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

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by shanm

Apparently, Idiotville is located hafway between the harlem ghetto and 1942 Germany.
Either this is the most irrelevant (to reality) poll I've ever seen or this board is populated with pathological liars.

It's the internet. Everyone is John Rambo.

[JD Barleycorn]

Well, the reporter from the Kansas City Star seems to have bailed on me. He sent me a link to his source for his story which he wrote because "everyone else was writing about it." http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fa...y_reports.html

Problem is, as I emailed him back, that they don't have any firearm statistics on 2013, they don't have any statistics for Missouri, and the numbers that they have for vehicle fatalities does not match what was published. So I am here to announce that the story about gun fatalities in Missouri being higher than vehicle fatalities in 2013 is bullshit.

As for what I see Sha-na-na wrote and Wombraider reflected; must have hit a nerve since SNN takes is so defensively. The polls on this site have always been for entertainment and have all the validity of asking a bunch of people in a room about what they know. I think some people thought that they meant something....except for the Dipshit of the Year award. That really means something.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Everyone is laughing at you and how stupid you are.

Is the "laughter" loud or just a low, muzzled sort of ringing in your ears?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Jesus Christ. I guess expecting you to comprehend the written word is a stretch. What is the key objective of the military when you get right down to it? Make peace? I don't know why people go into the military. I'm sure it's for a myriad of reasons, just as it is with anything else people do in life. It wasn't random BS. It was a direct response to his spiel on skills. I'm too fucking tired to go back and lead you through it all by cutting and pasting. If you're so fucking interested, read the goddamn thread from the beginning.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I explained it. The fact that you can't understand it is your problem, not mine. Everyone is laughing at you and how stupid you are. Go take a shit in the corner and have a good cry.

Read post 108 dumbass.

Now I know why you voted for Obaminable, and can't hide from being UC.

:Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
So, you went into the military to kill people?

So, you don't know why you went into the military?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Misstating what others write or say is not "argument" ... it's distortion.

What a prosecutor or defense attorney may or may not say is not a "standard," because it may vary from one factual situation to another even if there is a common denominator of a CHL license held by either party ... the victim or the shooter. The way you phrased the question .. it is "immaterial" whether the prosecutor "felt" it would "help get a conviction" .... a prior conviction might "help get a conviction," but it may not be relevant or material to the question of whether or not on THIS occasion did the shooter INTEND to shoot the victim, and/or was the shooter "justified" in doing so.

You have made my point ... What a prosecutor "feels" will "help get a conviction" is not a "standard" by which a person's conduct is measured to determine whether or not the person "murdered" someone. The Penal Code sets that standard and the elements necessary to prove that standard.

I'll "play along" ... so it doesn't matter if the shooter earned a "Rifle and a Shotgun merit badge" or a "Soon to be pistol, maybe," merit badge. As for your comment regarding "the law" with respect to being "expected to learn, explain or discuss the law as it applies to using a gun for self defense" ... if you honestly believe that one is prepared to do that after attending a CHL class and reading the materials, then it's no wonder you feel comfortable arguing about trial tactics in criminal prosecutions for murder and expressing your expertise on what prosecutors will do and not do.

I'm happy for you that you enjoy "hearing yourself argue" ... keep entertaining yourself. But I hope for your own sake you consult an attorney who has trial experience regarding use of force issues with a broad enough variety that he or she will caution you about relying on 2-3 hours of classroom discussion for your guidance in decision making on the street.

The recent incident congesting the news media at the moment involves an officer who probably had at least 10 times that in an academy, and more than likely at his age continuing education afterwards regarding use of force and criminal law principles. The DPS training is about 30-40 times that amount before they ever hit the street as a trooper.

I'll be sure to consult a real attorney, not a frustrated law school dropout who plays one on ECCIE, for damn sure.

You take the cake. All I said is that I felt I am held to a higher standard. Why? because in order to receive my CHL I had to know and understand certain things. You come in and tell me how I'm wrong, well kind of wrong but not really, considering...

"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."

That statement backs up my statement.

And you call me argumentative...LMMFAO!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

I've carried legally for 10 years. I've been in a few confrontations but never been in one that went to the point of having to even present. Why? Because as a CHL holder I know I am held to a higher standard and de-escalation is my first priority.

Originally Posted by boardman

All I said is that I felt I am held to a higher standard.

And you call me argumentative...

Actually, you are changing what you said ... or trying to do so.

So not only do you misstate what I posted as you struggle to be relevant, you now misstate and modify what you posted to appear correct.

I believe you accused me of "enjoying" to argue, and admitted as much about yourself. You are not being "argumentative" when you modify what you say to appear "correct" ... you are being dishonest.

Still enjoying yourself?

[Guest030824]

Originally Posted by boardman
I've carried legally for 10 years. I've been in a few confrontations but never been in one that went to the point of having to even present. Why? Because as a CHL holder I know I am held to a higher standard and de-escalation is my first priority.

The training you receive to get your permit covers being aware of your surroundings and avoiding those places as much as you can. The legal responsibility you incur when you draw or even show the weapon is all so covered. In Texas the classes are taught by commissioned police officers as well as knowledgeable fire arm experts. A back ground check by both the county sheriff and the FBI help to keep criminals from obtaining a license.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by tucson

Originally Posted by boardman
I've carried legally for 10 years. I've been in a few confrontations but never been in one that went to the point of having to even present. Why? Because as a CHL holder I know I am held to a higher standard and de-escalation is my first priority.

The training you receive to get your permit covers being aware of your surroundings and avoiding those places as much as you can. The legal responsibility you incur when you draw or even show the weapon is all so covered. In Texas the classes are taught by commissioned police officers as well as knowledgeable fire arm experts. A back ground check by both the county sheriff and the FBI help to keep criminals from obtaining a license.

That's why I posted it involves only about 2-3 hours of legal aspects.

And I also posted that a basic peace officer in Texas only gets about 20x's that before he gets OTJ training by a field training officer, and DPS has about 40xs (on the legal aspects of Arrest, Search, Seizure, Penal Code, and use of force principles (and tested on it)) before they are released for field training.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well, the reporter from the Kansas City Star seems to have bailed on me. He sent me a link to his source for his story which he wrote because "everyone else was writing about it." http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fa...y_reports.html

Problem is, as I emailed him back, that they don't have any firearm statistics on 2013, they don't have any statistics for Missouri, and the numbers that they have for vehicle fatalities does not match what was published. So I am here to announce that the story about gun fatalities in Missouri being higher than vehicle fatalities in 2013 is bullshit.

As for what I see Sha-na-na wrote and Wombraider reflected; must have hit a nerve since SNN takes is so defensively. The polls on this site have always been for entertainment and have all the validity of asking a bunch of people in a room about what they know. I think some people thought that they meant something....except for the Dipshit of the Year award. That really means something.

The only bull shit is coming from your panties barleycornball. LMAO.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's why I posted it involves only about 2-3 hours of legal aspects.

And I also posted that a basic peace officer in Texas only gets about 20x's that before he gets OTJ training by a field training officer, and DPS has about 40xs (on the legal aspects of Arrest, Search, Seizure, Penal Code, and use of force principles (and tested on it)) before they are released for field training.

In your opinion then the day I spent getting my CC is the same as a nimrod now who doesn't need one to pick up a gun put it in their pocket and go to mickeyD's for a burger.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

In your opinion then the day I spent getting my CC is the same as a nimrod now who doesn't need one to pick up a gun put it in their pocket and go to mickeyD's for a burger.

Did I post that? If it looks like I did .. someone is using my handle.

Are you in Kansas?

Is the "mickeyD's" in Kansas?

In Kansas can someone carry a "gun" that will fit in a pocket without a "CC"?

In Kansas can "mickeyD's" post a sign prohibiting "CC's" inside?

Using the lame-ass attempt to insult of another poster ...

.."a frustrated law school dropout ... on ECCIE" in Kansas would probably know more of the legal aspects involving the use of a firearm in "self-defense" than a CHL holder for ten years in Texas. At least that's what it appears.

I think the point of the "legal aspects" discussion is a distinction between getting enough information to let a student know the seriousness of carrying and using a firearm in public where they are allowed, but in the basic CC classes the curriculum is insufficient to even approach someone being learned on the various subjects required for testimony or even a legal explanation of the nuances in a sudden, and unexpected, confrontation.

Example: Just using the term "self-defense" demonstrates an inadequacy.

I would answer further, but I'm not sure what you mean by "nimrod"?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did I post that? If it looks like I did .. someone is using my handle.

Are you in Kansas?

Is the "mickeyD's" in Kansas?

In Kansas can someone carry a "gun" that will fit in a pocket without a "CC"?
As of July 1 2015 yes
In Kansas can "mickeyD's" post a sign prohibiting "CC's" inside?
no
Using the lame-ass attempt to insult of another poster ...
lmao Asking a question is a insult to you?
.."a frustrated law school dropout ... on ECCIE" in Kansas would probably know more of the legal aspects involving the use of a firearm in "self-defense" than a CHL holder for ten years in Texas. At least that's what it appears.
If you mean you ...wrong.
I think the point of the "legal aspects" discussion is a distinction between getting enough information to let a student know the seriousness of carrying and using a firearm in public where they are allowed, but in the basic CC classes the curriculum is insufficient to even approach someone being learned on the various subjects required for testimony or even a legal explanation of the nuances in a sudden, and unexpected, confrontation.

Example: Just using the term "self-defense" demonstrates an inadequacy.

I would answer further, but I'm not sure what you mean by "nimrod"?

Look up the word if it baffles you,, and unwad your panties lexie lacking.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Look up the word if it baffles you,, ....

... the only thing that baffles me is why you ask ...

... since you think you already know it all.

Kansas had always seemed to produce some talented "gunslingers" ....

... I suppose by this time next year there will be a whole gaggle more.

As for Kansas laws ...

.... occasionally I look them up, but generally I don't keep up with them.

Posters' uninformed, childish, and dishonest attempts at insulting remarks never really bothered me, but apparently it does some, because posters keep trying.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now I know why you voted for Obaminable, and can't hide from being UC.



So, you don't know why you went into the military?

How in the fuck would I know why any one person does anything? Sometimes 'I don't know' is the best response. You make absolutely no sense btw.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well, the reporter from the Kansas City Star seems to have bailed on me. He sent me a link to his source for his story which he wrote because "everyone else was writing about it." http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fa...y_reports.html

Problem is, as I emailed him back, that they don't have any firearm statistics on 2013, they don't have any statistics for Missouri, and the numbers that they have for vehicle fatalities does not match what was published. So I am here to announce that the story about gun fatalities in Missouri being higher than vehicle fatalities in 2013 is bullshit.

As for what I see Sha-na-na wrote and Wombraider reflected; must have hit a nerve since SNN takes is so defensively. The polls on this site have always been for entertainment and have all the validity of asking a bunch of people in a room about what they know. I think some people thought that they meant something....except for the Dipshit of the Year award. That really means something.

Let's see, who should I trust... hmmmm. CornballShit or a reporter for a trusted newspaper who gets paid to do their job. It's a tough decision.

Here's an article in a different paper about the same thing and the numbers are the same... hmmmm.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...c6cfb7a95.html