Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.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.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Here is another interesting link with a bunch of stories about civilians using their weapons for self defense.
Ohio CHL-holders acting in self-defense Buckeye Firearms Association
Here is just one story from that link . . .
Robbery victim
The victim of an attempted robbery shot at his two assailants on the Near East Side and was shot himself in return, police said. According to Columbus police, the man, who has a concealed handgun license, was approached by two men who attempted to rob him on E. Main Street and Miller Avenue just after midnight. One of the attackers put a gun in the victim's stomach and fired, tearing a hole through the victim's midsection. The robbery victim pulled a gun and shot both suspects, identified as Alexander C. Pinkston, 21, of 1440 Burstock Rd., and Devante L. Michael, 18, of 852 Fairwood Ave., both on the South Side. Pinkston and Michael ran off and were found in separate locations. All three were taken to two area hospitals, where they are listed in stable condition.
^^^
These incidents are very good examples of why we need guns for self defense and why law-abiding civilians should not have restrictions put on their rights!
The title may be "Right to bear arms" but the OP is a vocal supporter for stringent gun control, a flaming liberal coward and a habitual liar.I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.
People like Brainless and Lakhota prove they can every day.Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is. The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny! Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right! Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over. I'm sure you can find it.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Please try to make coherent posts. Your post makes no sense at all. You have absolutely NO evidence of any of your claims, and you have not even bothered to try posting any evidence. Perhaps this discussion is over your head because I don't really think you understand the importance of every single one of our rights.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Please try to make coherent posts. Your post makes no sense at all. You have absolutely NO evidence of any of your claims, and you have not even bothered to try posting any evidence. Perhaps this discussion is over your head because I don't really think you understand the importance of every single one of our rights.
No it does make perfect sense to anyone intelligent. I don't need evidence, it is a quote from Kleck from a post by Bill actually. And I have posted a link where the quote comes from for you. Bill is taking something that would effect only a small minority of defenses and pretending that explains why most defenses are by criminals.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads. Hmmm. Lol.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport? So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
All you have to do is learn both sides.
The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Let me explain this again bill. Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying. Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter. It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun. Good try though. But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
If someone tries to ban screwdrivers, the constitution doesn't get in their way.We all have as much right to a gun as a screwdriver.
Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs. And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority. You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
They are called felons.
Why are they called "felons?" Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights? So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation? So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves? For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes? Ridiculous. This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens. The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon? Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun. So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Brainless . . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it! Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses? Really? Most gun owners are felons? Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I never said that. That is what YOU were saying.
