Good guy with a gun saves woman being stabbed to death...

[martybegan]

That whole concept is quite frankly, bullshit.

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

That is not up to you, or government to decide (unless I have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental defect).

You have said that you haven't needed one. Maybe you want one, but you have not yet had a need. Which is strange given the wild claims of 2a guy. You should probably be dead for not having one according to him.

I haven't needed by right to a trial by jury, nor have I needed my right for my property to not be searched without a warrant. Yet I refuse to give up those rights as well.

If I decide tomorrow that I "need" one, I should be able to go out and buy one with minimal hassle and time. It is my right as a US Citizen with no criminal record and no history of adjudication due to mental defect.

That the City of New York denies me that right solely because they believe that I don't "need" a handgun is criminal and unconstitutional. That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

 

[Brain357]

If you say so.
I got to tell you though. If I was as concerned about not having a gun as you are, I would have already and long ago traveled out of state and bought a gun and taken it back home.

If you have to shoot someone, well as the gunners state; would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6?

Why havent you done that? Or have you and just cant say?

Just dont let a kid get hold of the gun and shoot themselves or someone else. You would have really big problems then.

Freedom to have guns isnt free and it doesnt say it is free in the COtUS. You still have to buy the gun. SO hows that FREE gun ownership?

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

That is not up to you, or government to decide (unless I have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental defect).

You have said that you haven't needed one. Maybe you want one, but you have not yet had a need. Which is strange given the wild claims of 2a guy. You should probably be dead for not having one according to him.

I haven't needed by right to a trial by jury, nor have I needed my right for my property to not be searched without a warrant. Yet I refuse to give up those rights as well.

If I decide tomorrow that I "need" one, I should be able to go out and buy one with minimal hassle and time. It is my right as a US Citizen with no criminal record and no history of adjudication due to mental defect.

That the City of New York denies me that right solely because they believe that I don't "need" a handgun is criminal and unconstitutional. That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

Hey I don't really care if you have a gun or not. You choose to live where you can't have one. I just hate all this fear mongering by the gun nuts. This is a very safe country if you are not involved in criminal behavior.

 

[Wilbur Right]

You got me curious about the murder rates in NYC. So I looked them up.

And even though there was a 9% increase from 201 to 2015, those numbes were significiently less than the murders in the late 80ties and early 90ties.

My point being that if you lived in NYC during those earlier periods and didnt get shot, you will most likely not be shot in this time frame.

And how much of the decreased gun violence can be attributed to making it harder to get a gun? Dont know. But it stands to reason it had an effect.

 

[Wilbur Right]

That the City of New York denies me that right solely because they believe that I don't "need" a handgun is criminal and unconstitutional.

Sounds like you need an attorney to sue. Maybe the NRA will take your case?

But if you believe in law and the law states this and you dont like it, then change the fucking law.

Now you may not like it that the law was enacted in the first place. But some NewYorkers somewhere wanted the law changed.

You just need to change it back to the way it was when NYC had a much higher murder/gun violence rate.

 

[martybegan]

I believe in the rule of law. I shouldn't have to break one to exercise my rights. Also I am not at the point where I feel the need to break said law to protect myself. My point is I shouldn't have to go through all this crap just to get a revolver for my own house.

The funny thing is that my case proves everything gun rights activists say about oppressive gun laws, that they only stop the law abiding from owning guns. I could go out right now and find someone who could get me a handgun for around $200 illegally, and unless I got really unlucky, the police would never know. Yet they set up their laws to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get one legally, soley to discourage me from going through the motions to get one.

It also proves most people don't need one.

That is not up to you, or government to decide (unless I have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental defect).

You have said that you haven't needed one. Maybe you want one, but you have not yet had a need. Which is strange given the wild claims of 2a guy. You should probably be dead for not having one according to him.

I haven't needed by right to a trial by jury, nor have I needed my right for my property to not be searched without a warrant. Yet I refuse to give up those rights as well.

If I decide tomorrow that I "need" one, I should be able to go out and buy one with minimal hassle and time. It is my right as a US Citizen with no criminal record and no history of adjudication due to mental defect.

That the City of New York denies me that right solely because they believe that I don't "need" a handgun is criminal and unconstitutional. That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

Hey I don't really care if you have a gun or not. You choose to live where you can't have one. I just hate all this fear mongering by the gun nuts. This is a very safe country if you are not involved in criminal behavior.

I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. By your logic Roe V Wade wasn't needed, because if people in Alabama wanted an abortion, they can just move to a place like NY that protects it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

 

[martybegan]

That the City of New York denies me that right solely because they believe that I don't "need" a handgun is criminal and unconstitutional.

Sounds like you need an attorney to sue. Maybe the NRA will take your case?

But if you believe in law and the law states this and you dont like it, then change the fucking law.

Now you may not like it that the law was enacted in the first place. But some NewYorkers somewhere wanted the law changed.

You just need to change it back to the way it was when NYC had a much higher murder/gun violence rate.

Those same laws were in place when NYC had a much higher gun violence rate, nothing has been changed since the 70's and 80's. Its all based on something called the Sullivan law from the 30's.

People have tried suing, and the courts around here keep ruling in favor of the government, contrary to Heller and McDonald.

 

[martybegan]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

 

[Brain357]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

 

[martybegan]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

 

[Brain357]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

 

[martybegan]

That people like you support these rules shows why 2nd amendment rights supporters should never trust people like you.

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a funny (kinda funny) anectodal DGU story

A buddy of mine has rental properties on a not so good side of town. He went to start an eviction and got into a verbal altercation with a couple of men who werent supposd to be living at this property.

Conversation turned into argument turned into heated argument. My friend ended up showing his gun in his shoulder holster.

One of the guys he was arguing with went back into the house and returned with an AR15. Game set match.

Who was actually using their gun for a DGU? My friend who felt threatened or the tenant who was threatened? Or neither? they were actually just trying to intimidate each other.

the AR won.

Most defenses aren't lawful.

And that is a lie brain. No research shows that to be even remotely true....yet you keep saying it....

Yeah, there is a study that shows that most people who claim to use a gun for self-defense, are actually criminally aggressive in their use of that gun. In this study, judges reviewed the stories of people who claimed to have used guns in self defense. They did not have any testimony of the other participants in the altercation, only the words of the gun owners. The judges found that in the vast majority of these cases - in excess of 75%, the gun owner behaved criminally in their use of a gun.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

There is another Harvard study which completely debunks the NRA talking points.

New Harvard research debunks the NRA's favorite talking points

There are all kinds of studies that show having a gun in the house increases the risk to family members, especially women and children. Most people are at far greater risk of being shot by a family member, than they are from criminals. Then there are the number of gun suicides.

Do you realize that using judges, who only see people brought into their courtrooms is a really stupid way to study gun use....considering almost all of the people brought into a court on a gun charge are prior convicted criminals......really...that is what you have?

And the gun in the house being dangerous idea has also been debunked. The problem is having a convicted criminal in the home, or having someone in the home with a history of violence and a criminal record, or a history of drug and alcohol abuse or mental illness...the studies you cite don't take those factors into account because if they did it would destroy their study.

Homes without criminals, drug or alcohol abusers and the mentally ill....who also have guns....do not end up killing each other with the gun......

We have over 357 million guns now in private hands.....how many murders all told do we have with guns......in 2014 it was 8,124....that is all murders. What is the biggest factor in those murders....the people committing the murder are violent career criminals and people with long histories of violence....not normal people.

And the majority of victims in those 8,124 gun murders.....are also career criminals....

Those studies you cite are not new here on U.S. message and have been shown to be wrong countless times.


Here is a good idea...if it has David Hemenway, or Arthur Kellerman attacked to it in any way....or any of the rabidly anti gun groups like the Joyce foundation or the Violence policy center....it is crap. It will have been proven to be crap because they don't care about neutral research on the topic...they just care about pushing gun control.....

 

[2aguy]

A survey study as your proof?

Yeah......

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

 

[2aguy]

Here is a funny (kinda funny) anectodal DGU story

A buddy of mine has rental properties on a not so good side of town. He went to start an eviction and got into a verbal altercation with a couple of men who werent supposd to be living at this property.

Conversation turned into argument turned into heated argument. My friend ended up showing his gun in his shoulder holster.

One of the guys he was arguing with went back into the house and returned with an AR15. Game set match.

Who was actually using their gun for a DGU? My friend who felt threatened or the tenant who was threatened? Or neither? they were actually just trying to intimidate each other.

the AR won.

Most defenses aren't lawful.

And that is a lie brain. No research shows that to be even remotely true....yet you keep saying it....

Yeah, there is a study that shows that most people who claim to use a gun for self-defense, are actually criminally aggressive in their use of that gun. In this study, judges reviewed the stories of people who claimed to have used guns in self defense. They did not have any testimony of the other participants in the altercation, only the words of the gun owners. The judges found that in the vast majority of these cases - in excess of 75%, the gun owner behaved criminally in their use of a gun.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

There is another Harvard study which completely debunks the NRA talking points.

New Harvard research debunks the NRA's favorite talking points

There are all kinds of studies that show having a gun in the house increases the risk to family members, especially women and children. Most people are at far greater risk of being shot by a family member, than they are from criminals. Then there are the number of gun suicides.

Do you realize that the studies you cite also consider a gun being brought in by a criminal is a gun in the home...even though the home did not have a gun....that a drug dealer shooting another drug dealer in a home is considered an acquaintance murder since they knew each other......you studies are crap....have been shown to be crap........over and over again......you need new material...

 

[Brain357]

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

 

[martybegan]

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

 

[2aguy]

trust people like me? What the fuck.

I have already said I would have a gun if I lived in NYC. And it wouldnt be registered and I wouldnt pay 1000 dollars and wait 6 months.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you dont have the balls to arm yourself when you want to so badly?

Now give me that New York whine; its the LAW that says I cant have one. No the law says pay 1000 and wait 6 months.

No it is YOU that wont go get one.

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

 

[2aguy]

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

It is too bad you can't take it all the way to the Supreme Court....I would like to see someone use the 14th Amendment to go after these gun grabber laws...since they are in clear violation of that Amendment........

 

[martybegan]

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

It's practice i guess. He's basically a ball of every cliche about gun grabbers.