Experience with violation of 18 USC 930(a) - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Experience with violation of 18 USC 930(a)

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by elcid01 View Post
    All is taken care of. Thanks for the accusations and jumping to judgment for those who posted. Especially ezkl2230 who without 90% of the facts presented made some very interesting remarks.
    Mods please delete this thread thanks,

    TC
    So what is the "taken care of"? Inquiring minds want to know.
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  2.   
  3. #22

    Experience with violation of 18 USC 930(a)

    Quote Originally Posted by thru View Post
    That's what happens when cops get involved, and they have far more training/experience than 99% of civilian guntoters ever get. I'm perfectly willing to see (and undergo) MORE demanding training (and re quals) for ccw for civilians than the palty amount given to cops (since the cops prove that they are inept in almost every instance).[
    You great contradict yourself here. First you say, cops get more training and have more experience than 99% CCWers. Please cite a source, because lots of the cops I know in my area are CJ grads who have never shot a gun before the Academy and only shoot 1-2 times a year to requal. Myself and most other CCWers I know shoot far more often than that and could easily out shoot most of them on their own qualifications.

    Then you turn around and say cops are given a "palty" [sic] amount of training. So which one is it?
    For the short time you've been posting here, you've made some wildly asinine assertions with no facts or sources to back them up. With all due respect, I've seen far too many posters like yourself come and go from this forum in the last year. You're more than welcome to keep posting and please do, but try and tone down the seemingly know-it-all-attitude and avoid pulling arbitrary statistics out of your ass.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by elcid01 View Post
    All is taken care of. Thanks for the accusations and jumping to judgment for those who posted. Especially ezkl2230 who without 90% of the facts presented made some very interesting remarks.

    Mods please delete this thread thanks,

    TC
    First the thread does not get deleted. "All is taken care of" leads me to believe you were trolling. Your post was pretty specific that your wife tried to carry a concealed weapon onto a federal facility. There is no need for a sign...just you go and carry open into a post office and you will see what I am talking about. Why do you make a post like you did and leave 90% of the facts out? What facts did you forget to mention? It wasn't ezkl2230 that was being arrogant my man...it was you. Now with all due respect why don't you tell us all the purpose of your post without trying to spin the truth. Personally if I see a post of yours again I will assume that you are not telling the entire story which means your post is BS and that you are in fact a troll.

  5. #24
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by thru View Post
    Referring to your post about somebody shooting a mass killer wannabe, what about a civilian ccw is some sort of "guarantee" that there won't be bullets sprayed all over the place, hmm? That's what happens when cops get involved, and they have far more training/experience than 99% of civilian guntoters ever get. I'm perfectly willing to see (and undergo) MORE demanding training (and re quals) for ccw for civilians than the palty amount given to cops (since the cops prove that they are inept in almost every instance).
    I'm going to respond to your misguided posting by re-posting something I initially posted 2 years ago:

    Sir,

    I would like to thank you [Rep. Hunt, Wyoming] for your response to Rev. Fulbright. It was spot-on. I have been waiting for a legislator who would finally have the courage of their convictions to make just such a reply. I am not your constituent, not even a resident of Wyoming (I am from Michigan); I wish my own legislators had the courage to make such a reply to those who attack our enumerated Constitutional rights.

    If I may make a suggestion, there are studies that refute her allegation that "...guns in the hands of amateurs/non-professionals is extremely dangerous, especially in any highly-charged situation."

    A nationwide study performed several years ago by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that civilians use their firearms in self defense 2.5 million times each year. In 98% of cases, merely displaying the firearm was sufficient to deter the criminal (here is one example from Michigan: Man accused of racist rant, assault | WOOD TV8). Another nationwide study performed by Constitutional lawyer and criminologist Don Kates determined that civilians using their firearms in self defense kill nearly three times more criminals each year than do police (between 2,000 - 3,000), yet police, who are supposedly highly trained to handle such events, are 5-˝ times more likely to kill an innocent person than the civilian (11% for police versus 2% for civilians). We have had only a handful of self-defense shootings in Michigan (the most recent being the case of Taneesha Smith,Christmas shooting ruled justifiable | WOOD TV8). After an objective consideration of the facts, ALL have been ruled justified. It must be noted that in none of those cases were innocent bystanders injured, nor does the evidence indicate that they were ever placed in danger due to the defensive actions of the civilian firearms carrier. On the other hand, we have had several cases in which police accidentally shot someone who turned out to be innocent (one of the most recent was an unarmed Grand Valley State Univ. student, Officer charged in GVSU shooting), and a W. MI shooting range was forced to close down its outdoor range last year after police officers conducting live-fire training there, with blatant disregard for public safety, set up their own course on the range and ended up sending rounds into a neighboring housing development.

    People keep scaring themselves about the bogey man armed civilian who is going to indiscriminately begin firing on everything that moves in an emergency situation, but the objective data show that armed civilians are even more conscientious of the responsibility that comes with carrying and using a firearm than the “professionals.” Why? Because professionals know there is a better than even chance that, even if the shooting is iffy, their position as a "professional" provides them with an edge; civilians, on the other hand, go into every defensive situation knowing that they are presumed to be guilty until proven otherwise; it is ASSUMED that they took unnecessarily lethal action. As I remind people, however, those nine casualties at the Empire State Building weren’t shot by civilians; they were shot by officers.

    Sir, Thank You for your stand. You serve as an example of how legislators SHOULD be responding to such uneducated assaults on our Constitutional right to bear arms.
    So if the police are so much better trained than civilians, please explain to me how it is that civilians using their firearms in legal self defense are 5-1/2 times LESS LIKELY to indiscriminately fire on and kill someone who turns out to be innocent than the highly trained police? I would remind you that it was POLICE who shot all those innocent bystanders in two separate incidents in NYC - not civilians. In fact, I DEFY YOU to provide EVEN ONE report detailing a self defense shooting by a legal carrier in which the legal carrier injured or killed innocent bystanders. Perhaps you should ask the Brady Campaign or Media Matters for some help getting those reports. Do such things happen on rare occasions? Yes. But when it comes right down to it, meaning no disrespect to LEOs, the data tell us that you are safer when a lawfully carrying civilian opens fire than the police.

    Given the remarks I have seen from you in your short time on this forum, I have to ask what you're even doing here.

    I know, I have violated the advisory:
    Attached Images Attached Images Experience with violation of 18 USC 930(a)-dont_feed_the_troll.jpg 

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast