Good guy with a gun saves woman being stabbed to death...

[martybegan]

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

It is too bad you can't take it all the way to the Supreme Court....I would like to see someone use the 14th Amendment to go after these gun grabber laws...since they are in clear violation of that Amendment........

Sooner or later someone will get sick enough of it to make it a case that will stick. That of course relies on the Supreme court staying friendly to 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Brain357]

Why would you think they are? There are many in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves.

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

 

[Brain357]

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

Yet it stands. Go figure.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

Yet it stands. Go figure.

Plessey V Fergueson stood for decades, it got overturned because it was wrong, just like NYC's gun law is wrong.

 

[Brain357]

I shouldn't have to pay $1000 and wait 6 months to exercise a right. The law is unconstitutional.

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

You are the one in the fantasy land of millions of lawful defenses. Nevermind the fact only like 100 make the news a year and there are only like 200 justified homicides a year and you have never had a defense and people with defenses are rare... You just ignore reality.

 

[Brain357]

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

No it does not say firearm, nor a right to all arms. A club is an arm and has always been since before guns existed.

This is the same tired argument that gun grabbers have used over and over, and it has been refuted and debunked over and over.

I have a right to own a revolver, and the right to be able to get one without excessive government interference. Your opinion of my need for one is moot, and the NYC government's desire to make it is hard for me as possible is unconstitutional, bordering on criminal.

Yet it stands. Go figure.

Plessey V Fergueson stood for decades, it got overturned because it was wrong, just like NYC's gun law is wrong.

Well good luck then. I don't think ownership effects crime rates so matters not to me. Plus I don't live there.

 

[2aguy]

really? How often is self defense used as a defense and proved wrong?

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

 

[2aguy]

Where does the constitution say you don't have to pay? It doesn't guarantee free guns. Heck it says you are supposed to be in a militia.

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

You are the one in the fantasy land of millions of lawful defenses. Nevermind the fact only like 100 make the news a year and there are only like 200 justified homicides a year and you have never had a defense and people with defenses are rare... You just ignore reality.

Yes....and when a child like you lives in the desert you think snow is a fantasy.........you can't help yourself brain.....you were born with the Reality Dyslexia you suffer from....

Here is a technique to help you with it......if you believe something, then go with the opposite of that belief and you will be dealing with reality....that should help...but I doubt it.

 

[Brain357]

You failed to answer my question. What would make you believe they are? I have provided a study, you have nothing.

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

 

[Brain357]

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

You are the one in the fantasy land of millions of lawful defenses. Nevermind the fact only like 100 make the news a year and there are only like 200 justified homicides a year and you have never had a defense and people with defenses are rare... You just ignore reality.

Yes....and when a child like you lives in the desert you think snow is a fantasy.........you can't help yourself brain.....you were born with the Reality Dyslexia you suffer from....

Here is a technique to help you with it......if you believe something, then go with the opposite of that belief and you will be dealing with reality....that should help...but I doubt it.

You realize Kleck had only 50 unconfirmed positives right? The 2.5 million is just math, so they are fantasy.

 

[Brain357]

I don't have an issue paying for the gun itself, my issue is with an excessive fee who's only purpose is to make it harder to get a gun, and to discourage people from getting them. The government is the one that cannot infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, and a 6 month wait period and $1000 fee is infringement.

And you are wrong about the militia. The 2nd amendment says the States retain the right to form militias, it leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.

It says arms. That could be a club. Are you allowed to have a club without a fee? If so you are not being infringed.

Nice try. Arms have always been recognized as firearms, and firearms in common use. a revolver is a common use fire arm.

Debating brain is like hitting a punching bag....it will help you learn to deal with a lifeless bag of sand...as you keep punching it....you and your arguments will get better, but the bag of sand will just be a bag of sand at the end.....

brain operates in a child's world......nothing rational will ever break through to him.........I applaud your attempt though.......

You are the one in the fantasy land of millions of lawful defenses. Nevermind the fact only like 100 make the news a year and there are only like 200 justified homicides a year and you have never had a defense and people with defenses are rare... You just ignore reality.

Yes....and when a child like you lives in the desert you think snow is a fantasy.........you can't help yourself brain.....you were born with the Reality Dyslexia you suffer from....

Here is a technique to help you with it......if you believe something, then go with the opposite of that belief and you will be dealing with reality....that should help...but I doubt it.

I bet you are a strong believer in Bigfoot, the evidence is stronger than your dgu myth.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I'm just a bit surprised the guy with the gun wasn't arrested for some trumped up charge for having a gun in the first place.

 

[2aguy]

I have also provided 40 years of research........that trumps one anti gun study you post...

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

 

[Brain357]

I love how you exaggerate and call it 40 years of research. You have many small and often poorly done surveys, many that weren't even national. The largest was only 5,000 people with 50 positives and has been debunked many times over. Everyone knows how inaccurate surveys can be. This is why your "research" can't decide if it is 500k or 3.5 million, they are not accurate. And your newest surveys are over 20 years old when crime was much higher.

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry brain....the research is deep and varied and shows that defensive gun use is common in this country...more so than gun crime, and more than gun suicide or gun accidents combined.....40 years of actual research by different researchers from a variety of research backgrounds, many of them anti gun supporters who hate guns and want them controlled if not out right banned........

So you can deny reality like all lefties do....you can advocate that victims are better off being raped, robbed and murdered....but normal people understand truth, facts and reality because they live it.......they are buying and carrying guns responsibly and they understand that having a gun in the face of a violent criminal attack is their best chance to survive....

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

 

[Brain357]

When did a few small and poorly done surveys become deep and varied? The only significant study is the ncvs, 108k per year. And like I already mentioned there is not 40 years of research.

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

It is a study of crime and what happens. They confirm a crime and then get the details which include dgu. And based on the results they estimate 108k. It is the only study of any significant size. Your gun studies are filled with unlawful defenses and intimidation.

 

[2aguy]

Of course you know you lie. 40 years of actual research and you choose the NCVS the only non gun study that doesn't study guns or defensive gun use...at all, anywhere in the study........the NCVS can't even get it right covering the topics it is supposed to cover....and since it isn't a defensive gun use study it doesn't even mention guns anywhere in the survey...but in your fantasy world that actually works.......

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

It is a study of crime and what happens. They confirm a crime and then get the details which include dgu. And based on the results they estimate 108k. It is the only study of any significant size. Your gun studies are filled with unlawful defenses and intimidation.

Wrong..again. when you want to know about defensive gun use you ask directly about defensive gun use. the NCVS does not do that. it is not a gun study. On top of that it fails to accurately count crimes it specifically asks about, in particular sexual assault.....

so it is an a completely unreliable study even for what it was designed to do.

 

[Brain357]

How do you arrive at 40 years? Your little surveys go from 76 to 94. And most probably took much less than a year. The ncvs is the only one of any significant size.

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

It is a study of crime and what happens. They confirm a crime and then get the details which include dgu. And based on the results they estimate 108k. It is the only study of any significant size. Your gun studies are filled with unlawful defenses and intimidation.

Wrong..again. when you want to know about defensive gun use you ask directly about defensive gun use. the NCVS does not do that. it is not a gun study. On top of that it fails to accurately count crimes it specifically asks about, in particular sexual assault.....

so it is an a completely unreliable study even for what it was designed to do.

Really? Then why are all your gun studies so wildly off? From 500k to 3.5 million? Sorry but that isn't at all accurate. If it was an accurate way they would all arrive at similar numbers. Larger sample size is more accurate, and the ncvs makes the gun studies look tiny.

 

[2aguy]

The NCVS is not a defensive gun uses study. It never mentions guns in the entire study. It does not ask people if they used guns for self defense.

Try conducting a study on juice consumption in the U.S......do not use the word "juice" in your study, do not mention "juice" in your study and never ask the people in the study if they drink "juice" and see how accurate your study is on juice consumption in the U.S............

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

It is a study of crime and what happens. They confirm a crime and then get the details which include dgu. And based on the results they estimate 108k. It is the only study of any significant size. Your gun studies are filled with unlawful defenses and intimidation.

Wrong..again. when you want to know about defensive gun use you ask directly about defensive gun use. the NCVS does not do that. it is not a gun study. On top of that it fails to accurately count crimes it specifically asks about, in particular sexual assault.....

so it is an a completely unreliable study even for what it was designed to do.

Really? Then why are all your gun studies so wildly off? From 500k to 3.5 million? Sorry but that isn't at all accurate. If it was an accurate way they would all arrive at similar numbers. Larger sample size is more accurate, and the ncvs makes the gun studies look tiny.

Brain...you suffer from Reality Dyslexia....you refuse to see the truth, the facts and the reality....you support a study that is not a defensive gun use study, and deny the findings of all the actual gun self defense studies conducted by actual researchers....

You are officially now a troll...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Brain357]

You need a crime for a lawful dgu. The survey confirms a crime and then asks what happened. If there was a dgu it would obviously include them. It is also the only survey of any significant size. Your gun studies go right into guns and lead to many false positives.

Nope......a study where they do not actually ask about defensive gun use is not a defensive gun use study, the same way a study on juice consumption that never asks about juice consumption is not a juice consumption study......

You have a funny way of thinking brain........you can't help yourself....you were born that way...but please, let the adults handle the grown up issues.

It is a study of crime and what happens. They confirm a crime and then get the details which include dgu. And based on the results they estimate 108k. It is the only study of any significant size. Your gun studies are filled with unlawful defenses and intimidation.

Wrong..again. when you want to know about defensive gun use you ask directly about defensive gun use. the NCVS does not do that. it is not a gun study. On top of that it fails to accurately count crimes it specifically asks about, in particular sexual assault.....

so it is an a completely unreliable study even for what it was designed to do.

Really? Then why are all your gun studies so wildly off? From 500k to 3.5 million? Sorry but that isn't at all accurate. If it was an accurate way they would all arrive at similar numbers. Larger sample size is more accurate, and the ncvs makes the gun studies look tiny.

Brain...you suffer from Reality Dyslexia....you refuse to see the truth, the facts and the reality....you support a study that is not a defensive gun use study, and deny the findings of all the actual gun self defense studies conducted by actual researchers....

You are officially now a troll...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Like I said, they all arrive at dramatically different numbers, proving they are not accurate. Given you have made the same post on this forum hundreds of times it is clear who the troll is. Or maybe you are just a bot who repeats himself constantly but never learns anything. You are here to sell guns.