An honest question for the pro-gunners.

[OpSomBlood]

In light of recent assertions that John F. Kennedy's and Malcolm X's stances in favor of individual RKBA were rendered null by them being shot, I wanted to take a little informal poll (and be honest):

To the pro-gunners here, if you or a loved one were shot, would your view on gun ownership change? Naturally, in this hypothetical scenario you would survive the gunshot wound, but assume that the loved one does not.

[MrBenchley]

1. Considering that JFK was talking about the National Guard...

I'd say the adjective was unwarranted...

[OpSomBlood]

2. You're right, the NG exists to protect us from "governmental tyranny."

Oh, wait...they are run by the government.

[MrBenchley]

6. That would be what JFK called "extremely unlikely"

Of course, the pro-gun politicians like AshKKKroft and Chimpy present the only attempt in my lifetime to impose such a thing....

[OpSomBlood]

7. "Extremely unlikely" does not mean "will never happen."

And you're exactly right, I think that BushCo is the closest thing to it we'll see in our lifetimes.

Still, how exactly does JFK calling it "extremely unlikely" equate to "I'm against the individual civilian right to keep and bear arms"? There was nothing in the entire speech that even remotely referenced the role of the National Guard in the "civilian-military relationship" he spoke of.

You're just making stuff up to fit your personal interpretation of how "real" Democrats feel about guns.

[MrBenchley]

8. So in other words...

You want to pretend that the JFK quote refers to something it does not by ignoring what it actually DOES say....

Guess the adjective WAS totally unwarranted....

"the role of the National Guard in the "civilian-military relationship""
says it all.....

"As a citizen-soldier who trains part-time in the Army National Guard, you can..."

http://www.collegebound.net/arng/

"National Guard Association of South Carolina
Become a Citizen-Soldier
Today's National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen serve our Nation and our State with unparalleled professionalism.  Guardsmen and women bring knowledge and experiences gained in their civilian lives to their units.  They return to their homes and workplaces with new leadership skills and new insights to build solid families, better businesses, and stronger communities."

http://www.ngasc.org/register.htm

No argument TOO absurd for the RKBA crowd....

[OpSomBlood]

9. Yeah, the NG exists to protect us from "governmental tyranny."

n/t

[Zister]

39. I have had 2 family members that

My 53 year old Uncle was shot and almost died as he walked home from the corner store. He was shot by teen gang members who never should have had a gun to begin with.

My Father was held hostage at gun point for 4 hours by a x-employee with mental problems.

I am and have always been PRO GUN just as my Father and Uncle are PRO-GUN. The actions of these CRIMINALS who could not lawfully own a gun to begin with, would not have been prevented by anti gun laws. Disarming the Law Abiding public is just dumb.

My Father even said that if he had had access to a firearm that day, there were many instances where he could have taken the guy out.

[library_max]

55. Neither does the militia.

Actually, the militia doesn't exist at all any more, but when it did, it wasn't to protect us from government tyranny.

[OpSomBlood]

59. So you think that Kennedy was confused on the issue?

Who was he referring to when he said that the Second Amendment protects us from governmental tyranny? Was he just incredibly confused?

A couple more Kennedy quotes for your digestion:

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Of course, Kennedy was shot...so none of these quotes have any meaning now.

[MrBenchley]

60. You mean that "extremely unlikely" government tyranny?

Kennedy was talking about the National Guard no matter how desperately you try to pretend otherwise.

He was in his second quote too.

As for the third quote...what the fuck that has to do with your precious popguns is anybody's guess.

[library_max]

63. Maybe he was just a politician trying to get a few more votes.

Ever think of that?

[Zister]

50. The National Guard is not a militia

The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms and operate under the authority of the Federal Government is not a militia.

[Ready4Change]

3. There's a chance I'd get MORE pro-gun.

I might think that, if I'd had a gun in my possesion at the time, I could have changed the outcome and my loved one would still be alive.

Is it possible you can create a scenario in which I might become anti-gun? Sure.

It reminds me of a kid I was talking to about flying airplanes. (I'm a private pilot.) He asked if I was afraid the plane would crash? I said no, not really. What if the engine stopped? I'd glide it into a landing. What if the wings stop holding the plane up? I know how to get them working again, so I'd do that. What if the wings FALL OFF?

He was creating scenarios that supported his fear, namely that planes crash. Didn't matter how many questions I answered, I still wasn't adressing the fear itself.

I'm guessing your fear is that you'll be killed by some nutjob with a gun. I suggest that, rather than creating "what-if" scenarios that leave you powerless, (Loved one is already dead.) you look at the likelyhood that this will actually happen. Of the several million people who die in our country every year, how many die of gunshots? How many of car accidents? How many of lung cancer? Put your fear into perspective.

[iverglas]

11. getting to be that time of week again

"Fear"?



Although perhaps a special one is in order ...



You wouldn't baselessly and pointlessly accuse other people of being cowardly lions if you only



had a heart.

[MrBenchley]

12. Well, the answers are as unworthy of the adjective

as the question was....

Are you surprised? Me neither.

[iverglas]

15. although it is entertaining

... that the assertion I was addressing:

I'm guessing your fear is that you'll be killed by some nutjob with a gun.

... was addressed to the author of the original post in the thread. ;)

Now that I think more about it, maybe it wasn't such a straw fella at all!

[MrBenchley]

16. That IS true...

wonder if this person will come back and elaborate?

[Ready4Change]

21. I think that's me?

Rather than the starter of the thread?

Not sure what your objections to my post are. I'm guessing you're saying I am using fear as a tactic? If not, please explain what I should respond to and I will.

If you are saying I'm using fear: Quite the contrary. I'm attempting to counter fear.

The number used in anti-gun groups is about 33,000 firearms deaths a year. That sounds like a lot, and it is. But keep in mind that over 2.4 MILLION people die in the USA every year. That means the odds of you dieing by a firearm are pretty small.

If you still aren't comforted, you can choose to not have a firearm in your house. That way you can't kill yourself with it, via accident or suicide, nor can a burgular take it from you and kill you with it. That only leaves someone bringing a gun to you and killing you, and unless you run with a bad crowd that just plain isn't very likely at all. (Most murders are committed by someone closely known by the victim.)

[MrBenchley]

22. Thanks....

And I agree with that...in my lifetime I've only encountered two kinds of people who felt a burning need to own a gun (leaving aside the cops I've met)....one kind were imbeciles trying to show how tough they were, and the others were people contemplating criminal activity (usually connected with the drug trade).

Of course, I lived in rough sections in Brooklyn, not in desperate places like East Bumfuck, Alabama.

[Ready4Change]

25. Thanks also.

I'm a child of the suburbs.

I've met the imbeciles trying to look tough, but not the people contemplating criminal activity. I've also met some who don't really fit any of the stereotypes used in gun control discussions. These people clearly like guns, but aren't foaming at the mouth hoping for an apopolyptic chance to use them, nor intent on slaying anything on 4 legs, etc... They just plain like shooting guns into (non-living) targets.

I pretty much put myself into that latter group, looking forward to the challenge of getting a blob of metal from the barrel to as close to my target as I can. Kind of like archery, and remotely like darts, except we don't drink while shooting guns. (I've been nearly hit by too many miss thrown darts!)

[MrBenchley]

26. Unfortunately

some of those contemplating criminal activity found more than they bargained for...imagine, drug dealers aren't scrupulously honest!

[Ready4Change]

27. Shock.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

23. forgive me if I'm still confused

Somehow, I'd thought that you didn't think that any measures to control access to and acquisition of firearms were good or necessary. ... Somehow, I still think I was right.

If you still aren't comforted, you can choose to not have a firearm in your house. That way you can't kill yourself with it, via accident or suicide, nor can a burgular take it from you and kill you with it.

But amazingly enough, a burglar can take a firearm FROM SOMEONE ELSE and kill me.

Just like the burglars who killed a young Brit engineer with the firearm they'd stolen from a private residence did, in a drive-by shooting in the capital city of Canada, a few years ago.

That only leaves someone bringing a gun to you and killing you, and unless you run with a bad crowd that just plain isn't very likely at all. (Most murders are committed by someone closely known by the victim.)

Nicholas Battersby was walking with the crowd on a downtown sidewalk at noon. And he'd never heard of the drive-by shooter.

Nicholas Battersby chose not to have a firearm, and amazingly enough, he was still killed by one.

And he would have been killed by it no matter now many of the suckers he'd had strapped to his body at the time ... I mean, unless one of them had happened to stop the bullet ... yuk yuk.

[Ready4Change]

24. No problem.

It's hard to talk clearly in text (or even in person.) Hopefully there can be some leeway given to all in order to foster understanding. :)

I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian drive by shooter you are referring too. Stolen weapon or not, a killer shooting an unknown victim is still, anecdotes aside, statistically rare.

Regarding measures to control access to and aquisition of firearms I am admittedly more on the pro-gun side of things. However:

- I don't mind the 7 day waiting period, and think it should apply to all guns, even sporting weapons.

- I'm ok with denying convicted felons the right to own guns.

- While I basically approve the idea of concealed carry permits, I also think they are mostly un-enforceable, except as an after the fact measure. (If it's concealed, how do you know someone's in violation?)

- I firmly believe in licensing gun owners, and registering individual weapons, and don't at all mind the idea of some form of testing in order to get a license. I think that would encourage potential gun owners to get training.

Those opinions I listed above make some of my more rabidly pro-gun friends call me an anti-gun commmie. (But they still let me go shooting with them.) :)

[OpSomBlood]

36. I'm almost with you...

I think state licensure with safety and legal training is reasonable, but I will never support gun registration. Handing the government a list of who owns what guns is just about the most polar opposite of the intent of the Second Amendment I can fathom.

[iverglas]

40. ah, statistical rarities

I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian drive by shooter you are referring too. Stolen weapon or not, a killer shooting an unknown victim is still, anecdotes aside, statistically rare.

One of the unsolved murders (well, two, actually) in Toronto in the first 6 months of 2004 occurred when a car pulled alongside another car parked at an intersection, opened fire, and killed both the passenger and the driver.

It is so far believed to have been a case of mistaken identity. It was *meant* to be one of those cozy little "killer knows victim(s)" homicides, but it ganged awry.

One of the rather large number of biker gang-related homicides in Montreal a few years ago was very similar. An ordinary family-man kinda guy -- here ya go:

http://www.yorku.ca/nathanson/CurrentEvents/Oct_to_Dec_2002.htm#Gangs
(If you're interested in the Nicholas Battersby case, btw, just put his name and Ottawa into yr search engine.)

“None of the victims was assassinated for personal reasons,” said Vincent, one of three prosecutors working on the case. “There was a particular reason for each ... a settling of scores.” Vincent said all of the victims were connected to the Hell's Angels' great rival, the Rock Machine gang, save one: Serge Hervieux, a family man who was killed at a garage that belonged to Serge Bruneau, a member of the Dark Circle gang, affiliated with the Rock Machine. Hervieux was the victim of mistaken identity; Bruneau was the intended target because photos of him were found inside the getaway car.

And oh yeah:

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/AnnualReport2002/Cisc2002/outlaw2002.html

From August 2001 to May 2002, there were seven murders, including one non-gang-affiliated person, seven attempted murders and one disappearance related to the gang violence. A teenager died when he was caught in cross-fire outside a bar.

And of course, some victims do manage not to die:

http://www.ryerson.ca/rrj/hellandback.html

On a warm, sunny mid-September morning in 2000, Quebec's top crime reporter Michel Auger pulled into Le Journal de Montréal's parking lot. Returning to the office from a holiday, he stepped out of his brown Subaru and walked around to the trunk to get his laptop. Reaching down, he didn't see the young man in black - .22-calibre pistol with a silencer in hand - approaching him from behind. Suddenly, he felt an excruciating blow. Then the sound of shots - loud shots in rapid succession. A puff of grey smoke followed. As his attacker escaped, Auger lay down on the pavement. He grabbed the cell phone on his belt and dialed 9-1-1. "I saw a guy with a weapon and all that, and I don't even know if I'm bleeding. I'm in pain and that's it," he told the operator. With one shot lodged point-blank in his lungs and another in his colon, all he could do was wait for help.

In his 40 years as a journalist specializing in the underworld, Auger received innumerable threats. He'd been told he'd be killed, his house ruined and his car destroyed. The Hells Angels even published his home address with pictures in one of their papers. As a result, he got an unlisted phone number, changed the address on his driver's license to that of Le Journal and always varied his route to work. But until that September day, nothing had happened.

Now this is actually a guy who might have qualified for a permit to carry a firearm in Canada, as being subject to an entirely abnormal level of threat to his life. And I'm at a complete loss to see how his carrying a firearm would have prevented what happened to him.

The people in some of those cases were hard-core criminal outlaws. They don't get their firearms legally, that's for sure. And because they can't, and because there just isn't a ready indigenous supply of illegally-obtainable weapons (like, stuff you can buy through the classifieds or at a gun show without so much as having to sign your name), well, you know where they come from. The nearby places where there is a very ready supply, and then over a border that it is simply impossible to seal.


But apart from all that -- who cares whether it is statistically rare for someone to kill someone they don't know? Since the victims in non-stranger homicides are often more vulnerable than the victims in stranger homicides -- they tend to be abused women killed by their intimate partners, or children killed by their parents -- they seem to call for more, not less, concern.

Now I do keep in mind that I'm talking about killers and victims in a relatively sane society, where shoot-outs between/among illegal business associate-type "acquaintances" aren't exactly common occurrences, and so intimate-partner and child homicides account for a larger proportion of the overall numbers simply because they aren't outweighed by the others.

But it strikes me as a tad facile to dismiss "killer knew victim" homicides as something we just don't need to worry about -- "we" being the folks who aren't gonna get offed that way -- which is what it does sound like you're doing.

Both because "we" sometimes get in the way or are in the wrong place at the wrong time looking like somebody else and because "we", and our friends and family, might not be as invulnerable to "acquaintance" homicide as we imagine.

I, of course, have no truck nor trade with these concealed carry permit thingies, and fortunately have an iron-clad guarantee that such things are not going to start getting handed out where I'm at. The (un)enforceablility of the licence requirement just really isn't the issue or the reason why I don't want anything to do with them.

I'm curious about your advocacy of registering firearms. This necessarily includes registration of transfers of firearms, even of the sentimental and sentimentalized grandpa-grandson variety, if it is to have any substance. Since you also advocate licensing owners, it also presupposes demonstration of permission to acquire firearms on the transferee's part, i.e. possession of a licence. I doubt there's much of anybody around here would call this "pro-gun".

Nonetheless, it falls short of what I would want were I where you are, and what I'm fortunate to have where I am. In particular, it seems to leave handguns floating around the country (and leaking over the border to where I'm at, all too often) and around the highways and byways, and malls and sidewalks and living rooms and bedrooms, of the nation. And for so many reasons, that's a crap idea.

[luaneryder]

4. I have found that I can not rely

on predictions of how I would act in scenarios such as you set out. I was always quite certain that I would literally kill anyone who harmed one of my children. When my son was killed by a negligent driver I had absolutely no thoughts for the driver; I had no room for rage as I was consumed by grief. I can't even remember the man's name after five years. I do own a gun because I live in a part of the very rural Cherokee National Forest where we have had a number of rabies incidents. I wouldn't have a problem with a ban, though.

[brokensymmetry]

5. Nope, wouldn't change.

Once upon a time, years ago, I spent a considerable amount of time riding around with police officers - something on the order of 2,000 hours before it was all over. I even attended classes at the local police academy, purely for grins. I still associate more with cops than any other group of people - even though I'm not a cop.

That being said, the police just can't be everywhere. It takes time to get to a call. And if there aren't many officers out, and you're already on one call, you can't just drop everything and depart.

An example...one night, a call came in about a person moaning in pain. It turned out that the problem was a twig rubbing against a street sign. So you can't know that one person's emergency is more important than someone else's emergency.

What do you do when the bad guys are breaking down the front door? That's not hypothetical; it happened to me. After I explained the situation, the perp left, and no one was harmed. Should I be unarmed? Should I be left helpless against a burglar - or worse?

Sorry, guys, but I need a gun to protect myself. You do too.

[MrBenchley]

10. And let's never ever mention the words

"neighborhood watch"

Or mention any solution to the threat of crime that might have a negative impact on gun industry profit...

Sorry. Damn few people NEED a gun...

[mbnd45]

28. neighborhood watch-

Neighborhood watch is a great way of communicating with the police and providing them with intel. However, having a neighborhood watch doesn't make you any safer when you're on the spot, about to get beat up by a bunch of thugs. Neighborhood watch is not a substitute for a means of self defense. If you choose to be unarmed, that's your right. 99% of the time situational awareness will keep you safe anyway. It's not a bad idea to have a plan B, though.

[brokensymmetry]

29. (Chuckle) Neighborhood watch, you say?

Let's see now...my car was stolen, years ago. Nobody saw anything. My neighbors truck was destroyed by a hit and run driver in the middle of the night. Nobody saw anything. My house, and the neighbors' houses on each side, were burglarized. Nobody saw anything. This over a period of more than a decade. The fellow on the corner is a city policeman.

As it turns out, I had a deadbolt lock on an interior door - and the lock failed. I beat on that door with a variety of noisy tools for more than an hour, and made no effort to minimize the noise. Nobody heard a thing.

Oh, sure, you get those neat little signs that tell everyone that a neighborhood watch is in effect - so I suppose the less intelligent criminals are fooled. But my experience has been that a neighborhood watch is worth....hmm...just about nothing.

[MrBenchley]

30. It's so much less fun than daydreaming about plugging somebody

"My neighbors truck was destroyed by a hit and run driver in the middle of the night."
If only you'd had your .50 caliber Barrett!!

[brokensymmetry]

33. Oooh, you just lost 5 points.

Strawman argument. Surely you can do better than that!

[TX-RAT]

32. All those crimes

Sounds like you wasn't watching the neighborhood any better than the rest of your neighbors.
I've helped set up Neighborhood watches many times, they seem to be very effective here. It's also a good way to meet your neighbors.

[MrBenchley]

34. Yeah, but the gun industry makes no money from those...

[skippythwndrdog]

65. You go ahead an put your faith in Gladys Kravitz

I'll rely on myself and Sam Colt untill the cops arrive.

[MrBenchley]

67. Better that than a twitchy gump with a gun

and a burning desire to shoot SOMEBODY on the slightest pretext....

[skippythwndrdog]

68. Your inference is both unwarranted and incorrect

I kknow no one who has a "a burning desire to shoot SOMEBODY on the slightest pretext".

Are you sure that you're not porjecting?

[MrBenchley]

69. Sez you...Gladys Kravitz disagrees...

and so do I.

[skippythwndrdog]

70. Does anyone else see an ostrich?

OK. I'm maligning a magnificent bird by perpetuating the myth of head burying, but -

[library_max]

71. I see one.

It's refusing to see what kind of impression swaggering around bragging about "me and Sam Colt" makes.

[MrBenchley]

73. Hey, what else do you expct from our trigger-happy brethren?

All they have is bluster and right wing propaganda...

[skippythwndrdog]

76. There's that "trigger happy" line again

Didn't your English or Composition teacher ever tell you about trite phrases?

I'm simply cut to the quick by your witticisms.

[MrBenchley]

81. An apt description

"I'm simply cut to the quick by your witticisms."
And I'm bored shitless by this tiresome gun rights crap....SSDD.

[skippythwndrdog]

74. No brag, just fact

Thanks, Walter

[MrBenchley]

75. Yippee! Cowboys! Bang Bang Bang!

[skippythwndrdog]

77. Want to see my mop head horsey?

[MrBenchley]

78. Wouldn't be surprised if you had one....

it's a sturdier vehicle than this gun rights crap you're trying to gallop around with....

[skippythwndrdog]

79. Circles

You're going to get dizzy and fall down if you keep doing that. Don't come crying to me with a skinned knee.

[MrBenchley]

80. Yep, all the "pro gun democrats" ever do

is ride around in circles flinging this bogus horseshit...

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

83. Gee, skippy, that's so sad....

Guess I'll just have to soldier on with one less "enthusiast" spouting right wing horseshit at me....

[skippythwndrdog]

84. Still not up to the task?

Do a little research then get back to me.

But then, it's always so much easier to attempt to flay one's opponent with opinion than to offer up substantive arguments.

Ta for now, my stodgy little playmate.

[library_max]

85. Pot, meet kettle.

I've followed this subthread all the way up and read every one of your posts in it, and I see neither research nor substantive arguments. I see sneers about ostriches and Gladys Kravits and some guy named Walter.

[MrBenchley]

89. Don't hold your breath for research or substantive arguments

from "pro-gun democrats."

[FeebMaster]

90. Pro-gun "Democrats" really would make more sense. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

88. Not worth wasting time

especially since all you seem to have is lame 80's TV references....

But hey, it's not like "enthusiasts" ever have anything approaching a fact....

[skippythwndrdog]

92. 80's TV references?

I see that you're moving the numbers right on up as is your usual wont in order to substantiate your arguments. Do you add 20 or so points to every stat as you added about 20 years to this reference?

Golly, MrB, Gladys and Will Sonnet both were 60's charachters. You've moved either one or both up 20 years. I soppose it's just your habit.

[MrBenchley]

93. And so we see

the question didn't deserve its adjective, and neither did the answers....

[Romulus]

20. excellent post

thank you :hi:

[TX-RAT]

13. you or a loved one were shot, would your view on gun ownership change

I think the circumstances under which they were shot, would be the determine factor in that answer.
I was shot in 1970, but that was in the military.
I had a 16 yr old nephew who stuck a 410 shot gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Did it change my attitude towards guns, no. Did it change my cousins attitude towards guns, yes. Every gun that was in his house, is now in mine. He still comes out to hunt with me every now and then, but refuses to keep a weapon in his house. Could we have stopped that young man from killing himself, probably not. He was fighting his own battles, with being gay, in an unfriendly atmosphere. Could we have stopped him from using that shotgun, absolutely, yes.

[el_gato]

14. That assertion is not valid

Given all the people throughout history who have bravely
taken up arms against despotism and have died in that effort,
does that mean that they died in vain or if they had survived
they would all of a sudden lay down their arms and accept
tyrrany?

I don't think the assertion is valid.

[skippythwndrdog]

17. No change whatsoever.

Pushing for more control over a shooting is like pushing for tighter automobile control because of a traffic accident. Wheteher or not a death is involved is immaterial.

[library_max]

56. You do know, don't you,

that they very often do tighten up on traffic controls - add a stop sign or a traffic light or reduce the speed limit, for example - in places where there have been traffic accidents?

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

18. I can go beyond the hypothetical

I've been shot and am still here. Didn't make me anti, hell it might of actually made me more interested. If anything it did serve to make me a bit more safety concious than I already was.

I still shoot for pleasure.
I still shoot for competition.
I am sure I will shoot for self defense.

As for a loved one not surviving the incident? While I would be extremely grief stricken, it would not sway my opinion that weapons are necessary in the world we live in.

In my view, each person is ultimately responsible for their own safety. The police are not responsible for your individual safety, nor the government, nor the military. I choose to defend myself, rather than have 911 make a recording of my last words.

[skippythwndrdog]

64. Agreed

I'm in no way bashing cops, but this seems to fit the bill fairly well. (I would have used "Tied up at another call oe something similar.)

Props to Oleg Volk Studios

[MrSandman]

66. Or the Crown Vic could have exploded...n/t

[library_max]

72. Hey, bumper-sticker political rhetoric!

Less than fifteen words, and two dramatic graphics! Holy cow, it must be right!

Now where have I seen this technique before? Couldn't possibly be the Republicans and the right wing, could it?

[iverglas]

86. even better -- it's Oleg Volk!!!!

He's an old favourite around here, y'see.

Check it out (not when the boss is walking by, maybe).

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/nudes

I mean: nudge, nudge, say no more, eh?

[FeebMaster]

87. OH MY GOD

DON'T LET JOHN ASHCROFT SEE THOSE!

[MrBenchley]

91. Funny how nutsy Oleg keeps getting dredged up

on a semi-regular basis....

[Romulus]

19. where was the assertion made?

I guess I missed it . . .

[OpSomBlood]

35. Nearly every time JFK's or Malcolm X's pro-RKBA stances are quoted...

...someone feels the need to pipe in with, "Yeah, and they were shot WITH A GUN!" So essentially, the fact that those people were shot somehow nullifies how they felt about guns.

I wanted to find out if anybody else feels that such an assertion is valid.

[library_max]

62. "So essentially, the fact that those people were shot somehow

nullifies how they felt about guns."

Well, yeah, it does. It somehow nullifies how they felt about everything else, too. It pretty much nullified them altogether, if you see what I'm getting at.

Does the fact that both would not have been killed had it not been for the guns (both shot at long range by a concealed shooter, can't do that with a bat or knife) mean anything to you?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

37. I've been shot before...

and it made me MORE pro-RKBA.

[FeebMaster]

38. I'd like to go on record

and say that if I am ever killed with a gun that I'd like to be remembered as being as pro-gun as I am. Also, I don't want people whoring my death to promote their gun grabbing agenda so take note. Pro-gunners are free to whore my death to promote their agenda as they see fit, I guess.

If I'm ever shot and survive I'll let you know if it changes my mind on gun control. I doubt it would, though.

[porkchophill]

41. What is the purpose of the 2cnd amendment?

n/t

[iverglas]

43. hmm -- is that the one

that guarantees a porkchop from a humanely euthanized piggy in every pot?

Maybe it's the non-establishment of religion one, which would entitle me (were I within its purview) to dance on graves, I'll bet.

[porkchophill]

44. Thanks that must sum up your constructive input

?

[iverglas]

45. what colour is orange?

True or false?

[porkchophill]

46. reply or ignore

snidness is not needed

[iverglas]

47. tsk tsk

Snidness? Nobody accuses moi of being snid and gets off scud-free.

[porkchophill]

49. not understanding the purpose of the 2cnd amendment

does not impact on your ability to respound to a direct question

[iverglas]

53. you want me to respound?

I'm afraid you're going to have to instruct me in what I imagine to be the fine art of spounding, first. I gather that I have done it already, since you want me to re-spound, but I'm afraid that if so, it was all unwitting on my part.

Speaking of direct questions, you seem to have avoided mine:

What colour is orange - true or false?


edit - oops, sorry, folks; question is moot and is hereby withdrawn.

[library_max]

57. iver, you're arguing with a chunk of wood, i.e. a Tombstone.

Which actually goes a long way toward explaining the quality of his side of the argument . . .

[iverglas]

61. yass

That's why I edited to say "question is moot and is hereby withdrawn."

;)

[MrSandman]

42. The closest I ever had to a brother

fatally shot himself after an auto accident.

Did I sell my guns? No

Did I quit carrying? No.

Do I pay more attention to signs of suicide? Yes.

Did I pay more attention to securing my arms from others? Yes.

[fumetti]

48. If my loved one was shot...

...I'd support lighter sentences for retribution killings.

The more I argue the gun issue the more all the arguments are refuted--on both sides.

Gun ownership as a means of home/self protection isn't proven as a deterent to criminals. Guns get stolen all the time around here. If anything, gun ownership ATTRACTS thieves (while the owner is gone, natch).

And gun ownership is useless against government oppression. Widespread gun ownership (virtually every home) did nothing to help the Iraqis against Saddam.

The one thing that is definitely proven is that having guns makes gun owners feel more secure. It's a peace of mind solution to a largely imagined threat.

Britain's crime rate is down 39% over the past decade , and they banned of guns. But try telling that to NRA-nuts.

And prohibition only makes matters worse, just like alcohol in the 20s/30s. But try telling that to gun control nuts.

[Zister]

51. Wrong

In a study at the University of Chicago, researchers discovered that, contrary to claims, the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens actually reduced violent crime.

Researchers found that states with laws allowing citizens own firearms reduced murders by nearly nine percent, rapes by five percent, aggravated assaults by seven percent and robbery by three percent.

If states without pro gun laws had adopted them, the researches estimated that approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and more than 11,000 robberies would have been avoided annually.


You need to check up on the situation in the kingdom if you think that their crime is down. If you need links i will be glad to get them for you. There has been a explosion of crime in England.

PLUS: Every single State that has adopted CCW permits have noted significant reduction in violent crimes. Facts are Facts

Studies that have been conducted in the US prison system have noted that career burglars and robbers are very mindful of who has guns and who does not. The criminals themselves stated that they avoided homes with 4x4 trucks and vehicles suitable for hunting. When asked why they responded, "There's probably a guy with a gun in there".

things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

[Zister]

52. Gun crime up in England 2004 link !

When they speak of 39% decline in crime they forgot to tell you that it does not include gun crime or homicides or crimes of extreme violence associated with drugs. You need to read the whole article if you want the whole truth.

According to the article: Homicides are up due to the rise in gun crimes. Offences of extreme violence which is associated with drugs are also on the rise.

WOW gun crimes on the rise in England? They are outlawed!



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=543388

[MrBenchley]

54. Jeeze, the phony English bloodbath AGAIN

Don't you guys EVER ge tired of this dishonest crap?

And surprise, when we click on that link, we get the headline and deck:

"Crime: the truth
New figures reveal that crime has fallen 39 per cent over the past nine years - the biggest sustained fall since the 19th century"

"Homicide has been creeping up, linked to the rise in gun crime. Offences of extreme violence associated with drugs, particularly crack cocaine dealing, are also on the rise.
But, according to Professor Wiles, the country is not seeing a rise in violent crime. The BCS says it dropped by 3 per cent in the past year and by 5 per cent in the past nine years."

And P.S.: The entire UK has less gun crime in a typical year than a city like Birmingham, Ala. As has been shown again and again and again.

[library_max]

58. Please take a moment and read your own last two paragraphs.

Do you notice the contradiction?

"Britain's crime rate is down 39% over the past decade , and they banned of guns. But try telling that to NRA-nuts.

And prohibition only makes matters worse, just like alcohol in the 20s/30s. But try telling that to gun control nuts."

If prohibition of guns reduced Britain's crime rate 39%, how is that "only making matters worse"?