What armed self defense really looks like.

I said a gun is 20 times more likely to kill the owner or a member of the owners family than a stranger attacking the gun owner.
And that's true.

 

No, that's not what I mean. Straw man much?

The only way you can grasp, maybe... but we're not here to discuss the limited intelligence of folks who can't problem solve.

You've totally ignored "criminals"... The original issue was how to keep firearms out of the hands of psychos, morons and criminals.
- Training would limit people from being morons, and also encourage them to secure their firearms so that fewer are available for criminals to steal.
- Background checks would limit the ease with which psychos and criminals could get firearms.

Which of those suggestions means giving away 2nd Amendment rights?

 

EEEEHHHHHHH Try again you also added "I threw the paper away three years ago.
Maybe you can back up your assertion....no, you can't, because it's true, the most likely person to be killed by any gun, is the owner, followed by a member of the owner's family. Followed by an unrelated innocent victim, that's just the way it is. Way down the list is the valid defensive shooting."

ANY GUN and way down the list. Good thing you can't delete posts eh? you are digging a hole...time to quit

 

proof? or merely supposition on your part
There is absolutely no proof that by limiting the number of guns in lawful owners hands would directly affect the number of guns in criminal hands. Criminals will not obey the law, or else they wouldn't be criminals to begin with.

 

I didn't say that military service makes a person an expert in politics or Constitutional law...
You're so determined to quickly discard everything said by someone who disagrees with some of your beliefs that you don't even bother identifying things we clearly agree on, like the fact that no tears should be shed over the combat deaths of enemy combatants.

Once again, this is just another example of you attaching labels that you believe to be demeaning in order to build a straw man. At no point did I say disparage the 2nd Amendment or say that nobody should have guns. I've just said that people should actually be proficient in using firearms and that we should make it more difficult for criminals and psychos to get them. How can you disagree with that?
You keep portraying yourself as a protector of the Constitution, but are the only person in this conversation who has said anything about denying US citizens Constitutional rights. That is called hypocrisy.

Only one of us is saying that we should make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms. It's not you, and you argue with me every time I say it. So how does burying your head in the sand and ignoring this issue by supporting a system that enables criminals to get firearms actually help to resolve it?

Once again, only one of us is actually suggesting that criminals should have a harder time getting firearms. (Hint: not you)

As for the "relatively few people harmed" in negligent/accidental shootings: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
"Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries. The United States has been in this unenviable position for at least the past decade."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

How is taking guns away from criminals "mollycoddling them"?

 

no one agrees with subversive attitudes...............

 

Hope you enjoy your guns....
Because it's true

 

Nope and I proved otherwise....in spite of your foot stomping, evasion of the facts, tirade that neglected to provide a shred of evidence otherwise. Son, please take the time to look at both sides and make a clear informed decision rather than listen to the likes of the anti-gun folks.

Oh and I do enjoy my guns, I have used them for self defense, I haven't had them used against me and finally...in view of the fact that even democrats are chastising Obama and SCOTUS is ruling against the likes of you, I expect to be enjoying them for a good long long time.

 

So "no one" supported the subversive attitude displayed in shutting down the government?

The real point is that some folks don't agree with anything that challenges the status quo they've grown comfortable with by burying your head in the sand.

 

If you're talking about the Gallup Poll at the below link, you're missing a few key points...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

83%+ of people will be voting for a politician who will require background checks on all gun purchases.
79%+ of people will be voting for a politician who will increase government spending on "socialist" mental health programs
67%+ of people will be voting for a politician who will limit the types of ammunition available to private citizens
56%+ of people will be voting for a politician who will reinstate the 1994-2004 ban on "assult weapons"
51%+ of people will be voting for a politician who will limit magazine capacities to 10 rounds or less

How is this not a sign that gun control will eventually happen whether you want it to or not?
Given that it will eventually happen, would it be more effective to have some say in what it looks like, or just continue to fight a losing battle and let others decide what the final policy consists of?

What is this number based on, given that there is no registry of firearms?

I didn't realize you were intimately familiar with every scenario communist countries had relating to war with the US... How many of them involved nukes?

 

I'm actually glad YOU have a gun.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

Wow, that was cold...
and funny as Hell!

 

wtf are you driveling on about?

 

From your link.You used this study?? WOW

I am glad I have guns too.

 

Sorry if the concepts are too complicated for you. What, specifically, do you not understand?
Unlike some, I'm willing to explain my rationale.

 

then do so..............

 

Could you highlight what it is you don't understand about what I posted?

 

No Prob!

I was surprised at how many Dem's owned guns myself....I am an Independent.

AboveAlpha

 

Logi....I am IN FAVOR....of a more rigorous and thorough back ground check for any person who wants to buy a Gun.

As far as AK-47's and AR-15's.....I was trained how to use a file and few other things to turn a CIVY AK-47 which is semi-auto....into a Full Auto AK.

The AR-15 is much more difficult to turn Full Auto but contrary to both the manufacturer and the NRA....NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

There are a wide variety of Military High Round Capacity Handguns that can made to be FULL AUTO.

So...I support forcing various Assault Weapon Makers to design their rifles and other weapons to not be capable of being modifies to Full Auto.

As far as the argument about how some say that an AR-15....which for those who don't know is an M-16 Variant...some were protesting and arguing that anyone could just switch Civilian Use rounds with NATO rounds.

If you EVER plan on shooting NATO 5.56mm ammunition in your AR, then DO NOT buy a .223 chambered barrel. Also consider, that the NATO 5.56mm cartridge is only the most common and widely available AR15 cartridge anywhere so why would you even consider purchasing a .223 chambered barrel. This is particularly true if the barrel is chromed as that reduces the clearances even more.

Here's the problem.

Many NATO cartridges have bullets that will become jammed into the rifling of a SAAMI chambering (the throat is too short). This is VERY DANGEROUS, for a great number of reasons.

SAAMI proscribes (denounces as dangerous or harmful) the use of 5.56mm military amm(*)u(*)nition in rifles chambered for .223 Remington. Remington was the orig(*)inal manufacturer of the ".222 Special" ammu(*)ni(*)tion designed by Eugene Stoner for the AR-15. This cartridge design was standardized as 5.56mm (5.56x45mm) by the US Army.

Concurrently, Remington added the cartridge to their product line as the ".223 Remington." How(*)ever, there are small, subtle differences between the two. If you hold the two cartridges side by side you won't be able to discern the differences, as they are several thousandths of an inch here and there. Army 5.56mm ammunition has more tolerance in the case neck diameter than the civilian SAAMI .223 Rem(*)ing(*)ton chamber drawing.

It is possible to fire .223 Remington cartridges in 5.56mm chambers. It is also possible to fire 5.56mm cartridges in .223 Remington chambers, BUT the tighter civilian chamber spec MAY cause certain types or lots of 5.56mm ammunition to fit too tightly for proper function and could cause severe damage or injury.

The .223 Remington is rated for a maximum of 50,000 CUP while the 5.56mm is rated for 60,000 CUP. That extra 10,000 CUP is likely sufficient to cause a failure in a chamber that's only rated for the "sporting" .223 Remington.

The .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO, when checked with a chamber GOOD reamer, also have discernable differences in the areas of freebore diameter, freebore length Leade and angle of the throat.

So...I would support a redesign of the ammo so that the NATO rounds are allowed to be fired by the AR-15.

As far as the number of guns in the U.S.....378 Million +or- 5 Million....that is a DOD number....and YES....I am intimately familiar with every scenario communist countries had relating to war with the US.....as it was part of my....JOB at the time.

The Soviets would put out a GRU study every year and at least 12 different Soviet Invasion Scenarios some all involved invading NATO at the same time of invading the U.S. Mainland.....ALL PLANS....involved a Soviet Land Invasion into Alaska.

Funny enough....EVERY YEAR....these plans would be PURCHASED by on of our Operatives in East Germany or...well...every year we got them it was a different manner in a different country from different sources....but back in 85....we got a hold of some REAL PLANS....they involved ONLY NATO.....and even these plans were based upon the assumption the U.S. and NATO would not retaliate with Pershing II Intermediate Range Tactical Nuclear Missiles as these U.S. Missiles were so fast and so accurate....and we had them positioned in West Germany....we could take out Moscow in less time than it took for the Soviets to even respond.

AboveAlpha...p.s...Thanks for asking!

 

Yeah when the data says you're flat out wrong, point out that it's 20 years old.
And whistle past the graveyard, because things are Sooooo different now, guns are much safer......

 

I posted much newer data that basically pooped on your linked posts and actually made fun of it because it was soooo flawed....you are still gonna keep digging? It's usually fun to discuss with the anti gun crowd but you make it too easy, BORING!

Guns are safer? Nope they are very dangerous to the bad guys...quite effectively

 

You posted puff pieces from Guns and Ammo that danced around the facts.

The fact remains, the person most likely to be killed by a gun, is the owner.

 

Lib tripe......most deaths occur in the gang areas of our larger cities. I have owned and carried for over 35 years. I have had to use it several times, and actually pulled the trigger only one time. I've never shot myself or anyone by accident. Every gun owner I am familiar with has never been shot with his own gun, even by accident.
Hunting accidents occur daily when season is open but that is usually the fault of the guy who gets shot. Where do those numbers fall in the statistics?They call it hunter's orange for a reason. If you are not wearing it, you might get shot by accident.
Don't say it if you've never hunted........
I wonder where the statistics fall in these numbers with people who get shot, either on purpose of accidently, by LEO?

 

Hallelujah! A rational human being who isn't just discarding EVERYTHING said because we don't agree on every detail. Kudos to you.

Wait, I thought you said in post #64 that "when the Old Soviet Union and now China once and do create war scenarios....NONE OF THESE SCENARIOS involves an attempted invasion of the U.S. and Canada.....as such an invasion is deemed....IMPOSSIBLE."...

But now you're saying "all involved invading NATO at the same time of invading the U.S. Mainland.....ALL PLANS....involved a Soviet Land Invasion into Alaska."

Without going out of my way to be argumentative, these seem to be contradictions...

BTW how many of our plans relating to potential war with the Soviet Union or China involved a US land invasion of those countries?

 

LOL they get stuck in park and idle their common sense, they quote 20 year old studies that have been discounted for a decade and in the end they say "The fact remains, the person most likely to be killed by a gun, is the owner." When in fact it's not a fact. You can't fix stu.... errr misguided information. LOL