- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I bet I could not find one single citizen in our largest city here in my state who has pulled a weapon against a criminal in the last year. You are largely supposing the suit your preconceived notion of the gun myth.
I bet I could not find one single citizen in our largest city here in my state who has pulled a weapon against a criminal in the last year. You are largely supposing the suit your preconceived notion of the gun myth.
What are these different views according to you? I've lived in both and find no difference. Still waiting to find a post of yours that involves reason or logic.
what state do you live in
I know dozens of people who have pulled guns on criminals and I know for a fact that only two have been reported
When I was moving up the ranks of pro IPSC style shooters, I used to train with a guy who was in Nam before we were officially there. He was part of what became the Green Beret. Well one day he showed me a newspaper clipping of a supposed unsolved killing involving bikers with many warrants and a record a mile long about the time the race riots were hitting the USA. Seems the Master Sgt was home on leave and was on his bike in an area which had recently become invested with two warring bike gangs (and he didn't know this because he had been in The Nam for a couple years). Well Sgt was riding on his bike when out of no where a couple members of "the Iron Horsemen" rode up on his six and knocked him off his bike. They went down about 50 yards turned around and came back at him -one swinging a chain.. Well the good sgt-lawful or not pulled out the Browning HP he carried in the Nam and center punched both of the outlaw bikers through the face. DOA. two days later he's on his way back to the Nam and he calls an old service buddy who was now part of the local constabulary and reports what had happened. The deputy basically said they figured the "invaders" had whacked the two bikers and since the bikers were both wanted and the cops were busy with riots that was the way it was gonna go down.
So a lawful stomping of two cockroaches was written off an "gang violence"
I mentioned earlier to someone who asked: Iowa
City folk in general want more guns laws, and rural folk in general don't.
The Home of Grinnell but I didn't see your post until after I wrote the above
almost all cases of people merely displaying guns to ward off scumbags are never reported
Complete nonsense and piffle
That may or may not be, just as every other method isn't reported either. So, we could all jump to a lot of false conclusions supposing. I once merely told a group that was an ass whipping I was going to have to take, and they walked away. Go figure.
I suppose, . . . .if you close down all openness to objective evidence.
I have a great idea-that would save you hundreds of posts
1) if you don't think your safety is increased by carrying a firearm or having one in your home then do NOT
2) and stop pretending what works for you should apply to everyone else
what does the objective evidence show
I know
ITS BETTER TO HAVE A FIREARM and never need it for self defense
than to need one and NOT HAVE ONE
Seems to me, that's what your doing with guns. I merely jump in with to show your evidence was crap. I've done that on both sides, but you arge about it. What might happen isn't objective evidence. That's what I'm trying to get you to see.
Different issue than what you jumped in on, but better to not have one and shot a family member or friend than to have one you never use in self defense.
My evidence is perfect for ME. and I know more about this issue than you can ever dream about. My evidence isn't crap, yo pretend the pro gun evidence is crap and you fail to apply the same standards to the NON EXISTENT empirical data that the anti gun side spews
and I don't -for a minute-believe that you spend thousands of posts on this issue merely because you are some sort of self appointed arbiter of what is good evidence. You are a hard core gun restrictionist no matter how many times you claim you are not.
That's as stupid as saying its better not to have a tourniquet even if you are bleeding out than it is to put one around the neck of a your child who suffered a head wound.
I'll spend another thousand posts if you keep presenting faulty arguments and defending them. I got time.
You might want to read it again.
Opinion noted and rejected as ignorant and dishonest. YOur dishonesty is demanding 100% proof that carrying a weapon makes one safer while ignoring the fact that no empirical evidence supports the claim that the current democratic party proposed gun laws would make us safer.
YOu also are dishonest in stating that I think everyone should carry. I am merely stating that the evidence proves to ME that I should carry and people like you who are afraid to should not.
and again, your claim that your only interest is attacking "faulty data" is a bold steaming lie
your choices were a false selection
You do realize your 75% figure doesn't dispute what I said?
And no, there is nothing easy about shooting straight in a stressful situation.
And what you said has no real bearing if the fact that not being in a gang reduces the odds by 3/4's...
The only thing that pushes you is an irrational fear of guns.
Honeybees kill more people than accidents with firearms, are you gonna ban honeybees next?!? No, of course not... You don't care about that casualty rate because you can't establish government controls over it...
Yes, for the untrained person... Unless you are trained to handle high stress situations, yes you can expect to be about half as accurate as in the range.
Have you considered that this man shot to scare rather than kill?? He fired enough shots to have killed them both.... But you would have preferred that all those people fall victims to those robbers through what you are pushing....
Maybe someone would have been able to call the cops, maybe they would have realized there was no money and decided to kill everyone there... Actually, in that situation, that would be the ONLY REASONABLE ASSUMPTION!
I have no fear of guns.
Of course you do. You fear the guns owned by civilians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?