California woman caps home invader

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Well, you do have a point. Proven by his freshly printed toe tag and his very own slab in the county morgue.

Quoting this shorter post but responding to your prior. This incident worked out, but no it fails to prove the demonstrably false claim 'guns make you safer.' how could it?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Wrong state, hence the correction. I am not so pompous that I believe I can never make a mistake. I surely do.

You can post all the stories you want where the good guy shoots the bad, however there are at least as many where the opposite is true, and even ones where the good guy is shot with his/her own gun.

As another poster put it in this thread, certain VJ gun nuts glee over these stories reflect poorly on gun owners in general. Your comments certainly fall into that category.

As I stated, my "glee" is over the saving of an innocent life and it is demented that others would not agree.

"Wrong state" That would mean it is a state that does NOT allow anyone to carry a handgun concealed without a permit. How odd.

Yes, you are wrong.

49 states have implemented concealed carry, if it were true that "there are at least as many stories..." then none would have experienced a crime decrease. They ALL did. If what you say is true, at least ONE would have repealed such a stupid move, NONE have.

I am not guessing, I am not speculating. We have decades of practical experience in every state that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduce crime.

Since Obama has been elected, firearms sales have increased 32%, with the largest sinlge day sales of firems being Black Friday this year with more than 129,000 NICS approvals in ONE DAY. 70.1% of those were "first time" approvals. 90,000 NEW firearms owners in ONE DAY.

In the same time period, violent crime is DOWN 13.9% (FBI UCR)

Edited December 10, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Quoting this shorter post but responding to your prior. This incident worked out, but no it fails to prove the demonstrably false claim 'guns make you safer.' how could it?

In 1986 exactly 5 states allowed concealed carry. Yours was one of them (since 1961) Vermont is the only one that has NEVER restricted the carrying of concealed handguns.

This year Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow concealed carry. 44 states have implemented concealed carry since 1986. If what you say is true, how did that happen? You are smarter than the collective brain power of 44 legislatures? Why didn't someone give this gem of information to ONE of those legislatures? Why hasn't ONE of them discovered this since and repealed their law? If what you say is true how did they all have decreases in crime? (FBI UCR 5 years before and 5 years after implementation)

Such ludicrous arguments are similar to those that say "air bags do not save lives" because a few people are KILLED by air bags. Some people die because they wore a seat belt. But I would have to be stupid to say "seat belts do not save lives" and I would have to be even more stupid to expect seat belts and air bags to save ALL lives.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Quoting this shorter post but responding to your prior. This incident worked out, but no it fails to prove the demonstrably false claim 'guns make you safer.' how could it?

Typical word play of anti-gunners. I am very pleased this woman successfuly defended herself with a firearm but you are correct this does not prove a broader claim. Why would it need to?

This is a standard assumption of anti-gunners. "Guns only protect you if you KILL someone with them" False. Firearms protect us by being present. Not by being waved around, shot, or killing someone.

Your earlier post which you wisely removed (because you would have looked a serious fool) was that there was a "shootout in Vermont" yesterday. There was not. Not the day before or the day before that. We will probably end the year with a 50% decrease in homicides from last year...2 instead of 4 for the entire state. ONE involved a firearm, it was a domestic dispute. The other was a lovers quarrle between two gay men and one threw the other off the bridge in the Intervale (nice name for a swamp on the north end of Burlington) The last time there was a murder of an innocent person "off the street" was in 2006 and she was picked up in a bar by some dude and strangled. ANYone can carry a gun here.

THAT is what proves the claim that guns save lives. no stories to report. It is not necessary to actually SHOOT criminals to reduce crime. It is only necessary to be ABLE to shoot criminals.

Since the criminals do not KNOW who has a gun it is very risky indeed to attempt assaults on people's persons or homes. Risk/reward. Even criminals "get it"

[Pooky 3,784]

I would be very sad if I had to start a thread saying "If only this woman had a gun maybe she would still be alive" What kind of whacko would have to be to prefer that thread?

Personally, I'd be happier if neither had died. But that's just me.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Gary your stats aren't true. Fact. Being a pompous #### doesn't make them true either. I have posted the actual facts regarding guns increasing the risk to their owners over and over and won't do so again.

Legislatures have passed these laws not for safety but because the gun lobby is both powerful and strong. To say nothing of being persistent but safety is neither the basis for adopting those laws nor the basis for maintaining them.

I am not anti-gun, simply not interested in having one. And if you think your comments make you sound like a level headed, responsible gun owner think again.

If you want and love owning guns despite the added risk they pose to you and your loved ones have at it. Just don't claim you do so to be safer. You aren't.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

think of firearms as being like a condom. it's better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[106206 15]

Firearms are just one equalizer in a fight. It doesn't make the person who has them like a superhero.

Possessing a gun does not make the person qualified to use the firearm.

Being proficient with a firearm in non conflict situations i.e. perforating at the "the square range" doesn't mean being proficient in a force on force situation.

Some people could disarm you with 99% certainty if you had a gun pointed at their head and your finger on the trigger.

Other people could not manage to deploy a weapon with 20' of space and the attacker running at them.

If you use a firearm for self defense or just want to become practiced at evasion, buy a training barrel for your pistol and do some dry work with another partner. Feel what it is like to be on either side of that conflict, to have an actual gun pressed against your neck or ribs or stomach, then feel what it is like to have to assess the situation and determine how best to respond. They pull the trigger and when it goes click you see where that gun is pointed. Try it blindfolded, or after as many pushups as you can handle and you are winded and weak. It will make you think differently.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Personally, I'd be happier if neither had died. But that's just me.

Me too, which is why I am happy that the vast majority of crime prevented by guns never requires the gun to be fired or even pointed at anyone. Killing someone would be the scond to last thing I would ever want to do. I abhor violence and killing SO much that I personally choose to live in the safest state in the US. There is no place I am less likely to ever need t use the gun I carry than right here in Vermont.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Firearms are just one equalizer in a fight. It doesn't make the person who has them like a superhero.

Possessing a gun does not make the person qualified to use the firearm.

Being proficient with a firearm in non conflict situations i.e. perforating at the "the square range" doesn't mean being proficient in a force on force situation.

Some people could disarm you with 99% certainty if you had a gun pointed at their head and your finger on the trigger.

Other people could not manage to deploy a weapon with 20' of space and the attacker running at them.

If you use a firearm for self defense or just want to become practiced at evasion, buy a training barrel for your pistol and do some dry work with another partner. Feel what it is like to be on either side of that conflict, to have an actual gun pressed against your neck or ribs or stomach, then feel what it is like to have to assess the situation and determine how best to respond. They pull the trigger and when it goes click you see where that gun is pointed. Try it blindfolded, or after as many pushups as you can handle and you are winded and weak. It will make you think differently.

I do not need to "try" anything. Vermont is the ONLY state that has NEVER restricted carrying firearms, EVER. We have the lowest homicide rate and consistently have the lowest homicide rate in the US. NO law enforcement officer has even been killed by a firearm in Vermont, only two EVER, one by a car accident, one drowned in a rescue attempt. This, despite the fact a large percentage of our border is international and a popular entry point for drug smugglers. We are the safest political subdivision larger than a zip code in the western hemisphere. I am not speculating, trying, imagining or guessing. That is a consistent FACT.

EVERY state that has implemented concealed carry has had a reduction in crime. That is a FACT. THAT is WHY state after state has implemented concealed carry in the past 25 years, that is WHY none of them have repealed concealed carry in the last 25 years. Gun ownership UP 32%, crime rate DOWN 13.9%

The FACT that people ARE armed prevents crime. The FACT that people CAN shoot back prevents crime.

We do not have to shoot people, in fact...we don't except on very rare occasions. We are not shooting it out or struggling over guns on Church St. in Burlington. Try to be serious, OK? IF good people are alowed to be armed without restriction, then there is no need to "deploy" a gun. My gun stays in its holster until I go to bed. I take it out to wipe it off once in a while and sometimes I even shoot it (I go shooting 2-3 times per week but usually not with my CC handgun)

Criminals do not KNOW who is armed because the guns are concealed. They have to GUESS who is armed, where their gun is and how good that person would be at deploying it. How about you? Care to make that guess? Neither do criminals.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary your stats aren't true. Fact. Being a pompous #### doesn't make them true either. I have posted the actual facts regarding guns increasing the risk to their owners over and over and won't do so again.

Legislatures have passed these laws not for safety but because the gun lobby is both powerful and strong. To say nothing of being persistent but safety is neither the basis for adopting those laws nor the basis for maintaining them.

I am not anti-gun, simply not interested in having one. And if you think your comments make you sound like a level headed, responsible gun owner think again.

If you want and love owning guns despite the added risk they pose to you and your loved ones have at it. Just don't claim you do so to be safer. You aren't.

Then why are accidents and crime down as gun ownership goes up?

Is the NRA influencing the FBI uniform crime report? Really? You mean to say that there really has NOT been a reduction in crime? Do you mean to say that the gun lobby is SO powerful it got 44 states to implement these laws between 1986 and 2011 ...and yet could not stop the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban during the same period? Seriously?

And the NRA is SO powerful that NONE of the 44 states have repealed their laws? WOW!

You sound completely foolish when making such claims. You should stick with the flat earth society.

[Leatherneck 693]

Then why are accidents and crime down as gun ownership goes up?

Is the NRA influencing the FBI uniform crime report? Really? You mean to say that there really has NOT been a reduction in crime? Do you mean to say that the gun lobby is SO powerful it got 44 states to implement these laws between 1986 and 2011 ...and yet could not stop the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban during the same period? Seriously?

And the NRA is SO powerful that NONE of the 44 states have repealed their laws? WOW!

You sound completely foolish when making such claims. You should stick with the flat earth society.

:thumbs:

Gary, those are facts, and some folks don't let facts get in the way of their feelings.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Leatherneck

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

:thumbs:

Gary, those are facts, and some folks don't let facts get in the way of their feelings.

What you say is true. Unfortunately for some it is not "feelings" Most people can undersatnd when facts overrule feelings. Others are purposely trying to cook the books to take away our rights. They will continue to skew studies to their favor and ignore facts (such as the study Ready has posted in the past)

Just this week we have seen emails released where BATF agents were planning to Obama's Fast and Furious government gun running operations to support stricter firearms controls and the Attorney General testified "If our gun laws were stricter none of this would have happened" when it was HIS agents that GAVE the guns to Mexican narco terrorists in VIOLATION of exiting laws.

And they expect to be taken seriously and will say WE do not sound reasonable.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have posted the actual facts regarding guns increasing the risk to their owners over and over and won't do so again.

Of course you won;t. That study has been so thoroughly de-bunked intelligent anti-gunners try to keep its very existance buried.. I am surprised you even admit to having been once fooled by it. I will admit to being glad to debate someone that hasn;t figured that one out yet. Nothing like a dumb@ss for an opponent.

The study shows that homeowners used firearms to KILL intruders only XX times (the number is not important, but they only counted KILLS) and yet homeowners themselves were KILLED by firearms XXX times (numbers again not important but it was MORE than the number of intruders killed)

VOILA! Guns kill more homewoners than criminals. Ebd of report!

Except the numbers included homeowners killed by a firearm in any way, including accidents. No problem, reasons the "study", the firearm still represents a more dangerous threat.

Sure.

Ready for facts? The "study" did not include the number of crimes prevented by firearms owners in which no one was KILLED. This number was pegged at more than 2 million per year. Simply do not count them because no one was killed. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! End of study.

The fact is that the vast majority of crimes prevented by gun owners never require a person to be killed or a shot to be fired. When confronted with an armed victim, in 93.8% of instances reported, the criminal flees or surrenders without a shot being fired. In VERY FEW instances are criminals ever shot and in even fewer are they killed. We never jknow how many crimes are prevented just because the criminal did not try but our reduced crime rates give us a clue.

The study you posted, commissioned by the Brady Justice Center (an anti gun organization originally founded to promote the Brady Act which was passed despite the powerful gun lobby) has been withdrawn in use for support of gun laws.

Old news Ready. Try something new.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[ready4ONE 5,400]

up

Of course you won;t. That study has been so thoroughly de-bunked intelligent anti-gunners try to keep its very existance buried.. I am surprised you even admit to having been once fooled by it. I will admit to being glad to debate someone that hasn;t figured that one out yet. Nothing like a dumb@ss for an opponent.

The study shows that homeowners used firearms to KILL intruders only XX times (the number is not important, but they only counted KILLS) and yet homeowners themselves were KILLED by firearms XXX times (numbers again not important but it was MORE than the number of intruders killed)

VOILA! Guns kill more homewoners than criminals. Ebd of report!

Except the numbers included homeowners killed by a firearm in any way, including accidents. No problem, reasons the "study", the firearm still represents a more dangerous threat.

Sure.

Ready for facts? The "study" did not include the number of crimes prevented by firearms owners in which no one was KILLED. This number was pegged at more than 2 million per year. Simply do not count them because no one was killed. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! End of study.

The fact is that the vast majority of crimes prevented by gun owners never require a person to be killed or a shot to be fired. When confronted with an armed victim, in 93.8% of instances reported, the criminal flees or surrenders without a shot being fired. In VERY FEW instances are criminals ever shot and in even fewer are they killed. We never jknow how many crimes are prevented just because the criminal did not try but our reduced crime rates give us a clue.

The study you posted, commissioned by the Brady Justice Center (an anti gun organization originally founded to promote the Brady Act which was passed despite the powerful gun lobby) has been withdrawn in use for support of gun laws.

Old news Ready. Try something new.

Shut up Gary there are plenty of Vermont gun-related tragedies and incidents.