Another Anti Gun Study Uses Gangs To Boost Numbers...

[WinterBorn]

H

And again, from having posted it before...guns save lives and stop violent crime at least 760,000 times a year and that number could be as high as 3 million times a year. These numbers come from research from at least 15 different studies, conducted over 19 years...and that doesn't include obama's study from the CDS that found the number of times a gun is used to save a life and stop violent crime comes in at 500,000 times a year...and that came from studying 19 different gun studies....

Uh, guy, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of homicide with a gun by civilians in 2011 were ruled "Justifiable Self Defense".

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

So what you are going to have us believe is that 100,000 or 760,000 or 3,000,000 "Defensive Gun Uses" happen every year, and only 200 of them resulted in a dead body.

So you are saying that 99.8% to 99.9992% of the time, your Second Amendment Purist WHIPS OUT HIS GUN and yet is able to face down his attacker by force of will without having to shoot him dead.

Given the murder fantasies we see here by Gun Enthusiasts every day, the folks who idolize Zimmerman because he was "living the dream", I really find this hard to believe.

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?

 

[WinterBorn]

There was nothing about gangs in that article.

The quote I posted came from that article...you may need to re read the article...

Here it is again...

What did increase with gun ownership? The incidence in murders committed by loved ones, friends, and acquaintances, such as rival gang members.

So what is the problem? If I am a gang member and I have no felony conviction and no domestic violence conviction, why shouldn't I have a gun to protect myself from the same type of criminal that you and your kind are scared to death of? If it means that I, unlike you, have to shoot someone, well that is why I have a gun. Right?

So what is the problem with gang banger's having a gun legally? Is it just because the gang member is more inclined to use them? So? You would use your gun if you had to. Right?

If you have a gang member with no felony convictions and he is old enough to own a gun, then yes he should be able to buy.

OK then. SO why is gang member violence such an issue for other gun lovers? They ain't killing no one but themselves usually. And they are just using their constitutional right to protect themselves. Glad we got the gang bangers off the hook for all the unnecessary gun violence.

They are just exercising their right of self protection. Good for them and us. How come the NRA doesn't support gang bangers with owning guns? Legally that is.

I don't know, maybe because of: "Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others"?

from: FBI mdash Gangs

And also, if you will do a little research and find out how many gang members are old enough to buy a gun and do not have a felony conviction, you will see I was not giving the gangs much.

 

[zeke]

H

And again, from having posted it before...guns save lives and stop violent crime at least 760,000 times a year and that number could be as high as 3 million times a year. These numbers come from research from at least 15 different studies, conducted over 19 years...and that doesn't include obama's study from the CDS that found the number of times a gun is used to save a life and stop violent crime comes in at 500,000 times a year...and that came from studying 19 different gun studies....

Uh, guy, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of homicide with a gun by civilians in 2011 were ruled "Justifiable Self Defense".

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

So what you are going to have us believe is that 100,000 or 760,000 or 3,000,000 "Defensive Gun Uses" happen every year, and only 200 of them resulted in a dead body.

So you are saying that 99.8% to 99.9992% of the time, your Second Amendment Purist WHIPS OUT HIS GUN and yet is able to face down his attacker by force of will without having to shoot him dead.

Given the murder fantasies we see here by Gun Enthusiasts every day, the folks who idolize Zimmerman because he was "living the dream", I really find this hard to believe.

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

 

[rightwinger]

How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of gang members?

first, as I am near Chicago...how are you keeping guns out of the hands of gangs now...since Chicago still is fighting allowing gun stores and only since January have they had concealed carry...up till then...the strictest gun control measures of any city...and it did no good...

You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals...so you punish them when you catch them breaking those laws and you lock them up a long time...works everytime it is tried...that is how you use the law to stop gang members...if long sentences are imposed...as they are in Japan...then the smart ones will stop carrying, and the dumb ones will be locked up...

I know...it goes against every control impulse you have, but making laws that only law abiding citizens will follow hasn't helped...has it....again...look at chicago...

The response I expected

Chicago has tough gun laws but it's surrounding communities don't. Then NRA laughs because Chicago can't keep out the guns
As usual, we get the same rightwing response.....More prisons
We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation....yet our murder rate gives us third world status.

 

[WinterBorn]

H

And again, from having posted it before...guns save lives and stop violent crime at least 760,000 times a year and that number could be as high as 3 million times a year. These numbers come from research from at least 15 different studies, conducted over 19 years...and that doesn't include obama's study from the CDS that found the number of times a gun is used to save a life and stop violent crime comes in at 500,000 times a year...and that came from studying 19 different gun studies....

Uh, guy, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of homicide with a gun by civilians in 2011 were ruled "Justifiable Self Defense".

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

So what you are going to have us believe is that 100,000 or 760,000 or 3,000,000 "Defensive Gun Uses" happen every year, and only 200 of them resulted in a dead body.

So you are saying that 99.8% to 99.9992% of the time, your Second Amendment Purist WHIPS OUT HIS GUN and yet is able to face down his attacker by force of will without having to shoot him dead.

Given the murder fantasies we see here by Gun Enthusiasts every day, the folks who idolize Zimmerman because he was "living the dream", I really find this hard to believe.

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

I am pretty sure the store was happy not to be robbed. Whether you want to make the customer responsible to other robberies is your own business.

Also, according to this website, they are not sure it was teh same robber. The only thing they know is he had a mask on and carried a chrome handgun. And there is this quote: "It's unclear if the two incidents are linked, but the All in One robber was described as smaller than the one described at the Circle K"
Armed customer stops robbery at Circle K DAYTON OH Crime www.whio.com

 

[zeke]

There was nothing about gangs in that article.

The quote I posted came from that article...you may need to re read the article...

Here it is again...

What did increase with gun ownership? The incidence in murders committed by loved ones, friends, and acquaintances, such as rival gang members.

So what is the problem? If I am a gang member and I have no felony conviction and no domestic violence conviction, why shouldn't I have a gun to protect myself from the same type of criminal that you and your kind are scared to death of? If it means that I, unlike you, have to shoot someone, well that is why I have a gun. Right?

So what is the problem with gang banger's having a gun legally? Is it just because the gang member is more inclined to use them? So? You would use your gun if you had to. Right?

If you have a gang member with no felony convictions and he is old enough to own a gun, then yes he should be able to buy.

OK then. SO why is gang member violence such an issue for other gun lovers? They ain't killing no one but themselves usually. And they are just using their constitutional right to protect themselves. Glad we got the gang bangers off the hook for all the unnecessary gun violence.

They are just exercising their right of self protection. Good for them and us. How come the NRA doesn't support gang bangers with owning guns? Legally that is.

I don't know, maybe because of: "Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others"?

from: FBI mdash Gangs

And also, if you will do a little research and find out how many gang members are old enough to buy a gun and do not have a felony conviction, you will see I was not giving the gangs much.

What is the number of murders attributed to gang members? As compared to lets say, the number of murders committed by non gang members? Do gangs murder more than individuals do who kill spouses or other loved ones?

In other words, do people like you exaggerate the threat of random violence that you may encounter in living your normal life. So you can justify your gun love.

And just curious. I had a late night knock at my front door not to long ago. I went to the door with gun in hand. The folks at my door looked shady and they said their car broke down. I think I stopped a crime by having my gun in my hand. Is that correct? And is that how those stats are formulated. Seeing as how no one reports those stops to the police, I would guess self reporting is the only way to gather that info.
So add my number to the "crimes stopped" category.

 

[WinterBorn]

The quote I posted came from that article...you may need to re read the article...

Here it is again...

So what is the problem? If I am a gang member and I have no felony conviction and no domestic violence conviction, why shouldn't I have a gun to protect myself from the same type of criminal that you and your kind are scared to death of? If it means that I, unlike you, have to shoot someone, well that is why I have a gun. Right?

So what is the problem with gang banger's having a gun legally? Is it just because the gang member is more inclined to use them? So? You would use your gun if you had to. Right?

If you have a gang member with no felony convictions and he is old enough to own a gun, then yes he should be able to buy.

OK then. SO why is gang member violence such an issue for other gun lovers? They ain't killing no one but themselves usually. And they are just using their constitutional right to protect themselves. Glad we got the gang bangers off the hook for all the unnecessary gun violence.

They are just exercising their right of self protection. Good for them and us. How come the NRA doesn't support gang bangers with owning guns? Legally that is.

I don't know, maybe because of: "Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others"?

from: FBI mdash Gangs

And also, if you will do a little research and find out how many gang members are old enough to buy a gun and do not have a felony conviction, you will see I was not giving the gangs much.

What is the number of murders attributed to gang members? As compared to lets say, the number of murders committed by non gang members? Do gangs murder more than individuals do who kill spouses or other loved ones?

In other words, do people like you exaggerate the threat of random violence that you may encounter in living your normal life. So you can justify your gun love.

And just curious. I had a late night knock at my front door not to long ago. I went to the door with gun in hand. The folks at my door looked shady and they said their car broke down. I think I stopped a crime by having my gun in my hand. Is that correct? And is that how those stats are formulated. Seeing as how no one reports those stops to the police, I would guess self reporting is the only way to gather that info.
So add my number to the "crimes stopped" category.

Well, the FBI describes these gangs as pretty serious, as evidenced by the quote I posted earlier.

I do not need to exaggerate anything in order to justify my carrying or shooting firearms. I do so for many reasons. Much like I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck.

 

[zeke]

Uh, guy, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of homicide with a gun by civilians in 2011 were ruled "Justifiable Self Defense".

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

So what you are going to have us believe is that 100,000 or 760,000 or 3,000,000 "Defensive Gun Uses" happen every year, and only 200 of them resulted in a dead body.

So you are saying that 99.8% to 99.9992% of the time, your Second Amendment Purist WHIPS OUT HIS GUN and yet is able to face down his attacker by force of will without having to shoot him dead.

Given the murder fantasies we see here by Gun Enthusiasts every day, the folks who idolize Zimmerman because he was "living the dream", I really find this hard to believe.

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

I am pretty sure the store was happy not to be robbed. Whether you want to make the customer responsible to other robberies is your own business.

Also, according to this website, they are not sure it was teh same robber. The only thing they know is he had a mask on and carried a chrome handgun. And there is this quote: "It's unclear if the two incidents are linked, but the All in One robber was described as smaller than the one described at the Circle K"
Armed customer stops robbery at Circle K DAYTON OH Crime www.whio.com

You cling to that idea. Chrome handgun. Same neighborhood. Two different physical descriptions. Like that has never happened.

Nice dodge on the idea of holding the criminal until the cops came. Why wouldn't you endorse that idea? I thought you gun fans were scared of robbers and wanted them off the streets? Not really eh? Cause the fact this robber was let go means he might still be out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But don't use your gun from keeping that robber off the streets when you had the chance.

That's a weird position you have.

 

[zeke]

So what is the problem? If I am a gang member and I have no felony conviction and no domestic violence conviction, why shouldn't I have a gun to protect myself from the same type of criminal that you and your kind are scared to death of? If it means that I, unlike you, have to shoot someone, well that is why I have a gun. Right?

So what is the problem with gang banger's having a gun legally? Is it just because the gang member is more inclined to use them? So? You would use your gun if you had to. Right?

If you have a gang member with no felony convictions and he is old enough to own a gun, then yes he should be able to buy.

OK then. SO why is gang member violence such an issue for other gun lovers? They ain't killing no one but themselves usually. And they are just using their constitutional right to protect themselves. Glad we got the gang bangers off the hook for all the unnecessary gun violence.

They are just exercising their right of self protection. Good for them and us. How come the NRA doesn't support gang bangers with owning guns? Legally that is.

I don't know, maybe because of: "Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others"?

from: FBI mdash Gangs

And also, if you will do a little research and find out how many gang members are old enough to buy a gun and do not have a felony conviction, you will see I was not giving the gangs much.

What is the number of murders attributed to gang members? As compared to lets say, the number of murders committed by non gang members? Do gangs murder more than individuals do who kill spouses or other loved ones?

In other words, do people like you exaggerate the threat of random violence that you may encounter in living your normal life. So you can justify your gun love.

And just curious. I had a late night knock at my front door not to long ago. I went to the door with gun in hand. The folks at my door looked shady and they said their car broke down. I think I stopped a crime by having my gun in my hand. Is that correct? And is that how those stats are formulated. Seeing as how no one reports those stops to the police, I would guess self reporting is the only way to gather that info.
So add my number to the "crimes stopped" category.

Well, the FBI describes these gangs as pretty serious, as evidenced by the quote I posted earlier.

I do not need to exaggerate anything in order to justify my carrying or shooting firearms. I do so for many reasons. Much like I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck.

Well we ain't talking about shooting. That's recreation.

We were talking about carrying a weapon for defensive purposes. And just curious, how many times have you been the victim of random violence? And how many of those acts did you stop with your gun?

Or is your owning a gun and carrying all the time just like having a fire extinguisher in your truck? You just never know when you will be called on to put out a fire.

In other words, do you obsess about putting a fire out like you obsess over carrying a gun? Not much chance of having to use either. Both are risks and need to be concerned about. But to the point of obsession?

 

[WinterBorn]

If you have a gang member with no felony convictions and he is old enough to own a gun, then yes he should be able to buy.

OK then. SO why is gang member violence such an issue for other gun lovers? They ain't killing no one but themselves usually. And they are just using their constitutional right to protect themselves. Glad we got the gang bangers off the hook for all the unnecessary gun violence.

They are just exercising their right of self protection. Good for them and us. How come the NRA doesn't support gang bangers with owning guns? Legally that is.

I don't know, maybe because of: "Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others"?

from: FBI mdash Gangs

And also, if you will do a little research and find out how many gang members are old enough to buy a gun and do not have a felony conviction, you will see I was not giving the gangs much.

What is the number of murders attributed to gang members? As compared to lets say, the number of murders committed by non gang members? Do gangs murder more than individuals do who kill spouses or other loved ones?

In other words, do people like you exaggerate the threat of random violence that you may encounter in living your normal life. So you can justify your gun love.

And just curious. I had a late night knock at my front door not to long ago. I went to the door with gun in hand. The folks at my door looked shady and they said their car broke down. I think I stopped a crime by having my gun in my hand. Is that correct? And is that how those stats are formulated. Seeing as how no one reports those stops to the police, I would guess self reporting is the only way to gather that info.
So add my number to the "crimes stopped" category.

Well, the FBI describes these gangs as pretty serious, as evidenced by the quote I posted earlier.

I do not need to exaggerate anything in order to justify my carrying or shooting firearms. I do so for many reasons. Much like I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck.

Well we ain't talking about shooting. That's recreation.

We were talking about carrying a weapon for defensive purposes. And just curious, how many times have you been the victim of random violence? And how many of those acts did you stop with your gun?

Or is your owning a gun and carrying all the time just like having a fire extinguisher in your truck? You just never know when you will be called on to put out a fire.

In other words, do you obsess about putting a fire out like you obsess over carrying a gun? Not much chance of having to use either. Both are risks and need to be concerned about. But to the point of obsession?

First of all, you would have to prove that I am obsessive about guns. If you do not count recreation shooting and hunting, that would be quite hard to do. And I have used the fire extinguisher several times. Since I have a way of defending myself, I have been willing to stop and help stranded motorists when most people would not.

The fact that I am not willing to back a wholesale ban of firearms does not mean I am obsessive. And there are extremes on both sides of the fence. JoeyB is proof of that.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

I am pretty sure the store was happy not to be robbed. Whether you want to make the customer responsible to other robberies is your own business.

Also, according to this website, they are not sure it was teh same robber. The only thing they know is he had a mask on and carried a chrome handgun. And there is this quote: "It's unclear if the two incidents are linked, but the All in One robber was described as smaller than the one described at the Circle K"
Armed customer stops robbery at Circle K DAYTON OH Crime www.whio.com

You cling to that idea. Chrome handgun. Same neighborhood. Two different physical descriptions. Like that has never happened.

Nice dodge on the idea of holding the criminal until the cops came. Why wouldn't you endorse that idea? I thought you gun fans were scared of robbers and wanted them off the streets? Not really eh? Cause the fact this robber was let go means he might still be out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But don't use your gun from keeping that robber off the streets when you had the chance.

That's a weird position you have.

I have taken no position. I think the guy should have held the robber. But the fact that he did not does not change the fact that he stopped a crime.

 

[PredFan]

Wrong. You are still blaming the gun. What about the willingness to do violence? Until we take our heads out of our asses and look at that, we will only do harm.

Take away the guns, their ability to do violence will be diminished.

Absolutely incorrect . Therein lies the error and the reason we still have such violent acts.

 

[PredFan]

There was nothing about gangs in that article.

And the fact is, most victims of murder know their killers.

Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009

• In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2009. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

It's still not the fault if the gun. Until we get our heads out of our asses and look for the reasons that this kind if violence happens, it will continue despite any ban of any weapon. As long as the looney left continues to blame the tool, the violence will continue and innocent law abiding people will lose their rights AND their lives.

It's the "tools" who need a bunch of gunz to enjoy life, and one or two strapped to their body to walk down the street, who have created the problem. Need to put a brake on gun proliferation like the Australians had the guts/foresight to do in 1996. The sooner we do something, the less gunz we will have to deal with when we finally bite the bullet.

Too bad gun accumullators won't do it voluntarily by limiting the number and types of weapons they fondle.

Another left wing moron who has no idea what he's talking about.

Instead of trying to find out why so many people choose violence against the people the know, you choose to focus on the tool used. But you do that ONLY in the cases where guns are involved. Why do you do these things? Because you are a left wing hack nut job who refuses to think and instead you regurgitate progressive talking points. And childishly call people "tools" and put a "z" at the end of words where an "s" should be.

It's your kind of actions that continue the violence and carnage. Idiot.

 

[zeke]

So, you gun fans have stopped all this crime without having to shoot anyone. So what did you do after you stopped the crime from happening? Just let the criminal go about his business? Nice.

A open carry person recently stopped a robbery from happening at a Circle K store in Dayton Ohio. The open carry person let the would be robber go. And the robber went down the street and robbed a different store.

Is that your idea of the benefit of carrying a weapon? The criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person. He just happened to be in the store, stopped that crime from happening and let the criminal go. Why is that good?

Is some form of vigilante justice what you all are looking for? Where you all get to decide the severity of the crime and whether or not the criminal should be arrested? That won't end well.

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

I am pretty sure the store was happy not to be robbed. Whether you want to make the customer responsible to other robberies is your own business.

Also, according to this website, they are not sure it was teh same robber. The only thing they know is he had a mask on and carried a chrome handgun. And there is this quote: "It's unclear if the two incidents are linked, but the All in One robber was described as smaller than the one described at the Circle K"
Armed customer stops robbery at Circle K DAYTON OH Crime www.whio.com

You cling to that idea. Chrome handgun. Same neighborhood. Two different physical descriptions. Like that has never happened.

Nice dodge on the idea of holding the criminal until the cops came. Why wouldn't you endorse that idea? I thought you gun fans were scared of robbers and wanted them off the streets? Not really eh? Cause the fact this robber was let go means he might still be out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But don't use your gun from keeping that robber off the streets when you had the chance.

That's a weird position you have.

I have taken no position. I think the guy should have held the robber. But the fact that he did not does not change the fact that he stopped a crime.

The net gain was zero. The robber went down the street and robbed anyway. There was a real opportunity to remove a criminal from the street. I know you don't have the answer as to why the guy let the robber go, but sure seems strange to let a criminal go after stopping a robbery.

Guy could have stopped the robbery hitting the guy over the head with a ball bat. Then the robber wouldn't have run.

And do you really live where people are so bad and mean that you wouldn't stop and help them if their car was on fire unless you had a gun on you? That's a rough neighborhood you live in.

 

[2aguy]

your only legal option if the robber flees is to let him go....if you pursue, and shoot him you are in a world of legal trouble and could go to prison for decades. Once you have,stopped the immediate threat, you cannot shoot, since your life is no longer in immediate danger...and in Illinois, from the legal part of the concealed carry permit class, if I am pointing a gun at a criminal....and he starts walking away....I have no legal grounds to use my weapon to stop him....the lethal threat no longer exists....I would have to holster my weapon and try to physically restrain him....

Do you anti gunners ever study self defense law....do you ever study cases of self defense....you should...a lot of your qeustions would be answered.

Once the threat is over, you no longer can employ lethal force....

I had a police officer friend in a foot pursuit with a guy....he chased him back to his family home, through the house into the basement. the guy picked up a fire poker and raised it at my friend...he drew his pistol and ordered the guy to drop the weapon....the guy dropped the weapon....and charged my friend....my friend said...with no weapon in hand he no longer technically faced a disparate of force, so he quickly holstered his weapon and physically subdued the guy....

Once the lethal threat is over...as a civilian even more so....if you shoot and injure or kill an attacker, you face years in prison, huge law suits from the criminal or his family, and even if you win...you will spend a fortune on legal fees...the average cost in a justified shooting where you go to trial but win is over 20,000 dollars....to start....

so yeah....once the robber left...let him go....

 

[WinterBorn]

Would you prefer that muggers be gunned down? You sound disappointed that the robbery was stopped. How do you know the robber wasn't going to rob more than one store anyway?

Should no one defend themselves against robberies, because someone else might get robbed?The guy who stopped the robbery did the right thing. That he can't be everywhere is not his problem.

And the fact that you even mention that the criminal wasn't robbing the open carry person is funny. Should he not defend others? Should he not try and stop criminals in his neighborhood and community?[/QUOTE]


Well the open carry person COULD have held the robber at the store until the police arrived to deal with him.

Is that a concept foreign to you? Is your only choice to shoot em or let em go? Hell no that's not the only choice. And the correct choice would have been to hold the would be robber for the police. There by protecting not only the patrons in that store but keeping others safe from a would be robber as well.

Is letting a criminal go free to commit other crimes what you as a gun owner supports?
Or is it just all about you and you really don't care as long as the crime is not committed against YOU?

And where did you get the idea that I say no one should defend themselves from a robbery. I didn't. Is that whats called a "straw man" argument that you are presenting?

btw, the guy DIDN'T try and stop other crimes from being committed in his neighborhood. He let he would be robber go. Did you miss that part?

I am pretty sure the store was happy not to be robbed. Whether you want to make the customer responsible to other robberies is your own business.

Also, according to this website, they are not sure it was teh same robber. The only thing they know is he had a mask on and carried a chrome handgun. And there is this quote: "It's unclear if the two incidents are linked, but the All in One robber was described as smaller than the one described at the Circle K"
Armed customer stops robbery at Circle K DAYTON OH Crime www.whio.com

You cling to that idea. Chrome handgun. Same neighborhood. Two different physical descriptions. Like that has never happened.

Nice dodge on the idea of holding the criminal until the cops came. Why wouldn't you endorse that idea? I thought you gun fans were scared of robbers and wanted them off the streets? Not really eh? Cause the fact this robber was let go means he might still be out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But don't use your gun from keeping that robber off the streets when you had the chance.

That's a weird position you have.

I have taken no position. I think the guy should have held the robber. But the fact that he did not does not change the fact that he stopped a crime.

The net gain was zero. The robber went down the street and robbed anyway. There was a real opportunity to remove a criminal from the street. I know you don't have the answer as to why the guy let the robber go, but sure seems strange to let a criminal go after stopping a robbery.

Guy could have stopped the robbery hitting the guy over the head with a ball bat. Then the robber wouldn't have run.

And do you really live where people are so bad and mean that you wouldn't stop and help them if their car was on fire unless you had a gun on you? That's a rough neighborhood you live in.

I travel a lot. On a deserted highway in the middle of nowhere? If I had no firearm, there is a good chance I would not stop and help. I would, at least, call for help for them. Also, if I have family members with me, I don't stop unless I am reasonably sure they will be safe.

 

[AtticusF]

There was nothing about gangs in that article.

And the fact is, most victims of murder know their killers.

Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009

• In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2009. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

It's still not the fault if the gun. Until we get our heads out of our asses and look for the reasons that this kind if violence happens, it will continue despite any ban of any weapon. As long as the looney left continues to blame the tool, the violence will continue and innocent law abiding people will lose their rights AND their lives.

It's the "tools" who need a bunch of gunz to enjoy life, and one or two strapped to their body to walk down the street, who have created the problem. Need to put a brake on gun proliferation like the Australians had the guts/foresight to do in 1996. The sooner we do something, the less gunz we will have to deal with when we finally bite the bullet.

Too bad gun accumullators won't do it voluntarily by limiting the number and types of weapons they fondle.

meh

limpwrister emotional rants are gay as are wiffle ball bat self defense arsenals.

My posted research from Harvard University on page one of this thread schools the gayness.

As I thought, you must be lightly educated. The Kates and Mauser paper is not a Harvard study. Neither Kates nor Mauser are affiliated with Harvard. The paper was was published in a conservative/libertarian student journal at Harvard, and was not peer reviewed. Their are right wingers at Harvard, and many are into gunz too. So a debunked paper like this will get them off just like it did Breitbart.

But, if it makes you feel closer to your gunz when you fondle them . . . . . .

 

[zeke]

your only legal option if the robber flees is to let him go....if you pursue, and shoot him you are in a world of legal trouble and could go to prison for decades. Once you have,stopped the immediate threat, you cannot shoot, since your life is no longer in immediate danger...and in Illinois, from the legal part of the concealed carry permit class, if I am pointing a gun at a criminal....and he starts walking away....I have no legal grounds to use my weapon to stop him....the lethal threat no longer exists....I would have to holster my weapon and try to physically restrain him....

Do you anti gunners ever study self defense law....do you ever study cases of self defense....you should...a lot of your qeustions would be answered.

Once the threat is over, you no longer can employ lethal force....

I had a police officer friend in a foot pursuit with a guy....he chased him back to his family home, through the house into the basement. the guy picked up a fire poker and raised it at my friend...he drew his pistol and ordered the guy to drop the weapon....the guy dropped the weapon....and charged my friend....my friend said...with no weapon in hand he no longer technically faced a disparate of force, so he quickly holstered his weapon and physically subdued the guy....

Once the lethal threat is over...as a civilian even more so....if you shoot and injure or kill an attacker, you face years in prison, huge law suits from the criminal or his family, and even if you win...you will spend a fortune on legal fees...the average cost in a justified shooting where you go to trial but win is over 20,000 dollars....to start....

so yeah....once the robber left...let him go....

Make sure I understand. In this case, an open carry person is in a store when the robber comes in to rob the store. Not the patrons. The open carry dude pulls his gun, stops the robbery and tell the robber to leave.

Why didn't the open carry dude just stay out of it I wonder. No threat to him. And he could have hid till the robber came for him, then shot the robber and really stopped a criminal.

That about it?

And that part about how much trouble you will be in in the case of shooting someone. Are you sure about your statement about how much trouble a person would be in for acting in self defense? I think you may overstate the case a bit.

Now if you just go shooting people presenting no threat to yourself, that's a problem.

Isn't it amazing the number of people who put themselves in this precarious position (who to shoot, when to shoot, how much trouble will I be in for shooting etc) by carrying a gun when they don't really know what to do with it.

 

[2aguy]

As I thought, you must be lightly educated. The Kates and Mauser paper is not a Harvard study. Neither Kates nor Mauser are affiliated with Harvard. The paper was was published in a conservative/libertarian student journal at Harvard, and was not peer reviewed. Their are right wingers at Harvard, and many are into gunz too. So a debunked paper like this will get them off just like it did Breitbart.

That's fine...because none of the 19 studies I cite include that study....and they were done by multiple sources, including the Dept. of Justice, obama's CDC, criminologists, journalists...and proffessionals in these studies....so you are still wrong...

 

[2aguy]

Why didn't the open carry dude just stay out of it I wonder. No threat to him. And he could have hid till the robber came for him, then shot the robber and really stopped a criminal.

I can name lots of cases where after the violent criminals got the cash...they murdered the witnesses...in Palatine, Illinois...the famous Brown's chicken massacre...recently the three guys who shot the clerk in both legs...

How do you know how the robbery is going to end when it starts..? Can you read the mind of a man or men who have pointed a gun at innocent people and told them if they do not cooperate, they will be murdered? Can you guarantee that the end of the robbery will not end in murder...?

That is why you intervene with your gun if you choose to do it...and once they flee...you have no authority to pursue them...and if you shoot a fleeing robber...God help you...guys like you will call for the worst possible punishment...after all, the guy was running away...

You guys really need to think about how these things work...

For some actual knowledge on the subject of defensive uses of guns I recommend...

Guns Save Lives...
The Armed Citizen...

You will see how these events work themselves out...and it will keep you from making statements like the one above...