Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
criminals may not have committed any crime during the defense.
Brain...brain....if they have a criminal record...they can't touch a gun, just touching the gun is a crime for a criminal...for any reason.....or they go to jail...even if they are using it for an actual defense....the criminal attacking them is arrested, and they are arrested....I have read the stories......
Unlawful gun possession is a crime also. So those people are admitting to a crime on the survey. Also many criminals aren't yet felons. A drug dealer who has not yet been convicted of anything is not a felon and I'm sure will defend his drugs with a gun.
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
Ahhh...I see....you know can't answer the question.Your hypothetical will never happen because whites will always deflect by pointing their fingers at minorities. Just look at your compatriots in this very thread.Uh-huh.Just like alcoholics anonymous...the first step to fixing your problem is admitting that you have a problem.How, specifically, will white people simply admitting that there are crazy white people, as you suggest, affect the situation in some positive way?Exactly...the first step is to stop blaming blacks for white failure. Quit giving trophies to white losers for last place. Quit telling white kids that they are somebody...just because the color of their skin. Quit blaming white failure on Affirmative Acton. The list goes on...I guess it is the true conservative mantra...you have no one to lame but yourself. Negro got you down...try harder. Quit listening to country music...stay at home with the family instead of smoking meth and alcohol. Quit spending all of your money at bars.Change your white culture so you dont breed more of these killers.
Still waiting for an answer.
So, lets say everyone in the US understands and admits that there are crazy white people - After all, out of a population of about 225,000,000 people. there have to be some - right?
Now what?
Ahhh...I have answered...you just refused to accept my answers. Typical of your ilk...just keep on blaming blackie...a white mass shooter may e in your neighorhood tomorrow.Ahhh...I see....you know can't answer the question.Your hypothetical will never happen because whites will always deflect by pointing their fingers at minorities. Just look at your compatriots in this very thread.Uh-huh.Just like alcoholics anonymous...the first step to fixing your problem is admitting that you have a problem.How, specifically, will white people simply admitting that there are crazy white people, as you suggest, affect the situation in some positive way?Exactly...the first step is to stop blaming blacks for white failure. Quit giving trophies to white losers for last place. Quit telling white kids that they are somebody...just because the color of their skin. Quit blaming white failure on Affirmative Acton. The list goes on...I guess it is the true conservative mantra...you have no one to lame but yourself. Negro got you down...try harder. Quit listening to country music...stay at home with the family instead of smoking meth and alcohol. Quit spending all of your money at bars.
Still waiting for an answer.
So, lets say everyone in the US understands and admits that there are crazy white people - After all, out of a population of about 225,000,000 people. there have to be some - right?
Now what?
Apparently you understand that your "solution:" is unsound -- you state that what needs to happen never will, and you admit you cannot describe the next if it does.
Since YOU have no sound solution, there must be none.
criminals may not have committed any crime during the defense.
Brain...brain....if they have a criminal record...they can't touch a gun, just touching the gun is a crime for a criminal...for any reason.....or they go to jail...even if they are using it for an actual defense....the criminal attacking them is arrested, and they are arrested....I have read the stories......
Unlawful gun possession is a crime also. So those people are admitting to a crime on the survey. Also many criminals aren't yet felons. A drug dealer who has not yet been convicted of anything is not a felon and I'm sure will defend his drugs with a gun.
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
criminals may not have committed any crime during the defense.
Brain...brain....if they have a criminal record...they can't touch a gun, just touching the gun is a crime for a criminal...for any reason.....or they go to jail...even if they are using it for an actual defense....the criminal attacking them is arrested, and they are arrested....I have read the stories......
Unlawful gun possession is a crime also. So those people are admitting to a crime on the survey. Also many criminals aren't yet felons. A drug dealer who has not yet been convicted of anything is not a felon and I'm sure will defend his drugs with a gun.
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
Yes, for an anonymous phone survey...a law abiding citizen would be more likely to answer the question...they have committed no crime in their mind...even if they were carrying a gun without the paperwork.....and more so if they used the gun in their own home......the people who might not answer would be law abiding citizens who are more wary of admitting their gun use
and they have less reason to tell a badge carrying bureaucrat who specifically knows their name and address.....
Criminals have no incentive what so ever to admit touching a gun to a stranger on the phone, or a federal bureaucrat with a badge....it just might mean going to jail....
Brain...brain....if they have a criminal record...they can't touch a gun, just touching the gun is a crime for a criminal...for any reason.....or they go to jail...even if they are using it for an actual defense....the criminal attacking them is arrested, and they are arrested....I have read the stories......
Unlawful gun possession is a crime also. So those people are admitting to a crime on the survey. Also many criminals aren't yet felons. A drug dealer who has not yet been convicted of anything is not a felon and I'm sure will defend his drugs with a gun.
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
Yes, for an anonymous phone survey...a law abiding citizen would be more likely to answer the question...they have committed no crime in their mind...even if they were carrying a gun without the paperwork.....and more so if they used the gun in their own home......the people who might not answer would be law abiding citizens who are more wary of admitting their gun use
and they have less reason to tell a badge carrying bureaucrat who specifically knows their name and address.....
Criminals have no incentive what so ever to admit touching a gun to a stranger on the phone, or a federal bureaucrat with a badge....it just might mean going to jail....
You have no evidence that unlawful possession of a gun is their only crime. Kleck just says that at the time of the defense that is the only crime they are committing. And if somebody will break one law well they have probably broken plenty of others. Sorry but you have no evidence for anything you are saying. I see no reason to believe that only the law breakers that you want respond to a survey, but the lawbreakers you don't want do not.
It's simply common sense that many defenses are by people who also commit crimes. These people are armed and live in high crime areas.
Unlawful gun possession is a crime also. So those people are admitting to a crime on the survey. Also many criminals aren't yet felons. A drug dealer who has not yet been convicted of anything is not a felon and I'm sure will defend his drugs with a gun.
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Also I don't believe they get the persons name when surveying. So nobody can really get in trouble...
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
Yes, for an anonymous phone survey...a law abiding citizen would be more likely to answer the question...they have committed no crime in their mind...even if they were carrying a gun without the paperwork.....and more so if they used the gun in their own home......the people who might not answer would be law abiding citizens who are more wary of admitting their gun use
and they have less reason to tell a badge carrying bureaucrat who specifically knows their name and address.....
Criminals have no incentive what so ever to admit touching a gun to a stranger on the phone, or a federal bureaucrat with a badge....it just might mean going to jail....
You have no evidence that unlawful possession of a gun is their only crime. Kleck just says that at the time of the defense that is the only crime they are committing. And if somebody will break one law well they have probably broken plenty of others. Sorry but you have no evidence for anything you are saying. I see no reason to believe that only the law breakers that you want respond to a survey, but the lawbreakers you don't want do not.
It's simply common sense that many defenses are by people who also commit crimes. These people are armed and live in high crime areas.
No brain, it isn't...criminals have no incentive, and real risks to responding to unknown strangers on a phone asking them if they used a gun for self defense....and nothing but risk if they say it to a federal bureaucrat with a badge in person...
A normal, innocent, law abiding citizen has less reason to fear an anonymous phone survey....since in many cases they won't consider using a gun to stop a violent criminal attack a crime......and those that do know they aren't supposed to carry a gun without papers...back in the 90s....aren't likely to answer those questions either....hence when Kleck points out that defensive gun uses are more likely to be under counted than over counted......
A normal, law abiding citizen is less likely to admit to using or owning a gun to a federal, badge carrying bureaucrat in a one on one, in person survey, if the gun was never fired and the bad guy simply ran away......
Not so the actual criminal.....if he says he pulled a gun....he just admitted to at least one new felony...and if he used that gun to point at another person....two felonies......if not more......
Brain...if you are a criminal, you know the unknown person on the phone asking you if you used a gun for self defense...knows your phone number........and if it happens to be the police...or your parole officer.....in disguise as a survey taker....you will have just admitted to using a gun.......
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
Yes, for an anonymous phone survey...a law abiding citizen would be more likely to answer the question...they have committed no crime in their mind...even if they were carrying a gun without the paperwork.....and more so if they used the gun in their own home......the people who might not answer would be law abiding citizens who are more wary of admitting their gun use
and they have less reason to tell a badge carrying bureaucrat who specifically knows their name and address.....
Criminals have no incentive what so ever to admit touching a gun to a stranger on the phone, or a federal bureaucrat with a badge....it just might mean going to jail....
You have no evidence that unlawful possession of a gun is their only crime. Kleck just says that at the time of the defense that is the only crime they are committing. And if somebody will break one law well they have probably broken plenty of others. Sorry but you have no evidence for anything you are saying. I see no reason to believe that only the law breakers that you want respond to a survey, but the lawbreakers you don't want do not.
It's simply common sense that many defenses are by people who also commit crimes. These people are armed and live in high crime areas.
No brain, it isn't...criminals have no incentive, and real risks to responding to unknown strangers on a phone asking them if they used a gun for self defense....and nothing but risk if they say it to a federal bureaucrat with a badge in person...
A normal, innocent, law abiding citizen has less reason to fear an anonymous phone survey....since in many cases they won't consider using a gun to stop a violent criminal attack a crime......and those that do know they aren't supposed to carry a gun without papers...back in the 90s....aren't likely to answer those questions either....hence when Kleck points out that defensive gun uses are more likely to be under counted than over counted......
A normal, law abiding citizen is less likely to admit to using or owning a gun to a federal, badge carrying bureaucrat in a one on one, in person survey, if the gun was never fired and the bad guy simply ran away......
Not so the actual criminal.....if he says he pulled a gun....he just admitted to at least one new felony...and if he used that gun to point at another person....two felonies......if not more......
Yes but your person isn't a law abiding citizen. So you can't say one criminal will answer a survey, but another will not just because it matches your agenda. And if someone will break one law you can bet they have broken others.
Where does kleck say his survey excludes criminals? He did say this:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
You don't like it, but the armed burglar on Monday will be the armed defender on tues.
And it is useless in the court of law. And if you are unlawfully carrying a gun you have now just admitted to committing a crime. There is no reason why one person would and another wouldn't.
Yes, for an anonymous phone survey...a law abiding citizen would be more likely to answer the question...they have committed no crime in their mind...even if they were carrying a gun without the paperwork.....and more so if they used the gun in their own home......the people who might not answer would be law abiding citizens who are more wary of admitting their gun use
and they have less reason to tell a badge carrying bureaucrat who specifically knows their name and address.....
Criminals have no incentive what so ever to admit touching a gun to a stranger on the phone, or a federal bureaucrat with a badge....it just might mean going to jail....
You have no evidence that unlawful possession of a gun is their only crime. Kleck just says that at the time of the defense that is the only crime they are committing. And if somebody will break one law well they have probably broken plenty of others. Sorry but you have no evidence for anything you are saying. I see no reason to believe that only the law breakers that you want respond to a survey, but the lawbreakers you don't want do not.
It's simply common sense that many defenses are by people who also commit crimes. These people are armed and live in high crime areas.
No brain, it isn't...criminals have no incentive, and real risks to responding to unknown strangers on a phone asking them if they used a gun for self defense....and nothing but risk if they say it to a federal bureaucrat with a badge in person...
A normal, innocent, law abiding citizen has less reason to fear an anonymous phone survey....since in many cases they won't consider using a gun to stop a violent criminal attack a crime......and those that do know they aren't supposed to carry a gun without papers...back in the 90s....aren't likely to answer those questions either....hence when Kleck points out that defensive gun uses are more likely to be under counted than over counted......
A normal, law abiding citizen is less likely to admit to using or owning a gun to a federal, badge carrying bureaucrat in a one on one, in person survey, if the gun was never fired and the bad guy simply ran away......
Not so the actual criminal.....if he says he pulled a gun....he just admitted to at least one new felony...and if he used that gun to point at another person....two felonies......if not more......
Yes but your person isn't a law abiding citizen. So you can't say one criminal will answer a survey, but another will not just because it matches your agenda. And if someone will break one law you can bet they have broken others.
Where does kleck say his survey excludes criminals? He did say this:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
You don't like it, but the armed burglar on Monday will be the armed defender on tues.
Sorry, not true brain....carrying a gun for protection from criminals as a law abiding citizen is not a criminal in the way you desperately want it to mean......just like the woman in Pennsylvania who didn't realize she broke New Jersey law...she wasn't a criminal....she even told the cop she had the gun......
Law abiding citizens have no reason to fear answering surveys about self defense because they are defending themselves, not committing crimes...and since they are not career criminals with records...they can actually touch a gun without committing a felony.....and no....not having papers to carry a gun is not breaking the law....otherwise everyone who speeds is a criminal in the sense of drug dealers and mob hitmen.......
Yes. You said that the solution was for whites to admit that some white people are crazy.Ahhh...I have answered...Ahhh...I see....you know can't answer the question.Your hypothetical will never happen because whites will always deflect by pointing their fingers at minorities. Just look at your compatriots in this very thread.Uh-huh.Just like alcoholics anonymous...the first step to fixing your problem is admitting that you have a problem.How, specifically, will white people simply admitting that there are crazy white people, as you suggest, affect the situation in some positive way?
Still waiting for an answer.
So, lets say everyone in the US understands and admits that there are crazy white people - After all, out of a population of about 225,000,000 people. there have to be some - right?
Now what?
Apparently you understand that your "solution:" is unsound -- you state that what needs to happen never will, and you admit you cannot describe the next if it does.
Since YOU have no sound solution, there must be none.
Because most gun owners don't carry while at home. We don't sit watching TV, each will a hand gun at the ready. We don't expect any family member to come in blasting away his loved ones.Strange how none of the victims were protected by their own guns.
1) you know they had guns
2) they may have broken the cardinal rule about answering the door to a stranger without a gun in your hand
3) and where exactly were the police....with their guns.......you know...the guys who are the only ones you anti gun nuts want to have guns......
4) if they had been carrying guns.....would they have had a better or worse chance of stopping the gun armed attacker?
5) since they were unarmed in the face of an armed attacker........did that help them survive the attack?
Now for the questions that you anti gun nuts never, ever answer....
6) If you could go back in time to just before the attack....would you give those people a gun?
Isn't the gun fetishist's whole argument that they need their precious guns in order to protect themselves because the cops aren't around?
This was in rural Texas, right? The very heart of gun fetishist country. So it is no big stretch to say that there would have been at least one gun in at least one of those 3 locations. And since the killer could only shoot one of them at a time why couldn't any of the others have reached their gun and defended themselves?
The reality is that your bogus myth that "guns protect people" has just been exposed as BS. Even if you had given all of them guns beforehand they would all still be just as dead because none of them were expecting to be killed so they weren't ready.
Guns DON'T protect people. Period.
Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
You are one paranoid guy. You need to stop talking to these instructors. They just want all your money.
Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
You are one paranoid guy. You need to stop talking to these instructors. They just want all your money.
Not paranoid......would you open your door at 2 a.m. to a stranger......on this show a few years ago a bank manager opened his door at 3 a.m........and was confronted by 3 masked men.....they chased him through his house and captured him...they forced him to open his bank's vault......then the took him to a bridge....duct taped him and a cinder block to a chair and tossed him into a river....he drowned.....
Do you know how they caught the three assholes........when his body decayed, the gases made it float...and it was seen by some guys fishing......they then found a decent finger print on the duct tape they used to tie him to the chair.....one of the jerks had a record.....
so no....I don't answer my door without being armed....too many people find out why they should have been armed....like...say...the people murdered in the story in this post.....for example.......
Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
You are one paranoid guy. You need to stop talking to these instructors. They just want all your money.
Not paranoid......would you open your door at 2 a.m. to a stranger......on this show a few years ago a bank manager opened his door at 3 a.m........and was confronted by 3 masked men.....they chased him through his house and captured him...they forced him to open his bank's vault......then the took him to a bridge....duct taped him and a cinder block to a chair and tossed him into a river....he drowned.....
Do you know how they caught the three assholes........when his body decayed, the gases made it float...and it was seen by some guys fishing......they then found a decent finger print on the duct tape they used to tie him to the chair.....one of the jerks had a record.....
so no....I don't answer my door without being armed....too many people find out why they should have been armed....like...say...the people murdered in the story in this post.....for example.......
Yes you are quite paranoid. How many is too many really? Statistically you are quite unlikely to be murdered, especially if you are not involved in criminal activity. Are you involved in criminal activity?
Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
You are one paranoid guy. You need to stop talking to these instructors. They just want all your money.
Not paranoid......would you open your door at 2 a.m. to a stranger......on this show a few years ago a bank manager opened his door at 3 a.m........and was confronted by 3 masked men.....they chased him through his house and captured him...they forced him to open his bank's vault......then the took him to a bridge....duct taped him and a cinder block to a chair and tossed him into a river....he drowned.....
Do you know how they caught the three assholes........when his body decayed, the gases made it float...and it was seen by some guys fishing......they then found a decent finger print on the duct tape they used to tie him to the chair.....one of the jerks had a record.....
so no....I don't answer my door without being armed....too many people find out why they should have been armed....like...say...the people murdered in the story in this post.....for example.......
Yes you are quite paranoid. How many is too many really? Statistically you are quite unlikely to be murdered, especially if you are not involved in criminal activity. Are you involved in criminal activity?
are you a federal, state, or local law enforcement agent.....? Be honest......
Were you a Boy Scout.......? Be honest....Some of the fire arm instructors I read recommend carrying at home....just for situations like these...at a minimum...I will not answer the door at night without a gun in hand or on my person.......and I don't open my door to any strangers.........and if I go to the front door....I am listening to the back door......that is how criminals roll........
You are one paranoid guy. You need to stop talking to these instructors. They just want all your money.
Not paranoid......would you open your door at 2 a.m. to a stranger......on this show a few years ago a bank manager opened his door at 3 a.m........and was confronted by 3 masked men.....they chased him through his house and captured him...they forced him to open his bank's vault......then the took him to a bridge....duct taped him and a cinder block to a chair and tossed him into a river....he drowned.....
Do you know how they caught the three assholes........when his body decayed, the gases made it float...and it was seen by some guys fishing......they then found a decent finger print on the duct tape they used to tie him to the chair.....one of the jerks had a record.....
so no....I don't answer my door without being armed....too many people find out why they should have been armed....like...say...the people murdered in the story in this post.....for example.......
Yes you are quite paranoid. How many is too many really? Statistically you are quite unlikely to be murdered, especially if you are not involved in criminal activity. Are you involved in criminal activity?
are you a federal, state, or local law enforcement agent.....? Be honest......
No man is an island,What I'd like to know is how this affects his pathetic life unless he lives in Missouri?
the left just loves dancing on dead people except all those aborted... for some reason that never bothers them. how amazing isn't it?
He really does hate guns.Guno, you idiot.
