Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Virginia Center for Public Safety: The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Klecks survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.
Klecks survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Klecks Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.
Dude that info is 20+ years old and as shown by the info above, has some serious flaws in the methodology. Has not been repeated and is clung to by gun nutteres like a life jacket to a drowning man. How about some news articles from this past week newspapers. Instead of 6000 examples, how about 10 news paper accounts of people stopping violent crimes with their guns.
Now that should be real easy. 10 examples. But do not include cops, military or people shooting mean dogs.
Mike. You are making a valiant effort I will give you that.
So, I counted 52 examples in the state of Ohio. Over eight years. SO 8x365= 2929 days divided by your 52 examples = 1.8 per day on average times50 states equals around 90 per day. Maybe.
Is 90 more or less than the 6849 examples that you and Kleck say are happening.
Mike. You are making a valiant effort I will give you that.
So, I counted 52 examples in the state of Ohio. Over eight years. SO 8x365= 2929 days divided by your 52 examples = 1.8 per day on average times50 states equals around 90 per day. Maybe.
Is 90 more or less than the 6849 examples that you and Kleck say are happening.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Mike. You are making a valiant effort I will give you that.
So, I counted 52 examples in the state of Ohio. Over eight years. SO 8x365= 2929 days divided by your 52 examples = 1.8 per day on average times50 states equals around 90 per day. Maybe.
Is 90 more or less than the 6849 examples that you and Kleck say are happening.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Were you trying to say something worth reading? Failed again.
It has other words too, like ... being necessary to ...
Yes, necessary to a free state, exactly that which you and the rest of the left are diligently working to revoke.
So, if we are to be free, our right to arm cannot be infringed. Explaining exactly your lust to infringe that right...
We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.
And I agree. Go fuck up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some fucking deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a fucking ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.
But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.
Yes, necessary to a free state, exactly that which you and the rest of the left are diligently working to revoke.
So, if we are to be free, our right to arm cannot be infringed. Explaining exactly your lust to infringe that right...
We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.
And I agree. Go fuck up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some fucking deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a fucking ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.
But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.
Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.
A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.
After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?
Garbage in, garbage out.
Were you trying to say something worth reading? Failed again.
I'd ask you the same question. Your "analysis" is an unreliable method, using unreliable figures.
Yes, necessary to a free state, exactly that which you and the rest of the left are diligently working to revoke.
So, if we are to be free, our right to arm cannot be infringed. Explaining exactly your lust to infringe that right...
We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.
And I agree. Go fuck up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some fucking deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a fucking ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.
But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.
Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.
A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.
After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?
Were you trying to say something worth reading? Failed again.
I'd ask you the same question. Your "analysis" is an unreliable method, using unreliable figures.
I know that simple math is an issue for a lot of gun folks. Let me walk you through this;
You gun folk like to cite a 23 year old flawed study that says that 2.5 million time a year, guns stop crimes. You with me? There are 365 days in a year. Right? Divide 2.5 million by 365 days and you get, ta da 6849 incidents per day. Still with me?
Now prove it. Cause the one dude did try......and failed. Using Ohio (where I live) he did manage to show 52 examples over 8 years. Not close to 6849 per day, but he tried.
Now it's your turn. (if you want to).
I'd ask you the same question. Your "analysis" is an unreliable method, using unreliable figures.
I know that simple math is an issue for a lot of gun folks. Let me walk you through this;
You gun folk like to cite a 23 year old flawed study that says that 2.5 million time a year, guns stop crimes. You with me? There are 365 days in a year. Right? Divide 2.5 million by 365 days and you get, ta da 6849 incidents per day. Still with me?
Now prove it. Cause the one dude did try......and failed. Using Ohio (where I live) he did manage to show 52 examples over 8 years. Not close to 6849 per day, but he tried.
Now it's your turn. (if you want to).
Oh man, another quiz! @$#&
You forgot free people.......
Nope. That's who can have them, and not who needs or wants one.
For example, I do not want nor need one. Chicks are telling me all the time, "Wow; you're big for a white guy." So clearly, I need no assault rifle, nor would I waste time playing around in the woods with middle aged, fat-gut virgins in camo, with the intelligence of fucking fruit flies, when the bitches are wanting my spare time for doing other things.
Ya feel me?
Having trouble typing cuz I'm laughing so hard so I'll just post this. Pretty much says it all.
We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.
And I agree. Go fuck up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some fucking deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a fucking ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.
But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.
Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.
A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.
After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?
He did. You panicked, thinking you had the firepower you didn't call for backup, ration your rounds while giving ground and seeking shelter. Groan as if you were hit and go silent. Wait for the target, remember to slow your breathing and don't miss when he moves into your sight.
