Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One ?

I have a sufficiently large penis. I don't need to compensate. I have other weapons also.

 

[2aguy]

Literacy tests are not covered by the Constitution. It was banned by the Voting Rights Act.

Yep........and the same principal applies to mandatory training for owning or carrying a gun.

 

[Blues Man]

I think that 100% of gun owners and the people..VICTIMS around them would be safer with training.

You mean the 99.99985% of the population that doesn't die accidentally by firearm

More people die in dozens of other accidents annually and accidental deaths involving a firearm don't even make the top 10

 

[2aguy]

Training doesn't infringe on the rights to arms anymore than denying guns to people in prison denies the right.

It just serves to ensure the right is exercised with prudence and safety.

Why are you opposed to reducing gun crime?
Why are you opposed to reducing gun violence?
Why are you opposed to reducing gun death and injuries?

It does when the training is a restriction on the Right to own or carry a gun......a Constitutionally protected Right.

You are against reducing gun crime because you vote for democrats....they release violent gun criminals over and over again, these criminals are the ones who do 95% of all of our gun murder, and they keep releasing them.

 

[2aguy]

I'd ask you to try not to be so stupid but, why bother?

A gun serves only one purpose.
To kill.
That is a firearm's only purpose.

A vehicle on the other hand provides transportation, shelter, delivery of goods and services.

If a comparison to gus and vehicles is what you want then compare the number of times vehicles are used to gun uses. There's your stat Dirty Dingus.

100% of gun owners and their potential victims would be safer with firearms training.

Guns save lives......every single day....more lives than criminals take when they use guns illegally for murder...

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct



that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—

==============

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

 

[2aguy]

/----/ "Ban cars....right?"
Yes, It's on their wish list.

Yeah...but most people think you are crazy if you point that out....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're denying gun rights to anyone who's not graduated high school?

May want to rethink that proposal.

That's not what he said numbnuts

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'd ask you to try not to be so stupid but, why bother?

A gun serves only one purpose.
To kill.
That is a firearm's only purpose.

A vehicle on the other hand provides transportation, shelter, delivery of goods and services.

If a comparison to gus and vehicles is what you want then compare the number of times vehicles are used to gun uses. There's your stat Dirty Dingus.

100% of gun owners and their potential victims would be safer with firearms training.

Yes guns kill
Try to repeal the second amendment see how far that gets you

 

[Blues Man]

Training doesn't infringe on the rights to arms anymore than denying guns to people in prison denies the right.

It just serves to ensure the right is exercised with prudence and safety.

Why are you opposed to reducing gun crime?
Why are you opposed to reducing gun violence?
Why are you opposed to reducing gun death and injuries?

"Training" won't stop gun crime.
"Training" won't reduce gun violence because gun violence is gun crime

The accidental gun rate is so low that it is statistically ZERO

 

[Grau]

I'd ask you to try not to be so stupid but, why bother?

A gun serves only one purpose.
To kill.
That is a firearm's only purpose.

A vehicle on the other hand provides transportation, shelter, delivery of goods and services.

If a comparison to gus and vehicles is what you want then compare the number of times vehicles are used to gun uses. There's your stat Dirty Dingus.

100% of gun owners and their potential victims would be safer with firearms training.

I have to disagree with you on one point and agree with you on another.

1. Since target shooting is a recognized Olympic sport and has been since 1896, I hope you'll se that guns are used for pleasurable purposes too.
You might also be surprised to see the number of women who are taking up one of the innumerable types of competitive shooting. (1)

I won't include the times I've seen a respectable sidearm used as a cordless drill but you get the idea.

2. 100% of gun owners and their potential victims would be safer with firearms training.

I agree with you 100%

100% of people who operate or use any dangerous tool are less likely to have injuries or fatalities if they have had training.

Rather than mandatory training requirements, I would prefer to see an incentive program to reward those people who seek training.

Rational or not, my phobia against big government keeps me from supporting mandatory training requirements.

Thanks,




(1). "Top 50 Women in Competitive Shooting"

An NRA Shooting Sports Journal | Top 50 Women in Competitive Shooting

In no particular order, a list of the greatest female shooters in competitive shooting today

www.ssusa.org

EXCERPT "From action pistol and bullseye champions, smallbore, high power and precision rifle masters, trapshooters and Olympic gold medalists—SSUSA has compiled this list of 50 (52 to be exact) female athletes that are influencing the ever-changing landscape of competitive shooting—for the better.

Note: This isn’t a ranking, though we purposely grouped the first four women at the front in recognition of the attention generated by their respective shooting careers. Otherwise it’s a random selection, with the goal of presenting female shooters from as many disciplines as possible."CONTINUED

 

[Dadoalex]

Most are straw purchases...which is already a crime.



That's stupid.



Every time I think you have hit rock bottom...you squat and squeeze out a jewel like this.

I'll just leave this bit of stupid here for all to see.

Inline quotes make you look like an idiot.
Which, I suppose, is why you use them.

 

[Dadoalex]

He understands, he's just lying.


That is the stupidest thing posted on this site in weeks.

Perhaps you you go back and check your history.

And, once again inline quotes make you look like the idiot you are.

 

[Dadoalex]

Really?

Have you not read anything else that Dadoalex has posted in that time?

Love it.

The owned speaking to the owned.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Dadoalex]

That's stupid even by your standards.

Well shitbird, let's use your standards.

What, other than killing, purpose do firearms serve.

 

[Dadoalex]

You mean the 99.99985% of the population that doesn't die accidentally by firearm

More people die in dozens of other accidents annually and accidental deaths involving a firearm don't even make the top 10

Firearms deaths, accidental or not, are the most easily preventable.
37% of all shootings are accident and caused by the ignorance and arrogance of the gun owner.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yeah...but most people think you are crazy if you point that out....

/——/ Banning ICE cars is the first step.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well shitbird, let's use your standards.

What, other than killing, purpose do firearms serve.

/——/ As as deterrent.

 

[Dadoalex]

It does when the training is a restriction on the Right to own or carry a gun......a Constitutionally protected Right.

You are against reducing gun crime because you vote for democrats....they release violent gun criminals over and over again, these criminals are the ones who do 95% of all of our gun murder, and they keep releasing them.

So you think
violent felons out on parole should be allowed to carry firearms
children as young as 4 should be able to buy guns from a vending machine
Teenagers should be able to open carry in high school...

Your position is thus ridiculous.

I've tried appealing to logic and reason within the gun owner community. Obviously an error on my part.

Let's appeal to your massive egos and short peni. (that's plural for dick)

You can get the training for various types of guns, revolvers, semi, rifles...
Then you can brag to your short penied friends about how manly you are because you took all that training and now you can own all those guns.

This should give every gun nut a tiny boner.

 

[Dadoalex]

Guns save lives.........

How do guns "save lives?"
Oh, that's right by fulfilling their single purpose.
TO KILL.

Guns have no other purpose.
They're not hammers, they're not keys to open doors, the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

No amount of massaged data from any source changes that.

 

[Dadoalex]

That's not what he said numbnuts

That's EXACTLY what he said Shitbrain.