This Republican has got it right.

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

That's horseshit. The guys who suposedly debunked it did nothing but lie, lie, lie.

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Post the study. Locke I believe, and it is horseshit.

Myth #3 - "2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can't be accurate" | Buckeye Firearms Association

A study undertaken by a group led by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that there are approximately 2.1 to 2.5 million instances annually in which individual Americans use a gun to defend themselves. Considered as households, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5 million annual DGUs (Kleck 1995, Table 2). If this figure is correct, defensive uses of firearms are much more common than crimes committed with guns. Kleck's study defines a DGU as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender's gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat. A reported DGU incident must meet all of these criteria in order to be counted as a valid DGU for the purposes of the survey. Additionally, DGUs associated with work as a policeman, security guard, or member of the military are excluded.​

 

[John T. Ford]

How long did they get "equal protection" wrong, before Brown v Board of Education?

Not the same thing.

And, good luck at getting enough votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment.

You Communist bastards will never legally take weapons away from the American people.

 

[John T. Ford]

I am willing to bet I know more about the American Revolution and the founding of this nation than you will ever know.

You are a Leftist ....

Whatever you think happened in that Alternate Left Reality you live in ....

DID NOT HAPPEN !!!!

 

[Winston]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

That's horseshit. The guys who suposedly debunked it did nothing but lie, lie, lie.

LMAO, social desirability bias, strategic responsiveness, and telescoping--all confirmed and thoroughly documented bias that skewed the result. Then there is just the simple problem of MATH. The numbers are just not possible. Not enough burglaries, not enough gunshot wounds in ER. Nor have the extrapolated numbers ever been documented through press accounts or records. You gun nuts just clutch on to those pearls. Kind of sad really.

 

[whitehall]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

He's a moron there are a few in the Republican party. By all means lets broad brush the whole damn country based on this one guy's opinion. What a stupid OP.

Just because he holds a sign, it doesn't mean he is a republican. It's a dirty trick as old as Troy.

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

That's horseshit. The guys who suposedly debunked it did nothing but lie, lie, lie.

LMAO, social desirability bias, strategic responsiveness, and telescoping--all confirmed and thoroughly documented bias that skewed the result. Then there is just the simple problem of MATH. The numbers are just not possible. Not enough burglaries, not enough gunshot wounds in ER. Nor have the extrapolated numbers ever been documented through press accounts or records. You gun nuts just clutch on to those pearls. Kind of sad really.

you proved nothing. Please list these issues. What I've seen is pathetic bullshit based on lies and half truths.

False claim number one: You don't have to shoot someone to make defensive use of a gun. The fact that you believe you do only shows what a dumbass you are and how wrong your claim is.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

 

[Winston]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Post the study. Locke I believe, and it is horseshit.

Myth #3 - "2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can't be accurate" | Buckeye Firearms Association

A study undertaken by a group led by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that there are approximately 2.1 to 2.5 million instances annually in which individual Americans use a gun to defend themselves. Considered as households, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5 million annual DGUs (Kleck 1995, Table 2). If this figure is correct, defensive uses of firearms are much more common than crimes committed with guns. Kleck's study defines a DGU as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender's gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat. A reported DGU incident must meet all of these criteria in order to be counted as a valid DGU for the purposes of the survey. Additionally, DGUs associated with work as a policeman, security guard, or member of the military are excluded.​

Your source is stupid. It completely misrepresents telescoping, turns strategic responsiveness on its head, and attempts to project desirability bias exactly opposite of what it really is. Now gun owners are afraid to tell a surveyor about their defensive gun use, LOL. It absolutely ignores the mathematical impossibility of that many defensive gun uses and fails to demonstrate even a close representation of those defensive gun use numbers through the examination of the public record. Really, do you expect anyone to believe that a firearm association is going to be unbiased? Like I said, you gun nuts are a hoot.

 

[meaner gene]

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Then start documenting.

It has already been documented.

It has already been debunked.

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Post the study. Locke I believe, and it is horseshit.

Myth #3 - "2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can't be accurate" | Buckeye Firearms Association

A study undertaken by a group led by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that there are approximately 2.1 to 2.5 million instances annually in which individual Americans use a gun to defend themselves. Considered as households, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5 million annual DGUs (Kleck 1995, Table 2). If this figure is correct, defensive uses of firearms are much more common than crimes committed with guns. Kleck's study defines a DGU as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender's gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat. A reported DGU incident must meet all of these criteria in order to be counted as a valid DGU for the purposes of the survey. Additionally, DGUs associated with work as a policeman, security guard, or member of the military are excluded.​

Your source is stupid. It completely misrepresents telescoping, turns strategic responsiveness on its head, and attempts to project desirability bias exactly opposite of what it really is. Now gun owners are afraid to tell a surveyor about their defensive gun use, LOL. It absolutely ignores the mathematical impossibility of that many defensive gun uses and fails to demonstrate even a close representation of those defensive gun use numbers through the examination of the public record. Really, do you expect anyone to believe that a firearm association is going to be unbiased? Like I said, you gun nuts are a hoot.

You failed to explain how it does any of the things you claim. There's nothing mathematically impossible about it. Based on the statistics below, it appears entirely plausible:

• In 2017, there were an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes. The estimated number of robbery offenses decreased 4.0 percent, and the estimated number of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses decreased 0.7 percent when compared with estimates from 2016. The estimated volume of aggravated assault and rape (revised definition) offenses increased 1.0 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively.
• Nationwide, there were an estimated 7,694,086 property crimes. The estimated numbers for two of the three property crimes showed declines when compared with the previous year’s estimates. Burglaries dropped 7.6 percent, larceny-thefts decreased 2.2 percent, but motor vehicle thefts rose 0.8 percent.
• Collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) suffered losses estimated at $15.3 billion in 2017.
• The FBI estimated law enforcement agencies nationwide made 10.6 million arrests, (excluding those for traffic violations) in 2017.
• The arrest rate for violent crime was 160.7 per 100,000 inhabitants; the arrest rate for property crime was 388.7 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• By violent crime offense, the arrest rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was 3.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; rape (aggregate total using the revised and legacy definition), 7.2; robbery, 29.3; and aggravated assault, 120.4 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• Of the property crime offenses, the arrest rate for burglary was 61.7 per 100,000 inhabitants; larceny-theft, 296.0; and motor vehicle theft, 28.2. The arrest rate for arson was 2.8 per 100,000 inhabitants.
• In 2017, 13,128 law enforcement agencies reported their staffing levels to the FBI. These agencies reported that, as of October 31, 2017, they collectively employed 670,279 sworn officers and 286,662 civilians—a rate of 3.4 employees per 1,000 inhabitants.

 

[bripat9643]

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Then start documenting.

It has already been documented.

It has already been debunked.

Nope.

Show your work.

 

[kaz]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

How do you know he's a Republican?

BTW, assault weapons aren't actually assault weapons and virtually zero percent of murders are committed with the guns you and he are mislabeling as "assault weapons"

How do we know you're a Trump cock sucker? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Just more of your childish crap because you're a racist and having nothing to provide of content

 

[kaz]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

They always pull data from their very special source....right out of their asses.

Asses again. You have a fixation on those.

Is it your racism?

This is the pre-teen grade level you'll operate on all day

 

[kaz]

Which is why here is the full quote:

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. You're a propagandist, fascist​

Since you lied I'm going with liar over stupid. Am I right?

You were trying to argue against US v Miller, claiming "common use" wasn't in the constitution, before pointing out that from TV's to the internet, the constitution indeed protects them by constitutional interpretation through case law.

So you have a history of twisting between the interpretation of the constitution vs the text of the constitution, depending on your argument.

LOL, you flat out lied taking a sarcastic comment, selectively editing out the part that showed you were lying and presenting it as if that's what I meant. You spent four years misquoting Trump. Misquote = lie. Then you called him a liar based on YOUR lies. You lying doesn't prove Trump is a liar, it proves you are.

This is what you assholes are, liars. You lie all the time, you lie about everything. You're the opposite of Vulcans. Vulcans can't lie, you can't tell the truth.

You're also a racist

 

[SavannahMann]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

I like making offers. Compromises if you will.

I’ll tell you what. Let’s write a law banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons. If murder does not drop by 50% in ten years then all current gun restrictions are automatically lifted. That means silencers and machine guns are perfectly legal.

How about it? Want to deal?

 

[meaner gene]

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

Nothing unsafe unless you have children that live or visit your house. Or other adults for that matter.
Any firearm you don't have physical control over, she either be unloaded or locked up.

 

[Winston]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

That's horseshit. The guys who suposedly debunked it did nothing but lie, lie, lie.

LMAO, social desirability bias, strategic responsiveness, and telescoping--all confirmed and thoroughly documented bias that skewed the result. Then there is just the simple problem of MATH. The numbers are just not possible. Not enough burglaries, not enough gunshot wounds in ER. Nor have the extrapolated numbers ever been documented through press accounts or records. You gun nuts just clutch on to those pearls. Kind of sad really.

you proved nothing. Please list these issues. What I've seen is pathetic bullshit based on lies and half truths.

False claim number one: You don't have to shoot someone to make defensive use of a gun. The fact that you believe you do only shows what a dumbass you are and how wrong your claim is.

Why do you gun nuts have to create an argument. I never said you had to shoot someone to defensively use a gun. But your study asked, did you shoot, and they got lots of responses, oh hell yeah, and I know I hit em. Problem is, no one showed up at the emergency room with a gunshot wound. Kind of that social desirability bias, the respondent really needs to believe his purchase of a gun paid off, and he really needs to believe he actually shot someone.

Besides the very scenario you are describing is absolutely stupid. Someone pulls out a gun to scare someone? Horseshit. I pull out a gun, I am SHOOTING THE DAMN THING. Seriously, what the hell do people do, pull out their gun and yell, "drop your weapon or I will shoot"? Or better, "If you leave my house nicely I won't shoot you". BULLSHIT. What self-defense instructor goes, "Pull your gun out and attempt to diffuse the situation without shooting"? Nope, you don't pull it unless you are going to use it, and most of the time the instructor tells you to empty the damn thing. Most you gun nuts are a bunch of armchair soldier wannabes that would run hide under your bed if a big ass hillbilly redneck was pounding on your front door.

 

[kaz]

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

You're the eight year old.

Winston: No I'm not, YOU are. YOU are kaz. Not me, YOU are! Bam!

It's a playground insult.

So how many "mass murders" were committed with what you are incorrectly calling "assault weapons?"

And I support big brother? You're delusional in addition to being a liar and a racist

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

That's horseshit. The guys who suposedly debunked it did nothing but lie, lie, lie.

LMAO, social desirability bias, strategic responsiveness, and telescoping--all confirmed and thoroughly documented bias that skewed the result. Then there is just the simple problem of MATH. The numbers are just not possible. Not enough burglaries, not enough gunshot wounds in ER. Nor have the extrapolated numbers ever been documented through press accounts or records. You gun nuts just clutch on to those pearls. Kind of sad really.

you proved nothing. Please list these issues. What I've seen is pathetic bullshit based on lies and half truths.

False claim number one: You don't have to shoot someone to make defensive use of a gun. The fact that you believe you do only shows what a dumbass you are and how wrong your claim is.

Why do you gun nuts have to create an argument. I never said you had to shoot someone to defensively use a gun. But your study asked, did you shoot, and they got lots of responses, oh hell yeah, and I know I hit em. Problem is, no one showed up at the emergency room with a gunshot wound. Kind of that social desirability bias, the respondent really needs to believe his purchase of a gun paid off, and he really needs to believe he actually shot someone.

Besides the very scenario you are describing is absolutely stupid. Someone pulls out a gun to scare someone? Horseshit. I pull out a gun, I am SHOOTING THE DAMN THING. Seriously, what the hell do people do, pull out their gun and yell, "drop your weapon or I will shoot"? Or better, "If you leave my house nicely I won't shoot you". BULLSHIT. What self-defense instructor goes, "Pull your gun out and attempt to diffuse the situation without shooting"? Nope, you don't pull it unless you are going to use it, and most of the time the instructor tells you to empty the damn thing. Most you gun nuts are a bunch of armchair soldier wannabes that would run hide under your bed if a big ass hillbilly redneck was pounding on your front door.

You just made the argument that they had to shoot the weapon immediately after claiming you didn't.

Lot's of people pull out a weapon to prevent being robbed. I'm seen hundreds of videos of such events.

You're totally full of shit, as always.