Pointing out that many mass shooters obeyed anti gunners gun laws....offensive....

[M14 Shooter]

The Kleck survey specifically asked about person to person contact between the criminal and the victim....and came out with the 2.5 million number....the 1.6 comes from averaging other studies.....with Kleck's

You know that Brain will only lie to you, right?
That he has absolutely no interest in an honest conversation?

 

[Brain357]

The Kleck survey specifically asked about person to person contact between the criminal and the victim....and came out with the 2.5 million number....the 1.6 comes from averaging other studies.....with Kleck's

You have no evidence they are violent crimes, give it up already.

 

[Brain357]

And kids escaped at newtown when he reloaded. If like killers to reload more often so more people escape.

1.6 is not an accurate number for all the reasons I've given before. Also they aren't all violent crimes, few are actually. Your wording is deceiving.

No....at Sandy Hook he reloaded often....and still killed 26 people...

And the 1.6 million is the only accurate number on the actual topic of guns used in self defense...and any crime that involves person to person contact between a criminal and a victim is violent...since the criminal has shown they will not obey laws, and they have the incentive and potential to injure or harm the victim....so yes...unless some of those 1.6 million crimes had no victim contact...but then no one would have used a gun to stop it now would they.....

Yes and he would have killed less had he reloaded more often.

Link to where any of your surveys claim they are all violent crimes? Back up your claim. Sorry every crime is not violent.

The Kleck survey.....they all involve interaction with another human being...that was one of the specific questions asked in his study...........so anytime you interact with a criminal...it is a violent crime........

No they aren't. You are making that up. Show where Kleck claims all his defenses are violent.

All his defenses involved an interaction between a criminal and a victim....that makes them violent....any time a criminal has contact with a victim the victim cannot just assume the criminal is not violent...considering what the criminal might do to avoid capture or to escalate his crimes against the victim....

Again you are just making it up. Kleck doesn't claim they are all violent because the would be stupid. Link to support your claim.

 

[2aguy]

How Kleck did his research....and yes...they all involved contact with a criminal so yes, they were all violent encounters...


Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Questions about the details of DGU incidents permitted us to establish whether a given DGU met all of the following qualifications for an incident to be treated as a genuine DGU:


(1) the incident involved defensive action against a human rather than an animal, but not in connection with police, military, or security guard duties;

(2) the incident involved actual contact with a person, rather than merely investigating suspicious circumstances, etc.;

(3) the defender could state a specific crime which he thought was being committed at the time of the incident;

(4) the gun was actually used in some way--at a minimum it had to be used as part of a threat against a person, either by verbally referring to the gun (e.g., "get away--I've got a gun") or by pointing it at an adversary. We made no effort to assess either the lawfulness or morality of the Rs' defensive actions.

 

[Pogo]

The Kleck survey specifically asked about person to person contact between the criminal and the victim....and came out with the 2.5 million number....the 1.6 comes from averaging other studies.....with Kleck's

You know that Brain will only lie to you, right?
That he has absolutely no interest in an honest conversation?

 

[Brain357]

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Don't see anything claiming they are all violent.

 

[Brain357]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

 

[2aguy]

The crimes are not computer crimes...they all involve interaction between a criminal and a victim....

I love how you guys can see the future far better than the people actually facing down the stranger comitting a crime against them.......if only you could market that some way....you would be rich....

 

[Brain357]

The crimes are not computer crimes...they all involve interaction between a criminal and a victim....

I love how you guys can see the future far better than the people actually facing down the stranger comitting a crime against them.......if only you could market that some way....you would be rich....

Link to where that is the definition of violent crime.

 

[2aguy]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

 

[Brain357]

FBI Violent Crime


In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

Sorry all defenses aren't against violent crimes, your claim is just silly.

brain.......by having the gun...and using it....they stop all 4 of those from happening........robbery....is an interaction between a victim and a criminal....so you have just proven my point...the FBI did it for you.....thanks.....

Except those arent the only types of crime defended. Those crimes are only about 10% of all crime. Nobody defends a burglary?

 

[martybegan]

2 facts here:
1: it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law
2: Anti-gun loons don't care about any of that, they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Indeed so -
When you enact a law that you know will restrict the rights of the law abiding and have no effect on criminals breaking the law, you cannot in any way honestly argue that the intent of the law is to do anything BUT restrict those rights,

 

[August West]

2 facts here:
1: it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law
2: Anti-gun loons don't care about any of that, they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

 

[August West]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his ***** if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his ***** if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "*****" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

 

[Pogo]

2 facts here:
1: it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law
2: Anti-gun loons don't care about any of that, they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

More evidence that M14 can only argue from ignorance, emotion and/or dishonesty. Usually you get the package deal.

Nobody wants to make it harder to exercise a "right". I think what they want is to make it harder to exercise a fantasy. Specifically that comic book cartoon shoot-em-up violence fantasy that we get indoctrinated with from infancy. Wailing about "right to arms" to defend mass shooters is a flaming cop-out. It ain't about "right to arms". It never was.

They already have. In NYC I have to spend over $800 of my own money, and prove to the NYPD I have a "need" to get a concealed carry permit.
Even for a home permit the cost is over $400 and it takes months to get one. Meanwhile a retired cop has his own CHECKMARK to pass most of the restrictions, and of course, buddies of the politicians can get bypassed through the system.

How is that not "making it harder" to exercise my rights?

It may be, in effect -- my point is that isn't the intent.
The poster posted, quote, "they just want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms" --- which speaks of intent. And the intent he posits is a blatant strawman.

Obviously it is neither a "right to arms", nor any infringement thereof, that is killing any innocent bystanders. He's deliberately misstated the issue because he can't address the real one. And I called him on it.

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

No, I know no such thing and I see no evidence thereof. If you think you have a case, make it already.

 

[August West]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his ***** if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

The "*****" should be obvious -- there's no sound reason to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms when doing so does not prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns.

So it`s really about crybabies having to fill out too many forms when they know for a fact that gun laws have never kept a gun out of the wrong hands. People exceed the speed limit every day so we should not post speed limits?

 

[Pogo]

Actually the intent IS to make it harder for law abdiding people to get weapons, and you know it.

Which law abiding citizen has been denied their right to buy a gun?

Why are you asking a question about a claim he did not make?

I get your point but what exactly is his ***** if law abiding citizens are still buying guns? Spare me the crystal ball predictions and conspiracy theories.

.... and Speculation Fallacy Strawmen.