CDZ Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And they are lying to you about suicides as well.......Japan, South Korea and China only allow criminals and cops to have guns......and their suicide rate is higher than ours........

And here you have European countries......and Canada...with extreme gun control laws...and higher suicide rates than we do.....

World suicide rates by country

Per 100,000


Hungary ... 21.0
Belgium .... 18.4
Finland... 16.5
France... 14.6
Poland... 13.8
Austria... 13.8
Czech Republic... 12.7
New Zealand.... 11.9
Denmark... 11.3
Sweden..............11.1
Norway...............10.9
Iceland................10.4
Germany.............10.3
Canada...............10.2

United States.......10.1

And another list....
Here Are The Countries With The Worst Suicide Rates

There is nothing in that link you gave that is accurate......or even close to being accurate...

 

[GaryDog]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

 

[westwall]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

 

[GaryDog]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

 

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

All of this research shows they are wrong on a street level crime basis...

I just averaged the studies at the bottom......I took only studies that exluded military and police gun use.....notice, theses 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


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

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)....

Someone needs to give you an education in 100-level college statistics. Raw analysis of alleged "defensive uses" are useless without comparing to accidental deaths, suicide, unintentional homicides, domestic violence, etc.

But then again, you ignore that stuff because of confirmation bias.

Here you go......from the CDC.....

n 2013 there were over 320,000,000 million guns in private hands, in 2015...there were 357,000,000 million guns in private hands...

Accidental gun deaths:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Accidental gun deaths 2014......586

Accidental gun deaths over time....

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
2014...586 (37 million new guns in private hands, up from 320 million in 2013....making the new total 357 million guns)


Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....in a country with 74.2 million children in 2010...

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39

Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)

Total in 2014....48


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


Gun suicide vs. non gun suicide:

2013:

Gun Suicide: 21,175

Non gun suicide: 19,974

2014:

Gun suicide in 2014..... 21,334 (WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports)

non gun suicide in 2014...21,359 (WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports)

-----------

Gun murder:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 and

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports - 2000

gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

--------

 

[GaryDog]

The CDC didn't do a gun-specific study. They did a death study. Congress has already specifically refused to allow funding for a gun-specific study because they're scared of the results.

 

[westwall]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

Wrong. There most certainly IS a political agenda when the group putting out those "statisitics" lies about them, and the only reason to lie about them is because of the agenda. The groups pushing those "stats" are overwhelmingly anti gun groups. Why do you resort to lies if your argument is so strong?

 

[GaryDog]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

Wrong. There most certainly IS a political agenda when the group putting out those "statisitics" lies about them, and the only reason to lie about them is because of the agenda. The groups pushing those "stats" are overwhelmingly anti gun groups. Why do you resort to lies if your arguments is so strong?

LMAO, I provide you with a fact-base study that has verified its methodology, and you respond with a crybaby rant with zero substance.

At the same time, you ping my messages for lacking substance. You're a substantial piece of shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

 

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

I think he is blocking me because I can't reply to him anymore......

GaryDog......

I have given you actual research on defensive gun use over a 40 year period...with both private and public trained researchers....

I have given you suicide and accident stats from the CDC

I have given you homicide stats from the FBI....

nothing you state about guns is true or supported by the facts or reality.....

 

[GaryDog]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

The number of households with guns has actually gone down. More guns are being stockpiled by fewer owners.

Number of households with guns on the decline, study shows

 

[GaryDog]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

I think he is blocking me because I can't reply to him anymore......

GaryDog......

I have given you actual research on defensive gun use over a 40 year period...with both private and public trained researchers....

I have given you suicide and accident stats from the CDC

I have given you homicide stats from the FBI....

nothing you state about guns is true or supported by the facts or reality.....

I didn't block anyone. Apparently your understanding of how to use this site is as strong as your grasp on facts and statistics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

The number of households with guns has actually gone down. More guns are being stockpiled by fewer owners.

This does not answer my question.
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

 

[2aguy]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

From this I have 200 million guns in the United states in the 1990s.....and in 2016 there are now 357,000,000

So the core argument made by anti gun activists is not true...there entire premise is built on the lie that more guns = more crime.....

The truth is as more Americans own and actually carry guns...our gun murder rate went down, not up....as you know.....


New CDC Study on Gun Violence Destroys Liberal Gun Control Arguments

While the number of guns in the hands of private citizens has skyrocketed in the last 20 years – well over 300 million now compared to less than 200 million in 1994, the firearm homicide rate has been cut in half.

We’ve known about the record sales of guns over the last many years, buoyed by liberals’ incessant call to ban and confiscate weapons. But new research from the Centers for Disease Control prove that more guns do not, in fact, mean more crime. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[GaryDog]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

From this I have 200 million guns in the United states in the 1990s.....and in 2016 there are now 357,000,000

So the core argument made by anti gun activists is not true...there entire premise is built on the lie that more guns = more crime.....

The truth is as more Americans own and actually carry guns...our gun murder rate went down, not up....as you know.....


New CDC Study on Gun Violence Destroys Liberal Gun Control Arguments

Another lie.

Number of households with guns on the decline, study shows

 

[GaryDog]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

The number of households with guns has actually gone down. More guns are being stockpiled by fewer owners.

This does not answer my question.
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

I thought only people killed people, not guns. So how does the number of households with guns not matter?

LMAO!

 

[2aguy]

Why do people buy insurance?

Same thing.

The last thing I ever want to do in life is fire my weapon because of necessity.

This might be a valid argument if buying insurance didn't INCREASE your likelihood of catastrophe, rather than mitigate a possible catastrophe.

Statistics show quite plainly that gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or someone they love with a gun they own. It puts them at GREATER risk, not less.

Hence, the argument against owning a gun for self-defense. It's simply not logical that it would help you. That being said, if you have an emotional need for a gun, it's there for you. Sleep well and use a condom.

Those statistics are not supported by facts. In other words they are made up to advance a political agenda.

Another example of debate in a "post-factual democracy" /\/\/\

There is no political agenda associated with the statistics. They are facts. You're less likely to die from gunfire if you DON'T own a gun. Period.

Wrong. There most certainly IS a political agenda when the group putting out those "statisitics" lies about them, and the only reason to lie about them is because of the agenda. The groups pushing those "stats" are overwhelmingly anti gun groups. Why do you resort to lies if your arguments is so strong?

LMAO, I provide you with a fact-base study that has verified its methodology, and you respond with a crybaby rant with zero substance.

At the same time, you ping my messages for lacking substance. You're a substantial piece of shit.

Wow...the reply button on your post worked...it didn't on the one where you linked to that stupid article....

 

[2aguy]

1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

1997-2014: What was the increase in the number of guns?

From this I have 200 million guns in the United states in the 1990s.....and in 2016 there are now 357,000,000

So the core argument made by anti gun activists is not true...there entire premise is built on the lie that more guns = more crime.....

The truth is as more Americans own and actually carry guns...our gun murder rate went down, not up....as you know.....


New CDC Study on Gun Violence Destroys Liberal Gun Control Arguments

Another lie.

Number of households with guns on the decline, study shows

And the GSS the General Social Survey is run by an anti gunner...who wants his research to encourage more gun control....

And you obviously think that gun owners in this country are more willing, not less, to tell anonoymous people over the phone or in person that they have guns in their home..........

Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent.

There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.

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

 

[WillowTree]

I have a cc permit. I keep a gun by my bed. If you come into my house uninvited you might be in trouble. I carry when I travel also. But just around town and shopping and stuff no it stays home. I have been to two open carry state's New Mexico and Arizona. That's an awesome sight but I don't think I would be comfortable with open carry. The chance is too great that someone would overpower me take the weapon. I prefer closed carry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I thought only people killed people, not guns. So how does the number of households with guns not matter?
LMAO!

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?