Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Vitaphone Racing]

Don't post biased sites and then go but other sites are biased too!! That is weak. When I posted a link it was to a government study on gun violence not sites that have ads for books about how Micheal Moore, Diane Feinstein or whatever lefties are liars. That doesn't help your credibility.

To your second point. Nobody is saying ban all guns. What they are saying is 35,000 gun deaths are too damn high, mass shootings are too frequent, the accessibility of guns too easy to obtain and the saturation of guns in society overwhelming. You frequently claim to be a law abiding gun owner. If stricter gun regulations were enforced in what way would it effect you? None at all.

Look at he first link. last time I looked the FBI was a government agency. In any event, none of my sources are any more biased than the sources used to support pro-gun-control policies.

As for 35 000 gun deaths being too high, how many are left after you take out criminals being killed in by people defending themselves?

Finally: Stricter regulation does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. They do reduce the number of guns in law abiding hands.

I've posted the same data table repeatedly which shows that firearms ownership in Australia per capita has barely changed in response to the ban on cf semi-autos and heavy restrictions on handguns, yet the gun crime rate had dropped markedly.

Stricter regulation does nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, so is it a mere coinicidence that every developed western nation with a lower gun crime rate than the US has tighter regulations?

[Big Jim P]

Look at he first link. last time I looked the FBI was a government agency. In any event, none of my sources are any more biased than the sources used to support pro-gun-control policies.

As for 35 000 gun deaths being too high, how many are left after you take out criminals being killed in by people defending themselves?

Finally: Stricter regulation does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. They do reduce the number of guns in law abiding hands.

I've posted the same data table repeatedly which shows that firearms ownership in Australia per capita has barely changed in response to the ban on cf semi-autos and heavy restrictions on handguns, yet the gun crime rate had dropped markedly.

Stricter regulation does nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, so is it a mere coinicidence that every developed western nation with a lower gun crime rate than the US has tighter regulations?

The gun-control nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify tighter regulation while, denying the pro-gun people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The gun-control nuts also apparently HATE a justified shooting that they can't really spin into a call for more gun-control. Fun to watch them contorting themselves in their attempt to do so however.

[Emile Zola]

Look at he first link. last time I looked the FBI was a government agency. In any event, none of my sources are any more biased than the sources used to support pro-gun-control policies.

As for 35 000 gun deaths being too high, how many are left after you take out criminals being killed in by people defending themselves?

Finally: Stricter regulation does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. They do reduce the number of guns in law abiding hands.

What was the purpose of the FBI link? It took me to the title page and don't have all day to read every article. Be specific. Biased sites are to be ignored pro or anti gun.

The majority of gun deaths are by suicide in rural areas. The majority of gun homicides are by handguns in urban areas. That's not the point. My point is that in Australia where they tightened regulations on guns all gun deaths dropped by over 40%. That's both suicide and homicide. We also had the largest gun buy back in the world.

I've seen no evidence based on your statement. It's the standard I'm in denial about guns so I'll say the baddies will kill us line because I've got nothing else to say. I get it you have a fetish. Americans love wallowing in some dystopian paranoid fantasy where they become the hero by blasting their way to freedom. Ain't gonna happen. Most likely someone will get hurt through an accident but whatever, freedom!!

[Big Jim P]

Look at he first link. last time I looked the FBI was a government agency. In any event, none of my sources are any more biased than the sources used to support pro-gun-control policies.

As for 35 000 gun deaths being too high, how many are left after you take out criminals being killed in by people defending themselves?

Finally: Stricter regulation does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. They do reduce the number of guns in law abiding hands.

What was the purpose of the FBI link? It took me to the title page and don't have all day to read every article. Be specific. Biased sites are to be ignored pro or anti gun.

The majority of gun deaths are by suicide in rural areas. The majority of gun homicides are by handguns in urban areas. That's not the point. My point is that in Australia where they tightened regulations on guns all gun deaths dropped by over 40%. That's both suicide and homicide. We also had the largest gun buy back in the world.

I've seen no evidence based on your statement. It's the standard I'm in denial about guns so I'll say the baddies will kill us line because I've got nothing else to say. I get it you have a fetish. Americans love wallowing in some dystopian paranoid fantasy where they become the hero by blasting their way to freedom. Ain't gonna happen. Most likely someone will get hurt through an accident but whatever, freedom!!

See the post immediately above mine.

[Emile Zola]

See the post immediately above mine.

Saw it. So I'm biased because I won't accept your biased sources. Yet when I provided a source it was unbiased. Pure projection on your part.

[Big Jim P]

See the post immediately above mine.

Saw it. So I'm biased because I won't accept your biased sources. Yet when I provided a source it was unbiased. Pure projection on your part.

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

[Emile Zola]

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

I don't like anyone who use biased sources it weakens any argument. I could replace gun-control with pro gun in your first paragraph and make the same statement but that wouldn't be productive. I read Vitaphones post I think you missed his point. While the level of gun ownership stayed the same the amount of guns was reduced dramatically. Less guns were in circulation and the purchasing of guns was heavily regulated. There is 28 day waiting period for each gun where the police do a background check. His second point is a correlation between stricter gun regulation and lower gun violence. I'm not sure how this proves your point.

In my first post I said I did not care about the burglar being shot. I also don't engage in "what if's" it happened it's done. One act of self defense does not make a case for guns. Conflating this one incident to a general "hey look guns are awesome" isn't applicable. As I said before the majority of gun deaths are suicides in rural areas and the majority of gun homicides are handguns in urban areas. When Australia tightened their gun laws both dropped by 40%. Less guns equal less gun deaths.

[Neu Acadie]

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

I am a part of the "gun control crowd", and I don't hate it. Do you know why? Because it happening has no effect on the reasons I am a gun-control advocate nor does it have the ability to change my mind.

My particular brand of gun control is probably a little different to the average nut you are imagining, though, I assume.

[Spreewerke]

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

I don't like anyone who use biased sources it weakens any argument. I could replace gun-control with pro gun in your first paragraph and make the same statement but that wouldn't be productive. I read Vitaphones post I think you missed his point. While the level of gun ownership stayed the same the amount of guns was reduced dramatically. Less guns were in circulation and the purchasing of guns was heavily regulated. There is 28 day waiting period for each gun where the police do a background check. His second point is a correlation between stricter gun regulation and lower gun violence. I'm not sure how this proves your point.

In my first post I said I did not care about the burglar being shot. I also don't engage in "what if's" it happened it's done. One act of self defense does not make a case for guns. Conflating this one incident to a general "hey look guns are awesome" isn't applicable. As I said before the majority of gun deaths are suicides in rural areas and the majority of gun homicides are handguns in urban areas. When Australia tightened their gun laws both dropped by 40%. Less guns equal less gun deaths.

The reason those rural deaths dropped by 40% was because they no longer had said guns to defend themselves from dingos. We must check dingo attack statistic charts from the same time period and see if ever there was an increase.

[Big Jim P]

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

I don't like anyone who use biased sources it weakens any argument. I could replace gun-control with pro gun in your first paragraph and make the same statement but that wouldn't be productive. I read Vitaphones post I think you missed his point. While the level of gun ownership stayed the same the amount of guns was reduced dramatically. Less guns were in circulation and the purchasing of guns was heavily regulated. There is 28 day waiting period for each gun where the police do a background check. His second point is a correlation between stricter gun regulation and lower gun violence. I'm not sure how this proves your point.

In my first post I said I did not care about the burglar being shot. I also don't engage in "what if's" it happened it's done. One act of self defense does not make a case for guns. Conflating this one incident to a general "hey look guns are awesome" isn't applicable. As I said before the majority of gun deaths are suicides in rural areas and the majority of gun homicides are handguns in urban areas. When Australia tightened their gun laws both dropped by 40%. Less guns equal less gun deaths.

By using the term "gun-deaths" you fail to recognize that some of those deaths are justifiable and/or legitimate acts of self-defense. Once these legitimate uses are taken out of the equation, then the "epidemic" of gun deaths is no where near as scary. Which is exactly why they are included in the statistic.

In this case, there was not a death, but the use of the gun was legitimate (although there have been some who have stated otherwise in this thread). That sticks in the craw of the more vocal gun-control advocates, who are far more used to using tragedies to further their agenda.

[Big Jim P]

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

I am a part of the "gun control crowd", and I don't hate it. Do you know why? Because it happening has no effect on the reasons I am a gun-control advocate nor does it have the ability to change my mind.

My particular brand of gun control is probably a little different to the average nut you are imagining, though, I assume.

Then explain your position. I am willing to listen to opposing arguments, assuming they aren't rabid, foaming at the mouth rants. I hate those from the pro-gun side as well. In either case, they make the reasonable parties look bad.

[Falcania]

I've posted the same data table repeatedly which shows that firearms ownership in Australia per capita has barely changed in response to the ban on cf semi-autos and heavy restrictions on handguns, yet the gun crime rate had dropped markedly.

Stricter regulation does nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, so is it a mere coinicidence that every developed western nation with a lower gun crime rate than the US has tighter regulations?

The gun-control nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify tighter regulation while, denying the pro-gun people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The gun-control nuts also apparently HATE a justified shooting that they can't really spin into a call for more gun-control. Fun to watch them contorting themselves in their attempt to do so however.

The pro-gun nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify looser regulation while, denying the gun-control people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The pro-gun nuts also apparently LOVE a "justified shooting" that they can really spin into a call for looser gun-control. Horrible to watch them contorting logic in their attempt to do so, however.

[Big Jim P]

The gun-control nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify tighter regulation while, denying the pro-gun people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The gun-control nuts also apparently HATE a justified shooting that they can't really spin into a call for more gun-control. Fun to watch them contorting themselves in their attempt to do so however.

The pro-gun nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify looser regulation while, denying the gun-control people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The pro-gun nuts also apparently LOVE a "justified shooting" that they can really spin into a call for looser gun-control. Horrible to watch them contorting logic in their attempt to do so, however.

Like I said originally: double standard. The shoe is on the other foot now.

[Neu Acadie]

Then explain your position. I am willing to listen to opposing arguments, assuming they aren't rabid, foaming at the mouth rants. I hate those from the pro-gun side as well. In either case, they make the reasonable parties look bad.

Mandatory NICS-style check on all purchases including from private sellers, registration of weapons with local law enforcement, mandatory government approved safety course and renewal once every five to seven years, a licensing system for collectors and private sellers that keeps track of their inventory as painlessly as possible (Either computerized or filed with local law enforcement on a three or six month basis), mandatory waiting period of not less than 30 days for all purchases including from private sellers, and certified statement from a mental health professional that you are of sound mind.

Owning guns is a right. I am absolutely fine with people owning any kind of gun they want. I would be fine with selling military-grade firearms to people as long as the above criteria has been met.

[Big Jim P]

Then explain your position. I am willing to listen to opposing arguments, assuming they aren't rabid, foaming at the mouth rants. I hate those from the pro-gun side as well. In either case, they make the reasonable parties look bad.

Mandatory NICS-style check on all purchases including from private sellers, registration of weapons with local law enforcement, mandatory government approved safety course and renewal once every five to seven years, a licensing system for collectors and private sellers that keeps track of their inventory as painlessly as possible (Either computerized or filed with local law enforcement on a three or six month basis), mandatory waiting period of not less than 30 days for all purchases including from private sellers, and certified statement from a mental health professional that you are of sound mind.

Owning guns is a right. I am absolutely fine with people owning any kind of gun they want. I would be fine with selling military-grade firearms to people as long as the above criteria has been met.

I am fine with mandatory training (primarily safety training), leading to a perpetual license to own and/or carry that can only be revoked by the courts for criminal actions or diagnosis of mental illness. This covers the responsibility half of the equation. Your system however unduly restricts the "right to bear arms" half.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I've posted the same data table repeatedly which shows that firearms ownership in Australia per capita has barely changed in response to the ban on cf semi-autos and heavy restrictions on handguns, yet the gun crime rate had dropped markedly.

Stricter regulation does nothing to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, so is it a mere coinicidence that every developed western nation with a lower gun crime rate than the US has tighter regulations?

The gun-control nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify tighter regulation while, denying the pro-gun people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The gun-control nuts also apparently HATE a justified shooting that they can't really spin into a call for more gun-control. Fun to watch them contorting themselves in their attempt to do so however.

And you're any different, how? The fact you refer to anyone who opposes your brilliant opinion as a nut speaks volumes for how considerate and open to new ideas you are.

>posts data which conflicts with someone's view
>is gun nut
>legit

[Neu Acadie]

Your system however unduly restricts the "right to bear arms" half.

How so? Is it the length of time between desire to purchase and purchase? Mandatory medical assessment?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Saw it. So I'm biased because I won't accept your biased sources. Yet when I provided a source it was unbiased. Pure projection on your part.

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

We have well publicized data about people being more likely to have a family member or themself accidently or deliberately being shot rather than be used to prevent a crime, and the anti gun control crowd just ignore it.


Wow!

[Big Jim P]

Your system however unduly restricts the "right to bear arms" half.

How so? Is it the length of time between desire to purchase and purchase? Mandatory medical assessment?

Primarily the registration requirements (which would be covered under my perpetual license plan) and the renewal requirements.

Edit: and a 30 day waiting period when we already have an instant background check.

[Big Jim P]

Actually I meant to direct your attention to Vitaphones post above, but yes, I commented on the fact that the gun-control supporters use biased sources and "what-ifs" to further their agenda, and scream bloody murder if the pro-gun supporters use a "what if" to justify their agenda, as well as scream "Bias" against our sources. It is a hypocritical double standard any way you look at it.

We now have a well-publicized case of a legitimate use of a gun in self defense, and the gun-control crowd just hate it.

We have well publicized data about people being more likely to have a family member or themself accidently or deliberately being shot rather than be used to prevent a crime, and the anti gun control crowd just ignore it.


Wow!

Debunked in my sources.

[Vitaphone Racing]

We have well publicized data about people being more likely to have a family member or themself accidently or deliberately being shot rather than be used to prevent a crime, and the anti gun control crowd just ignore it.


Wow!

Debunked in my sources.

Because your sources are more legit than other sources obviously.

[Big Jim P]

Debunked in my sources.

Because your sources are more legit than other sources obviously.

No but they are sources. I challenge anyone to find an unbiased source for anything.

[Big Jim P]

The gun-control nuts have proven that they will not read or accept anything that conflicts with their view, and instead will cry "bias" against any source but their own. They also seem to like to use "what ifs" to justify tighter regulation while, denying the pro-gun people the same courtesy. Gotta love double standards and hypocrisy.

On topic: The gun-control nuts also apparently HATE a justified shooting that they can't really spin into a call for more gun-control. Fun to watch them contorting themselves in their attempt to do so however.

And you're any different, how? The fact you refer to anyone who opposes your brilliant opinion as a nut speaks volumes for how considerate and open to new ideas you are.

>posts data which conflicts with someone's view
>is gun nut
>legit

Just returning the favor of labeling all pro-gun people as nuts.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because your sources are more legit than other sources obviously.

No but they are sources. I challenge anyone to find an unbiased source for anything.

There's a difference in bias between Harvard posting findings and the NRA or some other protege group posting findings.

[Neu Acadie]

How so? Is it the length of time between desire to purchase and purchase? Mandatory medical assessment?

Primarily the registration requirements (which would be covered under my perpetual license plan) and the renewal requirements.

How is renewal of a license to own a firearm every five to seven years an undue hardship? It's not something that would be overly expensive assuming standard fees apply in my state, for example, it would be $25 every five to seven years. That's a total of ~$185 over a lifetime of seventy years or so assuming we go with the seven year renewal plan. If you want, we could even combine the two steps and include your registration with your licensing.

If a person cannot afford $185 or so over a period of seventy years it is quite remarkable they are able to own and maintain a firearm.

Edit: and a 30 day waiting period when we already have an instant background check.

One would have to acquire the statement from a medical professional in-between the stated desire to purchase and purchase. What would be an acceptable waiting time for you for this to be accomplished? Five business days? Ten business days?