I do not see how your comment relates to mine. To what point does your “No” apply?
Perhaps in response to this thread, American patriots are increasing the DGU count. Ms. McLain of Tennessee did her duty when she was accosted by a terrorist/rapist/robber at WalMart.
The bad guy asked her for a light. Isn’t that just what you’d expect a rapist to do, or a terrorist who wanted to get close enough to strap a bomb around the poor woman’s waist?
Ms. McClaim made the strategic decision to withhold fire, for which the bad guy can thank his life. Isn’t “scared to death” the gold standard for defensive measures? Surely she would have been acquitted, on grounds of self-defense, had she emptied her revolver and severed the thusg’s artery. What libtard gun-grabbing philosophy led the police to take this fine woman away in handcuffs?
For all we know, the bad guy was in the vanguard of a Kenyan army, who swam across the Rio Grande and were on the verge of taking over America, and Ms. McLain is the heroine who, like Paul Revere, saved us. Yet watch the libtard gun-grabbers show up and try to turn this heroine into the villain.
There was one libtard fool right there in the parking lot:
OK, found what you’re talking about. Is the takeaway that there about about 50,000 DGUs a year? Sounds a lot more plausible than millions.
Of course I dismiss Hemenway out of hand as much as you would dismiss an article by Ted Nugent. Hemenway has a demonstrated his willingness to twist data and invite people to reach conclusions that the data does not support.
I think the blurb would be NCVS using methodology that will only capture a fraction of all DGU comes up with over 100,000/year.
The NCVS is a study by the DoJ (and some other poster here is more familiar with how they do the study), it is pretty clear that it is pretty legitimate and that it undercounts the defensive gun use in this country because it only counts defensive gun use by victims of reported crimes.
I don’t really know where you get 50,000 from.
I don’t think the number is millions. I think the number approaches a million but might be as low as quarter of that.
Some fraction of this number prevented death, rape or serious injury (I have no idea what the number is but I highly doubt that the number of rapes (~100,000) and murders (~12,000) in this country would double if people didn’t have guns, but I think the number of deaths prevented by guns could approach or exceed the number of deaths committed by previously law abiding citizens, I think the number of rapes prevented by guns could very well exceed the number of rapes that could only have been committed with the use of a gun. Some larger percentage of this number prevented assault and loss of property.
Some studies include defensive gun use that can’t seem to distinguish between “burglar heard me rack my shotgun and got the hell out of there” and “burglar heard me get out of bed and used his psychic ability to ascertain that I was getting my gun and got the hell out of there”
And others don’t even seem to bother following up to see if they are just making shit up.
Different studies are conducted differently and yield wildly varying results.
One of these two has a PhD and is a full professor at Harvard. The other sang a song about fingering the neighbor girl back in the 1970s
You antiscience fuck.
NVM. I just realized you are just pissed off because you are getting your ass handed to you in great debates where you are starting to sound like ElvisLives.
Sure, I can see it would look like that if you were such a brainless fuck you couldn’t tell the difference between Ted Nugent with a researcher.
You brainless antiscience fuck.
Damuri Ajashi is the guy who can’t respond to someone citing an article until a fellow gunfuck can explain it to him. I guess he should get credit for giving up the pretense - this last time he just admitted he didn’t read the article, he just knows it would be wrong.
Damuri, go ask Bone. He seems like he might be smart enough to explain it to you. I’d suspect you’re starting to embarrass him with your stupidity.
You’re pretty sore about getting smacked around in a forum where insults can’t be your primary form of argument. Why is it that the pit is the only place where you seem to be able to maintain your extreme views on gun control?
Right now Bone and I are arguing over licensing and registration. Almost noone is taking your position very seriously and the ones who do are revealed to be fairly ignorant pretty quickly. You are just a useful idiot, a tool.
That’s the thread where I had one of the gun fucks who is as stupid as you making my points for me!
That was the one where you resorted to handwaving the old Kellermann paper away as an opinion piece.
Yeah, boy I was sure having a hard time in that debate.
You’re too stupid to even evaluate how the discussion is going. You can’t debate the research if you can’t even read it. Go wipe the drool from your chin and practice breathing through your nose.
Pfft. Next time you guys fuck yourselves in the ass, use some vaseline, it will hurt less.
Concern trolling now? Well, I suppose it’s more at the level of your capabilities, so good for you!
Better get this little gem in here before it winds up in the ever-delicious Positive Gun News Thread
Whattaputz.
Here is an interesting story from Council Idaho, about a fortnight old. It might belong in Controversial Encounters with Law Enforcement, but it looks to me more like stupid gun news.
Summary:
• Car hits wandering bull where highway crosses open rangeland
• people in car transported to hospital
• deputies prepare to deal with agitated critter
• more agitated critter arrives, objects that the deputies intend to dispatch his bull to greener pastures
• shootout ensues, sending rancher to his reward
This is why current background checks are inadequate, and need to be strengthened.
Man banned from owning guns had 500 firearms:
But if there just were no guns for people to buy…
(:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:)
More of your “law-abiding citizens” exercising their constitutional rights:
Fuck them and anybody with any sympathy for them. The response, you ask?
Five shot at BLM protest in Minneapolis. Apparently by white supremacists.
Three suspects sought by police. None of the victims was killed.
crickets