The Right To Bear Arms

[2aguy]

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be., by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

See....even here Kleck points out

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.

Since this is simple unlawful possession, nowhere can you make the claim that he believes defensive gun use is performed by actual, career criminals engaged in their criminal business.....that is a stretch typical of anti gunners who can't refute the 2.5 million number legitimately...because again, his study was conducted in the 1990s, before states started fixing their concealed carry laws, before they had stand your ground laws and the castle doctrine....so law abiding citizens had to carry guns "illegally' if they wanted to use them to protect themselves outside their homes....

So Brain...please find where he states that criminals...real criminals, not law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection, make up the majority of defensive gun uses.....you can't find that anywhere in his work....please try though......

 

[2aguy]

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?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.

Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life

For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.

I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers. Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence. Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.

That is exactly what Brain is doing....and again, in the 90s, no Castle Doctrine, no Stand Your Ground laws and it was before Florida began the trend for all the states to allow concealed carry...which started in the 90s....Massad Ayoob, in his latest book goes over a case of a man who was attacked by 3 men....in Iowa, a state without Stand Your Ground laws. The man shot one of the attackers, a justified shoot....but he had an anti gun prosecutor who took him to trial....he spent 90 days in jail for defending himself....the local paper reported on the incident...saying he was arrested for shooting a man....his landlord saw this story...not knowing it was actual self defense, and posted an eviction notice on the guy....since the guy was in jail for 90 days, he didn't know about the eviction notice....after 30 days, the sherrifs came and put all of his belongings outside the apartment complex....the guy lost all of his valuables...90 days later he went to court, went through a jury trial...and was acquited.....because he was lawful in his use of force....but...he had no home, his belongings were gone, and he drained his bank account paying for his defense......

So....that is what Kleck is referring to....when he states that people in the 90s were reluctant to admit to carrying guns when it was against the law......

 

[Brain357]

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be., by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

See....even here Kleck points out

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.

Since this is simple unlawful possession, nowhere can you make the claim that he believes defensive gun use is performed by actual, career criminals engaged in their criminal business.....that is a stretch typical of anti gunners who can't refute the 2.5 million number legitimately...because again, his study was conducted in the 1990s, before states started fixing their concealed carry laws, before they had stand your ground laws and the castle doctrine....so law abiding citizens had to carry guns "illegally' if they wanted to use them to protect themselves outside their homes....

So Brain...please find where he states that criminals...real criminals, not law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection, make up the majority of defensive gun uses.....you can't find that anywhere in his work....please try though......

Bill he is giving only one example, but stating typically involve criminal behavior. Sorry, but since it is legal to defend your home with a gun, just unlawful gun possession isn't going to explain it.

 

[Brain357]

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?

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.

You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). 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. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.

OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.

Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life

For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.

I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers. Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence. Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.

That is exactly what Brain is doing....and again, in the 90s, no Castle Doctrine, no Stand Your Ground laws and it was before Florida began the trend for all the states to allow concealed carry...which started in the 90s....Massad Ayoob, in his latest book goes over a case of a man who was attacked by 3 men....in Iowa, a state without Stand Your Ground laws. The man shot one of the attackers, a justified shoot....but he had an anti gun prosecutor who took him to trial....he spent 90 days in jail for defending himself....the local paper reported on the incident...saying he was arrested for shooting a man....his landlord saw this story...not knowing it was actual self defense, and posted an eviction notice on the guy....since the guy was in jail for 90 days, he didn't know about the eviction notice....after 30 days, the sherrifs came and put all of his belongings outside the apartment complex....the guy lost all of his valuables...90 days later he went to court, went through a jury trial...and was acquited.....because he was lawful in his use of force....but...he had no home, his belongings were gone, and he drained his bank account paying for his defense......

So....that is what Kleck is referring to....when he states that people in the 90s were reluctant to admit to carrying guns when it was against the law......

You are going back to carrying again, but that isn't where most defenses take place. Most take place at places where that excuse doesn't work. Even in the 90s you could legally defend yourself at home.

Your explanation works for only a small number of defenses, not the majority. And Kleck is clear that most defenses involve criminal activity by the defender.

 

[2aguy]

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....look up duty to retreat..before the Castle Doctrine laws.....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....

Immunity from civil lawsuit[edit]

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit.

Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).

Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however.

Duty-to-retreat[edit]
"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.[10]

 

[Ernie S.]

anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?

 

[Brain357]

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....

If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe. But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.

 

[Brain357]

anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?

Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?

 

[2aguy]

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....

If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe. But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.

Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....

 

[2aguy]

About the Castle Doctrine...

BBC News - German student Diren Dede killed in castle doctrine case

'Castle doctrine' defence

The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.

Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.

Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Force includes wounding, not killing ,and as we have seen in the NCVS...they only count when someone is killed.....not wounded, held for police or runs away.....so in the 90s, if you just shot the guy...but couldn't prove he was acting in a violent way......you were going to jail, even though he broke into your home, and you were going to be sued by the guy who broke into your home........

 

[Brain357]

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....

If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe. But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.

Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....

Bill you can't tell me that any significant number of people have ever gone to jail by defending their home with a gun and not even shooting. That is just silly. This is a very fair country.

 

[2aguy]

Oh...they didn't stay in jail, I'm sure....but how much money do you have to spend to prove you were justified in shooting the criminal who broke into your home....or the money you have to pay for bail while you wait to prove you were justified....another aspect that the anti gunners never take into account....

 

[2aguy]

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.

Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....

If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe. But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.

Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....

Bill you can't tell me that any significant number of people have ever gone to jail by defending their home with a gun and not even shooting. That is just silly. This is a very fair country.

This Gentleman can answer that question far better than I can...since he lectures on the topic and advises for these cases....


Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar

 

[Brain357]

About the Castle Doctrine...

BBC News - German student Diren Dede killed in castle doctrine case

'Castle doctrine' defence

The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.

Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.

Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Force includes wounding, not killing ,and as we have seen in the NCVS...they only count when someone is killed.....not wounded, held for police or runs away.....so in the 90s, if you just shot the guy...but couldn't prove he was acting in a violent way......you were going to jail, even though he broke into your home, and you were going to be sued by the guy who broke into your home........

And again you are wrong the NCVS does not include just killed. They estimate 108,000 defenses a year. Those do not include only when the criminal is killed, that is silly. In the report they mention only 30k or so a year are killed by guns each year, so they wouldn't later claim 108K defenses.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a famous, recent case....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News


There was a stranger in the house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son's room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, loaded it, and moved to the entrance of the boy's room. He saw the man rifling through drawers, and said, "What are you doing in my house?"

Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him. He told his girlfriend, Tricia Best, to call the police.

She did, and as she was on the line with the 911 operator, Best heard shots ring out.

Dixon had shot the intruder. "I fired at him twice. He fell down the stairs and he lay at the bottom of the stairs," Dixon said.

The intruder, Ivan Thompson, survived. He's a career criminal who's been arrested 19 times and convicted of criminal trespass, burglary and attempted assault. Thompson is now being held in New York's Rikers Island jail.

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.

‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

So how was the hero treated? He was arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon" — threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.

The district attorney did offer Dixon a deal — if he pleaded guilty they'd just put a misdemeanor on his record and lock him up for just four weekends. Guess where? … Rikers Island.

Dixon turned down the plea bargain and tested his luck in court. He said he couldn't pay his mortgage if he had to spend weekends in jail. "I work at a Wall Street firm. I do 40 hours on the weekend as well as during the week," Dixon said, adding, "That might mean that I would be out of a job."

Dixon's concerns didn't sway prosecutor Charles Hynes. Hynes wouldn't talk to 20/20 but he has said of Dixon's case, "You get caught with a [unlicensed] gun in Brooklyn, you're going to do jail time."

Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida. Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.

Dixon's neighbors are outraged by what's happened.

"He shouldn't get no jail at all. He shouldn't — because he was protecting his family and his house," said a man who lives on Dixon's street.

Come on. Prosecutors are allowed discretion. When the career criminal, who was in Dixon's house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time, but Dixon has to go to jail?

Dixon said the thought of going to jail for simply defending his family scares him a lot.

Me too.

Give me a break.

Update: The Outcome

In a June 9 deal with Hynes, Dixon pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, an infraction that will send him to Rikers Island for just three days.

To get the reduced sentence, Dixon, had to acknowledge his violation of gun registration laws, document where he purchased his gun and prove that he had taken steps to register it.

--------------------------
---------------------------

This is what happens Brain.....when anti gunners set up law abiding citizens for arrest because of stupid gun control laws......and it shows what Kleck meant........

this happened way back before 2003 as this article discusses the case in 2003...

remember the Ron Dixon case in NYC - THR

 

[Brain357]

Oh...they didn't stay in jail, I'm sure....but how much money do you have to spend to prove you were justified in shooting the criminal who broke into your home....or the money you have to pay for bail while you wait to prove you were justified....another aspect that the anti gunners never take into account....

Sorry not buying it. If someone went to jail it was for a reason other than defending their home.

 

[Ernie S.]

anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?

Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?

Am I supposed to believe a biased opinion from a study that provides no factual data to back up its suppositions?

My claim is every bit as "adult" as Kleck's and every bit as verifiable.

 

[kaz]

I stopped reading at this point. You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.

Keep it up. 2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.

shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS

Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda. No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!

gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes

AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...

No, they are stupid people with absolutely no common sense who want to live like sheep. If you let the government mess with just ONE right, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from meddling with others. Nothing at all, because you have now set a precedence. That is why some of us are so bothered by this nonsense! It is like an attack on our freedom.

Do you notice how the left think there can be no restrictions at all on abortions because government can't be trusted to be reasonable and one restriction will lead to banning abortion, but when it comes to guns, we have to be reasonable and accept restrictions?

 

[Brain357]

Here is a famous, recent case....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News

So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses. Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed. So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed. So this is a very rare case.

 

[Brain357]

anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?

Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?

Am I supposed to believe a biased opinion from a study that provides no factual data to back up its suppositions?

My claim is every bit as "adult" as Kleck's and every bit as verifiable.

Sorry but the NRA talks about the Kleck study all of the time. I haven't heard anyone talking about you.