Why does anybody think concealed carry is a good idea?

[PaintMyHouse]

There's no evidence in support of any of this.

There is no evidence citizens carrying concealed weapons results in a rise or decline of violent crime.

Moreover, it's legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – citizens have the right to carry firearms pursuant to the right to lawful self-defense; citizens are not required to 'justify' the exercising of a Constitutional right as a 'prerequisite' to indeed do so.

One would think that this is logical, wouldn't one?
Hey, I don't really envision a scenario where I personally will ever need to use my right to remain silent either, doesn't mean it should be taken away.

Just remember you have to say you want to remain silent, per the Supreme Court. Ironic eh?

You certainly do not have to say you want to remain silent.

SCOTUS has ruled that you MUST ask for an attorney, otherwise anything you say without an attorney present is admissible in court.

Police can't force you not to be silent,

God damned fools don't even understand the law LOL

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know, asshole.

If you remain silent, there is no need for a declaration. The ruling was about being silent and then making statements later. If you remain silent, there is nothing to be held against you.

But anyone who talks to the police without a lawyer is a fool.

That is incorrect. Read their ruling. And yes, never, ever speak with the police, lawyer or not. Say nothing since nothing you say can help you and anything you say can hurt you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

(yawn)

Not even close to being true......

Oh but it is, it's math little asswipe.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

 

[WinterBorn]

There's no evidence in support of any of this.

There is no evidence citizens carrying concealed weapons results in a rise or decline of violent crime.

Moreover, it's legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – citizens have the right to carry firearms pursuant to the right to lawful self-defense; citizens are not required to 'justify' the exercising of a Constitutional right as a 'prerequisite' to indeed do so.

One would think that this is logical, wouldn't one?
Hey, I don't really envision a scenario where I personally will ever need to use my right to remain silent either, doesn't mean it should be taken away.

Just remember you have to say you want to remain silent, per the Supreme Court. Ironic eh?

You certainly do not have to say you want to remain silent.

SCOTUS has ruled that you MUST ask for an attorney, otherwise anything you say without an attorney present is admissible in court.

Police can't force you not to be silent,

God damned fools don't even understand the law LOL

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know.

Yes, it is ALL spin. If you have a gun in the home it is most likely that no one will die. To the tune of 99.9% of the time. That you wish to present that 0.049% of gun owners involved in any gun related death in the home as a valid view of gun ownership is pure spin.

That is spin, because you love your deadly toys, but that doesn't change the fact that who is the most likely person to die by a gun, which is the owner. There's no way to spin away from that. Just deal with it.

I can deal with it, since 99.9% of the time no one dies.

I do not want to shoot anyone. I certainly do not want to kill anyone. But I'd rather be prepared to shoot someone than to see my loved ones die.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

No it is not. Because in my home I have negated almost all of the methods by which we would be killed. We follow basic gun safety rules, we store them securely, we have no domestic violence here, no one is suicidal, and there are no violent people (friends or family) with access to our loaded guns. Just because it is an average does not mean it fits every specific case.

The only thing I cannot control is the criminal element. That is what the gun is for.

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

It is accurate in as much as what it says. It is more likely that a member of the family will be killed than an intruder will be killed. But it is a sensationalistic statement designed to scare people. It ignores the fact that 99.9% of the time no one is killed. It also ignore any time the gun is used to stop a crime that does not involve someone dying.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

One would think that this is logical, wouldn't one?
Hey, I don't really envision a scenario where I personally will ever need to use my right to remain silent either, doesn't mean it should be taken away.

Just remember you have to say you want to remain silent, per the Supreme Court. Ironic eh?

You certainly do not have to say you want to remain silent.

SCOTUS has ruled that you MUST ask for an attorney, otherwise anything you say without an attorney present is admissible in court.

Police can't force you not to be silent,

God damned fools don't even understand the law LOL

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know.

That is spin, because you love your deadly toys, but that doesn't change the fact that who is the most likely person to die by a gun, which is the owner. There's no way to spin away from that. Just deal with it.

I can deal with it, since 99.9% of the time no one dies.

I do not want to shoot anyone. I certainly do not want to kill anyone. But I'd rather be prepared to shoot someone than to see my loved ones die.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

No it is not. Because in my home I have negated almost all of the methods by which we would be killed. We follow basic gun safety rules, we store them securely, we have no domestic violence here, no one is suicidal, and there are no violent people (friends or family) with access to our loaded guns. Just because it is an average does not mean it fits every specific case.

The only thing I cannot control is the criminal element. That is what the gun is for.

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

Most likely, but if someone gets shot with one it's probably going to be you or one you love. Ideology doesn't change that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is pure spin. No, suicide by gun does not happen in homes without guns. But that does not show, in any way, that the suicide numbers would be lower without guns. If someone wants to die, they will find a way.

And if you have a gun in your home, it is far more likely that no one will die.

There's no spin. If you have a gun in your home the most likely person to die is the owner, period.

Yes, it is ALL spin. If you have a gun in the home it is most likely that no one will die. To the tune of 99.9% of the time. That you wish to present that 0.049% of gun owners involved in any gun related death in the home as a valid view of gun ownership is pure spin.

That is spin, because you love your deadly toys, but that doesn't change the fact that who is the most likely person to die by a gun, which is the owner. There's no way to spin away from that. Just deal with it.

I can deal with it, since 99.9% of the time no one dies.

I do not want to shoot anyone. I certainly do not want to kill anyone. But I'd rather be prepared to shoot someone than to see my loved ones die.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

Absolutely correct.

And legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Citizens cannot be prohibited from exercising a Constitutional right because something bad 'might' happen.

It's perfectly appropriate for a citizen to decide to not have a gun in the home because of the fact that it will more likely kill a family member than a criminal; it is utterly inappropriate for the state to seek to restrict access to firearms for the same reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just remember you have to say you want to remain silent, per the Supreme Court. Ironic eh?

You certainly do not have to say you want to remain silent.

SCOTUS has ruled that you MUST ask for an attorney, otherwise anything you say without an attorney present is admissible in court.

Police can't force you not to be silent,

God damned fools don't even understand the law LOL

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know.

I can deal with it, since 99.9% of the time no one dies.

I do not want to shoot anyone. I certainly do not want to kill anyone. But I'd rather be prepared to shoot someone than to see my loved ones die.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

No it is not. Because in my home I have negated almost all of the methods by which we would be killed. We follow basic gun safety rules, we store them securely, we have no domestic violence here, no one is suicidal, and there are no violent people (friends or family) with access to our loaded guns. Just because it is an average does not mean it fits every specific case.

The only thing I cannot control is the criminal element. That is what the gun is for.

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

Most likely, but if someone gets shot with one it's probably going to be you or one you love. Ideology doesn't change that.

Ideology is not involved at all. But there are hazards that can be negated, as I have said. I have shown how the hazards to me and mine have been negated. Now as long as no one breaks in and threatens us, we will stay within the 99.9% of gun owners who have no gun deaths at all.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There's no spin. If you have a gun in your home the most likely person to die is the owner, period.

Yes, it is ALL spin. If you have a gun in the home it is most likely that no one will die. To the tune of 99.9% of the time. That you wish to present that 0.049% of gun owners involved in any gun related death in the home as a valid view of gun ownership is pure spin.

That is spin, because you love your deadly toys, but that doesn't change the fact that who is the most likely person to die by a gun, which is the owner. There's no way to spin away from that. Just deal with it.

I can deal with it, since 99.9% of the time no one dies.

I do not want to shoot anyone. I certainly do not want to kill anyone. But I'd rather be prepared to shoot someone than to see my loved ones die.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

Absolutely correct.

And legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Citizens cannot be prohibited from exercising a Constitutional right because something bad 'might' happen.

It's perfectly appropriate for a citizen to decide to not have a gun in the home because of the fact that it will more likely kill a family member than a criminal; it is utterly inappropriate for the state to seek to restrict access to firearms for the same reason.

A start. And I disagree of course with the lower statements, but I don't live in 1789 like you people do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You certainly do not have to say you want to remain silent.

SCOTUS has ruled that you MUST ask for an attorney, otherwise anything you say without an attorney present is admissible in court.

Police can't force you not to be silent,

God damned fools don't even understand the law LOL

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know.

The gun in your house is more likely to kill you or your loved ones than anyone else. It's math.

No it is not. Because in my home I have negated almost all of the methods by which we would be killed. We follow basic gun safety rules, we store them securely, we have no domestic violence here, no one is suicidal, and there are no violent people (friends or family) with access to our loaded guns. Just because it is an average does not mean it fits every specific case.

The only thing I cannot control is the criminal element. That is what the gun is for.

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

Most likely, but if someone gets shot with one it's probably going to be you or one you love. Ideology doesn't change that.

Ideology is not involved at all. But there are hazards that can be negated, as I have said. I have shown how the hazards to me and mine have been negated. Now as long as no one breaks in and threatens us, we will stay within the 99.9% of gun owners who have no gun deaths at all.

That's what the others with dead spouses and kids said. Carry on. As long as it's mostly you kind dying I can't be bothered too much.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

And again, whether it's true or not is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

You're getting all worked up exhibiting your ignorance, stupidity, and hate for no good reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you must declare that you wish to remain silent.

Supreme Court Suspects must assert Miranda right to remain silent - CSMonitor.com

Now you know.

No it is not. Because in my home I have negated almost all of the methods by which we would be killed. We follow basic gun safety rules, we store them securely, we have no domestic violence here, no one is suicidal, and there are no violent people (friends or family) with access to our loaded guns. Just because it is an average does not mean it fits every specific case.

The only thing I cannot control is the criminal element. That is what the gun is for.

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

Most likely, but if someone gets shot with one it's probably going to be you or one you love. Ideology doesn't change that.

Ideology is not involved at all. But there are hazards that can be negated, as I have said. I have shown how the hazards to me and mine have been negated. Now as long as no one breaks in and threatens us, we will stay within the 99.9% of gun owners who have no gun deaths at all.

That's what the others with dead spouses and kids said. Carry on. As long as it's mostly you kind dying I can't be bothered.

Obviously not. If they had followed basic safety rules the kids would not have died. If they would not stay in a house with any domestic violence, then those killings would not have happened. If they had stored their guns safely, they would not have had them taken and used by someone who shouldn't.

Simply because there are a lot of idiots in the world does not mean I am one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

Pride goeth before the fall...

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

Pride goeth before the fall...

LMAO!! Oh please. How about "Intelligence and diligence prevents problems & accidents"?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

Pride goeth before the fall...

Since you keep guns in your home, aren't you in the same danger? Wouldn't that speak to your hypocrisy?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your guns will most likely kill you, or your wife, or your kids. Sleep well on that.

Now you are wrong. My guns will most likely kill no one at all. And I sleep quite well, thanks.

Most likely, but if someone gets shot with one it's probably going to be you or one you love. Ideology doesn't change that.

Ideology is not involved at all. But there are hazards that can be negated, as I have said. I have shown how the hazards to me and mine have been negated. Now as long as no one breaks in and threatens us, we will stay within the 99.9% of gun owners who have no gun deaths at all.

That's what the others with dead spouses and kids said. Carry on. As long as it's mostly you kind dying I can't be bothered.

Obviously not. If they had followed basic safety rules the kids would not have died. If they would not stay in a house with any domestic violence, then those killings would not have happened. If they had stored their guns safely, they would not have had them taken and used by someone who shouldn't.

Simply because there are a lot of idiots in the world does not mean I am one.

You could be the Saint of Safety, and it doesn't change the numbers. The one thing I never forget is should I need to kill myself quickly and easily, it's ten feet away. That's why the numbers are what they are. Guns are very easy, and lethal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

Pride goeth before the fall...

LMAO!! Oh please. How about "Intelligence and diligence prevents problems & accidents"?

Mine is better, and Biblical.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't give a **** what the OP said, and neither does anyone else. Guns aren't for protection, based on the numbers, they are for suicide. End of story. It's math.

It's not math; it's bullshit. You have no way of knowing accurate numbers for how many times guns are used for protection so there's no reasonable way to make a comparison. You also ignore the fact that protection is only one of many reasons for owning a firearm. Besides, suicide isn't always such a bad thing. It might be a liberal.

The only reason to own a gun is to kill something, and if it's human, based on the numbers, that's yourself.

Based on the numbers. So the fact that 700 to 800 people every year die in accidental shootings because the basic safety rules were ignored means that we who follow the safety rules are just as likely to die in an accidental shooting? Or the fact that domestic violence shootings account for a significant portion of the deaths from a gun in the home, and we have no domestic violence here, we are still as likely to shoot each other?

The problem is, you expect these averages and national numbers to fit every specific case. They don't.

There are steps that can be taken to negate the hazards. We have taken those steps.

Pride goeth before the fall...

Since you keep guns in your home, aren't you in the same danger? Wouldn't that speak to your hypocrisy?

Nope, because if I could ban all of them, I would destroy mine.