Take it from me Acewiza, except for not letting ElvisL1ves get away with blatant lies, correcting him is pointless. I picture him as having a permanent imbecile’s leer on his face, the leer of someone stupid enough to think they’re clever, like this or this.
We could start with removing the typical “your job title once included the word ‘police’ therefore you are forevermore trusted to have an unholstered and cocked pistol tucked into the waistband of your tighty-whities” laws.
It’s a stupid, stupid fact that the average police officer is woefully undertrained in both the use of his firearm and in the philosophy and legalities of when to use his firearm. (so is the average firearm owner, in general).
I’ll guess that in many or most robberies where victim was killed, he was killed because he pulled a gun or because robber thought he was. No?
You believe that these DGUs are routine, common - nay, frequent! - daily occurrences - according to you, we have around a thousand DGUs a day on a conservative estimate! So it should be a breeze to pull up reports of such incidents, right?
There are roughly 200 ‘justifiable homicides’ by civilians each year. Let’s assume all of those are deaths by firearm.
There are 300 million guns in the US. There are millions of crimes / attempted crimes each year. But you guys could only take out the bad guys in 200 such cases? If ‘defense/protection’ is your reason for owning a gun, you really really suck at it, or you’re really really doing it wrong.
There are are 600-1,000 accidental shooting deaths each year. So already you’re on the wrong end of a five-to-one split.
If just 4 out of 1,000 DGUs actually and clearly saved a life, we’d be talking about around 1,500 such cases a year. Almost 5 *every day. *So please, do show us your media reports of all these DGUs. Given that it’s such a common occurrence, I’m sure you’ll be able to pull up dozens in no time.
If the gun didn’t really save a life, then it seems rather likely that gee - maybe the gun wasn’t really even necessary at all? Think of how many lives are saved by home alarm systems each and every night, because home invaders don’t target those houses!
Your friend Gary Kleck estimates that 25% of homicide offenders have prior felony convictions. Let’s double that, so 50% have prior felony convictions. Suggests 50% *didn’t *have prior convictions - so, 5-6,000 people shot to death each year by previously ‘law-abiding’ civilians. Plus we can add on the 600 or so accidental shootings.
Your ‘200 justifiable homicides’ suddenly isn’t looking all that great, is it?
Is that your excuse for not being able to actually point out any of these alleged errors of mine? That you just know you’re right?
Says the guy who’s willing to let this latest Law Abiding Citizen off, for justifiable homicide in a Defensive Gun Use, because having a bit of popcorn thrown at you constitutes physical violence that required it.
You’re as mentally ill as Damuri, and you also need to turn in any weapons you might have. You’re a fucking menace to all around you.
Oh. That’s the kind of response you can muster. Time to grow the fuck up.
Classic Keyboard commando - believes expletives and stupendous exaggeration amplify his erroneous opinions.
Say it loud enough, long enough and eventually people start believing it - effective propaganda tactic for like minded imbeciles gullible enough to swallow the tripe. Got it. 
While the old saying “anecdote doesn’t equal data” is, of course, true, it does seem telling (maybe even staggering) that the “grandma shoots 3 burglars in self-defense” stories are so vastly outnumbered by the body count in the ‘school /workplace/theater/roadrage/“whoops, I shot my son” shooting’ stories. Given that both types of stories seem noteworthy in our lowest common denominator ‘this is what passes for news’, the descrepancy in numbers does seem rather vast.
…combining that notion with misunderstanding statistics and confirmation bias doesn’t do much for your argument.
But enough about Lumpy…
Thank god we have real life rough customers like yourself, with your steely eyed no nonsense understanding of the world to protect us and shoot us for texting our daughters.
Cite that many more people would be alive today? Are you ignoring defensive gun uses again (I suppose that might be fair, because I ignore suicides)?
Well then, you’d better get to work because I don’t think you even have a simple majority of American, legislators or states (never mind the supermajorities you will need) to repeal the second amendment and ban all private ownership of guns.
And yet you keep ignoring it by only focusing on the cost of private ownership of guns in society without any thought of the benefits of the private ownership of guns in society.
We currently have a constitutional and the majority of the public and their elected legislators that all agree that private citizens should be able to legally own guns, we have data that indicates that the private ownership of guns prevents crimes and saves lives. I think the burden is on you that the cost of the private ownership of guns outweighs the benefits and convince us that we should change things so drastically. Other than calling people names and the occassional primal scream, you haven’t really presented any sort of argument at all.
The fact that you can do something with an apple and get a certain result does not indicate that you can try to do the same thing with an orange and achieve the same result.
Remember, the constitutiona dn the majority of the American public disagree with you so this attitude that we should just give it a shot and see what happens isn’t going to get you very far.
Its the majority of Americans and their elected officials that prevent the constitution from being amended.
If your argument is taht some large minority of Americans are mentally ill, then there really isn’t much to talk about. You will just label anyone that disagrees with you as crazy so you can continue to live in your echo chamber.
How is licensing and registration already in place? And no licensing and registration does not prevent these sensational killing but it would severely reduce access to guns by people who should not have access to guns and I suspect that might save more lives than removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. But then again, you are not as intersted in saving lives as you are in reacting to high profile news events.
Everyone thnks you’re an idiot and the only reason you survive on this board is because you have liberal opinions.
OMG Elvis is talking about credibility? ROFLMAO /wipes away tears
I’m pretty sure that police officers get extensively trained on when they can pull a gun and when they can fire. However, I do agree that training and range requirements for most police officers are woefully inadequate for many police departments.
I have no idea. I’m sure that some of the deaths are the result of the victim pulling a gun and getting shot in the resulting firefight.
Its a lot harder to find stories about crimes that didn’t happen than it is to pull up stories about crimes that did happen. Generally the only time you see a story about defensive gun use is when someone gets shot. The vast majority of defensive gun use does not involve a firefight. Once again, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE estimated defensive gun use at 100K/year and this study has been criticized because it was based on the subset of people who filed police reports as being a victim of a crime. The 300-400K number is based on the notion that a lot of people who engage in defensive gun use do not report a crime that enters the FBI database.
For example, I would call the armed shopkeepers in the LA riots to be engaging in defensive gun use. I don’t know if their defensive gun use was captured by the FBI database (I’m not even sure if everyone here would consider the protection of your livelihood a defensive gun use).
So you think that the term defensive gun use should be limited to cases where the private citizen shot and killed the assailant? :dubious:
You are conflating law abising citizen with anyone who is not a convicted felon. Anyone that possesses a gun that is not legally permitted to possess a gun is by defintion not a law abiding citizen. So all the folks under 21 who own a handgun in Virginia or who have a gun while being the subject of a restraining order are by definition not law abiding citizens.
According to a paper by Kleck and Bordua, 15% of the US population over 15 have criminal arrest records. 70% of murderers have criminal arrest records (of course this is not the same thing as being convicted of a felony but i would be OK with restrctingacces to firearms until these people reach the age of 25 or 30 (at which point people tend to become less murderous).
In another paper by Don Kates, 75% of murderers have an adult criminal history (not necessarily a felony conviction). About 12% of murderers are juveniles.
Its a classic Republican tactic. I don’t know where Elvis is from but I am going to guess he is surrounded by an echo chamber of people who tell him what to believe. If he was born into a more conservative environment, he would be engaging in all the classic Republican behaviours we have seen over the last few eyars.
Its harder to find stories about crimes that didn’t happen unless someone gets shot of killed.
I just want to say that whenever I see that Damuri has responded to one or a few short posts by breaking them up into 2 dozen quotes so he can respond to each sentence, my eyes glaze over and I close the thread.
How’s that stupendous exaggeration thing workin’ out for ya?
Make me.
Careful, Elvis - he’s got a gun!
Murders + suicides > prevented deaths. Duh.
How many more times do I have to point out that I’m not? If you only want to debate safe, unthreatening strawmen made by the voices in your head than actual statements made to you, that’s more evidence of your mental illness.
If you could point out any other than the alleged massive number of lives they save, and your ridiculous resisting-tyranny fantasy, then I’d be happy to. But there aren’t any, are there?
And people like you lying sickos that keep even basic, common-sense legislation from being acted upon - and then you blame us. :rolleyes:
Not to those who are mentally ill, no, there isn’t much to say. But there are far more who are not, and are paying attention, and even some of the mentally ill have realized what they’ve done.
Ask your local police chief and he’ll explain it to you. Duh.
There you go again with that LAC fantasy. This yahoo in Florida was one, wouldn’t you agree? Even your pal **Lumpy **recognizes that even he couldn’t be trusted with a weapon.
Absolutely wrong, but unsurprising. As a psychopath, you are unable to recognize that others, the vast majority, do think saving lives is important, as part of basic human morality. That statement is just more evidence against you.
Really? Have you taken a poll of anyone but the voices in your head?
This board is about fighting ignorance. Liberal opinions are a natural result of that orientation.
And no doubt you’d call shooting someone who tossed popcorn at you to be one too, right?
Well its hard to argue with that. I took up the habit early on because people would keep accusing me of not responding to some sub-element of a post i reply to. But hey, at least now i can use the multiquote function.
In a nutshell:
They may not be wrong but they are far more certain of their position than they have any right to be. And in a world where they are the ones insisting on drastic change (repealing the scond amendment and banning the private ownerhip of guns), the burden is on them (not me) to prove their case.
In their cost benefit analysis, they only focus on the costs. They see sensational stories about gun murders and assume that because there aren’t as many sensational stories about averted crimes, there must be more of these sensatinal gun murders than averted crimes.
If their real objective is to save lives, then they might be focusing on the wrong trhings (sensational news stories).
Yeah, thats not what we normally consider a cite.
And thats not enough for you?
??? Are you under the impression that I am subejct to licensing and registration requirements in the Commonwealth of Virginia? You have some very strong opinions for someone who is so ignorant… scratch that, ignorant people tend to have very strong opinions.
Thats right, you have the good fortune to be a liberal lemming so your opinons just happen to line up with the facts most of the time but you are way out of your depth and have no idea what to do when your opinions are not supported by the facts other than to call names. This is mostly because you are stupid.
So, we’re now acknowledging that one has to loosen the construct from felony convictions to criminal arrests to find as high as 75% of homicide offenders having some kind of history. That’s something I guess.
It’s still the case that half of homicide offenders have no history of being convicted of a crime.
What we’re acknowledging is that you’ve been barking up the wrong tree the whole time.