Man brings knife...stabs two people...guess what makes him stop...

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I bet you're right...I bet the evil NRA bought up all the video with their money from the big gun companies and hid the massive shooting spree by the psychotic concealed carry holder...no doubt he went on the spree under orders from the NRA....

The NRA is a lobbyist group, not a social organization nor an educational association. It's all about money, honey.

Then what's it all about for those who lobby to take away gun ownership rights, bub?

Who would that be? Can't even name one?
And does it look like they have taken a single fucking thing away from you idiots?

You're a sad sacks of silliness.

The Brady Campaign. Ever heard of it?

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Tell me what they won. That's a campaign.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Man brings knife...stabs two people...guess what makes him stop...

All everyone's interested in is what what make you stop with your inane, ridiculous logical fallacies.

and many here want to know why you are too chickenshit to stick around and backup your inane,ridiculous opinions?...

 

[boedicca]

I bet you're right...I bet the evil NRA bought up all the video with their money from the big gun companies and hid the massive shooting spree by the psychotic concealed carry holder...no doubt he went on the spree under orders from the NRA....

The NRA is a lobbyist group, not a social organization nor an educational association. It's all about money, honey.

Then what's it all about for those who lobby to take away gun ownership rights, bub?

Who would that be? Can't even name one?
And does it look like they have taken a single fucking thing away from you idiots?

You're a sad sacks of silliness.

The Brady Campaign. Ever heard of it?

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Tell me what they won. That's a campaign.

The Brady Campaign advocates and lobbies for gun control. You asked for a name, you got one.

So deal with it.

 

[2aguy]

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Because the gun grabbers never stop...they continue to try to move the line to ban magazines, categories of weapons, and the ability to own and carry weapons for protection...

And the numbers don't support you...

11-12,000 gun murders each year...vs...2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved each year by regular people using guns...put up your isolated pictures...it is easy for your side since criminals create bodies which are easy to count....but it doesn't change the truth...guns save lives everyday...

Accidents with guns you might add ?

650-700 per year...vs....2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved with guns...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Man brings knife...stabs two people...guess what makes him stop...

All everyone's interested in is what what make you stop with your inane, ridiculous logical fallacies.

I come from a community of ranchers and farmers in the far west. Everybody there had and still has guns. But that was long ago and far away when they shot coyotes and wolves for raiding their sheep and cattle, not today where you have two-digit-IQ morons who haven't outgrown their acne and still living with their parents carrying an assault rifle into WalMart.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I bet you're right...I bet the evil NRA bought up all the video with their money from the big gun companies and hid the massive shooting spree by the psychotic concealed carry holder...no doubt he went on the spree under orders from the NRA....

The NRA is a lobbyist group, not a social organization nor an educational association. It's all about money, honey.

Then what's it all about for those who lobby to take away gun ownership rights, bub?

Who would that be? Can't even name one?
And does it look like they have taken a single fucking thing away from you idiots?

You're a sad sacks of silliness.

The Brady Campaign. Ever heard of it?

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Tell me what they won. That's a campaign.

The Brady Campaign advocates and lobbies for gun control. You asked for a name, you got one.

So deal with it.

Can't answer the question. Didn't think you could. You always get hard pressed for real information after the first round.

 

[boedicca]

I bet you're right...I bet the evil NRA bought up all the video with their money from the big gun companies and hid the massive shooting spree by the psychotic concealed carry holder...no doubt he went on the spree under orders from the NRA....

The NRA is a lobbyist group, not a social organization nor an educational association. It's all about money, honey.

Then what's it all about for those who lobby to take away gun ownership rights, bub?

Who would that be? Can't even name one?
And does it look like they have taken a single fucking thing away from you idiots?

You're a sad sacks of silliness.

The Brady Campaign. Ever heard of it?

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Tell me what they won. That's a campaign.

The Brady Campaign advocates and lobbies for gun control. You asked for a name, you got one.

So deal with it.

Can't answer the question. Didn't think you could. You always get hard pressed for real information after the first round.

Wow. You really have issues. You asked for a name, and you got it.

As for what's been "taken away"...gun CONTROL by definition limits individuals 2nd amendment rights. That's the entire purpose of GUN CONTROL.

 

[2aguy]

well, there's Bloombergs 2 groups, Mayors against illegal guns, Moms demand action, then there is the coalition to stop gun violence, handgun control inc....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I would have shot him, but good work either way.

This is an old story, by the way. It's been discussed here before.

Says something when you have to rehash old stories in order to try to prove a point that is losing ground by the day in this country.

The facts are this:
1) Most people who own weapons can barely hit the static, bullseye paper target when they go to the shooting range.
2)To throw that person into a sudden and violent situation and expect a military-like response by a civilian is pure fantasy and
3) only happens in the movies.

Not even cops/military can hit every thing they aim at.

Keep posting this often enough and people might believe it happens every day. Fact is, most who carry only dream about being able to blow someone away and when they do shoot someone its because they threw popcorn or played music too loud.

Open carry so sane people can avoid the Mighty Mouse nutters.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And if gun control hasn't done anything to affect gun ownership rights, then why do you lamebrains spend so much time and energy on it?

Because the gun grabbers never stop...they continue to try to move the line to ban magazines, categories of weapons, and the ability to own and carry weapons for protection...

And the numbers don't support you...

11-12,000 gun murders each year...vs...2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved each year by regular people using guns...put up your isolated pictures...it is easy for your side since criminals create bodies which are easy to count....but it doesn't change the truth...guns save lives everyday...

Accidents with guns you might add ?

650-700 per year...vs....2.5 million crimes stopped and lives saved with guns...

I did your homework for you, loser.

And David Frum is a conservative.....Bhahahahahahahaaa....


-------------------------------------------------
Do guns make us safer?
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
updated 12:55 PM EDT, Mon July 30, 2012

Do guns make us safer - CNN.com
For gun advocates, however, the main problem with the government estimate is that it is not nearly high enough to support their case that private gun ownership is the best way to stop crime. Many of them prefer another statistic, this from a study published in 1995 arguing that Americans use guns in self-defense some 2.5 million times a year, or once every 13 seconds. A Google search finds more than 1 million citations of this study posted online.

You can read the study here.

The trouble is that this claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is manifestly flawed and misleading.

1) Even if you think the 2.5 million statistic was correct at the time it was computed, it must be obsolete today, for the same reason that the victimization survey data is obsolete. The 1995 study that generated the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses was based upon data collected when crime rates were vastly higher than they are today. Some of the data was collected in 1981, near the very peak of the post-Vietnam War crime wave. It's just incredible on its face that defensive gun use would remain fixed at one level even as criminal attempts tumbled by one-third to one-half.

2) When we hear the phrase "defensive gun use," we're inclined to imagine a gun owner producing a weapon to defend himself or herself against bodily threat. Not so fast. The authors of the 1995 study aggregated 13 prior polls of gun users, most of which did not define what was meant by "use." As the authors of the 1995 aggregation study themselves ruefully acknowledged: "The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually 'used' in any meaningful way. Instead, (respondents) might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection 'just in case' or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing." In other words, even if the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses had been correct at some point back in the early 1990s or early 1980s, the vast majority of those "uses" may be householders picking up a shotgun before checking out the noises in the garage made by raccoons rooting through the trash.

3) The figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is supposed to represent the number of such uses per year. Yet none of the studies aggregated in the 1995 paper measured annual use. Most asked some version of the question, "Have you ever?" Two asked instead, "Have you within the past five years?" The authors of the 1995 study took those latter two surveys, multiplied the rate in the survey by the number of U.S. households, then divided by five to produce an annual figure.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And just think, there are liberals on this board, that want to take one of your Bill of Rights away.

 

[2aguy]

David Frum is a media conservative...as in the conservative who attacks real conservatives to the joy of lefties...

 

[2aguy]

Dr. Gary Kleck defends his own study here...

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95

It has recently been brought to my attention that certain
misinformation concerning my research on guns and violence has
been communicated to you in the form of a letter, dated August 8,
1995, from one Jon S. Vernick, who is apparently affiliated with
the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in
my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were
interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but
this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research.
Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The
number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size."
Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked
the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences
the precision of the estimates, not the number who answer "Yes"
to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50
people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons
(weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either
themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU
in which they had personally participated in the previous five
years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year
preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).

Vernick speculates that some substantial number of survey
respondents who reported a defensive gun use (DGU) were actually
describing "distant-in-time events" and that this resulted in
enormous overstatement of the frequency of DGUs. This problem,
known as "telescoping," does occur but in surveys of this type
its effects are cancelled out by problem~ in the opposite
direction (i.e. problems tending to make estimates of DGU
frequency too small) of respondents forgetting DGU events which
really did occur in the period that was asked about. In any case,
effects of telescoping are far too weak to account for the
results we obtained. These issues are discussed on pp. 34-35 of
the report.

Is 2.5 million way out there...not even close...as Kleck explains here in his response...

Indeed this is the only survey ever designed by anyone
specifically to estimate the frequency of DGU. Given the
technical flaws of prior surveys yielding DGU estimates, there is
no reason why my survey should have yielded the same, presumably
erroneous, estimates as previous surveys. Indeed, there would be
something seriously wrong if, despite my considerable efforts to
improve the methodology, I just got the same results as the
previous, seriously flawed surveys yielded.

In this connection, Vernick misleads by omission, failing to
inform the Commission just how common surveys yielding large DGU
estimates are. To date, there have been at least 14 surveys
implying anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year (see
Table 1 of enclosed report). For Vernick to hint that my estimate
was an isolated fluke rather than a common result is more than a
little deceptive.


That there are many other surveys implying
frequency DGUs is common knowledge among scholars who study this
subject, as it has been reported in both previous published
articles (e.g. Social Problems, volume 35, p. 3, February, 1988)
and in my book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (p.
146), winner of the 1993 Hindelang Award, granted by the American
Society of Criminology to the most outstanding book of the
preceding several years. These are hardly obscure information
sources to serious scholars, and no competent student of the
subject could claim to be unaware of these numerous surveys.

 

[2aguy]

And to show how wrong you are again...here is a look at fake conservative David Frum...

David Frum s Masquerade as a Conservative

Liberal television anchors love having David Frum on their shows. He pretends to be a conservative but makes a habit of bashing them.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I would have shot him, but good work either way.

This is an old story, by the way. It's been discussed here before.

Says something when you have to rehash old stories in order to try to prove a point that is losing ground by the day in this country.

The facts are this:
1) Most people who own weapons can barely hit the static, bullseye paper target when they go to the shooting range.
2)To throw that person into a sudden and violent situation and expect a military-like response by a civilian is pure fantasy and
3) only happens in the movies.

About fact #1: or be labeled a fibber!

I'm still waiting for that link!

NTTP: you wouldn't be a fibber would you?

 

[2aguy]

And to show you what a moron David Frum is as he attacks the right to keep and bear arms...

The 1995 study that generated the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses was based upon data collected when crime rates were vastly higher than they are today. Some of the data was collected in 1981,

Do you and he realize how this line destroys your points...today, 2014 more states have created concealed carry laws....more people are buying, owning and carrying guns for protection...and the crime rate is going down...not up...it completely refutes his points...Do you realize that yet...?

More guns are being carried by law abiding citizens...and the violent and gun crime rate is going down...even here in Chicago...they just passed concealed carry and it went into effect in January...and the violent crime rate is down 20%

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not even cops/military can hit every thing they aim at.

Keep posting this often enough and people might believe it happens every day. Fact is, most who carry only dream about being able to blow someone away and when they do shoot someone its because they threw popcorn or played music too loud.

Open carry so sane people can avoid the Mighty Mouse nutters.

The twentieth time you post the same stupid shit is just as stupid as the first nineteen!

 

[2aguy]

Just to help you out...and to be nice...I will even use the anti gunner numbers for how often someone uses a gun to save a life and stop a violent crime....the guy Hemenway...the one that all the anti gunners quote, supports the number of 108,000 gun uses to stop crimes and save lives....and you still can't get it to work for you...

gun murders each year....11-12,000....vs....108,000 crimes stopped and lives saved....

Gun accidents each year...650-700 each year....vs...108,000 crimes stopped and lives saved...

Now I don't believe 108,000 is even close to the right number...even the wikipedia article on Defensive gun uses says that most social scientists put the number between 250-370,000 crimes stopped and lives saved...

But Brain357 had to go and call even that number a farce..so if he wouldn't believe that number, I went to the closer number of 2.5 million....

 

[2aguy]

Open carry so sane people can avoid the Mighty Mouse nutters.

A more accurate point...concealed carry so the violent criminals won't know who can shoot and kill them, thereby making them switch to property crime...thereby keeping you safe as well as the person who went out and got the concealed carry permit...

You don't have to thank us...just leave us alone...

 

[2aguy]

As a recap....how many studies has Dr. Gary Kleck at beside his own

. To date, there have been at least 14 surveys
implying anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year (see
Table 1 of enclosed report). For Vernick to hint that my estimate
was an isolated fluke rather than a common result is more than a
little deceptive.


That there are many other surveys implying
frequency DGUs is common knowledge among scholars who study this