You are required by law to own a gun

[2aguy]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack, according to bill clinton.......there are only 8,124 gun murders in 2014....which has been going down, not up...

of the 8,124 gun murders the majority are committed by violent career criminals with long arrest records and histories of violence, murdering other criminals...not normal people shooting other normal people...

There were a total of 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.......

And over 357 million guns in private hands....

How exactly are guns dangerous to normal people again?

 

[candycorn]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

And with over 357 million guns in private hands now...and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013......gun accidents are not a problem..since American gun owners who are normal, are extremely responsible.

They were to 505 people. And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

 

[candycorn]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Now thats' what I call scientific.

a journalist and a pediatrician went through some exercises.

Quite the in-depth study there

Let the refudiation begin....as far as it goes.

Keep in mind, I would rather not have a gun. Case closed

 

[Steven_R]

[

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

And with over 357 million guns in private hands now...and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013......gun accidents are not a problem..since American gun owners who are normal, are extremely responsible.

They were to 505 people. And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

Would it have been any less tragic if he had used a car and driven over the playground or used household chemicals to build a bomb of just drown them one at a time in a backyard swimming pool?

 

[candycorn]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack,

Folks, All you need to know is this:

You're being asked to believe that everyone you see in this picture--1.5 million just average gun bearing people (outside of cops/military)

Stopped violent crimes (again, how do you know a crime was going to be a violent crime if you stopped it????) using a gun
in each of the following years:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

These are the facts--that he expects you to believe that 23,000,000+ violent crimes were stopped by gun owners-- and they are not in dispute. You'll see 2-3 posts after this to obscure the facts above but you won't see a denial.

This is what you're being asked to believe. Basically this boob wants you to believe that the equivalent of the population of greater New York City including the burbs in CT, NJ, and NY State actively stopped a "violent crime" using a gun. And keep in mind, the number WAS almost double before he cooked up the latest fantasy.

Yet, if you're like most people, you know nobody who ever did such a thing and know of no one who knows of anybody who has.. Just apply the smell test.

 

[Steven_R]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Now thats' what I call scientific.

a journalist and a pediatrician went through some exercises.

Quite the in-depth study there

Let the refudiation begin....as far as it goes.

Keep in mind, I would rather not have a gun. Case closed

So don't own a gun, but don't restrict me based on what you wouldn't do.

And as far as the flow charts are concerned, right off the top of my head in the first flow chart when the cops don't respond, if ou just hide, you're good. Uh huh, but what happens when our robber stumbles into you by chance? Or how do you defend your children?

 

[candycorn]

[

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

And with over 357 million guns in private hands now...and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013......gun accidents are not a problem..since American gun owners who are normal, are extremely responsible.

They were to 505 people. And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

Would it have been any less tragic if he had used a car and driven over the playground or used household chemicals to build a bomb of just drown them one at a time in a backyard swimming pool?

See this is where the gun nut's argument goes off the rails.

You drive by a shooting range and see Farook, Kleibold, Harris, Lanza, and that most recent nutbag in Colorado punching paper and you shrugh your shoulders. You don't know they are practicing for an attack and think they are just your run of the mill idiots flexing their only usable muscles.

You drive by a field and see/feel/hear a large explosion, you're on the blower to the cops. They come out and find Farook, Kelibold, Harris, Lanza or that most recent nutbag flexing their only usable muscles. They arrest him for setting off bombs. And he's out of circulation.

It's not the same thing.

But continue on with this fantasy world...it's fun.

 

[candycorn]

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Now thats' what I call scientific.

a journalist and a pediatrician went through some exercises.

Quite the in-depth study there

Let the refudiation begin....as far as it goes.

Keep in mind, I would rather not have a gun. Case closed

So don't own a gun, but don't restrict me based on what you wouldn't do.

And as far as the flow charts are concerned, right off the top of my head in the first flow chart when the cops don't respond, if ou just hide, you're good. Uh huh, but what happens when our robber stumbles into you by chance? Or how do you defend your children?

Am I restricting you? When?

 

[Steven_R]

Do you call the cops when you see someone buying a TracFone at Walmart? They get used in IEDs.

 

[2aguy]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack,

Folks, All you need to know is this:

You're being asked to believe that everyone you see in this picture--1.5 million just average gun bearing people (outside of cops/military)

Stopped violent crimes (again, how do you know a crime was going to be a violent crime if you stopped it????) using a gun
in each of the following years:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

These are the facts--that he expects you to believe that 23,000,000+ violent crimes were stopped by gun owners-- and they are not in dispute. You'll see 2-3 posts after this to obscure the facts above but you won't see a denial.

This is what you're being asked to believe. Basically this boob wants you to believe that the equivalent of the population of greater New York City including the burbs in CT, NJ, and NY State actively stopped a "violent crime" using a gun. And keep in mind, the number WAS almost double before he cooked up the latest fantasy.

Yet, if you're like most people, you know nobody who ever did such a thing and know of no one who knows of anybody who has.. Just apply the smell test.

Folks....you need to realize that in a country of over 320 million people 1.5 million is tiny......and many times people who live in crap neighborhoods use their guns more than once to drive off potential robbers, rapists and murderers but the crimes go unreported....

And then you have those who use their guns several times...like the Watch Store owner who was involved in multiple gun fights with gang members, killing several of them over the course of those shootouts.....

bill clinton did the research...he hire 2 anti gunners to create the study, executed the study...and they found that Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year....and that was before, back in the 90s before every state had legal carry...and before we had over 357million guns in private hands.....

 

[candycorn]

Do you call the cops when you see someone buying a TracFone at Walmart? They get used in IEDs.

Oh brother.

When you practice shooting a gun, nobody minds....you're shooting a gun at a range as are others.
If you're blowing shit up to practice for an attack, people notice.

 

[2aguy]

Limiting crime and promoting public safety are fine ideals, but keep in mind the police aren't required to come to your assistance, and even when you call they will be minutes away.

But even that aside, there are times when an armed citizenry will make sense, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a riot, or so on. The sheriff or police chief may need to call on citizens to do more than just cower in corners and it will take time for governors to call up the National Guard. Some counties are very large and very rural and have limited police to begin with and being able to call up a militia is just common sense.

My caveat to that whole "buy a rifle or pay a tax" would be for county sheriffs to keep a militia roll, provide range time and ammo, and require annual training and call-ups the way we do with the National Guard.

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack,

Folks, All you need to know is this:

You're being asked to believe that everyone you see in this picture--1.5 million just average gun bearing people (outside of cops/military)

Stopped violent crimes (again, how do you know a crime was going to be a violent crime if you stopped it????) using a gun
in each of the following years:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

These are the facts--that he expects you to believe that 23,000,000+ violent crimes were stopped by gun owners-- and they are not in dispute. You'll see 2-3 posts after this to obscure the facts above but you won't see a denial.

This is what you're being asked to believe. Basically this boob wants you to believe that the equivalent of the population of greater New York City including the burbs in CT, NJ, and NY State actively stopped a "violent crime" using a gun. And keep in mind, the number WAS almost double before he cooked up the latest fantasy.

Yet, if you're like most people, you know nobody who ever did such a thing and know of no one who knows of anybody who has.. Just apply the smell test.

Thanks candy.....you give me another chance to show the actual research....40 years of actual research by numerous researchers in the fields of sociology, economics and criminal justice, both in the government and in private research, and many times the researchers are anti gun radicals...like bill clinton's researchers and obama's researchers at the CDC....I will highlight their studies for you....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Do you call the cops when you see someone buying a TracFone at Walmart? They get used in IEDs.

Oh brother.

When you practice shooting a gun, nobody minds....you're shooting a gun at a range as are others.
If you're blowing shit up to practice for an attack, people notice.

Explosives are not protected...rifles, pistols and their ammo are.....

 

[candycorn]

Well, there are other reasons. The inherent danger of having a gun in the house. And, the sickness of being like some people on this forum. . 0


All of it is enough to make me happily pay the tax.

There's inherent danger in having cleaning supplies, medicine, or rope in the house as well, and let's never forget about killer swimming pools that annually kill more children than guns do.

All risks I'm willing to take.

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack,

Folks, All you need to know is this:

You're being asked to believe that everyone you see in this picture--1.5 million just average gun bearing people (outside of cops/military)

Stopped violent crimes (again, how do you know a crime was going to be a violent crime if you stopped it????) using a gun
in each of the following years:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

These are the facts--that he expects you to believe that 23,000,000+ violent crimes were stopped by gun owners-- and they are not in dispute. You'll see 2-3 posts after this to obscure the facts above but you won't see a denial.

This is what you're being asked to believe. Basically this boob wants you to believe that the equivalent of the population of greater New York City including the burbs in CT, NJ, and NY State actively stopped a "violent crime" using a gun. And keep in mind, the number WAS almost double before he cooked up the latest fantasy.

Yet, if you're like most people, you know nobody who ever did such a thing and know of no one who knows of anybody who has.. Just apply the smell test.

Folks....you need to realize that in a country of over 320 million people 1.5 million is tiny......and many times people who live in crap neighborhoods use their guns more than once to drive off potential robbers, rapists and murderers but the crimes go unreported....

And then you have those who use their guns several times...like the Watch Store owner who was involved in multiple gun fights with gang members, killing several of them over the course of those shootouts.....

bill clinton did the research...he hire 2 anti gunners to create the study, executed the study...and they found that Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year....and that was before, back in the 90s before every state had legal carry...and before we had over 357million guns in private hands.....

Anecdotes are great for sports....not so much in real life.

Folks....do yourself a favor. Say a silent prayer for the kids that "responsible" gun user Adam Lanza mowed down. DO so now.



During that silent prayer...did you hear any gunshots outside of your window? No. Neither did I. Neither did anyone reading this (perhaps). Because what was being described above simply IS NOT TRUE. The real proof is that we have about 300 regular posters here and nobody trots out this idiocy except for the this moron.


You're being asked to believe that everyone you see in this picture--1.5 million just average gun bearing people (outside of cops/military)

Stopped violent crimes (again, how do you know a crime was going to be a violent crime if you stopped it????) using a gun
in each of the following years:
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

These are the facts--that he expects you to believe that 23,000,000+ violent crimes were stopped by gun owners-- and they are not in dispute. You'll see 2-3 posts after this to obscure the facts above but you won't see a denial.

This is what you're being asked to believe. Basically this boob wants you to believe that the equivalent of the population of greater New York City including the burbs in CT, NJ, and NY State actively stopped a "violent crime" using a gun.

And keep in mind, the number WAS almost double before he cooked up the latest fantasy.

Yet, if you're like most people, you know nobody who ever did such a thing and know of no one who knows of anybody who has.. Just apply the smell test.

 

[Iceweasel]

And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

And you are likely no smarter than she is so please....pay the tax.

 

[candycorn]

And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

And you are likely no smarter than she is so please....pay the tax.

She was a responsible gun owner...never hurt a fly. Just taught her angelic son how to shoot a weapon....

Ain't he cute?

I wonder how many pictures just like that the RWNJ's and gun nuts have with their sons and daughters.

 

[Iceweasel]

And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

And you are likely no smarter than she is so please....pay the tax.

She was a responsible gun owner...never hurt a fly. Just taught her angelic son how to shoot a weapon....

Ain't he cute?

I wonder how many pictures just like that the RWNJ's and gun nuts have with their sons and daughters.

That's why you shouldn't even be allowed to drive on the roads. You operate on pure emotion, no thoughts apparently run through your shrill spongebrain. She had a kid with deep psychological problems (probably from her) let him play violent games and have access to her weapon. Take the bus, moron.

 

[candycorn]

And all those folks Adam Lanza mowed down using his "responsible" mother's guns.

And you are likely no smarter than she is so please....pay the tax.

She was a responsible gun owner...never hurt a fly. Just taught her angelic son how to shoot a weapon....

Ain't he cute?

I wonder how many pictures just like that the RWNJ's and gun nuts have with their sons and daughters.

That's why you shouldn't even be allowed to drive on the roads. You operate on pure emotion, no thoughts apparently run through your shrill spongebrain. She had a kid with deep psychological problems (probably from her) let him play violent games and have access to her weapon. Take the bus, moron.

Just reciting the "facts".

Most gun owners never hurt anyone. She never hurt anyone.
Most gun owners involve their kids and pass on their guns as if they were passing on a kidney to them. Exactly what she did.
Most gun owners were allegedly appalled by the picture above. Yet I would imagine that if you gave truth serum to the gun nuts here, you'd find similar photos on their I-phones.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

The only way you would endanger anyone with a firearm is if you chose to endanger them

I and many people I know own guns and have for decades and none of them have ever endangered anyone with their firearms

 

[candycorn]

Obamacare is based on the fact that at some point, all of us will need medical care and that others should not be paying for it hand over fist. We pay taxes for a constabulary that effectively limits crime and promotes public safety.

Non-starter.

That being said, I'd pay the tax, happily. No need to endanger me or my family or my neighbors by having a firearm in the house.

The only way you would endanger anyone with a firearm is if you chose to endanger them

I and many people I know own guns and have for decades and none of them have ever endangered anyone with their firearms

That you know of. Which is great.