I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

Yes they are. Because all the laws already on the books were supposed to solve the crime problem. When they didn’t, new laws got passed, over and over. And those have failed too, because the problem is criminal psychopaths, not decent people and inanimate objects. And if Brady & Co. got everything they are wishing for today, that will fail too. And so there will be a demand for still more pointless, ineffective laws that criminals (being criminals) will ignore the way they ignore all the laws already in effect. Read the posts in this thread and similar ones on DCUM: the people who blame firearms for the behavior of criminals will not be satisfied until a “magic magnet” comes and supernaturally lifts away all the guns, not that would make an iota of difference anyway, because the criminal underworld would promptly meet criminal demand for firearms the same way it meets the criminal demand for narcotics and every other form of Vice.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You are fixated on one piece of the puzzle. How did he get the gun? Can the LEOs track to the source if it was sourced in a different state?

Read the proposed actions from Brady. You can support any of them? None of these proposed actions should affect responsible gun owners.

People who are driven by irrational fears and refuse to inform themselves have no place owning a weapon.

No, the people who are fixated on inanimate objects have no place imposing unworkable policies that have proven ineffective since Reconstruction at preventing crime. Where a particular criminal obtained a particular firearm is virtually irrelevant. If they didn’t get it there they’d have gotten it somewhere else. If they didn’t get it that place they’d have gotten it from yet another source, just like they do PCP, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, codeine, fentanyl, and all the other illicit drugs and contraband no laws have been able to stop.

[Anonymous]

And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

Yes they are. Because all the laws already on the books were supposed to solve the crime problem. When they didn’t, new laws got passed, over and over. And those have failed too, because the problem is criminal psychopaths, not decent people and inanimate objects. And if Brady & Co. got everything they are wishing for today, that will fail too. And so there will be a demand for still more pointless, ineffective laws that criminals (being criminals) will ignore the way they ignore all the laws already in effect. Read the posts in this thread and similar ones on DCUM: the people who blame firearms for the behavior of criminals will not be satisfied until a “magic magnet” comes and supernaturally lifts away all the guns, not that would make an iota of difference anyway, because the criminal underworld would promptly meet criminal demand for firearms the same way it meets the criminal demand for narcotics and every other form of Vice.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You are fixated on one piece of the puzzle. How did he get the gun? Can the LEOs track to the source if it was sourced in a different state?

Read the proposed actions from Brady. You can support any of them? None of these proposed actions should affect responsible gun owners.

People who are driven by irrational fears and refuse to inform themselves have no place owning a weapon.

No, the people who are fixated on inanimate objects have no place imposing unworkable policies that have proven ineffective since Reconstruction at preventing crime. Where a particular criminal obtained a particular firearm is virtually irrelevant. If they didn’t get it there they’d have gotten it somewhere else. If they didn’t get it that place they’d have gotten it from yet another source, just like they do PCP, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, codeine, fentanyl, and all the other illicit drugs and contraband no laws have been able to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

Congrats on inadvertently making a good point? We should actually talk about reducing unnecessary driving. Ambulances and truck deliveries are pretty important, but we don't really need to drive a half mile to pick up a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. We really have taken on a lot of unnecessary carnage because driving is comfortable and convenient. Kind of gross.

Yet you own a car. Hypocrite.

OMG you're an environmentalist but you breath out carbon dioxide. Hypocrite.

You realize how dumb you sound? Like kindergarten level stupid. Do better.

About like comparing hydrogen bombs, tanks and fighter jets to….. ordinary rifles.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, that's a dumb logical argument, but not sure why I can't buy a tank based on the same reading of the 2nd amendment.

Can you carry a tank?

Where in the 2nd amendment is the requirement that I carry it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Do you think you can stop a man from taking your gun from you and using it on you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

Please cite the 500,000 instances where a child found a gun and killed their sibling. Please cite ALL 500,000.

In the absence of being able to cite all 500,000, show the statistical process and data that allowed to arrive at the 500,000 figure.

Well she’s going to have a hard time because I just found this:
“Of the 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021, one percent were unintentional shootings.”

From https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/

Pretty straightforward. It just means that an average of 488 American children a year have been killed by their siblings, over the last 1,024 years = 500,000 children. Numbers don’t lie, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

Please cite the 500,000 instances where a child found a gun and killed their sibling. Please cite ALL 500,000.

In the absence of being able to cite all 500,000, show the statistical process and data that allowed to arrive at the 500,000 figure.

“Shot themselves or kid brother”.

Given that ~25k people shoot & kill themselves each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Do you think you can stop a man from taking your gun from you and using it on you?

I actually do believe I can stop a man from taking my gun and using it on me. And in the unlikely event he’s able to get possession of my gun after being shot perhaps a dozen times, it will be empty by then. I suppose he might try and pistol whip me with it, but I suspect he’ll be too busy exsanguinating by that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

Yes they are. Because all the laws already on the books were supposed to solve the crime problem. When they didn’t, new laws got passed, over and over. And those have failed too, because the problem is criminal psychopaths, not decent people and inanimate objects. And if Brady & Co. got everything they are wishing for today, that will fail too. And so there will be a demand for still more pointless, ineffective laws that criminals (being criminals) will ignore the way they ignore all the laws already in effect. Read the posts in this thread and similar ones on DCUM: the people who blame firearms for the behavior of criminals will not be satisfied until a “magic magnet” comes and supernaturally lifts away all the guns, not that would make an iota of difference anyway, because the criminal underworld would promptly meet criminal demand for firearms the same way it meets the criminal demand for narcotics and every other form of Vice.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You are fixated on one piece of the puzzle. How did he get the gun? Can the LEOs track to the source if it was sourced in a different state?

Read the proposed actions from Brady. You can support any of them? None of these proposed actions should affect responsible gun owners.

People who are driven by irrational fears and refuse to inform themselves have no place owning a weapon.

No, the people who are fixated on inanimate objects have no place imposing unworkable policies that have proven ineffective since Reconstruction at preventing crime. Where a particular criminal obtained a particular firearm is virtually irrelevant. If they didn’t get it there they’d have gotten it somewhere else. If they didn’t get it that place they’d have gotten it from yet another source, just like they do PCP, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, codeine, fentanyl, and all the other illicit drugs and contraband no laws have been able to stop.

Since Reconstruction? Why then?

Do you think the regulations around automatic weapons make sense? Or should anyone be able to just go in and buy one at Walmart?

And you still haven’t read the Brady proposals? Brady, you know, Reagan’s press secretary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Do you think you can stop a man from taking your gun from you and using it on you?

I actually do believe I can stop a man from taking my gun and using it on me. And in the unlikely event he’s able to get possession of my gun after being shot perhaps a dozen times, it will be empty by then. I suppose he might try and pistol whip me with it, but I suspect he’ll be too busy exsanguinating by that point.

How many people have you shot while being attacked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Do you think you can stop a man from taking your gun from you and using it on you?

I actually do believe I can stop a man from taking my gun and using it on me. And in the unlikely event he’s able to get possession of my gun after being shot perhaps a dozen times, it will be empty by then. I suppose he might try and pistol whip me with it, but I suspect he’ll be too busy exsanguinating by that point.

Real life isn't the movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

Please cite the 500,000 instances where a child found a gun and killed their sibling. Please cite ALL 500,000.

In the absence of being able to cite all 500,000, show the statistical process and data that allowed to arrive at the 500,000 figure.

Well she’s going to have a hard time because I just found this:
“Of the 48,830 total gun deaths in 2021, one percent were unintentional shootings.”

From https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/accidental-shootings-cdc-data-children/

Pretty straightforward. It just means that an average of 488 American children a year have been killed by their siblings, over the last 1,024 years = 500,000 children. Numbers don’t lie, right?

Horrifying that nearly 500 American children die because of gun accidents every year. Even more who are wounded and maimed. We are a sick society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

And yet you think you will have time and presence of mind to pull out your gun and shoot him. Good luck with that.