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

[Vandalshandle]

[QUOTE="OriginalShroom, post: 9884871, member: 42380

So tell me.. You say people are out there buying "Assault" rifles without training... What is the difference between an "Assault" rifle and standard hunting rifle that requires extra training to use?[/QUOTE]

Wrong thread, Shroom. Start your own, about assault rifles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, Gee, Anathema, I will refund my entire salary to you. However, you might be disappointed, because I serve for free as a volunteer....

You're a volunteer and you don't even carry a gun. Hell, George Zimmerman is a more effective LEO than you are.

It is both my Right and my Responsibility to protect myself, my wife, and our property. I'm not waiting for a cop to show up to save my ass or get my property back. That's an utter waste. Much moreso than not only protecting myself and my property, but removing the criminal from the gene pool on a permanent basis.... something else the Law Enforcement and Legal communities seem to be unable to do.

Well, Gee, Anathema, I will refund my entire salary to you. However, you might be disappointed, because I serve for free as a volunteer....

You're a volunteer and you don't even carry a gun. Hell, George Zimmerman is a more effective LEO than you are.

It is both my Right and my Responsibility to protect myself, my wife, and our property. I'm not waiting for a cop to show up to save my ass or get my property back. That's an utter waste. Much moreso than not only protecting myself and my property, but removing the criminal from the gene pool on a permanent basis.... something else the Law Enforcement and Legal communities seem to be unable to do.

You're a volunteer and you don't even carry a gun. Hell, George Zimmerman is a more effective LEO than you are.

Oklahoma attack underscores benefit of guns, self-defense

The man with the gun has been identified as Mark Vaughan, COO at Vaughan Foods and a reserve sheriff’s deputy. But he was not on duty at the time, and essentially was an armed citizen acting within existing state law during Thursday’s incident.

Vaughan’s actions have been hailed as heroic, and the incident raises the issue of armed self-defense, gun-free workplaces and other gun control-related measures. Had Vaughan not been armed, many are suggesting that the body count could have been much higher. The suspect was shot as he was stabbing a second victim, demonstrating yet another misunderstanding about violence: It is not confined to people misusing firearms.

School authorities in several areas, including Toppenish in the Yakima Valley, have changed their attitudes about guns in the workplace. It is becoming clear that — as the saying goes — when seconds count, police are minutes away. In those critical seconds before police arrive, life-or-death actions may depend upon an armed citizen who acts as the “first responder.”


Oklahoma attack underscores benefit of guns self-defense - Seattle gun rights Examiner.com

And?

This isolated incident in no way undermines the merits of the OP report.

 

[martybegan]

I am a sheriff's auxiliary volunteer. I can tell you that, on the streets, cops aer more afraid of citizens carrying a gun, than bad guys carrying a gun,

I've been a member on a cop forum for 10 years, it's been my primary forum to read and participate in. The cops come from all over, some over seas, big city, small, sheriffs, detectives, etc. I can say with 100% certainty that you are full of shit. Just because they let you fetch coffee it doesn't make you an expert on what they think. Anyone can check out for themselves, they don't need to take my word for it.

Ice, many years ago, I lived next door to a guy who was a cop in Denver. One night, he and his partner were called out on a prowler report. They both entered the back yard of where the prowler was spotted from both sides of the front of the house. The gun nut who owned the house saw a shadow moving in his back yard, and killed his partner dead, from inside his open sliding glass door. My neighbor came within a millisecond of blowing the homeowner to hell with his service revolver. After that, he left the force and became a prison guard. He told me that he was a lot more comfortable, because in prison, he knew that EVERBODY was a bad guy, and that he did not have to figure out who was a good guy, and who was a bad guy.

So, Ice, it is YOU who are full of shit.

Its a risk of the job, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Its a risk of the job, nothing more, nothing less."

Oh, I see. The idiot who is shooting into the dark at unidentifiable targets with a high powered rifle in a suburban environment in no way is to blame for my neighbor's partner's death. This reasoning is EXACTLY why so many of us do not trust the judgment and mental capacity of a lot of gun nuts.

 

[chikenwing]

Americans have the right to possess and carry firearms for lawful self-defense because the Constitution protects the right of Americans to possess and carry firearms for lawful self-defense – no further 'justification' is needed.


The report cited in the OP illustrates the foolishness of attempting to 'justify' the carrying of firearms for reasons other than Constitutional.

So lawful self defense is or isn't constitutional?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The stupidity of the Gun Grabbers will never cease to amaze me.

Shown time after time that they are wrong, that they are being lied to, and that what they want is Unconstitutional, they still continue to come back with the same lies and distortions.

 

[chikenwing]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

So it fits the narrative,not once on the Huff post piece were there any word for word quotes connected to said FBI studies,the word suggest this and leads possible for that,just means its an opinion piece nothing more nothing less.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The stupidity of the Gun Grabbers will never cease to amaze me.

Shown time after time that they are wrong, that they are being lied to, and that what they want is Unconstitutional, they still continue to come back with the same lies and distortions.

The FBI you mean or.....*shock* I got it! The LIBERAL FBI, am I right?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The stupidity of the Gun Grabbers will never cease to amaze me.

Shown time after time that they are wrong, that they are being lied to, and that what they want is Unconstitutional, they still continue to come back with the same lies and distortions.

The FBI you mean or.....*shock* I got it! The LIBERAL FBI, am I right?

Everybody knows that the FBI is nothing but a bunch of liberal, commie leftists who are soft on crime and coddle criminals......

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

The answer is obvious.

It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.

One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.

It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.

At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.

So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

Perhaps if you bothered to read the linked FBI report in the OP you would have discovered fro yourself why these 160 shootings were selected. They spell it out in detail.

So it fits the narrative,not once on the Huff post piece were there any word for word quotes connected to said FBI studies,the word suggest this and leads possible for that,just means its an opinion piece nothing more nothing less.

If you want to verify the veracity of the OP go and read the FBI report for yourself. Nothing that I read in the OP was inaccurate per the FBI report.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am a sheriff's auxiliary volunteer. I can tell you that, on the streets, cops aer more afraid of citizens carrying a gun, than bad guys carrying a gun,

I've been a member on a cop forum for 10 years, it's been my primary forum to read and participate in. The cops come from all over, some over seas, big city, small, sheriffs, detectives, etc. I can say with 100% certainty that you are full of shit. Just because they let you fetch coffee it doesn't make you an expert on what they think. Anyone can check out for themselves, they don't need to take my word for it.

Ice, many years ago, I lived next door to a guy who was a cop in Denver. One night, he and his partner were called out on a prowler report. They both entered the back yard of where the prowler was spotted from both sides of the front of the house. The gun nut who owned the house saw a shadow moving in his back yard, and killed his partner dead, from inside his open sliding glass door. My neighbor came within a millisecond of blowing the homeowner to hell with his service revolver. After that, he left the force and became a prison guard. He told me that he was a lot more comfortable, because in prison, he knew that EVERBODY was a bad guy, and that he did not have to figure out who was a good guy, and who was a bad guy.

So, Ice, it is YOU who are full of shit.

You're the one that's full of shit. If you're shooting at shadows in your back yard your a dumb ass that needs to go to jail just turn the effing lights on and ask what's up. It could have been someone looking for their dog. My guess is someone had it out against cops and got away with murder.

 

[Kondor3]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

The answer is obvious.

It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.

One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.

It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.

At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.

So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.

Correct, I didn't read the report.

I'm just not that interested in the details.

Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.

What about those observations was incorrect?

1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?

2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?

3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?

4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?

...or was it just...

5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?

 

[martybegan]

.

I am a sheriff's auxiliary volunteer. I can tell you that, on the streets, cops aer more afraid of citizens carrying a gun, than bad guys carrying a gun, because deputies are scared of shooting a citizen who is shooting a gun while chasing a bad guy who just held him up. As a result, what would otherwise be a slam dunk (shooting somebody to death who is firing a weapon at somebody) is, instead, a life or death decision, which can easily cause a hesitation that could get the wrong guy killed.

Imagine being the cop who shot the guy looking to buy a toy gun in walmart. For that matter, how about the guy who called the cops, saying the guy was "menacing" shoppers. He has since recanted but he should be culpable for that man's death.

And this could have turned out very differently:
Its Post #125
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/the-responsible-gun-owner-chroniceles.369021/page-2

But, yeah, if everyone has a gun, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? Its hard enough if you've killed the bad guy but how does the cop live with shooting the wrong person?

How much does having a lawnmower in the house increase the chance of being killed by a lawnmower? How much does having a chainsaw in the house increase the chance of being killed by a chainsaw?

Plus, multiply a small number, as you have with the chance of your own gun killing you, by 5, 6 or even 10, and you get......another very small number.

When your side has to lie to prove your point, don't you feel even a slight bit of shame?

LAWNMOWER???

What about that mad coffee pot hiding in your kitchen?

Answer my question. Does owning a lawnmower make it more likely you will be killed by a lawnmower?

Your question proves the 'pubs are dumb' thread.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I do need to tell you that, unless you are grass, lawnmowers are not weapons.

Question .... If you're using your lawnmower as a weapon, are you shooting your grass to death?

I'm not surprised you are either 1) not getting it, or 2) getting it, but you are too much of a hack to admit it.

Answer my question first, statistically speaking, do you have a greater chance of dying in a lawn mower accident if you own one?

I'm not surprised that you are so desperate to hold on to the idiotic comparison of guns to everything from cars to swimming pools to lawn mowers.

THAT is not the point, has never been the point and never will be the point.

The point is - what do we do about the deaths caused by any of these things.

I am not in favor of banning guns.

Because you will ignore that fact, I'm going to repeat it:

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF BANNING GUNS.

Nonetheless, this graphic nails it --

Sigh....

Two specific cases of products, one that was poorly designed, and one that was tampered with, vs. "guns" in general is a comparison so vapid that only an idiot would think it is remotely comparable.

If the 32,000 deaths were due to the guns blowing up in a person's hand, and all the cases were due to one brand and model of a gun, you would actually be within the ballpark of a point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA s Good Guy Stops Bad Guy Nonsense Mike Weisser

"I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.
(snip)

Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun."

Your article in no way supports your claim.

You cut and paste from hate sites without grasping what it is you post.

 

[Uncensored2008]

160 shootings over 13 years so that would be about 12 shootings a year and 1 a month that they looked at yeah ok.

It's a technique known as "cherry picking." Leftists don't work with facts - facts won't support their war on civil rights, so they instead fling shit - like this nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What the hell is this? Selective statistics? Why did the FBI select 160 shootings in 13 freaking years when there were 467,000 gun related incidents in 2011 alone?

The answer is obvious.

It wasn't the FBI, it was the gun-grabbers here cherry-picking one particular Federal sampling-study, in a transparent attempt to score a few agenda-points.

One can question the sampling base, and one can also question why it was not framed in the context of the total number of gun-owners, not just those involved in incidents.

It entirely disregards the huge, overwhelming numbers of gun-owners who are not involved in any kind of incident eligible for such study.

At a bare-bones minimum, it needed to take the overall ownership population into account in some manner, and, unless I missed something, it did not.

So you didn't bother to read the FBI report either but you felt qualified to make a vacuous comment instead.

Correct, I didn't read the report.

I'm just not that interested in the details.

Incorrect, the observations made were not vacuous but based upon other commentary seen here, prior to posting.

What about those observations was incorrect?

1. that the report is merely one amongst many Federal -level studies on the subject?

2. that the sampling base (a mere 160 incidents) could not be questioned?

3. that the lack of a society-wide context for the study could not be questioned?

4. did the report not ignore the huge numbers of gun owners who were not involved in such incidents?

...or was it just...

5. my observation that gun-grabbers cherry-picked this one narrow Federal study out of a much broader menu of studies to choose from, as an agenda driving tactic?

If you actually read the report you will realize that you are coming across as a kneejerk deflector.

The FBI report deals with a very serious problem that is is only getting worse, not better.

If you ignore these findings you are going to end up being marginalized in the future.

Better to be informed about the problem that to pretend that it isn't happening.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anyone like to guess where this is going?

 

[Derideo_Te]

160 shootings over 13 years so that would be about 12 shootings a year and 1 a month that they looked at yeah ok.

It's a technique known as "cherry picking." Leftists don't work with facts - facts won't support their war on civil rights, so they instead fling shit - like this nonsense.

Yet another who didn't bother educate himself about the facts in the FBI report.