The one good thing about guns...

[Sinajuavi]

Thats dumb. 600 million guns in private hands over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry guns in public for self defense…… number of gun murders 2019?

10,258…accordimg to the fbi.

of those, 70-80% of the victims are
Criminals, not normal people…..and the rest of the victims? The majority of them are friends and family of the criminals and gang members who get shot for knowing the criminals.

Meanwhile, normal Am ricans use their legal funs 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, stabbimgs, beatings and murder……..according to the centers for disease control….

guns save innocent lives and wnd criminal lives

How many times does that actually happen, a gun owner preventing a crime. It is virtually never in the news. I think it's BS. Y'all can produce no stats to back up that notion.

Me, I'm a progressive Democrat who knows that the NRA is a corrupt lobbying shill of gun manufacturers. But when I was young, when the NRA was real, I took their gun safety course and by the age of 12 was competent and safe with all the usual firearms... we didn't have AKs back then, just .30/.06, .30/.30, .22lr, various shotguns & pistols. I use guns nowadays to shoot vermin in the chicken coop, mostly possums and raccoons. Any criminal coming here better be quick because I am quick. But that has NEVER happened. Right now my primary concern is with white-right Trumpoid terrorists who'd like to shoot me for being as Democrat. They think Democrats don't have guns and can't shoot! That is hilarious. I'm from fucking WV dude.

 

[Sinajuavi]

If you are illegally taking someone firearms then you will get killed in States like Florida and Texas.

Who is illegally taking anyone's firearms? What most Democrats want is stricter background checks, to weed out the Adam Lanza types. That is not "taking your guns", duh. I'll easily pass any such background check, and will with or without the enhanced checks be the proud owner of a new .30/.06 soon. Got my eyes on a nice one...

And I'm a progressive Democrat, so you'd best keep your insurrection away from me.

 

[Auld Phart]

Who is illegally taking anyone's firearms? What most Democrats want is stricter background checks, to weed out the Adam Lanza types. That is not "taking your guns", duh. I'll easily pass any such background check, and will with or without the enhanced checks be the proud owner of a new .30/.06 soon. Got my eyes on a nice one...

And I'm a progressive Democrat, so you'd best keep your insurrection away from me.

What most Democrats want is stricter background checks, to weed out the Adam Lanza types.

Adam Lanza?

the guy that killed his mother and raided her gun safe to get the weapons he used in a mass shooting?

How would a background check have stopped him?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many times does that actually happen, a gun owner preventing a crime.

Every fucking day.

Bearing Arms

Bearing Arms – Saving Liberty and Lives

bearingarms.com

It is virtually never in the news.

You don't say, Nazi fuck?

I think it's BS. Y'all can produce no stats to back up that notion.

Me, I'm a progressive Democrat who knows that the NRA is a corrupt lobbying shill of gun manufacturers. But when I was young, when the NRA was real, I took their gun safety course and by the age of 12 was competent and safe with all the usual firearms... we didn't have AKs back then, just .30/.06, .30/.30, .22lr, various shotguns & pistols. I use guns nowadays to shoot vermin in the chicken coop, mostly possums and raccoons. Any criminal coming here better be quick because I am quick. But that has NEVER happened. Right now my primary concern is with white-right Trumpoid terrorists who'd like to shoot me for being as Democrat. They think Democrats don't have guns and can't shoot! That is hilarious. I'm from fucking WV dude.

You, you're a Nazi **** dedicated to the eradication of individual liberty in favor of totalitarian collectivist dictatorship.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who is illegally taking anyone's firearms? What most Democrats want is stricter background checks, to weed out the Adam Lanza types. That is not "taking your guns", duh. I'll easily pass any such background check, and will with or without the enhanced checks be the proud owner of a new .30/.06 soon. Got my eyes on a nice one...

And I'm a progressive Democrat, so you'd best keep your insurrection away from me.

Herr Nazi, how would "stricter background checks." (whatever the fuck you think that means) have stopped Adam Lanza from murdering his mother and stealing he gun.

Does your mentally retarded Nazi ass think there was a background check performed as his mother lay dead and he broke into the gun safe?

You Nazis are the dumbest motherfuckers on earth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think he is implying he would prevent anyone with any family member unable to pass would also be barred.

 

[westwall]

The people who have them are killing each other off. A person without a gun is 8 timesless likely to be injured or killed by one. Good luck to all your gun owners out there, you're going to need it.

False facts are false. Yet you trot them out as if they mean something.

The fact is, Jake, that bad guys kill bad guys all the time. Good riddance. If you were smart you would ask yourself why do the 10 largest Democrat controlled cities, suffer more crime than the entire rest of the country.

But you already know the answer to that.

So piss off, loser.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Believe whatever you wish it doesn't change the facts

What facts? I haven't seen you post any.

 

[freyasman]

Due to your name, I ask, Are you involved with Asatru Folk Assembly? They are a terrorist group, very much a concern in Virginia where they're big in the prisons.

I've forwarded this ID to HS to be checked out. If you don't already have a file, you do now.

I've been on file with the feds since at least 2003, lol.

And if you're not, then you're probably a quisling pussy.

 

[2aguy]

How many times does that actually happen, a gun owner preventing a crime. It is virtually never in the news. I think it's BS. Y'all can produce no stats to back up that notion.

Me, I'm a progressive Democrat who knows that the NRA is a corrupt lobbying shill of gun manufacturers. But when I was young, when the NRA was real, I took their gun safety course and by the age of 12 was competent and safe with all the usual firearms... we didn't have AKs back then, just .30/.06, .30/.30, .22lr, various shotguns & pistols. I use guns nowadays to shoot vermin in the chicken coop, mostly possums and raccoons. Any criminal coming here better be quick because I am quick. But that has NEVER happened. Right now my primary concern is with white-right Trumpoid terrorists who'd like to shoot me for being as Democrat. They think Democrats don't have guns and can't shoot! That is hilarious. I'm from fucking WV dude.

You are wrong...again.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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, no military)

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

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

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

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...144549202_Amicus brief SWD 7.19.2021 2300.pdf


https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229604

1977-2000
1.5%-2.3% reductions in murder rate
2-3 billion dollars benefit in first 5 years.


Wilson....

Appendix A Dissent--James Q. Wilson | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press

Lott argued that murder rates decline after the adoption of RTC laws even after allowing for the effect of other variables that affect crime rates. The committee has confirmed this finding as is evident in its Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-5 (first row), 6-6 (first row), and 6-7 (first two rows). This confirmation includes both the original data period (1977-1992) used by Lott and data that run through 2000. In view of the confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate, it is hard for me to understand why these claims are called “fragile.”
-----
In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited in Chapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135). This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.
----
In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Abstract​

In 1997, John Lott and David Mustard published an important paper in which they found that right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws reduce violent crime. Although Lott and Mustard appear to do all possible variations of the analysis, a closer reading reveals that the study might suffer from several possibly important errors. I reestimate the model and check for incorrect functional form, omitted variables, and possible second‐order bias in the t‐ratios. Lott and Mustard's basic conclusions are generally robust with respect to these potential econometric problems. Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.

Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, gun control

Nevertheless, when we use the synthetic control model, we find that the claim that RTC laws increase either murder or violent crime is not supported. We find states where crime increased after the implementation of the RTC law, and we find more states in which crime decreased after the law.

Mustard, D. 2001. The impact of gun laws on police deaths. The Journal of Law & Economics, 44(S2): 635-657..

After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths.
-------
Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed.

(PDF) Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes—Only a Count Analysis Can Say
We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

EconPapers: Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness
Overall, right-to-carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons
Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication
his paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

 

[2aguy]

How many times does that actually happen, a gun owner preventing a crime. It is virtually never in the news. I think it's BS. Y'all can produce no stats to back up that notion.

Me, I'm a progressive Democrat who knows that the NRA is a corrupt lobbying shill of gun manufacturers. But when I was young, when the NRA was real, I took their gun safety course and by the age of 12 was competent and safe with all the usual firearms... we didn't have AKs back then, just .30/.06, .30/.30, .22lr, various shotguns & pistols. I use guns nowadays to shoot vermin in the chicken coop, mostly possums and raccoons. Any criminal coming here better be quick because I am quick. But that has NEVER happened. Right now my primary concern is with white-right Trumpoid terrorists who'd like to shoot me for being as Democrat. They think Democrats don't have guns and can't shoot! That is hilarious. I'm from fucking WV dude.

No, dumb shit...we know democrats have guns....they just don't want normal people to have guns...every socialist, left wing government confiscates guns and then commits mass murder........that is the history...

We know you want guns.....but you don't want anyone else to have them...it is much harder for you to fill mass graves when your victims can shoot back.

 

[marvin martian]

The people who have them are killing each other off. A person without a gun is 8 timesless likely to be injured or killed by one. Good luck to all your gun owners out there, you're going to need it.

We're fine, thanks. Just keep your fucking fascist hands off my civil rights and you'll be ok, too.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Oh sit down and shut up, tough guy. I think you sit clenched all day waiting for someone to take your guns.

You really need to talk to mental health professionals about your little sick obsession.

LOL, oh golly what a meanie you are!!!! Pound sound pig.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You'd be in prison too. Not very smart.

Why?
You were trying to steal his property.
Break into my house and try and steal my guns,I'll fill you with so much lead you'll be able to use your dick for a pencil.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Https://www.ncbl.nlm.nih.gov>PMC

Your sight contains as much info as your brain.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In fact I'm going to report you cuz this is harassment

You Fool!!!!
We're among the secret elite your complaints will go nowhere!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is my first time on the message board, I may be making mistakes but at least I'm not a boorish person like you.

We can tell.
So I guess that would make you around 18 years old.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, if the amendment was changed and they came to the door, you would be a complete idiot to respond with bullets.

As for guns keeping everybody safe, don't make me vomit. Ask those people who were killed at Sandy hook and innocent people killed by other gun nuts if they feel safe.
Wake up to yourself. Its pure testosterone and ego.
No one shot has ever been fired to stop tyrannical governments and you've had plenty if chances so rule that out also.
You gave them because you can. You feel tough and safe.
I could pick you off from half a mile away. Feeling safe now Rambo?

Do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was created?
I'll give you a hint.
It's to stop the very thing you're calling for.

 

[Colin norris]

Do you even know why the 2nd Amendment was created?
I'll give you a hint.
It's to stop the very thing you're calling for.

It's you who needs to understand why it was put there. I'm giving you a scenario that could happen in the future.
Constitutions are not set in stone and neither is the second.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, if the amendment was changed and they came to the door, you would be a complete idiot to respond with bullets.

As for guns keeping everybody safe, don't make me vomit. Ask those people who were killed at Sandy hook and innocent people killed by other gun nuts if they feel safe.
Wake up to yourself. Its pure testosterone and ego.
No one shot has ever been fired to stop tyrannical governments and you've had plenty if chances so rule that out also.
You gave them because you can. You feel tough and safe.
I could pick you off from half a mile away. Feeling safe now Rambo?

Holy fuck are you stupid!!!
No one has ever been shot while stopping a tyrannical government?
There's this thing that happened back in 1776 maybe you've heard about it.
You'd have to own a gun to pick him off from a half mile away wouldnt you?
And what makes you think he couldnt do the same to you?