Governor Moonbeam signs bill to ban concealed guns on all California campuses

[JoeB131]

Most of the medical cost is because of criminal violence, not lawful possession of firearms. Did you know that medical malpractice causes more deaths per year than firearms, according to a Harvard Medical Practice Study?

Good point. And every year, hospitals take precautions to make hospitals safer. When something goes wrong, they do corrective actions. When someone screws up, he gets fired.

Now, when we have a gun incident like Roseburg, we have the NRA going out to make damned sure nothing is done.

 

[JoeB131]

He wants to rape my 16 year-old daughter.

and her pet unicorn? Is your house being attacked by Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster?

I mean, you guys make up these fanciful scenarios with your wank fantasies about shooting bad guys...

but guess what. That never happens. Less than 200 "justifiable homicides" a year by civilians with guns, accroding to the FBI, and most of those are battered wives shooting their drunken husbands.

 

[Sally Vater]

He wants to rape my 16 year-old daughter.

and her pet unicorn? Is your house being attacked by Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster?

I mean, you guys make up these fanciful scenarios with your wank fantasies about shooting bad guys...

but guess what. That never happens. Less than 200 "justifiable homicides" a year by civilians with guns, accroding to the FBI, and most of those are battered wives shooting their drunken husbands.

YOU are the one who told me to give the thug what he wants. Now you're mocking and ridiculing me for stating reality. LOL. Get the **** out of here.

 

[Geaux4it]

Cops aren't going to be around when an armed thug breaks into my home. What is your suggestion?

give him what he wants?

Or do you think it's worth it to kill him over a widescreen insurance will replace?

Hey, funny thing. All the countries that have banned guns don't have anywhere near or level of crime. Imagine that.

Not a good idea Joe. For example, The US DOJ found that of 32,000 attempted rapes in 1979, 32% were successful, but in the case of an armed victim, only 3% were successful. Should a victim just sit back and let an attack happen, or should they defend themselves? What about defending your children when someone comes after them? Criminals avoid armed victims. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring the head of household to keep a gun, and burglaries dropped by 89% (see Gary Kleck's "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force).

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Most of the medical cost is because of criminal violence, not lawful possession of firearms. Did you know that medical malpractice causes more deaths per year than firearms, according to a Harvard Medical Practice Study?

Good point. And every year, hospitals take precautions to make hospitals safer. When something goes wrong, they do corrective actions. When someone screws up, he gets fired.

Now, when we have a gun incident like Roseburg, we have the NRA going out to make damned sure nothing is done.

Some risk can't be mitigated.

-Geaux

 

[buddhallah_the_christ]

So was there alcohol involved brain damage that makes you as stupid as you are now?

Nope. I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs and I've held these viewpoints my entire life.

Good for you! Such people are becoming a kind of rarity

 

[Geaux4it]

He wants to rape my 16 year-old daughter.

but guess what. That never happens. Less than 200 "justifiable homicides" a year by civilians with guns, accroding to the FBI, and most of those are battered wives shooting their drunken husbands.

Um, well actually it does.

Less than one percent of defensive gun uses results in a kill (see Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). According to the National Institute of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense. With tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, that means that firearms are used 40 times more often for protection than for murder.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

N% (see Gary Kleck's "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force).

Pretty much when you cite "Gary Kleck", you loose all credibility

 

[Zander]

A good start!! Next he will mandate the state paint a huge bullseye on every campus!!

"Crazed killer? Come to college!! we're unarmed!! and helpless"

 

[charwin95]

Cops aren't going to be around when an armed thug breaks into my home. What is your suggestion?

give him what he wants?

Or do you think it's worth it to kill him over a widescreen insurance will replace?

Hey, funny thing. All the countries that have banned guns don't have anywhere near or level of crime. Imagine that.

He wants to rape my 16 year-old daughter.

SV... That was a very good scenario.... I posted this many times on several threads....In Southern California especially in Imperial, San Diego, San Bernardino, Los Angeles counties where home invasion is very rampant. In some cases rapes was involved. So far none of these homeowners were able to pull their gun to defend themselves. Once inside they take over your life and your family at their mercy. Remember these bastards are masters of thuggery. Meaning they will not send you a notification that you are about to be invaded. Given scenario you or I have only 2 options. Remember where you alway keep your gun inside your home.
1. Try to get your gun but risk of getting killed or your family.
2. Give them what they want and try to keep your family alive.
IMO...I'll take option 2 because my family are still intact. The rest.. I will leave that up to you.

 

[JoeB131]

A good start!! Next he will mandate the state paint a huge bullseye on every campus!!

"Crazed killer? Come to college!! we're unarmed!! and helpless"

guns don't make you safer.

 

[Geaux4it]

A good start!! Next he will mandate the state paint a huge bullseye on every campus!!

"Crazed killer? Come to college!! we're unarmed!! and helpless"

guns don't make you safer.

Well of course they do

And we dont care about suicides so you can leave the stat out of your next post

The study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside.

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

YOU are the one who told me to give the thug what he wants. Now you're mocking and ridiculing me for stating reality. LOL. Get the **** out of here.

Yeah, I'm ridiculing you because you are making up scenarios to justify your "can I shoot a Darkie" snuff fantasies.

the reality is- home invasions are RARE. Times when a gun stops them are rarer.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23656727/denver-residents-rarely-use-guns-protection-home-invasions

That's common among local law enforcement agencies, which are sometimes reticent about sharing certain gun statistics, and, in some cases just don't collect them as a matter of course, said Art Kellermann, a physician and a senior policy researcher at the Rand Corp. who has studied home invasions.

"Because it's not indexed or tracked, it just becomes a hand-sorting exercise," he said. "Their efforts are focused elsewhere. ... It's not a priority, it's a politically difficult thing to do, and people have gotten their hands slapped enough times in the past."

Kellermann's 1994 study of 198 cases in Atlanta showed, among other findings, that victims used a firearm in self-protection 1.5 percent of the time — or in just three cases. Just one victim opened fire on the assailant but missed. All three escaped injury.

 

[JoeB131]

Well of course they do

And we dont care about suicides so you can leave the stat out of your next post

The study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside.

Because the claim that you guys somehow can restrain yourselves from shooting 99% of the time is kind of silly.

Come on, you get on here sharing your wank fantasies about shooting you a Darkie every day. I honestly can't believe you wouldn't totally shoot him if he like, showed up at your porch seeking directions.

 

[Geaux4it]

Well of course they do

And we dont care about suicides so you can leave the stat out of your next post

The study by Arthur Kellermann from which that statistic is pulled doesn't say that. The number includes suicides. The study doesn't take into account defensive uses in which a shot was not fired (99% of the uses), and it doesn't reflect intruders avoiding homes with firearms inside.

Because the claim that you guys somehow can restrain yourselves from shooting 99% of the time is kind of silly.

Come on, you get on here sharing your wank fantasies about shooting you a Darkie every day. I honestly can't believe you wouldn't totally shoot him if he like, showed up at your porch seeking directions.

No, that is your wet dream Joe. Kind of creepy if you ask me.

Fantasize much?

-Geaux

 

[DigitalDrifter]

A good start!! Next he will mandate the state paint a huge bullseye on every campus!!

"Crazed killer? Come to college!! we're unarmed!! and helpless"

"Gun free zones" should be renamed "killing zones".

 

[JoeB131]

"Gun free zones" should be renamed "killing zones".

Compared to what? The rest of the country where we have 33,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries, most of them NOT happening in "Gun Free Zones".

Reality check. A gun Free zone isn't going to stop a mass killer, but neither is open carry. Mass killers are usually done in a few minutes.

A gun free zone will stop a bar argument over who the best Cubs pitcher was into turning into a tragedy. It will stop the guy who gets pissed at his boss.

 

[Conservative65]

"Gun free zones" should be renamed "killing zones".

Compared to what? The rest of the country where we have 33,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries, most of them NOT happening in "Gun Free Zones".

Reality check. A gun Free zone isn't going to stop a mass killer, but neither is open carry. Mass killers are usually done in a few minutes.

A gun free zone will stop a bar argument over who the best Cubs pitcher was into turning into a tragedy. It will stop the guy who gets pissed at his boss.

It will stop that bar argument and workplace disagreement turning into violence? I put gun free zone declarations on the same level as restraining orders.

 

[Geaux4it]

"Gun free zones" should be renamed "killing zones".

Compared to what? The rest of the country where we have 33,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries, most of them NOT happening in "Gun Free Zones".

Reality check. A gun Free zone isn't going to stop a mass killer, but neither is open carry. Mass killers are usually done in a few minutes.

A gun free zone will stop a bar argument over who the best Cubs pitcher was into turning into a tragedy. It will stop the guy who gets pissed at his boss.

Acceptable risk

What are you whining about again?

-Geaux

 

[Sally Vater]

YOU are the one who told me to give the thug what he wants. Now you're mocking and ridiculing me for stating reality. LOL. Get the **** out of here.

Yeah, I'm ridiculing you because you are making up scenarios to justify your "can I shoot a Darkie" snuff fantasies.

the reality is- home invasions are RARE. Times when a gun stops them are rarer.

Denver residents rarely use guns for protection in home invasions

That's common among local law enforcement agencies, which are sometimes reticent about sharing certain gun statistics, and, in some cases just don't collect them as a matter of course, said Art Kellermann, a physician and a senior policy researcher at the Rand Corp. who has studied home invasions.

"Because it's not indexed or tracked, it just becomes a hand-sorting exercise," he said. "Their efforts are focused elsewhere. ... It's not a priority, it's a politically difficult thing to do, and people have gotten their hands slapped enough times in the past."

Kellermann's 1994 study of 198 cases in Atlanta showed, among other findings, that victims used a firearm in self-protection 1.5 percent of the time — or in just three cases. Just one victim opened fire on the assailant but missed. All three escaped injury.

"can I shoot a Darkie"???? Ignorant racist. You're posts are nothing but ignorant indoctrinated leftist propaganda trash. You're very ill.