you really do have to shoot to kill or cause such harm as to immobilize the home invaders. An elderly person certainly can't take on three people - even if they're wounded.

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

no. He defended himself against those who had no right to do what they did. Threaten to rob him while brandishing a deadly weapon. If he had been unarmed, these vicious animals would have more than likely ended this gentlemans life since life is not respected by these types. I would do the same.

Because it is possible for Innocent Children™ to gain access to poorly secured firearms, elderly people do not have the right to use firearms to defend themselves because the lives of Innocent Children™ are automatically more valuable than the lives of elderly people because reasons.

They don't have the strength to fight a younger person. So they are more likely to kill you.

If thenstate has felony murder laws, there is a strong likelihood the survivors will be Warehoused in the Obsolete Surplus Dept.

After all, his life isn't as important as some others and his gun puts people entirely unrelated and unknown to him in danger:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=188993

Because you know by the law of large numbers, it's true in the aggregate (but not individual situations of course, every one is different) so you have to straw man that I said it's better in all cases.

And in any case, while this happened, there were 2 fatal accidents by gun, 33 murders by gun, and 67 suicides by gun.

But keep it up, you guys kill yourselves faster than anyone else.

counts as a DGU in your opinion.

assertive citizens, rather than the fact that assertive citizens have guns.

Another DGU. Most gun nuts are compensating and just want to push people around. Glad the biker was having none of it

You count that as a DGU?

Yet anti-gun bullies are the ones trying to dictate the actions of tens of millions of people, not "gun nuts".

If "push people around" is the metric, the anti-gun bullies have the 'gun nuts' beat hands down, since anti-gunners are about as pushy a bunch as anyone can find.

In most DGUs there are no shots fired.

What is a "legitimate reason to have guns"? I mean, other than the fact that the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

There's nothing in the Constitution to support that idea.

e of their (or your) driving.

...advocate that to which you're opposed. There are already laws against such behavior.

FFS, are there any more vacuous gun-controller cliche's you'd like to trot out?

There has got to be an underlying reason why a female would shoot competition.

You can share with the group, we don't judge.

... then I'll need your bank account number and password so I can deposit a check for the $10 million that my uncle in Nigeria left me in his will. You can have 10%. I promise.

Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

don't need gun control.

willing to reject all DGU studies made by credentialed social scientists because the studies do not meet a ridiculous personal standard.

Yet will put out accusations of mass negligence based nothing more than on fantasy and prejudice.

Another "sincere" and "better than us" gun control "supporter" that gets their facts from bumper stickers and Everytown press releases and doesn't really do anything in the real world in support of their so called "beliefs".

Has been asked several times and always runs away, or changes the subject.

In a week or two the novelty of "teaching those stupid gun nutz a lesson" and patting themselves on the back will wear off and they'll go back to the primary wars.

In the meantime 3 more states are about to go constitutional carry, probably to celebrate the poster's ignorance of facts and their dedication to their "all talk and no action" strategy.

And violent crime will continue to drop.

You see the people here that support the 2nd amendment, actually do things to show that support. You don't see them wishing or hoping for gun control people to die horribly. But we hear it from so called "sympathetic and caring" gun control supporters pretty regularly.

On the other hand, all you do is post angry screeds online and whine about it.

That might account for the fact that for over a decade gun control hasn't achieved jack or shit, even with Bloomberg's million$ backing you.

3 more states going constitutional carry this month! Keep up that good gun control work.

Naturally, they are lashing out...

the higher ones.

Or any study that uses unfalsifiable data.

Yet you assert as fact the neglligent, homicidal and suicidal behavior of gun owners based on no data or study. For those "facts" your bias is all the evidence you need.

to allow such a prime example of your intelligence to slip into obscurity.