8 dead, including gunman, at multiple homes in Missouri

[2aguy]

So people committing an actual crime during the defense(unlawful possession of a gun) have no problem responding to a survey. But other people who have committed crimes unrelated to the defense won't respond to the survey? You have to be joking right? You can't use both sides of the argument depending on what your trying to defend.

No Brain....

it is more likely that honest, law abiding citizens will respond to defending themselves with a gun because they have comitted no crime...that they may know....just like the woman from Pennsylvania who informed the officer she was carrying a gun with a legal permit to carry....only to find out that in New Jersey, where she was stopped, she was breaking the law and was then facing 3 years in prison....

She told a police officer she was carrying the gun because that was the law in Pennsylvania.......but not in New Jersey..

So yes....law abiding citizens are more likely to respond to a survey about gun use than career criminals who know that even touching a gun can put them back in prison.....

And then you have Kleck's point....law abiding citizens who are in doubt....but aware that they may have done something illegal in carrying a gun for protection in the 90s without a permit...will not answer that question either....that is why he said that there is a strong potential for under reporting of defensive gun uses, not over reporting them.....

 

[2aguy]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

 

[Brain357]

So people committing an actual crime during the defense(unlawful possession of a gun) have no problem responding to a survey. But other people who have committed crimes unrelated to the defense won't respond to the survey? You have to be joking right? You can't use both sides of the argument depending on what your trying to defend.

No Brain....

it is more likely that honest, law abiding citizens will respond to defending themselves with a gun because they have comitted no crime...that they may know....just like the woman from Pennsylvania who informed the officer she was carrying a gun with a legal permit to carry....only to find out that in New Jersey, where she was stopped, she was breaking the law and was then facing 3 years in prison....

She told a police officer she was carrying the gun because that was the law in Pennsylvania.......but not in New Jersey..

So yes....law abiding citizens are more likely to respond to a survey about gun use than career criminals who know that even touching a gun can put them back in prison.....

And then you have Kleck's point....law abiding citizens who are in doubt....but aware that they may have done something illegal in carrying a gun for protection in the 90s without a permit...will not answer that question either....that is why he said that there is a strong potential for under reporting of defensive gun uses, not over reporting them.....

Sure Bill. He is now claiming they were all people illegally carrying. You know if you are illegally carrying a gun. Sorry but if people will respond to the survey who were committing a crime during the defense, then just about any criminal will respond to the survey. Nice try though. And you are kidding yourself if you think people who will ignore one law are otherwise law abiding.

 

[2aguy]

Here brain...a collection of law abiding citizens who got caught up in anti gun laws....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC Newsman shot intruder with unregistered gun in new york had moved from florida.....from nov.13, 2013.....

students use guns not permitted on campus to drive off attacker...

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

This is the story of Penn state woman who was arrested in New Jersey for "unlawful possession of a weapon" even though she has a legal Penn state carry permit....

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

Old man and flintlock pistol.....

New Jersey Man Faces 10-Years For 1760s Flintlock Pistol The Daily Caller


This man lost his gun rights due to drunk driving got them back, got them taken away, then restored....

Gun right denied A cautionary tale about licensing New Hampshire

 

[2aguy]

The 18 gun surveys.....

...law abiding citizens who have committed no real crime are more likely to respond about self defense gun use...since they did not attack anyone or commit a real crime with their gun...they were defending themselves or their families.....

Criminals can't respond without incriminating themselves to a total stranger over the phone....who may or may not be a police officer....or a parole officer......

The NCVS....

law abiding citizens have less incentive to respond about using a gun to an in person interview with a federal agent with a badge.....but as the woman in Pennsylvania shows...they still might if they aren't career criminals....but those with some knowledge definitely won't....

Career criminals....just won't confess to touching a gun to a fed......

Thus the under count on defensive gun uses

 

[Brain357]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

And well being

Here brain...a collection of law abiding citizens who got caught up in anti gun laws....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC Newsman shot intruder with unregistered gun in new york had moved from florida.....from nov.13, 2013.....

students use guns not permitted on campus to drive off attacker...

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

This is the story of Penn state woman who was arrested in New Jersey for "unlawful possession of a weapon" even though she has a legal Penn state carry permit....

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

Old man and flintlock pistol.....

New Jersey Man Faces 10-Years For 1760s Flintlock Pistol The Daily Caller


This man lost his gun rights due to drunk driving got them back, got them taken away, then restored....

Gun right denied A cautionary tale about licensing New Hampshire

That doesn't change that armed criminal types in high crime areas will account for a lot of defenses. And I think your examples are very rare....

 

[Brain357]

The 18 gun surveys.....

...law abiding citizens who have committed no real crime are more likely to respond about self defense gun use...since they did not attack anyone or commit a real crime with their gun...they were defending themselves or their families.....

Criminals can't respond without incriminating themselves to a total stranger over the phone....who may or may not be a police officer....or a parole officer......

The NCVS....

law abiding citizens have less incentive to respond about using a gun to an in person interview with a federal agent with a badge.....but as the woman in Pennsylvania shows...they still might if they aren't career criminals....but those with some knowledge definitely won't....

Career criminals....just won't confess to touching a gun to a fed......

Thus the under count on defensive gun uses

So yes that clearly shows how you are trying to use the same reason for why the NCVS survey is bad, but also why criminals won't respond to a survey. It makes no sense.

 

[2aguy]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

And well being

Here brain...a collection of law abiding citizens who got caught up in anti gun laws....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC Newsman shot intruder with unregistered gun in new york had moved from florida.....from nov.13, 2013.....

students use guns not permitted on campus to drive off attacker...

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

This is the story of Penn state woman who was arrested in New Jersey for "unlawful possession of a weapon" even though she has a legal Penn state carry permit....

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

Old man and flintlock pistol.....

New Jersey Man Faces 10-Years For 1760s Flintlock Pistol The Daily Caller


This man lost his gun rights due to drunk driving got them back, got them taken away, then restored....

Gun right denied A cautionary tale about licensing New Hampshire

That doesn't change that armed criminal types in high crime areas will account for a lot of defenses. And I think your examples are very rare....

Brain....career criminals have no incentive to answer yes to touching a firearm to a stranger over the phone...who has their phone number and home address.....who could very easily be a police officer looking at them for a crime, or their parole officer....it is illegal for a felon to touch a gun even when it is used in lawful self defense.......they go to jail for that.....

 

[Brain357]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

Thanks. Given the helplessness of the victims I doubt the weapon made much of a difference in what the end result would have been...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

Isn't the gun fetishist's whole argument that they need their precious guns in order to protect themselves because the cops aren't around?

This was in rural Texas, right? The very heart of gun fetishist country. So it is no big stretch to say that there would have been at least one gun in at least one of those 3 locations. And since the killer could only shoot one of them at a time why couldn't any of the others have reached their gun and defended themselves?

The reality is that your bogus myth that "guns protect people" has just been exposed as BS. Even if you had given all of them guns beforehand they would all still be just as dead because none of them were expecting to be killed so they weren't ready.

Guns DON'T protect people. Period.

 

[2aguy]

The 18 gun surveys.....

...law abiding citizens who have committed no real crime are more likely to respond about self defense gun use...since they did not attack anyone or commit a real crime with their gun...they were defending themselves or their families.....

Criminals can't respond without incriminating themselves to a total stranger over the phone....who may or may not be a police officer....or a parole officer......

The NCVS....

law abiding citizens have less incentive to respond about using a gun to an in person interview with a federal agent with a badge.....but as the woman in Pennsylvania shows...they still might if they aren't career criminals....but those with some knowledge definitely won't....

Career criminals....just won't confess to touching a gun to a fed......

Thus the under count on defensive gun uses

So yes that clearly shows how you are trying to use the same reason for why the NCVS survey is bad, but also why criminals won't respond to a survey. It makes no sense.

Criminals have no incentive to respond to either survey.....law abiding citizens who have committed no crime are more likely to answer an anonymous survey than admit gun use to a fed.........it's as simple as that.....

 

[Brain357]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

And well being

Here brain...a collection of law abiding citizens who got caught up in anti gun laws....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC Newsman shot intruder with unregistered gun in new york had moved from florida.....from nov.13, 2013.....

students use guns not permitted on campus to drive off attacker...

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

This is the story of Penn state woman who was arrested in New Jersey for "unlawful possession of a weapon" even though she has a legal Penn state carry permit....

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

Old man and flintlock pistol.....

New Jersey Man Faces 10-Years For 1760s Flintlock Pistol The Daily Caller


This man lost his gun rights due to drunk driving got them back, got them taken away, then restored....

Gun right denied A cautionary tale about licensing New Hampshire

That doesn't change that armed criminal types in high crime areas will account for a lot of defenses. And I think your examples are very rare....

Brain....career criminals have no incentive to answer yes to touching a firearm to a stranger over the phone...who has their phone number and home address.....who could very easily be a police officer looking at them for a crime, or their parole officer....it is illegal for a felon to touch a gun even when it is used in lawful self defense.......they go to jail for that.....

But people who committed unlawful possession of a gun during the act of defense do? See that makes no sense at all.

 

[2aguy]

This was in rural Texas, right

?

Yeah...I thought that at first....it was Texas "County" in Missouri.....and yes...this shows why you need guns...and these people didn't have them at the time of the attack............and the police with their guns were nowhere around to protect them...

So yes...you are right...people need to own and in many cases carry guns for protection....thanks for agreeing....

Did you answer question number 6?

 

[2aguy]

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

He was family, I'm sure they weren't expecting him to shoot them. Even if they had guns they weren't going to shoot him.

Very nice point Brain.....

And well being

Here brain...a collection of law abiding citizens who got caught up in anti gun laws....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC Newsman shot intruder with unregistered gun in new york had moved from florida.....from nov.13, 2013.....

students use guns not permitted on campus to drive off attacker...

Gonzaga Univ. puts students on probation for using gun to scare off intruder - CBS News

This is the story of Penn state woman who was arrested in New Jersey for "unlawful possession of a weapon" even though she has a legal Penn state carry permit....

Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey NJ.com

Old man and flintlock pistol.....

New Jersey Man Faces 10-Years For 1760s Flintlock Pistol The Daily Caller


This man lost his gun rights due to drunk driving got them back, got them taken away, then restored....

Gun right denied A cautionary tale about licensing New Hampshire

That doesn't change that armed criminal types in high crime areas will account for a lot of defenses. And I think your examples are very rare....

Brain....career criminals have no incentive to answer yes to touching a firearm to a stranger over the phone...who has their phone number and home address.....who could very easily be a police officer looking at them for a crime, or their parole officer....it is illegal for a felon to touch a gun even when it is used in lawful self defense.......they go to jail for that.....

But people who committed unlawful possession of a gun during the act of defense do? See that makes no sense at all.

Yes....the example of the woman from Pennsylvania shows that.....most people in the 90s may have carried a gun without knowing it was illegal...or didn't care because they were afraid of criminals......and that is his point about under reporting...those who were aware that there might be a problem with their owning or carrying a gun without the right paperwork wouldn't respond to a personal interview with a fed, and that is why gun use is more likely under reported than over reported........

 

[2aguy]

Brain....

nice debate...have a nice weekend........

 

[2aguy]

Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.

1) you know they had guns

2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand

3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......

4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?

5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?

Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....

6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?

Isn't the gun fetishist's whole argument that they need their precious guns in order to protect themselves because the cops aren't around?

This was in rural Texas, right? The very heart of gun fetishist country. So it is no big stretch to say that there would have been at least one gun in at least one of those 3 locations. And since the killer could only shoot one of them at a time why couldn't any of the others have reached their gun and defended themselves?

The reality is that your bogus myth that "guns protect people" has just been exposed as BS. Even if you had given all of them guns beforehand they would all still be just as dead because none of them were expecting to be killed so they weren't ready.

Guns DON'T protect people. Period.

Sorry...you are wrong.....did not having a gun on them save them? And 1.6 million times a year law abiding citizens use guns to stop violent crime and save lives....vs......8-9,000 times a year guns are used to murder people...I assume you can tell which number is bigger....?

 

[Derideo_Te]

This was in rural Texas, right

?

Yeah...I thought that at first....it was Texas "County" in Missouri.....and yes...this shows why you need guns...and these people didn't have them at the time of the attack............and the police with their guns were nowhere around to protect them...

So yes...you are right...people need to own and in many cases carry guns for protection....thanks for agreeing....

Did you answer question number 6?

Thanks for the clarification about Texas "county" and yes, I did answer #6.

Guns would not have saved any of them IMO.

 

[2aguy]

Even if you had given all of them guns beforehand they would all still be just as dead because none of them were expecting to be killed so they weren't ready.

Tell that to the pharmacist who shot the burglar...who had his gun out and pointed at the group...he pulled his gun and shot the robber....

it happens all the time..the most famous case is the Watch Shop owner in New York(?) he had several gun fights against robbers and gang members who came into his store guns blazing...in revenge for the gang members he killed in the first robberies, and even when they shot him he still killed them with his gun.........

A victim with a gun stands a better chance of surviving an armed attack than a victim without a gun...as happened here....

They had no guns.....and they died......he had a gun...and he killed them

 

[2aguy]

This was in rural Texas, right

?

Yeah...I thought that at first....it was Texas "County" in Missouri.....and yes...this shows why you need guns...and these people didn't have them at the time of the attack............and the police with their guns were nowhere around to protect them...

So yes...you are right...people need to own and in many cases carry guns for protection....thanks for agreeing....

Did you answer question number 6?

Thanks for the clarification about Texas "county" and yes, I did answer #6.

Guns would not have saved any of them IMO.

So...you would not have given them the best tool for their survival......nice.....

it is better that they are dead than that they defend themselves with a gun.......good thinking....

 

[2aguy]

Do you think they have a "Missouri" county in Texas........?