Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many dollars have you spent on guns and defensive training just to never use it? They love suckers like you. So scared and paranoid.
I guess you didn't see the post of the senior citizens...went 40-50 years not needing a gun...till the day they needed it.....and it saved their lives....
you are a twit brain.
Wasted your money. Not only did they take your money but they have you running around scared and paranoid. Pathetic.
You are the one exposing yourself as fearful.
So scared I go everywhere with no gun. You clowns pee yourself at the thought of going somewhere unarmed. Pathetic.
Not at all. I don't own a weapon at all. I just know how important ALL of our rights are, and the second amendment is the one under the most attack.
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....
You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.
Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....
You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.
Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.
Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.
Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.
You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
It sure worked for me last week!!!!
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.
Shall we post the interview where it is clear kleck thinks lott is wrong?
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.
You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!
You brought them up. You always this confused?
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?
Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.
You are the one talking about stripping rights.The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?
Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?
Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.
You are the one talking about stripping rights.The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?
Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.
What rights have I talked about stripping?
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.
Shall we post the interview where it is clear kleck thinks lott is wrong?
Please do...it was interesting....Lott thinks that because Kleck is a sociologist he sees things from a different perspective....and as an economist Lott says he sees things in a different way as well.........
Lol.
The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.
Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?
Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.Ah the 12 year old is back again. Funny how you complain about the guys who talk about your small penis, but then act like a child yourself.
Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....
You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.
Not at all. He is posting facts.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
High five!
Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.
Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."
Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?
WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.
You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!
You brought them up. You always this confused?
I brought what up? I didn't say anything about homicides. I have been talking about defensive gun usage. You can use your gun to defend yourself, and you don't have to fire it or kill anyone. Brandishing it is enough in most instances to make a criminal flee. Do you disagree with that?
