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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

quote:

So now that you say the study says only 120,000 dgus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I read your links.... they refute every statement you make.... show me in your links where I am wrong.