Ban "Assault rifles!" Liberal Politicians Fear Violent Uprising by Americans.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Good for smoking banana peels and outdated information on telephone automated trunks I guess. I offered to teach high school chemistry when my high school was on a search on the condition that they used their grandfathered powers to bypass the teaching certificate.

They had contacted me to get ahold of one of my friends to teach since they knew he went to college for chemistry but he had to decline because he was working on his doctorate. While my forte was history, i could teach high school chemistry. My old principal asked skeptically if i was sure. I asked him if there was any doubt in his mind that could teach kids how to blow up all kinds of crap? He said he would keep me in mind if they needed history or government covered.

a reply to: chr0naut

I've said this in other threads. Define defensive use.

A few years ago I went to a meeting at our Corporate Office. The office is in a not so nice section of town. On my way out I was asked to drop a couple of our Customer's Reps off at their hotel. As we were going to my car, there was a group men sitting on the hood of a car passing a bottle around. When they saw us, they got up and started towards us. Here I am, on crutches, with two extremely good looking young women and carrying about $20,000 in computers, phones and other electronic equipment. I stopped, moved my jacket aside so that they could see the pistol that I had in a shoulder holster. They turned around, got into the car and left.

Would they have done anything? I don't know. I do know that they left when they saw that I was armed. The two women with me didn't even notice that anything had happened. This is more common than you think, but, there is no way to count the number of times.

One thing that has always bugged me. The CDC is the Center for Disease Control. How about they stick to what they are supposed to do instead of allowing "mission creep" to occur in their quest for more finding?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: chr0naut

I've said this in other threads. Define defensive use.

A few years ago I went to a meeting at our Corporate Office. The office is in a not so nice section of town. On my way out I was asked to drop a couple of our Customer's Reps off at their hotel. As we were going to my car, there was a group men sitting on the hood of a car passing a bottle around. When they saw us, they got up and started towards us. Here I am, on crutches, with two extremely good looking young women and carrying about $20,000 in computers, phones and other electronic equipment. I stopped, moved my jacket aside so that they could see the pistol that I had in a shoulder holster. They turned around, got into the car and left.

Would they have done anything? I don't know. I do know that they left when they saw that I was armed. The two women with me didn't even notice that anything had happened. This is more common than you think, but, there is no way to count the number of times.

One thing that has always bugged me. The CDC is the Center for Disease Control. How about they stick to what they are supposed to do instead of allowing "mission creep" to occur in their quest for more finding?

Most defensive gun uses don't require firing the gun at all. Merely the sight of the gun is usually enough to diffuse a situation. Most criminals are not as stupid as some people think. The challenge in studying this is that many / most never involve any kind of police report.

I saw it happen with my father. He was a cop and was always armed, even when off duty. Long story short, some crack head high as giraffe nuts decided to start some sh*t when visiting grandparents who lived in a bad area. The guy got all belligerent, was clearly high, and coming on to our property.

However, once my father pulled his pistol out, the guy quickly sobered up and decided to keep it moving...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

It has in civilized countries. It probably wouldn't in the US.

a reply to: chr0naut

No it wouldn't , and the reason is simple . Most of the guns used in violent attacks are obtained illegally in the first place.

Putting laws in place would simply place the weapons in the hands of law enforcement and criminals only, normal civilians would be at the mercy of the armed criminals.

...and this is why the cities with the strictest gun laws (Chicago, DC, Baltimore) are the ones with the highest crime rates. What does a robber care about gun laws? He's probably been in & out of jail since he was a teen, and cannot legally own so much as a taser. His weapon is illegal under any circumstances.

Free travel sort of messes with local gun laws. Besides, they are all still in the US. It doesn't invalidate what I said in any way.

The problem with that logic (or lack thereof) is that if guns were the issue, then you'd expect to see gun violence in areas with easy access to guns regardless of demographics. The reality is you don't. States like Vermont have fairly lax gun laws and high gun ownership, yet gun violence is some of the lowest in the country. Why? Mostly wealthy, rural, and white. Little to no poor urban black and hispanic gangs.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. There isn't a single operating gun store in the city of Chicago. Yet some how, the streets are over run with gun violence that we call it Chiraq. On the other hand, you go into the suburbs with gun stores on every corner and a rough day for a cop is getting a cat out of a tree.

Just quoting this because its absolutely true and has been so far ignored(surprise).

a reply to: Edumakated
File a police report about what? Nothing really happened. That's the point.

Then there's the clown who says that we are out matched, out numbered and out trained. You can tell he doesn't know what he's talking about. I've had military weapons training. It wouldn't take too much to get back in the groove. There's many, many more like me out there.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Edumakated
File a police report about what? Nothing really happened. That's the point.

Then there's the clown who says that we are out matched, out numbered and out trained. You can tell he doesn't know what he's talking about. I've had military weapons training. It wouldn't take too much to get back in the groove. There's many, many more like me out there.

I know there is nothing to file... I wouldn't expect anyone with two functioning brain cells to call police to report "I pulled my gun but nothing happened."

My point is that because of this dynamic, it is hard to quantify how often these defensive gun uses occur as there is no real record or tracking. All you can do is measure the when it is reported and survey gun owners if they've ever pulled their weapon in self-defense.

No there are not 300,000 lives saved by defensive gun usage a year. That figure is obviously absurd.

originally posted by: ScepticScot



No there are not 300,000 lives saved by defensive gun usage a year. That figure is obviously absurd.

I've never bought that claim. I think they really mean there are 300,000 incidents diffused, but no way to claim whether a life was saved or not.

a reply to: Edumakated
I totally agree with you. You can't prove a negative.

originally posted by: ChefFox


If only Euporean people had some form of means to defend themselves at night, Euporean streets today would have being very different. In some places in Europe the police listen to woke polticans and organizations. They let criminals, human traffickers without making the criminals think the second time.

And yet there is as much organised crime in America and far more deaths by guns for criminals and just regular civilians, think i will take my chances where i live and you can keep your 6 shooters or even semi automiatics for peace.

America sits 10th out of 75 of death by firearm while the UK is 65th with Polans, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland also in the 60s. Maybe you can help me understand statistics better if I am infering them incorrectly

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I've never bought that claim. I think they really mean there are 300,000 incidents diffused, but no way to claim whether a life was saved or not.

I'm also curious to see if law enforcement is included and if they can break out those numbers. There's just not enough context.

a reply to: chr0naut

The people in the US killed by guns needed to be killed in many or even most cases, or decided to die via a gun as their chosen form of euthanasia by suicide.

I am not shamed by the number of US gun deaths, as a result, unless you take out police shootings, suicides, and self defense, which added up are the majority of US gun deaths anyway.

The rest of the world needs to free themselves, and catch up to US statistics, IMHO. If they had something like our 2nd amendment, they might even have a fair 'shooting' chance hah ....

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: ChefFox


If only Euporean people had some form of means to defend themselves at night, Euporean streets today would have being very different. In some places in Europe the police listen to woke polticans and organizations. They let criminals, human traffickers without making the criminals think the second time.

And yet there is as much organised crime in America and far more deaths by guns for criminals and just regular civilians, think i will take my chances where i live and you can keep your 6 shooters or even semi automiatics for peace.

America sits 10th out of 75 of death by firearm while the UK is 65th with Polans, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland also in the 60s. Maybe you can help me understand statistics better if I am infering them incorrectly

You have to look at population demographics to understand the numbers.

Vast majority of gun deaths in the US (excluding suicides) are gang / street thugs. Almost entirely concentrated in poor, urban black community (and lesser degree hispanic).

Further, 99% of the guns used in the above are already illegally owned. No amount of laws and gun restrictions will do anything as they aren't law abiding citizens.

In rural American communities, you literally can have a gun in every home, car, and building. Murders and gun violence are practically unheard of.

We know guns by themselves are not the problem. Guns have never been more restricted than they are now, yet crime and violence is higher.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I know, right?

Outmanned? There are, literally, millions of retired LEO's, and soldiers of all sorts living in the States. Many, if not most, are certainly capable of training others to their level of expertise.

Outtrained? I've never fired a shot in a battle. Don't particularly want to, but when I bought my firearms I found a teacher willing and able to teach me. I'm hardly alone. There are waiting lists at places like Thunder Ranch, my friend who taught me, has a list of people waiting to take lessons from him. There are thousands, if not millions, just like me out there. All we want is to be left the F*** alone...do that we're going to get along fine. Push us? All bets are off. You may get us, but you'll know we were there.

I'd bet that over the last two or three decades of shooting, I've more rounds downrange than many of those soldiers and police that are, supposedly, better trained than I am. I'm an avid hunter, or was, bad knees have kinda curtailed that activity...but I discovered to my surprise, that those skills of stalking translate very well to tactical necessities. At least in my training they did...real life may, and likely is, very different.

Yes, the US military is formidable. US law enforcement is, as well. Many seem to forget that there would be those same sorts on the other sides. I know former/retired Green Berets, and a few Marines, my teacher(s), in my entire life, were former, and retired soldiers and law enforcement.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You know this how?

The vast majority of defensive uses of firearms never require a shot to be fired. The prospective bad guy sees the gun, and decides to, wisely, test other pastures. Most are, probably, not even reported as nothing happened.

I've drawn a weapon twice in preparation to defend myself, thankfully, in neither instance did I have to shoot. I didn't report either one of 'em. What's to report? Nothing happened. I went about my day to day affairs.

There is no way of knowing a statistic that doesn't even exist. 300,000 does sound high, but there's really no way of knowing.

a reply to: seagull

The funny thing is that these Liberal Socialist anti-gun nuts actually believe that law enforcement and the military are going to side with them if it hits the fan.

a reply to: JIMC5499

You'll always have Quislings in any sort of rebellion. I'd like to think that the vast majority would side with the side in the right.

At a guess, and that's all it is, I'd guess half and half split.

originally posted by: Edumakated


Vast majority of gun deaths in the US (excluding suicides) are gang / street thugs. Almost entirely concentrated in poor, urban black community (and lesser degree hispanic).

Thanks man, so its poor black people and some hispanics that are responsible for almost all the murder, i never was good with statistics, but they are still Americans arent they? or does colour of skin make them a different nationality?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

By no measure is that an accurate statement. Virtually every South American nation has higher per capita firearm death rates as the USA and if you remove suicides from the equation the USA drops even further down the list. We are 4-times the next closest nation in terms of gun ownership per capita... so if you were to take our numbers in terms death versus firearms owned, then the USA actually drops precipitously further down the list.

Finland, for example, has a death by firearm rate of 3.25 per 100,000 and a firearm ownership rate of 27.5 per 100,000 Fins. The US has a death rate of 12.21 per 100,000 and an ownership rate of 120.5 per 100,000. In other words, a firearm in Finland is 10% more likely to be used to kill a human being as a firearm in the USA is. Statistically speaking, firearms in the USA are among the least likely in the world to be used to kill a human being.
en.wikipedia.org...

You're spreading emotionally driven propaganda devoid of facts and not backed up by even the simplest of statistical math.