4 year old exercises his second amendment rights

[2aguy]

Which post...the one on the Smart Guns....I like the idea...I wouldn't buy one...but if a dumb lefty wants a smart gun they should be able to buy one....as long as they aren't madated

That kind of safety feature would ONLY be offered to leftist, gun hating people. The ones that don't want their kids to accidentally shoot themselves or their mothers or fathers.

The gun nutters would not be offered this feature. And eventually the gene pool would be cleaned up as kids shot themselves. Or a parent. Or gun nutters went to jail.

Only left wingers would have this feature.

Btw, in the DGU stats you love, of those 1.5 million DGUs, how many times did they (gun owners)have to.fire the gun? And were most of the stops at home or out and about?

And more on how guns are actually used....

SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their attacker?

KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that people could have done with a gun from as mild an action as merely verbally referring to the gun on up to actually shooting somebody.

SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?

KLECK: Yes. You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.

SCHULMAN: Okay.

KLECK:

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.

Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.

Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired.

Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal.

And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.

SCHULMAN: In 8 percent, wounded or killed. You don't have it broken down beyond that?

KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8 percent figure is based on so few cases that you have to interpret it with great caution.

SCHULMAN: Did anybody respond to a question asking whether they had used the gun and it was found afterward to be unjustified?

KLECK: We did not ask them that question although we did ask them what crime they thought was being committed. So in each case the only incidents we were accepting as bona fide defensive gun uses were ones where the defender believed that, indeed, a crime had been committed against them.

 

[2aguy]

I am all for gun safety education in schools....you anti gun loons...not so much....

That's stupid. Your kind hates teachers. They are in a union.

Gun safety is a parental responsibility.

Having it "taught" in school is fucking stupid.

The only gun knowledge a kid needs is to know the safest place to head if one day in school they hear this pop pop pop sound they can't identify.

Wow....you are still a 12 year old....When Fire Safety Education started in the Schools we had had children killed in fires....today we have had 0 kids killed in school fires and that training helps them at home....

Teaching gun safety in public schools reaches kids who come from lefty, anti gun homes what to do when their dumb, lefty parents buy a gun but don't learn how to use them......

it would save lives.......

 

[2aguy]

In this interview he breaks down how guns are used..

The remaining question is how many of these supposed stops required firing the gun. Do you know?

Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired.

Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal.

And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.

 

[2aguy]

In this interview he breaks down how guns are used..

The remaining question is how many of these supposed stops required firing the gun. Do you know?

Wilbur....you could email Dr. Kleck or these other people and ask them directly........it would be more accurate and straight from their own mouths.......

 

[2aguy]

In this interview he breaks down how guns are used..

The remaining question is how many of these supposed stops required firing the gun. Do you know?

Some background on Kleck...

The interview was conducted September 14-17, 1993 by J. Neil Schulman, a novelist, screenwriter, and journalist who has written extensively on firearms public policy for several years.

Readers may be interested to know that Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is also a lifelong registered Democrat. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun-control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

 

[Likkmee]

I'll have to try to remember not to leave a 45 auto cocked an unlocked with little kids in the back seat. Sometimes these things just slip your mind, especially when WRNEK is playing a new Hank Williams the 6 th song !

 

[rightwinger]

I am all for gun safety education in schools....you anti gun loons...not so much....

That's stupid. Your kind hates teachers. They are in a union.

Gun safety is a parental responsibility.

Having it "taught" in school is fucking stupid.

The only gun knowledge a kid needs is to know the safest place to head if one day in school they hear this pop pop pop sound they can't identify.

Very true

Unfortunately, our children need to learn how to react when they hear some idiot firing a gun at them. How to seek shelter, how to run away, who to trust, who not to trust

As far as handling guns, all they need to know is don't touch them without an adult present

 

[Wilbur Right]

Gun nut. Did you realise that the first two responses already totaled over 100%?

How do you get more than 100% of gun respondents?

And you wonder why those numbers are bull shit.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Over 100% of defensive gun uses could have been accomplished without having a loaded gun l
LMAO.

100% of child shootings could be eliminated and NEVER effect the protective abilities of having a gun. Just don't load the thing and still 100% of the time you can deter crimes against you.


You need to spread the good word 2nd.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Teaching gun safety in public schools reaches kids who come from lefty, anti gun homes what to do when their dumb, lefty parents buy a gun but don't learn how to use them......

Well you dumb shit IF a lefty parent would buy a gun (which they wouldn't) they would be glad to learn that according to your studies they could keep the gun unloaded and still receive all the protective benefits. According to the study.

100% of the time the gun is not fired. According to your numbers.
Hell.part of the time all you have to do is mention GUN and the criminal leaves shutting his pants.

 

[2aguy]

Gun nut. Did you realise that the first two responses already totaled over 100%?

How do you get more than 100% of gun respondents?

And you wonder why those numbers are bull shit.

Moron....where did the two numbers say they were different....

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.

Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.

Are you that dense?

Please....go up against a criminal with an unloaded gun.....play those odds.....

 

[ChrisL]

Gun nut. Did you realise that the first two responses already totaled over 100%?

How do you get more than 100% of gun respondents?

And you wonder why those numbers are bull shit.

Moron....where did the two numbers say they were different....

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.

Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.

Are you that dense?

Please....go up against a criminal with an unloaded gun.....play those odds.....

Oh, they will just throw books at them.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.

Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.

Really dude, how stupid are you? According to your numbers, 101% of the time, a dgu does not involve firing the gun. Over one half the time the gun wasn't even shown. These are your numbers dude.

And you think 101% crime deterrence without ever either showing the gun or firing the gun, you think 100% deterrence is bad odds eh

 

[Wilbur Right]

Moron....where did the two numbers say they were different....

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun.

Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.

Are you that dense?

Hey why don't you add these two numbers together and see what you get; 54 + 47 = ?

How do you get MORE than 100% of respondents?
Somebody is lying. And it ain't me.

 

[airplanemechanic]

But they do kill people. Hello?

But they're not made/engineered to kill people. Guns are.

No they're not. They are engineered to fire a projectile using explosive gasses. What you do with that projectile is up to the end user.

Using your logic, I am misusing a gun if I use it for target practice, because that's not what it was engineered for. If I own a gun the only way I can use it appropriately is if I shoot it at a person.

 

[OnePercenter]

That is due to irresponsibility and nothing else, which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

Which is my point. Everyone is not responsible enough to own a gun.

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Unlike guns, cars, pools, and household chemicals aren't made to kill people.

None of those things are constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS either. The right to own a gun IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

None of those things are constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS either. The right to own a gun IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

You're correct. But if an individual through his/her own efforts shows that they aren't responsible or pose a threat, shouldn't the government be able to say no for the safety of the other citizens?

Give me an example.

Give me an example.

Making terrorist threats.

 

[OnePercenter]

That is due to irresponsibility and nothing else, which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

Which is my point. Everyone is not responsible enough to own a gun.

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Unlike guns, cars, pools, and household chemicals aren't made to kill people.

None of those things are constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS either. The right to own a gun IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

None of those things are constitutionally guaranteed RIGHTS either. The right to own a gun IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

You're correct. But if an individual through his/her own efforts shows that they aren't responsible or pose a threat, shouldn't the government be able to say no for the safety of the other citizens?

Yes...we have laws for that already. If you commit a crime with a gun...showing you are irresponsible, you can be arrested and your Right to own a gun can be stripped.....

Yes...we have laws for that already. If you commit a crime with a gun...showing you are irresponsible, you can be arrested and your Right to own a gun can be stripped....

If a person has been convicted of a violent crime should he/she be permitted to buy to be in possession of a gun?

 

[OnePercenter]

That is due to irresponsibility and nothing else, which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

Which is my point. Everyone is not responsible enough to own a gun.

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Everyone is not responsible to own a car either. Everyone is not responsible to own a pool. Everyone is not responsible to own household chemicals!!

Unlike guns, cars, pools, and household chemicals aren't made to kill people.

But they do kill people. Hello?

But they do kill people. Hello?

But they're not made/engineered to kill people. Guns are.

No...guns are made/engineered to preserve the life of the user and those they choose to protect. The majority of guns used for self defense and keeping the peace are never fired...yet they stop violent attack, allow the capture of dangerous people...and keep people from committing crimes.....

Firing is just one thing they do.....

No...guns are made/engineered to preserve the life of the user and those they choose to protect. The majority of guns used for self defense and keeping the peace are never fired...yet they stop violent attack, allow the capture of dangerous people...and keep people from committing crimes.....

Firing is just one thing they do....

I carry concealed. If I pulled my weapon someone will be dead.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm not saying a mothers guns should be taken away.

Only that the gun she packs is a bigger threat to her children than imaginary bad guys

Why not? Mom isn't very responsible.

 

[Brain357]

That implies strangers. That's not the case, in most cases.

Yeah....you know....the Friday night Date who doesn't take "NO" for an answer...will take a .45 as an answer just like a stranger.........what is it with you guys and your childish...12 year old way of thinking..........

Not all rapes are date rape......and guns are the best method to stop a rape...stranger or otherwise......twits.

Most rapes aren't defensable with a gun. The girl who is completely drunk isn't going to use a gun. The girl who is already naked and then says no cant use a gun. Many victims are under 18 and can't have a gun.

Wow ....you really are stupid.......and all the women grabbed in parking lots and at bus stops.....and in the parking garage of their college.....they should just be allowed to be raped...right...twit.

Do you always have to think like a 12 year old....?

Those are a tiny percent of rapes. And as we see in the OP, a gun is often a bad idea.