Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Yes you are making claims, because throughout this thread you were claiming that the random people who own guns are somehow protecting themselves and that they are somehow trained, capable and qualified to do so, despite never offering up any legitimate evidence of this.

But now you're whining about "worthless bleating" which is exactly what you were doing all along. Such irony.

Do you just camp out on this thread? I’m replying to you from like 10 hrs ago, and you responded in 2 minutes?


Are you being paid to post on this thread? We’re you hired by Everytown or some other group to just make forum posts all day and night? I’m genuinely curious. I know such people exist, I knew a person who did this type of work during the pandemic - I’ve just never encountered it “in the wild” until now.

LOL sure... We're all "hired by Everytown" and you "know" this because... well it's certainly NOT that you yourself camp out on threads about gun control attacking anyone who deigns to question the Sacred 2A and you think this is actually a thing /s

...as though people who are actually concerned about gun violence are somehow "paid actors" and that gun control is some kind of astroturf being foisted on Freedom Loving Americans by the Gun Grabbing Deep State or something.

Let's see just how weird this thread gets with the 2A fanatics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Yes you are making claims, because throughout this thread you were claiming that the random people who own guns are somehow protecting themselves and that they are somehow trained, capable and qualified to do so, despite never offering up any legitimate evidence of this.

But now you're whining about "worthless bleating" which is exactly what you were doing all along. Such irony.

Do you just camp out on this thread? I’m replying to you from like 10 hrs ago, and you responded in 2 minutes?


Are you being paid to post on this thread? We’re you hired by Everytown or some other group to just make forum posts all day and night? I’m genuinely curious. I know such people exist, I knew a person who did this type of work during the pandemic - I’ve just never encountered it “in the wild” until now.

Huh? What are you nattering about? Hired to be posting day and night? Responding to me from 10 hours ago? I wasn't even on this thread 10 hours ago. I'm responding to the current ongoing conversation, NOT some random post buried 7 pages back like you seem to be doing. You're truly a weird person. But you do you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Yes you are making claims, because throughout this thread you were claiming that the random people who own guns are somehow protecting themselves and that they are somehow trained, capable and qualified to do so, despite never offering up any legitimate evidence of this.

But now you're whining about "worthless bleating" which is exactly what you were doing all along. Such irony.

Do you just camp out on this thread? I’m replying to you from like 10 hrs ago, and you responded in 2 minutes?


Are you being paid to post on this thread? We’re you hired by Everytown or some other group to just make forum posts all day and night? I’m genuinely curious. I know such people exist, I knew a person who did this type of work during the pandemic - I’ve just never encountered it “in the wild” until now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

The problem is, every time people come up with schemes to “control” guns, it’s always about taking guns away from the people who aren’t criminals to begin with. It’s NEVER about removing guns from the people who are using them in crimes.

So to your point - the “solutions” that are always trotted out never address “controlling” the guns possessed by those people who shouldn’t have them. The answer is always taking guns away from the people who DO own them responsibly. Because THOSE people will comply with the law (up to a point….) and therefore the gun control law can be hailed as a success because the people who follow laws, followed the law. Well, duh…. But the criminals go on, undeterred by any law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Yes you are making claims, because throughout this thread you were claiming that the random people who own guns are somehow protecting themselves and that they are somehow trained, capable and qualified to do so, despite never offering up any legitimate evidence of this.

But now you're whining about "worthless bleating" which is exactly what you were doing all along. Such irony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

I’m not the one making a claim. You are. And without data to support it. So it’s pretty much as worthless as everything else you’ve bleated about here.

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Guns are "bad" here in the US because they aren't well controlled. We have too many people getting guns who shouldn't have guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

Thank you for raising the critical point. If as you as a CCW holder are using your weapon you are not responding to an active shooter situation. That is what police do, they respond. If a CCW holder is firing their weapon they had no choice and are part of the active shooting situation.

Most CCW holders train and are proficient with their weapon and can hit a target at close range. They need an imminent threat to use their weapon so the attacker is at most only going to be a few feet away when they fire.

Far closer than from where police would routinely engage fire with an armed suspect.

You were doing great and then crashed and burned. LE officers barely have sufficient training needed to carry and use a firearm. Your average person with a CCW just absolutely sucks in terms of proficiency, accuracy, and more importantly, decision making skills.

And you doubtless have well controlled studies to support this assertion, no?

Everything in life isn't explained by a study. I've worked in LE for over two decades and I've also "trained" with non LE types and I can tell you first hand that they are generally horrible. You just can't be proficient if you don't have much training. How much training do you think is required to get a CCW permit?

Anonymous wrote:Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

LOL @ how you are very confidently making very incorrect assumptions about "the power of education" and "irrational fear."

I happen to be a gun owner, I grew up hunting and target shooting, my father was career military, an Army instructor in marksmanship, range estimation, UKD and other sniper training topics, and competed quite successfully in numerous competitive shooting events during and after his 21 year military career, he also did gunsmithing and custom loads and he taught me quite extensively, probably far better than any training you've ever gotten. That said, I think our gun controls are far too lax and that there are far too many guns in the hands of far too many idiots, irresponsible people and criminals. And my belief is backed up by literally every single piece of data that shows we have a completely unacceptable number of shootings, gun crimes, and illegal guns flooding this country. And my father agrees.

Won’t matter what data is produced, nti-gun stance will always be that guns are bad. Its why the administration wanted to not fund shooting or archery programs in schools.

If people take the time to learn about guns, and recognize that modern weapons can be safely handled, they don’t go boom on their own, then the emotional fear drains away.

That’s the power of education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

And yet, ordinary people with concealed weapon permits have stopped active shooters so often that you’ve given up trying to deny it happens.

How many people with CCWs have had accidental shootings? Or suicides?

Why don’t you look into and report back to us?

Find the total number of CCW permits issued/active in the US (but 27 states have no-permit carry now, so the number will skew low) and then look up how many suicides and negligent discharges there were in a typical year.

Let us know what you find. Then we can do some elementary math and see if the percentages for CCW holders are greater or lesser than the general population. Or cops.


Get busy. We’re all curious to see what you come up with.

PP can look it up when they are digging up the “good guy with a gun” data.

Can’t just look at one side of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, you are the reason, OP, that I wouldn't want to move to DC -- because your need to feel secure could result in a weapon going off in the wrong way and hitting a person in my family or me. It feels incredibly selfish. America is terrible in that way.

Wait, let me get this straight: other people should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves from violent criminal predators because you don’t know anything about firearms, have no idea how they work or what safety devices they contain, are unwilling to learn about any of that, and hence have an irrational paranoia about weapons “going off in the wrong way.”

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but with the number of heavily armed plainclothes and uniformed law enforcement agents (federal and local), including retirees and on and off duty personnel from other jurisdictions, not to mention the military and armed security guards, the District of Columbia has always had a plethora of people carrying firearms, long before concealed pistol permits became available. I don’t recall there being any appreciable number of spontaneous discharges mowing down innocent victims in the street.

CCW is not law enforcement. It does not give you the level of training, direction, etc. to make it comparable. Police are trained to minimize the risk of danger to bystanders.

Police, protected by special favorable legal standards that apply only to them, and by “qualified” immunity, regularly exhibit absolutely appalling gunhandling, failure to observe safety rules and trigger discipline, and firing excessive numbers of rounds with no consideration where they might go. “Danger to bystanders” is the least of their demonstrated concerns. There are plenty of “regular” people with training and skill that dwarfs the absolutely minimal level level of competence police are trained to.

In any event, the point was not to compare law enforcement and non law enforcement but to demonstrate that long before the District became shall issue there were plenty of guns getting carried around without any notable instance of spontaneous discharge.

Where's your data on the level of proficiency of CCW holders? Any expert I've spoken to has noted that even states with the highest level of required training to review a CCW permit are far short of what would be needed to respond in an active shooting situation.

You still just think you're a regular John Wayne.

And yet, ordinary people with concealed weapon permits have stopped active shooters so often that you’ve given up trying to deny it happens.

How many people with CCWs have had accidental shootings? Or suicides?

Why don’t you look into and report back to us?

Find the total number of CCW permits issued/active in the US (but 27 states have no-permit carry now, so the number will skew low) and then look up how many suicides and negligent discharges there were in a typical year.

Let us know what you find. Then we can do some elementary math and see if the percentages for CCW holders are greater or lesser than the general population. Or cops.


Get busy. We’re all curious to see what you come up with.

DP... not sure what you're driving at. The percentage of accidental shootings and suicides among gun owners is definitely much higher than that of the general population. That's a given. How is someone who isn't even a gun owner going to accidentally shoot themself or someone else? And, gun owners are something like 80% more likely to die from a suicide attempt than someone who isn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?

That absolutely is my anecdotal experience based on all of the people I know who own guns, and there are many. Very few of them regularly go to a range or keep their skills up. And I have seen no evidence to suggest that any meaningful percentage of gun owners do. The reality is that even a lot of professionals who carry a gun for their job, like police officers lack adequate skills and trainings.

Now your turn - Do you have data to support your notion that gun carriers are all highly skilled and proficient? Or just your anecdotal feels?
Just kidding - Of course you don't have any such data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

You see, snark like this is a sure indicia of a weak argument and a weaker mind. No one claimed anyone is an expert, although a good number of persons with concealed pistol permits doubtless could qualify as “expert” on a range test. And you’re the one who seems to have te sexual obsession. Decent people with concealed pistol permits want to be able to protect themselves and they have a right to do that. People with an irrational fear of firearms (and of what they themselves might do if they had one) have screamed for years about blood in the streets, negligent bullets flying everywhere, and every other imaginable scenario their fantasy could develop. Shall issue laws have been around since 1987. Vermont has never required a carry permit. Many other States like Virginia have long allowed open carry without a permit. The predicted disaster has never occurred.

There is no credible data to prove that the average person carrying a gun is in fact trained and proficient and capable of doing anything useful with it. And in fact the overwhelming majority of people who carry are far more likely to freeze up or panic rather than act in any appropriate way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and I have to lol at "2 days of training" plus a range session. So the 2.5 day "gun experts" are being set loose with their vigilante wet dreams.

Ok, serious question: do you really think that these people with permits only go to a range once in their lives, to qualify for their permit?

If you really DO believe that, then say so. But if you suspect otherwise, and are just implying that for purposes of snark, then that’s a pretty bad-faith way to argue.

A huge number of them do not go to the range. They go a few times when they first get it and that's about it.

And you have data to support this assertion?

Or just your anecdotal feelz?