller had to qualify to possess a firearm. Don’t  be an idiot.
> EVERYONE has to qualify for all their rights.


So tell me how do you "qualify" to for the free practice of religion or freedom of speech?

How do you "qualify for 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights?

Better yet why don't you tell me all the "qualifications"  required for every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that aren't merely being a citizen or resident or attaining the age of majority

and don't forget to list all the fees and payments you say are required.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 30, 2022)

Penelope said:


> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.



I've told this story before, but anytime I see someone try to justify getting rid of guns using idiot statistics like what we see from Penelope, I feel compelled to share it again:

On April 14, 2017 (a Friday), my smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend and I were confronted by three armed men while walking to my car after having dinner up near Jacksonville. They were armed with what appeared to be a military bayonet, another large knife and a length of pipe.

All I heard was one of them say, with a thick accent that I couldn't quite place, "No way out, motherfucker."

I had no idea who they were, but the "No way out" comment told me that she and I probably weren't walking away that night. 

The guy with the large knife took two steps towards me, and I drew my firearm, a legally carried Kimber Ultra Carry II .45 ACP, not unlike this one (the grips on mine are different):







The guy hesitated then said "Won't do shit" and took another step towards us. I fired the gun twice, hitting him in the chest. The assailant with the length of pipe immediately bolted, but the third, the guy with the bayonet, started to come towards us. I turned the gun to him and shouted "DON'T!", but he was undeterred. He took two more steps before I fired again, this time in two sets of two. He was hit in the stomach, the chest and the shoulder. The fourth round was pulled from a door frame which was behind him.

The assailant who fled was never apprehended. The first one I shot was arraigned in his hospital; bed and is still in prison. The third assailant died face down on Rivercoast Drive.

Had I not been armed, I'm confident that we would have been killed or, at the very least, severely injured. The reason we were not is because I was in a position to defend myself and my girlfriend. I applied for, and received, my concealed carry permit in the hopes I would never have to take my gun from its holster. I've done that only twice in my life, actually, and thankfully have only had to pull the trigger in this one instance.

The police took my gun into evidence and I was taken into custody, which I fully expected. My attorney met us at the police station and, about five hours after the incident occurred, I was released without charges.

So, anytime I see someone try to mitigate someone's need for a firearm by talking about the relatively rare instances where a gun is actually used in self defense, I like to say " Fuck you." 

Your statistics did nothing to protect me and my loved one. Your statistics did nothing to save my life or the life of my loved one. Had I not been in the position I was in, things would've ended a whole lot differently, and that's just unacceptable to me. Your statistics are great for casual conversation, but they're simple not pertinent in the real world, which can be very ugly and very violent.

I view anyone who would insist I be unarmed as the enemy. Period. Anyone who would remove my right to defend myself is dead to me. Such people are too ignorant and stupid to realize that, if they were being brutally assaulted, I'm the _exact _person they would want to be there. Of course, if I were, I can't say that they would be someone I'd choose to defend.

I will always be armed. _Always_. I will always be in a position to defend myself. _Always_. Gun grabbers like Penelope like to ask "What are you so afraid of?" Well, I suppose I'm not afraid of much, as I won't ever allow myself to be in a position where I am unable to defend myself and my loved ones...


----------



## Vagabond63 (Sep 30, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I've told this story before, but anytime I see someone try to justify getting rid of guns using idiot statistics like what we see from Penelope, I feel compelled to share it again:
> 
> On April 14, 2017 (a Friday), my smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend and I were confronted by three armed men while walking to my car after having dinner up near Jacksonville. They were armed with what appeared to be a military bayonet, another large knife and a length of pipe.
> 
> ...


What would you have done had all three assailants been armed with guns?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 30, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> What would you have done had all three assailants been armed with guns?



The exact same thing...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> What would you have done had all three assailants been armed with guns?




See...that is the miracle of having your own gun......you don't have to try to physically dominate 3 attackers, and if they have guns, then you having a gun is 100% more important...they can't do anything to you that you can't do to them, increasing the odds that they break off the attack...

Right back at you....what do you do if all 3 have guns and you don't?  You doofus.

You mean like this?

Multiple armed men, vs. a woman who has a gun......the criminals ran away.....

*This is the exact scenario you described, and what happened?  The criminals ran away...*




*Notice.....one woman, armed with a gun, drives off 3 armed male criminals...*


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> What would you have done had all three assailants been armed with guns?




And another woman armed with a gun, driving off 3 male home invaders......


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 30, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> Correct. It may come as a shock to you but that doesn't automatically mean shooting everything that moves.


People with CCWs don’t go around “shooting at everything that moves”.  Almost all never even need to pull their weapon, let alone fire it.  But bad things happen and being prepared is wise.  When I was in the Army, active duty and the reserves, I always carried a Buck Folding Hunter lock blade  knife on my belt.  It was a tool.  One time, I was guarding our vehicles on a public street and a guy came up to me, pulled a Bali-Song knife on me and demanded my money.  He was astonished when I pulled my Buck, flipped it open and took a fighting stance.  He immediately said “hey man, put the knife away, I don’t want any trouble”.  He left the area quickly.  That was a typical defensive use of a weapon.  It was never reported to the police, but I’m sure he always thought about it before attempting to rob anyone else.  Hopefully the incident served as a deterrent.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 30, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha,
> we already do. Name one right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for….Name one, go ahead.


Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from improper searches and seizures.  There’s three right there.  And you don’t need a permit, or have to pay anything to exercise any of them.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from improper searches and seizures.  There’s three right there.  And you don’t need a permit, or have to pay anything to exercise any of them.


You can’t read  you. You need to qualify for everyone of them.
It’s called voter registration and proof of eligibility , permits to gather and age restrictions for EVERYONE OF THEM. along with established residency proof. Now take a reading class. Search and seizure is only protected by civil suit...lawyers and legal filings of regress aren’t free.and /or means if it isn’t already establish, you’ll have to pay for it.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So tell me how do you "qualify" to for the free practice of religion or freedom of speech?
> 
> How do you "qualify for 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights?
> 
> ...


You need permits to gather in large groups. Your speech is highly regulated....regulations all stipulate what qualify you. ALL religions have to qualify for tax exempt status. Otherwise, it’s not even considered a religion administratively .You need to register to vote
NONE of your rights are absolute....all are subject to qualification, all are regulated. If you can’t already prove your status, you will have to pay for that proof. Hence and/or....you’re wrong again.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Kind of like you stupid assertion that ALL rights have costs involved


That’s a lie. I never said that. So that’s yet another idiot post.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You need permits to gather in large groups. Your speech is highly regulated....regulations all stipulate what qualify you. ALL religions have to qualify for tax exempt status. Otherwise, it’s not even considered a religion administratively .You need to register to vote
> NONE of your rights are absolute....all are subject to qualification, all are regulated. If you can’t already prove your status, you will have to pay for that proof. Hence and/or....you’re wrong again.


No you only need permits to use public property. You can rent a private venue and have as many people as you want attend.  

And registering to vote is FREE

So will you finally admit that rights really have no costs or fees imposed on the and the only so called qualifications are age based for some rights and there are no qualifications for most


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s a lie. I never said that. So that’s yet another idiot post.


I already quote the post where you said ALL rights have qualifications and/or costs  and they really don't


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And registering to vote is FREE


Photo IDs are free ? Laughable.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Photo IDs are free ? Laughable.


You need an ID for more things than voting it is not a specific fee  to vote.

I guess you just don't understand that any fees placed on voting rights are poll taxes and are unconstitutional


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I already quote the post where you said ALL rights have qualifications and/or costs  and they really don't


That’s a lie. No where did I say all rights cost monies. I said you have to qualify and/ or pay for it....
Geesus , try to get a grip on reading foolish.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s a lie. No where did I say all rights cost monies. I said you have to qualify and/ or pay for it....
> Geesus , try to get a grip on reading foolish.


AND/OR

And you are just flat out wrong and since you cannot list these fees AND/OR "qualifications" for each right you are proven wrong.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No you only need permits to use public property. You can rent a private venue and have as many people as you want attend.


That’s part of qualifying  stupid. You need a private venue to practice the right to assembly without a permit. Ha ha, you guys are so stupid. “ you can rent” hence and / or cost you  monies.

Stop arguing and revealing your ignorance.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s part of qualifying  stupid. You need a private venue to practice the right to assembly without a permit. Ha ha, you guys are so stupid. “ you can rent” hence and / or cost you  monies.
> 
> Stop arguing and revealing your ignorance.


No it isn't because no one is required to assemble on PUBLIC PROPERTY

People are absolutely free to assemble without obtaining permits PERIOD


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> AND/OR
> 
> And you are just flat out wrong and since you cannot list these fees AND/OR "qualifications" for each right you are proven wrong.


You can’t even quote me directly.....now you’re making up your own shit.
There are no rights you don’t have to qualify for stooooopid. 
The and/ or goes with the costs incurred if you can’t show proof of qualification. Geese’s, how dumb are you. You don’t even know what the conjunctions “ and/ or “ mean do you.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t even quote me directly.....now you’re making up your own shit.
> There are no rights you don’t have to qualify for stooooopid.
> The and/ or goes with the costs incurred if you can’t show proof of qualification. Geese’s, how dumb are you. You don’t even know what the conjunctions “ and/ or “ mean do you.


I quoted the EXACT post to you yesterday

But here it is again



Dagosa said:


> Ha ha,
> we already do. *Name one right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for*….Name one, go ahead.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> People are absolutely free to assemble without obtaining permits PERIOD


Idiot, it depends upon the size, location...AND PURPOSE of the assembly. 
Onlynif it meets those criteria can you assemble stupid. Right to assemble is REGULATED and you can’t any size assemble anywhere for any purpose dumbo. It’s no different then any other right.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t read  you. You need to qualify for everyone of them.
> It’s called voter registration and proof of eligibility , permits to gather and age restrictions for EVERYONE OF THEM. along with established residency proof. Now take a reading class. Search and seizure is only protected by civil suit...lawyers and legal filings of regress aren’t free.and /or means if it isn’t already establish, you’ll have to pay for it.


No you don't.

You have yet to tell me what qualifications are required for the First , 4th, 5th, 6th 7th ........ etc. amendment rights


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I quoted the EXACT post to you yesterday
> 
> But here it is again


Hey stupid, notice the and/or applies to payment....ignoramus.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No you don't.
> 
> You have yet to tell me what qualifications are required for the First , 4th, 5th, 6th 7th ........ etc. amendment rights


All ready did most....same applies to any right that requires a civil suit to legally regress a public over reach. But keep trying, the SC has upheld them just like it did the 2@. It is not absolute and you have to qualify. Not my fault you can’t read.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Idiot, it depends upon the size, location...AND PURPOSE of the assembly.
> Onlynif it meets those criteria can you assemble stupid. Right to assemble is REGULATED and you can’t any size assemble anywhere for any purpose dumbo. It’s no different then any other right.


No it doesn't.

Anyone can meet on private property for any reason and there is nothing required

So unless you can prove exactly what is required and how much it costs you have nothing






						When can government require a permit to protest?
					

Back to Overview of ReportPrevious Section: Overview of the fundamental right to protestIn some cases, government can require a permit as a condition of protest on public property. For example, government often can require a permit for parades in the streets, given the impact on vehicle traffic...




					www.aclu-il.org


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hey stupid, notice the and/or applies to payment....ignoramus.


And what rights require payment? where is it in the Constitution ?


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> All ready did most....same applies to any right that requires a civil suit to legally regress a public over reach. But keep trying, the SC has upheld them just like it did the 2@. It is not absolute and you have to qualify. Not my fault you can’t read.


No.

You do not have to pay a fee or meet any qualification for 4th or 5th Amendment rights.  The fact that the government might take you to court  or that you may contest al illegal search is irrelevant.  It is the government that must assure their agents do not violate those rights it is not the citizen's responsibility.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No.
> 
> You do not have to pay a fee or meet any qualification for 4th or 5th Amendment rights.  The fact that the government might take you to court  or that you may contest al illegal search is irrelevant.  It is the government that must assure their agents do not violate those rights it is not the citizen's responsibility.


 Ever said you HAD to pay a fee illiterate. It’s not my fault you can’t read.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And what rights require payment? where is it in the Constitution ?


All those in your warped mind.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No.
> 
> You do not have to pay a fee or meet any qualification for 4th or 5th Amendment rights.  The fact that the government might take you to court  or that you may contest al illegal search is irrelevant.  It is the government that must assure their agents do not violate those rights it is not the citizen's responsibility.


You have everything backassward . Since when would you illegally search and seize the government.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Anyone can meet on private property for any reason and there is nothing required


Haha
you’re  foolish. You just qualified where you can meet without a permit where one is required in public. You are quite the  slow one. Rights are NOT absolute.

There are numerous restrictions on free speech dumbo .
Here are 10, free speech is not absolute. It’s subject to being qualified. 








						10 Restrictions on Freedom of Speech You Must Know
					

The Case Lawyer is a Pakistan based law firm with leading practices in many of the most dynamic sectors. We are an exciting, forward-thinking law firm with a particular focus on Information Technology, Telecommunication, Cybercrimes, Financial & Corporate crimes and Family disputes, preferably...




					thecaselawyer.com


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ever said you HAD to pay a fee illiterate. It’s not my fault you can’t read.


There are no qualifications for any right other than being a citizen or resident and for some attaining the age of majority.

PERIOD.

And you said that there aren't any rights that don't have qualifications AND/OR fees  and you are 100% wrong on both


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Haha
> you’re  foolish. You just qualified where you can meet without a permit where one is required in public. You are quite the  slow one. Rights are NOT absolute.
> 
> There are numerous restrictions on free speech dumbo .
> ...


So now it's restrictions and not qualifications and /or fees?

Way to move the goal posts.

You have yet to tell me what qualifications a person has to meet to exercise any of his rights.  And since you said there are not rights that don't require qualifications and /or payments you still need to tell me what rights require payments

So all you have is that you might have to get a permit to use public property FYI that is not a qualification for freedom of speech or assembly as it only applies to the use of public property for any reason.

What qualifications are required for the free practice of religion?

What qualifications are required for any right other than for some being a US citizen or resident or the attainment of the age of majority.  Even foreigners have 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights in this country

And don't try to use the word restrictions because because that isn't the topic of this issue.  The topic is requiring a person tp pay to exercise a constitutional right is unconstitutional.  Therefore requiring a person to pay for classes and permits in order to exercise any right is 100% unconstitutional.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Haha
> you’re  foolish. You just qualified where you can meet without a permit where one is required in public. You are quite the  slow one. Rights are NOT absolute.
> 
> There are numerous restrictions on free speech dumbo .
> ...


You don't always need a permit to meet in public either dipshit.

Just the other day I had lunch with 6 friends in a public park NO PERMIT REQUIRED for us to assemble there.

And now you use the word restrictions instead of qualifications because you finally realized that no one has to meet any qualifications to exercise their rights


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't always need a permit to meet in public either dipshit.


That’s part of qualifying. Public, non violent etc, you don’t need a permit…..hence, and/or as there are times when you do. It’s whatever you qualify for. You think you’re rights are absolute with no restrictions  ? You’re out to lunch. 

I don’t  know why you keep this BS up.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from improper searches and seizures.  There’s three right there.  And you don’t need a permit, or have to pay anything to exercise any of them.


Who said you needed a permit for all, all the time ? Now you’re making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't always need a permit to meet in public either dipshit.
> 
> Just the other day I had lunch with 6 friends in a public park NO PERMIT REQUIRED for us to assemble there.
> 
> And now you use the word restrictions instead of qualifications because you finally realized that no one has to meet any qualifications to exercise their rights


Wrong, you need to qualify for ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS. 
NAME ONE RIGHT THAT HAS NO QUALIFYING RESTRICTIONS……JUST ONE.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't always need a permit to meet in public either dipshit.


Hilarious….you just stated you need to qualify to not need a permit.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t read  you. You need to qualify for everyone of them.
> It’s called voter registration and proof of eligibility , permits to gather and age restrictions for EVERYONE OF THEM. along with established residency proof. Now take a reading class. Search and seizure is only protected by civil suit...lawyers and legal filings of regress aren’t free.and /or means if it isn’t already establish, you’ll have to pay for it.


You ARE a moron.  They are all rights that the Bill of Right absolutely prohibits the federal government from interfering with.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You ARE a moron.  They are all rights that the Bill of Right absolutely prohibits the federal government from interfering with.





AZrailwhale said:


> You ARE a moron.  They are all rights that the Bill of Right absolutely prohibits the federal government from interfering with.


The fool can’t read.
Federal Firearms Act doesn't exist, dah.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't always need a permit to meet in public either dipshit.


Only if you qualify.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 1, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So now it's restrictions and not qualifications and /or fees?
> 
> Way to move the goal posts.
> 
> ...


Well, you could take a reading course, in English this time.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s part of qualifying. Public, non violent etc, you don’t need a permit…..hence, and/or as there are times when you do. It’s whatever you qualify for. You think you’re rights are absolute with no restrictions  ? You’re out to lunch.
> 
> I don’t  know why you keep this BS up.




Shithead....the permit for public protests are simply because a public space is available to all of the public, but everyone can't use it at the same fucking time, you dunce......so you get the permit to reserve the space, and to give the town, or city, the ability to provide public work and police support to the event....it isn't a restriction, it is simply trying to accommodate people who may want to use the same space at the same time.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s part of qualifying. Public, non violent etc, you don’t need a permit…..hence, and/or as there are times when you do. It’s whatever you qualify for. You think you’re rights are absolute with no restrictions  ? You’re out to lunch.
> 
> I don’t  know why you keep this BS up.


Wrong.

And there you go again trying to sneak in restrictions because you can't list any so called qualifications or fees involved that are required to exercise any right


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Only if you qualify.


Wrong....Again


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Wrong....Again


Where is your reference ? I had one. Yours is just made up shit. All rights are qualified.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Where is your reference ? I had one. Yours is just made up shit. All rights are qualified.


You have not supported your claim that there is not a single right that does not have qualifications and/or fess required as a condition of exercising that right.

When you do we can continue


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 2, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> The exact same thing...


OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...


It just doesn't happen like that in the US but of course you wouldn't know that.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




And I showed you exactly what happens......the criminals tend to run away......

What you fail to understand is if 3 criminals approach you and you don't have a gun, they can do whatever they want to you for as long as they want....cause you are defenseless........

And as more and more British criminals take to using guns, you will begin to understand this....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




And here we have the first example. that you ignored in the other thread...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




Example #2.....new video....4 attackers....driven off by armed home owner...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




Example #3 that you ignored from the other thread.....a woman with a gun vs. 3 home invaders all armed with their own guns....they run away....


----------



## Canon Shooter (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...



Most armed criminals who commit crimes, like the scumbags I encountered, don't expect their targets to be armed and willing to defend themselves.

Not drawing my weapon would've resulted in the same result.

Sorry, but I fight back...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




Uber Eats driver in actual event according to your scenario...


----------



## Flash (Oct 2, 2022)

I bet nobody tried to rape these women:


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




See...you dipstick.......criminals, even armed with guns....don't want to get shot.   Even if they are wounded, it leads to complications in their lives that they don't want.   They would have to get medical treatment, they may even die.  So an armed citizen with a gun that points the gun at them is a threat that most criminals don't want to deal with, especially since there are so many other unarmed victims they can violate.

So....if 3 thugs come towards you pointing guns at you and you reach for your gun, they usually stop the attack and run away, and then go look for people like you....unarmed people who are much easier to victimize.....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...




So....this guy starts the encounter with a guy pointing a gun at him.....you know a thug pointing a gun......and he then draws his own gun and the robber runs away.....


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 2, 2022)

I'm astonished that American domestic doors are so easy to kick in. Then again, maybe not.


2aguy said:


> Uber Eats driver in actual event according to your scenario...


Yes, dodgy bit of propaganda, there was no indication the muggers were armed in the video and once they turn and run, you'd be in legal difficulty in the UK as shooting people in the back is not considered self defence.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Oct 2, 2022)

Flash said:


> I bet nobody tried to rape these women:
> 
> View attachment 704519


Probably not, hardly attractive propositions at any level.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> I'm astonished that American domestic doors are so easy to kick in. Then again, maybe not.
> 
> Yes, dodgy bit of propaganda, there was no indication the muggers were armed in the video and once they turn and run, you'd be in legal difficulty in the UK as shooting people in the back is not considered self defence.




Yes.......play that game.  3 violent attackers, and you want to play armed or not armed?   Again, you are an idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have not supported your claim that there is not a single right that does not have qualifications and/or fess required as a condition of exercising that right.
> 
> When you do we can continue


When you make sense. Staggering babble…


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have not supported your claim that there is not a single right that does not have qualifications and/or fess required as a condition of exercising that right.
> 
> When you do we can continue



Heller, stupid. We can play this game all day, bozo. 
“The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.”

*Freedom of Speech and of Press. *The government can’t stop people from expressing their opinions. This means you can say what you think without government “censorship” or punishment. These protections apply to verbal and written speech. They also apply to other activities that courts have decided are “speech.” But, there are certain limitations on this right, too:
*Imminent Violence. *The government can limit speech that incites immediate violence.
*True Threats. *The government can also stop you from making “true threats” of violence.
*Defamation. *The First Amendment also does not protect defamatory statements. These are false statements that harm someone’s reputation or character.
*Obscenity. *The First Amendment does not protect bscene materials either. Examples include abusive or offensive materials.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You ARE a moron.  They are all rights that the Bill of Right absolutely prohibits the federal government from interfering with.


You’re such an idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Wrong.
> 
> And there you go again trying to sneak in restrictions because you can't list any so called qualifications or fees involved that are required to exercise any right


Look up the meaning of qualify idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Wrong.
> 
> And there you go again trying to sneak in restrictions because you can't list any so called qualifications or fees involved that are required to exercise any right


10 years can’t vote stupid.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Heller, stupid. We can play this game all day, bozo.
> “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.”
> 
> *Freedom of Speech and of Press. *The government can’t stop people from expressing their opinions. This means you can say what you think without government “censorship” or punishment. These protections apply to verbal and written speech. They also apply to other activities that courts have decided are “speech.” But, there are certain limitations on this right, too:
> ...




Moron.....you guys always cite that tiny part.....

Those "limits," are not limits on ownership by law abiding citizens, you doofus.....


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 3, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Heller, stupid. We can play this game all day, bozo.
> “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.”
> 
> *Freedom of Speech and of Press. *The government can’t stop people from expressing their opinions. This means you can say what you think without government “censorship” or punishment. These protections apply to verbal and written speech. They also apply to other activities that courts have decided are “speech.” But, there are certain limitations on this right, too:
> ...




No one has to be "qualified" to exercise a right or to receive protections a right protects.

What do you have to do to "qualify" to exercise a right?  Where do you get these qualifications you say every right demands?


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 3, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> 10 years can’t vote stupid.


I have asked you multiple times what qualifications are required other than being a US citizen or resident or attaining the age of majority.  

You have not answered


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 3, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Look up the meaning of qualify idiot.











						qualify
					

1. to successfully finish a training course so that you are able to do a job…




					dictionary.cambridge.org
				




to successfully finish a training course so that you are able to do a job; to have or achieve the necessary skills, etc.:


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No one has to be "qualified" to exercise a right or to receive protections a right protects.
> 
> What do you have to do to "qualify" to exercise a right?  Where do you get these qualifications you say every right demands?


wrong dummy. 10 years can’t regardless of how hard they try to pretend they can.

qual·i·fy
[ˈkwäləˌfī]

VERB

be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition: 
"they do not qualify for compensation payments"
synonyms:
be eligible · meet the requirements · be entitled to · be allowed · be permitted
become officially recognized as a practitioner of a particular profession or activity by satisfying the relevant conditions or requirements, typically by undertaking a course of study and passing examinations: 
"I've only just qualified" · 
[more]
synonyms:
certified · certificated · chartered · licensed · professional · trained · fit·
[more]
make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to: 
"she felt obliged to qualify her first short answer"
synonyms:
limited · conditional · restricted · bounded · contingent · circumscribed·
[more]


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> qualify
> 
> 
> 1. to successfully finish a training course so that you are able to do a job…
> ...


Are you saying that if a 10 years old takes enough courses, he’ll be allowed to vote, carry a concealed weapon to school and buy a machine gun from an FFL dealer. You are stupid.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I have asked you multiple times what qualifications are required other than being a US citizen or resident or attaining the age of majority.
> 
> You have not answered


More made up shit because you sudden realized you’re  full of shit. Oh, other then being a citizen or of a certain age. You just made that I said that….exception. up…idiot, age and citizenship are two of the qualifications for SOME of your rights. Ha ha
Ah, guess what iggi,  those who aren’t, don’t qualify. You also have to provide proof of eligibility when registering to vote.

we can go through every right idiot, and they all apply only to qualifying persons. It’s the same as the majority opinion of Heller. He still has to qualify to have a handgun unlocked at home. He still needs to have a valid permit and register the fking  hand gun.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No one has to be "qualified" to exercise a right or to receive protections a right protects.
> 
> What do you have to do to "qualify" to exercise a right?  Where do you get these qualifications you say every right demands?


Of course stupid. You can’t vote at 10 because you don’t qualify. You can’t buy any firearm from an FFL dealer if you’re a convicted felon…because you don’t qualify..you are stupid.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> qualify
> 
> 
> 1. to successfully finish a training course so that you are able to do a job…
> ...


What are the requirements to vote in US elections?
You can vote in U.S. elections if you: Are a U.S. citizen Meet your state’s residency requirements Are 18 years old on or before Election Day Are registered to vote by your state’s voter registration deadline.

It sounds like  there ‘s  more then  just age and citizenship to qualify for voting rights


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I have asked you multiple times what qualifications are required other than being a US citizen or resident or attaining the age of majority.
> 
> You have not answered


I guess you can’t read. You just used the word “ qualifications “ for age, citizenship, residency…..Geesus, how many more do you need to be qualified ? Idiot, you need to pass a background check for FFL dealers, you must be a resident of the state and local for voting , you have to fill out a form…..age limits and locally, even more restrictions to qualify…..you’re posts are crazy.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> wrong dummy. 10 years can’t regardless of how hard they try to pretend they can.
> 
> qual·i·fy
> [ˈkwäləˌfī]
> ...


OK so what rights do you have to prove you qualify for?  The only one I know of is the right to vote and all that anyone has to do to exercise that right is not die before the age of 18

You still have never answered that question.

You also said that there isn't a single right that doesn't require qualifications and/or payments so which rights require payments?


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I guess you can’t read. You just used the word “ qualifications “ for age, citizenship, residency…..Geesus, how many more do you need to be qualified ? Idiot, you need to pass a background check for FFL dealers, you must be a resident of the state and local for voting , you have to fill out a form…..age limits and locally, even more restrictions to qualify…..you’re posts are crazy.



Wrong again.

Reaching the age of majority and citizenship is only required for the right to vote.

Visitors from foreign countries are also protected under the Constitution


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> More made up shit because you sudden realized you’re  full of shit. Oh, other then being a citizen or of a certain age. You just made that I said that….exception. up…idiot, age and citizenship are two of the qualifications for SOME of your rights. Ha ha
> Ah, guess what iggi,  those who aren’t, don’t qualify. You also have to provide proof of eligibility when registering to vote.
> 
> we can go through every right idiot, and they all apply only to qualifying persons. It’s the same as the majority opinion of Heller. He still has to qualify to have a handgun unlocked at home. He still needs to have a valid permit and register the fking  hand gun.


No you are frantically moving the goal posts.

The Constitution doesn't protect the right to get a pension Idiot.

You said and I quote AGAIN



Dagosa said:


> I guess you CAN’T name a right you don’t have to be qualified and/or pay for



And I can.

You do not have to pay for show any qualifications to practice religion or to engage in speech, or to be protected from illegal search and seizure, or to plea the 5th, or not to be submitted to cruel and unusual punishment etc


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No you are frantically moving the goal posts.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't protect the right to get a pension Idiot.
> 
> ...


You’re funny, how many references do you need ? You even stated you had to have private venues to avoid prosecution for free speech exceptions. Maybe you were home schooled. ALL YOUR RIGHTS ARE REGULATED AND ONLY THE QUALIFIED CAN PRACTICE THEM, DUFUS.  And, you literally have to PAY to practice them at times. Hence the and/or if you could speak fucking English. It’s you who moved the bar when you suddenly declare age and residency exceptions. That’s all, go suck a lemon.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Reaching the age of majority and citizenship is only required for the right to vote.


So now, since you declared ALL of your rights are not qualified, you agree one does need qualification.

How  about possessing a fire arm dufus ? Any age, residency requirements ? Bet your a$$. Free speech ? yes, none slanderous etc. are


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No you are frantically moving the goal posts.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't protect the right to get a pension Idiot.
> 
> ...


“For instance, children don't have the right to vote, own property, consent to medical treatment, sue or be sued, or enter into certain types of contracts.”
geesus, they can’t even attend public access places with age limitations.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Visitors from foreign countries are also protected under the Constitution


“ visitors “, first they have to be hear legally, they can’t possess a fire arm, engage in many contracts etc.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re funny, how many references do you need ? You even stated you had to have private venues to avoid prosecution for free speech exceptions. Maybe you were home schooled. ALL YOUR RIGHTS ARE REGULATED AND ONLY THE QUALIFIED CAN PRACTICE THEM, DUFUS.  And, you literally have to PAY to practice them at times. Hence the and/or if you could speak fucking English. It’s you who moved the bar when you suddenly declare age and residency exceptions. That’s all, go suck a lemon.


And how do you "qualify" to practice freedom of religion? How do you "qualify" for 4th 5th and 6th amendment rights?

And what rights do you have to pay for?

You still refuse to answer these questions


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And how do you "qualify" to practice freedom of religion? How do you "qualify" for 4th 5th and 6th amendment rights?
> 
> And what rights do you have to pay for?
> 
> You still refuse to answer these questions


You can’t be serious. Both you as church goer and the church itself cannot operate without the claimed tax free status that both you and your religion enjoy. . Practicing  religion means making donations or tithing to a tax free entity that any  parishioner can enjoy. 
SO, YOU CAN‘T EVEN practice devotion to a formal tax free religion unless they and you qualify.
“When you prepare your federal tax return, the IRS allows you to deductthe donations you make to churches. If your church operates solely for religious and educational purposes, your donation will QUALIFY  for the tax deduction.”

Forget all that your formal church teaches and promotes. That too must be within the norms of social behavior to qualify.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And what rights do you have to pay for?


I’ve addressed that several times….take a hike.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> OK so what rights do you have to prove you qualify for?


All of them without exception.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You can’t be serious. Both you as church goer and the church itself cannot operate without the claimed tax free status that both you and your religion enjoy. . Practicing  religion means making donations or tithing to a tax free entity that any  parishioner can enjoy.
> SO, YOU CAN‘T EVEN practice devotion to a formal tax free religion unless they and you qualify.
> “When you prepare your federal tax return, the IRS allows you to deductthe donations you make to churches. If your church operates solely for religious and educational purposes, your donation will QUALIFY  for the tax deduction.”
> 
> Forget all that your formal church teaches and promotes. That too must be within the norms of social behavior to qualify.


You do not have to attend any church to practice religion Moron.

And those tax laws concerning charities have nothing to do with the First Amendment.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> All of them without exception.


Then list what a person has to do to qualify for the exercise of every right.  And where do they obtain these qualifications?  How much do they cost?

Who is the person in the government who decides if you have met these qualifications and how do you apply to exercise your rights?


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 4, 2022)

Penelope said:


> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, *how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.*
> 
> 
> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/




That just proves there are too many gun free zones in the country. Criminals love them.

.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Then list what a person has to do to qualify for the exercise of every right.  And where do they obtain these qualifications?  How much do they cost?
> 
> Who is the person in the government who decides if you have met these qualifications and how do you apply to exercise your rights?


Already did foolish, for several of them. It’s not my fault you can’t read or speak English. Are you an illegal. Got to be something fking you up.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You do not have to attend any church to practice religion Moron.


Idiot, you’re not a practicing catholic unless you receive and engage in the sacraments. All religions have responsibilities, all patrons who practice religion literally “pay” for these rights and privies the church allows. Ha ha…

you think you can be a practicing Christians by staying at yo mamma‘s home and jacking the tool. Ha ha


Blues Man said:


> You do not have to attend any church to practice religion Moron.
> 
> And those tax laws concerning charities have nothing to do with the First Amendment.


Oh, YOU can stay home and jerk off if that’s your religion all you want. No one cares. The right to religious freedom is the right to express it in public, attend church or gog, and express yourself in public including taking advantages of what your religion  has to offer. That’s what practicing a religion entails…

You David Koresh followers don’t count.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Read the Heller amendment fool. Heller had to qualify to possess a firearm. Don’t  be an idiot.
> EVERYONE has to qualify for all their rights.




There's not such thing as a "Heller amendment", fool.

.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> There's not such thing as a "Heller amendment", fool.


How about the Heller  decision  ? How would you know that. , you never read it. You can‘t read.
it specifically says Heller must be granted theses rights and allowed to have a permit and register his handgun ASSUMING  he isn’t DISQUALIFIED.

WHAT ARE , you stupid ? Heller must be a resident, of age, not a convicted felon for him to qualify for his right to have a REGISTERED HANDGUN NOT UNDER  LOCK.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> How about the Heller  decision  ? How would you know that. , you never read it. You can‘t read.
> it specifically says Heller must be granted theses rights and allowed to have a permit and register his handgun ASSUMING  he isn’t DISQUALIFIED.
> 
> WHAT ARE , you stupid ? Heller must be a resident, of age, not a convicted felon for him to qualify for his right to have a REGISTERED HANDGUN NOT UNDER  LOCK.




I love it when fucking foreigners try to meddle in our affairs. You might want to learn the difference between "qualifications" and "disqualifications". You are assumed qualified and the latest decision on the NY case makes all States and territories "shall issue" for concealed carry which kills most of the bullshit in DC for just having a gun.

.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> I love it when fucking foreigners try to meddle in our affairs. You might want to learn the difference between "qualifications" and "disqualifications". You are assumed qualified and the latest decision on the NY case makes all States and territories "shall issue" for concealed carry which kills most of the bullshit in DC for just having a gun.
> 
> .


I do stupid. If one is disqualified, dumbass, he’s no longer qualified. Other then that, you have nothing  but blather.
You must be an illegal, claiming to be a Texan, or a recent transplant from Oklahoma hoping to raise the IQ level of both states. Yes, a lot of Texans like many Floridians are dumbass.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Then list what a person has to do to qualify for the exercise of every right.  And where do they obtain these qualifications?  How much do they cost?
> 
> Who is the person in the government who decides if you have met these qualifications and how do you apply to exercise your rights?


Did you have fun wasting your time writing foolish questions ? You sound irritated.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I do stupid. If one is disqualified, dumbass, he’s no longer qualified. Other then that, you have nothing  but blather.
> You must be an illegal, claiming to be a Texan, or a recent transplant from Oklahoma hoping to raise the IQ level of both states. Yes, a lot of Texans like many Floridians are dumbass.




ROFLMFAO, you obviously don't. Run along commie.

.


----------



## Dagosa (Oct 4, 2022)

OKTexas said:


> ROFLMFAO, you obviously don't. Run along commie.
> 
> .


Yippy ki ya Dumbass.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 4, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yippy ki ya Dumbass.




Run along troll.

.


----------



## Batcat (Oct 4, 2022)

Vagabond63 said:


> OK, so three thugs come towards you pointing guns at you; you reach for your gun, they see you do so and open fire...oh, dear.
> Another Saturday night firefight makes the local news...


Often true life thugs can’t shoot worth a damn because they don’t go to a range to practice. Sometimes they feel it is more important to look “cool” while shooting and hold their weapon in an unusual way.






Therefore a well trained individual is not at as big a disadvantage as you assume. 

Of course target shooting a handgun does not mean you can hit a target using rapid fire. You need to practice defensive shooting after you understand the basics of target shooting. 

Outside the factory where I worked before I retired early one morning two drivers had a road rage incident and pulled over. According to witnesses both left their vehicles and approached each other. Both ware armed with revolvers (1980s time frame) and opened fire at close range. Both emptied their revolvers without hitting Each other. Both then got into their cars and drove off.


----------

