The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[Colpy]

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
​

Dr. Kleck's Answer Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"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. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)



GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

 

[petros]

Do buses make people violent the same way they make people streak?

 

[waldo]

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
​

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

c'mon Colpy... the data I just put forward reflects upon actual police reports... verifiable police reports. With all your claimed defensive gun uses (from the most dated and most questionable studies), why do so few of those persons actually bother to contact police? Things that make you go hmmmmmm, hey Colpy? :mrgreen:

but damn! You're again flogging that most discredited 1992 study... 20+ year old data! Of course, Colpy, per your own earlier linked reference to that CDC sponsored study, the one you wanted to use/leverage, the study findings reinforce that available related data concerning defensive gun use in the U.S. is very dated, reflects upon small sample study's, questionable studies (outright) and wholly questionable gross extrapolations to today's current situation. Again, that CDC sponsored study, a "study to determine what needs to be studied", found that new qualified research is needed to determine the true nature of defensive gun use in the U.S.. Of course, data is most dated and there no real recent studies of note that extensively survey/review the entire U.S.. ...... and why is that Colpy.... why, that's because the NRA has effectively blocked legitimate gun research for almost the complete past 2 decades. But we've already addressed the political interference of the NRA... and imagine that... you didn't like/accept any of that, did you? You yankee wannabe self just won't accept that the NRA is a most intrusive and obstructionist organization.

notwithstanding, I've already highlighted this same discredited study you've again linked to... the same one that "gunners", like you, regularly trot out. Here's another reference... Colpy, you're welcome: The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. {waldo note: damn Colpy... from 66 incidents extrapolated to 2.5 million! There must be some real tight statistics involved, hey! :mrgreen:}

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false.

In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.

The spurious conclusions in these surveys don’t just distort the pro-gun community’s perception of defensive gun use. For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicable—not backed by any substantive evidence. We have yet to find a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses.

You might hear gun advocates substantiate this claim by comparing inflated survey numbers like Kleck’s with NCVS crime numbers. But defensive gun use surveys and the NCVS use different methodologies. To compare those two data sets is to break one of the most important laws of statistical analysis: You must always compare likes to likes.

And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picture—that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them. Respondents in two Harvard surveys had more than 3 times as many offensive gun uses against them as defensive gun uses. Another study focusing on adolescences found 13 times as many offensive gun uses. Yet another study focusing on gun use in the home found that a gun was more than 6 times more likely to be used to intimidate a family member than in a defensive capacity. The evidence is nearly unanimous.

Beyond the defensive gun use versus criminal use dichotomy lies an important question: Are all defensive gun uses good?

Undergirding gun advocates’ rhetoric touting the millions of defensive gun uses every year is the assumption that these uses are necessarily good. However, most cases of defensive gun use are not of gun owners heroically defending their families from criminals.

Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense. His conjecture was confirmed by a Harvard study showing that 51 percent of defensive gun uses in a large survey were illegal according to a panel of 5 judges. This was even after the judges were told to take the respondents at their word, deliberately ignoring the tendency of respondents to portray themselves in a positive light.

The myth of widespread defensive gun use is at the heart of the push to weaken already near catatonic laws controlling the use of guns and expand where good guys can carry guns to bars, houses of worship and college campuses—all in the mistaken belief that more “good guys with guns” will help stop the “bad guys.” As Wayne LaPierre of the NRA railed in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”


But the evidence clearly shows that our lax gun laws and increased gun ownership, spurred on by this myth, do not help “good guys with guns” defend themselves, their families or our society. Instead, they are aiding and abetting criminals by providing them with more guns, with 200,000 already stolen on an annual basis. And more guns means more homicides. More suicides. More dead men, women and children. Not fewer.
​

 

[bluebyrd35]

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
​

Dr. Kleck's Answer Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"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. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)



GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Unbelievable.!!.....anyone believing those stats have quite a few braincells missing...there can't be that many criminals with guns flitting around at any one time in the last 10 years. Either that or several thousand "law abiding" persons are regularly harassed by their whole neighborhoods all night and all day and have been for many years.

One or two legitimate gun protection cases in a year, and they are jumped on and broadcast across the nation in a flash by pro gun people. That must be about the biggest "Fish" story of all time.

 

[Cannuck]

Unbelievable.!!.....anyone believing those stats have quite a few braincells missing...there can't be that many criminals with guns flitting around at any one time in the last 10 years. Either that or several thousand "law abiding" persons are regularly harassed by their whole neighborhoods all night and all day and have been for many years.

One or two legitimate gun protection cases in a year, and they are jumped on and broadcast across the nation in a flash by pro gun people. That must be about the biggest "Fish" story of all time.

It's easy to accept them if they fit into your agenda.

 

[DaSleeper]

In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. {waldo note: damn Colpy... from 66 incidents extrapolated to 2.5 million! There must be some real tight statistics involved, hey! :mrgreen:}

Unbelievable.!!.....anyone believing those stats have quite a few braincells missing...there can't be that many criminals with guns flitting around at any one time in the last 10 years. Either that or several thousand "law abiding" persons are regularly harassed by their whole neighborhoods all night and all day and have been for many years.

One or two legitimate gun protection cases in a year, and they are jumped on and broadcast across the nation in a flash by pro gun people. That must be about the biggest "Fish" story of all time.

Seems like you need a lesson in Math like Waldo and the Putz.
The way surveys are made, since they can't obviously ask the whole population.
They surveyed 5000 people out of 190,005,054 ,The adult population of the US at the time...(look it up)
Divide that by 5000, the people surveyed then multiply that by the number of incident and you get 2,508,066.
.Obviously not all incidents are reported in the Liberal press.

 

[waldo]

Unbelievable.!!.....anyone believing those stats have quite a few braincells missing...there can't be that many criminals with guns flitting around at any one time in the last 10 years. Either that or several thousand "law abiding" persons are regularly harassed by their whole neighborhoods all night and all day and have been for many years.

One or two legitimate gun protection cases in a year, and they are jumped on and broadcast across the nation in a flash by pro gun people. That must be about the biggest "Fish" story of all time.

zactly! In my prior post, the linked article, "The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership", speaks directly to failures within that same Colpy linked study... the same long-dated 1992 study that wildly extrapolates. Colpy's preferred study has been shredded by many studies over time... and it's been regularly targeted because of how the 'gunners' have used it. The myth article links directly to one of those studies that refute Colpy's linked nonsense... but here is an extract from the article that I didn't initially include in my referenced quote from it:

In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.

First, there is the social desirability bias. Respondents will falsely claim that their gun has been used for its intended purpose—to ward off a criminal—in order to validate their initial purchase. A respondent may also exaggerate facts to appear heroic to the interviewer.

Second, there’s the problem of gun owners responding strategically. Given that there are around 3 million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, ostensibly all aware of the debate surrounding defensive gun use, Hemenway suggested that some gun advocates will lie to help bias estimates upwards by either blatantly fabricating incidents or embellishing situations that should not actually qualify as defensive gun use.

Third is the risk of false positives from “telescoping,” where respondents may recall an actual self-defense use that is outside the question’s time frame. We know that telescoping problems produce substantial biases in defensive gun use estimates because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the gold standard of criminal victimization surveys, explicitly catalogs and corrects for it.

Specifically, NCVS asks questions on the household level every 6 months. The first household interview has no time frame. Follow-up interviews are restricted to a six-month time frame and then NCVS corrects for duplicates. Using this strategy, NCVS finds that telescoping alone likely produces at least a 30 percent increase in false positives.

These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.

Despite survey data on defensive gun uses being notoriously unreliable, until recently there have been only scattered attempts at providing an empirical alternative. The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive “shall issue” concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.

Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing. These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame.

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

​

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There's good data out there. But nobody "debating" guns on the internet is interested in it.

 

[Colpy]

There's good data out there. But nobody "debating" guns on the internet is interested in it.

I am.

Where?

 

[waldo]

There's good data out there. But nobody "debating" guns on the internet is interested in it.

the very relatively recent released U.S. CDC report (a "study on what to study") states otherwise. Per prior posts, that report, effectively a meta-review, shows that most of the data is decades old, most of the related studies are decades old... most of the studies are questionable/dubious, and most pointedly, there is no agreement from the separate sides of the debate on what the real representative number for defensive gun uses in the U.S. is. And the most significant reason for this lack of timely data/studies/consensus understanding is that the NRA has, for all purposes, effectively blocked research into gun-related violence of any kind for the past 2 decades.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Seems like you need a lesson in Math like Waldo and the Putz.
The way surveys are made, since they can't obviously ask the whole population.
They surveyed 5000 people out of 190,005,054 ,The adult population of the US at the time...(look it up)
Divide that by 5000, the people surveyed then multiply that by the number of incident and you get 2,508,066.
.Obviously not all incidents are reported in the Liberal press.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

ROTFL As I said unbelievable in every way. There is math and then there are actual facts math can be based on. Do you not think the pro-gun people would have waved every single one of those cases in the faces of those who want some form of controlling gun violence??? Come now, use a bit of common sense.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I am.

Where?

Wikipedia really is your friend on DGU. Its article is well balanced and includes both the Kleck and Gertz study and criticisms of that study, as well as other studies. As always, the key with Wikipedia is to go to the sources, and the article is well footnoted:

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's a pretty good source on ALL firearms injuries, fatal and non-fatal:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

What I get from the debate recently is that DGUs outnumber firearms injuries by reasonable measures of both. Not that it matters. Our arguments aren't based on numbers. But it's good to know.

 

[Colpy]

Wikipedia really is your friend on DGU. Its article is well balanced and includes both the Kleck and Gertz study and criticisms of that study, as well as other studies. As always, the key with Wikipedia is to go to the sources, and the article is well footnoted:

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here's a pretty good source on ALL firearms injuries, fatal and non-fatal:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

What I get from the debate recently is that DGUs outnumber firearms injuries by reasonable measures of both. Not that it matters. Our arguments aren't based on numbers. But it's good to know.

Thanks.

I had used wikipedia...

Oh, here's an interesting piece.........more lies fron gun control freaks..............

Let’s not be so quick to believe gun-control rhetoric | Fox News

 

[DaSleeper]

To anti- gun people like Bluebyrd what they "Feel" is right, trumps statistics and common sense every time...

ROTFL As I said unbelievable in every way. There is math and then there are actual facts math can be based on. Do you not think the pro-gun people would have waved every single one of those cases in the faces of those who want some form of controlling gun violence??? Come now, use a bit of common sense.

If I stopped someone breaking into my house using a firearm, and didn't actually kill the individual, or send him to a hospital...Do you really think I would report it to the Police or a Newspaper?......Get real huh?...where is Your common sense!

 

[bluebyrd35]

To anti- gun people like Bluebyrd what they "Feel" is right, trumps statistics and common sense every time...


If I stopped someone breaking into my house using a firearm, and didn't actually kill the individual, or send him to a hospital...Do you really think I would report it to the Police or a Newspaper?......Get real huh?...where is Your common sense!

Oh, I see....If you use a gun illegally, it is okay, but if another does it lis not okay??? Now you know why I do not trust ANYONE with a gun who feels the law only applies to someone else!!

I understand your tagline allright. Tulips are disposable, just let the **** pile up until it needs a bulldozer. Flgures. Go back to sleep. You do best there.

 

[DaSleeper]

Oh, I see....If you use a gun illegally, it is okay, but if another does it lis not okay??? Now you know why I do not trust ANYONE with a gun who feels the law only applies to someone else!!

I understand your tagline allright. Tulips are disposable, just let the **** pile up until it needs a bulldozer. Flgures. Go back to sleep. You do best there.

It's plain to anyone who reads your posts that common sense continues to escape you.
It is not illegal to forcibly stop someone from illegally entering your house....
Does your deluded mind get that?
And you should have left your bullshyte on the farm when you sold it.....

 

[Colpy]

Thanks.

I had used wikipedia...

Oh, here's an interesting piece.........more lies fron gun control freaks..............

Let’s not be so quick to believe gun-control rhetoric | Fox News

And more lies from the gun control crowd....

Leader of Anti-Gun Group May Have Lied During Texas Senate Testimony

Gun control freaks are liars by definition, as the truth does not support their goals.

Oh, and has anyone else noticed that the most fanatic pro-control people, on here at least, are really not too bright?

 

[bluebyrd35]

It's plain to anyone who reads your posts that common sense continues to escape you.
It is not illegal to forcibly stop someone from illegally entering your house....
Does your deluded mind get that?
And you should have left your bullshyte on the farm when you sold it.....

Why would you not report such a CRIME?? Why would you let the intruder intending to enter YOUR house with a gun get away with just waving your own gun around?? Do you not leave the culprit abroad with a gun to injure someone else without a gun??? Like a child playing in his/her yard or perhaps just simply entering a school, and firing indiscriminately in frustration?? Does that not make you as guilty for any damage the original culprit does??

I am not a fanatic pro-control person and have never answered my door with a loaded gun in my hand. I do not recognize the Canada, you and other anti-control freaks describe here. I can look out my door and not answer it if I feel the person standing outside is dangerous.

There are cell phones and 911 appears to answer pretty quickly, so instead of trading gunshots, I would retreat and dial, since my cell is generally in my pocket.

And of course you must be so sure that your life was in danger. As one cop told me, that even if you crown an intruder with a baseball bat, you had better make sure the glass and debris from the door is on the inside or you will be charged for injuring or killing that person.

 

[DaSleeper]

Why would you not report such a CRIME?? Why would you let the intruder intending to enter YOUR house with a gun get away with just waving your own gun around?? Do you not leave the culprit abroad with a gun to injure someone else without a gun??? Like a child playing in his/her yard or perhaps just simply entering a school, and firing indiscriminately in frustration?? Does that not make you as guilty for any damage the original culprit does??

I am not a fanatic pro-control person and have never answered my door with a loaded gun in my hand. I do not recognize the Canada, you and other anti-control freaks describe here. I can look out my door and not answer it if I feel the person standing outside is dangerous.

There are cell phones and 911 appears to answer pretty quickly, so instead of trading gunshots, I would retreat and dial, since my cell is generally in my pocket.

And of course you must be so sure that your life was in danger. As one cop told me, that even if you crown an intruder with a baseball bat, you had better make sure the glass and debris from the door is on the inside or you will be charged for injuring or killing that person.

That's the problem with you....You start extrapolating on things that are never said...
I never said an intruder with a gun, just simply an intruder.
Your delusional stories are noted...

 

[taxslave]

And more lies from the gun control crowd....

Leader of Anti-Gun Group May Have Lied During Texas Senate Testimony

Gun control freaks are liars by definition, as the truth does not support their goals.

Oh, and has anyone else noticed that the most fanatic pro-control people, on here at least, are really not too bright?

Explains why waldo chose to support the anti rights crowd.

Why would you not report such a CRIME?? Why would you let the intruder intending to enter YOUR house with a gun get away with just waving your own gun around?? Do you not leave the culprit abroad with a gun to injure someone else without a gun??? Like a child playing in his/her yard or perhaps just simply entering a school, and firing indiscriminately in frustration?? Does that not make you as guilty for any damage the original culprit does??

I am not a fanatic pro-control person and have never answered my door with a loaded gun in my hand. I do not recognize the Canada, you and other anti-control freaks describe here. I can look out my door and not answer it if I feel the person standing outside is dangerous.

There are cell phones and 911 appears to answer pretty quickly, so instead of trading gunshots, I would retreat and dial, since my cell is generally in my pocket.

And of course you must be so sure that your life was in danger. As one cop told me, that even if you crown an intruder with a baseball bat, you had better make sure the glass and debris from the door is on the inside or you will be charged for injuring or killing that person.

When you live 20 minutes from the copshop and farther from the doughnut shop what good does calling 911 do?
What that cop told you is all that is so wrong with our laws.