Idiots

[Seth]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

[Tero]

The idiots who probably should not carry a gun outside the home are in the IQ range 86-100.
Typical tasks shown here
http://www.aceintelligence.com/interest ... stions.php

[Tero]

The low IQ people seem to include patrolling police at IQ 90 carrying guns!
Ignore the first number, the last range is the IQ
Keypunch Operator, Messenger, Meter Reader, Police Patrolman, Skilled Trades, Train Crew Personnel 26 - 71 88 - 110
Bus/Truck Driver, Machine Operator, Mail Clerk, Maintenance Worker, Printing Pressman, Utility Man, Traffic Supervisor 22 - 67 86 - 107
Food Service Worker Helper, General Mechanic's Helper, Shipping Clerk 16 - 67 83 - 107
File Clerk, Material Handler, Telephone Operator 16 - 62 83 - 105
Assembler, Factory Worker, General Labourer, Skilled Labour, Unskilled Labour 12 - 57 81 - 103
Custodian, Nurse's Aide, Packer, Warehouseman 10 - 55 79 - 102

GUN NKeypunch Operator, Messenger, Meter Reader, Police Patrolman, Skilled Trades, Train Crew Personnel 26 - 71 88 - 110
Bus/Truck Driver, Machine Operator, Mail Clerk, Maintenance Worker, Printing Pressman, Utility Man, Traffic Supervisor 22 - 67 86 - 107
Food Service Worker Helper, General Mechanic's Helper, Shipping Clerk 16 - 67 83 - 107
File Clerk, Material Handler, Telephone Operator 16 - 62 83 - 105
Assembler, Factory Worker, General Labourer, Skilled Labour, Unskilled Labour 12 - 57 81 - 103
Custodian, Nurse's Aide, Packer, Warehouseman 10 - 55 79 - 10"

GUN NUTS NOTE:
I have no data pointing to gun owners being idiots. The point here is that the 2nd Amendment does not discriminate and it allows low IQ people who tend to get in trouble with the law more often to have guns ...concealed or not...(yes we know, serial killers are often smart) than the average college educated person (perhaps for reasons of poverty) and we should be keeping an eye on them. Secondly, a low IQ person not trained to deal with a violent situation is likely to shoot without thinking through the consequences. By simple gut instinct. Which they should if personally threatened. However, tehy should NEVER get involved as third party in a conflict.

[Rum]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

Sure it does.

[Jason]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

Evolution only cares that you survive to produce many offspring. Teenage mothers are, statistically, higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success. Not much of a bar.

[Seth]

I have no data pointing to gun owners being idiots.

Thanks for admitting in advance that your entire argument is utter crap.

The point here is that the 2nd Amendment does not discriminate and it allows low IQ people who tend to get in trouble with the law more often to have guns ...concealed or not.

Indeed. Even low IQ people have a right to self defense and personal safety.

..(yes we know, serial killers are often smart) than the average college educated person (perhaps for reasons of poverty) and we should be keeping an eye on them.

No, we should be keeping an eye on YOU.

Secondly, a low IQ person not trained to deal with a violent situation is likely to shoot without thinking through the consequences.

In which case he goes to jail if he breaks the law. Unfortunately for your argument the facts show that you are completely full of crap because those who obtain permits to carry concealed in public are much, much, much less likely to be involved in any criminal act, or wrongfully discharge their firearms than YOU ARE.

Out of some 12 million permit holders the Violence Policy Center could come up with fewer than 170 cases where a permitted person committed a crime with his or her gun. That's an enviable safety record by any measure.

By simple gut instinct. Which they should if personally threatened. However, tehy should NEVER get involved as third party in a conflict.

You haven't the slightest clue of what you're bloviating about, so you should just STFU.

[Seth]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

Sure it does.

Thanks for agreeing Mr. Evolutionary Dead-End.

[Tero]

Seth:u haven't the slightest clue of what you're bloviating about, so you should just STFU.

Me: and you do? You are trained on how to hold up the law as a citizen?

Example: man is raping a woman in a Colorado park. He has dropped the knife he had earlier so he can concentrate on raping. You arrive with concealed weapon. What do you do within the law? Are you allowed to point the gun? Go up to him and blow his head off?

My original argument is still valid. About half the population is likely to be not too smart with gun in hand. The other half is typically not trained. Yet millions carry guns around. They are not even trained to keep that gun if attacked. If the gun had some security device, it might buy you a minute or two in the hands of a criminal.

[Tero]

Nearly 200,000 guns were reported lost or stolen last year, according to federal data. (2012)

More were not reported. So in 10 years, the idiots allow evil doers to steal 2 million guns. Enough to keep them going.

[Jason]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

Sure it does.

Thanks for agreeing Mr. Evolutionary Dead-End.

Um, you do realize that that's a particularly appalling thing to say right? It's also false, Rum has children.

[JimC]

You sound like such a ninny sometimes. A ranting ninny.

Perhaps, but I'm an armed citizen who has a much better chance at surviving any sort of criminal attack than you are, which puts me higher than you on the scale of evolutionary success.

Sure it does.

Thanks for agreeing Mr. Evolutionary Dead-End.

Um, you do realize that that's a particularly appalling thing to say right? It's also false, Rum has children.

Which, from what he has implied, is not the case with Seth.

Physician, heal thyself...

[Seth]

Seth:u haven't the slightest clue of what you're bloviating about, so you should just STFU.

Me: and you do? You are trained on how to hold up the law as a citizen?

You betcha.

Example: man is raping a woman in a Colorado park. He has dropped the knife he had earlier so he can concentrate on raping. You arrive with concealed weapon. What do you do within the law? Are you allowed to point the gun? Go up to him and blow his head off?

Maybe. It depends on whether I reasonably believe that my life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and I believe that a lesser degree of physical force would be inadequate to prevent the injury.

Yes, I'm allowed to point the gun because the threat of the use of deadly physical force in response to a crime being committed in my presence is a lesser degree of physical force than any laying-on of hands because it can cause the criminal to cease and desist his unlawful activities and surrender without any physical contact at all. And yes, I might be justified in blowing his head off if he doesn't cease and desist his criminal actions, although doing so would require great care and good tactics to avoid harm to the victim, such as placing the gun horizontally to the rapist's temple and pulling the trigger so that the bullet will not be directed at the victim. But, hopefully that will not be necessary because I would expect that the feel of the cold muzzle against the side of his head, combined with the clicking off of the safety and my sinister warning that if he does instantly cease and desist I will in fact blow his brains out the side of his head will both cause him to cease and desist from his illegal activities and render his penis non-functional for the purpose he intended.

Such things are matters of tactics and vary from situation to situation.

Here's the pertinent law:

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203. (emphasis added)

So, if you read the highlighted text properly, in the case of a rape in progress, all that is required is that I reasonably believe a lesser degree of force is inadequate. How "reasonable" my belief might be will be ultimately up to a jury to decide if the prosecutor decides to bring a case against me, which would be highly unusual around here in the event of a rape in progress.

My original argument is still valid. About half the population is likely to be not too smart with gun in hand.

You don't know that. You're pulling this assumption out of your ass in fact. It's not rocket science for someone to understand that they very likely have the right to use deadly force if someone is being raped in their presence. One might want to first say something like "Hey, stop that or I'll blow your brains out" just as insurance so that if he doesn't stop and you do blow his brains out you can argue to the prosecutor that you tried a lesser degree of force and it was inadequate.

The other half is typically not trained.

And there's another ex-recto factoid spurting out of your ass.

Yet millions carry guns around.

Yes, they do, and they are at least 11 times LESS likely to actually shoot someone than a trained police officer is.

They are not even trained to keep that gun if attacked.

More ex-recto splatter. Please stop, you're stinking the place up.

If the gun had some security device, it might buy you a minute or two in the hands of a criminal.

More importantly it WILL buy the criminal a minute or two in which to kill you with his non-secured weapon before you can get yours into action.

When deadly force is called for and lawful you don't have a "minute or two" to get your gun into play, you have seconds, or fractions of seconds, and all "security devices" do is to impede your ability to get your gun into action in time to save someone's life.

[Seth]

Nearly 200,000 guns were reported lost or stolen last year, according to federal data. (2012)

More were not reported. So in 10 years, the idiots allow evil doers to steal 2 million guns. Enough to keep them going.

Er, not all stolen guns are used to commit crimes and not all lost guns are recovered by someone with malicious intent, so your example is fallacious, as usual.

[Seth]

Um, you do realize that that's a particularly appalling thing to say right? It's also false, Rum has children.

Which, from what he has implied, is not the case with Seth.

Physician, heal thyself...

I'm not having children quite deliberately as it happens, in large part precisely to improve the lot of future human beings. I have an inherited genetic defect that I do not wish to pass along to another generation. So, am I an evolutionary dead end? Yes, absolutely, by choice as part of my responsibility to the species.

Let's hope Rum's kids don't inherit any anti-survival traits from him, either by nature or nurture.

[Tero]

Most gun uses (defense or other use by non criminal) are in the escalating argument/aggression/idiot type of situations. Running off would lead to fewer deaths.

“Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”

The surveys also found that when someone uses a gun in self defense, it is often part of an escalating hostile interaction — one in which both participants are likely to be responsible for the event that initially prompted the DGU. One male respondent who reported a defensive gun use described an incident as follows: “I was watching a movie and he interrupted me. I yelled at him that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car.” Another respondent pulled out a gun to resolve a conflict with his neighbor: “I was on my porch and this man threw a beer in my face so I got my gun.”

It is not at all clear that cases such as these are in the public interest — let alone constitute legitimate defensive gun use. After all, these incidents are substantially different from a situation in which a victim is taken by surprise, such as during a street mugging.

In his new NCVS study, Hemenway also found that defensive gun use is exceedingly infrequent. While smaller private surveys estimated that there are up to 2.5 million DGUs on an annual basis, the NCVS data indicates that victims used guns defensively in less than 1 percent of attempted or completed crimes, with an annual total of less than 70,000.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensi ... -hemenway/