LeviF

I'm gonna call this what it is: a lie. It's not even an original lie; it's an old, tired one.

Yeah, I like them and all but it's a twice a year thing for me.

Can't wait!

And I'll counter with the notion that it's not a compromise if all you do is take and all I do is give. Aaaaand this is why I shouldn't waste my time like this.

Without anecdotal comments, I'll submit the results of this survey (pdf warning) conducted by PoliceOne. Might not be the most scientific survey in the world but they got answers to a lot of questions from over 15,000 active and retired LEOs.

And which ones won't daddy government come for in the future?

Yeah, a musket or cannon, like the founders intended, amirite? Moron.

I don't (well, not exclusively), my AR is also my primary home defense weapon. I comprehended what you said just fine, despite how contradictory and blindingly stupid it was. You're a gun-grabber, plain and simple.

Re: 2; I wasn't sure if every question was in the context of CCW or not, since you had asked about a handgun's chance vs. a rifle in 1. Re: 3; did Trump say he wanted it to be mandatory? I haven't closely followed his remarks about all this.

No comment

I forget, are cops the problem this week or are guns?

1. It's dependent on several factors, most important being the level of training. Ambush/counter ambush, ammunition, awareness, having a plan, putting the first shot on target. Armed good guys win the fight against armed bad guys every day. I'd lay money on a well-trained concealed carrier up against a random nutbag with a rifle in a close quarters setting any day. 2. Depends on the state (and the weapon? I'm not sure but I assume you're talking about handguns). Some states require a simple pistol safety class. Some require that you take an "advanced" class on carrying concealed. No state that I'm aware of requires any sort of CQC-type training. Many states don't allow someone under 21 to buy a handgun. I assume whoever wants teachers to carry concealed would want them to take CQC and active shooter training in the context of carrying a concealed handgun. 3. In theory this wouldn't be mandatory so they would pay for their own weapon, ammo, and training. I'm sure there are plenty of firearms and tactics instructors who would be happy to give discounted classes specifically for teachers. Weird, I manage to reload my AR all the time and it's never killed anyone. I should send it back to the manufacturer I guess, must be a defect. Better turn in my hammers, lord knows after a few blows I could wreck someone's teeth and face enough to make them non identifiable. "I don't want to take good people's guns away. I just want to take good people's guns away." Good work, hoss.

When definitions change from one year to another, it's harder to make handy charts like the ones above without a bunch of asterisks and footnotes. Politifact has another chart that goes up to 2015, I think, but the researchers they got the data from standardized what they were looking for and have student interns and **** parse through crime stats by hand.

Your Lord and Savior King Obama sent down a mandate to us lowly folk that said that mass shootings required three or more deaths, as opposed to what the FBI had long gone by: four or more deaths. Even Politifact, leftist mouthpiece that it is, couldn't ignore 44's blatant falsehood following the Charleston shooting.

Any idea why that might be, or are you completely ignorant when it comes to public policy?

Whoever it was is a hero. Geese are the !@#$ing worst.

Fake news. Everyone knows Wu-Tang was taken by the Asians in the 2004 Racial Draft

I'm not saying you want to eliminate personal ownership of firearms, what I'm saying is you're doing all taking and no giving in this situation, whereas I am doing all giving and get nothing in return. See, a compromise would be something like this: both sides work together to find a way to better fund mental health services in the US. Not something like this: you give up your scary black guns and 30 round magazines. That's it.

Well it roughly translates to "come between them" so...both?

That's "molon labia" you idiot

Again, you have the gall to call yourself reasonable when you insist on calling a situation in which you get whatever you think you want and I get nothing a "compromise." The intellectual dishonesty you've managed to doublethink your way into (I don't think you're being this way purposefully) is astounding.

That's not the point. And this is what you gun-grabbers don't get. If I come and take some part of something that rightfully belongs to you, that's wrong. Even if I come for all of it, and you say no, then I say "let's compromise, I'll only take half" with the full force of the law behind me then it's still wrong. You're the person taking in the above illustration. You're in the wrong. You're the one calling something a compromise when only one party gets anything and then have the gall to call me "absurd." !@#$ right off.

History is a perfectly logical base on which to build an argument. You can deny it until you're blue in the face but that doesn't make it untrue.

Yawn

Dang, 99. Dude is an American icon. Rest easy.