The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home

[Geaux4it]

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

you gun haters are liars

you claim there is not enough crime to justify honest people being armed but yet claim there is so much crime that assholes like you demand more an more gun restrictions to supposedly stop all those criminals who don't exist in enough numbers to justify good people being armed

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

What I see wrong with the study is that it is incorrect. As stated, the CDC took a comprehensive look at the data out there and the studies done on gun violence and found that injury was LESS LIKELY.

It is not common sense unless you assume that the weapon is an automatic escalation of violence. Typically it is not. Instead, it immediately ends the encounter. No matter who you are, you react differently when faced with possible death. That little woman you thought you were going to rob or rape is not some little victim when she pulls out a gun and tells you to get lost.

 

[Brain357]

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

 

[Brain357]

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

What I see wrong with the study is that it is incorrect. As stated, the CDC took a comprehensive look at the data out there and the studies done on gun violence and found that injury was LESS LIKELY.

It is not common sense unless you assume that the weapon is an automatic escalation of violence. Typically it is not. Instead, it immediately ends the encounter. No matter who you are, you react differently when faced with possible death. That little woman you thought you were going to rob or rape is not some little victim when she pulls out a gun and tells you to get lost.

But murder is a tiny percent of crime so the likelyhood of just being shot is very small. Now if you pull your gun out the criminal is now much more likely to shoot you since he does not want to be shot himself.

 

[Brain357]

No I did not make that claim. I said that most people will not need a gun for defense, that is simply a fact. I have not however suggested that justifies disarming anyone, you made that part up.

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

What I see wrong with the study is that it is incorrect. As stated, the CDC took a comprehensive look at the data out there and the studies done on gun violence and found that injury was LESS LIKELY.

It is not common sense unless you assume that the weapon is an automatic escalation of violence. Typically it is not. Instead, it immediately ends the encounter. No matter who you are, you react differently when faced with possible death. That little woman you thought you were going to rob or rape is not some little victim when she pulls out a gun and tells you to get lost.

The CDC is talking about injury, not the chance of being shot. In most those cases the criminal is not even armed. But if the criminal is armed you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

 

[Derideo_Te]

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

ICBMS are not "Arms" within the meaning of the 2A and they certainly are not weapons that individual citizens are expected to KEEP and BEAR

ICBM's are strategic arms. Try again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

FA_Q2 stated that all anyone has to do under 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM and they must be allowed to have one because there is no "need" to justify having one.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

Nor did I EVER make the claim that it did. You have done nothing at all but make asinine assertions about things I have never stated.

Would you like to try one more time.

Nope, because I have already exposed what you actually said twice now. No point wasting my time on someone drowning in denial.

 

[FA_Q2]

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

Nor did I EVER make the claim that it did. You have done nothing at all but make asinine assertions about things I have never stated.

Would you like to try one more time.

Nope, because I have already exposed what you actually said twice now. No point wasting my time on someone drowning in denial.

I am not in denial you twit. I had thought you were not one of the idiot children here but I was obviously mistaken. the adults here understand quite clearly that the right to bear arms applies to arms that you are actually able to bear - go figure - and has been pretty clearly defined by the SCOTUS. The fact that you are such a colossal idiot that you need to ignore reality and common sense to make a worthless 'point' shows exactly how strong your non position really is. You are not here in this thread for discussion, you are here to be an asinine troll.

Goodby troll, I don't feel in the mood to feed your idiocy at this time. Maybe another time in another thread - there are adults here that are worth discussing this topic with.

 

[FA_Q2]

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

What I see wrong with the study is that it is incorrect. As stated, the CDC took a comprehensive look at the data out there and the studies done on gun violence and found that injury was LESS LIKELY.

It is not common sense unless you assume that the weapon is an automatic escalation of violence. Typically it is not. Instead, it immediately ends the encounter. No matter who you are, you react differently when faced with possible death. That little woman you thought you were going to rob or rape is not some little victim when she pulls out a gun and tells you to get lost.

The CDC is talking about injury, not the chance of being shot. In most those cases the criminal is not even armed. But if the criminal is armed you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Again, that is a mighty assumption. You are trying to make the data and conclusions fit your preconceived notion that using a weapon defensively increases your chance of being injured. That was not the finding.

 

[Brain357]

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

What I see wrong with the study is that it is incorrect. As stated, the CDC took a comprehensive look at the data out there and the studies done on gun violence and found that injury was LESS LIKELY.

It is not common sense unless you assume that the weapon is an automatic escalation of violence. Typically it is not. Instead, it immediately ends the encounter. No matter who you are, you react differently when faced with possible death. That little woman you thought you were going to rob or rape is not some little victim when she pulls out a gun and tells you to get lost.

The CDC is talking about injury, not the chance of being shot. In most those cases the criminal is not even armed. But if the criminal is armed you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Again, that is a mighty assumption. You are trying to make the data and conclusions fit your preconceived notion that using a weapon defensively increases your chance of being injured. That was not the finding.

But that is the finding. The study looked at shootings only which is not what the CDC did. And the study found that in the event of a shooting you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun. It's really a common sense finding.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

 

[turtledude]

I did? how about you bother to quote that.

I know you understand what you are doing here Derido - you are not one of the class idiots. Face the facts that have been presented.

Here you go!

The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home Page 10 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right.
Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right​

Now start 'splaining because you did dig this hole for yourself.

Did your child get ahold of your account?

I stated: the desire to exercise a particular right

Then you said: 2A is merely "want" a nuclear ICBM

Nope, not the same statement whatsoever. Not even in the same realm. Get off your logical fallacy and actually make a damn point.

No logical fallacy at all. Just pointing out the absurdity of your "justification". In essence there is no limit to what anyone "wants" but 2A doesn't cover your "right" to own an ICBM no matter how much you might "want" one. You don't have such a right under 2A.

ICBMS are not "Arms" within the meaning of the 2A and they certainly are not weapons that individual citizens are expected to KEEP and BEAR

ICBM's are strategic arms. Try again.

no moron-they are not the ARMS the founders were speaking of

people do not KEEP AND BEAR ICBMs

 

[Derideo_Te]

the right to bear arms applies to arms that you are actually able to bear -

And yet there are people who own tanks that they most certainly can't "bear", can they?

Bearing ArmsActually Gun-Grabbers It Is Legal To Buy A Tank... And A Bunch Just Came Up For Sale - Bearing Arms

Yet another of your fallacies goes down in flames and yes, I noted your hissyfit meltdown. Obviously you cannot defend your inane post so you resorted in puerile insults instead. That says volumes about you.

 

[Geaux4it]

most people don't need a fire extinguisher or air bags either

but if you do, and don't have one, the consequences are brutal. so its prudent to have a gun

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

Bet there are lots of shot defenders who thought the same way as you. Newsflash, doesnt take much trainings to point and shoot a gun. And not so hard to hit at very close range.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No it is not prudent. Often having a gun makes it more likely you will be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

Rather than just giving up your wallet you've now been shot. You just might be much more likely to be accidently shot than ever needing a gun. But then again there have definitely been people who needed one.

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other.

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

There are 80 million gun owners out there. How many of them have had any training? Even well trained cops miss at close range. Look at how many time Wilson missed in Ferguson and it was broad daylight with no one shooting at him either. Try doing that in the middle of the night when you are half asleep and are fumbling to take off the safety and aren't even sure where the intruder is in the dark.

 

[Geaux4it]

Wow, a study of three whole cities. That would not be trying to make the data fit preconceived notions now, would it?

Crossfire s S.E. Cupp cites CDC on armed citizen safety gun control laws and buybacks PolitiFact

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

There are 80 million gun owners out there. How many of them have had any training? Even well trained cops miss at close range. Look at how many time Wilson missed in Ferguson and it was broad daylight with no one shooting at him either. Try doing that in the middle of the night when you are half asleep and are fumbling to take off the safety and aren't even sure where the intruder is in the dark.

Again, many civilians such as myself have far more training than your average LEO. It's a give. And thank you for pointing out why at times standard 15 round magazines are required.

-Geaux

 

[Derideo_Te]

I see nothing wrong with the study and frankly it's common sense. If you are going to escalate a situation with a gun then if the criminal is armed you are just as likely to be shot as he is.

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

There are 80 million gun owners out there. How many of them have had any training? Even well trained cops miss at close range. Look at how many time Wilson missed in Ferguson and it was broad daylight with no one shooting at him either. Try doing that in the middle of the night when you are half asleep and are fumbling to take off the safety and aren't even sure where the intruder is in the dark.

Again, many civilians such as myself have far more training than your average LEO. It's a give. And thank you for pointing out why at times standard 15 round magazines are required.

-Geaux

I very much doubt that you are any better than the average yahoo shooting at beer cans in your back yard. The reality is that no one can accurately simulate what it is like to be woken in the middle of the night to find an intruder in your room holding a gun on you. Furthermore even the "average LEO" knows that in that situation reaching for your gun would be the dumbest move you could make. From 20' away someone with a knife could stab you to death before you could draw, aim and fire your own weapon.

Your Hollywood fantasies are why gun fetishists like you end up in body bags.

 

[Geaux4it]

No I'm not. I'm fairly confident I have far more training in the use of firearms than your average dysfunctional loser of a thug. IOW, their odds are not very good if they choose me to be a government sanctioned victim

-Geaux

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

There are 80 million gun owners out there. How many of them have had any training? Even well trained cops miss at close range. Look at how many time Wilson missed in Ferguson and it was broad daylight with no one shooting at him either. Try doing that in the middle of the night when you are half asleep and are fumbling to take off the safety and aren't even sure where the intruder is in the dark.

Again, many civilians such as myself have far more training than your average LEO. It's a give. And thank you for pointing out why at times standard 15 round magazines are required.

-Geaux

I very much doubt that you are any better than the average yahoo shooting at beer cans in your back yard. The reality is that no one can accurately simulate what it is like to be woken in the middle of the night to find an intruder in your room holding a gun on you. Furthermore even the "average LEO" knows that in that situation reaching for your gun would be the dumbest move you could make. From 20' away someone with a knife could stab you to death before you could draw, aim and fire your own weapon.

Your Hollywood fantasies are why gun fetishists like you end up in body bags.

You'e a complete loon.
-Geaux

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hey good luck to you with that. But usually the criminal is going to have the advantage as he will probably have his gun out before you know what's happening.

Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself and the future dead thug. Interesting how you minimize training. Shows your ignorance.

-Geaux

There are 80 million gun owners out there. How many of them have had any training? Even well trained cops miss at close range. Look at how many time Wilson missed in Ferguson and it was broad daylight with no one shooting at him either. Try doing that in the middle of the night when you are half asleep and are fumbling to take off the safety and aren't even sure where the intruder is in the dark.

Again, many civilians such as myself have far more training than your average LEO. It's a give. And thank you for pointing out why at times standard 15 round magazines are required.

-Geaux

I very much doubt that you are any better than the average yahoo shooting at beer cans in your back yard. The reality is that no one can accurately simulate what it is like to be woken in the middle of the night to find an intruder in your room holding a gun on you. Furthermore even the "average LEO" knows that in that situation reaching for your gun would be the dumbest move you could make. From 20' away someone with a knife could stab you to death before you could draw, aim and fire your own weapon.

Your Hollywood fantasies are why gun fetishists like you end up in body bags.

You'e a complete loon.
-Geaux

Why don't you tell that to the FBI firearms instructor who does LEO training courses all the time?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, why are we wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?