USA's "gun problem"

[Roadrunner]

No, it's a gun problem. Every race have bast**s but not every race have guns to use! And as we can see, in many countries(European, but not third-world countries)where weapons are banned - crimes comitted with guns are very rare!

Alcohol kills and injures far more people in the US than guns do, why don't you anti-gun grabbers ban alcohol?

Because alcohol is alcohol, and guns - are guns, it's not equal things.
haven't got gun while drunken fight - you will not kill your "enemy"(of course can, but in many rare cases), if you have - you can kill him!
Alcohol is often - way to relax, guns too, but people suffered much more from guns, not from alcohol!

That is utter bullshit.

More people die from DWI and alcohol related disease than are shot.

 

[Brain357]

This is what Kleck actually says about law abiding citizens and using guns for self defense in the middle of arbitrary and byzantine gun laws created by anti gunners to entrap law abiding gun owners who defend themselves....

his work again....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity.

Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.


And as to why the NCVS is a crap way to determine the number of defensive gun uses.....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.


And what about in your own home......say in places like Chicago...where it has been illegal to register a handgun since 1985 or Washington D.C. where you can't own any guns....or New York where the process to get a permit is only accomplished with lots of money and the help of a lawyer...something many regular citizens can't do or afford......and that is only 3 of the major cities....here is Kleck on defending your own home....

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.


And more on why the NCVS is a crap study for determining defensive gun use......

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them.

This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

I don't really care how many criminals are defending themselves.

Good for you.......neither do I .....

Well Kleck says most are involved in criminal behavior and Cato says many are felons. Ncvs would weed out many criminals so that is he number you should reference.

 

[2aguy]

This is what Kleck actually says about law abiding citizens and using guns for self defense in the middle of arbitrary and byzantine gun laws created by anti gunners to entrap law abiding gun owners who defend themselves....

his work again....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity.

Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.


And as to why the NCVS is a crap way to determine the number of defensive gun uses.....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.


And what about in your own home......say in places like Chicago...where it has been illegal to register a handgun since 1985 or Washington D.C. where you can't own any guns....or New York where the process to get a permit is only accomplished with lots of money and the help of a lawyer...something many regular citizens can't do or afford......and that is only 3 of the major cities....here is Kleck on defending your own home....

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.


And more on why the NCVS is a crap study for determining defensive gun use......

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them.

This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

I don't really care how many criminals are defending themselves.

Good for you.......neither do I .....

Well Kleck says most are involved in criminal behavior and Cato says many are felons. Ncvs would weed out many criminals so that is he number you should reference.

Yes. kleck says exactly what that criminal behavior is....getting caught up in gun laws the victim didn't understand....and the Cato paper says of 5,000 stories they looked at only 12 could be considered any type of criminal defending against other criminals....

The basic problem with the National Crime Victimization Survey is that it isn't a a study on defensive gun use...it is a study of crime victims and the type of victim they are....

Kleck and the other 19 studies are actual gun studies looking at people using guns to stop violent criminal attack....

Using the NCVS to make predictions on gun use would be like doing a study on how many people attend Professional sporting events......and in one of the follow up questions asking them if they had a soft drink at the park.......and then generalizing that study as some sort of definitive work on mass consumption of soft drinks.....it doesn't work like that....

Mainly....because if you asked people...did you go to a professional sporting event......and they say no.....you don't get to the drink question.......

Also, as in the gun studies....people who use guns and just scare off criminals usually don't see themselves as victims of a crime because the crime never happened....the guy ran away....


So no, the NCVS is not accurate or even close to being accurate....it is not a gun study....Kleck and the other 19 studies are actual gun studies.....that is why the NCVS is so off on it's numbers.....

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

 

[Brain357]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

 

[Brain357]

This is what Kleck actually says about law abiding citizens and using guns for self defense in the middle of arbitrary and byzantine gun laws created by anti gunners to entrap law abiding gun owners who defend themselves....

his work again....

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

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity.

Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.


And as to why the NCVS is a crap way to determine the number of defensive gun uses.....

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.


And what about in your own home......say in places like Chicago...where it has been illegal to register a handgun since 1985 or Washington D.C. where you can't own any guns....or New York where the process to get a permit is only accomplished with lots of money and the help of a lawyer...something many regular citizens can't do or afford......and that is only 3 of the major cities....here is Kleck on defending your own home....

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.


And more on why the NCVS is a crap study for determining defensive gun use......

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them.

This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

I don't really care how many criminals are defending themselves.

Good for you.......neither do I .....

Well Kleck says most are involved in criminal behavior and Cato says many are felons. Ncvs would weed out many criminals so that is he number you should reference.

Yes. kleck says exactly what that criminal behavior is....getting caught up in gun laws the victim didn't understand....and the Cato paper says of 5,000 stories they looked at only 12 could be considered any type of criminal defending against other criminals....

The basic problem with the National Crime Victimization Survey is that it isn't a a study on defensive gun use...it is a study of crime victims and the type of victim they are....

Kleck and the other 19 studies are actual gun studies looking at people using guns to stop violent criminal attack....

Using the NCVS to make predictions on gun use would be like doing a study on how many people attend Professional sporting events......and in one of the follow up questions asking them if they had a soft drink at the park.......and then generalizing that study as some sort of definitive work on mass consumption of soft drinks.....it doesn't work like that....

Mainly....because if you asked people...did you go to a professional sporting event......and they say no.....you don't get to the drink question.......

Also, as in the gun studies....people who use guns and just scare off criminals usually don't see themselves as victims of a crime because the crime never happened....the guy ran away....


So no, the NCVS is not accurate or even close to being accurate....it is not a gun study....Kleck and the other 19 studies are actual gun studies.....that is why the NCVS is so off on it's numbers.....

There are a lot of problems with the gun surveys. But a big one is they included defenses by people involved in criminal behavior. And according to Kleck it is most of them.

 

[Brain357]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

 

[martybegan]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

 

[Brain357]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

I didn't say that I don't like this guy, but he was not law abiding. And this is an extremely rare case. Most people breaking gun laws are breaking other laws also.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

I didn't say that I don't like this guy, but he was not law abiding. And this is an extremely rare case. Most people breaking gun laws are breaking other laws also.

Wrong....I have pointed out case after case of law abiding citizen breaking some insane anti gun law and getting arrested for it...the guy in New York trying to get his guns from Florida registered and defending himself before he could, the woman with the legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey because their laws are different...and she even told the cop she was armed legally....the two different events in Bars where law abiding citizens used their guns to stop robberies, then fled the scene because it is against the law to have legally permitted guns in bars....the Doctor at the hospital who brought his gun to work even though it was a "Gun Free Zone" and stopped the killer....in Illinois, that Doctor would be facing a Class B misdemeanor for violating the gun free zone sticker, and if he did it again it is a Class A misdemeanor...with a year in jail and license to carry suspension....The students in the college housing who used a gun to fight off an attacker who weren't allowed to have their guns on campus....

These are not the criminals you are trying to pretend they are....they are law abiding citizens....

So he was a law abiding citizen....and constitutionally protected in carrying guns...but their Rights...that's correct, their Right to carry a gun was abridged by the law....

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

 

[Brain357]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

I didn't say that I don't like this guy, but he was not law abiding. And this is an extremely rare case. Most people breaking gun laws are breaking other laws also.

Wrong....I have pointed out case after case of law abiding citizen breaking some insane anti gun law and getting arrested for it...the guy in New York trying to get his guns from Florida registered and defending himself before he could, the woman with the legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey because their laws are different...and she even told the cop she was armed legally....the two different events in Bars where law abiding citizens used their guns to stop robberies, then fled the scene because it is against the law to have legally permitted guns in bars....the Doctor at the hospital who brought his gun to work even though it was a "Gun Free Zone" and stopped the killer....in Illinois, that Doctor would be facing a Class B misdemeanor for violating the gun free zone sticker, and if he did it again it is a Class A misdemeanor...with a year in jail and license to carry suspension....The students in the college housing who used a gun to fight off an attacker who weren't allowed to have their guns on campus....

These are not the criminals you are trying to pretend they are....they are law abiding citizens....

So he was a law abiding citizen....and constitutionally protected in carrying guns...but their Rights...that's correct, their Right to carry a gun was abridged by the law....

You have given rare examples that almost never happen.

 

[Brain357]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

Why does Cato say they are felons?

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

Why does Cato say they are felons?

Cato doesn't in 5,000 cases they found 12 where actual criminals were defending themselves.........

 

[2aguy]

Here you go Brain....here is another criminal from Kleck's definition.....

72-Year-Old New Jersey Man Faces 10 Years for Possessing Flintlock Pistol - Breitbart

Seventy-two-year-old Gordon VanGilder of New Jersey faces the possibility of ten years in prison for having an antique flintlock pistol in his possession.

According to NRA News’ Ginny Simone, after being “pulled over for a minor traffic violation,” VanGilder told the sheriff’s deputy he had the pistol from the mid-1700s in his car. The pistol was unloaded, yet the teacher who retired after 34 years on the job was charged with a felony and later marched out of his house in handcuffs.


VanGilder said, “It’s unbelievable. It’s outrageous. It’s an insult to decent people.”


His attorney said law enforcement charged him as if he “had a 44 Magnum loaded, on his person. It doesn’t matter [that he didn’t]. There’s no distinction [in New Jersey].” The attorney asked, “What other constitutional right is treated where there’s presumption of wrongful possession? Yet that is how guns are treated in New Jersey.”


If found guilty, the charges against VanGilder carry a “minimum mandatory 3.5 to 5 years [with] no chance for parole.”


VanGilder says he is determined “to beat what has become a relentless assault on law-abiding gun owners and our firearm freedoms in [New Jersey].”

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

I didn't say that I don't like this guy, but he was not law abiding. And this is an extremely rare case. Most people breaking gun laws are breaking other laws also.

Wrong....I have pointed out case after case of law abiding citizen breaking some insane anti gun law and getting arrested for it...the guy in New York trying to get his guns from Florida registered and defending himself before he could, the woman with the legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey because their laws are different...and she even told the cop she was armed legally....the two different events in Bars where law abiding citizens used their guns to stop robberies, then fled the scene because it is against the law to have legally permitted guns in bars....the Doctor at the hospital who brought his gun to work even though it was a "Gun Free Zone" and stopped the killer....in Illinois, that Doctor would be facing a Class B misdemeanor for violating the gun free zone sticker, and if he did it again it is a Class A misdemeanor...with a year in jail and license to carry suspension....The students in the college housing who used a gun to fight off an attacker who weren't allowed to have their guns on campus....

These are not the criminals you are trying to pretend they are....they are law abiding citizens....

So he was a law abiding citizen....and constitutionally protected in carrying guns...but their Rights...that's correct, their Right to carry a gun was abridged by the law....

You have given rare examples that almost never happen.

They happen all the time the rarely make the papers.......

 

[Brain357]

Not law abiding.

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

Why does Cato say they are felons?

Cato doesn't in 5,000 cases they found 12 where actual criminals were defending themselves.........

I quoted where they say felons. Read your own links.

 

[2aguy]

That's the spirit of an irrational, anti gunner Brain........and exactly what Kleck is talking about..........

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

Why does Cato say they are felons?

Cato doesn't in 5,000 cases they found 12 where actual criminals were defending themselves.........

I quoted where they say felons. Read your own links.

link again.....

 

[Brain357]

Not law abiding.

Neither was MLK, I guess you don't like him Either, right?

I didn't say that I don't like this guy, but he was not law abiding. And this is an extremely rare case. Most people breaking gun laws are breaking other laws also.

Wrong....I have pointed out case after case of law abiding citizen breaking some insane anti gun law and getting arrested for it...the guy in New York trying to get his guns from Florida registered and defending himself before he could, the woman with the legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania arrested in New Jersey because their laws are different...and she even told the cop she was armed legally....the two different events in Bars where law abiding citizens used their guns to stop robberies, then fled the scene because it is against the law to have legally permitted guns in bars....the Doctor at the hospital who brought his gun to work even though it was a "Gun Free Zone" and stopped the killer....in Illinois, that Doctor would be facing a Class B misdemeanor for violating the gun free zone sticker, and if he did it again it is a Class A misdemeanor...with a year in jail and license to carry suspension....The students in the college housing who used a gun to fight off an attacker who weren't allowed to have their guns on campus....

These are not the criminals you are trying to pretend they are....they are law abiding citizens....

So he was a law abiding citizen....and constitutionally protected in carrying guns...but their Rights...that's correct, their Right to carry a gun was abridged by the law....

You have given rare examples that almost never happen.

They happen all the time the rarely make the papers.......

Prove it. How many people are walking around with 17th century guns?

 

[Brain357]

The story above is extremely rare and you know it.

No it's not.....these byzantine gun laws created to ensnare honest, law abiding citizens are no different than speed traps....the consequences are just 100 times worse than a traffic ticket.....

Why does Cato say they are felons?

Cato doesn't in 5,000 cases they found 12 where actual criminals were defending themselves.........

I quoted where they say felons. Read your own links.

link again.....

It's your own link and I quoted it today.