The Right To Bear Arms

[ChrisL]

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

 

[Brain357]

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

 

[ChrisL]

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents. I looked through the link and saw NO such thing. If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.

 

[ChrisL]

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed? He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so. There were also several others I linked you to. I can find them again if need be. I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . if anyone wonders why I am not very nice to brainless, this is why. He is completely dishonest POS.

 

[Brain357]

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed? He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so. There were also several others I linked you to. I can find them again if need be. I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.

Yes it sounded very fictional. I believe he was at his house and saw the criminals. Grabbed his pistol, assault rifle, submachine gun, and shotgun. Then he went and blasted all 10 of them or whatever. Sounded pretty fictional to me but I guess the most important point is that he chose to go take on a bunch of criminals. He should have called the cops and stayed safely at his home. Had it been a real story he'd probably be dead.

 

[Brain357]

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents. I looked through the link and saw NO such thing. If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.

You must not be very smart. I've already quoted it.

 

[Brain357]

So . . . if anyone wonders why I am not very nice to brainless, this is why. He is completely dishonest POS.

For quoting Kleck? Hey I didn't make him say it.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed? He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so. There were also several others I linked you to. I can find them again if need be. I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.

Yes it sounded very fictional. I believe he was at his house and saw the criminals. Grabbed his pistol, assault rifle, submachine gun, and shotgun. Then he went and blasted all 10 of them or whatever. Sounded pretty fictional to me but I guess the most important point is that he chose to go take on a bunch of criminals. He should have called the cops and stayed safely at his home. Had it been a real story he'd probably be dead.

It was a real story. It was in the news, and I quoted you a link to that. There are MANY instances.

shop owner fights off would be robbers - Google Search

 

[ChrisL]

Many instances, and given how violent people have become, I suspect the need will increase too.

Let me google that for you

 

[ChrisL]

8216 Shoot the Mother F ker 8217 Gun Store Owner Opens Fire on 3 Burglars After They Drove Van Through Wall Video TheBlaze.com

 

[ChrisL]

I suppose brainless wants all of these would-be crime victims to have been left defenseless, or only with the amount of rounds that he feels is appropriate, even though he has NO idea what could happen or how many rounds a person may need to defend themselves, their family and their livelihood.

 

[ChrisL]

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members

 

[ChrisL]

Now what angle is brainless going to take? All of his anti second amendment angles have been utterly destroyed. What now?

 

[Ernie S.]

This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

You STILL won't link to that statement in context.

 

[Ernie S.]

It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime! Where are you getting that they are criminals? Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.

I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot. But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.

 

[Ernie S.]

They must be defending against unarmed criminals? Where do you get that from? Does it say that anywhere in the study?

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this. Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?" You can't just make a claim. You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.

Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

You keep saying that, but refuse to quote in context or provide a page number of his study. This leads me to conclude that you are talking out of your ass, as usual.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns. I'm familiar with the study. You need to show where it says what you claim it says. That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents. I looked through the link and saw NO such thing. If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.

You must not be very smart. I've already quoted it.

You have quoted it many times, but as of yet, no one has seen it in the context of the study. The only conclusion that a reasonable person could make is that you are a lying sack of shit.

 

[ChrisL]

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story. The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home

 

[ChrisL]

I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.

Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says? I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study. Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals. So what is your problem with that? Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people? That only criminals are the victim of crime?

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles. However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.

You seem confused. We have discussed magazine capacity before. And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense. You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously. But his quote pretty much says it all. If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity. So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that. Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals. Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.

Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents. I looked through the link and saw NO such thing. If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.

You must not be very smart. I've already quoted it.

You have quoted it many times, but as of yet, no one has seen it in the context of the study. The only conclusion that a reasonable person could make is that you are a lying sack of shit.

This is typical for them. They bring something up, you prove them wrong. Then, they will bring up the same thing in another thread and deny ALL the points you made in the other thread or play stupid. This is their MO. Not only are they INCREDIBLY ignorant, but they also insult everyone's intelligence with their silly antics. They seem to think they are clever, but they are quite transparent lying and dishonest POS for anyone who follows along.