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.
None of thins negates the validity of what I said.Imagine many untrained gun users under combat stress lsoe control of their weapon to their attackers. And people who'd buy a gun in the first place to protect themselves against a known or likely threat may rely upon it instead of calling police, or use the weapon unjustifiably. Many scenarios where an untrained panicky person is worse off armed.If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.LOL. That will help a bunch as he's pounding her face in.
I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
If the situation has risen to the point where you have a right to use deadly fore, pulling the gun cannot create an escalation.
Only a retard like you thinks your opinion matters more. I've seen and participated in many many such threads over there so I have a very good idea what cops in general say about DV situations. None of them that I've EVER seen prefers their wife or husband be at home unarmed.You say many things with "certainty", mostly you present as dumb as a box of rocks. Sometimes I wonder if you put on a dress and lipstick and post under the nom de plume Stephanie - yes you are that dumb.How does that work if the guy busts her door down? I've been a member on a LEO site for 10 years and can say with 100% certainty you're full of shit.What about a woman that gets fearful of some guy's threats and decides to finally arm herself. She has to wait 10 days but gets murdered in the mean time. Who did it help?
9-1-1
Making a threat or giving a 'reasonable person' reason to believe a threat has been made is a crime. Call the police.
That's true, and for those in a domestic violent situation see the link below to the Domestic Violence Hotline.
But if the perp. is able to access your computer call them at this number and make sure to delete it if he has access to your phone:
1-800-799-7233 | 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)
The National Domestic Violence Hotline 24 7 Confidential Support
Which is why, of course, anyone that buys a gun for self-defense should take some sort of training course to that effect.In this specific point you're making sure. My point though was often times untrained people unaware of the laws regarding self-defense, as in the case of a first-time gun owner, they'll rely on the weapon prematurely, unjustifiably, or otherwise in error.
Which is why, of course, anyone that buys a gun for self-defense should take some sort of training course to that effect.In this specific point you're making sure. My point though was often times untrained people unaware of the laws regarding self-defense, as in the case of a first-time gun owner, they'll rely on the weapon prematurely, unjustifiably, or otherwise in error.
If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.LOL. That will help a bunch as he's pounding her face in.9-1-1What about a woman that gets fearful of some guy's threats and decides to finally arm herself. She has to wait 10 days but gets murdered in the mean time. Who did it help?
Making a threat or giving a 'reasonable person' reason to believe a threat has been made is a crime. Call the police.
I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
Agreed.Which is why, of course, anyone that buys a gun for self-defense should take some sort of training course to that effect.In this specific point you're making sure. My point though was often times untrained people unaware of the laws regarding self-defense, as in the case of a first-time gun owner, they'll rely on the weapon prematurely, unjustifiably, or otherwise in error.
Have suggested tactical shooting courses. But I wouldn't say it should be legislated. A fine idea, but legally you can't compel it.
In your scenario, as in others.Consider the case of DV. The wife and husband live together, and the arguing begins. The wife and the husband are feet apart, not the 7 or 10 yards where a shooter regularly practices. The wife pulls out the gun from a drawer or her apron. What happens next? Bang, bang, she's dead. Don't kid yourself, a stronger enraged man will get a fist to her much faster than she can secure the weapon and fire, he will get the gun and either kill her or beat her with it. Suggesting she issue a warning is ridiculous.If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.LOL. That will help a bunch as he's pounding her face in.9-1-1
Making a threat or giving a 'reasonable person' reason to believe a threat has been made is a crime. Call the police.
I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts
To this end, a federal judge struck the waiting period on CA for most gun buyers
Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases Fox News
If a waiting period for an abortion is insufferable, how is if OK to force people to wait to buy a gun?
Fewer Waiting Periods For Guns Than For Abortions INFOGRAPHIC
I already own several guns and have a CCW permit -- why should I have to wait some arbitrary amount of time before I can exercise my right to arms?
There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
So... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
So... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon BrandoSo... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
