***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[5 digit know nothing]

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes,

Your ignorance is showing. You are trying to call out the author on his well known cited stats of DGUs that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and you don't even know what the hell the stat represents.

My suggestion for you is to take your expert googling skills and spend two minutes and educate yourself.

Here's a hint, a gun does not need to be fired for it to be considered a DGU, this is the reason why the numbers are all over the map and why the FBI does not have accurate numbers since many go unreported each year.

example 1

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5

 

[[icon]]

Ding dong the ##### is dead.

Score one for the good guys

 

[TobiasFunke]

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes,

Your ignorance is showing. You are trying to call out the author on his well known cited stats of DGUs that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and you don't even know what the hell the stat represents.

My suggestion for you is to take your expert googling skills and spend two minutes and educate yourself.

Here's a hint, a gun does not need to be fired for it to be considered a DGU, this is the reason why the numbers are all over the map and why the FBI does not have accurate numbers since many go unreported each year.

example 1

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5

No ####. What do you think I meant when I said:

I know that's probably a fraction of the prevented homicides and rapes by gun, because it many cases I'm sure showing the gun prevents the homicide or rape

Jesus Christ, man. I understand if you miss something I wrote ... but if you're not going to read my post carefully, don't tell me my "ignorance is showing" in it. As far as your anecdotal examples of defensive gun use in prevention of burglaries and assaults ... THAT WAS MY ENTIRE FRIGGING POINT! Defensive gun uses stats count uses of guns in the prevention of all kinds of crimes. That's exactly the reason why the author was so incredibly off base when he (1) compared defensive gun use numbers to lives ended by guns (a number he also screws up by leaving out gun accidents) as if one prevented trespass = one ended life; and (2) claimed every defensive gun use prevents a murder or rape.

I'm not trying to argue for gun control here. I'm trying to argue for idiot control. That blog post was not useful or "interesting" or a "good read." It was one-sided poorly reasoned garbage meant for sycophants who lack the ability to think critically.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes,

Your ignorance is showing. You are trying to call out the author on his well known cited stats of DGUs that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and you don't even know what the hell the stat represents.

My suggestion for you is to take your expert googling skills and spend two minutes and educate yourself.

Here's a hint, a gun does not need to be fired for it to be considered a DGU, this is the reason why the numbers are all over the map and why the FBI does not have accurate numbers since many go unreported each year.

example 1

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5

No ####. What do you think I meant when I said:

I know that's probably a fraction of the prevented homicides and rapes by gun, because it many cases I'm sure showing the gun prevents the homicide or rape

Jesus Christ, man. I understand if you miss something I wrote ... but if you're not going to read my post carefully, don't tell me my "ignorance is showing" in it. As far as your anecdotal examples of defensive gun use in prevention of burglaries and assaults ... THAT WAS MY ENTIRE FRIGGING POINT! Defensive gun uses stats count uses of guns in the prevention of all kinds of crimes. That's exactly the reason why the author was so incredibly off base when he (1) compared defensive gun use numbers to lives ended by guns (a number he also screws up by leaving out gun accidents) as if one prevented trespass = one ended life; and (2) claimed every defensive gun use prevents a murder or rape.

I'm not trying to argue for gun control here. I'm trying to argue for idiot control. That blog post was not useful or "interesting" or a "good read." It was one-sided poorly reasoned garbage meant for sycophants who lack the ability to think critically.

So have you figured out what a defensive gun use is and where all of those quoted numbers have actually come from since they have been discussed 10x over already in this thread and why it is so difficult to get an accurate number (your main gripe in your absurd diatribe)?Nowhere in his post does he claim there is a 1:1 relationship between [lives saved]:[lives lost] that is a conclusion you are trying to draw which is just not there, he is merely showing the incidents in which the result turned out favorably vs. unfavorably and the ratio is anywhere from 150:1 [good]:[bad] to 7:1 depending on how you (mis)interpret what a DGU is and how you gather your data. You can if you want pick a middle ground and say the ratio is somewhere in the middle at say 80:1, THEN if you really need to you can infer a relationship by identifying a percentage of the time a life is saved from those 80x incidents, I bet it is > 1.25% (1/80).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes,

Your ignorance is showing. You are trying to call out the author on his well known cited stats of DGUs that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and you don't even know what the hell the stat represents.

My suggestion for you is to take your expert googling skills and spend two minutes and educate yourself.

Here's a hint, a gun does not need to be fired for it to be considered a DGU, this is the reason why the numbers are all over the map and why the FBI does not have accurate numbers since many go unreported each year.

example 1

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5

No ####. What do you think I meant when I said:

I know that's probably a fraction of the prevented homicides and rapes by gun, because it many cases I'm sure showing the gun prevents the homicide or rape

Jesus Christ, man. I understand if you miss something I wrote ... but if you're not going to read my post carefully, don't tell me my "ignorance is showing" in it. As far as your anecdotal examples of defensive gun use in prevention of burglaries and assaults ... THAT WAS MY ENTIRE FRIGGING POINT! Defensive gun uses stats count uses of guns in the prevention of all kinds of crimes. That's exactly the reason why the author was so incredibly off base when he (1) compared defensive gun use numbers to lives ended by guns (a number he also screws up by leaving out gun accidents) as if one prevented trespass = one ended life; and (2) claimed every defensive gun use prevents a murder or rape.

I'm not trying to argue for gun control here. I'm trying to argue for idiot control. That blog post was not useful or "interesting" or a "good read." It was one-sided poorly reasoned garbage meant for sycophants who lack the ability to think critically.

So have you figured out what a defensive gun use is and where all of those quoted numbers have actually come from since they have been discussed 10x over already in this thread and why it is so difficult to get an accurate number (your main gripe in your absurd diatribe)?

I don't think you understanding me at all.I don't care where the numbers come from, other than the fact that the author also doesn't bother to cite or justify his use of them and in fact wrongly attributes them to the Brady Center one point (which tells me he's an idiot, which is my actual main gripe). I don't care why it's difficult to get an accurate number or what that means to gun control policy. I don't even care about gun control. I care about awful writing and reasoning, and about people mistaking it for intelligent contributions.

I'll repeat this again virtually word for word from my last post. Here are two significant problems I identified in the article just from the portion I quoted (I'm sure there are many more):

(1) The author compared defensive gun use numbers to lives ended by guns (a number he also screws up by leaving out gun accidents) as if one prevented trespass = one ended life; and (2) the author claimed that every defensive gun use prevents a murder or rape.

That has absolutely nothing to do with how difficult it is to get an accurate number. It has everything to do with awful logic, regardless of whether the true number of annul defensive gun uses is 200 or 200 million. Nobody who makes mistakes that obvious and stupid should be cited as "interesting" and a "good read." He's bringing nothing to the table.

If you think I'm wrong about either of those- if you think the author doesn't make those mistakes- then we can discuss that. Otherwise, you're trying to engage me in a debate that has nothing to do with my point and that I don't much care about.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nowhere in his post does he claim there is a 1:1 relationship between [lives saved]:[lives lost] that is a conclusion you are trying to draw which is just not there, he is merely showing the incidents in which the result turned out favorably vs. unfavorably and the ratio is anywhere from 150:1 [good]:[bad] to 7:1 depending on how you (mis)interpret what a DGU is and how you gather your data. You can if you want pick a middle ground and say the ratio is somewhere in the middle at say 80:1, THEN if you really need to you can infer a relationship by identifying a percentage of the time a life is saved from those 80x incidents, I bet it is > 1.25% (1/80).

He says:

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented. So of course he's comparing them on a 1:1 basis. Otherwise how could he possibly conclude that it was a "net positive"?He then says:

Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Again, he has never broken out defensive gun uses by type. The "population of a decent sized city" reference is obviously referring to the Brady Center's 108,000 estimate. Thus is he is claiming that every single one of those defensive gun uses prevented a murder or rape, isn't he? How else could you possibly interpret that comment?

 

[timschochet]

Tobias, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the anti-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" connecting undocumented Latino laborers to violent crime- and often these arguments are made by the exact same people.

 

[JHuber77]

Tobias, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the anti-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" connecting undocumented Latino laborers to violent crime- and often these arguments are made by the exact same people.

 

[smotherhook]

Tobias, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the anti-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" connecting undocumented Latino laborers to violent crime- and often these arguments are made by the exact same people.

you sound like a shill

 

[Novice2]

Tobias, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the anti-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" connecting undocumented Latino laborers to violent crime- and often these arguments are made by the exact same people.

 

[ATC1]

I am ok with the legislation passed in Colorado. Stricter background checks are fine with me if it is properly maintained and done correctly. In return the cost of the back ground check will not come out of the gun owner's pocket. Not sure the tax payers will enjoy that one, but if they feel like it will help... Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

My problem is I feel like it doesn't address the real issues. Instead of using money for back ground checks, why not use money to teach gun owners how to be responsible. I also don't think it will do much to prevent incidents like the movie theater. I believe proper self defense lessons and prohibiting gun-free zones would be more productive. But if it makes you sleep better at night to have more back ground checks, it's a good day for you.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I provided 5 examples, just perusing headlines and excerpts from the past month in which a gun was not fired and 2 out of 5 would have most likely prevented loss of life.

You agree that it is difficult to track accurate annual DGU #'s INCLUDING being able to draw concrete conclusions as to how many lives it saves (or to the point how many lives you claim it does not save), yet you have no problem lambasting a CCW instructor that offers his services for free to people employed by schools because you think he is pushing an agenda.

 

[ATC1]

Tobias, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the anti-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" connecting undocumented Latino laborers to violent crime- and often these arguments are made by the exact same people.

5 digit, you're wasting your time. These people consistently skew statistics and attempt to prove their points with anecdotal evidence, and will never admit it. It's extremely similar to how the pro-illegal immigration folks operate with their "statistics" etc...

 

[TobiasFunke]

I provided 5 examples, just perusing headlines and excerpts from the past month in which a gun was not fired and 2 out of 5 would have most likely prevented loss of life.

You agree that it is difficult to track accurate annual DGU #'s INCLUDING being able to draw concrete conclusions as to how many lives it saves (or to the point how many lives you claim it does not save), yet you have no problem lambasting a CCW instructor that offers his services for free to people employed by schools because you think he is pushing an agenda.

Jesus. I'm gonna say this slowly, maybe that will help keep you on track.I. Presented. Two. Obvious. And. Terrible. Logical. Errors. In. The. Article. Do. You. Agree. That. They. Are. Errors? If. Not. Why. Not?

I don't give a #### about how hard it is to actually come up with accurate defensive gun use numbers; as I said before, it's irrelevant to the criticism. I don't give a #### about what this guy does with his life other than write terrible articles. I ONLY care about the terrible article and the people like you who don't understand why it's terrible. He is wrong in the article, you are wrong to defend the article and describe it as a "good read" because it's garbage, and you and he are dragging down the quality of debate on this issue with your wrongness.

 

[tom22406]

I provided 5 examples, just perusing headlines and excerpts from the past month in which a gun was not fired and 2 out of 5 would have most likely prevented loss of life.

You agree that it is difficult to track accurate annual DGU #'s INCLUDING being able to draw concrete conclusions as to how many lives it saves (or to the point how many lives you claim it does not save), yet you have no problem lambasting a CCW instructor that offers his services for free to people employed by schools because you think he is pushing an agenda.

Jesus. I'm gonna say this slowly, maybe that will help keep you on track.I. Presented. Two. Obvious. And. Terrible. Logical. Errors. In. The. Article. Do. You. Agree. That. They. Are. Errors? If. Not. Why. Not?

I don't give a #### about how hard it is to actually come up with accurate defensive gun use numbers; as I said before, it's irrelevant to the criticism. I don't give a #### about what this guy does with his life other than write terrible articles. I ONLY care about the terrible article and the people like you who don't understand why it's terrible. He is wrong in the article, you are wrong to defend the article and describe it as a "good read" because it's garbage, and you and he are dragging down the quality of debate on this issue with your wrongness.

I had to laugh at this line,Tobias.This thread #### the bed long ago

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I provided 5 examples, just perusing headlines and excerpts from the past month in which a gun was not fired and 2 out of 5 would have most likely prevented loss of life.

You agree that it is difficult to track accurate annual DGU #'s INCLUDING being able to draw concrete conclusions as to how many lives it saves (or to the point how many lives you claim it does not save), yet you have no problem lambasting a CCW instructor that offers his services for free to people employed by schools because you think he is pushing an agenda.

Jesus. I'm gonna say this slowly, maybe that will help keep you on track.I. Presented. Two. Obvious. And. Terrible. Logical. Errors. In. The. Article. Do. You. Agree. That. They. Are. Errors? If. Not. Why. Not?

I don't give a #### about how hard it is to actually come up with accurate defensive gun use numbers; as I said before, it's irrelevant to the criticism. I don't give a #### about what this guy does with his life other than write terrible articles. I ONLY care about the terrible article and the people like you who don't understand why it's terrible. He is wrong in the article, you are wrong to defend the article and describe it as a "good read" because it's garbage, and you and he are dragging down the quality of debate on this issue with your wrongness.

No you didn't. You speculated and assumed and were flat out wrong. Hell you didn't even know what a DGU was.

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes,

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here, 5 digit. I'll help you. This is from one of my several previous posts making the exact same point:

He says:

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented. So of course he's comparing them on a 1:1 basis. Otherwise how could he possibly conclude that it was a "net positive"?He then says:

Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Again, he has never broken out defensive gun uses by type. The "population of a decent sized city" reference is obviously referring to the Brady Center's 108,000 estimate. Thus is he is claiming that every single one of those defensive gun uses prevented a murder or rape, isn't he? How else could you possibly interpret that comment?

If you think my criticism here is mistaken, please explain the mistake using these quotes and pointing out the errors. I'm happy to listen. I'm less happy to listen to anecdotes about prevented burglaries or stories about how the author is a super-nice guy. I don't care. That's irrelevant to the fact that the article sucks. I say the article sucks. I explained why, with quotes and logical arguments. Please feel free to reply in kind.

 

[timschochet]

I am ok with the legislation passed in Colorado. Stricter background checks are fine with me if it is properly maintained and done correctly. In return the cost of the back ground check will not come out of the gun owner's pocket. Not sure the tax payers will enjoy that one, but if they feel like it will help... Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO. My problem is I feel like it doesn't address the real issues. Instead of using money for back ground checks, why not use money to teach gun owners how to be responsible. I also don't think it will do much to prevent incidents like the movie theater. I believe proper self defense lessons and prohibiting gun-free zones would be more productive. But if it makes you sleep better at night to have more back ground checks, it's a good day for you.

This is an extremely thoughtful post and there's little here that I can take issue with.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No you didn't. You speculated and assumed and were flat out wrong. Hell you didn't even know what a DGU was.

Cool. Show me where. I lifted the quotes from the piece and my arguments about them for you to help you focus. Explain how my arguments are wrong and author's statements in the quotes are correct. Here, I'll even link my post in case you don't want to scroll two posts up.I'm happy to read your thoughts on this. I'm less happy to read your anecdotes, irrelevant criticisms and s, so maybe a little less of those. Eyes on the prize.

 

[Apple Jack]

No you didn't. You speculated and assumed and were flat out wrong. Hell you didn't even know what a DGU was.

Cool. Show me where. I lifted the quotes from the piece and my arguments about them for you to help you focus. Explain how my arguments are wrong and author's statements in the quotes are correct. Here, I'll even link my post in case you don't want to scroll two posts up.I'm happy to read your thoughts on this. I'm less happy to read your anecdotes, irrelevant criticisms and s, so maybe a little less of those. Eyes on the prize.

Your patience is remarkable, Tobias.

 

[ichris]

In New York you get a $500 reward for reporting your neighbors for owning illegal guns

The tip line was set up a year ago before the NY SAFE act was passed. But the new law brings more opportunities to be rewarded for turning in your neighbors possessing guns that used to be legal.

This snitch system will probably not be abused.

I feel safer already.

What could possibly go wrong?

Some entrepreneur types could make some money using the map of gun owners published by that NY newspaper. Report all of them and you're surely going to win the lotto a few times at least.

No need for gun owners to be paranoid, right timschochet?

At a time when all of us are finding ourselves doing more with less, a reminder about a resource available from New York State that can assist you in your efforts to solve cases, prevent crime and better serve and protect your communities.

The state has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). While the state will provide the administrative support and fund the rewards, the investigation and validity of the tip will be up to each local department.

To spread the word about this free resource, New York State is planning a comprehensive campaign, including public service announcements that will air on television and radio stations across Upstate.

The tip line can provide your agencies with another avenue for receiving intelligence about crimes being committed in your jurisdictions. This initiative is designed for communities where no tip lines are in place and is not meant to replace existing gun tip lines.

Here’s how the tip line operates:

The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. The caller will be informed that this program is not the traditional gun buyback program but rather is focused on identifying individuals who are carrying an illegal firearm.

The State Police will in turn contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. Staff from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will follow up with that agency to determine the validity of the lead. Once the investigation is completed, the police agency would convey to DCJS the outcome of the investigation.

If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500. DCJS staff will handle all of the financial transactions.

State Police staff will explain the program in its entirety upon notifying an agency that a lead has been generated for their jurisdiction. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact DCJS Deputy Commissioner Tony Perez in the Office of Public Safety at 518-485-7610.

Janine Kava

Director of Public Information

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

(518) 457-8906 - work

(518) 485-7715 - fax

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. ***If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.

How do you get your $500 if you're anonymous?

 

[ichris]

Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. ***If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.

How do you get your $500 if you're anonymous?

I don't know exactly, but I imagine something like this:1. You call in and they give you a number, they don't take your name. 2. You call back later and give them your number to see if you can claim money.3. If your tip is good they give you an address where you pick up the cash.

 

[tom22406]

Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. ***If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.

How do you get your $500 if you're anonymous?

I don't know exactly, but I imagine something like this:1. You call in and they give you a number, they don't take your name. 2. You call back later and give them your number to see if you can claim money.3. If your tip is good they give you an address where you pick up the cash.

Wonder what the reward will be for turning in fatties who are drinking big gulps?

 

[ATC1]

At a time when all of us are finding ourselves doing more with less, a reminder about a resource available from New York State that can assist you in your efforts to solve cases, prevent crime and better serve and protect your communities.The state has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). While the state will provide the administrative support and fund the rewards, the investigation and validity of the tip will be up to each local department.To spread the word about this free resource, New York State is planning a comprehensive campaign, including public service announcements that will air on television and radio stations across Upstate.The tip line can provide your agencies with another avenue for receiving intelligence about crimes being committed in your jurisdictions. This initiative is designed for communities where no tip lines are in place and is not meant to replace existing gun tip lines.Here’s how the tip line operates:The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. The caller will be informed that this program is not the traditional gun buyback program but rather is focused on identifying individuals who are carrying an illegal firearm.The State Police will in turn contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. Staff from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will follow up with that agency to determine the validity of the lead. Once the investigation is completed, the police agency would convey to DCJS the outcome of the investigation.If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500. DCJS staff will handle all of the financial transactions.State Police staff will explain the program in its entirety upon notifying an agency that a lead has been generated for their jurisdiction. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact DCJS Deputy Commissioner Tony Perez in the Office of Public Safety at 518-485-7610.Janine KavaDirector of Public InformationNew York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (518) 457-8906 - work (518) 485-7715 - fax

Link too the quoted text?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here, 5 digit. I'll help you. This is from one of my several previous posts making the exact same point:

If you think my criticism here is mistaken, please explain the mistake using these quotes and pointing out the errors. I'm happy to listen. I'm less happy to listen to anecdotes about prevented burglaries or stories about how the author is a super-nice guy. I don't care. That's irrelevant to the fact that the article sucks. I say the article sucks. I explained why, with quotes and logical arguments. Please feel free to reply in kind.

You just did it for me. The first statement you are claiming is 1:1 with "homicides"GU

The second statement you are claiming is 1:1 with "rapes and murders"GU

"homicides" <> "rapes and murders"

You are seeing things that are not there, you are speculating and extrapolating. You refuse to have an intelligent conversation on the matter. Why not answer this question which is the theme and point of the OP we are discussing:

How many rapes + homicides + injuries do DGU's prevent each year?

You want the author of the blog post to break down DGU type by prevented rape/homicide/god-knows-what you are out of your mind.Also FTR you obviously didn't read the two linked articles I was referring to since you summarized them as: anecdotes about prevented burglaries

Here they are in their full text just to show how negligent you are in your reviews:

DICKINSON — A boy bound during a Wednesday home invasion grabbed a gun and sent the suspects fleeing in an incident in Webster that police said involved two sexual assaults and an abandoned murder plot.

Police in Dickinson ultimately detained two men, but Webster police didn’t immediately release the names of the suspects, pending formal charges.

WEST ALLIS (WITI) — A Marine Corps veteran was able to stop a man early Tuesday, March 12th from nearly kicking a woman to death. It happened near 102nd and Lincoln, and Wisconsin’s concealed carry law made his efforts possible.

Charlie Blackmore was driving home from work at 4:00 a.m. along Lincoln Avenue when he saw something on the sidewalk. Blackmore didn’t realize it was a woman on the ground being kicked in the head and stomach until he got closer.

That’s when he jumped out of his car and sprung into action.

“I said ‘stop’ and he starts coming towards me and that`s when I drew on him. He started getting closer and I said ‘get down on the ground,’” Blackmore said.

Blackmore held his gun on the suspect and called West Allis police. He says several times while waiting for police to arrive, the attacker moved toward him.

“I mean I’ve already made it up in mind that if he came at me I was going to have to take him down and I told him that. I warned him multiple times not to come towards me because he was a big guy and I wasn’t playing around and he didn’t seem like he was playing around,” Blackmore said.

Blackmore says police eventually showed up and had to force the suspect to the ground. They then asked to see Blackmore’s concealed carry permit.

“I put my hands up turned around and said ‘you can grab it out of my wallet.’ Checked my permit, gave me my wallet back, and then interviewed me for their paperwork,” Blackmore said.

West Allis police say that paperwork is not yet available. For that reason, the name of the attacker and his victim have not yet been released.

“She had a really big laceration by her eye and it looked like her nose was broken,” Blackmore said.

Blackmore didn’t catch any names either, but said the victim told him the man is an ex-boyfriend.

“She was not with him anymore and he had stalked her that day or something and he attacked her on her way to work,” Blackmore said.

Blackmore says situations like this are why he supports Wisconsin’s concealed carry law, and the rights of gun owners.

“We do good things. Not all of us are bad or crazy gun nuts. There are good people,” Blackmore said.

The West Allis police chief says these types of situations really are judgement calls for gun owners. While they don’t encourage this behavior, they appreciate citizens watching out for each other as long as they do it legally and are willing to accept the consequences.

You are the master of seeing things that are not there and ignoring things that are right in front of you.

 

[ichris]

https://www.facebook.com/NYSRPA

It was posted on the NYSRPA facebook page yesterday.

Here's another article mentioning it

 

[5 digit know nothing]

https://www.facebook.com/NYSRPA

It was posted on the NYSRPA facebook page yesterday.

Here's another article mentioning it

Another articlebest part:

Authorities did not respond to questions about how much reward money had been paid out through the program.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Listen, I've specifically asked you to point out an error in my post here several times. You've refused to do so several times and gone on a tangent instead. And you haven't even bothered to quote that post before spinning off on your weird tangent. And now you have the nerve to ask me a question after you've refused repeatedly to address mine.

But hey, why not. I'll do you the courtesy you either refuse to do for me or (more likely) are unable to do for me:

1. I don't how many rapes + homicides are prevented by DGU every year. I've never claimed to know. I suspect nobody knows. It's completely irrelevant to my criticisms of the article.

2. Contrary to what you said, I don't "want the author of the blog to break down DGU" by type of crime; I just criticize him for having already done so in his poorly constructed argument. I also have no idea what you mean when you say I "claim 1:1 with 'homicides'GU". I don't even know what you mean by that, but regardless, I made no claims of my own, I only criticized the claims of the author, so I'm pretty sure anything you're trying to say (however poorly you said it) about me making statistical claims is untrue. Because I didn't make any.

See? It's not so hard. You ask questions, I answer it as specifically I can, with actual quotes to your questions and criticisms where possible. So here's my question. Can you show me the same courtesy I've shown you and actually respond to my request? Go to the post I've linked over and over with two criticisms (or three, if you count the criticism that his comparative analysis ignores gun accident incidents). Can you do that for me?

I'm guessing not. I'm guessing I'll just get more anecdotes and in response

 

[johnnycakes]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

 

[timschochet]

In New York you get a $500 reward for reporting your neighbors for owning illegal guns

The tip line was set up a year ago before the NY SAFE act was passed. But the new law brings more opportunities to be rewarded for turning in your neighbors possessing guns that used to be legal.

This snitch system will probably not be abused.

I feel safer already.

What could possibly go wrong?

Some entrepreneur types could make some money using the map of gun owners published by that NY newspaper. Report all of them and you're surely going to win the lotto a few times at least.

No need for gun owners to be paranoid, right timschochet?

At a time when all of us are finding ourselves doing more with less, a reminder about a resource available from New York State that can assist you in your efforts to solve cases, prevent crime and better serve and protect your communities.

The state has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). While the state will provide the administrative support and fund the rewards, the investigation and validity of the tip will be up to each local department.

To spread the word about this free resource, New York State is planning a comprehensive campaign, including public service announcements that will air on television and radio stations across Upstate.

The tip line can provide your agencies with another avenue for receiving intelligence about crimes being committed in your jurisdictions. This initiative is designed for communities where no tip lines are in place and is not meant to replace existing gun tip lines.

Here's how the tip line operates:

The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. The caller will be informed that this program is not the traditional gun buyback program but rather is focused on identifying individuals who are carrying an illegal firearm.

The State Police will in turn contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. Staff from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will follow up with that agency to determine the validity of the lead. Once the investigation is completed, the police agency would convey to DCJS the outcome of the investigation.

If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the "tipster" will be awarded $500. DCJS staff will handle all of the financial transactions.

State Police staff will explain the program in its entirety upon notifying an agency that a lead has been generated for their jurisdiction. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact DCJS Deputy Commissioner Tony Perez in the Office of Public Safety at 518-485-7610.

Janine Kava

Director of Public Information

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

(518) 457-8906 - work

(518) 485-7715 - fax

It strikes me, off the top of my head, as a pretty dumb idea.But to answer your question: no, there really isn't.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

Why don't you just go to China to get a gun?

 

[ATC1]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

They will ask you about taking certain medications, mental illness questions etc. I know in LA if you are on a depression medication etc. You will have to show clearance through a doctor that examined you ir the one that prescribed the medication.

 

[johnnycakes]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

Why don't you just go to China to get a gun?

They already took everyone's guns.

 

[johnnycakes]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

They will ask you about taking certain medications, mental illness questions etc. I know in LA if you are on a depression medication etc. You will have to show clearance through a doctor that examined you ir the one that prescribed the medication.

I'll lie about all that.

 

[timschochet]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

 

[timschochet]

Well, I went and did it before the government decides to disarm everyone they can. Haven't fired a weapon since I was in Boy Scouts. Signed up for the Mass Basic Firearms Safety Course as the first step in getting licensed to carry. Class is in second half of April.. to busy with work until then. No criminal history at all... just flat-out nuts. If they don't check medical records I'll come through clean on the background check.

Why don't you just go to China to get a gun?

They already took everyone's guns.

x

 

[urbanhack]

No you didn't. You speculated and assumed and were flat out wrong. Hell you didn't even know what a DGU was.

Cool. Show me where. I lifted the quotes from the piece and my arguments about them for you to help you focus. Explain how my arguments are wrong and author's statements in the quotes are correct. Here, I'll even link my post in case you don't want to scroll two posts up.I'm happy to read your thoughts on this. I'm less happy to read your anecdotes, irrelevant criticisms and s, so maybe a little less of those. Eyes on the prize.

Your patience is remarkable, Tobias.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

1. I don't how many rapes + homicides are prevented by DGU every year. I've never claimed to know. I suspect nobody knows. It's completely irrelevant to my criticisms of the article.

This is the root of your problem while you

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented. So of course he's comparing them on a 1:1 basis. Otherwise how could he possibly conclude that it was a "net positive"?

If nobody knows then why the hell are you asking him to do this? "net positive" is really not that difficult to understand but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

[ATC1]

Also, 15 round restrictions seems like a compromise. Not sure it will do much of anything though IMO.

One reason why I changed my mind on this idea is because you in particular convinced me that it would be impossible to enforce. Now I'm wondering how the State of Colorado will enforce it. What's to prevent someone from simply ordering a larger magazine online from another state?Also, how difficult is it to take a 15 round magazine and convert it on your own to a larger magazine? I've been given to understand that with new technology this is rather easy. Any truth to this?

Well 15 rounds won't affect semi-auto handguns, unless you have a full sized 9mm that won't be used as a concealed carry. The guy in Arizona had an extended mag that held 30 rounds. I personally don't see the purpose of having it unless owning it is your "right". Seems like 15 rounds is a good compromise. If you own these extended mags it will be pretty obvious that you have it and you will not be able to modify a normal standard capacity mag to 30. This mostly will be for the assault weapons and the 100 round drums that was used in the theater shooting. These things unreliable and are notorious for jamming anyway. For magazine limitations 7-10, there is effort and separate purchases involved in modifying the magazine to hold more then the 7-10 limit, but it can be done looking at a video. Easy to anyone who would want to plan for a crime. To me it would be easier to purchase one from someone that can get their hands on them.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Nebraska state senator introduces bill:

LB451, which is retroactive to Jan. 1, would make any federal law passed after Jan. 1 which places new restrictions on firearm or magazine ownership, or which places new registration requirements on firearm ownership, unenforceable in Nebraska.“This is in direct response to the Obama administration’s attempt to violate our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,” Janssen said. “Right now we have literally thousands of gun laws on the books, and here’s the deal, criminals don’t read or abide by the gun laws. If you want to reduce the number of guns on the streets that are illegal, what you do is enforce the laws that we now have on the books and you lock up the bad guys. That will reduce gun violence, not adding more laws.”

Can't see any problems with this law.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. I don't how many rapes + homicides are prevented by DGU every year. I've never claimed to know. I suspect nobody knows. It's completely irrelevant to my criticisms of the article.

This is the root of your problem while you

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented. So of course he's comparing them on a 1:1 basis. Otherwise how could he possibly conclude that it was a "net positive"?

If nobody knows then why the hell are you asking him to do this? "net positive" is really not that difficult to understand but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

This is at least the 5th time I've asked you to address the same post. You've refused to do it over and over and over and tried to turn the conversation in another direction instead. I don't know why. I've been more than fair, answering the questions you've asked of me.

In response, you twist my words until they don't resemble anything remotely close to what I've said; see for example previous post, where you ONCE AGAIN claim that "I'm asking him to do this [break down DGU by type of crime]," even though I've repeatedly explained that my criticism doesn't do that at all. Then argue with your new invention of what I've said instead of what I actually say. Why can't you just quote and address my actual words in my actual post that I've linked for you so many times? It's a mystery.

Or maybe it isn't. Maybe my criticisms of that silly column are valid and you're just too closed-minded to accept that so you keep spinning things in different directions rather than accept that a column you liked is terrible. Whatever it is, I think we're done here. My point has been made over and over to anyone who is open minded enough to think critically. The fact that you can't bring yourself to actually address those points helps underscore that.

 

[Henry Ford]

Nebraska state senator introduces bill:

LB451, which is retroactive to Jan. 1, would make any federal law passed after Jan. 1 which places new restrictions on firearm or magazine ownership, or which places new registration requirements on firearm ownership, unenforceable in Nebraska.“This is in direct response to the Obama administration’s attempt to violate our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,” Janssen said. “Right now we have literally thousands of gun laws on the books, and here’s the deal, criminals don’t read or abide by the gun laws. If you want to reduce the number of guns on the streets that are illegal, what you do is enforce the laws that we now have on the books and you lock up the bad guys. That will reduce gun violence, not adding more laws.”

Can't see any problems with this law.

Yep, looks good to go. Retroactive substantive law preempting federal statutes. Totally legit.

 

[Apple Jack]

1. I don't how many rapes + homicides are prevented by DGU every year. I've never claimed to know. I suspect nobody knows. It's completely irrelevant to my criticisms of the article.

This is the root of your problem while you

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented. So of course he's comparing them on a 1:1 basis. Otherwise how could he possibly conclude that it was a "net positive"?

If nobody knows then why the hell are you asking him to do this? "net positive" is really not that difficult to understand but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

This is at least the 5th time I've asked you to address the same post. You've refused to do it over and over and over and tried to turn the conversation in another direction instead. I don't know why. I've been more than fair, answering the questions you've asked of me.

In response, you twist my words until they don't resemble anything remotely close to what I've said; see for example previous post, where you ONCE AGAIN claim that "I'm asking him to do this [break down DGU by type of crime]," even though I've repeatedly explained that my criticism doesn't do that at all. Then argue with your new invention of what I've said instead of what I actually say. Why can't you just quote and address my actual words in my actual post that I've linked for you so many times? It's a mystery.

Or maybe it isn't. Maybe my criticisms of that silly column are valid and you're just too closed-minded to accept that so you keep spinning things in different directions rather than accept that a column you liked is terrible. Whatever it is, I think we're done here. My point has been made over and over to anyone who is open minded enough to think critically. The fact that you can't bring yourself to actually address those points helps underscore that.

We're sorry, this response has been rejected for lack of emoticons.

 

[Henry Ford]

So... Louisiana chose to respond to GUNZORS!!!!2012!!!SHOOTSHOOTSHOOT!!! hysteria last year with an amendment to the State Constitution to declare gun ownership a fundamental right in Louisiana which triggers strict judicial scrutiny. It was touted as protecting people from the government taking their guns. Funny story...

New Orleans judge rules statute forbidding felons from having firearms unconstitutional after 'fundamental right' amendment

 

[5 digit know nothing]

In response, you twist my words until they don't resemble anything remotely close to what I've said; see for example previous post, where you ONCE AGAIN claim that "I'm asking him to do this [break down DGU by type of crime]," even though I've repeatedly explained that my criticism doesn't do that at all. Then argue with your new invention of what I've said instead of what I actually say. Why can't you just quote and address my actual words in my actual post that I've linked for you so many times? It's a mystery.

You are a broken record. I am not twisting your words, this is exactly what you said twice, in the very same post you keep #####ing about responding to. This is me responding, keep ignoring it:

He does this only after comparing defensive gun use #s to gun homicides (again, ignoring accidents). He doesn't attempt to break them out by type of use or crime prevented.

Again, he has never broken out defensive gun uses by type.

You don't break DGU's down since their are no recorded reports of each DGU in order to categorize since most of them go unreported. Any rational human can deduce when the number of DGU's are at least 80x the number of homicides, to pick a number in the middle of the spectrum, you only need greater than 1.25% of those incidents to result in saving a life. Unfortunately you cannot understand such simple concepts and need some guy writing a blog post to spell this out for you.Aside from this elementary school math that you are having such a hard time comprehending you forget that if you were to wave your magic wand and make all 300 million guns disappear it doesn't solve anything, violence does not disappear too, instead of 16,000 gun homicides you would be dealing with xx,xxx [insert weapon] homicides to take their place. So while you can claim you are not advocating for gun control, by continuing to argue this futile position you are doing the opposite or at least being very dense about the subject matter at hand.

 

[mad sweeney]

Here's a weird one. According to the article a couple noticed a pair of armed teens at their back door. Man fires at them, wounding one of them. Then the teens run away... and shoot themselves, separately. My guess is that something was really, really wrong with those kids.

 

[mad sweeney]

Here's a weird one. According to the article a couple noticed a pair of armed teens at their back door. Man fires at them, wounding one of them. Then the teens run away... and shoot themselves, separately. My guess is that something was really, really wrong with those kids.

edited to actually put in the link.

 

[Cookiemonster]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

So, why aren't you squawking about some drunk kid killed when he ran a red light and was hit by a sober driver with the right of way? That's such a tragedy too, right? I mean, drunk #######s can't be held accountable for their actions, right? Must be the sober driver's fault for driving an SUV and not a Prius.< next two pages: What if he was color blind and couldn't tell the light was red? I think he tried to stop, but his tires failed... and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the fact that a drunk ####### got himself killed by being stupid. >

 

[Henry Ford]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

So, why aren't you squawking about some drunk kid killed when he ran a red light and was hit by a sober driver with the right of way? That's such a tragedy too, right? I mean, drunk #######s can't be held accountable for their actions, right? Must be the sober driver's fault for driving an SUV and not a Prius.< next two pages: What if he was color blind and couldn't tell the light was red? I think he tried to stop, but his tires failed... and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the fact that a drunk ####### got himself killed by being stupid. >

You seem very upset.