# Good guy with a gun saved lives at second NZ mosque.



## justoffal

Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says

Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!

Jo


----------



## Rustic

justoffal said:


> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo


Progressives are cowards


----------



## harmonica

..what if it was a dark movie theater?
A look back at the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting 5 years later
or a dark nightclub?
Orlando nightclub shooting - Wikipedia


----------



## justoffal

Rustic said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives are cowards
Click to expand...


Nobody wants to know about this..
They would much prefer to ignore it.

Jo


----------



## grainbely

justoffal said:


> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo


How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?


----------



## Brain357

justoffal said:


> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo


And yet still many died.  Too bad the killer could get so many guns.  When was the last mass shooting in the UK?


----------



## Brain357

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
Click to expand...

The Orlando night club shooting had an armed off duty cop as security.  Didn't help.  Armed people either run away, get shot, or help after many are already dead.


----------



## justoffal

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges.... Totally different
Nice try though.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

Brain357 said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Orlando night club shooting had an armed off duty cop as security.  Didn't help.  Armed people either run away, get shot, or help after many are already dead.
Click to expand...


I'll take the help....

You can't stop the violence but you can make it more costly for the criminals.

Jo


----------



## DGS49

Just a random comment:  This was a terrible, horrible, inhuman act, and I hope the perp is hung on television the moment his trial is finished.

But if anyone is keeping score, "infidels" killing innocent Muslims have a long, long way to go before they catch up with Muslims killing innocent "infidels."

Just sayin'.


----------



## sparky

a _good_ guy w/gun?   

any way they can do lunch with _bad_ guys w/gun?


~S~


----------



## Brain357

Seems this story is mostly right wing imagination.
Brother hails NZ mosque victim 'hero'

At the other mosque attacked, in Linwood, a similar intervention occurred.

Abdul Aziz says he ran towards the gunman outside the mosque, throwing a credit card machine at him.

In the ensuing chase, the gunman dropped one of his weapons and went to fetch more from his car, when Mr Aziz tossed the gun towards him, smashing the car window.

The gunman then drove off and was arrested moments later.

Officials in New Zealand are now carrying out the difficult task of identifying those who died. They have shared a list of victims with families, but not released it publicly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

justoffal said:


> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo


‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.

In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.


----------



## grainbely

justoffal said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.

I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.

We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.


----------



## justoffal

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
Click to expand...


No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed.  You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at  1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away.  A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.

Jo


----------



## grainbely

justoffal said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed.  You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at  1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away.  A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

Its like you didn't even read my post. You just see red and autistically screech when someone proves you wrong.

I said I'm ok with cc. Read that 3 times to be sure. Better make it 4. I said the solution ain't more guns as proven by las vegas and other. You are looking for a false security blanket that wont save you from well planned evil.

Do not mistake my words again for some sick fantasy you hold about your opposition.


----------



## airplanemechanic

justoffal said:


> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo



That's not true at all. I've seen the full raw 16 minute video. The guy walked in and shot up the place, went outside, reloaded, went back in and systematically shot any survivors and even the dead people. He then got into his car and drove to the second location where he blasted people through the window in his car. Nobody ever returned fire. This is fake news.

Nobody threw a credit card machine at him or anything else. He just mowed people down. 

I can show you the video to prove it.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Seems this story is mostly right wing imagination.
> Brother hails NZ mosque victim 'hero'
> 
> At the other mosque attacked, in Linwood, a similar intervention occurred.
> 
> Abdul Aziz says he ran towards the gunman outside the mosque, throwing a credit card machine at him.
> 
> In the ensuing chase, the gunman dropped one of his weapons and went to fetch more from his car, when Mr Aziz tossed the gun towards him, smashing the car window.
> 
> The gunman then drove off and was arrested moments later.
> 
> Officials in New Zealand are now carrying out the difficult task of identifying those who died. They have shared a list of victims with families, but not released it publicly.




Now imagine that he actually had his own gun, carried legally, he could have stopped the attack, and stopped the attacker from escaping.....

And had the other Mosque had an armed citizen, that individual would have been 94% effective at stopping the attack cold.....and saving lives......

At the second Mosque a man just throwing a gun drove off the attacker.....had he actually had a legal gun...with bullets.......lives could have been saved....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.*


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.
> 
> In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
Click to expand...



You just make things up.......

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.*


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.


----------



## 2aguy

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
Click to expand...



You don't know what you are talking about....


Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.*


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

*As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.*


----------



## 2aguy

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
Click to expand...



You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy

grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
Click to expand...



You are wrong....

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



There are roughly 100,000 people shot in the United States yearly, and something over 30,000 die. If this 1/3 vs. 2/3 ratio of deaths to injuries in actual shootings pertains in these DGUs, that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.


==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what _are_ the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article _Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,_ 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 _trillion_ per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
*When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”*
*Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


----------



## justoffal

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.
> 
> In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
Click to expand...


Good guy with a gun is the reality you assholes will never understand. Your forefathers of WW2 would piss on you
Useless pukes. If it wasn't for the guy with the shot gun the death toll would have been
40 at the other mosque. In your very sexy ion of this story the brave guy is the criminal
You totally fucked up anthropoid.

Jo


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DGS49, post: 22017004, 





DGS49 said:


> But if anyone is keeping score, "infidels" killing innocent Muslims have a long, long way to go before they catch up with Muslims killing innocent "infidels."



When does your score keeping start. 

How many Muslims were killed after the infidels invaded Iraq when Iraqis had not a damn thing to do with 9/11?

The estimates range from 200,000 to 600,000. 

I don’t exoect you’d be counting a single one of those Iraqi deaths, that your tax dollars paid for and you probably were all in for lightin’ up Baghdad at the time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.
> 
> In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
Click to expand...


Agree. There is no way to determine who qualifies as a good guy with a gun when a gun is legally sold and purchased. If that cannot be determined, then much more so in the case of marketing and selling an AR-15 military style assault rifle to civilians means the probability that a buyer has a much higher potential to intend to be the bad guy with a gun killing as many humans as possible with it.

We are thus getting into criminal or civil liability by the manufacturer when the weapon of choice for mass murder gets used in real life. 

Who manufactured the Christchurch shooters weapon? 

I hope New Zealand does not have the laws that protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits when these deadly ‘toys’ are sold to the little minded boys that have such a desperate need to play with them.

Remington is being sued by the Sandy Hook parents because they marketed the AR-15 as a combat weapon to civilians. 

Finally a judge in the US gets it.

I hope whoever profited off the weapon used in NZ gets ruined for their malicious greed. 

Good guy with a gun my ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....
> 
> Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
> 
> 
> --* gun murder down 49%*
> 
> *--gun crime down 75%*
> 
> *--violent crime down 72%*
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Click to expand...


Your tie of the reduction of US gun homicides to the increase in gun carriers is based on Pixie dust - not the PEW Report you linked us to.

Read the entire report:



> .
> The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4
> 
> One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”




Other factors enter into it and you can easily see that a kind of reverse plateau was reached in 2010 (under Obama) and the level of gun crimes (not counting suicides) has remained constant since then.

That means several debatable factors such as abortion and aging baby boomers reduced the numbers of young adult lower income males on the streets that are responsible for much of the gun crimes.

So the increase in gun owners from 2010 to present has had no impact on teducing the gun homicide rate at all.

And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.

One thing in common is the AR15 type assault rifle.

Your data is not based on that.


----------



## justoffal

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....
> 
> Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
> 
> 
> --* gun murder down 49%*
> 
> *--gun crime down 75%*
> 
> *--violent crime down 72%*
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tie of the reduction of US gun homicides to the increase in gun carriers is based on Pixie dust - not the PEW Report you linked us to.
> 
> Read the entire report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4
> 
> One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Other factors enter into it and you can easily see that a kind of reverse plateau was reached in 2010 (under Obama) and the level of gun crimes (not counting suicides) has remained constant since then.
> 
> That means several debatable factors such as abortion and aging baby boomers reduced the numbers of young adult lower income males on the streets that are responsible for much of the gun crimes.
> 
> So the increase in gun owners from 2010 to present has had no impact on teducing the gun homicide rate at all.
> 
> And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.
> 
> One thing in common is the AR15 type assault rifle.
> 
> Your data is not based on that.
Click to expand...


Shove your data up your ass..
The second amendment is staying put.
Doesn't matter what sob stories you wanna tell.

Jo


----------



## NotfooledbyW

justoffal, post: 22032929 





justoffal said:


> The second amendment is staying put.



Didn’t say it wasn’t - ignorant one.


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....
> 
> Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
> 
> 
> --* gun murder down 49%*
> 
> *--gun crime down 75%*
> 
> *--violent crime down 72%*
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tie of the reduction of US gun homicides to the increase in gun carriers is based on Pixie dust - not the PEW Report you linked us to.
> 
> Read the entire report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4
> 
> One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Other factors enter into it and you can easily see that a kind of reverse plateau was reached in 2010 (under Obama) and the level of gun crimes (not counting suicides) has remained constant since then.
> 
> That means several debatable factors such as abortion and aging baby boomers reduced the numbers of young adult lower income males on the streets that are responsible for much of the gun crimes.
> 
> So the increase in gun owners from 2010 to present has had no impact on teducing the gun homicide rate at all.
> 
> And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.
> 
> One thing in common is the AR15 type assault rifle.
> 
> Your data is not based on that.
Click to expand...



And you have no idea what you are talking about....

I have actual research that does show concealed carry helping to lower the crime rate, but that isn't what that Pew Research is about....

What Pew shows, is that the entire basis of your belief system...that more guns will mean more gun crime, is not true, fact based or based in reality.   

As more Americans own and carry guns from 1996, our gun murder rate did not go up, it went down by almost 50%......and our gun crime went down 75%....the exact opposite of what you guys claim would happen.....the exact opposite, showing that law abiding gun owners who also carry guns, do not increase the gun crime rate.....actual data, actual research, actual real world outcome......


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....
> 
> Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
> 
> 
> --* gun murder down 49%*
> 
> *--gun crime down 75%*
> 
> *--violent crime down 72%*
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tie of the reduction of US gun homicides to the increase in gun carriers is based on Pixie dust - not the PEW Report you linked us to.
> 
> Read the entire report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4
> 
> One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Other factors enter into it and you can easily see that a kind of reverse plateau was reached in 2010 (under Obama) and the level of gun crimes (not counting suicides) has remained constant since then.
> 
> That means several debatable factors such as abortion and aging baby boomers reduced the numbers of young adult lower income males on the streets that are responsible for much of the gun crimes.
> 
> So the increase in gun owners from 2010 to present has had no impact on teducing the gun homicide rate at all.
> 
> And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.
> 
> One thing in common is the AR15 type assault rifle.
> 
> Your data is not based on that.
Click to expand...


And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.

And outside of Vegas, they are all gun free zones, mandated by people like you.....which means that law abiding gun owners did not have their legal guns with them, and Vegas was a long range attack from a concealed and fortified position, where he was firing into an unsuspecting crowd of over 22,000 people....

....because actual research into armed citizens at the scene of actual mass public shootings shows that they are 94% effective at stopping the attacker and/or reducing the deaths and injuries.....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.*


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.   You have developed a theory in your head, based on pixie dust, and now you think it is accurate....
> 
> Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...
> 
> 
> --* gun murder down 49%*
> 
> *--gun crime down 75%*
> 
> *--violent crime down 72%*
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your tie of the reduction of US gun homicides to the increase in gun carriers is based on Pixie dust - not the PEW Report you linked us to.
> 
> Read the entire report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4
> 
> One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Other factors enter into it and you can easily see that a kind of reverse plateau was reached in 2010 (under Obama) and the level of gun crimes (not counting suicides) has remained constant since then.
> 
> That means several debatable factors such as abortion and aging baby boomers reduced the numbers of young adult lower income males on the streets that are responsible for much of the gun crimes.
> 
> So the increase in gun owners from 2010 to present has had no impact on teducing the gun homicide rate at all.
> 
> And since all the mass shootings since 2010 have not been affected by the rise in gun carriers your bogus theory is busted when it comes to mass shootings like Vegas Sandyhook Parkland and Christchurch.
> 
> One thing in common is the AR15 type assault rifle.
> 
> Your data is not based on that.
Click to expand...



The AR-15 is not an assault rifle.......it is a regular, semi-automatic rifle, just like all the other semi-automatic firearms......but thanks for lying.

The one thing they all have in common, they are all gun free zones, attacked by someone who broke that law.


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.
> 
> In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree. There is no way to determine who qualifies as a good guy with a gun when a gun is legally sold and purchased. If that cannot be determined, then much more so in the case of marketing and selling an AR-15 military style assault rifle to civilians means the probability that a buyer has a much higher potential to intend to be the bad guy with a gun killing as many humans as possible with it.
> 
> We are thus getting into criminal or civil liability by the manufacturer when the weapon of choice for mass murder gets used in real life.
> 
> Who manufactured the Christchurch shooters weapon?
> 
> I hope New Zealand does not have the laws that protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits when these deadly ‘toys’ are sold to the little minded boys that have such a desperate need to play with them.
> 
> Remington is being sued by the Sandy Hook parents because they marketed the AR-15 as a combat weapon to civilians.
> 
> Finally a judge in the US gets it.
> 
> I hope whoever profited off the weapon used in NZ gets ruined for their malicious greed.
> 
> Good guy with a gun my ass.
Click to expand...



You are a fool.

You must now agree to sue every car maker when their car is used by a drunk driver, an inattentive teenager, also, all cell phone makers are now responsible if someone is texting while driving.......you are a fool...


----------



## Blues Man

harmonica said:


> ..what if it was a dark movie theater?
> A look back at the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting 5 years later
> or a dark nightclub?
> Orlando nightclub shooting - Wikipedia


But it wasn't was it?


----------



## Blues Man

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.
> 
> In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
Click to expand...




grainbely said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
Click to expand...


See there are such things as stupid questions.

If anyone at the concert was carrying a concealed handgun he wouldn't have been able to shoot into the hotel window the shooter was using so even if he had a handgun the correct decision was to not fire at the hotel because there was no way to hit the shooter but there was a very high possibility of hitting innocent bystanders


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> And yet still many died.  Too bad the killer could get so many guns.  When was the last mass shooting in the UK?
Click to expand...



They average one every ten years, except for the last few years they almost had 4.......that were not stopped by their gun control laws, but were only stopped by dumb luck...

Since the British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country, which means criminals have access to more and more guns....which gun control law currently stops them from walking into a mall, church, theater or school today?



Teenage boys planned to 'kill everyone' at Yorkshire school in Columbine-style gun and bomb massacre, court hears

Two teenage boys planned to “kill everyone” at their Yorkshireschool in a Columbine-style massacre using bombs and guns, a court has heard.

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

The document said the boy would “lay low” in Catterick before murdering his ex-girlfriend’s parents and stealing her father’s guns, the court heard.

“I’ll make some explosives then well find a way back to Northallerton and well begin our assault on that f****** school,” it continued

----

"This was no teenage fantasy; it was real,” he added. “They intended a re-enactment of the Columbine High School Massacre although fortunately, in the result, they were stopped before their plans were put into action.”

.4/6/18

Doctor found with stash of guns and NHS hitlist jailed

A former doctor has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for stockpiling guns with the intent to endanger life. 

*Martin Watt was found with three submachine guns, two pistols and 1,500 live cartridges at a property in Cumbernauld, Scotland, last year. *

*T*he 62-year-old had lost his job at Monklands hospital in North Lanarkshire in 2012 after disciplinary hearings. His marriage broke down around the same time, the high court in Glasgow was told. 

Watt had compiled a list of names and addresses of some colleagues involved in the disciplinary process, which the judge, Valerie Stacey, said Watt had referred to as an assassination list.
=======



Here is the updat, the original is below..

Yep.....this 19 year old got bombs and a glock 19 and 94 rounds of 9mm ammo on the dark web in Britain in order to murder people at the University he used to attend..........

I guess their gun control laws stopped him...right?  Or was it pure, dumb luck.....?


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

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack

Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.

====Teenage boy 'took shotgun to school after being bullied for being fat'


15-year-old boy arrested for taking shotgun and ammunition into school did it because he was being bullied for being too fat, fellow pupils said.

=======




'Gunman' walks into Liverpool nursery school as children were playing inside

Police have sealed off a children's nursery in Liverpool amid reports a gunman walked into the building while youngsters were inside.

Officers were called to Childs Play Nursery in Wavertree, Merseyside, at around 8am this morning.

The man, who is believed to have been carrying what looked like a firearm, walked into the nursery and approached another man.

He then left with a second man on the back of a motorbike.







Children among 10 people in hospital after mass shooting in Manchester



Ten people, including two children, were taken to hospital after a shooting at a street party in the Moss Side area of Manchester.


Armed police officers rushed to the scene on a residential street at 2.30am on Sunday, where a party was being held following a Caribbean Carnival at a nearby park.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

justoffal said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed.  You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at  1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away.  A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Again, citizens have the fundamental right to carry a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘prevent tyranny,’ and not to ‘fight crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooters Fled Second Mosque Attack As Good Guy With A Gun Returned Fire, Report Says
> 
> Amazing how this got left out. This guy grabbed his shotgun and drove them off.
> Too bad there wasn't one like him at the other scene too.  Shhhh....don't tell the MSM!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed.  You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at  1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away.  A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Again, citizens have the fundamental right to carry a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘prevent tyranny,’ and not to ‘fight crime.’
> 
> Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate
Click to expand...



It's funny that you never mention these research papers on the topic, which show the exact opposite conclusion....one would think you don't want anyone to know about them.....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


_The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998_ (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

 Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


_Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001_

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

*Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness**




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
 Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
*Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok*

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property. 
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


_Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001_

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

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

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

*COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley** *

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law. 

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

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

 ~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

 Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


 Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

*An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates*
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




_“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here.._



*Abstract*
_“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion._

_Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime._



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22036798 





2aguy said:


> You must now agree to sue every car maker when their car is used by a drunk driver, an inattentive teenager, also, all cell phone makers are now responsible if someone is texting while driving.......you are a fool...



I must never need to agree with an idiot. You want me to equate a motor vehicle which is an essential tool in our modern global society to an AR15 firearm which has no utilty in civilian life other than be a recreational plaything for grown up boys who fancy themselves playing soldier when they fire one.

It’s a matter of technological purpose, moron. Motor vehicles have a specific function beyond pure recreation such as the means of commuting to and from work and transporting just about everybody and their things they need on all the streets and highways in the world to the zillions of places that everybody goes. 

The purpose of an AR15 at least by its style and technological design is to resemble a weapon that soldiers use in a combat zone. There is no need for such a weapon outside a war zone except to be played with as if it were a toy. A very lethal toy. 

The major difference between a Ford F-150  and a Remington Bushmaster in this recent court ruling:

“.....  Connecticut Supreme Court opinion holding that the manufacturer of the semi-automatic rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting may be held liable for violating state unfair-trade-practices statutes. The legal reasoning behind the ruling, if applied broadly, would directly defy federal law and could potentially deal a staggering financial blow to firearms manufacturers and sellers in the United States.”

Gun Rights: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Ruling Endangers Firearms Industry, Constitutional Freedoms | National Review

...is that Ford does not market their pickup truck as a weapon for use in combat to kill human beings most efficiently.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22037491





2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many people had guns at the Las Vegas shooting? How many did they save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.... Totally different
> Nice try though.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.
> 
> I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.
> 
> We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed.  You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at  1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away.  A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Again, citizens have the fundamental right to carry a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘prevent tyranny,’ and not to ‘fight crime.’
> 
> Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that you never mention these research papers on the topic, which show the exact opposite conclusion....one would think you don't want anyone to know about them.....
> 
> http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf
> 
> 
> _The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998_ (Copy available here)
> 
> .....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....
> 
> Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...
> 
> http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf
> 
> This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed
> 
> ========
> 
> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf
> 
> 
> _Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001_
> 
> However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.
> 
> =======
> 
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313
> 
> *Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlisle E. Moody
> College of William and Mary
> Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
> ====
> http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
> *Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok*
> 
> We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
> -----
> Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
> ===========
> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf
> 
> 
> _Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001_
> 
> Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
> 
> ===============
> 
> This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...
> 
> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
> 
> *COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley** *
> 
> CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.
> 
> =============
> 
> http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf
> 
> ~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1
> 
> Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.
> 
> 
> Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.
> 
> =======
> 
> States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
> 
> *An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates*
> Mark Gius
> 
> Abstract
> The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking apart ayre and donahue one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here.._
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> _“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion._
> 
> _Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime._
> 
> 
> 
> The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons
Click to expand...


No need for your wall of words since gun homicides reached a two decades low in the US in 2010 then leveled off.

Gun ownership has risen since 2010 but the level of gun homicides has remained statistically unchanged. If there were a direct correlation between an increase in gun ownership and decrease in homicides the homicide rate would continue to go down from 2010 to present. But it doesn’t.

It’s something else such as the US population has matured relative to the baby boom,  Fewer young people means fewer crimes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy said:


> As more Americans own and carry guns from 1996, our gun murder rate did not go up, it went down by almost 50%......and our gun crime went down 75%....the exact opposite of what you guys claim would happen.....the exact opposite, showing that law abiding gun owners who also carry guns, do not increase the gun crime rate.....actual data, actual research, actual real world outcome......



I’m not predicting that more lawful gun owners will drive the gun homicide rate up. 

I’m saying that an increase in gun ownership is not a driver in reducing gun homicides. It certainly has an impact on accidental shootings some of which leads to death.,

 17 million gun owners do not carry their firearms 24/7 locked and loaded and on high alert ready to intervene wherever and whenever the bad guys are about to shoot good guys or other bad guys? 

I’m sure a majority of legal gun owners live in rural or smaller town areas which is not where the majority of gun homicides occur. 

Many  gun homicides happen out of public view between domestic partners or family members. How does gun ownership drive that statistic down?


----------



## justoffal

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> As more Americans own and carry guns from 1996, our gun murder rate did not go up, it went down by almost 50%......and our gun crime went down 75%....the exact opposite of what you guys claim would happen.....the exact opposite, showing that law abiding gun owners who also carry guns, do not increase the gun crime rate.....actual data, actual research, actual real world outcome......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not predicting that more lawful gun owners will drive the gun homicide rate up.
> 
> I’m saying that an increase in gun ownership is not a driver in reducing gun homicides. It certainly has an impact on accidental shootings some of which leads to death.,
> 
> 17 million gun owners do not carry their firearms 24/7 locked and loaded and on high alert ready to intervene wherever and whenever the bad guys are about to shoot good guys or other bad guys?
> 
> I’m sure a majority of legal gun owners live in rural or smaller town areas which is not where the majority of gun homicides occur.
> 
> Many  gun homicides happen out of public view between domestic partners or family members. How does gun ownership drive that statistic down?
Click to expand...


Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.

Jo


----------



## NotfooledbyW

justoffal, post: 22039660 





justoffal said:


> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.



I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts. 

Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government. 

So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
Click to expand...



You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle?   Do you?    Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?

Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *

Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
Click to expand...


The actual weapon of choice of mass public shooters in gun free zones is the hand gun.....by far......

Do you understand that the Miller decision protects weapons of war under the 2nd Amendment?   Or that the Caetano v Massachusetts also protects military weapons under the 2nd Amendment....?

Do you understand these rulings?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

*Opinion of the Court[edit]*

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing _District of Columbia v. Heller_[8] and _McDonald v. City of Chicago_,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] 

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] 

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted _Heller'_s conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] 

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with _Heller_.[11] 


*Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]*

-


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22043511 





2aguy said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle?   Do you?    Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?
> 
> Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?
Click to expand...


Here’s my point, braindead. 

“So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “

Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:


“........_Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”_

Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language. 

How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.


----------



## justoffal

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22043511
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle?   Do you?    Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?
> 
> Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here’s my point, braindead.
> 
> “So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “
> 
> Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> “........_Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”_
> 
> Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment
> 
> If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.
> 
> How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.
Click to expand...


That's the Crux. The second cannot be legislated into hibernation legally. At some point an unelected committee can and must intervene to retake sovereign decision should that be attempted and constitutionally assign themselves the right to Military action and access to all of the attendant hardware needed. It cannot work any other way. In the end....much like the civil war... The winning segment gets to appoint the judges who will jail the losers.

Jo


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22043511
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle?   Do you?    Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?
> 
> Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here’s my point, braindead.
> 
> “So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “
> 
> Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> “........_Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”_
> 
> Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment
> 
> If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.
> 
> How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.
Click to expand...



Yes...you gun grabbers always post that quote, but fail to actually quote what he really said about the guns protected....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 

*the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

You guys always ignore that....and you either don't know about what he actually wrote on the AR-15, or when I show you, you ignore it...because you want to focus on the one thing he said that has no bearing on the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*

*That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. *

*Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.*

* The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. *

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22043511
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal, post: 22039660
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth... The second amendment does not need to pass any social tests or be justified as to its effects or lack thereof. It exists today for the same reason it always did and in the final analysis you will never find a Congress that will move to strike it. There are more supporters than detractors and that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not advocating getting rid of the second amendment by any means. What wrong with you paranoid people that you can’t deal in facts.
> 
> Its that the pro-gun cult members walk off a cliff for devotion to the AR-15 but you don’t defend your right to freely own an Abrams tank or any other weapon designed for use in war. You need that more so today if you plan to overthrow an oppressive government.
> 
> So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. But you take an unreasonable stand so you can play with a military looking toy like the AR-15 which happens to be similar to the weapon of choice of nass murderers. Why associate yourselves with such human scum for a cult like devotion to such a style of rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know what Scalia actually wrote about the AR-15 rifle?   Do you?    Do you understand that Scalia named the AR-15, and stated that it, in particular, is a rifle protected by the 2nd Amendment...did you know that...do you understand that?
> 
> Here.....this is the Friedman v Highland Park ruling....Scalia dissented in that he wanted the case to be heard so they could strike down the 4th Circuits rulilng, which went against the previous Heller decision....here is Scalia stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amdendment...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> Now....knowing what Scalia said about the AR-15, do you now take back your previous post about what you think Scalia said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here’s my point, braindead.
> 
> “So you agree with Scalia that there are limitations in the Second Anendment. “
> 
> Actually I was not referring to the AR-15 with that comment. I was referring to this:
> 
> 
> “........_Scalia's position, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Further, it is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."”_
> 
> Even Scalia acknowledged limits to Second Amendment
> 
> If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons developed for military use then you agree that society has a right to ban any weapon that society does not want in the hands of clueless military style gun cultists that can’t read simple language.
> 
> How is your militia gonna overthrow a Tyrannical Government if you can’t play with whatever toy you want to play with because the government won’t let you.
Click to expand...


You are dumb.....

If the right to bear arms is not unlimited and you agree by not demanding full rights to the most lethal weapons 

Again....Heller....what part of this do you not understand....?

*the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

Then you have the first smack down of the 4th Circuit which addresses your comment on "Lethal Weapons..."

Here is Alito....after Heller, smacking you and the 4th circuit....

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf*

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that _Heller_ rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. 


*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

*Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.*


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 

*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.* 554 U. S., at 636.


 A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


 Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use. 


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
 In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is unte


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22044052 





2aguy said:


> ...  the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......



Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?

 With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.

I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare. 

If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit? 

Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?

The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.


----------



## justoffal

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22044052
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?
> 
> With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.
> 
> I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.
> 
> If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?
> 
> Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?
> 
> The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.
Click to expand...


I'll simplify it for you. The second amendment is there for the strong.
If the current elected government 
Decided to impose tyranny by force
Ultimately the Constitution says it's Ok to rebel by force.  After the smoke settles the winner gets to appoint the judges who jail the losers.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22044052
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?
> 
> With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.
> 
> I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.
> 
> If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?
> 
> Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?
> 
> The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.
Click to expand...


I disagree....it is only limited by sub- constitutional local jurisdiction. In the final analysis if the people must rise up to prevent tyranny it doesn't matter if it's a pee shooter or the USS Gerald Ford.

Jo


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22044052
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  the truth of what he wrote in Heller.....that all bearable arms are protected.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making an argument that all bearable arms are protected?
> 
> With all of the words you keep posting how in the hell can you expect anyone able to figure out what your point is.
> 
> I’m saying you do not have the freedom to bear whatever arms you want to bear and specifically all the arms and wrsponry used in modern warfare.
> 
> If you think all bearable arms are protected by the second amendment without limitation or regulation then tell me why you can’t mount a fully automatic machine gun in the bed of your Mad Max monster mudder pick up truck and drive around on public roads fully loaded because you feel the need and the right to protect yourself however you see fit?
> 
> Why can’t you? Why do accept only the right to carry around the less deadly weapons in your toy box that only resemble the real bearable firearms that real soldiers use?
> 
> The right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.
Click to expand...



No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.

Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22049772 





2aguy said:


> No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.
> 
> Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?



If you are stupid I guess you are gonna stay stupid.

You answered ‘“no” to this question, “ the right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.”

I didn’t say anything about semi-automatic rifles being protected or not in that statement.


----------



## 2aguy

NotfooledbyW said:


> 2aguy, post: 22049772
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.....all rifles and pistols....in particular, the AR-15 rifle, as specified by Justice Scalia in his writing in Friedman v Highland park....so semi automatic weapons are protected rifles....as also confirmed by Justice Alito writing for the Court in Caetano v Massachusetts.
> 
> Do you deny that Scalia and Alito protected these weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are stupid I guess you are gonna stay stupid.
> 
> You answered ‘“no” to this question, “ the right to bear arms is limited as Scalia said.”
> 
> I didn’t say anything about semi-automatic rifles being protected or not in that statement.
Click to expand...



You don't want to admit that the AR-15 rifle and all semi-automatic rifles are protected  by the 2nd Amendment, and Scalia stated they were ......you don't want to admit that.......


----------



## NotfooledbyW

2aguy, post: 22055728 





2aguy said:


> You don't want to admit that the AR-15 rifle and all semi-automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and Scalia stated they were ......you don't want to admit that.......



Why not?  I have never stated anything contrary to your assertion. Scalia said the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. You do indeed accept that society and the courts have the  right to limit your right to bear certain arms. Your acquiescence to those limitations means that you aqree that society and the courts can limit any ‘type’ of firearms they see fit and be consistent with the Constitution.


----------

