Guns are for cowards

originally posted by: SudoNim
Long Post. I’ll reply.

RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Educate yourself..

Educate yourself ?

Apparently, you don't even read the information on the links you provide. Allow me to quote from YOUR OWN REFERENCE

Data on 27, 595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun

E.G. YOUR OWN REFERENCE STATES YOU ARE WRONG !

BRILLIANT !!!!!!

a reply to: DumpMaster

So that makes you a Prog with an opinion.
You got S##T else for us.

a reply to: aethertek

...a BIT high strung...

The internet is for cowards.

Guns are for sure not the problem, its the idiots that own them that are the problem, and you cant legislate stupid.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

ANOTHER PROG public declaration of superior KNOWLEDGE ...YEAH that never was said ...do you pose in front of a mirror to tell yourself what a "GREAT GUY you are and GOSH DARN it PEOPLE like you..."

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

ANOTHER PROG public delcaLration of superior KNOWLEDGE ...YEAH that never was said ...do you pose in front of a mirror to tell yourself what a "GREAT GUY you are and GOSH DARN it PEOPLE like you..."

Jesus christ soldier, stand down lol, you having a bad day or something, oh and plz address me has me commie or comrade, it fits me better lol.

I said guns are not the problem, the same thing you say in all the gun threads.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

My JOB is to kill ANY message from you and yours ,I've found RIDING you scum into the ground works ...NO conviction...COMMIES lost from that we won...hmmm OF course THOSE facts are hidden in something YOURS don't use ...EVEN THE THE PROFESSIONAL level...HISTORY.
I noticed that at our lefty convention the erroeous candidate who is in fact the second woman to try,made SEVERAL mistakes that would have made them look like less idiots and liars that they trully are.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

My JOB is to kill ANY message from you and yours ,I've found RIDING you scum into the ground works ...NO conviction...COMMIES lost from that we won...hmmm OF course THOSE facts are hidden in something YOURS don't use ...EVEN THE THE PROFESSIONAL level...HISTORY.
I noticed that at our lefty convention the erroeous candidate who is in fact the second woman to try,made SEVERAL mistakes that would have made them look like less idiots and liars that they trully are.

Killer of messages and rider of scum, you sound real fun, but you might want to keep your sex secrets in the closet, kinda weird to open up like that.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

NOT really ...you're Canadian RIGHT?
YOU have french types..
Probably get offered 4 times a day.
HERE they just hit you for being RUDE.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Guns are for free muother fuc&$rs. You should try it sometime its a wonderful thing...

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

You must have never shot a gun in your life. If you had, you'd know how much fun they are! Nothing scary about shooting tannerite from 500 yards and blowing up done watermelon!

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: peter vlar

An inanimate tool is only as dangerous or evil as the individuals wielding it.

So a toddler shooting themselves in the face? Toddlers aren't dangerous, so toddlers with guns aren't dangerous?

Or does your saying only work in the select scenarios that you want it to?

Right, because toddlers getting ahold of firearms is a daily occurrence in America right? It's a strawman and you know it. IF a toddler is able to gain access to a firearm, then the parents(or whomever was supervising the child at the time) should certainly face serious criminal charges as it is grossly negligent and absolutely incompetent parenting if that situation occurs. When was the last time a 2-4 year old shot them self in the face though if you don't mind me asking? In your Hypothetical scenario, it is the incompetent firearms owner who is dangerous for not taking appropriate precautions to keep the gun out of the child's hands. It's unfortunate but there are going to be some morons who abuse their right to legally own a firearm. Just like after taking the driving course, getting the license and then registering and insuring their vehicle, there are always going to be some incompetent morons who drink and drive. Does that mean the system in place for regulating cars and licensing is faulty and we should remove all privately owned vehicles and force the entire nation to use publicl transportation? Of course not.

Yup homicides and suicides went down various other major and minor crimes went up. And there have been no mass shootings.

Aside from no further mass shootings in Australia, the rest of that is untrue. Homocide and suicide by firearm dropped but not the actual number of homocides or suicides. The number of homocides actually increased the year following the Port Arthur tragedy and peaked 3 years after and then levels out for several years and didn't drop significantly until 2008 when firearms ownership began to rise again.

After that initial peak violent crimes, I believe(unable to double check right now) have been steadily dropping for the past 16 years.

They've dropped somewhat since 2007/2008 but it was
not significantly and not straight or consistently for the last 20 years since the massacre. But the drop also coincides with the increase in privately held firearms in Australia. In '96 I believe it was ~7% of citizens owned firearms. It only decreased to 5% after the buyback and new restrictions passed in the wake of the shooting. Even with further restrictions passed in 2002, firearms ownership is at or slightly above ,percentagewise, what it was in 1996. Ergo if the population increased in the last 2 decades, then even at plateauing at the 1996 7% figure we are still looking at even more citizens with guns in Australia today.

Initial resistance is expected, just look at this thread and the macho manly commits when it comes to someone suggesting they don't need a gun. Such hostility.

The hostility typically is a result of being talked down to by people who have little to no experience with firearms themselves who are attempting to force their own morals upon them from a perceived platform of ignorance. You would
Be shocked at how many people today still believe that the AR in AR-15 stands for Automatic Rifle or think that there is a huge difference between how a tiger mini 14 operates vs. the operation of the above mentioned AR. For those who still don't know, they are essentially the same rifle. The internal components are completely interchangeable. The only differences are Purely aesthetic.

The anti 2A argument can be summed up with the following analogy; that the argument is the tails side of a coin where access to abortion/planned parenthood facilities and a woman's right to choose is the heads side. Each side feels that they need to impose their own morals upon other people because they truly feel they are doing it for the right reasons and they are saving lives. On the abortion rights issue it's mostly men attempting to foist their religious sensibilities upon women when men really have no place telling a woman what to do with their body but they really believe they're trying to save lives by forcing women to endure pregnancies and birth. Likewise, the majority of anti second amendment people also believe they are on the right side of the moral conundrum and are trying to save lives. Each side believes they have the moral high ground but typically, not always, the argument they present ignores one groups rights in order to further another's set of rights. It's nearly 4 AM here so I may not have presented my point as eloquently as I would have 5 or 6 hours ago but I hope I at least kind of made some sort or sense with the above compare and contrast.

Back on the actual topic of this thread though, I find it insulting for another person to try and determine how I should protect my family and what tools are acceptable to them. At 43 Im barely mobile some days and have more titanium and ceramic than I do bone and cartilage in some joints. I've received extensive training on multiple weapons platforms when I wrote a blank check for my life to the US Army back in 1990. I've built my own rifles aside from a couple of older C&R's like the '33 Mosin Nagant from the Tula factory with hexagonal bolt system, my kids can take them apart and put them back together like pros and only have access to them when I bring them out and unless they do some Jason Bourne type action and obtain my fingerprints illicitly, neither they non anyone else, have access to them. Where I live is off the beaten path and the fastest the police have arrived at my home the 3 times I've had to call them in the dozen years I've owned this house was around 20 minutes. I don't live in a city, in a secure building with a doorman or a gated community. I can only rely on myself to do what is necessary and being a victim is not on the short list. Taking a human life isn't something I take lightly and view it as an absolute last resort. I have 2 Akitas as my first line of defense and my early warning system. But I'll be damned if I cower under my bed or in a closet while I wait 20 or more minutes for the police to show up when 9 times out of 10 all they're going to do is take a statement and file a report if I happen to be lucky. If I feel that my wife, mykids or my dogs are in danger then I will not hesitate to do whatever I feel necessary to protect them up to and including eliminating the threat. It's nobody else's business how I choose to protect my family and as long as I'm not engaging in illegal or dangerous behaviors that put others in harms way I just don't see what the problem is.

Food for thought, did you know that America uses a different definition of "violent crime" to adjust their figures to be closer to other civilised countries, because if they didn't it would look ever more shocking?

It depends on who is presenting the data but yes, I'm aware of how the federal govt. somewhat skews some figures and statistics. It's why I look at university studies on these matters more so than government statistics which typically serve to further an administration or other entities agenda by pandering to a specific demographic or constituency.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: SudoNim
Long Post. I’ll reply.

RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Educate yourself..

Educate yourself ?

Apparently, you don't even read the information on the links you provide. Allow me to quote from YOUR OWN REFERENCE

Data on 27, 595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun

E.G. YOUR OWN REFERENCE STATES YOU ARE WRONG !

BRILLIANT !!!!!!

Haha knew I'd catch someone who read the first line and raced gleefully to make a post.

Resistance with a gun appears to be most effective in preventing serious injury, though this finding is not statistically significant due to the small number of reported gun uses.

Insignificant due to such small reported uses of a gun to prevent a crime. Hmmm isn't that interesting.

Back to the drawing board mate.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

a reply to: aethertek
...a BIT high strung...

My JOB is to kill ANY message from you and yours ,I've found RIDING you scum into the ground works ...NO conviction...COMMIES lost from that we won...hmmm OF course THOSE facts are hidden in something YOURS don't use ...EVEN THE THE PROFESSIONAL level...HISTORY. I noticed that at our lefty convention the erroeous candidate who is in fact the second woman to try,made SEVERAL mistakes that would have made them look like less idiots and liars that they trully are.

LOL Wrong Wing Projection at its finest.
Let this be a lesson for the uninitiated, whenever a conservative/republican/libertarian accuses someone of something it's always to deflect from them actually being guilty of whatever they accuse.

& Yes it's always comically pathetic.LOL

K~

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: SudoNim
Long Post. I’ll reply.

RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Educate yourself..

Educate yourself ?

Apparently, you don't even read the information on the links you provide. Allow me to quote from YOUR OWN REFERENCE

Data on 27, 595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun

E.G. YOUR OWN REFERENCE STATES YOU ARE WRONG !

BRILLIANT !!!!!!

Haha knew I'd catch someone who read the first line and raced gleefully to make a post.

Resistance with a gun appears to be most effective in preventing serious injury, though this finding is not statistically significant due to the small number of reported gun uses.

Insignificant due to such small reported uses of a gun to prevent a crime. Hmmm isn't that interesting.

Back to the drawing board mate.

Again, the rest of the abstract:

including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury, though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of sample cases.

With respect to more data, more cases, over 18 years, this study from the University of Chicago shows the POSITIVE impact on outcomes of conceal carry :
www.sfu.ca...

VIII. Conclusion The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings. Attackers are deterred and the number of people injured or killed per attack is also reduced, thus for the first time providing evidence that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. The results are robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and the inclusion of additional law variables (e.g., mandatory waiting periods and enhanced penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime).

Deny Ignorance McNeely, deny ignorance.....

Tyson.

Reverting to lurk.
I guess some civilians don't actually KNOW what word hard ass means.
I got that way BEING this COUNTRY'S sin eaters and I STILL WON.
Opinions of WHO I am and ALL the worthless projections I've successfully repelled are only because it is as I have said.
I believe it.
YOU DON'T then...I GET to know that you are your OEN worst enemies...enjoy your SWEET political melt down Progs...IT'S JUST GETTING STARTED
FOR the SLOWER ones.I'M scaring the norms here and being RUDE isn't my thing.
I'll GO COLD TURKEY and lay low don't bother responding I won't answer to put it bluntly I HAVE SPOKEN and PRETTY much ...YOU might already KNOW what I would say.

a reply to: peter vlar

But I'll be damned if I cower under my bed or in a closet while I wait 20 or more minutes for the police to show up when 9 times out of 10 all they're going to do is take a statement and file a report if I happen to be lucky.

In their world view, or many of them anyway, that's actually the bravest of things to do. Cower and pray for help to arrive in the form of ((((drum roll, please)))) a govt guardian angel. How dare you, or I for that matter, have the ability, much less the willingness if necessary, to protect ourselves.

Why, if that continues, we might not need the govt. to run, or attempt to, our lives.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well, fortunately, not all of us feel that way about those who signed that blank check/IOU.