What would you do with the second amendment?

[Rustic]

Not for women it appears. Not nearly as safe as it was.

Present your facts. You seem to not be doing that. Otherwise, you are just running off at the mouth once again.

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Lol
Says a control freak

 

[Rustic]

Present your facts. You seem to not be doing that. Otherwise, you are just running off at the mouth once again.

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Be that as it may, Heller/McDonald is nonetheless the law of the land, establishing the Framers’ original understanding and intent of the Second Amendment.

And unlike most on the right, liberals respect the rule of law, are consistent in their support of the Supreme Court’s rulings, recognizing the Court’s authority to determine what the Constitution means, whether liberals agree with those rulings or not.

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito ***** slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

Actual research shows they are going down, not up....and thanks to you guys and your deification of the Parkland Survivors and the CNN Town Hall, the Rallies across the country and the school walk outs......you gave copycats something to shoot for........all of that commotion because someone walked into a gun free zone and murdered people.....and they want that kind of achievement too.....that is on you....

Yeah, those accidental school shootings crap.....you would have to link to the lying, anti gun site that listed those so we can see the guy who committed suicide in a school parking lot...when the school had been closed for 6 months, and the kid hit by the bb pellet........you can't lie about these events, we can actually check them now.....

As to how many times Americans use their guns to stop criminals....here is the actual research over 41 years...

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... 2.46 million each of 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..

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

All based on a CDC study that cannot be verified. Everything links directly back to that. And when it finally links back to that CDC link, it comes back not found.

You did a lot of "Copy and Paste" from someone else. You didn't even present your own ideas. Most of what you did "Paste" were about people's personal opinions, not facts. Maybe you should put it in the Conspiracy Theory area where it belongs.

So far, only ONE report has been made of one instance where a good guy with a gun
"Stopped" a bad guy with a gun when the Good Guy was not an off duty or on duty cop or Security Guard. And even then, it was AFTER the fact when the Perp was leaving the scene after the shooting. But I give you that one because if they hadn't have stopped him he would have left and went to another location and just did the same thing again. But it is just ONE, not 2.4 million. Your numbers get even more outrageous each time it's told. You really need to start it with "And there I was".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here ya go Duhryl

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

 

[Rustic]

One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.

Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

You are still appealing to ignorance of the first clause, if You believe there are Any natural rights in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment, right wingers.

That statement you typed means that right wingers are arguing that nobody knows what the 1sr clause is, so they win. That is clearly not the case, which demonstrates that you do not understand the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

You are not making arguments. You are stating nonsense that nobody understands.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

Apparently you do not understand what you are stating. The other gun haters on here do not even understand the nonsense you are typing.

Understand?

It makes no sense.

I am not even saying that you are wrong. I am telling you that no English speaker comprehends what message or argument you are trying to convey.

Have I made that clear enough?

You are not using English in a comprehensible way.

Understand?

Your first paragraph is bullshit, that is an ignorant person's lie.

Here are some arguments by educated people who understand English Grammar:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

Second Amendment

There are dozens more, try not to remain willfully ignorant, and more people will not consider you stupid.

Twit.....D.C. v Heller states that you are wrong, as is your link....it discusses the grammar of the 2nd Amendment too.....and it has the bonus provision of being a Supreme Court ruling that states the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun Rights....you doofus.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
-----------------

Our Second Amendment is Express with the creation of our Republic, our fundamental law establishes that common law standard for our Republic.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.

He has no credibility.

He is a ******* commie.

Carry on.

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

 

[Rustic]

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

 

[Rustic]

Things were much simpler in 1780. The writing of the 2nd amendment made sense then. We still need a 2nd amendment but updated for todays needs. In order to do that, it would have to be repealed because a new amendment that would supercede it would do exactly that in order to bring it into the modern world. This is what we should be talking about. Not banning all guns. Banning all guns just ain't going to happen. Insisting on that makes about as much sense as the gun crazies saying that all regulations are Unconstitutional.

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

 

[danielpalos]

So progressives get to chose what to ban and what not ban?
No thanks... Keep your crazy to yourself

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

 

[Rustic]

And why should you keep all the crazy cornered all by yourself. There should be enough to go around for all of us. It's "We, the People" not "Me, the People"

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

 

[danielpalos]

Gun control has never been about guns, it’s all about control… fact

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

 

[Rustic]

Yes, it's about control. I like to control my breathing. I like to control my families continuing to live. Yes, folks, it's about control. Remember, you heard it here.

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary

 

[danielpalos]

A famous career politician once the scariest words in the English language are “we are from the federal government and are here to help...

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary

The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.

Any more problems, right wingers?

 

[Rustic]

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary

The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.

Any more problems, right wingers?

It Certainly is not the federal governments money…

 

[danielpalos]

let's end the help of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; the right wing refuses to pay wartime tax rates for them, anyway.

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary

The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.

Any more problems, right wingers?

It Certainly is not the federal governments money…

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.

Do we have any problems, or not.

 

[Rustic]

Let’s stop thinking our federal government as it stands is necessary at all? Let’s get rid of all socialist entitlement programs... every last one of them

nothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.

There is a power to provide for the general welfare.

OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary

The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.

Any more problems, right wingers?

It Certainly is not the federal governments money…

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.

Do we have any problems, or not.

Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no return

 

[2aguy]

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito ***** slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

Actual research shows they are going down, not up....and thanks to you guys and your deification of the Parkland Survivors and the CNN Town Hall, the Rallies across the country and the school walk outs......you gave copycats something to shoot for........all of that commotion because someone walked into a gun free zone and murdered people.....and they want that kind of achievement too.....that is on you....

Yeah, those accidental school shootings crap.....you would have to link to the lying, anti gun site that listed those so we can see the guy who committed suicide in a school parking lot...when the school had been closed for 6 months, and the kid hit by the bb pellet........you can't lie about these events, we can actually check them now.....

As to how many times Americans use their guns to stop criminals....here is the actual research over 41 years...

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... 2.46 million each of 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..

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

All based on a CDC study that cannot be verified. Everything links directly back to that. And when it finally links back to that CDC link, it comes back not found.

You did a lot of "Copy and Paste" from someone else. You didn't even present your own ideas. Most of what you did "Paste" were about people's personal opinions, not facts. Maybe you should put it in the Conspiracy Theory area where it belongs.

So far, only ONE report has been made of one instance where a good guy with a gun
"Stopped" a bad guy with a gun when the Good Guy was not an off duty or on duty cop or Security Guard. And even then, it was AFTER the fact when the Perp was leaving the scene after the shooting. But I give you that one because if they hadn't have stopped him he would have left and went to another location and just did the same thing again. But it is just ONE, not 2.4 million. Your numbers get even more outrageous each time it's told. You really need to start it with "And there I was".

No...dipshit......the CDC numbers were for 14 states, so Kleck is going back over the number....considering the that several of those states are anti gun states, the number will likely come back higher...the other 16 studies were done by both government and private researchers.....and the Department of Justice study found 1.5 million defensive gun uses, and it was done by 2 anti gunners....

41 years of research ....... you talk out of your ass......tell us which is to be trusted more.....

 

[2aguy]

Yes....if they respect our Rights then explain the rulings from the 4th, 9th, 7th, and 2nd Circuit Courts of appeals the either completely ignore the legal Precedents from the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment, or deliberately misread them to come to their own conclusion...even after Alito ***** slapped them in Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia explained Heller again in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park...

You are lying......you know the left hate the Constitution and guns and that no law will keep them from banning them if they get the power.

Your use of the BIG LIE is getting old, guns will never be successfully banned, nor will abortion, prostitution, homosexuality, theft, or taxes. You will continue to piss and whine obsessively, but the facts belie every lie you tell.

Why don't you grow up? Why won't you admit there are too many school shootings and too many innocent kids murdered, for your point of view to be acceptable to socially conscious men and women.

Every mass murder results with your defense of guns, and not once did you demonstrate remorse for the dead or empathy for those who loved them. Why is that?

School shootings are going down in number, moron....and would be even lower but people like you need dead children to push gun control...that is why you fight armed guards in schools and why you fight allowing armed and trained staff from carrying guns...and also why you fight to keep democrat gun free zones....you need to keep law abiding gun owners out of the schools because they would keep mass shooters from attacking those schools.....you need dead kids, to push gun control...

You are an idiot.....virtue signaling is what you morons do to try to pretend you care.......

Lawn mowers kill more kids than school shooters do you asshat...do you want to ban lawn mowers? Cars kill more kids every year than all mass shootings kill all ages of people combined since 1982......do you want to ban them....?

You are an idiot....you are not a rational human being......that is why you want to ban guns while ignoring the 2.4 million times a year lives are saved with them......you are an idiot who doesn't think, you feel....which means the facts, the truth and the reality of gun ownership in America is beyond you...

2.4 million lives saved. Yet only one instance has been reported. Do we need to sit while you repeat this 2.4 million times so you can make that claim? One, just one. And the reason school shootings are going down......well.......no....they aren't. They are the rage right now. But many are being thwarted and not by arming the teachers. there are 57 dead or wounded students last year from accidental school shootings. Sounds like arming the teachers is more deadly than the mass school shootings themselves. How about coming up with the same fixes we have around here where we have reduced the school shootings to Zero. Not that a couple haven't tried. But one almost made it to the front gate of the school before he was dropped to the ground before he could even get his weapon out of his rain coat.

Actual research shows they are going down, not up....and thanks to you guys and your deification of the Parkland Survivors and the CNN Town Hall, the Rallies across the country and the school walk outs......you gave copycats something to shoot for........all of that commotion because someone walked into a gun free zone and murdered people.....and they want that kind of achievement too.....that is on you....

Yeah, those accidental school shootings crap.....you would have to link to the lying, anti gun site that listed those so we can see the guy who committed suicide in a school parking lot...when the school had been closed for 6 months, and the kid hit by the bb pellet........you can't lie about these events, we can actually check them now.....

As to how many times Americans use their guns to stop criminals....here is the actual research over 41 years...

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... 2.46 million each of 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..

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

All based on a CDC study that cannot be verified. Everything links directly back to that. And when it finally links back to that CDC link, it comes back not found.

You did a lot of "Copy and Paste" from someone else. You didn't even present your own ideas. Most of what you did "Paste" were about people's personal opinions, not facts. Maybe you should put it in the Conspiracy Theory area where it belongs.

So far, only ONE report has been made of one instance where a good guy with a gun
"Stopped" a bad guy with a gun when the Good Guy was not an off duty or on duty cop or Security Guard. And even then, it was AFTER the fact when the Perp was leaving the scene after the shooting. But I give you that one because if they hadn't have stopped him he would have left and went to another location and just did the same thing again. But it is just ONE, not 2.4 million. Your numbers get even more outrageous each time it's told. You really need to start it with "And there I was".

All of this research, showing that you don't know what you are talking about, yet you still post your crap.....

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... 2.46 million each of 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..

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