RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts.

RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/22/2016 11:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Well you show the FBI link then... I produced the Bureau of Justice... that uses all government data...lets see it....and make it at least 2005 or above. Butch Where did you show the cite, certainly not on this page. You told us what it said. So hear goes. The FBI said that there are .5m dgus a year, maybe as high as .2m CDC said .5m to 3m.

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/22/2016 11:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Your source is always lower by several magnitudes from the FBI studies. Believe what you want but 59,000 is ridiculous. And you always leave out where a reasonable person would feel they were in danger, that changes things a lot. Then let me dictate this.... Read the damn bill 656 before you say something wrong again. This is what it says..... This act provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place such person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity has a right to be. Do you see REASONABLE? Damn you never get things right so how can I believe you about a link you cannot or will not produce. Butch I know that stand your ground says you don't have to retreat, but there is a big difference in not having to turn tail and run, and being able to shoot anyone you find kind of scary. Consistantly you have to show that a reasonable person would be threatened. It also doesn't say you can shoot anyone, just that you don't have to retreat.

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/22/2016 11:56:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Your source is always lower by several magnitudes from the FBI studies. Believe what you want but 59,000 is ridiculous. And you always leave out where a reasonable person would feel they were in danger, that changes things a lot. Then let me dictate this.... Read the damn bill 656 before you say something wrong again. This is what it says..... This act provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place such person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity has a right to be. Do you see REASONABLE? Damn you never get things right so how can I believe you about a link you cannot or will not produce. Butch I know that stand your ground says you don't have to retreat, but there is a big difference in not having to turn tail and run, and being able to shoot anyone you find kind of scary. Consistantly you have to show that a reasonable person would be threatened. It also doesn't say you can shoot anyone, just that you don't have to retreat. Here is the bill, it says no such thing, maybe you gave me the wrong number. www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=SB656

bounty44 -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 4:57:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub First... the estimate of the real professional survey the NCVS was 108,000 not 500,000 or 2.5 million...Now one thing you are not figuring... how many of these DGU's were in defense of home or property? Would you not say the vast majority in 1994... before many of the conceal and carry laws? I have been talking about the possible results of the Missouri conceal and carry and the new Castle laws. I am not talking about defending home and property... but who can obtain guns without a conceal and carry permit and how they will be able to use them... The no need to retreat and deadly force when they feel in danger...ANYWHERE it is legal to carry a gun... is dangerous for all. If you look at the Bureau of Justice report a little newer...2008 it states only 59,000 DGU or approx 1.3 percent of a total 4,581,000 crimes of violence. HERE table 70...hell calling for help resulted in 14 percent...check the others out in the table. see the difference? Butch to simply say "this organizations research is more accurate" simply because they are organization X as opposed to organization Y, or person Z, is not how it works. differences in estimates are attributable to how each researcher defines "defensive gun use" and the methodology they use to arrive at their numbers. if you want kleck's response/criticism to the ncvs estimate, go back and read the page on the link I provided. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html here's a teaser: quote: "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency..."It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. if you want to be closer to the truth, one has to do as I suggested, actually read and critique the research. personally, im not sold on any particular number. i was just responding to vile critter parts obtuseness.

mnottertail -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 5:07:25 AM)
so, felchgobbler44 your dullardly toiletlicking has exposed the depth of your retardation while admitting that 2.5 million, 1.5 million, 500K never could possibly be real numbers and that it is all nutsucker propaganda, you impugn people who are more intelligent, more accurate, find your toiletlicking disgusting, rather than say, hey, look, us nutsuckers are lying factless pantshitters, in every case. What we find is there is no research, its illegal thanks to the felchgobbling nutsuckers. You are too fucking stupid to breathe.

kdsub -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 6:27:22 AM)
quote: Here is the bill, it says no such thing, maybe you gave me the wrong number. www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=SB656 Damn bama...what is wrong with you.... From your link below DEFENSE - 563.031 Under current law, a person who owns or leases private property may use deadly force in self defense or defense of others against a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to unlawfully enter the property. This act provides that deadly force may also be used by a person who occupies private property pursuant to specific authority of the property owner to occupy the property. This provision is identical to a provision of the HCS/SS/SCS/SB 663 (2016), HCS/HB 2057 (2016), HB 122 (2015), HCS/SS#2/SCS/SBs 199, 417, & 42 (2015), HB 2126 (2014), and is similar to a provision of SS/HCS/HB 1539 (2014) and HB 1591 (2014). Currently, a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining or from private property that is owned or leased by such individual. This act provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place such person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity has a right to be. Will you now admit you are wrong.... Or continue to lose credibility. Butch

thompsonx -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 6:35:09 AM)
ORIGINAL: kdsub Will you now admit you are wrong.... Or continue to lose credibility. Butch Most likely he will take a page from your playbook and claim he is tired of your jibberish. Birds of a feather flock.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 7:35:56 AM)
I am a bit lost on this one now I cant follow what anyone is saying. Anyone else?

thompsonx -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 7:44:38 AM)
ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire I am a bit lost on this one now I cant follow what anyone is saying. Anyone else? When in doubt apply copious quantities of scones washed down with a vintage boudeaux

WickedsDesire -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 8:08:21 AM)
thompsonx I am working on that, and I have the promise of a scone tonight - my mum simply forgot to bring it up earlier.

Nnanji -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 8:15:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Of course I'd be in favor of a thourough training course. But a "permit?" I don't think so, since when do you need a "permit" to exercise a right? The state of Vermont has had "constitional carry" since it's inception I believe. If you want to carry a gun in your coat you just carry one. Montana and Alaska too. Arizona as well since 2010.

mnottertail -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 9:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Of course I'd be in favor of a thourough training course. But a "permit?" I don't think so, since when do you need a "permit" to exercise a right? The state of Vermont has had "constitional carry" since it's inception I believe. If you want to carry a gun in your coat you just carry one. Montana and Alaska too. So, since we are all in agreement that you shouldnt need a permit to exercise a right, everyone is shutting down the nutsuckers and voter id, correct? Or is there some hypocrisy and felchgobbling going on here.

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 10:01:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Here is the bill, it says no such thing, maybe you gave me the wrong number. www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=SB656 Damn bama...what is wrong with you.... From your link below DEFENSE - 563.031 Under current law, a person who owns or leases private property may use deadly force in self defense or defense of others against a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to unlawfully enter the property. This act provides that deadly force may also be used by a person who occupies private property pursuant to specific authority of the property owner to occupy the property. This provision is identical to a provision of the HCS/SS/SCS/SB 663 (2016), HCS/HB 2057 (2016), HB 122 (2015), HCS/SS#2/SCS/SBs 199, 417, & 42 (2015), HB 2126 (2014), and is similar to a provision of SS/HCS/HB 1539 (2014) and HB 1591 (2014). Currently, a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining or from private property that is owned or leased by such individual. This act provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place such person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity has a right to be. Will you now admit you are wrong.... Or continue to lose credibility. Butch It doesn't say reasonable or that you can shoot anyone. And when I googled the bill you said I got a bill on getting a ccw, now you claim it is another number. But if the law says what you claim it does it doesn't say you can shoot anyone, or do we have another of your infamous misquotes?

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 11:05:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Here is the bill, it says no such thing, maybe you gave me the wrong number. www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=SB656 Damn bama...what is wrong with you.... From your link below DEFENSE - 563.031 Under current law, a person who owns or leases private property may use deadly force in self defense or defense of others against a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to unlawfully enter the property. This act provides that deadly force may also be used by a person who occupies private property pursuant to specific authority of the property owner to occupy the property. This provision is identical to a provision of the HCS/SS/SCS/SB 663 (2016), HCS/HB 2057 (2016), HB 122 (2015), HCS/SS#2/SCS/SBs 199, 417, & 42 (2015), HB 2126 (2014), and is similar to a provision of SS/HCS/HB 1539 (2014) and HB 1591 (2014). Currently, a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining or from private property that is owned or leased by such individual. This act provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place such person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity has a right to be. Will you now admit you are wrong.... Or continue to lose credibility. Butch Try this, for some reason google doesn't send me to the source. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/9/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence

kdsub -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:25:54 PM)
Did you read your own post?....You told me 500,000 in one year... the link you just posted was 600,000 for 5 years not one...But that was not DGU's anyway that figure was for people that faced a gun in a crime...not defended with a gun. That means the figure I posted was correct for one year that you called ridiculous...wrong again. How many times are you going to post statements then back them up with wrong information. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Did you read your own post?....You told me 500,000 in one year... the link you just posted was 600,000 for 5 years not one...But that was not DGU's anyway that figure was for people that faced a gun in a crime...not defended with a gun. That means the figure I posted was correct for one year that you called ridiculous...wrong again. How many times are you going to post statements then back them up with wrong information. Butch How many times will you. You insist that a sheriff said something when the politically appointed chief said it, in fact you initially denied that the statements made by the chief were made by the sheriff. You implied that the statements were backed by the FOP when no metion of them was made. You also implied that since he said it the entire FOP supported him and no such claim was made in your article. You claim that for every dgu there are "numbers" of shootings involving children. So now that you say the study says only 120,000 dgus you own us proof that there were , at a minimum 240,000 shooting involving children PER YEAR and you refuse to try to support your claim. By the way your current claim doubles your last one. Now show us that 2m children killed or killing people over those 5 years.

kdsub -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:51:14 PM)
I did not... I posted word for word... then after you made that same accusation I posted the whole link... wrong again. quote: So now that you say the study says only 120,000 dgus Where did I say this...damn!!! Can you not read... the 600,000 are not a DGU's...but the total number of people reporting facing an assailant armed with a gun. You are the one that falsely claimed 500,00 DGU's a year... You have not shown this in any link. I give up. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Did you read your own post?....You told me 500,000 in one year... the link you just posted was 600,000 for 5 years not one...But that was not DGU's anyway that figure was for people that faced a gun in a crime...not defended with a gun. That means the figure I posted was correct for one year that you called ridiculous...wrong again. How many times are you going to post statements then back them up with wrong information. Butch As always you only read till you found something you liked, the report also stated that the studies that show as high as 3m dgus per year have validity and could be as acculrate as their figure. You cherrypick things, I put tho whole thing out there to read. Now where are those shooting involving children when this report has less than half that number of shooting incedents for all people per year, even when you think you have scored on one side you destroy your arguments on the other.

kdsub -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:53:54 PM)
I read your links.... they refute every statement you make.... show me in your links where I am wrong.

BamaD -> RE: Alright, I am a gun owner, but even I think this is nuts. (9/23/2016 1:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I read your links.... they refute every statement you make.... show me in your links where I am wrong. Read it again, any litterate person can find everything I said. And where are those 240,000 child envolved shooting you have been avoiding answering that question for a look time, just deflecting from the fact that te statement was pure BS.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625