Fbi Report Ends Nra Nonsense About "good Guys With Guns"

[Skull Pilot]

This entire thread is nullified by the simple fact that private citizens that own and carry firearms have absolutely no obligation to come the the public defense.

You anti gun idiots should be happy that private citizens do not take up arms against criminals shouldn't you?

 

[JoeB131]

This entire thread is nullified by the simple fact that private citizens that own and carry firearms have absolutely no obligation to come the the public defense.

You anti gun idiots should be happy that private citizens do not take up arms against criminals shouldn't you?

But that isn't the point you guys make.

You all insist that guns make us safer from criminals. They apparently don't.

Incidently, I'm totally fine with the fact that gun owners aren't whipping out their guns in a "Active Shooter" incident. They'll just make it worse.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This entire thread is nullified by the simple fact that private citizens that own and carry firearms have absolutely no obligation to come the the public defense.

You anti gun idiots should be happy that private citizens do not take up arms against criminals shouldn't you?

But that isn't the point you guys make.

You all insist that guns make us safer from criminals. They apparently don't.

Incidently, I'm totally fine with the fact that gun owners aren't whipping out their guns in a "Active Shooter" incident. They'll just make it worse.

You guys?

BTW I have always said that gun owners have no obligation to protect anyone else.

A firearm is for SELF DEFENSE PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT

You should be happy that private citizens aren't out there playing cop but you're not why is that?

 

[Jarlaxle]

do you have a point you hysterical fairy?

Joey's only point is on his head.

 

[JoeB131]

[
You guys?

BTW I have always said that gun owners have no obligation to protect anyone else.

A firearm is for SELF DEFENSE PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT

You should be happy that private citizens aren't out there playing cop but you're not why is that?

I think that if someone is shooting up your workplace, that qualifies as "Self-Defense'.

The reality is, for all your guys claims, there are only 200 cases of self-defense homicide, most of those domestic incidents.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
You guys?

BTW I have always said that gun owners have no obligation to protect anyone else.

A firearm is for SELF DEFENSE PERIOD EXCLAMATION POINT

You should be happy that private citizens aren't out there playing cop but you're not why is that?

I think that if someone is shooting up your workplace, that qualifies as "Self-Defense'.

The reality is, for all your guys claims, there are only 200 cases of self-defense homicide, most of those domestic incidents.

Why is it that self defense in your tiny mind means someone ends up dead?

What about all the times a gun is used in self defense where no one dies?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Why is it that self defense in your tiny mind means someone ends up dead?

What about all the times a gun is used in self defense where no one dies?

Because I find that highly improbable.

Frankly, listening to you gun nuts, constantly talking about how you just can't WAIT for the opportunity to drill a bullet into the head of a bad guy, how you all Admire Zimmerman because he was "Livin' the Dream". (As opposed to just being a sociopath who showed bad judgement.)

I find it hard to believe that if an opportunity came up to kill a bad guy, you wouldn't fully avail yourselves of it.

claims for Defensive gun uses go from a low of 89,000 a year (US DOJ) to 2.5 million a year. (Kleck).

Yet we are to believe that when that happy day to finally get to use your Penis Compensater in a meaningful way comes, and you only manage to do it 0.2% to 0.008% of the time?

That sounds really kind of improbable. You all don't sound like you can maintain that much self-control.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
Why is it that self defense in your tiny mind means someone ends up dead?

What about all the times a gun is used in self defense where no one dies?

Because I find that highly improbable.

Frankly, listening to you gun nuts, constantly talking about how you just can't WAIT for the opportunity to drill a bullet into the head of a bad guy, how you all Admire Zimmerman because he was "Livin' the Dream". (As opposed to just being a sociopath who showed bad judgement.)

I find it hard to believe that if an opportunity came up to kill a bad guy, you wouldn't fully avail yourselves of it.

claims for Defensive gun uses go from a low of 89,000 a year (US DOJ) to 2.5 million a year. (Kleck).

Yet we are to believe that when that happy day to finally get to use your Penis Compensater in a meaningful way comes, and you only manage to do it 0.2% to 0.008% of the time?

That sounds really kind of improbable. You all don't sound like you can maintain that much self-control.

Now you have to quote me saying I can't wait to kill someone.

Good luck with that.

The fact that you will not admit that the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to deter crime is proof of your utter idiocy.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Now you have to quote me saying I can't wait to kill someone.

Good luck with that.

The fact that you will not admit that the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to deter crime is proof of your utter idiocy.

Guy, you're slimier than a politician, I don't hold you to anything.

I was talking about all the gun nuts who talk about how they just can't wait to shoot someone.

Yet, oddly, other than the odd kid buying Skittles, they never seem to.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
Now you have to quote me saying I can't wait to kill someone.

Good luck with that.

The fact that you will not admit that the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to deter crime is proof of your utter idiocy.

Guy, you're slimier than a politician, I don't hold you to anything.

I was talking about all the gun nuts who talk about how they just can't wait to shoot someone.

Yet, oddly, other than the odd kid buying Skittles, they never seem to.

Irrelevant to the point that private citizens have no obligation to come to anyone's defense.

BTW I have always said that Zimmerman was partially culpable in the death of Martin.

But now tell me can self defense with a firearm not lead to the death of someone.

I'll give you a hint : OF ******* COURSE IT CAN.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Irrelevant to the point that private citizens have no obligation to come to anyone's defense.

BTW I have always said that Zimmerman was partially culpable in the death of Martin.

But now tell me can self defense with a firearm not lead to the death of someone.

I'll give you a hint : OF ******* COURSE IT CAN.

Could it? Yes.

99.8% of the time? That's kind of improbable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
Irrelevant to the point that private citizens have no obligation to come to anyone's defense.

BTW I have always said that Zimmerman was partially culpable in the death of Martin.

But now tell me can self defense with a firearm not lead to the death of someone.

I'll give you a hint : OF ******* COURSE IT CAN.

Could it? Yes.

99.8% of the time? That's kind of improbable.

Proof of that stat you just pulled out of your ample ass please.

 

[zeke]

[
Why is it that self defense in your tiny mind means someone ends up dead?

What about all the times a gun is used in self defense where no one dies?

Because I find that highly improbable.

Frankly, listening to you gun nuts, constantly talking about how you just can't WAIT for the opportunity to drill a bullet into the head of a bad guy, how you all Admire Zimmerman because he was "Livin' the Dream". (As opposed to just being a sociopath who showed bad judgement.)

I find it hard to believe that if an opportunity came up to kill a bad guy, you wouldn't fully avail yourselves of it.

claims for Defensive gun uses go from a low of 89,000 a year (US DOJ) to 2.5 million a year. (Kleck).

Yet we are to believe that when that happy day to finally get to use your Penis Compensater in a meaningful way comes, and you only manage to do it 0.2% to 0.008% of the time?

That sounds really kind of improbable. You all don't sound like you can maintain that much self-control.

Now you have to quote me saying I can't wait to kill someone.

Good luck with that.

The fact that you will not admit that the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to deter crime is proof of your utter idiocy.

There is is. The solution to a problem. You gun owners don't even have to worry about loading your guns with ammo. Just pull that gun and pretend that you are gonna shoot that bad ass criminal you all are so scared of.

Skull says that brandishing a weapon at someone is just as effective to deter crime as shooting the criminal.

So don't worry about loading that gun where your kid might find it. Leave it unloaded and just show it to the criminal (if that need ever arises).. Works just as well.

Think of the lives saved.

Problem is skull that your method leaves the criminal alive to commit other crimes. Is that what you want to happen? Of course it is. I saw where you say it is only YOU that you are concerned with. Nice guy.

You could at least call the cops and give them the description of the criminal you just scared away. Couldn't you?

 

[JoeB131]

99.8% of the time? That's kind of improbable.

Proof of that stat you just pulled out of your ample ass please.

Number of justifiable homicides by civilians with guns according to the FBI. 201 in 2011

FBI mdash Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

Number of claimed "Defensive Gun Uses" - well, because much like an inventory of UFO's or Unicorns, this fantasy animal is hard to quantify, but it's claimed that anywhere from 80,000 to 2,500,000 DGU's.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But even taking the low number. of 80,000 DGU's, only 201 resulted in a corpse.

201/80,000 = 0.2%

Which means, WAIT FOR IT - 99.8% of times when someone whipped out a gun to defend himself, no one died!!!

Really?

Sounds kind of improbable, even using the best math.

But when you have 80,000 supposed DGU's vs. 32,000 DOCUMENTED gun deaths and 78,000 DOCUMENTED gun injuries... that really doesn't add up in a cost benefit analysis sort of way.

 

[martybegan]

This entire thread is nullified by the simple fact that private citizens that own and carry firearms have absolutely no obligation to come the the public defense.

You anti gun idiots should be happy that private citizens do not take up arms against criminals shouldn't you?

But that isn't the point you guys make.

You all insist that guns make us safer from criminals. They apparently don't.

Incidently, I'm totally fine with the fact that gun owners aren't whipping out their guns in a "Active Shooter" incident. They'll just make it worse.

Yes, because no one ending a situation while the cops take 20 minutes to arrive, set up a perimeter and get authorization to breach is much better than the chance one guy with his gun can end it in 2.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yes, because no one ending a situation while the cops take 20 minutes to arrive, set up a perimeter and get authorization to breach is much better than the chance one guy with his gun can end it in 2.

Except apparently, that never actually happens.

 

[ChrisL]

[

Well, you're clearly an idiot, so it's very hard to refrain from letting you know this fact. . . especially because you are too stupid to figure it out for yourself. Just think of it as us helping you out. It would be cruel not to tell you, I think. Lol.

All you have is name calling. The facts aren't on your side. Guns are more dangerous to the people who own them than the people who they want to defend themselves from.

How about learning to form a grammatically correct sentence, little boy?

 

[martybegan]

[

Yes, because no one ending a situation while the cops take 20 minutes to arrive, set up a perimeter and get authorization to breach is much better than the chance one guy with his gun can end it in 2.

Except apparently, that never actually happens.

Yes it has. and before you go with "well they were all off duty law enforcement" most of the places this happens restrict gun possession TO law enforcement. Its still a guy/girl with a gun stopping the bad guy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well, you're clearly an idiot, so it's very hard to refrain from letting you know this fact. . . especially because you are too stupid to figure it out for yourself. Just think of it as us helping you out. It would be cruel not to tell you, I think. Lol.

All you have is name calling. The facts aren't on your side. Guns are more dangerous to the people who own them than the people who they want to defend themselves from.

How about learning to form a grammatically correct sentence, little boy?

Uh, that sentence is perfectly fine, thanks. You're sputtering now, probably because you have nowhere to go.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yes it has. and before you go with "well they were all off duty law enforcement" most of the places this happens restrict gun possession TO law enforcement. Its still a guy/girl with a gun stopping the bad guy.

No, it's a trained, licensed professional.

I'd have no problem if we restricted gun ownership to those.