If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
True, that's why I passed it on to myspace for all my friend's to repost. We need it to be seen and understood.If they don't keep up with this, though, it's just going to get swept under the rug.
Isn't this the bottom line? How many more shootings and stupid gun laws will it take for the liberals to finally get it?The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear.
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
All I know is I needed to go thru some training to get my class A, right?
********I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
Not really, you can get a class A without ever touching a gun.
Pretty sure all mass Safty courses require live fire of a handgun.
Still that can be your first time touching a gun, and the guns and ammo are almost always supplied
Pretty sure all mass [sic] Safty [sic] courses require live fire of a handgun.
NOT true. It is possible to take a Mass. certified firearms safety course and never fire a shot.
The object of the exercise to teach proper handling and storage; not marksmanship. This policy can be - and has been - questioned, but the law is clear.
Even if places like Boston, Brookline, Newton, Dedham et al refuse to acknowledge it.
Originally Posted by News Shooter
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
While I agree with the article posted, and the sentiment that it should be brought to the attention of others, I've got a couple of complaints.
First, it's high on details about historical shootings, both those which were stopped by someone with a CCW and those which were not, but makes broad claims about the effectiveness of CCW as a deterrant despite the fact that there are numerous studies with quantifiable data.
Second, consider the author. John Lott has been around for a LONG time, and he has had his share of controversy regarding how he promotes his work. Given that he's been around for the length of time he has, I'm not sure why he didn't include more statistics from other sources to back up his argument. They're not omitted because they're not out there...because they are!!! Laziness on his part? I'm not sure, but I'm a bit disappointed, because it makes it easier to dismiss his argument.
Third, consider the source. Let's not get into a discussion of whether the majority of the media is "liberal" versus "conservative," but let's consider the normal reaction of someone whose opinion you want to change. They're probably (stereotypically) going to be a liberal, right? And that theoretical liberal is most likely going to think of Fox News as a biased "conservative" source, right? Again, this is another thing that makes it easier to dismiss the argument.
It comes down to the same thing as every other argument. If you can logically, factually explain something, and back it up with credible, unbiased studies, you're much more likely to affect someone's feelings on a subject.
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."