The Case for More Concealed Handguns

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Perjury For Democrats

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 4:35:03 PM12/7/21
to
Clinton and Obama don’t work or live in a gun-free zone. They
should stop the lectures.

In a new Gallup poll released, a nearly two-to-one margin of
Americans (64 to 34 percent) think that increasing the number of
people carrying concealed handguns will help prevent terrorism.
Even 45 percent of Democrats agree.

Civilians aren’t alone in these views. PoliceOne, a private
organization with 450,000 members (380,000 full-time active law
enforcement and 70,000 retired), polled its members in 2013
shortly after the Newtown, Conn., massacre. Eighty-six percent
of respondents said that allowing legally armed citizens to
carry guns in places such as Newtown and Aurora would have
reduced casualties.

But not everyone has gotten the message.

While Donald Trump has called to end gun-free zones, Hillary
Clinton, speaking in the aftermath of the Orlando atrocity,
dismissed the idea as “reckless” and as evidence that her
opponent is “temperamentally unfit” to be president.

Other Democrats have chimed in. President Obama, in his prepared
remarks after the shootings at Pulse, announced: “The notion
that the answer to this tragedy would be to make sure that more
people in a nightclub are similarly armed to the killer defies
common sense.” Bill Clinton asserted that if someone had a
permitted concealed handgun at the Pulse nightclub, “it is
likely that more people would have been killed.”

There are dozens of cases, most in the last five years, in which
concealed-handgun permit holders stopped mass public shootings.

But there are dozens of cases, most in the last five years, in
which concealed-handgun permit holders stopped mass public
shootings. Last year, these cases occurred in such places as a
busy sidewalk in Chicago, a volunteer fire department having a
children’s day in South Carolina, a barbershop in Philadelphia,
a store in Conyers, Ga., and a street in Winton, Ohio. In not
one of all these cases did a permit holder accidentally shoot an
innocent bystander. Nor did the police accidentally shoot these
heroes upon arriving at the scene.

Time after time, we see killers consciously pick target zones in
which their victims are defenseless. Look at the shootings over
the last couple of years that occurred at a church in
Charleston, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., a sorority house
in Santa Barbara, and in Canada. Only 1 percent of the mass
public shootings since 1950 have occurred where general citizens
have been able to defend themselves.

The Sunday-morning national talk shows have made much of the
fact that Pulse nightclub served alcohol. Jonathan Karl on ABC
News’s This Week asked, “Is that really what you want is, people
late at night, drinking at a nightclub, two–three o’clock in the
morning, armed to the teeth?” John Dickerson on Face the Nation
was equally incredulous.

In fact, 40 states allow people to have guns with them in bars.
There is not a single example in a bar of someone getting drunk
in a bar and shooting at others. Nor is there a case in which a
sober person in a bar unjustifiably shot others.

In something like designated-driver laws, some states prohibit
permit holders from drinking while they are carrying in bars.
States also make it crime for a permit holder to carry a gun
while drunk. By any measure, permit holders are incredibly law-
abiding.

Unfortunately for the nightclub patrons at Pulse, Florida is not
one of the states that allow concealed carry in bars.

Police are probably the single most important factor in stopping
crime, but stopping mass public shootings is an extremely
dangerous proposition for officers and security guards alike.
Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or
officers who are present. During the Charlie Hebdo attack in
Paris last year, the first person killed was the guard who was
protecting the magazine’s offices.

Being able to choose the time and place of an attack gives
terrorists a major strategic advantage. The Orlando killer had
obviously been to the Pulse nightclub many times. As a result,
he clearly knew there was an armed security guard at the club’s
entrance. Had some of the customers been carrying permitted
concealed handguns, the terrorist wouldn’t have been able to
know who might resist. This would have denied him a major
strategic advantage.

It is unlikely that either the Clintons or Obama would ever put
gun-free zone signs in front of their homes. They should stop
telling the rest of us where to put such signs.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437282/more-concealed-
handguns-will-help-prevent-terrorism-most-americans-
agree?target=topic&tid=2571
 

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 6:04:29 PM12/7/21
to
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 22:30:27 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Perjury For Democrats <per...@msnbc.com> wrote:

>In a new Gallup poll released, a nearly two-to-one margin of
>Americans (64 to 34 percent) think that increasing the number of
>people carrying concealed handguns will help prevent terrorism.
>Even 45 percent of Democrats agree.

Your numbers are off; 56% agreed subject to background check and
training. Also, the rate of agreement varied inversely with
respondents' level of education; the more educated respondents being
unlikely to believe that more concealed weapons would make the U.S.
safer; Republicans and gun owners, of course, were almost unanimous in
saying it would make the nation safer.

The part you forgot was that 87% of respondents favor universal
background checks.

But a poll is not "a case for <anything>"; these are just snapshots of
how people answered polls. A poll will change on a dime... if so and
it flipped, would you consider popularity to be a case for gun
confiscation if a majority of Americans suddenly supported it?

Regardless of how many people believe in it, self defense is a *very*
rare occurrence... there have never been *any* proven.

max headroom

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 1:33:55 AM12/8/21
to
In news:k2pvqghk0qpsdbcga...@4ax.com, The Voice of Reason
<x...@y.com> typed:

> Regardless of how many people believe in it, self defense is a *very*
> rare occurrence... there have never been *any* proven.

Jones, you know I will call, "BULLSHIT" on your bullshit every time you post.

Mark Todd shot Nidal Hasan in self defense at Ft. Hood.

Sergeant Ramiro Martinez and Patrolman Houston McCoy shot and killed Charles
Whitman in self defense at the University of Texas.

These are two well-documented instances which you cannot deny or ignore.


Siri Cruise

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 6:06:11 AM12/8/21
to
In article <sopjkg$tvm$3...@dont-email.me>,
"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Jones, you know I will call, "BULLSHIT" on your bullshit every time you post.
>
> Mark Todd shot Nidal Hasan in self defense at Ft. Hood.

Merde de taureau.

> Sergeant Ramiro Martinez and Patrolman Houston McCoy shot and killed Charles
> Whitman in self defense at the University of Texas.

Merde de taureau.

> These are two well-documented instances which you cannot deny or ignore.

Actually they were peace officers acting to defend others in the
performance of their duties. Fucking wingnuts want to make
everything self-defence and that murderous self-defence is valid
in every encounter. Fuck your vigilantees and lynchings.

I'm guessing none of those were concealed weapons, but all
plainly visible weapons carried or on belt holster. I thought
Whitman was killed by a rifle at a distance.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 2:10:10 PM12/8/21
to
Mister, I didn't say "documented", nitwit; I said "proven". Kleck's
study (where a "defensive gun use" [DGU] was defined as a positive
response to a cold-call, anonymous telephone survey) was
"well-documented". "Well-documented" means anything you say it means;
"proven" means adjudicated by a judge or jury. Hell, Mary Rosh was
well documented.

Mark Todd *might* have shot Nidal Hasan in self defense at Ft. Hood;
this was never proven. I'm not saying he didn't; I'm just saying it
wasn't ever adjudicated as such. Perhaps Hasan was firing in self
defense? ... who knows. (Damn! I should be a Republican! "What
you're seeing isn't what's actually happening.")

Martinez and McCoy were acting in the line of their duty; however, it
was *not* self defense. Not even Kleck, the most promiscuous
apologist for permissive gun use, calls police actions "self defense";
his survey specifically asks if the respondent was a police officer or
in the military and excludes these.

Are there any others?

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 2:28:46 PM12/8/21
to
On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 03:05:57 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I thought Whitman was killed by a rifle at a distance.

Whitman killed 16 people (17, if you count the unborn child) and
wounded 31 more with a bolt-action rifle.

But, no, the officers were actually heroic; they climbed the tower
stairs and engaged a man with a rifle at close range armed only with
their service revolvers... (one had a shotgun).

An armed citizen, however, followed them up the staircase... a man
named Allen Crum who worked in a bookstore across the street had
borrowed a gun (I was dating his daughter at the time). As they burst
out into the observation deck, Crum dropped his rifle and shot himself
in the foot... heroically, of course.

Gun loons came from miles around to shoot at the tower. They shot out
the clocks, 20 feet adove Whitman, and they shot out out windows three
stories below him. There were so many bullets hitting the tower that,
even if the Austin PD had *had* snipers, they'd never have been able
to have resolved him.

After that, The Austin, TX, PD coined the term: "SWAT".

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 4:23:29 PM12/8/21
to
On 12/8/2021 12:10 PM, The Voice of Reason wrote:

> "proven" means adjudicated by a judge or jury.

There's your problem, that's NOT what "proven" means.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 9:32:21 PM12/8/21
to
It'll work well enough. It's placed before a "tryer of fact" with the
burden on the side claiming self defense. a "tryer of fact" is
usually a court; however a medical examiner or a doctor's diagnosis
are similar. It implies a formal evaluation of the evidence by an
impartial expert or panel of experts.

I will accept something as proven that has been explicitly
adjudicated. The fact that I can't prove it wasn't self defense
doesn't make it so. If you want to use something else, go ahead, ...
but *I* have no problem.

max headroom

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 11:34:34 PM12/8/21
to
In news:chine.bleu-3F4E8...@reader.eternal-september.org, Siri
Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <sopjkg$tvm$3...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>> Jones, you know I will call, "BULLSHIT" on your bullshit every time you post.

>> Mark Todd shot Nidal Hasan in self defense at Ft. Hood.

> Merde de taureau.

Mais non.

>> Sergeant Ramiro Martinez and Patrolman Houston McCoy shot and killed Charles
>> Whitman in self defense at the University of Texas.

> Merde de taureau.

Mais non!

>> These are two well-documented instances which you cannot deny or ignore.

> Actually they were peace officers acting to defend others in the
> performance of their duties....

They all returned fire upon assailants who had already murdered innocents.

> ... Fucking wingnuts want to make everything self-defence and that murderous
> self-defence is valid in every encounter....

C'est la vie.

> ... Fuck your vigilantees and lynchings.

So peace officers stopping murderers were "vigilantes"?

> I'm guessing none of those were concealed weapons,...

Irrelevant to Jones' statement.

> ... but all plainly visible weapons carried or on belt holster. I thought
> Whitman was killed by a rifle at a distance.

Wrong again.


The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 8, 2021, 11:55:15 PM12/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:23:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

Let me make it easy: assume, for the sake of argument, that you were
charged with murder. Under what conditions would you be convicted.

*That* is what I mean by "proven".

Siri Cruise

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 12:46:21 AM12/9/21
to
In article <sos10n$6io$5...@dont-email.me>,
My memory was wrong. So they climbed the tower and shot Whitman
storming the observation deck. Inconsequential to your cow
doo-doo. They chose to approach danger and expose themselves to
fire. That makes it not self-defence. It makes it a justified
killing as allowed by their police power. Since they had that
power they were not vigilantees.

You fantasize of being vigilantee. You want to call what the
police do as their duty self-defence because you want to justify
your lynchings as self-defence. You can do that now in Wisconsin.
But it also means anyone else can hunt you down and kill you in
self-defence in Wisconsin.

Such a piece of work are you.

max headroom

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 2:37:42 AM12/9/21
to
In news:et23rgd2ehedsd670...@4ax.com, The Voice of Reason
<x...@y.com> typed:
So you agree that George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson were not murderers.
Whodathunkit?


Scout

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:50:43 AM12/9/21
to


"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:sosbns$m31$3...@dont-email.me...
And don't forget Rittenhouse.... :-)


The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 10:14:41 AM12/9/21
to
Zimmerman capped Martin and there weren't any witnesses; the state
failed to meet their burden of proving that he did *not* fire in self
defense; I agree that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. (Note that,
contrary to what you see on daytime TV, defendants are not ever
adjudicated "innocent".)

OJ Simpson didn't claim self defense; however, he is, also, not guilty
of murder.

But I don't think you read carefully: I said that there were no proven
cases of self defense for the same reason that nobody has been proven
"innocent". There are however many someone says there are because
nobody knows.

In high school, I'd sometimes work as a tourist cave guide in
Fifty-six, AR. The tourists would frequently ask: "Is there any more
of this underground cave that's undiscovered?" (... as opposed to
above-ground caves.) I would always tell them that it was estimated
to be about 30 miles long because that was how far the bats flew. I
would agree that there *might* be some of the cave that's
undiscovered; your guess is as good as mine.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 10:21:09 AM12/9/21
to
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:45:54 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>> So you agree that George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson were not murderers.
>> Whodathunkit?
>
>And don't forget Rittenhouse.... :-)

I do wish you people would read; you're missing the whole point.

The point is that, to convict, the state had to convince the jury that
it was *not* self defense. The jury didn't say that the Kenosha
shooter was innocent or that he acted in self defense... they said
only that the state had failed to rule it out such that it met their
definition of beyond reasonable doubt.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 1:59:39 PM12/9/21
to
That's not what "proven" means. Using your distorted logic,
Jimmy Fallon has never been a host of the Tonight Show, iron
is not harder than lead, and COVID-19 is not a thing.

You follow the Humpty Dumpty school of logic.

... there are three hundred and sixty-four days when
you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's
glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you
don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-
down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",'
Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean
— neither more nor less.'

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 2:07:04 PM12/9/21
to
On 12/8/2021 7:32 PM, The Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:23:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/2021 12:10 PM, The Voice of Reason wrote:
>>
>>> "proven" means adjudicated by a judge or jury.
>>
>> There's your problem, that's NOT what "proven" means.
>
> It'll work well enough.

Perhaps for you. There are 7.9 billion other people on earth
for whom that doesn't "work well enough".

> It's placed before a "tryer of fact" with the burden on the
> side claiming self defense. a "tryer of fact" is usually a court;
> however a medical examiner or a doctor's diagnosis are similar.
> It implies a formal evaluation of the evidence by an impartial expert
> or panel of experts.

You just figuratively shot yourself in the foot. Judges and
juries are not experts and require no expert evaluation of
evidence to fulfill their roles.
>
> I will accept something as proven that has been explicitly
> adjudicated.

Will you accept that Bill Murray acted in the original Ghost
Busters movie, without having it explicitly adjudicated in
court by a judge or jury? Will you accept that North Dakota
is north of South Dakota?

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 2:26:16 PM12/9/21
to
In the USA, I'm starting to believe that it is the mob, that defines
justice, and fact, not the evidence.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 7:46:26 PM12/9/21
to
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 12:07:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> It'll work well enough.
>
>Perhaps for you. There are 7.9 billion other people on earth
>for whom that doesn't "work well enough".

Well, let's not pick nits. I don't know about other people and
neither do you.

The question is: if *you* were charged with a crime, what level of
"proof" would you expect.

I'm willing to use that as the standard. Tell us what it means to
you, please... never mind the other people.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 7:55:11 PM12/9/21
to
What in the fuck are you talking about?

Let me repeat, please... it's a simple question: assume, for the sake
of argument, that you were charged with a crime. What does "proof"
mean to *you* in that context?

It isn't a trick question; You're griping about my definitions;
therefore I'm sugesting that we use yours... if you'll just tells what
they are.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:02:54 PM12/9/21
to
You will *never* arrive at a universally accepted definition of
"proof". (And, no... I can't prove that.)

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:26:42 PM12/9/21
to
On 12/9/2021 5:46 PM, The Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> It'll work well enough.
>>
>> Perhaps for you. There are 7.9 billion other people on earth
>> for whom that doesn't "work well enough".
>
> Well, let's not pick nits.

A moot comment, since I'm not doing that.

> I don't know about other people and neither do you.

I can cite every dictionary in existence, including Black's Law
Dictionary, as proof that your definition is unique to you.
I defy you to find another person, or authority, on the
planet who agrees with your defintion of "proven".
>
> The question is: if *you* were charged with a crime, what
> level of "proof" would you expect.

No, that's not the question at all.
The question is, what is the meaning of proof, prove, and proven?
The question is, what is required to prove a defensive gun

use occurred? Hint: It does
NOT require a criminal trial.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:31:55 PM12/9/21
to
You ignore the subject that started all this, which is your
claim there are virtually no proven cases of defensive gun uses.
It's unadulterated bullshit to argue that a person has to be
charged with a crime, and argue self defense, in order to prove
there was a defensive gun use. Your last-minute attempt to
change the subject does not make your claim any less bullshit.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:47:11 PM12/9/21
to
On 12/9/2021 6:02 PM, The Misnomer Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2021 11:26:16 Matt wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:23:27 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2021 12:10 PM, The Misnomer Voice of Reason wrote:
>>>
>>>> "proven" means adjudicated by a judge or jury.
>>>
>>> There's your problem, that's NOT what "proven" means.
>>
>> In the USA, I'm starting to believe that it is the mob, that
>> defines justice, and fact, not the evidence.
>
> You will *never* arrive at a universally accepted definition of
> "proof".
Only because your insistence on redefining words that have a
generally accepted definition prevents "generally accepted"
from being "universally accepted." It's not particularly
difficult to show that "proof" has a generally accepted
definition. Your solitary holdout, your inability to accept
that definition, is your problem alone.

Generally accepted definitions of "proof":

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proof
a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as
true.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief
in its truth.

Those are just different ways of saying the same thing. Using any or
all of these generally accepted definitions, there is proof of hundreds
of thousands if not millions of defensive gun uses.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:53:09 PM12/9/21
to
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 22:30:27 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Perjury For Democrats <per...@msnbc.com> wrote:

>There are dozens of cases, most in the last five years, in which
>concealed-handgun permit holders stopped mass public shootings.

The best argument against the "self defense" bit is to note that the
US crime rate has increased against the global rate. If armed
Americans really *were* stopping crimes, we would see our crime rate
declining, and it is increasing.

The gun loons tend to want to choose a high point in the graph and
claim that armed citizens caused the drop; that's like yodeling at
high tide and claiming to have reduced sea-level by six feet.

The fact is that crime rates rise and fall on (roughly) a 60-year
period. Gun laws tend to change when the crime rate is near its
maximum and about to begin dropping. It doesn't matter *what* you do
at high tide; it will ebb. I have seen liberals make the same logical
blunder.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 8:57:46 PM12/9/21
to
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 18:26:40 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> The question is: if *you* were charged with a crime, what
>> level of "proof" would you expect.
>
>No, that's not the question at all.
>The question is, what is the meaning of proof, prove, and proven?
>The question is, what is required to prove a defensive gun

I doubt you can answer it; however, I'm waiting.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 9:10:48 PM12/9/21
to
I am fairly sure that, based on probability, there are a few provable
cases of self defense.

Cite one, please, and state how you know it's a proven case of self
defense; i.e.: what is the primary source of your information. For
example: a copy of the police report where the investigator said
explicitly "self defense" would work; the verdict of a court; a
medical examiner's report; it has to have an impartial investigator, a
news media reporter would not usually qualify unless he or she had
conducted a full investigation and produced a report documenting
that... just a blurb in the paper isn't proven.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 9:23:45 PM12/9/21
to
Goodness, you're almost answering the question. If you were accused
of a crime, which one would *you* want the court to use? (I'd
probably accept any of them.)

One more thing: please find *one* of these "hundreds
of thousands if not millions of defensive gun uses" that meets
whichever standard of proof you choose and cite it completely.

Actually, I think you can probably do it... for *one*. You might even
get five or ten. (Bet you can't find hundreds of thousands; however,
we'll start with one.)

max headroom

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:42:56 AM12/10/21
to
In news:chine.bleu-B5911...@reader.eternal-september.org, Siri
Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <sos10n$6io$5...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>>> ... but all plainly visible weapons carried or on belt holster. I thought
>>> Whitman was killed by a rifle at a distance.

>> Wrong again.

> My memory was wrong. So they climbed the tower and shot Whitman
> storming the observation deck. Inconsequential to your cow
> doo-doo. They chose to approach danger and expose themselves to
> fire. That makes it not self-defence....

When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.

> ... It makes it a justified killing as allowed by their police power. Since
> they had that power they were not vigilantees.

So you are educable.

> You fantasize of being vigilantee[sic]....

Cite?

> ... You want to call what the police do as their duty self-defence because you
> want to justify your lynchings...

Cite?

> ... as self-defence. You can do that now in Wisconsin....

Cite?

> ... But it also means anyone else can hunt you down and kill you in
> self-defence in Wisconsin.

Not if I offer no threat.

> Such a piece of work are you.

Aren't I?


Siri Cruise

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 1:10:32 AM12/10/21
to
In article <soupct$1a9$5...@dont-email.me>,
"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

> When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.

Give me better material.

And you're still an idiot.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 5:37:34 AM12/10/21
to
On 12/9/2021 6:57 PM, The Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>> The question is: if *you* were charged with a crime, what
>>> level of "proof" would you expect.
>>
>> No, that's not the question at all.
>> The question is, what is the meaning of proof, prove, and proven?
>> The question is, what is required to prove a defensive gun use?
>
> I doubt you can answer it; however, I'm waiting.
No you're not, I already answered it. Once again:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proof
a fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true

All that is required to prove a defensive gun use is a piece of
information that shows the DGU happened.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 5:39:05 AM12/10/21
to
There you go again, redefining the word a la Humpty Dumpty.
I'm not playing your silly little game.

Just Wondering

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 5:45:59 AM12/10/21
to
It's amazing how many logical fallacies and misstatements of fact
you are able to crowd into so few words. "Amazing. Every word of what
you just said was wrong." - Luke Skywalker, Star Wars: Episode VIII -
The Last Jedi

Scout

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 8:39:54 AM12/10/21
to


"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:soupct$1a9$5...@dont-email.me...
> In news:chine.bleu-B5911...@reader.eternal-september.org,
> Siri
> Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
>> In article <sos10n$6io$5...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ... but all plainly visible weapons carried or on belt holster. I
>>>> thought
>>>> Whitman was killed by a rifle at a distance.
>
>>> Wrong again.
>
>> My memory was wrong. So they climbed the tower and shot Whitman
>> storming the observation deck. Inconsequential to your cow
>> doo-doo. They chose to approach danger and expose themselves to
>> fire. That makes it not self-defence....
>
> When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.

Yep, and let's not forget self-defense includes the defense of others.

>
>> ... It makes it a justified killing as allowed by their police power.
>> Since
>> they had that power they were not vigilantees.
>
> So you are educable.

Only to the point he can use it to justify his ignorance elsewhere.

Scout

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 8:39:56 AM12/10/21
to


"Just Wondering" <J...@jw.com> wrote in message
news:FdGsJ.113048$np6.1...@fx46.iad...
Well, I've often wondered that if it works on a cycle like he claims... then
what do we need gun control for?

Clearly it would have no impact on that cycle per his own logic. So what's
his real reasons for it?


max headroom

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 10:22:29 AM12/10/21
to
In news:chine.bleu-782F3...@reader.eternal-september.org, Siri
Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <soupct$1a9$5...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> My memory was wrong. So they climbed the tower and shot Whitman
>>> storming the observation deck. Inconsequential to your cow
>>> doo-doo. They chose to approach danger and expose themselves to
>>> fire. That makes it not self-defence....

>> When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.

> Give me better material.

Facts aren't good enough?

> And you're still an idiot.

And yet making you look the fool.

>>> ... It makes it a justified killing as allowed by their police power. Since
>>> they had that power they were not vigilantees.

>> So you are educable.

>>> You fantasize of being vigilantee[sic]....

>> Cite?



[crickets]



>>> ... You want to call what the police do as their duty self-defence because
>>> you want to justify your lynchings...

>> Cite?



[crickets]



>>> ... as self-defence. You can do that now in Wisconsin....

>> Cite?



[crickets]

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:37:32 PM12/10/21
to
I'm tired of fooling with you.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:39:10 PM12/10/21
to
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 03:39:05 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
We are simply not speaking a common language. There is no point in
continuing.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:41:04 PM12/10/21
to
Sir, we simply do not share a common language. Any further
conversation is pointless.

Happy holidays.

The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:58:14 PM12/10/21
to
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:30:38 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Well, I've often wondered that if it works on a cycle like he claims... then
>what do we need gun control for?
>
>Clearly it would have no impact on that cycle per his own logic. So what's
>his real reasons for it?

What's this? Is it an intelligent observation from Scout (of all
people)?

OK, Scout... I'll bite. Are you presenting that as a position? Are
you accepting my assertion that the crime rates are cyclic? ... then
arriving at a conclusion? (That's pretty sophisticated for *you*,
sir.)

I mean, you either are or you aren't. You sit there and wonder: "if
it works on a cycle like [I] claim". I buy your logic, but you're
trying to have it both ways:

You either accept my argument as valid or you don't. Which way do you
want to go?

Siri Cruise

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 2:16:42 PM12/10/21
to
In article <sovlb8$eu3$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

> > When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.
>
> Yep, and let's not forget self-defense includes the defense of others.

Bored now.

max headroom

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 10:36:10 PM12/10/21
to
In news:chine.bleu-CCEEE...@reader.eternal-september.org, Siri
Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <sovlb8$eu3$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>>> When Whitman fired at them, it made it self-defense.

>> Yep, and let's not forget self-defense includes the defense of others.

> Bored now.

You spelled "whipped" wrong.


max headroom

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 10:36:12 PM12/10/21
to
In news:o147rgpgh0b4114ms...@4ax.com, !Jones <x...@y.com> typed:

> I'm tired of fooling with you.

TRANSLATION: I'm tired of being proven the fool.


The Voice of Reason

unread,
Dec 11, 2021, 9:46:52 AM12/11/21
to
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:28:02 -0800, in talk.politics.guns "max
headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

>TRANSLATION: I'm tired of being proven the fool.

Well, if that's the best you can do, I suppose it'll work.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages