Gun owner stops 2 violent criminals....

[saveliberty]

So by that logic, we’ve used nuclear weapons every day since we’ve invented them since a “use” is not really a “use”.

Yeah, lots of unreported nuclear explosions...oh wait...the possibility is a deterrent...

 

[August West]

This was a real event that actually happened and we know that because the police were involved. The other 3,000 events or however many this kid spams us about every damn day are fairy tales. No police report? It didn`t happen.

If your liberal media didn't report it, it can't exist, got it.

The person who brandished the gun to scare away the bad guy didn`t report it to the police, he reported it to gun hustlers Lott and Kleck. Makes sense to me!

 

[BULLDOG]

I walked or drove past at least hundreds people today in town. Each one of them could have wanted to rob me, but they might have known I had a gun and decided not to. Add a few 100 to that list of alleged use of a gun to stop crime.

 

[Andylusion]

These two tried to murder the security guard, this gun owner stepped in and ended the attack..

Notice...no shots were fired, the criminals were captured and held for the police....a defensive gun use....no injuries or deaths for the criminals....

Robbery suspects thwarted by licensed gun owner, report says

Another victory over evil, by the G-dly and lawful.

 

[my2¢]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

 

[BULLDOG]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

I got mine after taking a single two hour long class.

 

[candycorn]

So by that logic, we’ve used nuclear weapons every day since we’ve invented them since a “use” is not really a “use”.

Yeah, lots of unreported nuclear explosions...oh wait...the possibility is a deterrent...

It’s the same principle:

Your gun stopped a crime even though you didn’t draw it or use it.
Our nuke stopped a war even though it was never launched or left it’s silo.

 

[BULLDOG]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

I got mine after taking a single two hour long class.

Just think how many Audie Murphy's we are producing at 2 hours each.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

I got mine after taking a single two hour long class.

Just think how many Audie Murphy's we are producing at 2 hours each.

True.

 

[2aguy]

This was a real event that actually happened and we know that because the police were involved. The other 3,000 events or however many this kid spams us about every damn day are fairy tales. No police report? It didn`t happen.

If your liberal media didn't report it, it can't exist, got it.

The person who brandished the gun to scare away the bad guy didn`t report it to the police, he reported it to gun hustlers Lott and Kleck. Makes sense to me!

And he reported it to the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice.....you guys never want to address that research or the other 13 studies on defensive gun use.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no 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 - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

 

[2aguy]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

 

[BULLDOG]

This was a real event that actually happened and we know that because the police were involved. The other 3,000 events or however many this kid spams us about every damn day are fairy tales. No police report? It didn`t happen.

If your liberal media didn't report it, it can't exist, got it.

The person who brandished the gun to scare away the bad guy didn`t report it to the police, he reported it to gun hustlers Lott and Kleck. Makes sense to me!

And he reported it to the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice.....you guys never want to address that research or the other 13 studies on defensive gun use.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no 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 - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

Oh my. A gun nut reported he used a gun, Other than some gun nut bragging about something that might not have happened anyway, is there any documentation?

 

[BULLDOG]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

 

[2aguy]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

No.... actual criminals have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....normal, law abiding people who use guns for self defense only use their gun to protect themselves and others......

It is you who obviously prefers the outcome in a rape is the woman beaten, raped and possibly murdered, rather than she have the choice to buy, own and carry a gun to stop the attack...that is where you land on this issue.....dittos other crimes that are stopped by good people with guns...you prefer they suffer at the hands of the criminal rather than stopping the criminal..

That is the choice you want...more victims, not less....and you even support the democrat party, that works constantly to let violent criminals out of prison...that too is on you.

 

[BULLDOG]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

No.... actual criminals have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....normal, law abiding people who use guns for self defense only use their gun to protect themselves and others......

It is you who obviously prefers the outcome in a rape is the woman beaten, raped and possibly murdered, rather than she have the choice to buy, own and carry a gun to stop the attack...that is where you land on this issue.....dittos other crimes that are stopped by good people with guns...you prefer they suffer at the hands of the criminal rather than stopping the criminal..

That is the choice you want...more victims, not less....and you even support the democrat party, that works constantly to let violent criminals out of prison...that too is on you.

Yet, without background checks there is no way of knowing about those long histories of crime and violence, is there?

 

[2aguy]

The holder of the concealed weapons permit had a level head about him. I wonder how helpful was California's training for a license to carry permit? When I see those with weapons I trust they have good sense, but God only knows.

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

No.... actual criminals have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....normal, law abiding people who use guns for self defense only use their gun to protect themselves and others......

It is you who obviously prefers the outcome in a rape is the woman beaten, raped and possibly murdered, rather than she have the choice to buy, own and carry a gun to stop the attack...that is where you land on this issue.....dittos other crimes that are stopped by good people with guns...you prefer they suffer at the hands of the criminal rather than stopping the criminal..

That is the choice you want...more victims, not less....and you even support the democrat party, that works constantly to let violent criminals out of prison...that too is on you.

Yet, without background checks there is no way of knowing about those long histories of crime and violence, is there?

What are you talking about? Criminals have criminal records.....when they are arrested, in the commission of a crime or with an illegal gun in their possession, the cop runs their name and history, and they can then be arrested.......and locked up....then released by people like you, where they go on to commit another crime.

Background checks do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns. What they do? Is allow you and anti-gunners to demand gun registration...because after you get universal background checks, criminals will still get illegal guns, and mass public shooters will still get guns.....then you will come forward and say..we need to register all guns.....knowing, since I keep telling you, that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination....

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion[edit]
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

And mass public shooters will simply register their guns.....and then shoot people with them...

There is nothing about gun registration that makes any sense to normal people who know the issue..

 

[BULLDOG]

Most states only require a few hours of training. Gun nuts seem to think that prepares them for armed deployment in a combat situation. Pretty stupid of them, isn't it?

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

No.... actual criminals have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....normal, law abiding people who use guns for self defense only use their gun to protect themselves and others......

It is you who obviously prefers the outcome in a rape is the woman beaten, raped and possibly murdered, rather than she have the choice to buy, own and carry a gun to stop the attack...that is where you land on this issue.....dittos other crimes that are stopped by good people with guns...you prefer they suffer at the hands of the criminal rather than stopping the criminal..

That is the choice you want...more victims, not less....and you even support the democrat party, that works constantly to let violent criminals out of prison...that too is on you.

Yet, without background checks there is no way of knowing about those long histories of crime and violence, is there?

What are you talking about? Criminals have criminal records.....when they are arrested, in the commission of a crime or with an illegal gun in their possession, the cop runs their name and history, and they can then be arrested.......and locked up....then released by people like you, where they go on to commit another crime.

Background checks do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns. What they do? Is allow you and anti-gunners to demand gun registration...because after you get universal background checks, criminals will still get illegal guns, and mass public shooters will still get guns.....then you will come forward and say..we need to register all guns.....knowing, since I keep telling you, that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination....

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion[edit]
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

And mass public shooters will simply register their guns.....and then shoot people with them...

There is nothing about gun registration that makes any sense to normal people who know the issue..

Your claim is stupid. Background checks do work, and universal background checks would work better. I don't care how many times you say they don't, cause you are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

No....we know that driving off a criminal doesn't require being a Navy Seal or a member of Delta Force.... you are the stupid one, the one who prefers a woman is raped, another is robbed and more are murdered rather than those lives are saved by good people using guns....

Gun nuts are always good people with guns right up until they aren't. You consider every armed thug to be a good person with a gun unless he has been convicted of gun crime.

No.... actual criminals have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teen years.....normal, law abiding people who use guns for self defense only use their gun to protect themselves and others......

It is you who obviously prefers the outcome in a rape is the woman beaten, raped and possibly murdered, rather than she have the choice to buy, own and carry a gun to stop the attack...that is where you land on this issue.....dittos other crimes that are stopped by good people with guns...you prefer they suffer at the hands of the criminal rather than stopping the criminal..

That is the choice you want...more victims, not less....and you even support the democrat party, that works constantly to let violent criminals out of prison...that too is on you.

Yet, without background checks there is no way of knowing about those long histories of crime and violence, is there?

What are you talking about? Criminals have criminal records.....when they are arrested, in the commission of a crime or with an illegal gun in their possession, the cop runs their name and history, and they can then be arrested.......and locked up....then released by people like you, where they go on to commit another crime.

Background checks do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns. What they do? Is allow you and anti-gunners to demand gun registration...because after you get universal background checks, criminals will still get illegal guns, and mass public shooters will still get guns.....then you will come forward and say..we need to register all guns.....knowing, since I keep telling you, that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination....

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion[edit]
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.

And mass public shooters will simply register their guns.....and then shoot people with them...

There is nothing about gun registration that makes any sense to normal people who know the issue..

Your claim is stupid. Background checks do work, and universal background checks would work better. I don't care how many times you say they don't, cause you are wrong.

No, background checks do now work.....you can't show how they work..... criminals steal their guns or use straw buyers..... mass shooters almost to a shooter have all undergone current, federal background checks which means they would be able to pass any universal background check for a private sale.

There is no intelligent argument for universal background checks that do not consist solely on getting universal gun registration...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ask the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Justice....as well as the other 15 studies conducted on gun self defense...they can answer your questions....
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)
-

First of all, you are trying to quote a study that cannot be found anywhere by anyone in it's original form at the CDC. If it was real they would have it on file. It's not there.

Second, I notice that you are now adding to the Kleck study that there is no Cops or Military yet it was discredited because it was not only funny math involved but also included Cops and Military.

Those two items alone discredits your entire post, cupcake.

Reminds me of when a cupcake like you was rescued by a snowflake.