Home invasion...thank goodness victims didn't have a gun...grandfather was beaten to death though...

[Brain357]

Brain357, I am guessing that you do acknowledge that there are defensive uses of firearms in the US. While the numbers estimated vary greatly, I think it is obvious that it does, in fact, happen.

What number do you accept as reasonably accurate?

He made up 100,000....says that sounds right....nothing to back it up.....none of the research gets close to that number....

You are lying. You are familiar with the ncvs survey.

Yes...very familiar with it......it isn't a gun use survey....therefore there is no way it is accurate....the 16 survey's I average are all gun self defense surveys......and the most accurate is Dr. Kleck's........

So then you know I have something to back it up. I did not lie. And you know I don't.

 

[2aguy]

When you cite the National Crime Victimization Survey, knowing full well that it is not an actual study of self defense gun use....and you know it is not....and you cite it as the definitive source for self defense gun use....again, knowing that it is not.....then what should I call what you are doing.....other than lying about it?

 

[2aguy]

Besides, the NCVS actually numbers it at 108,000.....so even using this non gun study to cite gun numbers you are off.......

 

[2aguy]

Brain357, I am guessing that you do acknowledge that there are defensive uses of firearms in the US. While the numbers estimated vary greatly, I think it is obvious that it does, in fact, happen.

What number do you accept as reasonably accurate?

He made up 100,000....says that sounds right....nothing to back it up.....none of the research gets close to that number....

You are lying. You are familiar with the ncvs survey.

Yes...very familiar with it......it isn't a gun use survey....therefore there is no way it is accurate....the 16 survey's I average are all gun self defense surveys......and the most accurate is Dr. Kleck's........

So then you know I have something to back it up. I did not lie. And you know I don't.

No...having something to back it up would be an actual study that looks at defensive gun use and comes up with a number using scientific methods.....you are using a crime victim study that studies how many people are the victim of which types of crime....and it doesn't even do a very good job of that.......

 

[Brain357]

Brain357, I am guessing that you do acknowledge that there are defensive uses of firearms in the US. While the numbers estimated vary greatly, I think it is obvious that it does, in fact, happen.

What number do you accept as reasonably accurate?

He made up 100,000....says that sounds right....nothing to back it up.....none of the research gets close to that number....

You are lying. You are familiar with the ncvs survey.

Yes...very familiar with it......it isn't a gun use survey....therefore there is no way it is accurate....the 16 survey's I average are all gun self defense surveys......and the most accurate is Dr. Kleck's........

So then you know I have something to back it up. I did not lie. And you know I don't.

No...having something to back it up would be an actual study that looks at defensive gun use and comes up with a number using scientific methods.....you are using a crime victim study that studies how many people are the victim of which types of crime....and it doesn't even do a very good job of that.......

It is the only study that can be accurate. Your studies are filled with false positives. The numbers are impossible or every gun owner would have a defense. That clearly isn't true.

 

[2aguy]

He made up 100,000....says that sounds right....nothing to back it up.....none of the research gets close to that number....

You are lying. You are familiar with the ncvs survey.

Yes...very familiar with it......it isn't a gun use survey....therefore there is no way it is accurate....the 16 survey's I average are all gun self defense surveys......and the most accurate is Dr. Kleck's........

So then you know I have something to back it up. I did not lie. And you know I don't.

No...having something to back it up would be an actual study that looks at defensive gun use and comes up with a number using scientific methods.....you are using a crime victim study that studies how many people are the victim of which types of crime....and it doesn't even do a very good job of that.......

It is the only study that can be accurate. Your studies are filled with false positives. The numbers are impossible or every gun owner would have a defense. That clearly isn't true.

No, it isn't filled with false postitives...in fact, because many gun owners who use guns for self defense are reluctant to discuss it with a stranger they don't know......many times they will not admit to using a gun...sooooo, the actual number is probably higher....remember, the 1.6 million is an average of 16 different gun self defense studies, not the hard number.......obama's CDC says it could be as high as 3 million times a year.....while bill clinton's Justice Dept. said the number is 1.5 million times a year.....

 

[Correll]

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Brain357]

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

He admitted to buying a house and getting married that year. You are pretty foolish if you think that isn't a strong point of reference. He has only defended himself once, not like it's a regular occurance. There is no reason he wouldn't be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about expecting someone to be reasonably accurate with when it occurred. Especially with such strong reference points in time.

 

[Brain357]

You are lying. You are familiar with the ncvs survey.

Yes...very familiar with it......it isn't a gun use survey....therefore there is no way it is accurate....the 16 survey's I average are all gun self defense surveys......and the most accurate is Dr. Kleck's........

So then you know I have something to back it up. I did not lie. And you know I don't.

No...having something to back it up would be an actual study that looks at defensive gun use and comes up with a number using scientific methods.....you are using a crime victim study that studies how many people are the victim of which types of crime....and it doesn't even do a very good job of that.......

It is the only study that can be accurate. Your studies are filled with false positives. The numbers are impossible or every gun owner would have a defense. That clearly isn't true.

No, it isn't filled with false postitives...in fact, because many gun owners who use guns for self defense are reluctant to discuss it with a stranger they don't know......many times they will not admit to using a gun...sooooo, the actual number is probably higher....remember, the 1.6 million is an average of 16 different gun self defense studies, not the hard number.......obama's CDC says it could be as high as 3 million times a year.....while bill clinton's Justice Dept. said the number is 1.5 million times a year.....

And to believe those numbers just about every gun owner has had a defense. That isn't close to true so obviously the numbers are false. Did you see how this guy can't accurately say within 13 years when his imaginary defense happened? Your surveys are usually 3-5 years. Imagine how many false positives that is.

 

[Interpol]

Another stupid RW example to further the myth that people with guns NEVER have bad things happen to them.

There are hardly any stories you can find about people with guns who are actually in the act of defending themselves, other than the odd convenience store clerk.

All the stats show that people who carry are actually more at risk of having their weapon used against them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All the stats show that people who carry are actually more at risk of having their weapon used against them.

Around 11,000,000 people in the US - ~3.5% of the population - have a carry permit and so, presumably, carry a gun.
Show that more of them have had their carry gun used against them then have used them in their own defense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

Now you're just getting pathetic in your attempts to discredit.
You're free to find the at least three posts where I've described the happenings on that day. You'll find them to be exact in every detail.
Maybe I should have back shot the spics. Then I'd have some newspaper clippings to show you.

The only thing pathetic is making up a story that can't be believed. Be mad at yourself for that not me.

I believed his story.

That's because you are a pro gun nut. You believe anything pro gun without question. I look for the truth however.

Right you look for the truth by automatically claiming any defense was by a criminal or did not happen, such a bright unbiased fellow you are.

 

[Correll]

3 Mexican looking thugs tried to get into this guys house. He scared them off with a shotgun.

Whether it was 1990 or 2002, doesn't matter.

You do know that such inaccuracies are common in eyewitness accounts taken right after an incident, don't you?

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

He admitted to buying a house and getting married that year. You are pretty foolish if you think that isn't a strong point of reference. He has only defended himself once, not like it's a regular occurance. There is no reason he wouldn't be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about expecting someone to be reasonably accurate with when it occurred. Especially with such strong reference points in time.

If you are as well versed on this subject as you present yourself to be, then you should be well aware of the limits of eye witness testimony.

Am I incorrect in my conclusion that you are familiar with the expected levels of accuracy with eye witness accounts?

 

[Brain357]

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

Now you're just getting pathetic in your attempts to discredit.
You're free to find the at least three posts where I've described the happenings on that day. You'll find them to be exact in every detail.
Maybe I should have back shot the spics. Then I'd have some newspaper clippings to show you.

The only thing pathetic is making up a story that can't be believed. Be mad at yourself for that not me.

I believed his story.

That's because you are a pro gun nut. You believe anything pro gun without question. I look for the truth however.

Right you look for the truth by automatically claiming any defense was by a criminal or did not happen, such a bright unbiased fellow you are.

That isn't true at all. I simply realize many defenders are involved in criminal activity.

 

[Brain357]

Since they had a cell phone it does matter. He had time to think about when it happened. He should be able to do it accurately within 5 years. When I pointed out how unlikely his story was he then started changing the date to match his story. Sorry but his story is very questionable. If anything actually happened I doubt his version is very accurate. Pretty sure it's was just a poorly thought out lie.

"He had time to think about it when it happened"? What does that mean?

It takes less than a second to notice a detail like that.

How does that indicate that he should be able to recall the date within five years, 25 to 12 years later?

Trying to inflate that into evidence of a lie is what is "very questionable".

You have a vested interest in coming to the "conclusion" that his story is a lie, for that lets you dismiss his point and use it to bolster your own.

But you probably never consider your own human foibles do you? That's something you save to use when it serves your agenda.

This is a message board. He had lots of time to answer. He even questioned why I was asking as I'm sure he was worried about being. Sorry but if he says 25 years ago it should be fairly accurate, not changed after to fit his made up story.

Nothing you just said addressed anything I said.

"This a message board. He had lot of time to answer."

So what? He is not sure of the date of the attack. It doesn't matter rather he answered quickly or took his time. That information is not there anymore.

You keep insisting that he should be able to be accurate on the date and that his not being is some type of evidence that he is lying.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

And your attempt to use this minor error in order to attack his character and accuse him of lying?

Extremely self serving and intellectually dishonest.

He admitted to buying a house and getting married that year. You are pretty foolish if you think that isn't a strong point of reference. He has only defended himself once, not like it's a regular occurance. There is no reason he wouldn't be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about expecting someone to be reasonably accurate with when it occurred. Especially with such strong reference points in time.

If you are as well versed on this subject as you present yourself to be, then you should be well aware of the limits of eye witness testimony.

Am I incorrect in my conclusion that you are familiar with the expected levels of accuracy with eye witness accounts?

Why is it you bother defending his lie? He has already abandoned it. I have a lot of common sense and can tell when something isn't right. A cell phone in 1990 is highly unlikely. And when I pointed that out the the dates went from 25 years ago to maybe 12, but not more than 25 for sure. You must be very easily fooled if you fall for this stuff.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How do you know what a Mexican with a cell phone would have "casually" done? You've been repeatedly pwned on this thread. May I suggest you retreat while you still have a little dignity left.

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually, it's you that had the "nice try".

You were looking for an excuse to dismiss this example of a defensive use of a gun.

You couldn't shake his story, so now you are pretending that the fact that it was "not in the time range" means it should not be considered.

The point of any personal self defense shows that the self defense argument is valid.

As does this one.

Trouble with details of timing do NOT invalidate the lessons of this example.

He claimed 3 Mexicans with a cell phone came to his door in 1990. His story was shaken. He then had to change his story to 12-25 years ago to cover his lie. This change then proved what I have been saying about surveys and false positives. Double win for me.

A minor time inaccuracy after 12 to 25 years is nothing.

That you have used that minor point to accuse him of lying shows that either you are completely ignorant of the limits of eye witness testimony or you are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

YOu come across as well read on this subject. This supports the latter explanation.

That you are afraid to discuss the issue honestly shows that you yourself know that the truth is not your ally.

12-25 years is minor for you? It shouldn't be. Sorry but the time is important as are the details. The time range only grew after he knew he was caught. That puts the whole story into question. And as I said the confusion on time proves my point about the inaccuracy of gun surveys.

No..it proves I dont remember the year it happened because it was a long time ago.
And it also proves you'll ignore words in my original post to try and make points.
You said "around" qualified as plus or minus five years.(which is complete bullshit by the way) So using your "standard" that would put it around 1995 which for all I know that could be right.
So using your own logic where does that put your cell phone fairy tale?

Still very unlikely. I do like how it's 1990 or more recent, but not older. Glad you are clear on that. Older would only make your story more ridiculous.

And who believes a 1982 cutlass made it to 1995?

I have a 1961 Ford truck, still runs great.

 

[Brain357]

Haha that's a good one. Sorry his timeline didn't workout. Just move the year 13 years like he said.

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In which post did he change the year from 25 to 13?

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

 

[Brain357]

He said anytime in the 13 years he lived there. After clearly stating 25 years ago. So it is now 12-25 years ago. Hard to defend a lie sometimes I guess.

I recall he said he moved into the house in 1990, 25 years ago and sometime in the 13 years that he lived there this event happened. An exact date wasn't given and I think he admitted that he was unsure of the exact year. You're making something out of nothing and I can only assume it's because you are retarded.

Yes that's after he said it was 25 years ago and had to start covering for the lie.

1990 was 25 years ago.

Yes his first response was just 25 years ago. Which was when he bought a house and got married. Real good references to help him remember.

So?

So it should be easy to remember. Like I said you believe anything pro gun without thinking. Nothing is going to change that. He could have said he defended himself against Bigfoot and you'd believe him. Those of us who want the truth see through these things however.