I swear, I have no idea why this very simple to understand concept is so very hard for a few lefties to understand.

What was the first thing your momma and daddy taught you when confronted by a bully? If he hits you, you hit him back. How simple is that?

If someone shoots at you, you shoot at them back. How hard is that to understand?

On 9/11 planes were flown into buildings. In one of those planes, people decided that if they were going to die, they might as well go fighting.

Since that day, whenever anyone causes some shit on a plane, NOBODY FUCKS AROUND. Everyone assumes upon themselves the duty to prevent crazy asshole from starting some shit.

Case in point:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/iceland-air-passenger-duct-taped-seat-caught-tape-18168058

Do you know what you call duct taping crazy drunk guy to a seat when he's on a plane? It's called SELF DEFENSE.

So why can't we do the same thing on the ground? When some crazy asshole gets out of line and causes some shit, EVERYONE assumes upon themselves the responsibility of rectifying the situation. Crazy asshole storms a school with an AR-15? Put a cap in his ass. Crazy jack off wants to rob a convenience store? Put a cap in their ass. Crazy motherfucker wants to make himself famous by bringing a gun into a movie theater? Put a fucking cap in their fucking ass.

How hard is that?

Here's a couple of shitheads wanting to rob an internet cafe. Guess what? Old man put a cap in their ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc

Some fucking creep tries to kick in the door to rob an 89 year old woman? Granny put a cap in his ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8

Some motherfucker wants to kill a convenience store clerk on Christmas? Motherfucker got a cap in his ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4

Some dumb shits want to break into a house with two kids inside? The dumb shits get a cap in their ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLhp6OGq2ko

Now, if children can do this, if an 89 year old woman can do this, and if an old man wearing old man pants in an internet cafe can do this, then surely, teachers who want to volunteer to do this, can do this, after they get the REQUIRED 40-60 hour training to do so.

What's so fucking hard about that?

Body armor is compleatly on the defensive . There is nothing agressive you can do with body armor alone.

at another kid, you and all of the other lunnies will "rectify" the situation by opening fire on the kid. Only when you get closer do you notice the pistol was a "water pistol." Opps.

Or you walk into a convenience store and see a robber pointing a gun at the clerk.  You open fire and take out the robber, saving the clerk. But you also hit a mother and two kids in the back of the store. Opps.

     And as for your theatre example, as I pointed out to Ed, last month, anyone who opened fire on that shooter would most likely have been shot himself by another gun carrying lunny who couln not tell which was the bad guy. Opps.

      See the problem? You are conflating self defense with defense of others. Self defense is alive and well as long as you honestly and reasonably believe you are in danger and use proportionate force. Defense of others, however, has to be more narrowly limited bc you are never quite sure what is happening in a tense and evolving situation on which you stumble.

     And 40 to 60 hours training on "how" to use a gun is not the same thing as being trained on "when" to use it. Let's leave defense of others to properly trained LE in all but the clearest of situations.

You do realize that shootings by private citizens with conceal and carry permits are justified at the same rate as LE officers. You rarely hear about someone with a ccp shooting someone on accident or without cause. How about LA LE shoot to women in a truck 100+ times? Zimmerman is the only case I can think of recently that was shit for a ccp shooting.

Could be wrong but think they still use live rounds in basic training. Shooting roughly 6' over your head.  
     Scenarios can never be black and white. Maybe you had a concealed weapons and were coming in after getting popcorn and were behind the shooter. The guy firing 40+ rnds isnt going to be a good guy probably, muzzle flash will tell you alot. But to therorize on it is shit, anyway you look at it. Cops could shoot the wrong guy too you have to admit that.

1- having a firearm in that situation trapped and being shot at or around you have to admit that even a 3% chance is better than no chance?  
   Police have shot and killed hostages in similar situations and to believe that they'd ever help you if you were in the theater is insane. First cop on the scene after say 5 min response time has to wait for backup- some police forces require them to wait for swat, after 5 min its all over good or bad. Its settled. Is there a way out can you run? Do you run? If you're rural and response times are over 20 minutes do you still feel the same?  
   The idea of civilians charging a gun man while he reloads is crap. I've heard of recon marines and army rangers freezing instead of advancing their position while the shooter is reloading, and that was at 200+ yrds. Everyone thinks a 10 round mag makes a difference compared to a 30 rounder, because the guy has to reload, one second is all it takes to change a mag if you're even compitent at it. It doesnt matter.  

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection.
 Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.

Permit holders more law-abiding than average population -- even more so than cops!  
 
The VPC wants to focus on the few bad apples in the concealed carry community and suggest that citizens can’t be trusted to carry firearms.  But using their own logic, they should be arguing for cop disarmament, because they break the law far more often.
 
As compared to concealed carry permit holders, the average American is almost 8 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and over 40 times more likely to be convicted of burglary -- and police officers are almost 800 times more likely to violate the law.12
 
There are an estimated six million citizens who possess a concealed carry permit.13  The number of legal concealed carriers is probably higher, considering the growing number of states that recognize the right of their citizens to carry without a permit.
 
Press reports indicate that concealed carry is at an ALL TIME HIGH, even while crime rates have been dropping in the U.S. over the past few years.  Yet, we’ve been hearing the Chicken Little cries of doom and gloom as far back as the mid-1980s, when Florida kicked off the modern concealed carry movement with the enactment of its “shall issue” law.
 
Prior to its passage in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature.  Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the “Gunshine State.”  It was a cute jingle, but their dire predictions never materialized.  Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.
 
Such was the case in Texas, as well.  One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who is president of the Dallas Police Association.  White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.
 
Senior Cpl. White admits, though, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.  No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.”
 
It takes guts to look at the evidence and admit you were mistaken.  Kudos to Rep. Silver and Senior Cpl. White for being “man enough” to admit they were wrong.  
 
Who knows, maybe the VPC will own up and admit they were also wrong about all the fear and paranoia they’ve peddled in their faux report.  But then again, don’t hold your breath.

http://gunowners.org/vpc10122011.htm

 

http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/accidental-gun-fatalities/citizens-incompetent/

One second is all it takes. Ever seen a competion shoot? I've only seen vids but its really fast if you know you're going to have to change it. You'll have one ready in hand I'd bet.  
     Special forces has a competition every yr or at least they did when I was in the service and they pass a trophy back and forth. 5 guys 6 shots center mass at 3 man size targes with 3 mag changes. Top time I saw at our base was 2.64 seconds. Thats three mag changes and 3 targets shot twice each. You tube competition shooting mag changes.  
      Mag change video with dry fire which is slower.  
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQz31OlU5Y
      The cops didnt even stop the shooting at aurora. He had stopped before they got to him and they found him in the parking lot by his car. So the cops saved how many lives?
     It was alleged that he then went to his car, which was parked near the exit door, changed into protective clothing, and retrieved his guns.[4][5] About 30 minutes into the film, police say, around 12:30 am,[6] he re-entered the theater through the exit door. He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest (not to be confused with a bulletproof vest), a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector and tactical gloves.[7] Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening. Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank,[8] while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere as a publicity stunt by the studio or theater management.[9]
 
It was also said that the gunman threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members' vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.[10] He then fired a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience. He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[11] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which malfunctioned after reportedly firing about 30 rounds.[11][12]
 Finally, he fired a Glock 22 40-caliber handgun.[14][15] He shot first to the back of the room, and then toward people in the aisles.[9]  
The first phone calls to emergency services via 9-1-1 were made at 12:39 am Police arrived within 90 seconds[18] and found at least three .40-caliber handgun magazines, a shotgun and a large drum magazine on the floor of the theater.[19] Some people reported the shooting via tweets or text messaging rather than calling the police.[12] Some of the first police on the scene decided not to wait for ambulances and took victims to hospitals in their squad cars.[20]
 
About 12:45 am, police apprehended Holmes[5] behind the cinema, next to his car, without resistance. According to two federal officials, he had dyed his hair red and called himself "the Joker", although authorities later declined to confirm this.[21][22] Three days later, at his first court appearance in Centennial, Colorado, Holmes had reddish-orange hair.[21][23][24] The officers found several firearms in the theater and inside the car, including another Glock 22 handgun.[25] Following his arrest, he was initially jailed at Arapahoe County Detention Center, under suicide watch.[26] The police interviewed more than 200 witnesses.[27] Investigators say that the shooter acted alone and was not part of a larger group or terrorist organization.

All theyve done is shot, you can practice. 500,000 people shoot nation wide in shooting competitions. Special forces train to do it blind folded actually and if you're dedicated its free to learn, just takes time. Think I can do it with my 1911, to get conceal and carry they time 8 rounds, mag change and 8 more rounds at a target in less than 10 seconds I think. Again have you ever shot a firearm?  
     
    Now how about the response time in aurora again? 12:30 the shooting starts, 12:39 cops called, 90 seconds to get inside and it was all over. Shooter outside and could have actually driven away probably.  

END OF MESSAGE

Typical laffy.

When he is beat, bitch slapped, and put in his place as you just did he has  a temper tantrum calls you a few names without giving a civil logical reply, and will likely continute to do so, and may just reply to me with another tamtrun.

Thank you  
2013 = 2

I think I could i said. Also its a very simple task, u dont think you could learn it. Push release, put new mag in and start shooting again. Go hold a gun and try it a few times.  
     Inmaterial really because people wont charge a gun man unless he stops for an extended period of time. Even 2 seconds isnt long enough. Aurora his gun jammed, he switched guns and ran out of bullets. Left and no one tried to stop him or confront him. Even if some one in the theater would have had a concealed gun Id bet anything he would nt have returned fire. Pretty sure he d dive for cover and hide. It take supreme nerves to control self preservation at that point and going through situations, accidents, fights, high risk sports typically to be able to handle anything even close to that as a first hand experience.  
      Have you ever had a loaded gun pointed at you?  
       First thing you ll feel is probably the worst fear you can imagine, military personal have been know to piss themselves.  
        Second thought is to either pray, try to run, or defend yourself. Many people comfortable with firearms will say they wished they had a gun.  
         The relief you feel after is unimaginable. You will reconsider your stance on firearms if you ever have it happen. I can promise you that.  
           

Even Willy will acknowledge that this group is right of the NRA. And Spades you didn't bother to check where they were getting that stat, did you?

        Well it came from the Gun Facts book which in turn based the stat on a 1994 book. We don't where the 1994 book got the stat but I would bet money that there is valid source. Here's why. Aside from the stat being nearly 20 years out of date, we the stat is invalid because - no one keeps records on how often a defensive gun use kills an innocent person. 1 in 26,000 is a made up number. The best evidence we have are the police reports forwarded to the DOJ and those reports do not support your statistic.  

   Citizens use guns to prevent crime 2,500,000 each year? Not according to the DOJ stats.

     And even worse, now you have misled the impressionable Panthera12. I guess that drone I sent to his house missed

...time after time, I hear the same arguments. Typically, it boils down to this: Gun control advocates assume that everyone is as incompetent as they are.

Has there ever been a single case where a CCW holder confused a water pistol for a real one?

If a customer is hit in a legitimate case of self-defense, you know that it's the robber who's ultimately responsible, under the law. Of course, what you don't hear is when CCW permit holders DON'T fire because they're specifically trained to know what lies beyond their target.

Case in point: A mall in Portland. Watch the news story that begins 1 minute into this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI

Mari, not only are you taught how to use a gun in CCW classes, you're also taught when to use it. Here is a lecture from Massad Ayoob, an expert on self-defense law, talking about precisely when and under what conditions you're allowed to use a gun. This lecture took place shortly after the Zimmerman shooting at the Cato Institute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w

and not be charged for the killing or the injury of the suspect.

IT HAPPEN TO A FRIEND OF MINE. he was charged with discharging a weapon!

http://classic.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=205204&boardID=39&page=

Like I said, with 49 states allowing concealed carry in one form or another (and soon to be 50 with my home state being forced to concede) show us even one anecdotal story of neighbor killing neighbor in some modern keystone kop version of the gunfight at the OK corral. Face it. These mass murders have taken place in gun free zones.

Read my old response to you and then reply.

I ll find the other sources tonight but even LE has even admitted that firearms are used for self defense 2 million times a year. Ccp holders have very similar wrongful death shooting rates as police and will find other stats to back it up. Its idiots with out proper training killing their children or wives accidentally. Cant now though, gotta work

Tell him to get a good attorney and sue. They want to limit his right to self defense, esp if he used it in a judicial manner. Clear violation of his rights. Esp if it was in his home.

Walter laffy Mitty

Now that is some funny shit.

You just keep playing pretend and entertaining us.  

Just goes to show that stupid, ridiculous, beyond belief stories can be entertaining.

 
You’re welcome
God Bless Americ

You expressly said "If I could carry in public it would only be for the personal protection of me and my family." That is self defense - Willy -after watching a few Charles Bronson movies - wants citizens packing heat to "rectify" crime whereever they see it. That is having untrained citizens use their guns for the protection of others - borderline -and illegal - vigilantism in many situations.  That is what I am excoriating Willy for today.

      As to not responding to your post, you posted that one after my bedtime. Shame on you - you know better than that.

         As to "show us one story where this has happened", I'll take that one under advisement for the moment, although the Zimmerman shooting and the Oscar Pistorius shooting would be two examples if you believe the shooter. But here is an idea - instead of waiting till it happens and then say "oh no," let's prevent "neighbor killing neighbor" in a misguided attempt to prevent crime  BEFORE it happens.

     Capice?

There's too many other factors in such a situation as well.

Anyone with enough practice can quickly & efficiently switch magazines. Me...2-4 seconds mobile. I can get it under 2 in a competition scenario, which is wholly unrealistic.

Nobody, in there right mind, is going to have the head to be thinking of that fleeting moment of nil opportunity when under attack. Your going to be ducking, and hiding, and maybe wishing you had a way to fire back if need be.

Most wackadoos, if they're at least competent, have multiple weapons anyway. IOW a pistol at the ready...just in case.

So...the magazine size argument is more ridiculous logical fallacy brought on by legistators who are just seeking to gain stature via the political momentum of it.

The numbers don't lie. The BULK of the problem with gun violence in America circles around illegally acquired and used handguns. Not the big, black, scary, common rifle of the day.

It is a problem of national logistics. It is too easy to buy in unrestricted states and move those wepaons across state lines illegally to the most restrictive states; this is why national background checks, registration, etc.. makes sense.

The issue with such a system is eliminating conflict of interest. A legal infrastructure would need to be created protecting the confidentiality/ privacy of the law-abiding owners.

I'm all for holding weapons owners accountable for proper handling of firearms as well.

I can find state number much easier, but here is a bit more on the post earlier. I'll try and track down recent numbers. The FBI has stated that CCP holders with valid permits closely mirrors police officers statistics for innocent bystanders shootings. I'll find more.... if you find a different source or stats to support something else I'd like to see them. There are reasons states are making it easier to get a CCP...  
       
    Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.
     In fact, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled consistently that the police are responsible only to the public at large and not to individual citizens. This means that even when police do their best, the courts recognize that there may be some individuals who they just can't to get to in time. It happens all too often. When it does, the citizen is left to fend for himself until the police arrive. That's the time when even gun control advocates wish that they had a gun, as happened with many gun control advocates during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Imagine their distress when they learned that they had to wait 15 days to get a gun.
     
     Accidental police shooting examples.... http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/05/police-accidental-shootings-of.html

 
Background for the earlier posting with study references. Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police. Police shoot innocent people over 500% more often than armed civilians do. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. Police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you.

"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1785977-armed-citizens-better-safer-than-armed.html#ixzz2PX2FsuqB

 

The first thing that would happen is time would feel like it has slowed to a crawl. You become hypersensitive.

Second, if you're lucky, instead of panic, you get an almost disembodied feeling of detachment; as if you're an observer. That's part of being in shock, you need to overcome it.

Third, if you're even more lucky (or trained...), is you'll gain the focus to quickly assess the situation at hand.

Fourth, you'll decide what the best course of action is...

Fifth, you take it.

All the while you just might get shot.

If you don't get shot, when it's over and if it's your first time, you may just puke from the adrenaline.

You don't know dick about having a gun pointed at you and/or being shot at

Described yourself to a tee:

"calls you a few names without giving a civil logical reply, and will likely continute to do so

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Not surprised

While I agree that Willy seems all too anxious to put a cap in someone’s ass, most of his examples were pure self defense, not vigilantism.

Your hopeful examples of Zimmerman and Pistorius are irrelevant distractions to your argument. Neither has been shown to be a well intentioned gunman accidentally or wrongfully shooting another well intentioned gunman because a second gun was brandished causing confusion. Just as I earlier stated that if I wrongfully shoot someone I will be due the wrath of the criminal justice system, just as these two fellows will be examined by theirs. If I get shot, well that may be on me too.

Regarding your specific criticism of a theater shooter example where willy suggests another ass capping that may result in one of the armed good Samaritans being shot by another, your preemptive plans to disarm me in public places may very well save some innocent person from an ass capping. But the bigger problem it creates is to deny me my Constitutional right to self defense. How many courts have you seen award injunctive relief where no evidence of probable future damages exists? Legislatures are not so constrained but creating a preemptive prohibition law with little or no evidence of past wrong doing doesn't past the smell test, ESPECIALLY when it restricts my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  


-- Modified on 4/4/2013 8:47:02 PM

At least, not yet. To the extent there is any constitutioal right of using firearms for self defense, that right is limited to self defense in your home as I read the Heller decision:

“we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,
…
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.  
…

    As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,… banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

What a fucking wing-nut doofus.

As much as I despise follow-me's rhetoric, you're just the other side of the same fucktard coin.

idjit

END OF MESSAGE

Fuck, I should have started posting under an alias months ago in that case.

Daffy is so fucking stupid, he needs an ignore button to keep him from responding to someone.

I haven't responded directly to our "fowl feathered friend" for months, and I have never used the ignore feature even once. Of course Daffy seems to confuse talking "about him" with talking "to him", but I am sure that you, with an IQ above room temperature can tell the difference. Daffy is just like an annoying little child trying to get in on the adults conversation, except of course he is much more annoying than any child could ever be.

But seeing how the federal courts are now forcing even the last holdout, Illinois, into allowing concealed carry it would seem that my means to public self defense is to now include a firearm.