Do Not Be Without a Gun

[Tax Man]

I have been shot twice. Once by a cop and once by a dumb republican. They could have been the same person? Ha ha. I do not carry a piece and have no fear as the dumb republican thought he could shot and kill me but was shocked when his bullet did not do it's work and i took his gun. The police man thought I was another person because i am so big and muscular not anymore but. I did not sue because he was so dumb.

 

[Blues Man]

We'll see how tough you are when 3 thugs are kicking the shit out of you

How often do 3 thugs kick the shit out of you? Is that something that happens to you often?

It only has to happen once to do permanent damage

Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it never will.

You internet shut ins don't realize that there is real violence in the world and think you're tough sitting there at your keyboard in mama's basement

I'm beginning to understand now. It happened to you once, and now you are in permanent fear that it will happen again. That seems to be the source of your cowardliness. Perhaps counseling might help. While violent incidents do happen to innocent people, that is not the normal way of things. The vast majority of folks don't experience anything like that. You're going through life with the fear that it will happen again at any time. That must be so limiting for you. I hope you can some day realize that you don't have to live in constant fear, and can see the world as it really is instead of having to always hide behind a gun.

You don't understand shit.

And I do not live in fear because I know i am prepared to meet whatever the day might bring whether it be good or bad.

You on the other hand are not prepared and will most likely piss your pants if you ever found yourself in a dangerous situation.

So go have your mama serve you some milk and cookies so you can pretend to be tough on the internet

I understand that you are a coward. I'm sure you know more about why you are a coward, but it's obvious that you are.

I understand you are a basement dwelling shut in who would piss his pants at the first sign of trouble

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

I have been shot twice. Once by a cop and once by a dumb republican. They could have been the same person? Ha ha. I do not carry a piece and have no fear as the dumb republican thought he could shot and kill me but was shocked when his bullet did not do it's work and i took his gun. The police man thought I was another person because i am so big and muscular not anymore but. I did not sue because he was so dumb.

Suuuuuuuure

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[BULLDOG]

How often do 3 thugs kick the shit out of you? Is that something that happens to you often?

It only has to happen once to do permanent damage

Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it never will.

You internet shut ins don't realize that there is real violence in the world and think you're tough sitting there at your keyboard in mama's basement

I'm beginning to understand now. It happened to you once, and now you are in permanent fear that it will happen again. That seems to be the source of your cowardliness. Perhaps counseling might help. While violent incidents do happen to innocent people, that is not the normal way of things. The vast majority of folks don't experience anything like that. You're going through life with the fear that it will happen again at any time. That must be so limiting for you. I hope you can some day realize that you don't have to live in constant fear, and can see the world as it really is instead of having to always hide behind a gun.

You don't understand shit.

And I do not live in fear because I know i am prepared to meet whatever the day might bring whether it be good or bad.

You on the other hand are not prepared and will most likely piss your pants if you ever found yourself in a dangerous situation.

So go have your mama serve you some milk and cookies so you can pretend to be tough on the internet

I understand that you are a coward. I'm sure you know more about why you are a coward, but it's obvious that you are.

I understand you are a basement dwelling shut in who would piss his pants at the first sign of trouble

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Sure, but there are so many things you think you understand, but you don't.

 

[Blues Man]

It only has to happen once to do permanent damage

Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it never will.

You internet shut ins don't realize that there is real violence in the world and think you're tough sitting there at your keyboard in mama's basement

I'm beginning to understand now. It happened to you once, and now you are in permanent fear that it will happen again. That seems to be the source of your cowardliness. Perhaps counseling might help. While violent incidents do happen to innocent people, that is not the normal way of things. The vast majority of folks don't experience anything like that. You're going through life with the fear that it will happen again at any time. That must be so limiting for you. I hope you can some day realize that you don't have to live in constant fear, and can see the world as it really is instead of having to always hide behind a gun.

You don't understand shit.

And I do not live in fear because I know i am prepared to meet whatever the day might bring whether it be good or bad.

You on the other hand are not prepared and will most likely piss your pants if you ever found yourself in a dangerous situation.

So go have your mama serve you some milk and cookies so you can pretend to be tough on the internet

I understand that you are a coward. I'm sure you know more about why you are a coward, but it's obvious that you are.

I understand you are a basement dwelling shut in who would piss his pants at the first sign of trouble

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Sure, but there are so many things you think you understand, but you don't.

You must be looking in a mirror when you say that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[sparky]

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence.

What 3ed world sh*thole are U posting from?

~S~

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm beginning to understand now. It happened to you once, and now you are in permanent fear that it will happen again. That seems to be the source of your cowardliness. Perhaps counseling might help. While violent incidents do happen to innocent people, that is not the normal way of things. The vast majority of folks don't experience anything like that. You're going through life with the fear that it will happen again at any time. That must be so limiting for you. I hope you can some day realize that you don't have to live in constant fear, and can see the world as it really is instead of having to always hide behind a gun.

You don't understand shit.

And I do not live in fear because I know i am prepared to meet whatever the day might bring whether it be good or bad.

You on the other hand are not prepared and will most likely piss your pants if you ever found yourself in a dangerous situation.

So go have your mama serve you some milk and cookies so you can pretend to be tough on the internet

I understand that you are a coward. I'm sure you know more about why you are a coward, but it's obvious that you are.

I understand you are a basement dwelling shut in who would piss his pants at the first sign of trouble

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Sure, but there are so many things you think you understand, but you don't.

You must be looking in a mirror when you say that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I'm not the one afraid to face the world without a gun to hide behind.

 

[Blues Man]

You don't understand shit.

And I do not live in fear because I know i am prepared to meet whatever the day might bring whether it be good or bad.

You on the other hand are not prepared and will most likely piss your pants if you ever found yourself in a dangerous situation.

So go have your mama serve you some milk and cookies so you can pretend to be tough on the internet

I understand that you are a coward. I'm sure you know more about why you are a coward, but it's obvious that you are.

I understand you are a basement dwelling shut in who would piss his pants at the first sign of trouble

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Sure, but there are so many things you think you understand, but you don't.

You must be looking in a mirror when you say that

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I'm not the one afraid to face the world without a gun to hide behind.

I do not hide behind a gun as the gun is too small to hide behind and I carry it on my left hip at the 8 o clock position

You however do hide in your EDITED basement

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[miketx]

How about that lucky duck who actually got to shoot somebody?

A once in a lifetime thrill come true!

And contrary to your uninformed opinion gun owners actually show incredible restraint in the use of their firearms

I know I did when that moron walked up my friend and I brandishing a revolver.

 

[protectionist]

Then what, he is released that afternoon with metro passes and cash cards like Fredo is doing with violent criminals in NY?

She was in Georgia.

 

[protectionist]

How about that lucky duck who actually got to shoot somebody?

A once in a lifetime thrill come true!

Like the good guys in the Texas church who shot and killed the bad guy shooter, and saved the lives of hundreds of people.

And a special thrill for each one of those hundreds of people, who now get to continue living.

Texas church shooting: Gunman kills 2, 'heroic' parishioners kill him

 

[BULLDOG]

How about that lucky duck who actually got to shoot somebody?

A once in a lifetime thrill come true!

And contrary to your uninformed opinion gun owners actually show incredible restraint in the use of their firearms

So just owning a gun gives you incredible restraint? You know that's nuts, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Wrong.

There’s no evidence that carrying a concealed firearm ‘reduces’ crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

 

[2aguy]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Wrong.

There’s no evidence that carrying a concealed firearm ‘reduces’ crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

And you are wrong..you have seen the research, and you pretend it doesn't exist....here is a small sample...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review




Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[2aguy]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Wrong.

There’s no evidence that carrying a concealed firearm ‘reduces’ crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

And the big list....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

 

[Blues Man]

How about that lucky duck who actually got to shoot somebody?

A once in a lifetime thrill come true!

And contrary to your uninformed opinion gun owners actually show incredible restraint in the use of their firearms

So just owning a gun gives you incredible restraint? You know that's nuts, right?

Where did I say that?

You read as well as you think

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Wrong.

There’s no evidence that carrying a concealed firearm ‘reduces’ crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

There's no evidence it increases crime either

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Wrong.

There’s no evidence that carrying a concealed firearm ‘reduces’ crime.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

There's no evidence it increases crime either

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

In fact....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yeah you're an internet badass

Your parents must be sooooooo proud

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I guess not being afraid to face the real world without being armed 24/7 might make me look like a bad ass compared to a coward that can't do that, but it's really not that big of a deal.

We'll see how tough you are when 3 thugs are kicking the shit out of you

How often do 3 thugs kick the shit out of you? Is that something that happens to you often?

It only has to happen once to do permanent damage

Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it never will.

You internet shut ins don't realize that there is real violence in the world and think you're tough sitting there at your keyboard in mama's basement

I'm beginning to understand now. It happened to you once, and now you are in permanent fear that it will happen again. That seems to be the source of your cowardliness. Perhaps counseling might help. While violent incidents do happen to innocent people, that is not the normal way of things. The vast majority of folks don't experience anything like that. You're going through life with the fear that it will happen again at any time. That must be so limiting for you. I hope you can some day realize that you don't have to live in constant fear, and can see the world as it really is instead of having to always hide behind a gun.

There are a significant amount of people who live in fear for various reasons. Some because where they live, work or travel may be a high crime area. But there are other people who live in fear because they are under direct threat from a very specific source, these include domestic violence and stalking victims and/or the victims of online harassment, bullies or trolls.

Fear of random crime is different than fear that someone who has been threatening you will finally attempt to carry out their threats. And while everyone does not fall into this category, it takes more courage than you could ever imagine to decide to no longer be a victim and to make the choice to put an end to the threat once and for all if it comes to that, including accepting the legal repercussions that come with defending one's life from individuals that our legal system hasn't traditionally considered a "serious threat of violence".

I know there are people who are exactly as you describe but not everyone who arms themselves falls into that category. And truth be told, most of the people I know or associate with who carry concealed or otherwise are not living in fear, they're prepared, which goes a long way towards reducing stress, in any area of your life.

So being called a coward is like water off a ducks back to most because having the ability to end a life if necessary, in your own defense or the defense of other far eclipses any name anyone could be called. That's why the rabidly anti-gun group is the way they are. They absolutely hate that we get to make that life or death decision for ourselves.

 

[BULLDOG]

How about that lucky duck who actually got to shoot somebody?

A once in a lifetime thrill come true!

And contrary to your uninformed opinion gun owners actually show incredible restraint in the use of their firearms

So just owning a gun gives you incredible restraint? You know that's nuts, right?

Where did I say that?

You read as well as you think

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You claim gun owners show incredible restraint. If owning a gun is not the thing that gives gun owners that trait, what else do you think they might have in common to cause gun owners to show such incredible restraint?