Collateral damage is the way we live in the US today. To ensure that gunsucks can get their little stiff buddies to help out their flaccid useless dicks, we must have thousands of dead children. It's the way we live, and it's why I myself hope that the NRA members and the gunsucks are the ones at the massacres. Their policies guarantee massacres. I only ask that they pay the price.
I'm not lowering my estimate. I've said all along that there's a range of numbers. That one is the minimum. But yes, a defensive gun use means an incident where a gun saved a life.
Greg, in your estimate, don't you think there are some cases in which only bodily harm would have resulted or even nothing at all? You aren't really saying every single DGU would have resulted in a death had it not been for the gun, are you?
I'm using the defintion that these reports give. But just because no one gets shot in a defensive gun use does not mean that there was no imminent threat.
Yes, imminent threat of bodily harm or of rape but not ALWAYS of death. You dodged the question as usual. Here it is again.
"don't you think there are some cases in which only bodily harm would have resulted or even nothing at all? You aren't really saying every single DGU would have resulted in a death had it not been for the gun, are you?"
You are fucking unbelievable, Greg. I did not say using a gun to defend against rape or bodily harm is illegitimate. What I said is that some of the DGUs that do take place would not have resulted in death. You said ALL DGUs prevent deaths. That's a bald faced lie. The only question is are you going to admit it?
I said that defensive gun uses prevent an imminent threat. I didn't say of death alone. But when there's an imminent threat, death is always a possibility.
I have asked you before to cite sources for that number, but no response, so it must be wrong. When did Canada have a dictator? You just spread your lies daily.
The Department of Justice and the National Academies of Science have issued numbers on defensive gun uses. I've posted the sources here many times. Your turn to look.
And note how there were two qualifying parts to my second item? Of course, complex thoughts are above your ability to follow.
Canada is not a world leader? That's the view of an ego centric American imperialist. If world leadership is attacking an innocent country (Iraq had nothing to do with 911) and killing 10's of thousands, they are not a government to follow, if you want leadership towards world peace. You twisting words prove you are what others on this site say you are.
Just because you don't like where America is leading doesn't mean that we're not leading. But what's your point about stating the obvious regarding Iraq and 9/11?
Explain your stupid statement that Canada is not a world leader? Canada happens to be Americas biggest trade partner. I don't call leadership, killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. I know you do, we have all read your words about your lack of care of innocent people dying from gun shots.
Tyrants kicked out of the country- one, jolly King George. Spouses coworkers students storeclerks etc with freedom of speech religion , right to vote, and protected from tyrany- billions The right that guarantees it all - stated in the second amendment
Collateral damage is the way we live in the US today. To ensure that gunsucks can get their little stiff buddies to help out their flaccid useless dicks, we must have thousands of dead children. It's the way we live, and it's why I myself hope that the NRA members and the gunsucks are the ones at the massacres. Their policies guarantee massacres. I only ask that they pay the price.
ReplyDelete1. Lives of good citizens defended every year: At least 108,000 and likely much more.
ReplyDelete2. Nations in the Western Hemisphere that avoided dictatorship and rose to lead the world: One, the nation with the Second Amendment.
Greg, I'm glad you're lowering your estimate even more but you're still throwing a little lie in there. Not every defensive gun use saves a life.
DeleteI'm not lowering my estimate. I've said all along that there's a range of numbers. That one is the minimum. But yes, a defensive gun use means an incident where a gun saved a life.
DeleteGreg, in your estimate, don't you think there are some cases in which only bodily harm would have resulted or even nothing at all? You aren't really saying every single DGU would have resulted in a death had it not been for the gun, are you?
DeleteI'm using the defintion that these reports give. But just because no one gets shot in a defensive gun use does not mean that there was no imminent threat.
DeleteYes, imminent threat of bodily harm or of rape but not ALWAYS of death. You dodged the question as usual. Here it is again.
Delete"don't you think there are some cases in which only bodily harm would have resulted or even nothing at all? You aren't really saying every single DGU would have resulted in a death had it not been for the gun, are you?"
Using a gun to defend yourself against bodily harm or rape is just as legitimate as using one to defend yourself against death.
DeleteYou are fucking unbelievable, Greg. I did not say using a gun to defend against rape or bodily harm is illegitimate. What I said is that some of the DGUs that do take place would not have resulted in death. You said ALL DGUs prevent deaths. That's a bald faced lie. The only question is are you going to admit it?
DeleteI said that defensive gun uses prevent an imminent threat. I didn't say of death alone. But when there's an imminent threat, death is always a possibility.
DeleteI have asked you before to cite sources for that number, but no response, so it must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhen did Canada have a dictator?
You just spread your lies daily.
The Department of Justice and the National Academies of Science have issued numbers on defensive gun uses. I've posted the sources here many times. Your turn to look.
DeleteAnd note how there were two qualifying parts to my second item? Of course, complex thoughts are above your ability to follow.
I knew you couldn't back up your lie.
DeleteThanks for proving it.
Canada never had a dictator.
Prove it liar.
Still waiting for you to cite and name Canada's dictator.
DeleteI didn't say that Canada had a dictator. I said that only one nation avoided dictatorship and rose to world leadership.
DeleteCanada is not a world leader? That's the view of an ego centric American imperialist. If world leadership is attacking an innocent country (Iraq had nothing to do with 911) and killing 10's of thousands, they are not a government to follow, if you want leadership towards world peace.
DeleteYou twisting words prove you are what others on this site say you are.
Just because you don't like where America is leading doesn't mean that we're not leading. But what's your point about stating the obvious regarding Iraq and 9/11?
DeleteExplain your stupid statement that Canada is not a world leader? Canada happens to be Americas biggest trade partner.
DeleteI don't call leadership, killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. I know you do, we have all read your words about your lack of care of innocent people dying from gun shots.
"where America is leading?" Are you completely ignorant, Greg?
DeleteI think his previous statements prove he is completely ignorant.
DeleteNo, Mikeb, contrary to the left's cherished beliefs, a person can know a lot and be logical without necessarily agreeing with all leftist positions.
DeleteAll your statements prove, you are not one of those
DeleteCanada is a democracy, not a republic. But Canada has been wising up, slowly.
ReplyDeleteTyrants kicked out of the country- one, jolly King George.
ReplyDeleteSpouses coworkers students storeclerks etc with freedom of speech religion , right to vote, and protected from tyrany- billions
The right that guarantees it all - stated in the second amendment
Hahahahahahaha. You're really funny. I hope you stick around.
Delete