How many of the average Americans here have used a gun for protection?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You may want to look at what I posted a few days ago about firearms training in the schools just like we teach archery.

Before we teach how to end life in our schools ... as part of the curriculum...

...I would prefer we teach what creates life; how to nurture the new creations in a positive, productive direction; and how to take care of the basic necessities of continuing to live a wholesome life .. e.g. changing diapers, bathing babies, preparing baby food, cleaning house, washing and ironing clothes, shopping for healthy choices, budgeting and financial management for the household, and how to prepare healthy, nutritional, and budget-friendly meals....not to mention some anger management and relationship counseling along the way....FOR BOTH GENDERS, as well as those who aren't sure yet what gender they are.

[LexusLover]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun...-vs-gun-facts/

An exploration of the issues raised by many on this board.

[Yssup Rider]

And an "unbiased" one at that, Davy Crockett!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun...-vs-gun-facts/

An exploration of the issues raised by many on this board.

In 2013 the amount of gun related deaths surpassed the amount caused by automobiles 880 to 781 in Missouri.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's not what I posted. It's the same standard. The Texas Penal Code.

What you posted was this

The same provisions of the Penal Code apply to civilians whether non-CHL or CHL and LE. The only distinction might be when one is called upon to justify the "shoot-don't shoot" decision the presence of training that is inconsistent with the facts of the response might cause you some difficulty in avoiding civil liability for your actions, and to some degree with criminal liability in a "close case." In that sense the amount of documented training would be a consideration, although I believe the threat level addressed by your response would probably be of greater consideration in the judgment decision.

The positive aspect of the CHL training is the academic portion that provides an insight into the appropriate decision making on the "use of force continuum."

We can agree that the penal code applies the same. I simply say there are unwritten caveats. You appear to agree with that so I don't understand what your point is other than to make an argument where there is none.

If a CHL holder is being tried for shooting someone, the prosecutor would be a fool not to use the fact that the shooter has a CHL against him. He would use the fact that the shooter has had specific training in conflict resolution and the consequences of his actions if he does shoot someone that the average non CHL citizen does not have. A prosecutor would absolutely try to convince a jury that a CHL holder should be held to a higher standard and convince them that they should place more weight on his failure to peacefully resolve a conflict than someone without the same training.
Are you implying that a prosecutor would not do that?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well, you can't prove the NRA or John Lott is lying but you can just say that it is opinion if you prefer.

No, you can't prove John Lott is lying but his work and methodology has been discredited by multiple sources. See below. The NRA has an agenda and that is to slowly do away with any and all gun control laws. The same criticism that you have against anti-gun lobby groups -- that they slowly want to ban all guns/rifles. Unfortunately, IMHO, the best result is somewhere in the middle, but few people on the extreme sides want to hear that.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/shoot...-lott-of-lies/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...uble-standards

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

We can agree that the penal code applies the same.

... what your point is other than to make an argument where there is none.

If a CHL holder is being tried for shooting someone, the prosecutor would be a fool not to use the fact that the shooter has a CHL against him. He would use the fact that the shooter has had specific training in conflict resolution and the consequences of his actions if he does shoot someone that the average non CHL citizen does not have. A prosecutor would absolutely try to convince a jury that a CHL holder should be held to a higher standard and convince them that they should place more weight on his failure to peacefully resolve a conflict than someone without the same training.
Are you implying that a prosecutor would not do that?

What a prosecutor or defense attorney "argues" to a jury and/or attempts to prove in any given case is not a "standard" and you won't see any jury instructions on whether or not the defendant had CHL training or any training at all. But since you are also an expert on criminal jury trials, I suppose your assessment can be placed along your belief that a higher standard is imposed on someone with a CHL ... let's extend that ... how about former police officer .... how about a servicemember ... how about a Boy Scout who got his "marksmanship" merit badge?

In a prosecution in a murder case (or aggravated assault case) there are a lot of factors that go into a decision by the jury, even gender and race, but those are not "standards" .... If the defendant tried to claim an "accidental shooting," then the defendant's background and experience could be relevant to the discussion regarding a potential lesser included offense.

... on a parallel note ... do you think the fact that someone has a driver's license is a "standard" in a negligence claim in an automobile accident case? Or how about a vehicular homicide criminal prosecution?

If your CHL instructor fed you that line, perhaps it was to emphasize the importance of the material and learning it, i.e. to keep the students' attention. The problem with regurgitating on here ... is others may believe it.

.. and no I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I think you are, and this ain't the first time.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

In 2013 the amount of gun related deaths surpassed the amount caused by automobiles 880 to 781 in Missouri.

Do they have guns in Missouri?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do they have guns in Missouri?

Did you file the front sight off your hand gun so when they take it away from you and stick it up your ass it won't hurt so bad?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Did you file the front sight off your hand gun so when they take it away from you and stick it up your ass it won't hurt so bad?

No. Do you need a "sight" on yours?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. Do you need a "sight" on yours?

Enjoyed it right?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you need a "sight" on yours?

You chose to not answer my question. Why is that?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Anything you would like to know about CC, shooting, firearms, hunting just ask I will be glad to tutor you lexie lacking.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You chose to not answer my question. Why is that?

So your offer was merely "bravado" laced with copious amounts of testosterone?

Go figure. Kinda like ... "you can keep your doctor and your insurance"!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Before we teach how to end life in our schools ... as part of the curriculum...

...I would prefer we teach what creates life; how to nurture the new creations in a positive, productive direction; and how to take care of the basic necessities of continuing to live a wholesome life .. e.g. changing diapers, bathing babies, preparing baby food, cleaning house, washing and ironing clothes, shopping for healthy choices, budgeting and financial management for the household, and how to prepare healthy, nutritional, and budget-friendly meals....not to mention some anger management and relationship counseling along the way....FOR BOTH GENDERS, as well as those who aren't sure yet what gender they are.

I have to take acception to this post. This is not about ending life but learning a skill. You can use it anyway you see fit but like the archery (which they taught when I was in junior high) class, it is a skill. My earlier post on this topic also said that they should teach budgeting (I call it balancing your check book if we still use them). So don't go goofy on me and start making claims that I didn't make.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

In 2013 the amount of gun related deaths surpassed the amount caused by automobiles 880 to 781 in Missouri.

Do you have a citation? You must since you used very precise real numbers.

Never mind....I looked it up. An anti-gun group issues a report without citiation or evidence of their claims and you use it as evidence.... I had to look up a couple of things because a couple of TV news websites had removed it from the internet. Why do you think they did that? False information maybe?
http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars15.pdf
Note that they have statistics for highway deaths but not for gun deaths. They also do not talk about injuries but they do claim that highway deaths have declined and gun deaths (the sneaky little truth) have remained pretty much the same for a number of years. At least their graph says so. Don't know if it's true or not.

I discovered a problem (like I expected otherwise...) with these statistics. I went to the Missouri site and they only have numbers for 2012 and not 2013. In 2012 there were only 330 murders in the state and that includes ALL murders. Do you expect me to accept that the number of murders doubled in one year and no one noticed?

I've got a call into the Kansas City Star writer who wrote about this two months ago and he said he will get back to me with his sources. He didn't know them but cited the anti-gun group as the basis of his article. Poor journalistic skills?