Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Melinda in TN
    replied
    Originally posted by zap
    OH...and don't forget to pat yourself on the back there Tink
    Kind of hard to do with his head up his arse.

    Leave a comment:


  • pujolsfan146
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    What does that have to do with gun control? IF you had no gun, you would have slugged him, same result.
    -tink
    I was just going to read these postings and not give any input. But. The level of ignorance in this statement is mind boggling.
    With what you said I find it very hard to believe you are a police officer. If you really believe your statement then you have lived a very sheltered life. I have been punched hard in the throat and was able to press on with the fight and win.

    And to answer why the man brought a gun to the bank?! Well for someone with common sense the answer is quite obvious. Thankfully he did bring a gun to the bank at night, probably poorly lit, while carrying a large sum of cash.

    Leave a comment:


  • koolvk
    replied
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the grammar of the 2nd amendment by a leading usage expert, politically objective as he was given no information as to the use of his analysis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    Let it go. Their position is weaker than the Mexican space program.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerrymaccauley
    replied
    Originally posted by NumbersGuy
    "Centurion44]Fair enough. So, since my odds of surviving a violent attack increase exponentially when I'm armed with a handgun, does that mean you are against the banning of firearms?"

    No, I have no opinion either way. Your chances of committing suicide with a gun are many times higher than using one to defend yourself. That's a fact, not an opinion.

    Regards, Ryan
    Ryan, that is not a fact either. Think about the forum you are in. Knowing that most of us are armed would dispute that assertion. The guy on that T.V. show Numbers has probably influenced you in the same way CSI has influenced the general public in their undersatnding of investigations. Kleck has made some good arguments, but like most things, can be debated. I actually believe that criminals will chose an unarmed victim over an armed victim, just as a burglar will chose a home with no alarms, lights or locks over a home that is secured.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Tinkertoys:

    The moment the gun is fired, it is being used in an offensive manner, even if reacting to another offense.
    This is ludicrous. It obscures the obviously legitimate distinction between offensive and defensive use of weapons.

    Shooting a person can arbitrarily be called an offensive act, if you want to use language that way; however, it is nonetheless important that the motivation for shooting someone not be ignored.

    A person who points a gun at someone and says "give me your wallet, or I'll ice you", is using the weapon offensively.

    If I put 2 rounds through the nose of a bad guy to stop him when he's about to murder me, I'm defending myself. That's not offensive; it's defensive.

    If you don't, upon reflection, recognize the extremely important difference between using a gun unjustly, and using a gun for self-defense (or in defense of another person who's not doing anything wrong), you're probably beyond the reach of discourse.

    Regards,

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    Originally posted by NumbersGuy
    No, I have no opinion either way.
    Lie to me all you want. Hell, lie to yourself all you want. But don't insult my intellegence. Your agenda is more obvious than Michael Jackson's at Summer Camp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    Ryan, in my previous arguements I've cited websites where I got my proof.

    You have yet to cite a website or specific book. I don't know who this Kleck character is so for all I know he sat next to you in High School.

    Either post the proof to your claims, or bow out. I can't debate made-up "facts".

    Leave a comment:


  • NumbersGuy
    replied
    If your only argument is that Klecks numbers are too high then fine, I'll accept that. I don't care if they are off by a factor of ten and I don't believe most other people do either. It carries no weight in an authentic debate about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    So, let's get on with the real reason you decided to come onto this forum in defense of your "cousin" Tinkertoy. What are you attempting to prove?[/QUOTE]

    First off, he is actually my cousin, and I came to this forum because he asked me to.

    Anyhow, I will not be on for a while, as I will be joining relatives for vacation tomorrow.

    Regards, ryan

    Leave a comment:


  • pkagel
    replied
    Yea, you have him nailed.

    Originally posted by Phoenix
    I know. Did you read my response to his poll questions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by pkagel
    Phoenix, he(numbers) is a troll, simple as that. It was quite apparent if you read the initial writing of his "poll" on gun control. I have a hard time even believing he is even a statician because he can't even do simple math.

    I know. Did you read my response to his poll questions?

    Leave a comment:


  • pkagel
    replied
    Phoenix, he(numbers) is a troll, simple as that. It was quite apparent if you read the initial writing of his "poll" on gun control. I have a hard time even believing he is even a statician because he can't even do simple math.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    [QUOTE=NumbersGuy]
    Originally posted by Phoenix

    How many people live alone versus with a family? Three percent of people using a firearm in self defense is 3 out of 100, obviously. This is highly unlikely.

    -Regards, Ryan

    OK, you win, Klecks numbers are wrong. What does that prove? What does that imply? What course of action should be taken as a result of the fact that only 108,000 people (NCVS number) rather than 2.5 million people (Klecks number) use guns in self-defense each year? Should we ban guns because they are statistically insignificant? What point are you really trying to make here Ryan?

    If your only argument is that Klecks numbers are too high then fine, I'll accept that. I don't care if they are off by a factor of ten and I don't believe most other people do either. It carries no weight in an authentic debate about our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    So, let's get on with the real reason you decided to come onto this forum in defense of your "cousin" Tinkertoy. What are you attempting to prove?

    Leave a comment:


  • NumbersGuy
    replied
    [QUOTE=Phoenix]
    Originally posted by NumbersGuy

    If one person in a household owns a gun, theoretically, every person in that household has access to that gun for self-defense purposes.

    Using your analysis, only 25% of the people in my home would be able to use a gun in self-defence since I am the only gun owner. Yet if you break into my home in the middle of the night and I am not home you are just as likely to face a gun in the hands of my wife, my 16 yr old son, or my 20 yr old daughter.
    How many people live alone versus with a family? Three percent of people using a firearm in self defense is 3 out of 100, obviously. This is highly unlikely.

    -Regards, Ryan

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by NumbersGuy
    If Kleck's statistic were correct, it would mean that about three percent of all gun owners in a year have used their weapons in self defense.
    -Regards, Ryan

    <statistics off>

    Ryan...assume that the 3% number is relatively accurate for our purposes here. How many people would that be?

    .....and refresh my memory....don't the anti-gun crowd normally tow the line that "If we save ONLY ONE LIFE it will all be worth it" (meaning the trampling on the rights of the rest of us)

    .....so, from a common sense approach....wouldn't it be 'worth' supporting MORE people having guns so that a LARGER percentage would be in the position to defend themselves?

    <statistics back on>

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3881 users online. 263 members and 3618 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X