Conceal-Carry Passes Handgun Bill in Minnesota

POSTED BY: Channain
UPDATED: Friday, January 23, 2004 19:20
VIEWED: 24518
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHANNAIN

Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:15 PM (P)

those of you who have been on the "What Made you Think of Firefly today" thread heard me mention this already. a law allowing the conceal-carry of handguns was recently passed in Minnesota and will go into effect next month. a few letters generated by this have expressed concern that this law will only serve to escalate violence (yes, there is violence in Minnesota). now I'm sure some of y'all reside in states that already have this law in place and I find it doubtful you're spending a great deal of time keeping your heads down.

Quote:
Minneapolis StarTribune
May 4
Conceal-carry passes HANDGUN BILL

A bill to make permits to carry handguns in public available to more people gained final legislative approval Monday and was signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

It is to go into effect in 30 days. Eventually, according to an official legislative estimate, it could increase the number of people licensed to tote guns on Minnesota streets from fewer than 12,000 now to about 90,000.

I'll be interested to hear whatever insights you insightful folks might have.

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

HOTFORKAYLEE

Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:35 PM (P)

Okay, I know this is a sensitive issue with some people but think about who it really effects. The average everyday person isn't going to start carrying a gun everwhere now. It won't help criminals because they have never had a permit to carry a gun before. In Florida you have to take a special class then you have to go through a very rigorous background check and the whole process can take up to a half year.

Years ago I worked for an investigative firm in Cleveland and had to go to some really bad neighborhoods. I'll admit a few times I had my gun under my seat but if for some reason I would have ever had to use it for protection I could have wound up in jail. They are still debating the same bill in Ohio and have been for as long as I can remember.

Anti-gun people always try to scare you into believing it will all of a sudden be a shootout on every corner and all sorts of innocent people will get killed. This already happens all over the country and its not by people who legally can carry a gun or even own one for the most part.

Just my 2 cents. I'm getting my permit where I live but probably will never carry my gun with me. Unless I felt threatened in some way or feared for my safety, but I try not to go into bad areas unless I have to.

Quote:
"Then let them appear, to give us something to believe in. If the Vorlons do not see the danger, then perhaps the danger does not exist."

SUCCATASH

Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:56 PM (P)

http://www.gunguys.com

NONOLUNA

Saturday, May 17, 2003 6:09 PM (P)

I guess all you can do is watch the stats...hopefully, gun related injury will not rise but if it does you probably have a good idea of why it did...

SARAHETC

Saturday, May 17, 2003 6:30 PM (P)

Not that I have a link or anything to back this up with, but violent crime tends to decrease when citizens are armed and willing to defend themselves.

And Hottie's right. Criminals aren't going to go for this, cos they probably can't produce liscenses for the weapons they already have. Permit or no, they will still have them.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

ZELDA

Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:28 PM (P)

Hey Channain,

As a Minnesotan-living-elsewhere I certainly feel your concern. But then again, it's a fairly level-headed state to begin with, and historically if they do something and it turns out bad, they're pretty quick to admit stupidity and go back and fix it. And it is true that criminals don't usually have a license of any sort, so that won't be where the real impact is felt.

I guess I'm saying don't fret too much. We're a relatively sane people. :)

CHANNAIN

Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Zelda
I guess I'm saying don't fret too much. We're a relatively sane people. :)

thanks, Zelda, Sarahetc, Nonoluna, HotforKaylee and particularly Succatash--the bear is CUTE!

it's true, Minnesotans are relatively sane people, with an exception here or there...there or here. as the daughter of a very pioneer-spirited pair, i support the Second Amendment. there are times, however, when the First Amendment can get a little, well, annoying.

the pastor at my church recently observed that they may have to come up with a sign: "Come in and worship, leave your gun at the door." brings to mind the weapons detector in Shindig, doesn't it?

so, not fretting, just watching the ways of the world and trying not to roll my eyes too much. gives a girl a headache after awhile.

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

CHANNAIN

Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash
"I support the right to keep and arm bears."

that link's going in my faves

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

ARCHER

Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:04 PM (P)

Spent a year and a half delivering goods into some of the more interesting neighborhoods in Dallas, Houston, OKC, KC, etc. etc.

Didn't pack heat. (Did wear a large, barely-legal knife right on my hip, though.)

Never had a problem. Only had one situation where I thought I might.

But then, I'm a big, hefty fellow. Most predators go looking for the easier prey. Not bragging, though. There was more than one driver who got assaulted on the job. My number just never came up.

Like a friend of mine, woman I went to college with who was all of 5'1 and maybe ninety pounds.

In a not-too-bad neighborhood, walking to and from the college, twice she got chased home. One time, she barely got the door slammed in the guy's face. Thud.

So she started carrying a pistol in her purse. At the time, illegal as all hell in the state of Texas. (Texas, for god's sake!)

Had one other possible problem crop up, group of kids circling in a pickup. Put her hand in her purse, they got they idea and went on their merry way.

Had another friend, a woman who owned a small comic shop and closed at night, by herself, and usually carrying her bank drop. Texas having come around to letting peaceable citizens carry firearms, she got herself a permit.

THAT is who concealed carry is about. Those who are in circumstances that put them into dangerous situations on a regular basis should have a fighting chance. Generally, the very notion that the target might have a weapon puts the predator off.

In Texas, licensed carriers have a lower 'bad shoot' rate than the police.

There are costs associated with an armed society. But I'd rather live in a place where home invasion burglaries went to zero right after a couple of granny-ladies blew one straight to hell.

(Ironic story about my college friend. I was in a government class and debating the issue with my left-of-Karl Marx professor. His take on it was that the proposed law would allow anyone to bring a gun RIGHT INTO THIS CLASSROOM. Not true, but for three days a week the previous semester, my friend had. Along with god knows how many other women. In Texas you handle women's purses very gingerly... drop it and it might go off.)

KAYTHRYN

Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Archer:
Didn't pack heat. (Did wear a large, barely-legal knife right on my hip, though.) … But then, I'm a big, hefty fellow.

You sound so Jayneish, or at least someone who would give him a good fight.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

LERXST

Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
THAT is who concealed carry is about. Those who are in circumstances that put them into dangerous situations on a regular basis should have a fighting chance. Generally, the very notion that the target might have a weapon puts the predator off.

Damn right. I hope the legislature here in OH passes ours. I delivered pizzas for awhile. Very scary at times.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

ARCHER

Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:

You sound so Jayneish, or at least someone who would give him a good fight.

Not quite that big and hefty, ma'am. If confronted with a raging Jayne, I'd toss a chunk of steak off to the left and shoot him when he went for it.

I will admit a certain sneaky affection for the big lug, though. I've had occasion to associate with the type, and AB portrays the mindset to a 't'.

ARCHER

Monday, May 19, 2003 2:59 AM (P)

And then I read your Jayne story up there, and now I feel really complimented.

KAYTHRYN

Monday, May 19, 2003 3:18 AM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Archer: And then I read your Jayne story up there, and now I feel really complimented.

Well, you called me "ma'am" so now I further believe you deserve the compliment.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

ARCHER

Monday, May 19, 2003 3:33 AM (P)

It's a Texas thing, ma'am.

KAYTHRYN

Monday, May 19, 2003 4:24 AM (P)

Oh, swoon! So... uh, are you seeing anyone?

Just kidding.

Unless you’re not.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

SWITCHY

Monday, May 19, 2003 5:04 AM (P)

Do I take it most people posting here are in favor of being able to carry concealed firearms?
Coming from a country where it's not the norm I'm not sure I understand the thinking. I certainly respect a persons right to protect their home and personal safety but isn't the primary issue the number of guns that will find their way into the wrong hands simply due to availability. The more arms issued the more chances for someone being shot n'est pas? I know this may be an unpopular posting but I have for a long time felt blessed to live somewhere where I didn't fear shootings on my block. Don't get me wrong, there are shootings here but per capita It's nothing comparable and I honestly believe our gun controls are largely responsible.

KENWOOD

Monday, May 19, 2003 9:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
now I'm sure some of y'all reside in states that already have this law in place and I find it doubtful you're spending a great deal of time keeping your heads down.

I'll be interested to hear whatever insights you insightful folks might have.

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

I lived in Florida and now I live in Washington where it is much easier to get a CCW permit. Let me tell you it is hell. All the gunfire keeps me up all day ( I work nights ). We're always havein' to look for cover when we go
to and from the car ( especialy during sniper season ). A week doesn't go by that somebody doesn't shoot up a restuarant or fast food joint.
Not to mention the shootings on the subway. A few years ago some guy shot four teens in a subway car just for hasseling him. Luckily a local company has started selling bullet proof siding for your house. I'm supprised you all haven't heard about this since it's been all over the media that we have the highest murder rate of any city in the country.

Oh wait, I forgot, all that happened in places that don't allow concealed carry. The truth is I don't have a CCW. I haven't felt the need despite the fact that I do have the right. But my ex wife has had one for years. As a 5' tall woman she did feel the need.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

CHANNAIN

Monday, May 19, 2003 1:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Switchy
Do I take it most people posting here are in favor of being able to carry concealed firearms?

this is a forum for everyone, for or against.

Quote:
Originally posted by Switchy
I certainly respect a person's right to protect their home and personal safety but isn't the primary issue the number of guns that will find their way into the wrong hands simply due to availability.

I also have that respect. but let's look at the other side of conceal-carry legislation. in order to obtain the permit to conceal a weapon, the potential carrier has to attend a class and pass a test to receive a certification stating he/she has that right. however, this legislation does not necessarily make guns more accessible. as other postings here have indicated, most n'er do wells who would carry a concealed weapon for nefarious purposes would never dream of exposing themselves to official certification. they might as well put a neon sign over their apartment building saying "felon here!" conceal-carry is meant to marshall more responsible folk who wish to have the choice to carry. conceal-carry could even create stronger enforcement against those who choose to carry for unlawful purposes.

see? I been thinkin' again!

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

CHANNAIN

Monday, May 19, 2003 1:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
Well, you called me "ma'am" so now I further believe you deserve the compliment

ever notice how "ma'am" from a Texan has a whole different nuance than hearing "ma'am" from the 17 year old at the grocery store checkout?

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

SUCCATASH

Monday, May 19, 2003 1:51 PM (P)

I have mixed emotions about our country's gun laws.

I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.

http://www.michaelmoore.com

SARAHETC

Monday, May 19, 2003 2:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.

Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like he needs to put his dentures in most of the time?

Gun legislation has been a family topic as of late. I have a relative moving to Michigan soon and other family members have been encouraging him to take advantage of as many Alabama guns laws as possible, since even if they aren't laws in Michigan, that state has some kind of "honor" clause.

I can't actually see him doing this, since he didn't grow up around them. Plus, how much self-defense does one need in Ann Arbor, unless the communism has gotten really out of control?

I live right around the corner from a gun store and have often wanted to go in and see if there were classes. More so since the non-English speaking grace-citizens that live around me have started using them on each other.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

GAEBOLGA

Monday, May 19, 2003 4:25 PM (P)

I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

My understanding of the Second Amendment (based on the notion of a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is that it was intended as the 'final check' in our system of checks and balances: the government would have a hell of a time oppressing an armed populace against its will. Back in the 18th century. Currently, any legal firearm is pretty damned close to useless against modern military hardware (has anyone else seen the footage of that nutjob in LA who stole an Army Reserve tank a few years back? An obsolete tank?); this being the case, the 'final check' has been technologized into irrelevance.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that people have the right to bear arms to defend themselves or their property against their fellow citizens. The "keep and bear arms" bit is predicated on the "well regulated militia" bit, which is for the stated purpose of "the security of a free state," and that would seem to be at odds with the concept of individual protection.

On the other hand, the right to own and carry guns "shall not be infringed," which makes for a bit of a legal conundrum. In short, the Second Amendment is in desperate need of an overhaul to reflect both modern society and technology.

As our foreign friend Switchy indicated, the problem of an armed criminal populace has more to do with availability than legality, and the more guns that America produces and sells legally, the more guns there are available to be stolen or 'lost' (by individuals, licensed dealers, shippers, or manufacturers). Consequently, anything that increases the domestic demand for firearms increases their availability to criminals, which we can all agree is a bad thing (I hope...). According to the ATF, there were more than 3 million firearms manufactured in 2001, of which around 6% were exported, leaving more than 2.8 million firearms for sale in the US. In 2001.

At this point, there are simply too many firearms in circulation (among both criminals and law-abiding folk) for the benefits of outlawing guns to have any noticeable positive effect for a really, really long time. On the other hand, doing nothing to reduce the number of firearms America produces is simply going to land us deeper and deeper in the metaphorical hole. There is no easy answer to this problem, which is probably why most politicians seem reluctant to address it.

All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I was a big guy with long hair and a trenchcoat, I must be the guy who broke into her house last week. In a similar vein, there have been at least two cases where nice, law-abiding soccer moms have killed people because they got cut off on the freeway.

Although these are isolated incidents, they reflect an aspect of reality that seems to get overlooked in the whole 'concealed carry' debate. If citizens want to have a shootout with the neighborhood mugger, that's their business (although hopefully it'll be in an alley far away from bystanders...), what concerns me more is the people who grab for their guns when they get pissed off. Not to be paranoid or anything, but I don't feel particularly comfortable betting on the stability of the gene

WULFHAWK

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:06 PM (P)

That's all I can take, I can't takes no more.

I'm gonna address a number of arguments here from different posts, so excuse me jumping around.

As the 'final check and balance', our civil/commercial firearms are not 'useless' against modern military hardware. The cops may not have been able to stop that rampaging tank, but if they'd called on local gangs, the tank would have been stopped in short order. Firebombs, barricades, and even small arms are sufficient to kill most heavy armor that is without infantry support. Don't take just my word for it, ask any tank vet from Vietnam to Bosnia. It's a question of how bad do you want to kill the tank, and how much you are willing to lose to do it. Our, the citizens of the USA, rights to bear arms as a revolutionary militia DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE EFFECTIVE against modern military, anyway. The balance remains important, despite becoming a smaller part of the entire check and balance system.

Some European countries require all males of service age to keep, maintain, and regularly train with, military grade firearms. Murder by firearm, accidental deaths by firearms, and crimes with firearms, are not a problem in these countries, yet there are guns in every closet. If availability equals crime, these should be among the most crime-ridden countries in the world, but they are not. Other European countries ban private ownership of firearms, and even, for a long time, did not allow the civil police force to carry sidearms. Crime is noticably more prevalant in these countries, and despite forbidding private gun ownership, crimes with firearms are common. While these are extreme examples, it seems clear: training, responsibility, and LEGAL ownership of firearms are good for a country; bans, ignorance, and ILLEGAL ownership of firearms are bad.

The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and anyone who indulges in such silly thinking should be ashamed. Everything else revolves around the basic need and right for your security, and no government should exist without the basic duty to encourage and help provide that security. Since no government can supply a personal bodyguard for each citizen, the responsibility for self defense must be assumed by the citizen. I don't know about you, but nobody is allowed to threaten my children, my wife, my house, my friends, or me, without risking my response in SELF DEFENSE. That response will be measured, certain, and equal to the threat offered, meaning any threat of deadly force will be met with deadly force. It's my right and responsibility.

I'm an Oklahoma boy, born and raised. As one quarter Cherokee, I am tall and dark, somewhat hooked of nose, massive(my private term for very overweight, haha), and long of hair. No one has yet felt the need to pull a gun on me in all my 46 years. I have never had to weild a firearm in self defense (tho there have been the occaisional threats with toolhandles). The only shooting I've ever been involved with was during my time in the Army (which bans the possession of private firearms on base); one fella brought in a shotgun and shot another in barracks while I was on weekend guard duty. I personally feel support for the registration of legally owned firearms, although I'm very against this as a tool to ban or unfairly restrict legal ownership. As a Mailcarrier for the US Postal Service, I am forbidden to carry any weapon except my dog spray ( haw )while on duty.

Yet, despite not carrying myself, despite having not experienced some of the risky things others have, I FULLY SUPPORT THE LISCENSED CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS. Training, responsibility, and legal support is gooood. Some folks get it in their heads that they are predators, that what others have can be taken, that others are prey. When the predators KNOW, for certain, that some of us folks are able and willing to defend ourselves and others, it's good. When the predators k

SARAHETC

Monday, May 19, 2003 7:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:

The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.

That was very well written, Wulf. I'd like to comment on this section, and also on what Gaebolga had to say about it.

While there is no clause in the constitution that specifically says that people are entitled to defend themselves, family and property, the preamble to the constitution does say that the document is set forth to, among other things, insure domestic tranquility.

To enumerate the facets of domestic tranquility, look to the Declaration of Independence which says that humans are guaranteed certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These and the pursuit of them comprise domestic tranquility, in addition any other amorphous concepts or ideologies (peace, prosperity, etc).

Jefferson took this bit of phraseology from John Locke, who said that humans should never be denied life, liberty or property. The most fundamental piece of property is your physical person. In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

The second ammendment reinforces our inalienable right to defend our lives and property. The phrase "well-regulated militia" could mean an army of citizens defending their state as much as it could mean a father and son defending their farm.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

SHINY

Monday, May 19, 2003 7:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

SARAHETC

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

Your life is your most fundamental property. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

WULFHAWK

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:35 PM (P)

Thanks, Sarah.

Shiny, did I hear you say 'probably'? I truly hope that anyone who tries to end your life will be met with 'any and all force' in your defense. Just think of it as 'pro-active evolution' and do your damnedest, ok?

As for property, that can be a swampy subject. How many thousands of dollars stolen equate to finacially deadly assault? If someone snatches your purse, should you be allowed to blaze away with your .357? If you discover an armed stranger in your house late one nite, should you shoot first and call 911 later?

Kinda muddy. However, let's be clear: Thieves, invaders, and other criminals are breaking the law, preying on us, taking what they want. This behavior is a mental violence, ignoring the limits we place on ourselves. Make no mistake; when someone is stealing from you, they are assaulting you. Furthermore, they are usually aware of this, and often arm themselves ... to 'defend' themselves from their victims! It might not be ok to shoot down a purse-snatcher, but don't turn your back on him.

Don't be a victim, be a scout. Be prepared.

tanstaafl

ARCHER

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:36 PM (P)

Hooooooookay. This is what I get for sleeping.

Quote:
Switchy
I know this may be an unpopular posting but I have for a long time felt blessed to live somewhere where I didn't fear shootings on my block. Don't get me wrong, there are shootings here but per capita It's nothing comparable and I honestly believe our gun controls are largely responsible.

To each their own. The laws of your nation are the business of you and your government. For my own preferences, I will take the risk associated with civilian firearm ownership balanced against the increased security offered to those near and dear to me. I have yet to see a single shootout in the streets of Odessa Texas in all the years I've been living here. I have had an aunt working at the hospital when some local animals were making sport of the nurses on down in the parking lot on a regular basis. I had an acquaintance who got stabbed during a robbery while he was delivering donuts to a convenience store that the robbers knew was disarmed by policy.
The lesson is that when you take away the equalizers (i.e., guns) then brute force and brutality will be able run roughshod over the common person.

Polite commentary and honest questions certainly won't make you unpopular with me.

Quote:

Gaebolga
I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....

C'mon. The discussion was inexorably bound in this direction from the minute it was posted. A gun debate can't occur without a good "well-regulated millita" vs. "shall not be infringed debate" going down.

The primary purpose of civilian firearm ownership as a means of warding off tyranny is well established in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, to the Founders firearms were a means of livelihood, ranging from acquisition of meals to defense of homestead in the face of Indian attacks and the like.

The phrase is poorly constructed, agreed. I've heard arguments from both sides, from a Harvard semanticist issuing the analysis that the structure of the statement does not make the right to keep and bear subordinate to well-regulated militias. That's the interpetation I favor, given my bias on the issue.

As for the 'standing up to the government' bit, the whole concept has been oversimplified for some time now. Open opposition would of course be squashed flat. But in the unlikely event (at least at present) of the gov being able to field a large force of troops against the common public of this nation, they would bog down in the sheer scale of the task. Tanks are not good civil-control items.

Add to that the fact that a large portion of our military strength consists of reservists and the National Guard, and we're actually in pretty good shape vis a vis the threat of military domination. The majority of these boys and girls would be very disinclined to take up arms against their own countrymen on a wide-scale basis. Lincoln (who was a racist, fed the Constitution through a paper shredder and endorsed an atrocity-laden style of modern warfare in order to bring the Confederacy to heel.)and his successors set in motion the concept of eliminating the state-based military structure in order to prevent the War of Northern Aggression from ever recurring. Given the state of our military expenditures and the increased reliance on reserves and the Guard, we're right back where we started. To my mind, a good thing.

Quote:

All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I wa

WULFHAWK

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:44 PM (P)

Now, whare did ah put thet durn axe-handle?

tanstaafl

SARAHETC

Monday, May 19, 2003 9:11 PM (P)

Quote:

...well established in the Federalist Papers.

Lincoln (who was a racist, fed the Constitution through a paper shredder and endorsed an atrocity-laden style of modern warfare in order to bring the Confederacy to heel.)and his successors set in motion the concept of eliminating the state-based military structure in order to prevent the War of Northern Aggression from ever recurring.

Ah may swoon.

Any man who has studied the Federalist Papers AND refers to it as the War of Northern Agression... wow.

And understands what Lincoln did to the 10th ammendment!!!

When Kaythryn gets tired of you, let me know. I'll step up.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

ARCHER

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:06 PM (P)

Oh man. The axe handle means he's serious. Guess there's only one way to handle this. As soon as I can find a friend, I'll have him meet your second and we'll resolve this like gentlemen. Might I suggest Cuervo shots across the table?

And after that's all said and done, I'll have Alan Tudyk on my tail for stealing away his number one not-so-secret admirer. I'll just bet he's furiously re-reading the Bill of Rights while he sharpens his knife.

Knew I shoulda stood in bed...

WULFHAWK

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:15 PM (P)

I accept. Jose will settle this. We exchange shots til one man goes down. Winner pays for the tattoos.

8)

tanstaafl

SARAHETC

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:49 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:

And after that's all said and done, I'll have Alan Tudyk on my tail for stealing away his number one not-so-secret admirer. I'll just bet he's furiously re-reading the Bill of Rights while he sharpens his knife.

Ooh. Tough choice. Were he to step in and start talking about the cultural ethos of the American Revolution, I would be, as it were, sold American.

What can I say? American History makes me easy.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

SHINY

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Shiny, did I hear you say 'probably'? I truly hope that anyone who tries to end your life will be met with 'any and all force' in your defense. Just think of it as 'pro-active evolution' and do your damnedest, ok?

I only say probably because as with everything, the specifics of the situation make all the difference (e.g. someone might claim they felt threatened by a young inner city youth asking for bus fare in an...impolite manner and were therefore justified in shoot him in the head to protect his life)...it all depends on whether the actor has good reason to believe his life was in imminent danger (and who gets to decide whether it is 'reasonable')

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
As for property, that can be a swampy subject. How many thousands of dollars stolen equate to finacially deadly assault?

Hmm...I would have to say that IMO, deadly force would not be justified for non-violent theft of any amount.

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like he needs to put his dentures in most of the time?

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? He made a great movie, even if you don't agree with him.

LERXST

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:52 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
[BWhile you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

I do believe it also applies to property. I bust my ass every single day for the wage that I make. If some numbnut wants to steal the car stereo that cost me 3 days wages, or the car that cost me 6 months wages, or the stuff in my house that I've spent a lifetime accumulating, you better believe if I catch him he's going to at the very least get a bullet in the kneecap. The time I spend at work is time I'm never going to get back. If you're stealing my property, you're stealing a piece of my life.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:08 AM (P)

Hooah!!

tanstaafl

LERXST

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:16 AM (P)

I'm a mailman too, Wulf. What is it about us Postal Workers and guns, eh? PS what's the tanstaafl thing mean?

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

KOFFEE

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Lerxst:
PS what's the tanstaafl thing mean?

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

LERXST

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:30 AM (P)

So true. Thanks!

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:08 AM (P)

Dear Shiny, please, for your own good, pay attention.

There is no nonviolent theft.

If you give a bum on the street corner some change, that's charity. If the bum confronts you and demands money, that's violence. Same people, same exchange, same result, different thing.

It's ok to be kind, understanding, and charitable, but you must remember that every theft, even 'white collar' theft, is carried out with violence in act or mind. If the bum that demanded money on the street corner didn't get what he wanted, then what? Every criminal theft expresses a disregard for others, the very disregard that makes violence easy to consider.

I know you have your ethics to consider, but don't be a victim, don't play at being prey.

tanstaafl

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:27 AM (P)

Thanks, Koffee. Preciate ya coverin' for me.

Lerxst, I still owe you a Tequila challenge, don't I? I really own only one gun, a nice 12ga extended mag. However, my collection of swords and knives can bring visitors to a dead stop. 8)
And thanks to years of Medieval sword training, I like to think my Kukri is a match for any handgun...so long as we are in the same dark room.
I learned tanstaafl from Robert A. Heinlein's works of science fiction. Worth your time, if you got the time.

tanstaafl

KOFFEE

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Thanks, Koffee. Preciate ya coverin' for me.

No problem.

I was just happy that I remembered what it was. At another board I post at for the author Jean Auel( http://ecfans.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi ), one of the guys is a fan of Heinlein as well and uses that as his sig line.

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:09 AM (P)

Miss Sarah, I have no doubt that Alan can recite the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the chapter and verse of the Federalist Papers.

Additionally, I bet he can really thunder out that whole bit about "Treason never prospers."

Bet he makes a killer shrimp scampi, too.

Wulfhawk- Y'know, all these years I avoided getting any tattoos for two reasons. First off, all those APBs and Most Wanted bits where they say "Suspect has a large rhinoceros tattoo on his left buttock." gave me an aversion to distinguishing bodily alterations. The other is the fact that I've seen how they don't come out looking that good after about forty years of wear. But the challenge has been given, and upon my honor I shall accept.

(And we know what that means... yep, training! I vow to spend the next six months not spending an off-duty moment without a bottle in hand. The legacy of my Viking ancestors is at stake here.)

Matters of honor aside, I believe you will full well understand when I say my political leanings tend to follow the path of one Professor Bernardo De La Paz, no?

Shiny- No one has the right to take your property against your will.* Simple as that. Letting someone trespass against your labors and possessions simply encourages them to take such liberties again and again, and ultimately perhaps talk themselves into worse predations. Furthermore, an intruder in my homestead in the night isn't going to receive a great deal of benefit of the doubt as to whether they're just trying to haul out my electronics or my precious precious books (as if) or perhaps harboring more malicious designs. In a civilized land, we draw our lines, and a person crosses them at their own peril.

*The exception being the accursed, wretched, babystealing blood-drinking godrotted scumsucking minions of the Infernal Revenue Service. It's a rather tender issue right now, because they're threatening to levy our assets over a Heavy Road Use Tax that we not only paid, but overpaid, and sent them documentation on, in order to receive the refund on our overpaid amount. Weeks ago we did this. Yet they call us up last week and come at us with a threat to essentially shut the company down. Some of those colorful Mandarin phrases from the show would work wonders for expressing my sentiments on the matter. Any company out there jerks me around like this, I don't ever shovel any money their way ever again. But alas, one cannot unsubscribe from the Feds. Feh. Rant off.

--------------------------------------------------

Paraphrased from memory, since retrieving my copy of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would require a dedicated team of archaeologists.

"It turned out that we wouldn't have to rob banks to finance the revolution after all. Prof seemed to be disappointed by that."

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:28 AM (P)

Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

HARDWARE

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:33 PM (P)

Okay, time to chime in with my $.02.

Having met the requirements for obtaining a license to carry in Massachusetts, one of the most difficult states to obtain a carry license in, I feel obliged to share some of what I learned in that process.

You can used deadly force, defined as any object or device designed to kill, to defend your life, or the life of another. You may not legally use deadly force to defend property, an exception to this in some states being livestock. A gun is deadly force. A knife is deadly force. A broken bottle is deadly force in most places. A baseball bat is not.

The supreme court has ruled that it is legal to shoot an armed felon fleeing the scene of a crime. That doesn't mean you won't be charged with a crime if you do this. It just means that the supreme court says it is okay, Keep in mind that the supreme court often reverses itself.

The supreme court has also ruled that the police do not exist to protect your life. The police exist to enforce the law. YOU are responsible for defending your life. You can also be charged with a crime for defending your life. Does that mean the charges will stick? No, but often the police have a "book 'em Dano" mentality that allows them to see all parties involved safely behind bars until things get sorted out.

Finally, true story, when I had my carry license in Mass. I carried a large frame automatic in a inside belt holster at the small of my back. I'm big enough to conceal a .45 automatic or a high capacity 9mm without it being noticeable. (another big, strapping lad.) After moving to another state and allowing my license to lapse I was carjacked. Three teenagers stuck a gun in my face and demanded my wallet, keys and car. I had owned the car for six days and I gave it up. When the police arrived I told them that the gun was a small revolver, too small to be a .38 and too big to be a .22. I also told them I did not recall seeing any holes in the face of the cylinder. The next day these Mensa members got caught driving my car with the starter pistol they used concealed under the seat.

If I had been carrying my pistol all three of those teenagers would have been dead. I would have made the assumption that since one was armed, all were armed.

If I had been carrying or not if I had taken a second look at the "gun" I would have reached into the car, grabbed my maglight and we would have played LAPD and Rodney King.

There is a "gray zone" where people with training are held to a higher standard. A small woman or man is going to be able to stand up in court and say that they felt their life was in jeopardy when confronted by three hostile teenagers where a 300 pound man will not. A person carrying a gun is held to a higher legal standard that a person without. They are supposed to exercise better judgement. Saying that because one person has not, that all people will act foolishly just doesn't follow.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

SKULLNINJA

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:00 PM (P)

Coming from Arizona, where we have CCW permits (have one myself) and the right to carry in the open long before that (that's right, you can carry on your hip without permit), the hard cold fact of it is that neither promotes violence, in fact, all research (legitamate data, that is) shows that it actually lowers violent crime. The anti-gun wackos need to grow up. I'm a big man (6'4"), a former college football player, and the way I like to cut to the quick on the rhetoric is to point out that without a gun, most humans walking the planet aren't going to be able to stop me if I chose to assault them, but if somebody pulls out a gun, it puts me in the same boat with everybody else.

Bless Governor Ventura for laying down the groundwork for this common sense "right".

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

Everyone needs to watch this video clip!

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullNinja
Bless Governor Ventura for laying down the groundwork for this common sense "right".

Thanks for mentioning that. I've beein finding it rather ironic that Gov. Ventura was the one who started this, and yet it was passed after he was out of office. I really didn't expect the new guy, Pawlenty, to go for this, I guess, Republicans being so conservative about everything else and all. But after checking out his bio, and a listing of Republican beliefs it seems I was dead wrong.

Quote:
Sworn in on January 6, 2003, Pawlenty challenged Minnesotans to “turn problems into progress” by balancing the budget through bold, historic reform.

Apparently his bold historic reform isn't limited to our budget. I tell ya, I learn something new every day...especially when I visit FFF

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

Everyone needs to watch this video clip!

this was a very funny clip Succatash.
I wish I had made it.
Kind of reminded me of the old schoolhouse rock cartoons.

SARAHETC

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

Everyone needs to watch this video clip!

But nobody needs to confuse it with actual American history!

It's very funny and wrong. But for me, the wrong is half of what makes it funny.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

CAESARI

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:38 PM (P)

I'm gonna try and address the concerns of Switchy and Succatash as best I can. It should be kept in mind I didn't grow up with guns, never had an interest in'em, and believed pretty much what ya'll are saying for most of my life. I decided one day to examine the issue in depth, and found to my surprise and outrage that most of what I'd been told was very simply a lie.

"Bowling for Columbine" is not a true documentary, many events were staged, including the scene where Moore picks up a rifle at a bank. This has been pointed out in several reviews in the US papers. I'm going to presume at least Switchy is from Canada.

The history shown in the video clip is from Moore's movie, which I have seen. The history is very, very bad, and is based in large part on Moore's forcing his hypothesis (that Americans are afraid, and that fear leads to owning firearms, and that leads to killing), on the historical events. The claimed link between the NRA and the KKK is entirely non-existent. I know of no historian who will claim with a straight face that the two are in any way related. The NRA was originally founded to promote marksmanship. I won't even go into the other claims in the cartoon, but I can't watch 15 seconds of it without wanting to point out the inaccuracy.

"Bowling for Columbine" is propaganda, pure and simple, there's no research, and there's no original ideas. Moore has a talent for humor, and is using it to promote his cause.

The major claim ya'll are advocating is that firearms availability contributes to crime. Today acquiring a firearms generally requires a good deal of paperwork, and a lot of waiting. 50 years ago if you bought a rifle at a department store, no one would look at you cross-eyed if you carried it home in plain view on a bus. This was back when people rode buses of course, Americans don't ride buses anymore, 'least not those who can afford not to.

The other major hole in this thinking is that England's violent crime rate has been rising for the past 100 years. 100 years ago England had a lower homicide rate, and still does, relative to the US, but it's been rising, gun control or no.

A lot of the studies and data that the gun-control groups are using are just plain wrong. Bad satistics, bad studies, and bad data. That's all I can say about it. I can recommend doing what I did, reading the information both sides have, reading the replies and rebuttals, and making up your mind. It's hard to go into it with an open mind (it was for me), but you'll be really irritated when you found out you've been deceived.

Personal story time: My Grandfather's best friend died some 20 years ago. 2 guys on speed were robbing every convenience store in a small town, and killing the owners ever time. His friend was their 5th stop. Had the first person shot the 2 criminals, how many lives would have been saved? Yet this was California, so they were all unarmed, except the badguys, who ignore robbery laws, who ignore murder laws, who ignore gun laws too.

Not everyone gets to live, and work somewhere where they feel safe as you do. Some people face danger every day. Shouldn't it be their choice whether or not they can go out armed? Who are you to make that decision for them? Maybe for you a gun would be a greater risk than it is worth, but to force that decision on everyone in the country without regard for their individual circumstances is the height of arrogance.

A few thought provoking ideas for ya before I go:

1. Most people are not criminals, if everyone is armed, the good guys have the bad guys outgunned.

2. Its cliche, but badguys get guns, legal or no. In the US ~90% (varies little by year) of guns used in crimes were illegally acquired. The laws passed only make it more difficult for the law abiding to acquire weapons.*

3. In Moore's movie, he demonstrated Canadian's don't lock their doors. Neither did Americans in the 1950's. I always lock doors, not cause I'm afraid, but for the same reason I always wear my seatbelt. People carry a gun for the same reason they have fire-exti

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:22 PM (P)

You want to talk propaganda? Just look at the people Michael Moore is critizing.

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

SARAHETC

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

It is true. Best to take a gun safety class and arm yourself according to the laws of your municipality.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
You want to talk propaganda? Just look at the people Michael Moore is critizing.

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

I have to say that's a very non-productive reply. Rather than answer any points or rebut the accusations against Moore, well...

As for the terrorists:
Just last week, I found out the reason one of my favorite restaurants closed was because the owner is on the lam, alleged to be an Al Quaeda financer. He went on the dodge last year, split the country.

I probably dumped a couple of grand in that place over the years. (Being a lousy cook and tending to eat out a lot and all.) Just when I think I'm settled down and cool about the events of 2001, now I want to kill somebody all over again.

Off topic anyway. Apologies.

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:15 PM (P)

And to get back to the topic of Michael Moore, he's a sneering twit who lives on the Upper East Side in New York City and pretends to be, well, a guy like me.

He's a liar and he milks tragedies for publicity.

If I saw him, I'd step on him. Then buy a new pair of boots.

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:41 PM (P)

I have mixed emotions, as I said earlier. I never said guns should be banned. I do think that the majority of Americans are very stupid and I do not trust them.

I think Michael Moore makes some very good points. We are constantly told we have to conform. Get rid of pimples, have a perfect body, have a great haircut, women need to wear makeup -- and so everyone runs around like a chicken buying the fancy clothes, Rogain, getting plastic surgery, blah blah. It's a madness to consume out of fear of rejection.

The news media is no exception. They try to scare the hell out of us all the time. In a city in Moore's movie (not sure which) the murder rate fell 20%, but there was a 600% increase of murder stories on the news.

Our dear never-elected President Bush is the King of Fear. He is scaring the shit out of us,so he can play his war games. Instead of uniting us after 9/11, he told us to turn in our neighbors who act strange. Americans are so scared we are happily giving up our rights.

His 2004 presidential campaign is scheduled to start on the anniversary of 9/11. That is so lame to use that tragedy to stir up fear and call for more violence. His message is going to be that "Evil" is still out there, and he may get re-elected because everyone is so damn scared.

I'm not opposed to hand guns, but I wish everyone wasn't so afraid. Yeah, I know, if wishes were horses....

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:10 PM (P)

To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

It's just a simple fact. I wish everybody didn't need a gun and wasn't so afraid. As the world gets scarier, more people will buy guns, and more people will die. And that sucks.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:23 PM (P)

I saw a lot more fear-mongering out of the media than I did out of the administration. Every night, it was fear fear fear. Endless speculation on all the vectors of attack that we were vulnerable to, all sorts of panicky postulations ruled the day. Which of course is good copy for the bloodsuckers of the press. "Dirty Bomb Attack! We're more vulnerable than you might think!"

Junior catches it from Senator JFK for not doing enough to squash Al Quaeda, and he catches it from Moore for doing too much. There's no happy medium for him. But then, he volunteered to accept the demotion for governor to go ride boss herd in Sodom on the Potomac, so catching flak is part of the job. I got my own issues with him... (*cough* steel tarriffs *cough* Canadian lumber and violations of NAFTA provisions.)

Quote:

We are constantly told we have to conform. Get rid of pimples, have a perfect body, have a great haircut, women need to wear makeup -- and so everyone runs around like a chicken buying the fancy clothes, Rogain, getting plastic surgery, blah blah. It's a madness to consume out of fear of rejection.

This is not exactly a new thing, y'know. Every generation that has ever lived has been constantly under pressure to conform. We actually live in one where you don't particularly have to. I used to be quite the rebel myself. (Thank god there are no surviving pictures of the hair-down-to-the-middle-of-my-back, cammie jacket, gold peace sign and red beret days...) You can pay a price for not going with the flow, but hey, that's the price of living free. These days if I don't particularly care about an issue, I'm not going to rebel over it. If I do, well, then I'll do as I damn well see fit and avoid making a big "Look at me, I'm so rebellious!" thing out of it.

The public as idjits who can barely put the right shoe on the right foot consistantly... well, I do tend to cleave to the "Always bet on stupidity" line of thinking. Where I differentiate from the modern liberal/populist/progressive/whatever line of thought is in not using that as an excuse to try to herd people like cattle. I won't get in the way of people's potential to overcome their current limitations and turn into something special. Freedom is a dangerous, scary thing oftentimes, and I revel in that. I think that most people can be heroes in the right situation- it's hardwired into our genetic code. I think the human race is a glorious thing and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Even if most people bore the hell out of me and drive me stark raving up the wall half the time. Hey, I love 'em, but I don't have to like 'em all the time.

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

It's just a simple fact. I wish everybody didn't need a gun and wasn't so afraid. As the world gets scarier, more people will buy guns, and more people will die. And that sucks.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

My mother grew up in backwoods Oklahoma. No electricity, no running water, and of course an outhouse. (If only she'd condescended to go into politics... growing up with an outhouse is such a status symbol these days.)

As she puts it, she grew up 'crawling over guns.' Every house had 'em, generally stored near to hand by propping them up in the near corner.

My father went to a high school where on Fridays half the pickups had guns in gun racks because the students were heading out after school straight to hunting trips.

I went to high school at a time when they were warning us we couldn't just stash our guns in the trunks for that very purpose, because by golly they were having to actually enforce the law at this point.

Common denominator? School shootings were unheard of events in all three situations. Yet anywhere from ninety percent to fifty percent of the student body had easy access to firearms, depending on which era you're looking at.

Guns do not equal more killing. Possession of a gun is not necessarily an expression of fear. As Wulfhawk pointed out, Switzerland is awash with legally owned weapons, up to and including heavy machine guns and light artillery pieces.* Obviously they're not knee-deep in blood over there.

There is fear out there, and mistakes are made on the basis of that fear, agreed. But none of us get out of this life alive, and those are the risks that the majority of the public seem willing to run.

*reference to the light artillery comes from a magazine article I read over a decade ago. Cannot source the quote.

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:43 PM (P)

CaesarI wrote:
"I won't even go into the other claims in the cartoon, but I can't watch 15 seconds of it without wanting to point out the inaccuracy."

Just curious, but was there a law created, after the NRA was founded, that banned black people from owning guns? I'd like to know.

Inaccuracy... are you referring to the part about white people wiping out Indians, or how America became rich from slavery? The witch hunts? Making blacks sit in the back of the bus?

Am I missing something? Besides the KKK/NRA connection, what is inaccurate?

Seriously, I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

ARCHER

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Just curious, but was there a law created, after the NRA was founded, that banned black people from owning guns? I'd like to know.

Inaccuracy... are you referring to the part about white people wiping out Indians, or how America became rich from slavery? The witch hunts? Making blacks sit in the back of the bus?

Seriously, I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

Issues, issues... starting out, a lot of Southern legislation was aimed at the fear of blacks acquiring weaponry. Two specific circumstances I can speak to... prior to concealed carry in Texas you could legally carry a gun if you were a small business owner with a certain amount of cash on your person (believe it was 230$)

Specifically allowing the 'better folks' to pack heat and keep it out of the hands of them lesser types. The situation is better than that now, though I for one still think the cost of concealed carry in most states is still too damn high to make it readily available to those who need it most.

Secondly, the United States did NOT grow rich on chattel slavery. It was the growing wealth of the industrial north that made slavery obsolete, which allowed an abolitionist movement to take root and push the end of slavery through. I disagree with the means that were used, and will argue that 'ending slavery' was in no way the Union's primary objective in invading the Confederacy. But that is neither here nor there for the sake of the original question.

One other thing that might interest you, because it's not commonly known. The British Empire, in one of the most supremely powerful moral statements ever made by a major power, basically said "We will not tolerate slavery." and was the driving force behind the end of slavery in the Western world. They drove the trans-Atlantic slavery business into virtual non-existance. They applied severe military and political pressure to Brazil, among others, to end the practice. More commonly known, it was Prince Albert's opposition to slavery that kept them from offering recognition and perhaps support to the Confederacy, which went a long way toward dooming the revolution.

You asked for thoughts, and there you have it.

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:04 AM (P)

Er. I meant to leave off my second example about blacks and guns, so I could revisit it here. Yeah, meant it that way all along.

Goes like this. My father was a cop when the Black Panthers were in the early throes of being born. At this point in California, there were a lot of our esteemed guardians of order who found their jollies in bouncing nightsticks and flashlights off the heads of folks in the poor sides of town down in SoCal. At this point, open carry of firearms was allowed in California. So what happened was that black folks, many of them recently returned veterans, started slinging up rifles and holstering pistols, and just following cop cars around their part of town. No confrontations, no threats. Just following them around.

Well damn, suddenly open carry is a bad thing, and shortly thereafter, becomes prohibited. The Black Panthers go on to bigger and better things.

(And my father got out of the police business when he mulled over the fact that he could shoot a brown person for any particular reason and probably not have to sweat it, but if he had occasion to have to shoot the wrong white perpetrator under the most justified of circumstances, he'd be staring at a stretch of time in Federal housing. The situation rather offended his innate sense of justice.)

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:26 AM (P)

I'm sorry, Succatash...in advance.

Your elitism concerns me. Your fellow Americans are stupid? You probably don't mean me. But do you mean my kids? My grandkid?

I gotta tell ya, there are many smart folks I wouldn't trust behind me with a gun...or a knife...or a strong rubber band. Some of the folks I would be sure to recruit into my militia I'm sure you wouldn't regard as smart.

And talkin about fear, lemme tell ya a tale.

There's a little woman, several years my senior, who carries the mail on the route next to mine. By little, I mean little...if she is over 5'1", it ain't by much. Couple of years ago, a convict on her route dumps his Rotties in his mother's backyard when he leaves for prison. You know what comes next.
One day the dogs, each one as large as this woman, jump the fence, chase her down, and attack her. She clearly remembers being on the ground with both dogs biting her, and has the scars to prove it. Was she afraid? Of course, but when the dogs started fighting with each other over her, she escaped, and ran bleeding to her truck, blocks away.
I chat with her every day. She is still carrying the mail, every day. Fear? Damn right, every day. Does it stop this near 50 woman? In no way or fashion.

Your perception of all the fear and paranoia seems exaggerated. Of course, I have a great example right beside me every day of courage.

tanstaafl

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:05 AM (P)

I admit I sure can be an asshole. I am smart, and yes, I admit that I find most people stupid. I'm talking about things we bitch about on this site. I find the mainstream American Idol and Reality TV mentality to be STUPID. Sorry, I'm working on my attitude.

That's a great story about the old lady and the dogs. Thanks.

LERXST

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Lerxst, I still owe you a Tequila challenge, don't I? I really own only one gun, a nice 12ga extended mag. However, my collection of swords and knives can bring visitors to a dead stop. 8)
And thanks to years of Medieval sword training, I like to think my Kukri is a match for any handgun...so long as we are in the same dark room.
I learned tanstaafl from Robert A. Heinlein's works of science fiction. Worth your time, if you got the time.

Glock 9mm, AR-15 with a decent scope & 30-shot mag, coupla swords, a machete, and a bolo knife.

Shoulda known that was Heinlein, must be too long since I read him last. If you like Starship Troopers (the book), check out Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War".

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:12 AM (P)

Don't worry, Succatash Dude...you're one of my very most favorite assholes.

Lersxt, a bolo knife? forward curve, heavy in the tip? If so, that's also called a Kukri, after the knives carried by the awesome and much feared Ghurka troops. Very cool.

tanstaafl

LERXST

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:18 AM (P)

Oh, yeah, saw R. Lee talking about it. Very cool indeed. Dad brought it back from Burma.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

CAESARI

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:23 AM (P)

I used to be elitist too. While I think there are a few people who are beyond help from an intellectual standpoint, it's been my experience that just about anyone can become intelligent and educated.

But you wanted me to pick apart Moore's portrayal of US history for you. You've woken a sleeping dragon my friend. In short, Moore's brief summary of US history is a distorted view which subjagates accuracy to achieving its aims, based upon Moore's correct assumption that most people in the audience don't know history as well as I do, and would therefore not be disgusted by it. Moore's movie is called a documentary, and won the Oscar for best documentary, but it is not a documentary in any sense of the word.

Pardon my sarcasm here, but I really resent that you'd even ask me to do this after I said I didn't want to get into it. ::sigh:: Oh well, I'll teach you what your American History teacher should have I guess.

So let's go with the history bit, piece by piece.
#1, we have our guide as "Mr Bullet" automatically causing the audience to have firearms on the brain, as if they didn't have it in there enough already. Brilliant propaganda.
#2, the Pilgrims, were afraid of being persecuted, and all hopped on a boat. They didn't all hope on a boat, they came over in a variety of waves. Initially based in England, they moved to Holland which was rather a Libertarian paradise, and the country was too morally bankrupt for the Pilgrims, who wanted to found "A Citty Upon a Hill" for their civilization. They were afraid of persecution in England (justly so), but were not afraid of it in Holland, they were afraid their kids would become morally corrupt.
#4, They landed and got scared by savages, and killed them all. Uh huh... the pilgrims didn't do much "Indian" killing. Most of the Native Americans were wiped out in the millions by disease brought by the Spanish before the arrival of the Pilgrims. The exact numbers vary... and no one can know for sure, some say the pre-European population was 100 million, others less. In either case, no one blames the Chinese for killing millions of Europeans in the black plague, so blaming the Pilgrims, or the Spanish for killing the Native Americans is disingenuous at best, and dishonest propaganda at worst. Most of the intentional killing of Native Americans wasn't done till much later after the formation of the United States. Oh, and they didn't "wipe out a race of people" that would be genocide. I know a lot of Native Americans who are very insulted by Moore's implication here. They survived an attemptd genocide perpetrated upon them by the United States government due to the Native's having inferior arms to the United States government. We had laws forbidding the sale of certain weapon to Native Americans, I wonder why...
#5, The reasons for the Witch Hunts were numerous, and the matter is still debated in historical circles. None of the reasons cited is "they got scared of each other". Moore threw that explanation in cause it fits his preconceived theory.
#6, "they started killing the british" the revolutionary war was precipitated by a LOT of crap. A WHOLE lot. I'm not EVEN going to go into that one, that's a whole book right there. One of the events however, was the British attempt to seize colonial's weapons. Hmm...
#7, "but they still didn't feel safe" yeah... that's why the 2nd amendment was passed alright. That's exactly why. I know all sorts of scholars who say that's exactly why it was passed. Yup, I just can't remember any of their names, or where they were educated, or where i saw them. You might even say they don't exist. The 2nd amendment was passed because the founders of the United States feared a standing army. There are other reasons, like Mr Henry's belief in the need for a bill of rights, but that's an essay... actually a collection of essays, they're called the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti Federalist Papers".
#8, "kidnapped thousands of black people" try millions, and they often weren't kidnapped by the Americans. Funny story, the Bla

MANIACNUMBERONE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:20 AM (P)

CaesarI, I think we are all very appreciative of your vast knowledge, but I bet most people were hoping you'd take Moore's movie with a grain of salt. (you didn't) Of course, you are correct, Moore's points weren't totally accurate, he was trying to make a point. When the pilgrims showed up on the beach and shot the indians, Moore wasn't trying to say that's how it happened. He was trying to portray the long period of time that the pilgrims and native americans spent with each other in a short segment. Brevity is the key, and he couldn't use it and tell the complete story you may want him to. He was trying to make a point, not tell the whole history of the U.S. His portrayal of the shooting of the indians was meant to say..."this is the gist of the americans treatment to the native americans." I suspect that the same method was used throughout the cartoon to convey a quick meaning without hearing a long lecture.

I'd love to add my view on the gun thing if you all aren't done yet... I love guns. They are fun to shoot. I think everyone (within age limits) who wants a gun should be able to buy one. I also think that guns kill people. Of course, some of you are thinking, "no, no, people kill people, not guns" Well that's true to a point, but people often use guns to kill people. And in America, land of the exceptionally free, more people are killed with guns than all other countries in the world combined. That doesn't mean americans have more guns, neccessarily. (americans do, by the way, Switzerland is no where close.) It just means we are more likely to act violently with those guns. Why? Some here have suggested that more guns equates to more gun violence. While that has not been proven, I subscribe to that notion. I have no proof. How could I? What I do have, however, is infallible logic. See if you can beat this...
Only a gun can cause death by gunshot.
If you don't have a gun, you can't kill anybody by gunshot.

That's it. If we can't see that, we are all blind.

I am gonna go a little further, but my argument will no longer be completely sound if you apply these thoughts to the others I just mentioned.

We can likely assume that not everyone who owns a gun is going to use it to kill someone.
We can also likely assume that no one person or one specific group is causing all the gunshot deaths.
So it seems very likely that gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general. Everybody happy so far?

Now this is the part that many of you are going to disagree with, but that's ok with me.
Taking all into account, if there are more guns in a certain area, that would likely lead to more deaths by gunshot in that gun-saturated area. Having no guns in an area would lead to no deaths by gunshot in that area. Columbine is a good example. (lets leave out people who bring in outside guns shall we?)

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:26 AM (P)

Oooooooooooooooooh Succatash, I'm sorry, you're too open-minded to be a proper elitist asshole. Back of the room, you fail, hang your head in shame. Don't come back 'round 'till you can type in all caps with full conviction "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!"

Even better, type it in l337 if you really want to get the act over.

Caesari- Uhm. Hell. That clears something up. Namely why my 'Flat Earth Geographical Squares' never took off in the supermarkets. I thought the appeal of these... these 'globes' was purely in the appeal of spinning them around to pass the time. If this Columbus villain is not the one who poisoned the general consciousness with this 'round world' concept, who, oh pray, did?

(Above is purely a rhetorical question. Excellent and educational work there, friend.)

Maniac, you flat lost me. Gone. I'm hanging out here in LEO, and you're off to the stars. I mean, technically all forms of death result from cessation of brain function.

So if none of us have brains, well, nobody will ever die from gunshot wounds either. Now as far as I can see, both concepts are about equally relevant to the state of affairs in the world. There was this magical time when no guns existed and nobody ever died from gunshot wounds. That was called all of history prior to the invention of matchlock rifles.

Strangely enough, people found plenty of other ways to kill each other. Knives, arrows, javelins, and would you believe they even had occasion to use rocks, both large and small? Greek Fire, though, now that's how I wanna go.

On the subject of Mr. Michael Moore, the incredible human cockroach.

I'm sick of postmodern nihilism. I'm sick of this mea culpa "The whole world is screwed up, life is pointless, and everbody out there is just so STUPID!" viewpoint. I resent the holy hell out of this narrowminded batch of twits who spend their time circle-jerking themselves into ecstatics over how cool and enlightened they are in comparison to the 'common man', especially 'common man' in flyover country, those barely sentient creatures who reside between the coasts and spend their weekends at the monster truck shows.

What really offends me to the core is that the most common and blatant purveyors of this bigoted blather, the ones who can casually drop terms like 'white trash' with vindictive relish, claim for themselves the mantle of being liberals.

By god, I'm a friggin' liberal, thank you kindly. I don't care what church you go to, I don't particularly care what sort of recreational chemicals you choose to fry your brains on, I could care less if you like men, women, or hamsters. Don't do it in my backyard without my consent, and damn well stop that swing of your arm short of my nose, and while I may not like you or respect you, I'll let you go your way through life unmolested.

Top it all off, I think we have come a hell of a long way in a damn short time. It's just been barely the blink of a historical eyebrow to come from an era of commonly accepted chattel slavery, virtual subjugation of women, total inability to redress our grievances against the ruling powers without resorting to the guillotine and any assorted varieties of man's inhumanity to man. My father had a very small piece of the Civil Rights movement in a very localized fashion, and all I can say about it is "Damn, too bad I wasn't in on that show."

I look around me and I see people, with all the flaws they carry with them, bodies and instincts still finely tuned to hunt bison, sleep in caves and root for berries and grubs. I see them transcending that, building, creating, protecting, giving themselves over to great works, thoughts and ideals. I see things I like. I see things I don't like. I see myself living in a world where I can disagree with my neighbor without having to club him senseless.

Then I see these sneering little Moores, Springers, and any number of journalists waxing fat on tragedy, fattening themselves like so many ticks on human suffering so they can chuckle and say "See? We're stil

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:33 AM (P)

/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\

Diagnosis confirmed. Subject is only one prozac prescription away from being a well-adjusted citizen.

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:55 PM (P)

Archer, it is clear I'm not the only asshole here.

HARDWARE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:

Caesari- Uhm. Hell. That clears something up. Namely why my 'Flat Earth Geographical Squares' never took off in the supermarkets. I thought the appeal of these... these 'globes' was purely in the appeal of spinning them around to pass the time. If this Columbus villain is not the one who poisoned the general consciousness with this 'round world' concept, who, oh pray, did?

(Above is purely a rhetorical question. Excellent and educational work there, friend.)

Ask a rhetorical question, get a rhetorical answer. Eratosthenes proved the Earth was round using math. What's more, he also accurately measured the size of the planet, if you factor in the margin of error of his tools.

http://www.jimloy.com/astro/columbus.htm

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/eratosthenes.htm

A little more background on the experiment.
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/observatory/eratosthenes/

And Caesari, let's not forget that the founding father's rational fears against a standing army, based on the fact that they had redcoats forcibly garrisoning the colonies not only resulted in the 2nd ammendment, but also the 3rd anf 4th.

(And shame on all of you if you don't know what those ammendments are!)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_right
s/amendments_1-10.html

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:16 PM (P)

Succatash- But... I was trying to compliment... ah... well, okay. Works for me.

I get that a lot. I get a lot of packages in the mail that tick, too. C'est la vie.

Hardware- I knew it. Name a problem of global proportions, somewhere down at the deep, dark heart of it the Greeks are to blame.

I'm so glad the Assyrians or whoever took care of them for us. But geez, it's taken us like five thousand years to even begin to address all the havoc they created. This democracy mess, making giant wooden horses into pop culture items that every hip and with it person has to have in the backyard, and pouring an innocent cup of hemlock down some over-talkative geezer's throat, man...

The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell.

I do vow to look up those links and further my education on those matters when I get back to the house this evening.

Except for the Bill of Rights, because hey... 4th is search and seizure, and the third is one of my favorites- if you roast a redcoat, you are constitutionally required to QUARTER him and share him with your neighbors. While I used to resent the socalist implications of it, nowadays I appreciate the sense of community spirit it engenders.

---------------------------------------------------

Offending Okies, vegetables, and the entire nation of Greece all in the space of less than a week. I must be slowing down in my old age.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:27 PM (P)

"The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell."

Ahh, I remember that like it was yesterday. I wish I could share my insanity with you all, so you could see it as clearly as I do.

Oh, by the way, Whoever it was that posted that you only die from brain death - wow! You are almost as crazy as I am! What a great tangent! I'll have to work hard to make less sense than you do.

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:33 PM (P)

I couldn't stand it. I had to look 'em up before leaving.

Fascinating stuff. I'd heard the name and the basics of the story but never looked up the particulars.

Now that I know the particulars of Eratosthenes calculations, how will the ladies ever resist my charms?

---------------------------------------------------
Mortal fool! Your naive honesty has given me the means to take over the world!

Forgive my ebulliance, y'all. I had a good day yesterday. Still flyin', as it were.

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
"The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell."

Ahh, I remember that like it was yesterday. I wish I could share my insanity with you all, so you could see it as clearly as I do.

Oh, by the way, Whoever it was that posted that you only die from brain death - wow! You are almost as crazy as I am! What a great tangent! I'll have to work hard to make less sense than you do.

That would be me. Keep working.

Unless you're happy with being number 2.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:56 PM (P)

I believe my status as top crazy-man has just been called into question.
I respond to that with... avocado, avocado, avocado, avocado.
Say it real fast with a group of people. From a short distance away it sounds like a real conversation.
top that!

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:22 PM (P)

According to the old book of world records I have laying around here, the hardest tongue twister in the world is "The sixth sheik's sixth sheep's sick."

Chug a bottle of Juarez's finest Chamucos and then practice that one in a loud tone at the local Starbucks. Convert words into their obvious profane near-equivalents as you continually screw it up. When your inevitable ejection from the premises comes, announce that you will be returning with your Royal Guard to teach these miserable peasants a lesson.

Stand in front of a convenience store on New Year's eve, with no shirt and snow coming down, a sword in each hand hanging idly over each shoulder and announcing to frightened passerby "Fear not, good citizens, I am here to protect you from DRAGONS."

Did I mention being barefoot as well?

Your move.

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:59 PM (P)

When folks call me an asshole, I usually thank them.

Thanks, Succatash.

I am proudly a member of that club. In fact, I've considered becoming a card-carrying member of Unrepentantly Rectal Associated Assholes. As a member of U. R. A. Asshole, I would share that august privilege with an incredible number of famed historical figures.

Honestly, where would we be without those opinionated, stubborn, argumentative curmudgeons? Always insisting on being right, forcing everyone else to exercize their gray matter to prove otherwise? Often in vain?

Crazy? You decide.

Wrap a large segment of rattan in a layer of duct tape (3 to 5 feet is sufficient). Don medieval style clothing, add protective armor segments to joints and head. Stand in the middle of a field with others similarly outfitted. When the Marshal cries, "Lay on," bash your friends with your stick until only one of you remain standing. Repeat several times through the day. Revel all nite, then repeat the next day. Recover at work.

tanstaafl

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 11:06 PM (P)

Wulfhawk wrote:
"When folks call me an asshole, I usually thank them.

Thanks, Succatash."

LOL, I did not call you an asshole. I was speaking to Archer. But it's funny you assumed. I can tell you are one of those happy assholes, like me.

ARCHER

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 11:07 PM (P)

If I wanted to be beaten with rattan sticks, I'd load up on spraypaint and head for Singapore.

Madman.

----------------------------------------------------
"I've always said the Chinese don't know how to handle a crisis. Have you ever seen one of their fire drills?"

MANIACNUMBERONE

Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:09 PM (P)

I only speak from past actuality -
Climb many assorted building throughout your town, (free climb, that is) ensuring that most are movie theaters. There is a law somewhere that says they must have a roof access for emergencies. (most schools have the same thing) Do this any time, day or night. Go in through the roof access in one of the movie theaters. Climb across the the inside of the roof of the theater until you are behind the screen. (be quiet- there are movie-watchers below) Climb down (in the dark) til you reach floor level then - POP OUT, with whoever you are with, and yell in a loud voice - "WE ARE THE CURTAIN PEOPLE!!" then run out. Either enjoy a different movie or just sit and watch that one if no one's in there. (which has happened)

your turn.
We'll need an impartial judge to say who is the winner.

KENWOOD

Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:06 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
If I wanted to be beaten with rattan sticks, I'd load up on spraypaint and head for Singapore.

Yeah but in Singapore you don't get to fight back.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

ARCHER

Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:12 PM (P)

Maniac- Well, since you've shown me yours and I've shown you mine, we could just skip straight to the headbutting contest.

Kenwood- Good point, good point. All the same, I've done a perfectly fine job of abusing my own body, so I'll pass on any professional assistance.

CAESARI

Friday, May 23, 2003 3:18 AM (P)

First I'd like to thank Hardware for covering my pedantic self, while I ditched ya'll.

Next I'm gonna get this thread back into the bellicose nature it had enjoyed before we started called each other assholes, and smiling about it.

I don't take "documentaries" with a grain of salt, neither does anyone else who knows what a documentary is. Borrowing from Webster's online dictionary: "of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE "a documentary film of the war"" and, btw, I really, really HATE using dictionary quotes in arguments, you forced my hand. You can do brevity without presenting the history in a distorted view to prove your pre-conceived conclusion. The British largely treated the Natives a lot better than the Spanish, but not as well as the French. The relationship between the British colonials and the natives was not as hostile or one-sided as Moore portrayed it. He didn't sacrafice depth for the sake of brevity, he sacraficed accuracy for the sake of his conclusion.

Guns = gun deaths?!?! Did you bother to read the links at all? Shall we discuss Washington D.C.? The city has the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, firearms are practicaly illegal within city limits, and up until last year Washington DC had been the murder capital of the country, and has held that title for some years now. Only recently has Chicago surpassed it due to the immense (and long term) efforts of Mayor Richard Daley.

The issue isn't even whether more guns or less guns help. You can't wave a magic wand and reduce the number of them. You can pass laws outlawing their ownership, and try and enforce them. The issue then, is whether gun-control laws reduce gun homicides. Washington D.C. is a case in point demonstrating that gun-control laws do no such thing.

Suppose hypothetically gun-control reduced gun deaths, but lead to an even greater rise in the overall homicide rate. Would it make you feel any better if those murder victims were pushed out of windows? In Japan, where guns are rare as hen's teeth, the suicide rate is significantly greater than our own. Taiwan, the Phillipines, and Mexico have a higher non-gun murder rate than our total murder rate. The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European countries total murder rates.

Here's another one for you. Prisons are about as gun-free an environment as it comes (excluding guards), how safe would you feel, in terms of physical safety in a prison?

-Infallible Logic
Maybe I didn't mention my background in Philosophy either. Ya'll ain't gettin' nothin' by this gun nut.
S1: "NOT All who own guns, commit murder with guns." T
S2: "There does not exist one person or specific group of people who commit ALL of the set of 'murders with firearms' " T
Conclusion: "gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general."

Your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. If you like I'll present your arguments and conclusion from those arguments to the professor of logic at the University of Puget Sound, who's a good friend of mine.

In fact in state correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions. For the past decade FBI Uniform Crime Statistics have found that ~90% of firearms used in crimes were illegally acquired. The law was broken to acquire them. The people using them in crimes were criminals before they killed anyone with a gun. People who have concealed carry permits are significantly less likely than the general population to commit murder. Through 1997, only one permit holder in the state of Florida out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. If the rest of the country were so law abiding the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate on earth.

Rural areas in the US have a higher gun ownership rate, and a lower murder rate. Gun-homicide rates are highest in cities, where gun ownership rate is lowest.

-Morgan

SUCCATASH

Friday, May 23, 2003 3:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

This is the last time I will post on this thread. All I can do is repeat myself, at this point. It's really easy to get a gun. Seems to me the right to conceal a gun only makes criminals wonder who might be packing.

TALRIUS

Friday, May 23, 2003 4:36 AM (P)

Y'all are getting evil again. Does this thread need to be nominated for The Thread That Shall Not Be Named status?

__________________________________________________
DOBSON: I'm supposed to be meeting my wife's sister. I've only got a few days to see her...

ZOE: I wish there was another way...

DOBSON: Oh, no, no. That woman is like a dragon. I mean, I believe she has a tail. If there's any other moons we need to visit, or if we could just fly very slowly...

ARCHER

Friday, May 23, 2003 5:13 AM (P)

Hey, other than some senseless violence between Maniac and myself, totally consensual I might add, and a bit of threatened violence between me and Wulfhawk, totally a regional thing, we've been mostly well-behaved.

To get serious for a moment- The matter of statistics. Now, the old canard about lies, damn lies, and damn statistics has been run into the ground. Mostly, it's a matter of not working through them and understanding them. BUT. I don't like framing moral issues in terms of statistics. Once you go that direction, you're basically doing a cost/benefit analysis. The way I look at it, weapons are one of the three main elements of self-determination. Guns, money, and wheels, to my way of thinking. With those three, I can be five hundred miles away in eight hours or so, get myself dinner and a room, and keep my money safe from undesired donations. When a buddy of mine's wife died a while back, that's pretty much the formula I followed to get over to him. Take the utopian world of the 'progressive', I'd be spending my tokens on some Amtrak affair that makes United Airlines look efficient, get mugged enroute, and arrive three days after he threw himself off the bridge.

Live free or die, way I look at it.

---------------------------------------------------
Now if everyone will excuse me, I gotta get back to bonking noggins with Maniac. That boy has got one HARD head. Damn.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Friday, May 23, 2003 6:29 AM (P)

Quote:
-Infallible Logic
Maybe I didn't mention my background in Philosophy either. Ya'll ain't gettin' nothin' by this gun nut.
S1: "NOT All who own guns, commit murder with guns." T
S2: "There does not exist one person or specific group of people who commit ALL of the set of 'murders with firearms' " T
Conclusion: "gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general."

Your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. If you like I'll present your arguments and conclusion from those arguments to the professor of logic at the University of Puget Sound, who's a good friend of mine.

-Morgan

If you do send it to him, quote the whole thing m'kay? You took right from the middle of what I was saying -

"Only a gun can cause death by gunshot.
If you don't have a gun, you can't kill anybody by gunshot.

I am gonna go a little further, but my argument will no longer be completely sound if you apply these thoughts to the others I just mentioned."

- then I proposed an already admittedly unsound argument.

...and I don't think I should argue philosophy with you until you pronounce me insane. I have learned a very important lesson from philosophy and logic and reason. You can use them to prove anything you want, even contradictory statements. It is dangerous to rely only on them if you wish to arrive at the truth.

----------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
----------------------------------

SUCCATASH

Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:39 PM (P)

This is what happens when people are allowed to buy guns!!

Rated R
"Guns"
14 MB - Quicktime
http://craptv.com/shorts/guns.mov

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 19, 2003 5:40 AM (P)

There are some people in the wide world who are vehemently opposed to guns or any other sort of legal weapon ownership.

But I don't know anyone who, when confronted with deadly violence, would not wish for a chance to escape it.

Even if it was only one chance in a thousand.

Even if that chance was a gun.

On the subject of more guns = more gun violence...

If everyone might be carrying a gun, the rate of gun violence would spike momentarily. This is called the Learning Curve.

After that, criminals get less bold, and ordinary citizens become a bit more tolerant and polite. The wackos who beat the shit out of people due to road rage... they're likely to get weeded out early on.

Consequences breed a better society.

I am a CCW holder in Florida. I don't carry all the time, but I cherish the fact that I can.

And the bad guys... out there in the wide world... they know I can.

Maybe there's one chance in a thousand that gun will come in handy. Maybe there's one chance in a thousand I can draw it out and make use of it in time.

I'll take those odds. After all, I bet on the lottery, and I don't stand under trees when it rains.

--Anthony

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't." - Ben Franklin

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 19, 2003 5:41 AM (P)

There are some people in the wide world who are vehemently opposed to guns or any other sort of legal weapon ownership.

But I don't know anyone who, when confronted with deadly violence, would not wish for a chance to escape it.

Even if it was only one chance in a thousand.

Even if that chance was a gun.

On the subject of more guns = more gun violence...

If everyone might be carrying a gun, the rate of gun violence would spike momentarily. This is called the Learning Curve.

After that, criminals get less bold, and ordinary citizens become a bit more tolerant and polite. The wackos who beat the shit out of people due to road rage... they're likely to get weeded out early on.

Consequences breed a better society.

I am a CCW holder in Florida. I don't carry all the time, but I cherish the fact that I can.

And the bad guys... out there in the wide world... they know I can.

Maybe there's one chance in a thousand that gun will come in handy. Maybe there's one chance in a thousand I can draw it out and make use of it in time.

I'll take those odds. After all, I bet on the lottery, and I don't stand under trees when it rains.

--Anthony

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't." - Ben Franklin

DRAKON

Friday, September 19, 2003 8:14 AM (P)

Not only that, but didn't Florida have a rash of attacks on tourists, because the criminals knew the tourists did not carry? Why go against a local when they might be armed, one could get hurt doing that?

I like the way Florida dealt with the situation, start issuing temporary permits to tourists.

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 6:53 AM (P)

Great thread folks just read the whole thing. Way better than most political sites I visit. It seems interesting that almost everyone who posted here is pro-gun to a greater or lesser extent wich suggests to me that authoritarian leftists don't like Firefly and are thus under represented here,this of cource is fine by me.

Special thanks to Caesari for the history lesson
it's not the type of thing you get to here too often these days. Sadly enough history in this country when it's taught at all is usually sort of an elaboration on Michael Moore's cartoon. In fact if you were a history professor at many schools today and said what you said you'd probably be run off campus on a rail.

And thanks Hardware for the great links printed out a copy of The Bill of Rights and I recommend anyone a little fuzzy on what Amendment is wich do the same.

As for you Succatash or anyone who even for a second thinks Michael Moore is anything other than a propaganda artist of the worst sort I'm going to share some facts about the lies in Bowling for Columbine.

First off the first time you see Charleton Heston speak he uses not one not two but seven edits to make him sound like he said someting wich he never said. This is not how an honest man operates but thats Micheal Moore.

Second when Micheal Moore goes to the "missle factory" in Littleton and talks about trucks driving through town in the middle of the night with "pentagon payloads" he lies twice. First off that Lockheed Martin plant isn't a missle factory it's a plant that makes rockets for launching satellites. And when he talks about them being driven through town with "pentagon payloads" this is also a lie since they have no payloads when they leave the plant pentagon or otherwise.

Third the whole Klan and the N.R.A. thing about how they have always secretly worked together is a load of bull. First off the N.R.A. was founded by Union soldiers. The eighth president of the N.R.A. was Ulysess S. Grant. Back before being president of the N.R.A. he was president of the United States. As the U.S. president he signed into law The Federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act. This empowered the president to use troops to suppress the Klan. His leadership led to over 5000 arrests.

And finally during the civil rights era the N.R.A. had all black southern chapters.

You know I used to be a big fan of Michael Moore
until I saw Bowling for Columbine and what I saw didn't jibe with my understanding of reality I started asking questions and found out he's a total goreram liar. And if he full of it in this movie he's full of it in his other stuff too wich means I wasted a lot of money over the years on his BS nearly two hundred dollars by my reconing. Wich is why he's not a very popular person with me.

Anyway if anyones interested in finding out more about whats wrong with Mr.Moore's "documentary" check out Truth about Bowling for Columbine
I'd post a link but I'm not good with high tech gizmos just drop it in a search engine and you'll get there.

Also of interest www.moorelies.com

Also you might be interested in checking out Michael Moore Hates America

Michael Moore Hates America is a documentary that is currently being made that largely focuses on the fat man himself and the quest to sit down with Mr.Moore to convince him to return the Oscar for Best Documentary since bowling isn't a documentary at all.

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 6:53 AM (P)

Great thread folks just read the whole thing. Way better than most political sites I visit. It seems interesting that almost everyone who posted here is pro-gun to a greater or lesser extent wich suggests to me that authoritarian leftists don't like Firefly and are thus under represented here,this of cource is fine by me.

Special thanks to Caesari for the history lesson
it's not the type of thing you get to here too often these days. Sadly enough history in this country when it's taught at all is usually sort of an elaboration on Michael Moore's cartoon. In fact if you were a history professor at many schools today and said what you said you'd probably be run off campus on a rail.

And thanks Hardware for the great links printed out a copy of The Bill of Rights and I recommend anyone a little fuzzy on what Amendment is wich do the same.

As for you Succatash or anyone who even for a second thinks Michael Moore is anything other than a propaganda artist of the worst sort I'm going to share some facts about the lies in Bowling for Columbine.

First off the first time you see Charleton Heston speak he uses not one not two but seven edits to make him sound like he said someting wich he never said. This is not how an honest man operates but thats Micheal Moore.

Second when Micheal Moore goes to the "missle factory" in Littleton and talks about trucks driving through town in the middle of the night with "pentagon payloads" he lies twice. First off that Lockheed Martin plant isn't a missle factory it's a plant that makes rockets for launching satellites. And when he talks about them being driven through town with "pentagon payloads" this is also a lie since they have no payloads when they leave the plant pentagon or otherwise.

Third the whole Klan and the N.R.A. thing about how they have always secretly worked together is a load of bull. First off the N.R.A. was founded by Union soldiers. The eighth president of the N.R.A. was Ulysess S. Grant. Back before being president of the N.R.A. he was president of the United States. As the U.S. president he signed into law The Federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act. This empowered the president to use troops to suppress the Klan. His leadership led to over 5000 arrests.

And finally during the civil rights era the N.R.A. had all black southern chapters.

You know I used to be a big fan of Michael Moore
until I saw Bowling for Columbine and what I saw didn't jibe with my understanding of reality I started asking questions and found out he's a total goreram liar. And if he full of it in this movie he's full of it in his other stuff too wich means I wasted a lot of money over the years on his BS nearly two hundred dollars by my reconing. Wich is why he's not a very popular person with me.

Anyway if anyones interested in finding out more about whats wrong with Mr.Moore's "documentary" check out Truth about Bowling for Columbine
I'd post a link but I'm not good with high tech gizmos just drop it in a search engine and you'll get there.

Also of interest www.moorelies.com

Also you might be interested in checking out Michael Moore Hates America

Michael Moore Hates America is a documentary that is currently being made that largely focuses on the fat man himself and the quest to sit down with Mr.Moore to convince him to return the Oscar for Best Documentary since bowling isn't a documentary at all.

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 6:54 AM (P)

Great thread folks just read the whole thing. Way better than most political sites I visit. It seems interesting that almost everyone who posted here is pro-gun to a greater or lesser extent wich suggests to me that authoritarian leftists don't like Firefly and are thus under represented here,this of cource is fine by me.

Special thanks to Caesari for the history lesson
it's not the type of thing you get to here too often these days. Sadly enough history in this country when it's taught at all is usually sort of an elaboration on Michael Moore's cartoon. In fact if you were a history professor at many schools today and said what you said you'd probably be run off campus on a rail.

And thanks Hardware for the great links printed out a copy of The Bill of Rights and I recommend anyone a little fuzzy on what Amendment is wich do the same.

As for you Succatash or anyone who even for a second thinks Michael Moore is anything other than a propaganda artist of the worst sort I'm going to share some facts about the lies in Bowling for Columbine.

First off the first time you see Charleton Heston speak he uses not one not two but seven edits to make him sound like he said someting wich he never said. This is not how an honest man operates but thats Micheal Moore.

Second when Micheal Moore goes to the "missle factory" in Littleton and talks about trucks driving through town in the middle of the night with "pentagon payloads" he lies twice. First off that Lockheed Martin plant isn't a missle factory it's a plant that makes rockets for launching satellites. And when he talks about them being driven through town with "pentagon payloads" this is also a lie since they have no payloads when they leave the plant pentagon or otherwise.

Third the whole Klan and the N.R.A. thing about how they have always secretly worked together is a load of bull. First off the N.R.A. was founded by Union soldiers. The eighth president of the N.R.A. was Ulysess S. Grant. Back before being president of the N.R.A. he was president of the United States. As the U.S. president he signed into law The Federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act. This empowered the president to use troops to suppress the Klan. His leadership led to over 5000 arrests.

And finally during the civil rights era the N.R.A. had all black southern chapters.

You know I used to be a big fan of Michael Moore
until I saw Bowling for Columbine and what I saw didn't jibe with my understanding of reality I started asking questions and found out he's a total goreram liar. And if he full of it in this movie he's full of it in his other stuff too wich means I wasted a lot of money over the years on his BS nearly two hundred dollars by my reconing. Wich is why he's not a very popular person with me.

Anyway if anyones interested in finding out more about whats wrong with Mr.Moore's "documentary" check out Truth about Bowling for Columbine
I'd post a link but I'm not good with high tech gizmos just drop it in a search engine and you'll get there.

Also of interest www.moorelies.com

Also you might be interested in checking out Michael Moore Hates America

Michael Moore Hates America is a documentary that is currently being made that largely focuses on the fat man himself and the quest to sit down with Mr.Moore to convince him to return the Oscar for Best Documentary since bowling isn't a documentary at all.

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:09 AM (P)

I seem to be repeating myself I must learn to be patient and not push the button a couple of times when it is slow.DOH!

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE