NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

You're making no sense at all.

 

Coming from a country that has about 4 times the violent crime rate as the U.S. because folks like getting knifed and the crap beat out of them by thugs, I will take your advice under advisement.

Tell me Col., why are posters from gun control countries just so interested in seeing to it we have ours taken away? Are they jealous?

 

translation: wutitiz got served, big time. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429585&p=1065513130#post1065513130 But rather than be an adult an concede a point, he blows smoke and heads for the hills. Not unexpected.

- - - Updated - - -

And another right wing crank proves to be useless in a debate beyond sniping. Into the IA bin with him.

 

And totally irrelevant, as our rights are not handed out on the basis of what someone calculates the odds to be of you actually needing it.

 

Not to the guy getting knifed for his wallet.

 

Yes. It is rare that you will need a gun to defend yourself. But, if you do need it, you are going to be very happy you have it.

 

You seem to misinterpret what the second amendment was meant for.

 

Once again you shove words into my mouth. Please do not do that.

This is the quintessence of duplicity, to put words into the mouth of an interlocutor. It's ironic that you accuse Colion Noir of duplicity, and fail to back your accusation, and in the process engage in duplicity yourself.

 

The claim of the video is a grotesque lie. There have been thousands of reports of people protecting themselves and others with firearms. Even posting just two instances (and hundreds have been presented just on this forum) proved the statistical claim of the video is an outright deliberate and grotesque lie.

Statistically, firearms prevent 1 million felonies and 200,000 rapes per year.

- - - Updated - - -

Every victim of a mass shooting needed a firearm for self defense. There has never been an armed victim of a mass shooting.

The video is a lie.

 

Ahh, but there lies the dishonesty in Noir's whole screed. Since there is NO federal law to confiscate guns (and hasn't been since I've been alive) from law abiding citizens, and they can purchase a weapon PROVIDED THEY MEET STATE REGULATIONS, no one's rights are being violated.

Noir is given a platform as an a-typical NRA flunkie.....using the fear factor and the dubious claim of the gov't denying folks their Constitutional rights to a weapon for the benefit of the gun lobby in Washington.

Let's be honest: you have folk who want to purchase any type of weapon they want, carry it with them 24/7 from state to state, then sell it to whomever they want with NO federal and little state regulation or over-sight.

That's insane, and our history shows the progression from that insanity.

All the OP shows is the sheer stupidity in Noir's video, as it contradicts itself.

 

So everyone who wants one gets to have one to carry 24/7? Okay, if that's the case then let there be a NATIONAL mandate of licensing and registration for all weapon purchases in conjunction with individual state regulations.

 

Sorry son, but no one who can read the chronology of the post is buying your attempted dodge by lying about what I write. If you can copy and paste EXACTLY what you stated and how I "put words into your mouth", do so. If not, that makes you a liar and smoke blower as I stated. The OP clearly and logically demonstrates the duplicity of Noir's video content, and I've addressed similar to others on this thread. I took YOU to task on your comments, and YOU FAILED to logically and factually support/defend your position. Falsely accusing me of things and repeated that false claim ad nausea is not a substitute for a debate. So if you've got nothing else, I'd say we're done.

 

Agreed....but not for the same reasons, as I've elaborated earlier in the thread.

 

What it is is a CYA = Cover Your Ass

They do not want to be sued by people claiming that a relative only bought the gun because the NRA said it would help them stay alive

 

You are a troll and I'm certainly not your son. Here is what you stated

I never said that, nor would I have misused the word 'monicker' [sic, misspelled] as you did. Show me where I said this? When you have to stuff words into the mouth of your interlocutor, you have lost the debate

 

depends where you live, but for the most part true

BUT...... that is also partly because the bad guys do not know which houses have and which do not have guns

 

And research that shows a great many of those are actually OFFENSIVE uses

Who has been reading the world's worst research study by Kleck?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Does the words "Collateral Damage" mean anything? In the Gifford shooting there was well documented evidence that it nearly escalated out of control as people who were armed were aiming at each other

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html

 

Nope - but they DO know which houses have good alarm systems and which do not.

And there is no proof that a gun in the house reduces the risk of robbery - in fact it may increase it

 

I disagree, I think the thought that someone might have a gun causes people not to rob people at night while they are at home

daytime robberies may not have the same effect

 

This is a topic that is inherently not subject to "proof." But there is plenty of evidence that private ownership of guns, i.e. a 'gun in the house,' reduces the risk of robbery, i.e. 'hot' burglary.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html

This is common sense. Most crime is impelled by drug addiction, and druggies just want monetary gain so that they can buy more drugs. Home invasion robberies are relatively uncommon in the US, where a large pct. of the populace has a gun in the house.

 

Shall not be infringed and state regulations....doesn't compute. Anyway, you don't need an explicit law to confiscate guns to do the same thing.

Eliminate or make it harder to obtain said permits...arbitrarily hinder the amount of ammo you can buy...the size of clips...trigger locks...reguations of storage...and whatever else they can think of.

All designed to hamper those people's guns and make their right to have them more of a headache.


Myself I don't even own a gun, it's a choice I made as I have kids and just don't like the risk... so I have no dog in this fight other than knowing what rights we have and not wanting my fellow American getting his trampled under the ruse of "for the greater good".

 

Of course because gun crime is the lowest in the world when you live in the suburbs, however that doesn't change the fact that the only reason why our government isn't completely totalitarian is because we have guns..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the only reason why governments of both past and present have become tyrannical, authoritarian or totalitarian is because the people had no way to stop them and in most cases no rights to weapons...

 

But then most robberies happen when the house is empty - easier

- - - Updated - - -

So, why have not countries like Australia England, most of Europe become totalitarian? If you have to rely on a gun to ensure freedom - mate you have LOST the battle because the only thing lots of guns would ensure is a civil war

 

That isn't a robbery it's a burglary...

Indeed most people that do that don't want confrontation or are dumb enough to think you can just break into someones house and they won't wake up and shoot you dead because that's how it works in the cat burglar movies...

 

Another false and failed analogy. Have you tried to make the same one for gun deaths and car deaths?