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.
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.
AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...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
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?
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.
Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
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.
If someone has invaded your home, and you fear great bodily harm or death, then yes -- the law will generally protect you if you shoot. Outside of those very specific circumstances, the question is a bit too complicated to provide a cut and dried answer.
Self Defense
The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law.
Any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, if a burglar were to enter your bedroom with a yellow banana as a weapon, you would not be justified in shooting them with a 20 gauge shotgun. However, if they were carrying a fake pistol, and you reasonably believed it to be real, you would likely be justified in shooting that intruder.
If you act with a disproportionate response, or believe that banana to be a futuristic space weapon (an unreasonable perception), this becomes what is referred to as imperfect self-defense. This will mitigate the crime you are charged with and usually result in a lesser punishment, though it will not excuse disproportionate response completely.
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.
Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
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.
Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
Still very rare to happen. It's not my claim, it is Klecks.
Again the NCVS survey is 108,000! There are not that many deaths by guns each year and the study states that. Stop looking foolish and claiming they only count deaths. You better go back and read it.
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.
Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
This is because he is dishonest. He will try to twist the data to fit his agenda of disarming honest citizens so that we are at the mercy of criminals and the government, basically pawns.
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.
Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
Still very rare to happen. It's not my claim, it is Klecks.
Again the NCVS survey is 108,000! There are not that many deaths by guns each year and the study states that. Stop looking foolish and claiming they only count deaths. You better go back and read it.
I didn't claim it, the Cato institute did in their research of the subject.....
Again....where the National Crime Victimization Study numbers fall compare with other studies.....
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
--------------------
Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000
Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.
Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column.
How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.
The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports. A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.
As has been shown countless times, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not credible for determining defensive gun uses....however....it is the only study, the only one, that gives gun grabbers the lowest number of defensive gun uses....and because gun grabbers can never, ever be trusted to tell the truth where guns are concerned...they cling to that study......no matter how wrong it is......
When will the left, the liberal, the progressive, etc. educate themselves beyond a second grade level so that they may understand clear, concise, simple sentences?
When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
When will the left, the liberal, the progressive, etc. educate themselves beyond a second grade level so that they may understand clear, concise, simple sentences?
When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"
It does not say the right of the "militia" it says the right of the people. And it does not say keep and bear "muskets", it says ARMS (as in any weapon - including but not limited to military-grade).
Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to violate it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be amended. So go through the proper and legal amendment process and change it Lakhota. Except that, you can't because the American people don't agree with you or your unhinged, radical views. And that pisses you off. Well...sorry my friend.
