.

Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics. 
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW. 
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4%  not even close to 90% on this forum.  Understand now?

Please explain how the statistical validity (or invalidity) of polling works based upon the number actually polled compared to the total number in the polled category group (e.g. total number of adult citizens of the United States, or total number of registered voters in the United States, etc.). In light of your assertion about the polling numbers on this question on this site being invalid due to the current self-selected sample being 4.5%, please explain how Gallup, Harris, Pew, etc. conduct their surveys and what percentage of the total potential group members they poll compared to the poll on this site. Thanks. I'm waiting to be educated.

When 2A wrote " let's try and keep this civil. I think this is a great learning opportunity for people who are on the fence about CCW."
Im sure the public would be very interested in some peoples comments and behavior as so called "2A supporters".  SMH

Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics. 
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW. 
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4%  not even close to 90% on this forum.  Understand now?

I did a simple search for "90%".  Nowhere does Q say anything about 90% in the forum wanting anything...

... so, would you like to revise your previous statement, or should we judge you on the merits presently in evidence?

Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".

You should self-reflect a bit, spend some time to listen and learn about responsible firearm ownership instead of picking nonsense fights with the 2a supporters in this forum.

Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".

            

I did a simple search for "90%".  Nowhere does Q say anything about 90% in the forum wanting anything...

... so, would you like to revise your previous statement, or should we judge you on the merits presently in evidence?

Your research skill is only outmatched by your IQ.

Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".

You should self-reflect a bit, spend some time to listen and learn about responsible firearm ownership instead of picking nonsense fights with the 2a supporters in this forum.

Yeah, I think u right, no sense argue already. This thing got blown way da he'll out of proportion.  Just saying get different 2a supporters when it comes to CCW, and everyone should respect each other instead of name calling  and shet.

Thank you, bubba808.

I agree. Everyone has differing opinions on CCW.  No one is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to.

Let's stop the name calling and arguing and do a reset. 

Yeah, I think u right, no sense argue already. This thing got blown way da he'll out of proportion.  Just saying get different 2a supporters when it comes to CCW, and everyone should respect each other instead of name calling  and shet.

I agree.  And if you could show some respect toward people who are trying to have a debate and NOT make it a high school name calling contest, maybe it wouldn't get blown way out of proportion.

You have to give respect if you expect to get it.  People tend to reap what they sew.  So I suggest you stop trying to parse everyone's words to prove a minor point and actually think about the MESSAGES we are trying to convey.  Starting an argument over minute details is never productive.  Facts are one thing and are fair game in a debate, but you're obviously just trying to pick a fight.

Your behavior is what most call trolling.  We know it when we see it.

I agree.  And if you could show some respect toward people who are trying to have a debate and NOT make it a high school name calling contest, maybe it wouldn't get blown way out of proportion.

You have to give respect if you expect to get it.  People tend to reap what they sew.  So I suggest you stop trying to parse everyone's words to prove a minor point and actually think about the MESSAGES we are trying to convey.  Starting an argument over minute details is never productive.  Facts are one thing and are fair game in a debate, but you're obviously just trying to pick a fight.

Your behavior is what most call trolling.  We know it when we see it.

Did I start name calling? No cuz I don't need to.
SMH. U just can't STFU huh?  No can!

Did I start name calling? No cuz I don't need to.
SMH. U just can't STFU huh?  No can!

It appears you have a tough time with many things.  One of them is the need to have the last word.  Another is being rude.  Telling a forum member to shut the F*** up is an extreme insult.  Not to mention it shows you've lost the argument.  When you resort to trying to end the conversation, that indicates you're ready to throw in the towel and cry "Uncle!"

And nobody over the age of 16 uses "SMH."  LOL!!                  

.

.

HiCarry, This is what you wrote-verbatim:

"I suggest that anyone considering buying a gun for protection have a very frank discussion with themselves about whether or not you are capable of using it and taking a human life. If you are not fully committed to using that firearm and willing to take a life to protect you or your family, you shouldn't have a gun for that purpose. .......You do not, and I will repeat this, you do not shoot to wound!! You shoot to stop the threat, which means getting rounds into the largest area of the bad guy that will likely stop his progress. That means center mass. I'll say it again....you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, shoot to wound. "

You have difficultly communicating simple concepts.  Say what you mean.
The definition of the word:
Wound-the act of inflicting an injury. 
Used in a sentence: The seargant was seriously wounded by the bullet.
"Shooting to wound" refers to use of a firearm to injure someone without killing them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound
"Shoot to kill" refers to aiming shots with specific intention of causing fatal injury aka deadly force.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill


never, never, never shoot to wound can easily be understood as never shoot to injure without killing.


Lets analyze your concept of "center mass" -Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.

Now how can one misconstrue that?
Your weak, inconsistant arguments make your credibility appear questionable. 

Self defense, as a concept and as a legal defense, is anything but simple. Which may be why you are having such a difficult time understanding. Even after I attempted to explain that you should not interpret "never shoot to wound" as "shoot to kill" you do just that with a simplistic dictionary definition of "shoot to kill" and "Shoot to wound" without taking into consideration what I attempted to explain. Which, I thought was pretty clear...although I am happy to consider that I may not have been as clear as I could have been, I'm bettin' that if we polled the readers, most would understand exactly what I meant to say.

I am, and will continue to be an advocate of reasoned discussions about controversial subjects as it pertains to 2A issues on this forum, in large part to assist those new or unfamiliar to the complexities of various issues. But your childish outbursts, and seemingly undying need to justify your mostly unfounded opinions, make it clear that you don't really want to learn. You think you know it all and nothing is going to change your mind. You have the righteousness of your beliefs and facts and learned opinions of those that have far, far more experience (not necessarily referring to myself here...) mean little to you. If you are going to stubbornly stick to your opinions regardless of what anyone may try to tell you, just let us know and we'll quit wasting our time. If you want to learn, then I suggest that you deflate your ego a bit, turn down your righteous indignation toward anyone who disagrees with you, and actually open your mind up to new ideas.

 

This might help clear up shoot to wound vs shoot to kill vs shoot to stop the threat.

This might help clear up shoot to wound vs shoot to kill vs shoot to stop the threat.

Well, technically, I think shooting to kill is shooting to stop ... but shooting to stop is not shooting to kill.  Shooting to wound is neither shooting to stop nor shooting to kill!

Anyways, to echo what Q said:  Shooting center mass does not constitute the center mass of the body all the time.  A shooter would generally understand that we mean shoot at the center of the available mass that gives you the best chances of scoring a hit to your target.

I think one thing you are missing bubba is that pulling the trigger IS using deadly force.  Because, specifically, you know or should have known that such an action reasonably could have resulted in death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, if you shoot to wound, you are saying - "I cant stop this person yet, but I will just shoot em to make a point," and are using deadly force before the threshold to do so has been met.

No gloating, I'm asking is this why your panty is bunched up.  LoL.  Im asking if the reason for your inability to read and respond intellectually is impaired because you're blinded and frustrated by our countries highest courts denial to even hear the Drake case?  As Drake was specifically for CCW.  (punaperson, mauidog, and q) are a bunch of dilusional 2A extremists that can't accept the fact that there ALOT more to firearms than your pathetic dream of power trips due to inferiority complexes. 
You only post to alienate and distance members and supporters of the 2A community apart.  SMH. If this was not your intention, revisit your post and behavior, stick to presenting the facts and let the community decide for themselves without your agendas.

Shannon, is that you?

Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics. 
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW. 
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4%  not even close to 90% on this forum.  Understand now?

What I understand now is that you have confirmed my suspicion that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics in general nor polling statistics in particular. Do you really believe for there to be a valid (accurate) poll of the American adult people or American registered voters (for examples) that ALL of them have to be polled? That would not merely be woefully mistaken, but also be an idiotic and moronic belief revealing (miraculously) a state of comprehension even lower than complete and total ignorance about statistics and polling. Please note that I did not call you and idiot or a moron or ignorant. The whole point of polling or surveys is that it is statistically possible to conclude with a reasonable probability what an entire group holds as a view while sampling only a minute percentage of that actual group.

So, according to your belief that to know what a percentage of members of this site likely believe, you have to poll ALL of them, you must then discount and/or invalidate any and all polls that sample microscopic fractions of the group they draw a conclusion about? Correct? Or is it just this poll on this site and not any other polls? If so, why? Please explain.

For instance, a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-illinois-connecticut-move-elsewhere.aspx#1) asking adult residents (600 per state) of all 50 states whether they would move to another state if they were able to, claimed that the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Using the state of California as an example, the sample polled there of 600 people out of an adult population of 29 million is .0000206% of the total group for which the conclusions of the poll had the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Compared to the 4.5% sample of the current poll on this site/thread, the poll here has a sample 218,447 TIMES larger than the Gallup poll.

And the current Fox poll re "How much does Obama lie?" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/fox-news-poll-many-voters-say-obama-lies-to-country-on-important-matters/), which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, polled 1,012 registered voters out of the total 137 million registered voters in the U.S., which is .000000738% of the group for which conclusion are drawn with only a three per cent margin of error. The percentage sample for the poll on this site/thread is 6,428,571 TIMES greater than the Fox poll sample.

Is your polling statistical analysis methodology based upon revealed biblical mathematics, or what? Please explain.