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

[zeke]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

 

[zeke]

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

 

[WinterBorn]

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

I caught my guns getting ready to go on a shooting spree in the neighborhood. Thank goodness I stopped them just in time.

 

[zeke]

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

 

[WinterBorn]

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

 

[zeke]

I caught my guns getting ready to go on a shooting spree in the neighborhood. Thank goodness I stopped them just in time.

What a stupid fucker you are. Think you're being "cute" you fuzzy widdle wabbit you.

 

[WinterBorn]

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

I think we both see "most" in terms of the opposition. Most of the ones fighting for stricter gun controls want huge changes.

I cannot, however, in good faith, agree with stopping every man under 30 from buying a gun. The fact that we would still allow women to do so blows the equality issue, and the fact that 99.9% of those men will not commit any murders or dangerous shootings means we punish 21 million men for the acts of fewer than 10 thousand.

 

[zeke]

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

See, other than a bit of hassle, this wait cost you what? You have other deer rifles yes?

This is the kind of hassles that comes about when both sides of an issue can't come together to make a system work better. When people of good faith and common sense try and resolve issues, the issue usually gets resolved.

In other words, if both sides agreed, we could come up with a much better back ground check method. But when one side is opposed and the other side enraged, guess what. Delays happen by design.

Used to be Americans were good at resolving issues and problems. Now we just point fingers and shout.

 

[zeke]

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

I think we both see "most" in terms of the opposition. Most of the ones fighting for stricter gun controls want huge changes.

I cannot, however, in good faith, agree with stopping every man under 30 from buying a gun. The fact that we would still allow women to do so blows the equality issue, and the fact that 99.9% of those men will not commit any murders or dangerous shootings means we punish 21 million men for the acts of fewer than 10 thousand.

Winterborn, please explain what "punishment" is being meted out. Never said they couldn't shoot, hunt, whatever. Just that they couldn't go out and buy from a legal source.

If this was a law, lets say my 22 year old son wants to do some shooting. He and Dad go out and shoot up some targets. He can't go out and buy himself a gun.

What harm has occurred to my son? What "punishment" did he suffer?

 

[zeke]

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

I think we both see "most" in terms of the opposition. Most of the ones fighting for stricter gun controls want huge changes.

I cannot, however, in good faith, agree with stopping every man under 30 from buying a gun. The fact that we would still allow women to do so blows the equality issue, and the fact that 99.9% of those men will not commit any murders or dangerous shootings means we punish 21 million men for the acts of fewer than 10 thousand.

Hey I din't realize you were a Democrat. Worried about that "equality" issue.

Women already have an "equality issue" in our gun ownership society. They don't want to buy guns and they are usually the target for the gun owning abusive husbands.

I think most women could live with the fact that their husband does not have a gun and that her children are not in as much danger when there is NO gun in the house. Yes, most young women would make that trade.
Them safe, kids at home safe. Husband has to wait till he is 30 to buy guns. They'd be good with that. Why wouldn't they like that?

 

[WinterBorn]

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

I think we both see "most" in terms of the opposition. Most of the ones fighting for stricter gun controls want huge changes.

I cannot, however, in good faith, agree with stopping every man under 30 from buying a gun. The fact that we would still allow women to do so blows the equality issue, and the fact that 99.9% of those men will not commit any murders or dangerous shootings means we punish 21 million men for the acts of fewer than 10 thousand.

Winterborn, please explain what "punishment" is being meted out. Never said they couldn't shoot, hunt, whatever. Just that they couldn't go out and buy from a legal source.

If this was a law, lets say my 22 year old son wants to do some shooting. He and Dad go out and shoot up some targets. He can't go out and buy himself a gun.

What harm has occurred to my son? What "punishment" did he suffer?

That only works if a son lives close to his parents until he is 30 years old. Or that his parents live until he is 30.

And since you keep saying "... couldn't go out and buy from a legal source", does this mean they can buy from a private individual? Or inherit their father's guns?

 

[The Rabbi]

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

I own one in 30-06. I stuck a Leopold 2-7x28 compact on it. Wonderful gun. One of my favorites.

 

[The Rabbi]

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

See, other than a bit of hassle, this wait cost you what? You have other deer rifles yes?

This is the kind of hassles that comes about when both sides of an issue can't come together to make a system work better. When people of good faith and common sense try and resolve issues, the issue usually gets resolved.

In other words, if both sides agreed, we could come up with a much better back ground check method. But when one side is opposed and the other side enraged, guess what. Delays happen by design.

Used to be Americans were good at resolving issues and problems. Now we just point fingers and shout.

Zeke you wouldnt know good faith or common sense if they appeared in your can of Blatz.
Nothing you have ever proposed would do anything whatsoever to reduce gun crime.

 

[WinterBorn]

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Feel free to point out ANY posts where I have said that ALL of us need to have a gun. In fact, I have said if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun.

So I take it you are backing away from the claim I was calling for people to lose their gun rights? Cool.
Then I will back away from my claim that YOU said ALL people should have a gun.

But you sure don't seem willing to restrict access to weapons for some people. Like men under 30.

The issue is that MOST people hear the gun talk and the "self protection" talk and THINK they need a weapon. And no one is there to say wait a minute. FOR WHAT? They purchase weapons not because they hunt, target shoot, compete etc. They purchase weapons based on fear.

So now we have a bunch of fearful, rookie gun owners with great weapons and no common sense as to how and when they should be used. That's not a good situation. No matter what the NRA says. Or the COTUS says.

I think we both see "most" in terms of the opposition. Most of the ones fighting for stricter gun controls want huge changes.

I cannot, however, in good faith, agree with stopping every man under 30 from buying a gun. The fact that we would still allow women to do so blows the equality issue, and the fact that 99.9% of those men will not commit any murders or dangerous shootings means we punish 21 million men for the acts of fewer than 10 thousand.

Hey I din't realize you were a Democrat. Worried about that "equality" issue.

Women already have an "equality issue" in our gun ownership society. They don't want to buy guns and they are usually the target for the gun owning abusive husbands.

I think most women could live with the fact that their husband does not have a gun and that her children are not in as much danger when there is NO gun in the house. Yes, most young women would make that trade.
Them safe, kids at home safe. Husband has to wait till he is 30 to buy guns. They'd be good with that. Why wouldn't they like that?

I am not a democrat or a republican. I believe in equality. Because I am pro gun does not mean I am anti-equality.

And women are one of the fastest growing segments of the shooting world.

As for her not wanting the abusive husband to have a gun, all she needs to do is call the cops when he beats her. a conviction on domestic violence charges (even as a misdemenor) means he cannot own a gun. But she can protect herself with one.

As for the safety of the children, this is why I have continually said "if you do not intend to take the time & effort to learn proper safety procedures and to learn to shoot well, you shouldn't have a gun".

 

[WinterBorn]

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

I own one in 30-06. I stuck a Leopold 2-7x28 compact on it. Wonderful gun. One of my favorites.

I mounted a Leupold 2x7x33mm on mine. The more compact scope really works on the #1. Much venison in my freezer with that beauty. And the wood that Ruger uses on the #1 is usually exceptional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well at least you have minimal risk of a B&E in the middle of the night. According to FBI stats. A barking dog gives you the same deterrence to a thief.

If someone is kicking in your door at 4am, shooting when they come in, you got a big problem. They have more on their mind than stealing your TV. Do you have reason to fear that this is gonna happen to you? Usually it is people engaged in corrupt. illegal activities that have to worry about their doors being kicked in at 4am. Either by another criminal or it is the police. And I don't believe that you are a criminal.

So are your concerns based in reality? Based on actual experiences? Or have your concerns been manipulated by others for some other reason?

Home invasions, while not particularly common, do happen. There are also assaults, armed robberies, and other criminal activities which I prefer to have some way of defending against.

But since you point out that it is unlikely that anything will happen, I have a question for you. Why is "unlikely" a good reason for me to remain unarmed, but it is not a good reason to allow law abiding citizens to have a gun?

If all 10,000 gun murders were committed by legal gun owners (and we know that is not true) then 99.984% of legal gun owners have never killed anyone. Yet you and JoeBonkers insist we restrict the freedoms of that 99.984% to try and control the less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners.

Hey Winterborn, feel free to point out ANY posts where I have been in favor of taking guns away from anyone.

The most "radical" idea I presented is to deny men under the age of 30 the ability to buy guns from legal sources. And that wasn't taking anyone's gun rights away, it would just make them wait a while longer before they could BUY guns.

What I would like to do is to have people like you ( a "responsible gun owner") quit screaming so shrilly that ALL of us need to have guns.

I am here to tell you that not ALL of us need to have a gun. Yet people like you insist that is not the case. That the likelihood of being a victim is so great that you better hurry out and get you a gun before the libs take it away from you.

That is just selling fear to the masses to create more gun sales and it is wrong. You sell a fantasy to people.
Lock you doors (FBI says most burglars walked in the front door) get a dog that barks. Avoid places with high criminal activity. etc etc. There are lots of things people can do to protect themselves much better than walking around with a gun thinking they are invincible or something.

But using other crime avoidance methods does nothing for gun sales.

Another issue I have is that the measure that were claimed to be put into place to prevent gun crime, create hassles in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with gun crime.

In my years of buying guns, there have been 3 separate occasions in which my gun purchase was denied via the NICS. All 3 times it was an issue with the system. On one occasion I was finally able to buy what I consider the finest deer rifle made. I found a Ruger No.1 Light Sporter in .270. It is an elegant looking rifle, with the handling characteristics of a carbine and the barrel length of a standard rifle. It took me a week to buy that single shot hunting rifle. Surely no one sees a single shot hunting rifle as a threat to society?

I own one in 30-06. I stuck a Leopold 2-7x28 compact on it. Wonderful gun. One of my favorites.

I mounted a Leupold 2x7x33mm on mine. The more compact scope really works on the #1. Much venison in my freezer with that beauty. And the wood that Ruger uses on the #1 is usually exceptional.

Yes. The #1 is a fast handling light rifle and the small scope preserves that, while being effective out to 300yards or so. Great shooting gun.

 

[2aguy]

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working.

Do you know why...because, according to interviews with criminals who rob homes...they do not want to take a chance on facing a home owner with a gun...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple fact, next year, if present trends continue, more people will be killed in the US with a gun than die in auto accidents. We are a first world nation with third world stastics concerning suicides and homocides with guns.

And yet, the % of guns in the US used to commit murder is statistically the same as every other western nation.
What does that tell you?