When did you use your gun defensively?

Yes. Just like firearms. Just because it’s unlikely any of the above will be “used” doesn’t mean they are not important to have around.

 

You provided and answer; the answer you provided did not address the question I asked.
As it is clear you are unable or unwilling to provide such a n answer, I shall accept your concession of the point.

Virtually all of them.
The only ones that do not have to do with making it illegal for certain people to buy/possess a gun - and even then the necessity for and efficacy of these laws is questionable, at best.
Disagree? Pick a gun control law and demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, same.

Your inability to demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim, above, is legendary, and you fail to do so every time you are so challenged.
Your offer a post hoc fallacy in support of your point, and nothing more.

 

My post proves otherwise.
Feel free to demonstrate my factual/logical error.

 

Interesting. The picture of a spare tire comes to mind.

I have a shovel that sits all winter in my garage; come spring I get it out and turn the garden. The shovel fulfills its function. I have a pistol that sits everyday, in a holster, on my hip; if my life is threatened I will get it out and "turn the garden". It would fulfill its function. I hope never to have to use my pistol to defend myself. I hope to use my shovel in another couple months. Both my shovel and my pistol are tools. Yes they have intended use, function. Not being used does not make them any less tools nor does it change their intended function. They are used when the need arises.

I hope you would not suggest because I am not actively using my shovel or my spare tire that I should get rid of them.

 

disagree and since all you have is an opinion will just have to agree to disagree

Feel free to explain how it's not use without the typical insult if you can which I doubt.

 

Not everyone feels a personal threat and the need to carry a gun, that is more of a conservative view and media hype. That does not negate the fact that gun violence is a public health issue and a need to do something about it. If 40,000 died and three times that were injured per year from a preventable source I think most public minded people would want to do something about it. I could get behind all on the Democratic plank and more, but the right is always attempting to loosen the laws like striking down license to carry laws which law enforcement is against.
All rights are restricted in the name of public safety and public interest. I think there is an excellent case to be made that further gun restrictions are in the public interest.
I've noted elsewhere the gun doesn't need to be fired.

 

I did not suggest that and I wouldn't say a deadly weapon is in the class as a spare tire.

 

I think I already did.

 

I think I clearly answered "what argument is there that the threat posed by gun violence is "inflated"?"

Your preamble, "we're told every day the threat of gun violence is -so- bad, we need to place additional unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding." while mostly hyperbole it is a separate issue. Gun control is necessary for a civilized society and thanks to gun "rights" advocates there is little control. Guns can be obtained through theft, straw purchases and through internet sites. I live in a city with a higher per capita gun homicide rate than Chicago, but if I don't buy illegal drugs or gang bang it's pretty safe. The problem is taking guns out of the hands of bad people and if that inconveniences the "law abiding" so be it.
Your belief that gun availability and gun violence are separate issues is nonsensical.

I was referring to concealed carry. In that, the person must convey intent by showing his weapon. Open carry on the other hand makes the carrier a threat to all people who are unaware of the carriers history and is antisocial.

 

Open carry does not make anyone a threat.

 

The Democrats certainly feels a personal threat to the extent that more gun laws are needed

This isn't a fact.

Even if those proposals were unconstitutional, ineffective or unenforceable?

The political leadership, or the rank and file? It really doesn't matter anyway, as the police's opinion isn't important with regards to rights. The police weren't in favor of the Miranda ruling, they don't seem to want to use body cameras as the local laws require and they continue to ignore laws against police brutality. They don't even have a Constitutional obligation to protect anyone. Their opinion on how citizens vote to protect themselves is worthless.

"in the public interest" isn't sufficient. A compelling government interest is necessary, and the law must be tailored as narrowly as possible to achieve that interest.[/quote]

 

You didn't explain it you just stated what you think is use. You can even explain why that's use and what I said wasn't.

You just picked an arbitrary definition and demand everyone else agree with you.

 

Well, pretty much you did suggest that. You suggested that a tool, in order to fulfill its function, must be used. I am simply saying that some tools sit idle until there is a need to use them. It is then they fulfill their function. The purpose of a spare tire is to be there waiting until time for it to be used. Same goes for a personal-protection firearm.

While a spare tire and a firearm may differ, if we are going to class them both as tools, then they are in the same category or class. In fact, a spare tire and firearm may have more in common than would the shovel and spare tire in my above example. A shovel is simply a garden tool. A firearm and a spare tire could both fit into the category of emergency tools.

 

You are more likely to be drowned in a pool if you own a pool.

You are more likely to be stabbed to death by a pencil if you own a pencil.

You are more likely to be murdered by someone shoving a tampon down your windpipe if you have tampons in the house.

OF COURSE one is more likely to be killed by something if they own that item. Should we outlaw everything?

 

You contradict yourself.

 

It is only "inflated " if it does not correspond to the danger that supposedly necessitates additional gun control laws.
Please demonstrate this to be true.

Fact remains, the threat posed by gun-related violence is the premise behind the additional laws you seek.
How is it the threat from gun violence is so high we need these additional laws, but not so high that there's justification to have a gun for self-defense?

Unsupportable nonsense - the right to keep and bear arms is, by far, the most highly-regulated right held by Americans.

Two of these tings are already illegal, and the third is regulated by federal law. What's your point?

Your claim that that gun availability and gun violence are related issues is unsupportable.

Your OP makes no such distinction, expressed or implied.
But, it is good to know you agree that to use a firearm in self-defense, the carrier of the firearm may not need to do anything other than carry the firearm.

Unsupportable nonsense. Only those with an irrational fear of firearms immediately feels threatened by someone open carrying a firearm and finds said behavior anti-social.[/quote]

 

Anti-gunners never do.

 

Not provable.

It could be Democrats are just too dumb to know a threat until it hits them.

 

[/QUOTE]
You may think you know what Democrats think and you don't think gun violence causing 40,000 homicides a year isn't a public health issue? What would you like to label it and does that change anything.
Gun laws can be effective and enforceable, currently we have weak laws with loopholes and shoddy enforcement.

This OP was about stories of defensive gun use. Everyone but you (and the person who putdown the wounded groundhog) understood the concept.

"You suggested that a tool, in order to fulfill its function, must be used. I am simply saying that some tools sit idle until there is a need to use them. It is then they fulfill their function." Yeah, we agree.

No I don't, you just don't understand it.

[/QUOTE]
I know you won't understand this but some people don't like to see 40k dead and thousands more wounded along with the negative impact it has on everyone's quality of life without doing anything about it. What is the answer for the violence? The right has nothing but more guns and imprisonment after the fact. We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Proven in many studies that you will dismiss.

 

For one, there aren't 40,000 gun related homicides each year. If you can't get the basic statistics correct then you can't be expected to be taken seriously. I would the homicide rate an area of concern, and there are Constitutional, effective and enforceable ways to address it. The Democrats evidently don't think that 40,000 automotive deaths per year are a public health issue; search for "automotive safety" at Congress.gov in the list of current bills. There isn't one that purports to make driving safer.

Why did you leave out Constitutional? That's the most important requirement for a gun law. Yes, we can have Constitutional, effective and enforceable gun laws. UBCs aren't part of that group. Most of what the Democrats want aren't Constitutional, effective and enforceable.

 

every time I carry a gun I passively use it defensively.

I don't care that everyone else made the same assumption you did I don't do that.

 

You have a long sordid history of presenting incorrect statistics in this sub forum. This is another example. How can you expect to have your opinions seriously considered when they are based on disinformation and misinformation?

 

Anti-gun folks depend on ignorance to pedal their dishonest claims, they also depend on hyperbolic fear mongering.

This fake claim of 40, 000 gun homicides annually is a great example

 

Happy to see the “real” figures



I am betting it will be the tired old argument that the suicides should not be counted

The majority of gun suicides are white middle aged males

 

From ABC News, a well known source of false information.

You are really grasping at straws now.

Truth be told if criminal misuse of firearms is removed from the numbers they drop to nearly zero, which indicates those numbers are not a gun problem, they are a crime problem.

If the US would concentrate putting criminals where they belong, in prison, and had a workable mental health system all of those numbers would zero out.

But you refuse to understand that, all you can do is go after inanimate objects, which is strange, we don't ban cars because of drunk drivers, but you want to ban guns because of criminals and mentally ill people.