4 year old exercises his second amendment rights

[Brain357]

How many dollars have you spent on guns and defensive training just to never use it? They love suckers like you. So scared and paranoid.

I guess you didn't see the post of the senior citizens...went 40-50 years not needing a gun...till the day they needed it.....and it saved their lives....

you are a twit brain.

Wasted your money. Not only did they take your money but they have you running around scared and paranoid. Pathetic.

You are the one exposing yourself as fearful.

So scared I go everywhere with no gun. You clowns pee yourself at the thought of going somewhere unarmed. Pathetic.

Not at all. I don't own a weapon at all. I just know how important ALL of our rights are, and the second amendment is the one under the most attack.

That explains why you aren't like the OP.

 

[2aguy]

Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.

 

[Brain357]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

 

[ChrisL]

Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.

You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!

 

[Vandalshandle]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

It sure worked for me last week!!!!

 

[Brain357]

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.

Shall we post the interview where it is clear kleck thinks lott is wrong?

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.

 

[Brain357]

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.

You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!

You brought them up. You always this confused?

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

It sure worked for me last week!!!!

Did you watch those videos I posted earlier this morning? The guy describes you to a T!

 

[2aguy]

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.

Shall we post the interview where it is clear kleck thinks lott is wrong?

Please do...it was interesting....Lott thinks that because Kleck is a sociologist he sees things from a different perspective....and as an economist Lott says he sees things in a different way as well.........

 

[Vandalshandle]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.

You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!

You brought them up. You always this confused?

I brought what up? I didn't say anything about homicides. I have been talking about defensive gun usage. You can use your gun to defend yourself, and you don't have to fire it or kill anyone. Brandishing it is enough in most instances to make a criminal flee. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Brain357]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.

You are the one talking about stripping rights.

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

 

[ChrisL]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

I don't disagree with that, why do you keep claiming I do?

Well then why are you here on this thread? Because of the OP? Well, like I said, accidents happen all the time. You cannot strip people of their rights because of what you THINK might happen.

You are the one talking about stripping rights.

I am? Where? Lol. What rights have I talked about stripping?

 

[2aguy]

And then there is this....a survey of actual peer reviewed researchers and what they think of various gun issues....

Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns: Crime, Suicides, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws by John R. Lott, Gary A. Mauser :: SSRN

Abstract:
Economists and Criminologists have very different models of human behavior. A total of 74 out of all 130 academics who published peer-reviewed empirical research on gun issues in criminology and economics journals responded to our survey.

That was a 57% response rate. Looking at their views on their views on deterrence and regulations generally, our survey finds that these two groups have very different views on gun regulations that vary in systematic, predictable ways.

Our survey results are consistent with those predictions and statistically significant. While economists tend to view guns as making people safer, criminologists hold this position less strongly.

Combining all the economists and criminologists together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self-defense than in crime; gun-free zones attract criminals; guns in the home do not increase the risk of suicide; concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American; and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. All those results are statistically significant.

The survey of economists was conducted from August 25th to September 12th 2014. The survey of criminologists was conducted from May 29th to June 14th 2015.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

That isn't true.....they disagree on some things, agree on others...of course you have to lie...again....to try to make a case that does not exist.

Shall we post the interview where it is clear kleck thinks lott is wrong?

Please do...it was interesting....Lott thinks that because Kleck is a sociologist he sees things from a different perspective....and as an economist Lott says he sees things in a different way as well.........

They are getting more and more desperate with each post. Lol.

 

[2aguy]

The bottom line . . . most people who have defended themselves with their weapons never had to fire a shot. The mere sight of the firearm is enough to scare off a would-be attacker in most instances. Actually having to SHOOT the perp is going to be rare.
Most legal gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot by their own weapons.

Of course, that pretty much negates the argument for concealed carry, doesn't it?

Not at all, since most criminals are deterred by the mere sight of the weapon. Do you agree with that?

He is as foolish as brain.......

 

[ChrisL]

Ah the 12 year old is back again. Funny how you complain about the guys who talk about your small penis, but then act like a child yourself.

Brain....Like the Super Nanny on T.V. does....we are going to send you to the Time Out Chair.....for at least 12 hours.....

You are the one living in fantasy land. But keep acting like a child, fits your arguments perfectly.

Not at all. He is posting facts.

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

We are KILLING them, even without any weapons at all. Just the facts. High five!

 

[Brain357]

Actually I have proven they aren't facts. When losing he starts posting like a child. Look at that he lost again.

Brain...stamping your feet and yelling...."those aren't facts....those aren't facts..." is not proving they aren't facts. A peer reviewed paper means actual people check the research....they don't just pull numbers out of their ass and say ..."See...these are better numbers cause I say so...."

Ok post some support for you studies. What peers support them. Kleck says lot is wrong. Everyone says kleck is wrong. What you got?

WE already have. Many of us, many times. You choose to ignore the data presented to you.

You stick to the "justifiable homicide" figures as if they are the only way that a person can defend him or herself against an attacker, when that is not true. Many people defend themselves without ever firing shot and most gun owners never shoot anyone, nor are they shot. Those are the facts!

You brought them up. You always this confused?

I brought what up? I didn't say anything about homicides. I have been talking about defensive gun usage. You can use your gun to defend yourself, and you don't have to fire it or kill anyone. Brandishing it is enough in most instances to make a criminal flee. Do you disagree with that?

You posted a quote, shall I quote it and prove you wrong again?