Woman congrats guys with Christmas by shooting them

[timslash]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/charles-blow-privilege-of-arrest-without-incident.html

“Officers found two people who said they were at a stop sign when a woman pulled up in a dark-colored sedan and fired shots into their vehicle, hitting and disabling the radiator. Then more calls reported a woman pointing a firearm at people as she passed them in her car, and that she fired at another vehicle in the same area.”

Disarming police is very good idea? I don't think so.

When police officers came upon the shooter, the shooter led them on a chase. The shooter even pointed the gun at a police officer.

Disarming citizens? That's pretty good idea!

When will we understand that correction of 2nd amendment is not whimsy... It's a necessity!

 

[Wake]

If I may, what exactly is the point of this thread?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For sure, there are citizens who should never even get close to a gun. They're in the news every day. The right has made sure criminals out gun cops and we're seeing the backlash of that now.

I don't see the mess they've made ending any time soon.

 

[FA_Q2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/charles-blow-privilege-of-arrest-without-incident.html

“Officers found two people who said they were at a stop sign when a woman pulled up in a dark-colored sedan and fired shots into their vehicle, hitting and disabling the radiator. Then more calls reported a woman pointing a firearm at people as she passed them in her car, and that she fired at another vehicle in the same area.”

Disarming police is very good idea? I don't think so.

When police officers came upon the shooter, the shooter led them on a chase. The shooter even pointed the gun at a police officer.

Disarming citizens? That's pretty good idea!

When will we understand that correction of 2nd amendment is not whimsy... It's a necessity!

1 indecent - a million other incidents where guns are used defensively.

When will the gun control advocates use facts for their arguments. Dozens of threads here over the last month or so and not a single fact that supports your position. the ONLY think you have are appeals to emotion. That is such a wonderful thing to base rights on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"1 indecent - a million other incidents where guns are used defensively."

A million to one?


FA_Q2

Pulling numbers out of the air and pretending they're facts really doesn't help the situation or your position. How about some real numbers?

 

[PratchettFan]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/charles-blow-privilege-of-arrest-without-incident.html

“Officers found two people who said they were at a stop sign when a woman pulled up in a dark-colored sedan and fired shots into their vehicle, hitting and disabling the radiator. Then more calls reported a woman pointing a firearm at people as she passed them in her car, and that she fired at another vehicle in the same area.”

Disarming police is very good idea? I don't think so.

When police officers came upon the shooter, the shooter led them on a chase. The shooter even pointed the gun at a police officer.

Disarming citizens? That's pretty good idea!

When will we understand that correction of 2nd amendment is not whimsy... It's a necessity!

I suppose when an argument is provided which shows an actual problem rather than isolated incidents. I can show you news articles where people have driven down sidewalks and killed people, should we rethink allowing people to drive? I can show you statistics on slips in bathtubs, should we outlaw tubs? You can live in a free society or you can live in a safe society. You can't have both, so tell me which you want?[/URL]

 

[FA_Q2]

"1 indecent - a million other incidents where guns are used defensively."

A million to one?


FA_Q2

Pulling numbers out of the air and pretending they're facts really doesn't help the situation or your position. How about some real numbers?

You demand a link and then....

don't provide one. Just a nice pretty picture that only shows reported incidents. That is cherry picked just to support your claims. The reality is that the VAST majority of defensive gun use does not require a shot fired, leads to no injuries and is never reported. The justice department did a study on this and found that there are an estimated 1.5 million defensive uses per year.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
The number of defensive gun uses outnumbers the number of criminal gun uses.


Then, Obama recently had the CDC look into this, or had you not heard? I wouldn't be surprised, the CDC's research did not line up with Obama's ambitions for gun control.
Handguns suicides mass shootings deaths and self-defense Findings from a research report on gun violence.

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

The CDC found that defensive use of guns REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY! That's right - having a weapon means that there is LESS likely to be an injury in an altercation rather than the left wing fantasy of John Wayne wannabes blasting randomly away at each other. They also found that gun buy back programs do not work and that, as I have been REPEATEDLY SAYING HERE FOR YEARS, gun restrictions or right to issue simply do not have any real impact on crime or death rates. The research in this area is all over the place without any real patters emerging.


Care to try those facts again?

 

[FA_Q2]

I guess that is a no then. Why am I not surprised...