JohnRich 4 #101 November 23, 2003 Quote[Guns in Canada are used for food. Guns in the US are used against people. If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were _not_ used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"? QuoteI do agree that Americans are living in fear. Why do I own a gun? Why do I wear a seat-belt? Why do I keep a fire extinguisher in my house? Why do I have health insurance? Why do I lock my door at night? Why do I have house insurance? Answer: To protect myself. It has nothing to do with fear. QuoteWhy are people so afraid? Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a low crime area like yourself. You should not judge the remainder of the world based upon your own little microcosm. In the United States in 2000... A murder is committed every 32 minutes. A forcible rape is committed every 5 minutes. A robbery is committed every 1 minute. A aggravated assault is committed every 35 seconds. A violent crime is committed every 22 seconds. (FBI, Uniform Crime Report) In the time it took you to read this message, someone has had their life changed forever by a violent crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #102 November 23, 2003 QuoteThe culture is changing, though, to reject people who choose to own guns. 40% of Americans own guns. That's a whole lot of rejecting some folks are going to have to do. Why would they "reject" honest law-abiding people who just happen to own a gun for sporting purposes? That sounds like an unfounded bias to me, no different than racism, sexism, ageism, or any of the other types of discrimination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #103 November 23, 2003 Quotethe interview with a brother of one of the Oklahoma City bombers (Terry Nichols?) who owned a small arsenal... Please define an "arsenal"? Does it differ from a "collection"? Since someone can only hold and shoot two guns at a time, what difference does it make if they own more than that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #104 November 23, 2003 QuoteI just think it's easy to mistakingly feel that just because a weapon is full automatic that it is terribly more dangerous than other weapons. Furthermore, the so-called "assault weapons" banned under U.S. law are not even automatics. They're just semi-auto firearms, like any other semi-auto. The anti-gun folks and the media have done an excellent job of fooling the public into believing this lie. CNN did reports on "assault weapons" with film of guns being fired on full-auto, misrepresenting the issue. What makes a firearm a so-called assault rifle is the presence of a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor and/or a folding stock. That's it! And none of those things are any more dangerous than a rock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #105 November 23, 2003 QuoteThe fear theme I think is a definite link to crime's importance in the American media. Maybe people would chill out if they didn't constantly feel threatened. Yes! The news media is a selective filter. All the cases where guns are used without shots being fired, to drive away intruders are not news - they don't get printed because nothing happened. Cases where shots are fired and only the intruder is hit, may make the news, but not the front page, because it's not "sensational". It will be way back there on the last page of the metro section. Only those cases where innocents are killed make the front page and grab your attention, and therefore stick in your memory. That does not mean that these are the *only* uses of so-called "assault weapons". If you are using the media for your judgement about gun usage, your source of input is highly biased, and a false representation of the true statistics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #106 November 23, 2003 QuoteIt's too easy to place all of the nations ills on the backs of the family. I don't think its nearly that simple. But it's okay to blame it all on the mere presence of guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #107 November 23, 2003 QuoteOut of curiosity, I wonder what you guys think about the idea of taking a discussion about a tragedy involving 14 dead kids, and turning it into a discussion about how cool each of your guns are. I wonder what you think about trying to make innocent participants feel guilty about something for which they had no responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #108 November 23, 2003 QuoteIf guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. What a foolish statement. Guns are designed for one purpose only. To kill. The person using the weapon may not be an expert with it, or may be under the influence a drug, alcohol, rage, etc. Tell me again how many Americans murdered other Americans with guns in the past year? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #109 November 23, 2003 Jesus dude, do you ever take a breath. I'm getting sick of guns just reading your posts. In the nicest possible way of course. blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #110 November 23, 2003 >Please define an "arsenal"? >Does it differ from a "collection"? An arsenal is a collection of weapons. >Since someone can only hold and shoot two guns at a time, what >difference does it make if they own more than that? If that's all he plans to do with them, it doesn't matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #111 November 23, 2003 Except, in Toronto people go to bed with their front doors unlocked, and in Chicago people have multiple dead-bolts and have guns. Toronto largely doesn't worry about violence, Chicago does. __________________________________________________ As I said before, that's bullshit. I've lived within a couple of hours of Toronto for over 40 years, and I would never go to bed without checking that the door is locked. I don't remember a time, even in the 60's, when we wouldn't lock the doors... Moore staged that part of the film...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #112 November 23, 2003 QuoteGuns are designed for one purpose only. To kill. I just participated in a shooting match yesterday, using a rifle to shoot at paper targets at 200, 300 and 600 yards. Are you saying that since I wasn't killing someone, that I was misusing my rifle for a purpose other than that which the manufacturer intended? Do you not recognize that there is such a thing as sport shooting? P.S. I don't take messages very seriously when the poster is unwilling to put his real name behind it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #113 November 23, 2003 QuoteJesus dude, do you ever take a breath. I'm getting sick of guns just reading your posts. You are free to skip over anything you see with my name on it as the author. What is it about my messages that makes you "sick"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #114 November 23, 2003 Quote>Please define an "arsenal"? >Does it differ from a "collection"? QuoteAn arsenal is a collection of weapons. That is the correct dictionary definition. However, in common usage, most people associate a negative interpretation of the word "arsenal", as if it means guns that are amassed in order to kill people. On the other hand, "collection" means exactly the same thing, but has no negative connotation. So it is interesting to watch the anti-gun folks choose to use words like "arsenal" and "ilk", instead of more neutral terms. The use of those kinds of words may reveal a bias on the issue, and an intentional attemp to cast undeserved negative light on gun owners. QuoteSince someone can only hold and shoot two guns at a time, what difference does it make if they own more than that? QuoteIf that's all he plans to do with them, it doesn't matter. Correct. Just because someone owns several guns does not make them evil. It is what is in their heart and mind and counts. And even someone with no guns at all, can be quite evil. The focus should be on evil people, not on inanimate objects which lack the capacity to be evil. If you take a kind, compassionate person and place a gun in their hands, they do not transmogrify into a murderous monster. You just have a kind, compassionate person with a gun, who is no criminal threat to anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #115 November 24, 2003 >So it is interesting to watch the anti-gun folks choose to use words >like "arsenal" and "ilk", instead of more neutral terms. The use of > those kinds of words may reveal a bias on the issue, and an > intentional attemp to cast undeserved negative light on gun owners. I have to say that I disagree with people pushing the use of "feel-good" words instead of the correct terms. It's like a DZO telling people to not use the word "fatality" because it implies that people die a lot during skydiving. People do die skydiving; guns do kill people. _Usually_ skydiving does not kill people and gun owners _usually_ do not kill people. However, avoiding certain words to make things seem better or worse than they are is a part of political correctness I do not agree with. But to each their own. >The focus should be on evil people, not on inanimate objects which > lack the capacity to be evil. I agree, and the only kind of gun laws I agree with are laws that keep guns out of evil people's hands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #116 November 24, 2003 QuoteI finally got a chance to see it last night. Moore had some good perspectives on the problems of violence in America. "Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect..." Complete story: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)