A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Wyatt earp]

This story is the only somewhat unbiased one I could find that includes what she said.Colorado Gun Rights Activists Claim Another Scalp

In the article, it talks about how she told a gun nut that a woman was 81 times more likely to have the gun taken from her, than to use it in self defense

For right wingers on here ANY....and I mean ANY assertion that an ordinary citizen should NOT be armed for war while sitting on their fat asses in their living room, is an anathema.....

Tell that to the Swiss.....they actually are armed for war.........with actual military rifles...by law..........they make us look like piker

Knives murder 1,500 people every single year.....ban knives before you ban rifles....

Could ANY knife kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds???......
and the purpose of a knife is not primarily to kill people, while an assault weapon CERTAINLY only has that purpose.

3 aircraft murdered 3,000 people...the potential of an aircraft killing thousands of people far outweigh the ability of a rifle ....yet they fly our skies every single day....

And you can't answer the fact that for all your bitching about rifles with magazines....we have 8 million of them in private hands........and they have only been used to murder 162 people in 34 years.....while knives murder 1,500 people every single year making them by far, deadlier than rifles no matter what they may potentially be capable of......in fact...a truck killed 89 people in France.....over half the entire total by rifles in 34 years.......and anyone can rent a truck.....

In fact, bare hands and clubs kill more people than rifles every single year...yet you fixate on the least deadly item.....because you have a phobia....

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am most likely trying to study law or justice. I would love to be a civil rights lawyer, helping to strike down right wing bullshit such as voter-Id laws or marijuana prohibition.

Well good luck. Are you using your military benefits to pay for college, family helping out or did you win a scholarship? Paying tuition, room and board isn't easy.

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

Who would of thought The military frowning on communist propaganda...

.

It was for a prior existing medical issue that i didn't disclose at MEPS, but was discovered during my enlistment

Yea you promoted communism .

 

[Lewdog]

It won't affect anything. The only time someone is really affected by their discharge status is if it is Dishonorable.

Not true.

Really? I've seen a lot of applications, and unless it is a job that requires some kind of security clearance, they only ask if you were discharged with anything other than Dishonorable. If you put Dishonorable it then asks for an explanation sometimes, while other times it doesn't.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Here you go shit for brains...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

At least Pokemon is pretty safe!

 

[2aguy]

And on people being disarmed by bad guys...

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf




And they say because of this.......


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set




Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.[/QUOTE]

-------

ON being disarmed........

“A Criminal Will Just Take the Gun Away from You”

For a very long time, gun control proponents would insist that having a gun was a mistake, because many people (especially women) would not be willing to shoot a person who was attacking them—and the criminal would then take away the victim’s gun and use it on the victim.

Oddly enough, while the authors have recorded a large number of incidents where someone has their gun taken away from them, it is usually the other way around.


In 227 incidents, a criminal’s gun was taken away from him by the victim.

This does not necessarily mean that the victim shot the criminal, but it does mean that the victim successfully disarmed the criminal and then threatened the criminal with it in order to make him leave, or make him remain on the scene until the police could arrive.


Often, these were situations where the victim, at the start of the attack, did not have a gun.

On May 14, 2010, police arrested Major Lee Barnes, 19. Barnes is alleged to have first solicited an act of prostitution from a woman, and when she declined, he threatened her with a handgun, ordering her to, as the newspaper described it, “get on her knees and perform a sex act on him.” Barnes apparently put the handgun back in his pocket, “put his arms back in an apparent relaxed gesture,” at which point the victim grabbed the handgun, and shot him.55 On March 13, 2010, three men, at least one of them masked, walked into a store in Romulus, Michigan, and attempted to rob it at gunpoint. A customer walked into the store, saw what was going on, and “successfully fought the gunman for control of the weapon and fired two rounds,” killing the gunman. The other suspects left, having failed to rob the store—short at least one handgun

 

[Lewdog]

For right wingers on here ANY....and I mean ANY assertion that an ordinary citizen should NOT be armed for war while sitting on their fat asses in their living room, is an anathema.....

Tell that to the Swiss.....they actually are armed for war.........with actual military rifles...by law..........they make us look like piker

Could ANY knife kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds???......
and the purpose of a knife is not primarily to kill people, while an assault weapon CERTAINLY only has that purpose.

3 aircraft murdered 3,000 people...the potential of an aircraft killing thousands of people far outweigh the ability of a rifle ....yet they fly our skies every single day....

And you can't answer the fact that for all your bitching about rifles with magazines....we have 8 million of them in private hands........and they have only been used to murder 162 people in 34 years.....while knives murder 1,500 people every single year making them by far, deadlier than rifles no matter what they may potentially be capable of......in fact...a truck killed 89 people in France.....over half the entire total by rifles in 34 years.......and anyone can rent a truck.....

In fact, bare hands and clubs kill more people than rifles every single year...yet you fixate on the least deadly item.....because you have a phobia....

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Can't stand by in readiness when you are standing in line at the armory, waiting to exercise your Constitutional rights.

Your view on posse comitatus?

 

[2aguy]

This story is the only somewhat unbiased one I could find that includes what she said.Colorado Gun Rights Activists Claim Another Scalp

In the article, it talks about how she told a gun nut that a woman was 81 times more likely to have the gun taken from her, than to use it in self defense

For right wingers on here ANY....and I mean ANY assertion that an ordinary citizen should NOT be armed for war while sitting on their fat asses in their living room, is an anathema.....

Tell that to the Swiss.....they actually are armed for war.........with actual military rifles...by law..........they make us look like piker

Knives murder 1,500 people every single year.....ban knives before you ban rifles....

Could ANY knife kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds???......
and the purpose of a knife is not primarily to kill people, while an assault weapon CERTAINLY only has that purpose.

3 aircraft murdered 3,000 people...the potential of an aircraft killing thousands of people far outweigh the ability of a rifle ....yet they fly our skies every single day....

And you can't answer the fact that for all your bitching about rifles with magazines....we have 8 million of them in private hands........and they have only been used to murder 162 people in 34 years.....while knives murder 1,500 people every single year making them by far, deadlier than rifles no matter what they may potentially be capable of......in fact...a truck killed 89 people in France.....over half the entire total by rifles in 34 years.......and anyone can rent a truck.....

In fact, bare hands and clubs kill more people than rifles every single year...yet you fixate on the least deadly item.....because you have a phobia....

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Haha, whatever man. How many people do you think are risking to go to jail by bribing the local guy that controls the ammunition to give them a few bullets? You do realize their system is set not for citizens to defend against a tyrannical government, but so that the citizens can rise up if needed to help fight an invasion. Your argument is not tangent.

You need to read David Kopel....I linked to his research......you are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Tell that to the Swiss.....they actually are armed for war.........with actual military rifles...by law..........they make us look like piker
3 aircraft murdered 3,000 people...the potential of an aircraft killing thousands of people far outweigh the ability of a rifle ....yet they fly our skies every single day....

And you can't answer the fact that for all your bitching about rifles with magazines....we have 8 million of them in private hands........and they have only been used to murder 162 people in 34 years.....while knives murder 1,500 people every single year making them by far, deadlier than rifles no matter what they may potentially be capable of......in fact...a truck killed 89 people in France.....over half the entire total by rifles in 34 years.......and anyone can rent a truck.....

In fact, bare hands and clubs kill more people than rifles every single year...yet you fixate on the least deadly item.....because you have a phobia....

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

They can buy their own ammo too........the military is rationed, the privately bought ammo is not......

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

And on people being disarmed by bad guys...

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf




And they say because of this.......


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set




Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

The CATO institute is a biased, libertarian slanted rag

 

[2aguy]

the clinton Department of Justice Study....

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

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

https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/09/guns-america-1996-police-foundation-survey.pdf

Page 62-63

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

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

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator).

Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs.

In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

 

[Rustic]

Have a 243 that shoots 400 yards with a 2 inch drop....best round I have found for shocking power.

In your dreams... lol

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tell that to the Swiss.....they actually are armed for war.........with actual military rifles...by law..........they make us look like piker
3 aircraft murdered 3,000 people...the potential of an aircraft killing thousands of people far outweigh the ability of a rifle ....yet they fly our skies every single day....

And you can't answer the fact that for all your bitching about rifles with magazines....we have 8 million of them in private hands........and they have only been used to murder 162 people in 34 years.....while knives murder 1,500 people every single year making them by far, deadlier than rifles no matter what they may potentially be capable of......in fact...a truck killed 89 people in France.....over half the entire total by rifles in 34 years.......and anyone can rent a truck.....

In fact, bare hands and clubs kill more people than rifles every single year...yet you fixate on the least deadly item.....because you have a phobia....

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

Yea evetythin I read is the same, they can buy there military weapons but the ammo is stored by the Swiss government.

 

[2aguy]

And on people being disarmed by bad guys...

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf




And they say because of this.......


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The Data Set




Since the survey data has severe limita- tions with respect to defensive gun uses, collecting accounts of self-defense as they are reported in news outlets may be a better method of assessing the frequency and na- ture of self-defense with firearms. The data set supporting this paper is derived from a collection of news stories published between October 2003 and November 2011.12

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news. Sometimes that is because the person us- ing a gun in self-defense saw no need to call the police—he or she scared off the bad guy. In some cases, the victim might not want to explain to the police that he has a gun, perhaps because he is a felon, or perhaps because he lives in a jurisdiction with very restrictive gun control laws. Sometimes the police do get called, but the officers do not find the circumstances sufficiently impor- tant to issue a press release. After all, “Man Scares away Burglar, No Shots Fired” is not particularly newsworthy, unless you live in a very small town.

In spite of the selection bias problem, there is one enormous advantage to this model of gathering data: it provides a rich set of information about motives, circum- stances, victims, and criminals. It also pro- vides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn. Best of all, whatever the deficiencies of news reporting, the model is not completely de- pendent on the honesty or accuracy of the respondent—unlike some of the questions raised with respect to defensive gun use sur- veys.

The CATO institute is a biased, libertarian slanted rag

And the anti gun politician you cite is unbiased.,...right?


Okay, kid.......they show their method, they show the stories they used...they admit it isn't scientific, but they culled 5,000 news stories.......try to learn something about this issue.....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah the Swiss are armed to the gills with guns. BUT... do you understand the system? They have mandatory military service and they then get to keep their rifles, BUT the ammunition is rationed. So unless they plan on using their rifles as clubs, it isn't quite the same as the way you are making it out to be.

Wrong...you don't understand the system...only military ammunition is rationed.....private ammunition is not. And do you really think it is hard to smuggle ammo from the guy on the block who is supposed to be controlling it?

Dude, my friend is from Switzerland, and he did his mandatory military service there. He told me that all privately owned firearms, even a double barreled shotgun, are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, and that the ammunition is kept by the MILITARY, not by local armories

Quot lying they can buy there military weapons.

Actually I'm pretty sure they get to keep their rifle from their military service. That's a large reason why there is such a high percentage of gun ownership in Switzerland. I'm not arguing there can be private gun ownership, but as far as military weapons goes, they can keep their weapons at home but the ammunition is rationed to them... as I said it is a preventative measure in case of a foreign invasion.

Yea evetythin I read is the same, they can buy there military weapons but the ammo is stored by the Swiss government.

The military ammo....they can buy their own ammo too.....

 

[2aguy]

I got a scholarship because of my high SAT scores and high school GPA. Unfortunately, since I was only given a "General Under Honorable Conditions" discharge, instead of a "honorable," I am not allowed to use the GI bill

That's true due to the nature of your discharge. I hope the stigma sometimes associated with a General Discharge doesn't cause you too much trouble. Congrats on the scholarship.


In contrast, a “General, Under Honorable Conditions” Discharge (commonly referred to as a General Discharge) is for service members whose service was satisfactory, but involved situations where the Soldier’s conduct and/or performance of duty were not so meritorious to warrant an Honorable Discharge. Recipients of General Discharges usually have engaged in minor misconduct or have received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. While the “under honorable conditions” terminology is slightly confusing, there is a clear disadvantage to receiving a General Discharge in contrast to an Honorable Discharge. While recipients of a General Discharge will receive entitlement to benefits such as VA medical and dental services, VA home loans and burial in national cemeteries, they will not receive educational benefits under either the Montgomery or Post-9/11 GI Bill.

Additionally, there can be quite a stigma attached to having not received an Honorable Discharge. This stigma can have negative consequences while searching for work or applying for school.

Leaving on good terms: Types of discharges, their consequences

It won't affect anything. The only time someone is really affected by their discharge status is if it is Dishonorable.

Not exactly true.......if you don't have an honorable discharge, it can effect who will hire you.......there are a lot of vets they can hire with Honorables...they can be selective....

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

Even though the fucking people that wrote it say different? Get outta here

The constitution was written 200 years ago, by rich white slave owners, when women and people of color weren't allowed to vote. The times change. The meaning of the constitution changes too.

Besides, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted a "well regulated milita," aka one that received basic training and were under organized discipline and had a set chain of command

Oh look. Joe jr.

You do realize that there are millions of veterans who are gun owners, that will insist that they are the "well regulated militia," who are trained and proficient in the use of their firearms.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Good luck amending the second amendment.

 

[initforme]

Ahhh I load my own....amp it up just a tad... Great shocking power at 300 yards....great varmint whitetail antelope muley gun under 400 yards. Lethal as any assault load.

 

[initforme]

More lethal in fact. The military should loom at it. Low recoil huge shock.