Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, New VPC Study Confirms

Adam Winkler (who is a law professor at UCLA) probably knows much more about the Constitution than anyone here.

"Adam Winkler is a specialist in American constitutional law. His scholarship has been cited and quoted in landmark Supreme Court cases, including opinions on the Second Amendment and on corporate political speech rights....

"Professor Winkler teaches Constitutional Law I, Constitutional Theory, Gun Control, and Professional Responsibility."
https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/adam-winkler/

He is a refreshing voice of honesty and objectivity in an often very polarized debate.

 

That is a Lie, show me a quote of any of the founding Fathers in favor of Gun Control, you will not find any, NFA 1939 was the start, the GCA of 1968, etc...
The Sullivan act 1911, NYC, before 1900 there were no Gun control laws at the Federal level.
That is the problem with Gun control advocates, they twist and lie about everything starting with the Second Amendment.
If Winkler had made any positive statements about Guns, you can be 100% sure he would not be quoted by our dymamic duo.

 

It is no such thing the only gun control the founding fathers instituted was largely private in the case of those who owned slaves, as to prohibiting slaves from owning guns, the other ordinances that existed largely involved the training of militia units. The militia by the way was every able bodied man between fourteen and sixty. Every Militiamen was expected to furnish his own weapons uniform and supplies. The only thing you've got correct in that opening statement was that the founders did come from a background in which restrictions upon arms possessed by the free man was greatly restricted. That was why in the Second amendment they chose to not just reject such restrictions but to make it entirely a matter of law to prohibit the prohibition of fire arms by the state.

 

Wow. This says a lot about you and none of it good. This position is something that I hear from gun control advocates regularly and all it says to me is that they have no self-control and don't care to develop any. I have a temper and I have been angry and all while being armed; I have never been even remotely tempted to resort to my gun out of simple anger or petulance, and have even responded to attempted assaults with hand-to-hand tactics and not to the gun. Geez, no wonder gun control advocates tend to support a political agenda that doesn't require them to take responsibility for themselves.

Exactly why situational awareness is so important.

See, none of those situations should have been sufficiently "distracting" to keep you from noticing that there was someone approaching you with ill intent. Especially in the park, when no person should have gotten anywhere near close enough for you to not notice their approach. And to be mugged twice, on the same day, by the same guy....? Come on!

No. No, I don't think so. In your case it is probably beneficial to have not been armed. Without proper emotional control or situational awareness - and apparently no desire to put the effort in to develop any - having a gun would have done you no good whatsoever.

 

Which ultimately does not mean anything of actual substance. Simply because one is a professor at a college, does not mean they are not polarized, or motivated by their own politics. It has already been demonstrated how numerous professors are focused less on actually teaching their courses, and more focused on spreading their preferred message.

 

Any would-be Constitutional "scholar" who tries to argue what Winkler tries to argue abandons his credibility with the ludicrous arguments he puts forward. He might have been "quoted in landmark Supreme Court cases" but his position on the 2nd Amendment is beyond suspect. He is NOT possessed of ANY kind of "honesty" - much less "objectivity" - in this case, and you only claim he does because he says what you want to hear.

 

Does the fact a gun, under specifically contrived circumstances, may be useless for self-defense mean that guns -are- useless for self-defense?

 

That's on you, especially after the first time.

 

I used to have a dog that needed meds daily. He wouldn't consume his pills unless I wrapped them in something he thought acceptable food. Same principle he's applying.
We are talking UCLA here, the only narrative Winkler can advocate is on that is anti-gun without putting his job in jeopardy.
Winkler is decidedly anti-gun; his arguements are have resonated with those on the left trying to craft a campaign of 'reasonable gun control' that will sell to the voting population by re-interpreting the 2A; one of those using his 'scholar' status as a means of lending credibility to his arguements to those devoid of critical thinking skills on the left and the for the left's propoganda media arm ready to regurgitate any anti-gun rhetoric they can cloak in pseudo 'science' clothing.
While he dismisses his view as one that would result in the 'Slippery Slope' strategy, he is trying to set that stage by pushing making minor implementation of gun rights restrictions acceptable and normal if they still allow a path toward gun ownership, but once, that arguement is accepted, it sets the stage to expand restrictions incrementally, a goal of the left, and further, sets the stage for further erosion of other civil rights susceptible to the same line of deceptive reasoning. This is precisely the strategy followed over a century in the U.K. He contends he isn't representing what would become a Slippery Slope, but in fact is in the vanguard.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

 

We've just had two examples in the last week.
1) Scalise bodyguard returned fire saving them from a much higher death count.
2) Homeowner in Tennessee captured 2 escaped convicts that were armed with glock 40 's.

 

Concealed carry is spreading, there are a few holdouts, however, jealousy is a powerful force, soon people living in holdout areas will rebel.

 

And many more people have been victims of criminal gun use during the last week.

 

None of which were legally acquired or possessed. Your argument holds no more merit than complaining about individuals being randomly assaulted by criminals wielding hammers that are easily available at any hardware store, and often used in construction professions.

 

Yes mostly in Chicago, Detroit, LA, NYC, etc. Which are all liberal controlled cities that make it more difficult for an honest law-abiding citizen to obtain firearms for protection.

 

Okay, and? How do you want to use violence against legal gun owners in order to achieve whatever it is you want?

 

Criminals use Guns.
What is your point ?