4 year old exercises his second amendment rights

[Vandalshandle]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

 

[Silent Warrior]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Actually no, since without concealed carry there would be no gun to show to stop the crime.

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

Most defensive gun usages, the people didn't have to fire a shot, only show that they were armed, which would cause the criminal to flee. Do you agree?

 

[2aguy]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

No...not really...concealed carry prevents an attacker from knowing exactly who and how many are armed around him and his target.......open carry without concealed carry would allow him to see you are armed and simply move on to another target....who, by observation would not be armed......

Concealed carry is better tactically, but open carry is good to help the public see guns in the right way....

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

Your intellectual dishonest is noted and recorded in my brain for future conversations. Typical. You are doing just what the man in the videos said.

 

[Brain357]

Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

We are KILLING them, even without any weapons at all. Just the facts. High five!

You admitted to not carrying yet you have not been killed. That is counter to everything 2aguy preaches.

 

[ChrisL]

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

We are KILLING them, even without any weapons at all. Just the facts. High five!

You admitted to not carrying yet you have not been killed. That is counter to everything 2aguy preaches.

Irrelevant. Lol. You are failing miserably.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

Most defensive gun usages, the people didn't have to fire a shot, only show that they were armed, which would cause the criminal to flee. Do you agree?

You are confusing me, Chris.

I have a concealed weapon. I am going about my business at the ATM at midnight in East St. Louis. A guy comes up, sticks a gun in my ribs, and demands that I give him the money.

How did my concealed weapon keep me from being a crime victim?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Damn! I never get answers to the hard questions!

 

[Rustic]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

Most defensive gun usages, the people didn't have to fire a shot, only show that they were armed, which would cause the criminal to flee. Do you agree?

You are confusing me, Chris.

I have a concealed weapon. I am going about my business at the ATM at midnight in East St. Louis. A guy comes up, sticks a gun in my ribs, and demands that I give him the money.

How did my concealed weapon keep me from being a crime victim?

And your point is??

 

[2aguy]

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

We are KILLING them, even without any weapons at all. Just the facts. High five!

You admitted to not carrying yet you have not been killed. That is counter to everything 2aguy preaches.

Tell that to the 71 year old man.......had the gun all his life and didn't need it till he was 71.....twit.

 

[2aguy]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

Most criminals can see a concealed weapon?

Most defensive gun usages, the people didn't have to fire a shot, only show that they were armed, which would cause the criminal to flee. Do you agree?

You are confusing me, Chris.

I have a concealed weapon. I am going about my business at the ATM at midnight in East St. Louis. A guy comes up, sticks a gun in my ribs, and demands that I give him the money.

How did my concealed weapon keep me from being a crime victim?

If he takes the money and leaves you are fine...if he decides to shoot you, you have a fighting chance...if you are a woman...or he is gay.....and decides to add rape to the robbery.......you can fight back.....

Would you prefer to not have the gun?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I guess that my point is that if gun lovers start quoting statistics about how much crime is deferred when a bad guy just sees your gun on your belt, then totally shift gears and argues that Concealed Carry prevents those same crime statistics from happening, then I start to wonder how a crime can be prevented because a bad guy sees that you are armed, even when it is concealed where he can't see it. A good example of that is the nonsense that people quote about criminals targeting gun free zones. That could theoretically be true (even though it isn't) if the criminals all think that THEY are the only ones who ignore "no guns allowed" warnings. I know for a fact that people carry concealed guns every day in places where they are not allowed. The only places that I would not expect that to happen is when you can't get in without going through a metal detector, like an airport terminal.

 

[2aguy]

I guess that my point is that if gun lovers start quoting statistics about how much crime is deferred when a bad guy just sees your gun on your belt, then totally shift gears and argues that Concealed Carry prevents those same crime statistics from happening, then I start to wonder how a crime can be prevented because a bad guy sees that you are armed, even when it is concealed where he can't see it. A good example of that is the nonsense that people quote about criminals targeting gun free zones. That could theoretically be true (even though it isn't) if the criminals all think that THEY are the only ones who ignore "no guns allowed" warnings. I know for a fact that people carry concealed guns every day in places where they are not allowed. The only places that I would not expect that to happen is when you can't get in without going through a metal detector, like an airport terminal.

It comes from the statisitcs that as more people concealed carry more criminals run into armed citizens...and the word spreads that attempting to rob people is dangerous....you need about 5% of the population carrying to start to see the reductions in interpersonal crime.

And yes...it is true....mass shooters who choose the location not based on an emotional attachment to the target choose gun free zones.....and the fact that most public buildings and job sites are gun free zones as well means shooters usually don't have to make a choice since their target is already a gun free zone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder when her Pro-Gun Facebook page is going to go back up, and will it be much different...