Better hide in your walk-in closet.

Pointing out the innaccuracies in someone's post (and using chapter and verse to do so) does not equate to "set off" or overreacting. I agree with your comment that "The art of conversation can no longer be taken for granted. " If someone is shown the error in their point, they often act like a victim of a violent crime.

The 4th. July is also the reason Americans drive on the wrong side of the road, and can't navigate roundabouts!:duck::throwtomatoes:

Crime?
 

I didn’t mention crimes, other than homicide. The states with the highest death rates from guns are those states with the worst controls.

Bulletproof Bubble?
 

Nice deflection, but we do live in Florida. If you think TV is bulletproof, better not go out of the bubble!

Well, yeah...but at least we can spell words without all those extra "u"s.:D

For those of you that have a problem with the 2nd amendment, maybe you should move to Japan, Australia, England or Western Europe where guns are restricted and gun violence is rare. Otherwise deal with it. When everyone has unrestricted access to guns, everyone is safer. We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.

And FINALLY I understand the reasoning behind your posts. Not sure what took me so long.

Withot a dobt!:p

Lol!!

You mean like the sheriff's deputy at Parkland, that good guy with the gun, who protected the kids from the bad guy with the gun?

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun.

That is SUCH a tired cliche, it isn't true, it makes no sense, and it's dangerous thinking. Good guys with guns can be ineffective. They can be there - and not use their guns. They can be there and wait until they've already failed to protect some people, and then use their guns. They can use their guns and miss. They can THINK they're shooting a bad guy with a gun, but actually they're shooting someone who didn't have any gun at all.

Good guys are not infallible. And in some cases - they can cause more harm than they can prevent.

When the problem is "people with guns," then giving more guns to more people is not the answer.

Been away since july 1st. Just wonder how much carnge and slaughter is going on in TV?

That pretty much says it all. If people want to get guns they will find them. If they want to kill someone they will. It's been going on in these cities for decades.

And how is that working for us? Duh.

It’s almost impossible to get a license to carry a gun in Maryland. The district in Baltimore, had 7 officers on duty, it should have had 20

Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh) are a special class of city in the commonwealth, regarding a license to carry. In the PAST TWO HOURS IN PHILLY

08:30pm - 8 people shot, 4 killed in active shooter incident

09:56pm- 3 people shot, 1 critical

10:06pm- 1 person shot

A few years ago, I had a nail technician tell me an interesting story. He was from Vietnam and he was telling me about some police officers harassing somebody. I asked why did the local village people allow that to happen? He replied “ there was nothing they could do. The police took all their guns years before.”

I think about that whenever someone tries to take guns away. Thankfully our forefathers were smart enough to put them in the Constitution.

You might want to do a bit of research before making such definite statements.
From Heritage.org:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets. "

PRECISELY the point.

Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens from the government. It is ridiculous to believe that only one, the 2nd, is not there for the exact same reason.

Do you honestly picture yourself pulling a gun on a police officer and having it work out well for you?

Probably not,
but 247 years ago, a number of people chose to pull a gun on the most powerful military the world had seen to that point, and overall, it worked out well.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - from the actual CDC website, not a third-party interpretation of an internet news-site's interpretation: Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
Also, I checked the source of your quote, and it had its own source for where it got its data. That source was NOT the CDC. It was an online TV station, and the link only brought me to the main webpage. I did do a search for CNCNews, and almost all of the results pulled up the notion that this is a hard-right (not extremist) conservative site dedicated to creating holes in less conservative media, in particular CNN (though not exclusively). Turns out the organization of which they are a member, are the ones who gave the award to Sean Hannity. So yeah - not reliable, or believable, and your "article" from Heritage.org is not only factually incorrect, it bases its opinion on sources that don't exist.

Thing is, even the "claimed" data (which I can't find on the actual CDC website) doesn't indicate how many of those defensive uses of guns resulted in a positive outcome, OR whether they were justified. Some kid pranking a neighbor by ringing the doorbell - well the owner might've just recently had a burglary and felt they were being threatened. That's defensive use - but not justified because the kid was just ringing the doorbell, nothing more or less. A defensive use that ends up missing. Defensive use that results in the defensive shooter shooting himself by mistake. Defensive use resulting in shooting a bystander, etc. etc. "Defensive shooting" means NOTHING when you don't include data about the outcome, the context of the claim "defensive," or anything else.

It also doesn't include data on everyone who had immediate access to a firearm to defend themselves, could have prevented crime, and chose not to use their firearm defensively.

Being armed doesn't automatically make you a defensive shooter. It just makes you another person with a gun.

Actually the fact that a trained professional did not enter the building to protect the kids (I am by no means saying he was right or wrong as I did not listen to the testimony and there is another thread discussing that issue) is PROOF that the ONLY person you can count on to protect you and your family is YOURSELF. Add in the average response time for a police officer to arrive in response to an emergency call, and a lot of harm can happen in that time frame if unchecked.

Here are just three examples that proves the statement above false:

Las Vegas Turnberry Towers Shooting (June 2023) Who here has honestly heard about this shooting prior to this post?

Indiana Mall Shooting July 2022

West Virginia Graduation Party Shooting May 2022

I won't bother to list the many more examples of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

True for a change. NO ONE knows how they will react in a shooting situation until it happens to them. You also don't know the circumstances until you are there. Do you use your gun to protect someone else if your family would be in danger? What if the shooter is holding a child and you did not fire because you were concerned that you would hit the child? Even trained patrol officers who practice regularly might not take that shot.

How about enforcing laws and keeping the bad guys off the streets? How about doing something to help the people with mental illness and not let them roam the streets without help they need?

Owning and carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, and yes, there can be "bad" gun owners who don't take a training class or practice at the range, but then they take a chance that they don't end up in jail. Given that trained professionals don't always (for whatever reason) immediately intercede in a shooting situation, or they are willing to intercede but arrive on scene AFTER a shooting has already occurred it still falls on someone doing what they need to do to protect themselves and their families.

Actually, the CDC used to report the defensive gun incidents as previously cited. Since they moved away from that due to pressure from anti-gun lobbyists, their website has been "cleansed". Forbes, which is not a conservative site, published an article in April 2018 entitled "That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Guns Uses". The article makes references to earlier surveys conducted by the CDC about defensive gun use.

It is difficult to prove that the CDC reported data they scrubbed from their website, but it is not unreasonable to believe that they did report such data given the references in such earlier publications.

I spent a couple of hours one night on the internet watching local television station's broadcasts on shootings in their cities where a legally armed citizen saved themselves or another because they were carrying. I stopped after two hours because it got late. With the anti-gun bias in our major media outlets, do you think really think they want to give this national attention?

As far as the sheriff's deputy in Parkland, my understanding is that the sheriff's department's policy was to wait for backup. If it was me, I would like to think I would have disregarded policy and acted. Some organizations are so rigid in their policies that not toeing the line can have serious consequences. No one is able to get into his mind to see what he was thinking. I believe the policy has been changed from waiting for backup to one of immediate response by whatever LEO is at the scene. Picking out one example like this proves nothing.

Aha. So now we know where the data came from. It came from a study conducted in 2013. That's a decade ago. The data no longer applies, it has no relevance to the world we live in today.

The POINT of that part of my post was to show that, using a non conservative website, the CDC did in fact post data on defensive gun incidents. My post was not suggesting that the data shown in the article was the most current. The absence of the more current data does not prove that the data as quoted by the poster was not accurate. While it doesn't fit the narrative, there are multiple websites that make the same data references. One would think that the CDC would have challenged the reporting of the data as inaccurate at the time of those reports. Where can we find those documented reported challenges?

Should your position be that you can't find the cited data on the CDC website so it should be dismissed, then PROVE that the cited data was never on the CDC website.

A "good guy with a gun" is not a police officer. And is not sworn to protect the public. A smart : good guy with a gun" will look for an escape route before confronting an armed individual...just because he or she carries a gun, doesn't mean they have to use it.

Spot on!

"The NCVS identifies far fewer instances of defensive gun use. According to the most recent firearms violence report, published in April, 2 percent of victims of nonfatal violent crime — that includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — and 1 percent of property crime victims use guns in self-defense. According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year.The NCVS identifies far fewer instances of defensive gun use. According to the most recent firearms violence report, published in April, 2 percent of victims of nonfatal violent crime — that includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — and 1 percent of property crime victims use guns in self-defense. According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year."

I can gather references for defensive use of firearms all over the Internet. Those that are so anti-gun will never find any of them to be valid in their OPINION, so it's useless to argue with them. The fact IS that firearms are used for defense more than once per year, and if one life is saved then that person owning a gun was a good thing. You don't have to own a firearm. No one is forcing you to own one. If you don't like guns, that's your problem. I just hope that you won't hold it against someone that happens to be carrying and decided to act defensively FOR you and saves your life when the time comes that you need saving. I was once told by a police officer that on average EVERYONE is involved in a violent crime at least twice in a lifetime. I am sure that there is "one" person on here that will attempt to prove that statement to be erroneous. Some of us take life seriously and do not condone criminal behavior. The reason crimes are reported and murders occur is because the second that someone needs a COP, he/she is only minutes away. But, he/she will be there to take witness statements after the fact. I hope that if my unarmed family members are victims, that there is someone there carrying a firearm and has the guts to render assistance.
Whether there are a thousand or more instances of defensive use of a firearm in America per year, more or less the good guy with a gun is better than only bad guys having guns, in my opinion. This has nothing to do with the person's experience and proficiency with the firearm. Most folks that own guns will learn how they operate.
Argue all you wish, but guns, like knives, bats, hammers, axes, sticks, etc. can be used offensively to harm folks. So, you might as well make it easier for a good guy to own and carry than a bad guy.

Really??? The penalty for the crime of multiple murders wouldn't put them away for long enough, but the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm is what will put them away for a long time?? Am I the only one to whom that this sounds completely ridiculous???

Ok. I'll bite. According to your post, it is not the police or good guys with a gun that stop bad guys with a gun (cliche and all). So, what is it that you think stops bad guys with a gun? the threat of timeout? offering them a safe space? Unarmed people being sweet to them. I really am curious what stops them in your mind.

You have to call the local social worker who will talk to them.

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.

Excellent post, and I certainly applaud and support the positive things that the NRA is doing, and has done, to make gun owners more cognizant of the risks of ownership as well as how to handle firearms in a safe, responsible manner. One effort worthy of mention is the NRA "Eddie Eagle" program; the only ongoing program that I know of that teaches young children what to do if they find a gun. As I understand it the training materials for this program are available online and are also available to any school that wants to teach it.

I take some exception to the supposition "The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit." There are undoubtedy such folks out there. However gun safety training is something that very many learn in an ongoing manner. From my own experience, I and my siblings grew up with guns. Dad was a collector as well as an amateur gunsmith. He knew guns and how they worked better than just about anyone, and my siblings and I learned early on not just to shoot, but how to handle guns (all types) in a safe, responsible manner. I rarely recall dad getting angry at any of us for any reason, but one incident that stands out vividly in my mind was the time deer hunting as a 17-year-old I neglected to clear the chamber of my rifle before climbing over a fence. I knew better, and deserved the lecture I got. Additionally many if not most of the schools back then (60s and 70s) offered gun safety training as an elective for any student who cared to access it, and just about all of us did, plus hunting and target shooting was something that was routinely engaged in, now as well as then. Of course, the point about many not knowing the law when it comes to self-defense is valid, but when I took my first permit-to-carry class (Minnesota, about 20 years ago) much if not most of what was taught I already knew. As did many if not most of my contempories. And to be honest, a short class can teach only so much.

I would also add that a constitutionally guaranteed right should not require any training in order to exercise it. "Right" is only one side of the coin. The other side reads "responsibility". No right exists apart from the duty to exercise it responsibly. Freedom of speech, (to use a well-worn example) does not allow any of us to yell "Fire!!) in a crowded theater, or to verbally threaten anyone. "But it was my RIGHT" would not impress many judges in such cases.

Responsible Americans take the exercise of ALL rights seriously. Yes, mistakes will be made. But the possibility of making a mistake as a reason for witholding a right flies directly against the spirit of the Constitution. I don't know who said it first, but (in paraphrase) "those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security shall in the end have neither freedom nor security" says it best.

I believe that to carry a firearm you should have to take and pass an in-depth course on safety and legal responsibility as well as be able to properly handle Your firearm. Unfortunately that is not the case here in Florida even when you apply for a concealed weapon permit! Florida is a joke but better than nothing. I moved for TN where they take the CWP course very seriously.

I am glad that Florida passed the law!

I agree with the majority of the post, however the highlighted section about the first amendment not allowing one to yell fire in a crowded theater is actually a myth. It originated from a different case all together and that case was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. There is certainly a responsibility to exercising any right as indicated, and there may be downstream legal consequences (foreseen or not) for someone who is irresponsible in exercising their rights.

Here is one link of many that talk about the myth. Note that I used a link to a law office which posted a video on this very topic.

According to your post, you misinterpreted my post. Perhaps on purpose.

I don't care what stops bad guys with guns. I care what keeps bad guys from getting guns in the first place. We don't need to stop a bad guy with a gun, if we don't have bad guys with guns.

Humans will never EVER allow that to happen. Ever. We value our weapons too much. Good guys and bad guys both. We are a violent species, we kill our own, sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit, sometimes out of anger, rage, grief - and only very rarely for self-defense.

But if we can make it HARDER for bad guys to have guns, and give bad guys more consequences when they're caught with guns, then just maybe it might convince ONE bad guy to - not use their gun. It'd be a step in the right direction.

How do you suppose that we keep bad guys from getting guns? Make it against the law for a bad guy to own a gun? Hmmm, seems like that has already been tried and failed. Seems like the "consequences" that you are seeking might result from a "good carrying a gun." Obviously, bad guys do not care about laws or they would not be bad guys. And as long as we have those "little old ladies" that care for the poor unfortunate bad guys that come from broken or poor families, no amount of slaps on the wrists are going to work either.
I keep hearing folks saying "but gun accidents are bad." Yep, they sure are but how many folks get cut by knife accidents, car accidents, over doses of medications, falling down steps, falling on ice, etc?
Perhaps if more "bad guys" were put down by the courts, police and good guys carrying guns, society would be a safer place?

I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.

Perhaps increasing the consequences of using a deadly weapon to intentionally commit a crime. The death penalty comes to mind as a mandatory minimum. Allow citizens and the police to use deadly force in more scenarios, especially when there is clear and obvious circumstances, and the criminal identity is unquestioned. Like a car driver fleeing and leading to a chase. Any criminal with a gun used in a crime. Finding a felon with a gun. Theft of a gun. Also applies to all deadly weapons like bombs, arson, cars, etc. Eliminate all innocent by insanity; it becomes guilty by insanity. Lower the age for being considered an adult. Ask the liberals at what age a child can decide what s3x they want to pick, and that is the age they are charged as an adult. (think 2nd grade, 8 years old)
Adjust trials for cases where evidence is unquestionable. Such as someone shooting at police, and criminal gets shot. Directly taken into custody. Go straight to trial, not the hospital, and sentenced to death. Carry out that punishment immediately.
Notice the theme here is to go after criminals, not law abiding citizens, or the police who protect us.