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

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. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Don't you "go goofy on me and start making claims that I didn't make," either!

Parenting and taking care of oneself in the process is also a "skill," which is too often ignored in our public schools (may be a chapter in "health class" by a PE "teacher" who couldn't find his or her ass with both hands (and often are trying to find some student's ass instead)) ..... and IMO "life skills" should take priority over "shooting skills," because I KNOW they will ALL need "life skills," but NOT ALL will need "shooting skills," particularly if they excel in their "life skill" learning!!!

I'm not suggesting one without the other, but I am suggesting the "life skills' be mandatory, since it will be a "mandatory" part of life.....whereas "shooting skills" will be an "option" ... or to be consistent ... an "elective"!!!

You chose to not answer my question. Why is that? Originally Posted by LexusLover

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

Go figure. Kinda like ... "you can keep your doctor and your insurance"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I did answer, did you miss it lexie? I did keep my Dr and insurance how about you?

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? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

wwwkansascity.com/news/local/article/9311399html
Feb4,2015

also check Gun murders rise in Mo. after background checks repealed...Feb 19 2014.

Did you file the front sight off your hand gun ...... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Actually, you answered someone else's question, not mine, or just lied.

Here's my question again: Do you need a sight on your hand gun?

Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
Do you need a "sight" on yours?

wwwkansascity.com/news/local/article/9311399html
Feb4,2015

also check Gun murders rise in Mo. after background checks repealed...Feb 19 2014. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I'm still waiting on the reporter to get back to me. Make yourself comfortable.

I guess there's a top secret encoded password to get to see the referenced article.

While being "comfortable"

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSH...e_960grid.html

Never mind.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but the repeal was of the requirement in Missouri for a background check before one could purchase a handgun from a private/individual (NonLicensed Seller). The data is interpreted to conclude the repeal resulted in a rise in deaths. The background checks were for handguns only, right?

I carry my weapon every where it is permitted. I know if I were to fire it I can expect in excess of $5000 in legal fees to clear my use of the gun. On one hand it is the cost of my self defense but I also know it may be the cost of my life. I was a member of the Junior NRA rifle team in high school and with the training in the military I feel qualified to know when to shoot or not shoot. With no statistics to back me up I am sure a majority of incidences have been quelled with just the display of a fire arm. One time for me with a pimp brought to a quick end an encounter that could have put me in danger. I am a member of a legal group that will bring a knowledgeable attorney to my aid.
The constant running of "what ifs" through my mind keeps me on my toes and the things that are taught by conceal carry groups so I am aware of my surroundings at all times.

Actually, you answered someone else's question, not mine, or just lied.

Here's my question again: Do you need a sight on your hand gun? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are so nosy lexie FYI it is a 9mm Colt new agent lightweight.

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. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

EXCEPTION. I'm beginning to wonder if English is your first language. And don't run from your assertions now. This whole thread is about concealed carry permit holders possibly lowering crime rates. How do you think that happens, if it's true? Shooting people. Hello. Ending life IS a skill at some point when you're talking about the military, so you trying to parse it out is bullshit.

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?

There is no "marksmanship" merit badge. There is a Rifle and a Shotgun merit badge. Soon to be pistol, maybe. At no point during the process of earning either is a scout expected to learn, explain or discuss the law as it applies to using a gun for self defense.

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?

A CDL driver is definitely held to a higher standard.


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. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You love to hear yourself argue as do I. Why not embrace it?

So you are telling me that a prosecutor would not bring up the fact that a guy has a CHL and make that a part of his case if he felt it could help get a conviction?

So you are telling me that a prosecutor would not bring up the fact that a guy has a CHL and make that a part of his case if he felt it could help get a conviction? Originally Posted by boardman

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.

Ending life IS a skill at some point when you're talking about the military, so you trying to parse it out is bullshit. Originally Posted by WombRaider

So, you went into the military to kill people?

I'm still waiting on the reporter to get back to me. Make yourself comfortable. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

While you are waiting and like numbers....
There are 308 shootings with 38 deaths in the USA daily.

There are no "average Americans" on this board. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You appear to be way below average, if the truth be told.

You appear to be way below average, if the truth be told. Originally Posted by DSK

Look up the word joke, your picture is there. Another dipshit thinking average Americans hang on a hooker board.