http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-02.php

Have you seen that yet? It's pretty damn good. Hilarious and gutwrenchingly horrible at the same time. The scene where Michael confronts Charlton Heston is pretty hard core.

I've just seen a clip (on UK TV) showing a choir of throat cancer patients with voice boxes singing in the lobby of Philip Morris, very powerful, moving and funny all at the same time.

I might have to go and see him live in London this month.

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

I'm just going off what I see on the web page. I have no desire to see this movie, as I'd actually trust a Clinton's "facts" before I trust Moore's. (And I can't stand the Clintonians either.)

BTW, I am not a Republican, I'm not defending Bush. But those attacks are about as well-based as any of Clinton's policies. Those polished stats look like they are straight out of Gun Control, Inc. The real data coming out of the FBI state-by-state crime data and the pure crime data coming out of England paint a much different picture. England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns, and the US has decreased crime every year for the last 9 years. The two countries are getting much closer in regards to *crime per capita*.

Sorry to rant, I just hate to see facts distorted so badly.

- Rick

It also doesn't say how many of those eleven thousand homicides were inflicted in defense. In a country where guns are outlawed, 99% of all guns are going to be used offensively. In the US, most gun casulties are the result of a person defending himself or his home. I'd say I'd have a much greater chance of my empeg getting stolen in the UK than in the US, especially if I'm legally packing heat.



It also doesn't mention that the US has a population of 300,000,000 while:

Japan- 126,000,000
Germany- 83,000,000
UK- 60,000,000
France- 60,000,000
Canada- 32,000,000
Australia- 19,000,000

It also doesn't mention that the US has a population of 300,000,000 while:

Japan- 126,000,000
Germany- 83,000,000
UK- 60,000,000
France- 60,000,000
Canada- 32,000,000
Australia- 19,000,000

Which doesn't really make a great deal of difference when you are comparing 11,000 deaths in the US and 60 in the UK (or whatever, I haven't gone back to check the figures again).

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

Scary as in I had no idea there were so many deaths from shooting in the US. If those bare figures of 11,000 deaths in the US and 60 in the UK are actually correct then that is a stunning difference.

That is one death per 2,696 US citizens and one death per 882,000 UK citizens.

Are you saying that those figures are wrong and that the per capita gun deaths for the UK vs US are in fact much closer ?

I have no idea whether the figures are correct, although the UK figures do sound about right. It would be good if he had added a source...

England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns

What do you mean that England has got worse since banning handguns ? Are you suggesting that crime has got worse because the very small number of legally held hand guns have been removed ?

England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns

Has it? Can you quote some figures to back that up?

I've seen a lot of varying statistics for UK gun deaths. The lowest figure quoted is around 50 while the highest is around 75 per year during 2000/2001. I believe the variance may come from whether air weapons are included. The vast majority of UK firearms offences relate to air weapons (whether they're strictly firearms is another question).

In the UK just about any gun related homicide makes national news.

Rob

Define ``air weapons'' for me. BB guns and the like?

The 11,000 number is accurate. Unfortunately it doesn't show the whole picture. There were also 2,087 stabbing deaths in the states. So basically, guns outnumber knives 6-1, but that's only in deaths, not attacks. Guns are a more effective means of homicide. This does not make them necessarily evil. 2,968 people were murdered by fire, pushed off a building, blunt objects, etc. 86 people were poisoned. 304 criminals were killed by handguns of people defending themselves. Basically what I am saying here is that the problem isn't the guns, it's the drugs, poverty, gangs, etc. The murders would happen regardless of the means. Washington DC has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and their murder rate is 5 times higher than anywhere else in the country. What these numbers do NOT show is the unbelievely disproportionate nuumber of killings that happen in the inner-cities, as opposed to the rest of the country. Or the disproportionate numbers happening in state assisted housing.

Numbers can say anything you want them to.

And they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

btw, numbers are from 1998,

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm

The two statements:

Guns are a more effective means of homicide.

and

Basically what I am saying here is that the problem isn't the guns, it's the drugs, poverty, gangs, etc. The murders would happen regardless of the means.

Seem to contradict each other. If the people killing other people with guns had to resort to less "efficient" and hands on methods, do you not think that the rate of "sucessful" killings would fall ?

Not if they really wanted someone dead.

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down? If 50 percent of women were carrying handguns, would it dissuade people from even attempting this? I think so. While many women carry things such as pepper spray or tasers, this does not present a deterrent to criminals. It may hurt for a little while, but there is no real deterrent here from attempting again, on another victim.

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down?

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Would that also explain why the death penalty is so effective at keeping the level of murders in the US nice and low ?

Besides, if they completely disarmed the law-abiding public, it would be much safer for criminals to carry out their murderous plans. If you remove the risk from trying to rape someone, do you think rapes will go up or down?

From the figures that I can find on the 'Net it looks like the US has about 180,000 reported rapes a year, UK has about 6,000 reported (in both cases there are reports saying as little as 1 in 10 rapes are reported).

So taking the relative populations into account that gives you:

- 1 rape per 833 US women
- 1 rape per 5,000 UK women

It doesn't look like the availablily of hand guns is working there either (though the ratio isn't as stark as the murder rates).

P.S. if the reports are correct about the ratio of reported rapes to actual rapes that means one in every 80 US women and one in every 500 UK women are being raped each year, which is absolutely awful if it is true. We call ourselves civilized countries.

"So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?"

Yes. Go here and read FABLE VII.



This is an excerpt from the NRA website:

Israel's "guns everywhere" policy accounts for incidents such as the one in which three terrorists opened up with AK-47s on a Jerusalem crowd. The terrorists were able to kill only one victim before they were themselves shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis.

The surviving terrorist was bitter when he spoke to the press the next day. Their plan had been to quickly kill 20 or 30 people at a series of public places, always escaping before military or police could arrive. They hadn't known Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorist felt that it just wasn't "fair."

Incidentally, this occurred within three weeks of the massacre of 21 unarmed victims in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's fast-food restaurant.

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


I believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the most effective way to combat crime. It's not the only way, and it's not the only reason for civilians to be armed.

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Well, according to a study by John Lott, that is indeed true - at least where law abiding citizens can carry concealed. Lots of attempts to poke holes in the study, to the best of my knowledge no one has been successful.

Do a google search for Lott "More guns, less crime"

/Michael

So does that mean that the levels of violent crime in areas where there are lots of guns is lower than in areas where there are less guns ?

Yes, see Texas.

Would that also explain why the death penalty is so effective at keeping the level of murders in the US nice and low ?

It would be if it were actually carried out. Unfortunately, people are very rarely executed even if they recieved the death penalty.

I'd really like to see a non-NRA version of that story... 3 terrorists with AK47 automatic assault rifles vs a crowd with handguns, and only 1 dead victim? Assuming that all 3 started shooting at the same time, that'd be 3 magazines unloaded before anyone had a chance to react. Something doesn't add up.

it's the bullets man.

Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Scary as in "guns are bad", or scary as in just how much of a gross distortion of information this is?

Speaking as one who *has* seen the movie, (but not the web page, since it's in flash)...

The position taken isn't that "guns are bad" -- Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. In the film he points out that guns are readily available to anyone that wants one in Canada, as well.

The real data coming out of the FBI state-by-state crime data and the pure crime data coming out of England paint a much different picture. England's gotten *far* worse since enacting it's 1995 ban on handguns, and the US has decreased crime every year for the last 9 years. The two countries are getting much closer in regards to *crime per capita*.

Sorry to pick on you here, but this seems to be the root of much of the discussion on crime in the thread. You've done something that many, many people I've talked to have done with this film, and gone from "gun problem" to "crime" in one leap. Moore and the film are not talking about crime related gun deaths, but gun deaths in the broader scope. He's not asking whether or not there would be less crime, but whether on not there would be less dead people that shouldn't be dead. He's also asking questions to figure out why it is that the US culture has the problem while similar first world countries do not.

Having lived in both Canada, and now the US, I've noted that the biggest difference in terms of attitude towards guns is that Americans think that guns are a good tool for protection. It's either "I am safe because the criminals are afraid I have a gun," or "I am afraid of crime, but a gun will keep me safe." Both are rather absurd. Canadians aren't anti-gun -- heck, I learned how to shoot a gun at church camp -- so much as we feel safe without the need to pack heat (that's not to say there is no crime). America is not so much the "land of the free" as it is the "land of the fear" -- what's the whole right to bear arms based on? Fear of the government. What props it up now? Fear of crime.

In reply to:

---

Moore and the film are not talking about crime related gun deaths, but gun deaths in the broader scope. He's not asking whether or not there would be less crime, but whether on not there would be less dead people that shouldn't be dead. He's also asking questions to figure out why it is that the US culture has the problem while similar first world countries do not.

---

I haven't seen the film, but your last 2 sentences are the nub of the whole issue.

I was going to do a post on this point earlier but decided not to, but since you've bought it up again here goes.

Its a well known fact (confirmed by many, many studies) that having any guns in the house dramatically increases the likelihood of death or injury to the (legal) occupants of the house.

One of the main reasons for this is that guns in the house increases the chance of a (successful) suicide attempt.

However removing that from the equation, still results in a higher death and injury rate due to many reasons including improper storage and/or improper use of the guns in the house resulting in death or injury to the occupants, whether through not storing the gun properly (e.g. keeping the ammunition seperate from the (locked away and - ) unloaded weapon), or from a lack of training in the proper use of the weapon, through to shooting the wrong people due to not properly (and accurately) indentifying your target before firing the weapon.

Seems ironic doesn't it that those who get a gun for protection of their familiy are probably putting their loved ones in more danger than if they did not have a gun in the first place.
I think that episode of the Simpsons where Homer joined the NRA (before being kicked out again) made this point quite well - many people (the NRA included if I recall) probably failed to make this connection.

One wonders what would the be ths situation if automobiles existed back a few hundred years ago - imagine if the US consitution had been extended to cover Automobiles - (say everyone has the right to "bear" (drive) an automobile) - would that now make the NRA and the AAA bedfellows? And would we be having the same discussions?

One wonders what would the be ths situation if automobiles existed back a few hundred years ago - imagine if the US consitution had been extended to cover Automobiles - (say everyone has the right to "bear" (drive) an automobile) - would that now make the NRA and the AAA bedfellows? And would we be having the same discussions?

That would be cool. When my gun jammed I could have the NRA dispatch someone for roadside repair!

Its a well known fact (confirmed by many, many studies) that having any guns in the house dramatically increases the likelihood of death or injury to the (legal) occupants of the house


Fable I

"After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes."

I tried finding information about that. I found that the california incident happened in 1984 but I couldn't find anthing on a terrorist attack in Israel that matched the description. However, I wouldn't be surprised that dozens of people with pistols could overtake 3 guys with AK's. I guess the terrosists must not have had very good aim to only get 1 kill.

I guess the terrosists must not have had very good aim to only get 1 kill.

That's cause the bad guys can't shoot straight. Just like the movies.



;-)

Yes, but I note this in that NRA rebuttal site:

In reply to:

---

Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides,(7) - a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents.

---

So, I do not think my original comments are invalidated by NRA's rebuttal Fable#1.

I never said X times more likely to be killed or injured by owning a gun ( I did say many times more)

In relation to the point at hand (that having a gun in the home leads to more people being killed or injured than would otherwise be the case) - I think the above statistic shows this up. Especially for suicides.

Yes there may be a link between mental instability and suicides- Tthe fact still remains that if you add a gun in the home to that mix (for any member of the familiy in that home), then the (succesful) suicide rate will increase.

I wonder what the "accidental injury rate" is, given the "accidental death rate" is stated as 2%, more than that I would expect.
As don't forget to add to the sucessful suicide rate, the unsucessful cases, where the person did not kill themselves outright and the accidental "injury rate" from a gun in the house will surely exceed the NRA quoted "2%" figure.

I would expect that most gun related injuries are not directly due to people mistaking family members for criminals (or though that happens - even the NRA admits that), more likely you will be injured due to ricochets or splinters/bullet fragments or flying pieces of the building (e.g. masonry) or glass from windows, or even just the noise, from discharging a firearm inside a enclosed space.

A house is not a shooting range, nor is it the same as the outdoors - a house has lots of rooms "linked" to each other with common walls (or neighbours within a few feet of the home - either laterally or vertically - so while a bullet may miss the "target" and hit a wall or window, its what it hits on the other side of the wall or window that can cause injury as well.


I have some grave doubts about many of the statistics presented on the website you linked to.

The NRA seems to take a position that enforcement (or lack of it) is the underlying problem, yet in many case, it refuses to accept that enforcement of these rules is acceptable or valid.

For instance I note this statement is one of many I find troubling:

In reply to:

---

Mandatory (gun) storage laws also would be virtually impossible to enforce without violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. ...

... Most states provide penalties for reckless endangerment, under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm can be prosecuted for a criminal offense.

---

How will the adults who do not store their firearms safely ever be caught, if the 4th Ammendment protects them from being subject to such checks as they could be deemed "unreasonable searches"?

I also note that the text says "Most states" - not all states, so in some states do not have such rules, so one presumably can be as careless as you like with Firearms and not be subject to any penalties in those states.

I wonder if these states the rates of injury and death in the home are different from the states which do have and enforce proper gun storage and negligence laws?

There is also this comment:

In reply to:

---

British gun owners failed to resist the passage of "reasonable" gun laws and have seen their rights almost completely disappear in the space of a few decades.
England changed from a nation with almost no restrictions on gun ownership and no crime, to a nation where all but certain rifles and shotguns are banned and crime is rising.

---

I'd like to know in which year (in the last few hundred or [thousand] years) was the year in which England had a population > 1 and no crime.

I also think that any link between rising crime levels and gun control laws is very dubious.

Crime rates worldwide are rising, even in those countries and states that have not changed their gun control laws.

To state as above that "crime is rising because gun control was bought in" is very misleading.

A large part of any rise in crime is generally due to increased reporting, not necessarily an increased incidence of crime or criminal activity.

Insurance companies in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Australia and New Zealand and probably Canada too), will not allow claims for property lost due to crime/criminal activity without a copy of an offical police report.

This means that in countries like the above the "reported crime" rates for "low-level" offences like burglary is much higher than in many other places (the US included), since you have to report the crime to make an insurance claim.

Also, do not forget that world wide the population is rising, if only a small (and steady) percentage of individuals commit crimes, then of course the incidence will increase - in line with the general population growth.

Any crime statistics that do not compare "per capita" (per head of population) statistics and instead quote absolute "crime" numbers or take into account differing categorisation across jurisdictions are meaningless for comparison.

I found a lot of this sort of mis-use of statistics on the NRAILA website.

Y'know, I was going to write up a long rebuttal, but the reailty is that the issues surrounding the firearms in America are not going to be undeniably proven one way or the other here. The best thing anyone can do is their own research. To that end, I submit the following urls for you to do some personal eye-opening.

Keep And Bear Arms
The Armed Citizen (forum)
The Firing Line (forum)
Glocktalk (forum)
Gun Owners Of America

There are many more. That's just a few off the top of my head. If those don't change your mind, then probably nothing I say or write here will do it so I won't waste my time and yours with some long rant.

By the way, as of this last Saturday, you can add two more bodies onto this year's 11,000 dead in America:

2 men killed in failed robbery

I live about 40 miles away from Indy. The KaBA site always has articles like the one above. So yes, guns are used daily in America to kill, and to save lives. It's a heavy issue no matter how you look at it.

- Rick

I'd like to know in which year (in the last few hundred or [thousand] years) was the year in which England had a population > 1 and no crime.


1287. *



*. According to family folklore. My (great)^40 - grandfather said that there wasn't anything worth stealing.

Please don't take my guns away. I like them. So far I've not shot anyone.

However, if I really wanted to kill someone and they took my guns, I'd find a way (people always have).

Face it, the gun control problem will not be solved on this BBS.

I'm sorry I started the discussion, I was just shocked to discover the number of gun shot deaths in the US compared to everywhere else in the world.

Why would you be sorry? A good debate every now and again is always a good thing. The more ideas people hear, the less likely they are to be misled by a bad one they heard once. Besides, arguing is fun!

Why would you be sorry

Because this subject has to be one of the most polarised out there, people are rarely going to switch opinon from "the general availability of guns is evil" to "the general availability of guns is good" (or the other way around) by just talking about it.

Besides, arguing is fun!

I'm not sure arguing is much fun when both sides have such entrenched positions...

I for one love to hear opposing views because if you don't feel strongly one way or the other it makes for very interesting reading.

Oh, I am in the UK and own a real AR-15 and a Sterling L2A3 - ok they were cut up and welded back together but they look real nice! The actions work to some extent, but if you want noise you have to get a blank firer (like my Beretta 92F - looks and sounds like the real thing, not that I've heard the real thing though)

The laws however are such that even though they are not firearms if you used them (or even a gun shaped piece of wood) in a way that somebody believed it was a firearm, it *is* are firearm for the purposes of law. Even stun-guns/tazers are firearms in the UK and are illegal - very silly considering people go to France and bring them back all the time - you are highly unlikely to get caught by customs.

Gareth

My first thought was that it must have to do with the population difference, so I went after
actual ratios

NAME LAND AREA POPULATION MURDER RATIO
Austria 83,858 8,169,929 65 7.9e-6
Canada 9,976,140 31,902,268 165 5.17e-6
France 547,030 59,765,983 255 4.225e-6
United 244,820 59,778,002 68 1.137e-6
Germany 357,021 83,251,851 381 4.57e-6
Japan Tokyo 377,835 126,974,628 39 3.07e-7
United States 9,629,091 280,562,489 11127 3.96e-5

Then I thought to look over 'general' murder rates.

Minimum murder rate in Canada in 2001 663 (2.08 per 100k) (taken from murder rate in BC which
was the lowest of all provinces and territories)

murder rate in USA in 2002 (7.6 per 100k)


I found this site: http://www.fadetoblack.com/bestcountry/best1.htm

I guess we do murder better than anyone! I wonder if any of it has to do with imigration rates
or... I dunno.

The humane in me says, "It's a little sad."
The environmentalist says "Population control."
The Cowboy in me says "Time to get me a better gun to deal with all those nutz out there."

But most of me wants to get off this crazy planet. I'm convinced the only way to save it is
to get rid of 50+% of the population. To do something like that is madness in human terms, but
without radical steps we're all f**ked.

Someone needs a trip in the total perspective vortex.

Perkins.....

Perkins used to have a 'no gun' policy. Someone came into Perkins and pulled a gun, shot one of the waitresses and a customer. 2 other customers pulled concealed weapons a killed him.

Perkins no longer has a no-gun policy.

Oh, I am in the UK and own a real AR-15 and a Sterling L2A3

How do you like your AR? Two of my friends each have an AR-15, it is a pleasure to fire them. If you have them available, get some NATO rounds - they provide for much more kick, and they do a good number on a water jug filled with water. Very accurate once sights are adjusted.

Better yet !!!

Freeze a five gallon bucket of water. Dump the ice out and put in on a stump.

Talk about a cool way to make a snow cone.

And it makes it bloody near impossible for me to own a (replica) musket to shoot pretend musket balls at a Royalist foe who died 350 years ago, to ensure the existence of a non-monarchist controlled Parliament, the only true bequest that British culture has gifted to the world.

--and I can't shoot the f****** cat that keeps crapping in my bushes, the b******

How do you like your AR?

er... I think you missed the next bit which mentioned they are welded up (ie. deactivated) :-( No licence required though. I could probably get a licence since I live in the countryside but my mum probably wouldn't like it!

Gareth
PS. It's mounted in a 9C1 Chevy Caprice - I need a Remington 870 to mount in the trunk lid next!

What's scary is firing safety slugs into a jug filled with gelatin. That way you can see the damage trails.

the only true bequest that British culture has gifted to the world.

Rob, that is *horribly* unfair!

What about Posh Spice??


--and I can't shoot the f****** cat that keeps crapping in my bushes, the b******

Why so frustrated? I've always found that poison-tipped blowdarts do the job and are *much* more discreet!

Well Jonathon Woss on Film 2002 has just given this film open-mouthed approval "Inspired and Inspiring". I for one will go an see it.

Well, yeah, there is David Beckham and Lady Di, I suppose..... (not)

Curious you should mention this - there is currently a series of progs on BBC going through the 10 Greatest Britons. At the moment, Winston Churchill, Oliver Cromwell and William Shakespear are....

... less popular than Lady Di, the "Queen of Hearts". Dare I say at the risk of public assassination for sacriledge, WTF????

It would probably read better if I wasn't p****** drunk and I had a spell checker.... What is this bloody world coming too....

In reply to:

---

At the moment, Winston Churchill, Oliver Cromwell and William Shakespear are....

... less popular than Lady Di, the "Queen of Hearts".

Dare I say at the risk of public assassination for sacriledge, WTF????

---

Well, what have those other 9 done for the world **recently**?

Lady Di's legacy is giving us wonderful entainment in the form of "What the Butler saw".

It would probably read better if I wasn't p****** drunk and I had a spell checker.... What is this bloody world coming too....

Really, I mean not allowing drunks to have spell checkers, c'mon!

if the reports are correct about the ratio of reported rapes to actual rapes that means one in every 80 US women and one in every 500 UK women are being raped each year, which is absolutely awful if it is true. We call ourselves civilized countries.

I find this scarier:

One out of every six women in American has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. About 62% of rape victims knew their assailant.

Y'know, I was going to write up a long rebuttal

I'm not sure what you were going to rebut. My post doesn't seem to be an advocate for gun-control -- if so, sorry, I was just trying to point out a difference in attitude that I've noticed. Personally, I like guns. I like their design, I like the smell of gunpowder, I like the heft of a gun in my hands (I've only ever shot rifles). I'm not so naive as to think that gun-control is the panacea that will save the US from itself -- that's no more true than it is that youth violence in the US is due to Marylin Manson, violent video games, sex on TV, the news, or any of the other popular things the right/left/middle wing is going to try banning next. Other countries have the same, some to an even greater extent than the US.

It's kind of funny... the first link I clicked on ("Assault Weapons by Hugh Downs") in that first link you gave had this to say:
Firearms, in whatever numbers or whatever configurations, are not the problem. The problem would seem to have its roots in national attitudes we have toward correcting things. Where did we develop the idea that personal grievances or social wrongs can be redressed by shooting the bad guy?[...]The assault rifle debate takes our attention away from the underlying problem: how to effect a change in our national attitude toward settling differences by violence.

It echos my sentiments quite well, if not much more eloquently. Unfortunately, the attitude is so pervasive that few people even notice that it's there. One of the saddest ironies of Bowling for Columbine film was when Moore was talking to a Lockheed-Martin PR lackey. Moore asked if part of the culpability for the shootings might belong to companies like LM that implicitly foster the attitude that it's okay to resolve your problems by killing people. The response was something along the lines of "Well... when you're mad at someone, you don't just go killing them. You talk things over and come to a resolution. It's not like America goes firing missiles at other countries every time we get mad at them." Hmmm....

Cheers,

a Royalist foe who died 350 years ago, to ensure the existence of a non-monarchist controlled Parliament

Pah! And your Cromwellian rabble lasted how long before the House of Stuart had to come back and sort the mess out? Eleven years! Central American countries have had stronger regimes than that!

Face it, you Roundheads may have won the war but you lost the battle...

The one thing worst than a hereditary autocratic monarchy, turned out to be a hereditary autocratic monarchy which didn't even admit to being one...

Peter

CanuckInLA,

I learned the basics of defensive shooting in several classes taught by an Indy deputy sheriff (ok, Marion County to be precise). I've done a lot of reading (and thinking) on the subject, and I wish more people did. This type of thinking dictates that the gun's only drawn as the last measure to protect your life. I also wish more people would take the police-taught classes. I believe the solution lies more in this kind of education direction than in further bans and restrictions, but that is the road we've been heading down ever since prohibition. (Actually earlier than that, wasn't there a federal act before the 1934 one, or was that the first one?)

So yeah, the gun owners can be somewhat scared. They're scared of the future regulations that will be slapped on them, especially in the wake of this fake "war on terror" (more like "war on rights/blow up the countries standing between us and *our* oil" to me). So when they see a movie that a lay-person (re: moronic politicians) may interpret as "we need more gun control in this country", they're likely to not react too positively.

I personally believe the high number of gun-related deaths is due to the narcotics problem. (The problem being the prohibition.) Every policeman I have spoken with personally has said the same thing - the overwhelming problem right now is violence attributed with dealing illegal substances. Not with the substances themselves, mind you, just the fact that they are illegal. Curing drug addiction is a social health problem, not a criminal one. The deaths won't stop until we reverse our national policy on this issue and do away with the black market demand by doing away with the Illegal Substances Act of 1996. (Which was just as horriblely written piece of legislation crap as the Patriot Act and the DMCA.)

Your comments have at least made me want to watch the movie now. My original comments were based soley from the web page. (I really don't think the number is as high as 11k, but I'm still digging for crime stats from last year.) I'll try to see it with an open mind, but every time I've seen Moore interviewed on TV he always has come across as a Socialistic anti-gun person to me. (I seriously have to question the reasoning of someone who takes such a strong "the rich need to be taxed even more" position, but that is an entirely different discussion!)

My personal thesis is that we're not going to see any real infusion of sanity into this country until we elect a Libertarian president, but I recognize that I'm in a very small minority on that one. Harry Browne would not be preparing to anihilate Iraq right now, and I'd even argue that having a Libertarian in the office in 2k might have prevented the outcome of last Sept.'s events.

(How's that for a closer?)

- Rick

crime and accident statistics. According to the accident stats, there were 10,828 firearm homicides in 1999, and 16,599 firearm suicides in 1999. There were also 13,162 accidental deaths from people falling. And there were 2,391,399 total deaths in the US in 1999.

There were also 13,162 accidental deaths from people falling.


Thanks for reminding me...I need to renew my subscription to the anti-ladder league.

I need to renew my subscription to the anti-ladder league

You'd probably be surprised just how many people die each year from falling off a ladder. It's a huge amount.
I myself know three people that died that way. Every time the same thing : a wooden ladder that broke under their weight (because the ladder was kept in a humid shed in the garden instead of a dry garage)
You'll never see me standing on a wooden ladder. If I must do it, I'll use an aluminum one.

Ted Nugent ofr PRESIDENT!

http://www.edromanguitars.com/rock/nugent.htm

If he'd only switch....

http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/ted.htm

Kill 'em all...... No, wait, Metallca for pres????

http://www.off-road.com/dunes/nuge/bio.html

Just to go wildly OT... How do you watch the BBC in Amersfoort? Do you get Sky Digital? Or is it on BBC Prime or World or something?

you said it.

To those that haven't seen the film, shut up about it and Moore until you have. As has been stated, it's about why the US has such a problem with firearms, not about getting rid of them... which i was pleasently surprised to discover.

As has been stated, it's about why the US has such a problem with firearms, not about getting rid of them... which i was pleasently surprised to discover.

You and me both. I hadn't actually heard of Moore until I went to see the movie on a last minute invitation. Somebody in the group mentioned that he was an NRA member, so I was expecting something *completely* different from what I got -- I was expecting some stark raving mad Heston-isms.

I learned the basics of defensive shooting in several classes taught by an Indy deputy sheriff (ok, Marion County to be precise). I've done a lot of reading (and thinking) on the subject, and I wish more people did. This type of thinking dictates that the gun's only drawn as the last measure to protect your life. I also wish more people would take the police-taught classes.

This is the biggest reason why I think gun control is actually a *good* thing -- because most people *don't* take those classes. It's not people like you that I'm so worried about, the ones that have gone out and done their homework. I admit to being a little leery of people like d33zy owning a gun, given some of the inflammatory things he's done in the past. I'm even more leery of the wackos out there that make one absolutely petrified at the thought of them owning a gun (and there seems to be a high correlation between the wackos and membership in militia groups). But at least the wackos know how to use the weapons -- the scariest are the people packing guns that don't know how to use them!

When I say "gun control", what I'd like to see is government regulations requiring (hand) gun owners to a) have registration, b) take some form of those defense/safety classes you mention, and c) train regularly. Of course, those three things need to be overseen by a body independant of the government. I'm less concerned about (a), than I am about (b) and (c). Beyond that, no further restrictions than now (well... except for the assault rifle thing -- it's claimed they have a legit use for hunting, but let's be honest... if you're such a bad hunter that you need an assault rifle to kill your prey, maybe you ought to take up gardening.)

this fake "war on terror" (more like "war on rights/blow up the countries standing between us and *our* oil" to me).

Preacher, meet the choir.

I personally believe the high number of gun-related deaths is due to the narcotics problem. (The problem being the prohibition.)

That, I can agree with. I'm curious to know the percentage of gun deaths that are drug related, and to compare that percentage to the same stats of other countries.

Your comments have at least made me want to watch the movie now.

Yay. Of course, for all my comments, the movie *does* have a bias to it, and Moore does, at times, conveniently forget to tell the entire story. However, if it make you think for a bit, that's a good thing.

he always has come across as a Socialistic anti-gun person

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a bit of Socialism -- I'd like to know that I'll have a decent standard of health care when I'm old and decrepit.

The Dutch cable companies (or some of them at least) carry BBC1, BBC2 and BBC World. I saw them on cable when I was staying in Amsterdam recently.

except for the assault rifle thing

This gun, Olympic Arms SM-1, is illegal to manufacture under the assault rifle ban:



That gun has been modified and renamed to Olympic Arms PCR (Politically Correct Rifle) and is legal to manufacture under the assault weapon ban:


All they did was change the name and remove the flash suppressor and bayonet mount. I wonder how many murders there were in 1993 from people being stabbed by bayonets....

given some of the inflammatory things he's done in the past

Like what?

here is an interesting tidbit I found:

"police accidentally killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993, compared to the mere 30 innocent people accidentally killed by private citizens who mistakenly believed the victim was an intruder (Lott, 1994)."

This gun, Olympic Arms SM-1, is illegal to manufacture under the assault rifle ban:
[pic]
That gun has been modified and renamed to Olympic Arms PCR (Politically Correct Rifle) and is legal to manufacture under the assault weapon ban:
[pic]

I'm not saying the laws make sense. I think the second should be banned, as well. I have difficulty believing that there is a legitimate use for the PCR -- if you need one as a hunter (which is the only explanation for having one I've ever heard), you suck... find a new hobby. I don't think using that kind of weapon for hunting is much different than dynamiting for fish.

given some of the inflammatory things he's done in the past

Like what?

Sorry... that should have read "said", as opposed to "done". I was referring to your alter-ego Yz33d, who, IIRC, had a habit of making rather inflammatory comments to the point of making a good many people here ticked off. It's less a function of content, as it is the attitude the posts appeared to be made with, but it's enough to make one wonder if you have the level of responsibility/even-handedness that I desire in a person carrying a gun.

``Done'' works, too. Like using attachments on the BBS to feed a different web site, hacking the BBS to show odd things in his handle/avatar, hacking the BBS to display non-standard stuff in the ``Re:'' field, and writing a robot to auto-reply to posts, for examples. I'm sure there are at least a couple of others, as well.

All of these things, in addition to just general rudeness, to me, show a lack of respect for his not-so-adopted community.

The one thing worst than a hereditary autocratic monarchy

.....is Tony Blair? - but what else do we have!

I imagine you could get Maggie Thatcher to come out of retirement, as long as you could promise her that she could run the country down the toilet again.

"in addition to just general rudeness, to me"

I've never been rude towards you. On the other hand, you've always been rude to me. In fact, I challenge you to find a post where I've been rude at all to you. Of course, you'll probably reply saying you don't have time for this, but if you're going to make accusations, back them up. I bet I could find half a dozen direct insults from you to me within 10 minutes.

EDIT: ok, I see your comment just mentions "general rudeness" and not specifically directed towards you. But I still challenge you to find a post where I've been rude to anyone.

You've been rude to the community by hacking the forum, if nothing else.

You include "hacking" in your list of my 'doings'. Then you mention, "in addition to" that list, my "general rudeness". You being a very grammatically correct person, the obvious conclusion would be that you meant the content of my posts and what I've said to you and other members. I highly doubt you will be able to cite any instances, whether by your own choice or simply because there aren't any. If you would like, I could find all of the direct insults and "rudeness" made from you to me.

I'm sure you will decide to just brush it off or not respond at all, but maybe next time you'll remember to look at yourself first before you think about making accusations on other people.

Well, this post offended me to no end. And does so even more now, for personal reasons. It was made without any respect to my obviously significant feelings about the subject (as I'd made a very long post arguing against something merely mentioned that was only a fraction as severe as what you said), and seemed to have existed solely to bait me.

That's merely the most egregious example fairly late into your Yz33d career. I could find more if I didn't have real work to do. I've wasted enough time on your punk ass as it is.

I've personally never made any clain that I'm not amongst the rudest people on the planet. I'm a big asshole, and I've stated it here before. However, I can seem to get along with people, at least until they offend me, directly or indirectly. And it's fairly easy to offend me. The fact that you are probably the only person on this board that I've come to despise speaks highly of the remaining members of this community and poorly of the lack of a killfile.

In general, though, remaining amongst a group of friends when you are obviously not wanted is rude in and of itself.

I hate to back him up, but that post wasn't rude. Just misinformed.

Not by itself. But the intention was rude. He was baiting me.

I think the second should be banned, as well. I have difficulty believing that there is a legitimate use for the PCR

For the record, the reason the second ammendment is in the constitution is not so the people could kill deer really fast, It's so we have the ability to overthrow the government if the government becomes tyrannical or oppressive. If the military has machine guns and the populace has nothing but barrel loaded black powder muskets, where do you think the odds lie? However, If we BOTH have machine guns, and the problem is big enough for the people to mount a resistance to the military in significant numbers, things can be different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I believe our government is pushing to that inevitability, it's just that should the need arise, I'd like to think that something could be done.

Three things pissed me off about that post.
1) it's utter nonsense, but we won't go into that again here.
2) it was made in a thread about one of my personal heros (not in his more destructive actions, but in his musical talents)
and
3) he was using the greatest cartoon/overall character of all time as his avatar. grrrrr.

We've long since gotten past the point where open rebellion is legitimate in this country. It was tried 140 years ago and quashed. I'd like to agree with you, but I just don't think that it's relevant anymore.

It's always amusing watching someone try to persuade you that you're wrong to not like them very much.

Rob

It's always amusing watching someone try to persuade you that you're wrong to not like them very much

Um, I hate to say it but I couldn't quite follow that sentence. Anyway, just in case, I was mostly joking

Rob was agreeing with you, I think.

That post was in no way trying to 'bait' you or attack you. I don't really care whether you like me or not, but I felt I had to point out your hypocrisy after your constant personal attacks, and I think your words show your real level of maturity. But I don't have any hard feelings toward you and never have, and hopefully you can just put that post and any other posts that made you upset behind you. Friends?

I think Bitt is very fond of you really - kind of like a favourite nephew. There's definitely some chemistry there and I think you guys could become the best of friends.

I love a happy ending.

Friends?

No.

You're an asshole and my life would be better if I never heard from you again. If you weren't trying to bait me, then you have everything to learn about decorum and sensitivity. My decorum is out the door.

BTW, mature people leave when they're not wanted. If you have problems with or questions about your empeg, I'll help. But otherwise, go away.

Rob, you've watched The Odd Couple a few too many times, methinks.

No, mature people don't order others to leave simply because they don't like them. Mature people leave themselves when they don't like the situation. If it was your house, it would make sense. I reckon if we were in person in Drakino's bar, you could pick a fight with me. But then you might force me to excercise my 2nd amendment in self-defense....

If you want to know what I really think, I think you got some serious issues with yourself and you need someone to take your anger out on. In fact, I think you hope that I will piss you off so you can tell me how wrong I am. I hope someone on the internet that you've never met who you think might be 'baiting' you isn't keeping you up at night. You treat me like I've murdered your mother, yet in reality I've never done or said anything to you. I would reccomend seeking professional help and/or finding perhaps an unfaithful girlfriend or maybe a 'real' enemy to fulfill your perceptual dose of drama.

You know I've tried to make peace with you several times, but each time you refuse. Good luck, and I hope you can find peace with yourself.

I'd argue that this is more my place than yours. I've yet to see you offer any significant constructive content. I'm sure there might be one or two. I also spout off all the time, but I've also at least tried to help people on a consistent basis, and I've developed a few applications for the empeg that folks seem to use.

And, to, I'm sure, your great disappointment, I never think about you while I'm not on this forum. Why would I? I post and read here because I enjoy it, not so that I can deal with pissants like you.

If you could read, you'd notice I never ordered you to leave. I've seriously considered leaving this forum, though, and I'm considering it again. I hope you're happy. I'm sure that's what you're looking for.

in Drakino's bar, you could pick a fight with me. But then you might force me to excercise my 2nd amendment in self-defense....

So if he punched you in the gut, you'd open fire on him?

So if he punched you in the gut, you'd open fire on him?

I find it hard to advocate this, but I'm also strangely unsympathetic. Like, you could avoid the whole mess by not punching someone in the gut. This is sort of like criminals who get hurt or killed and then (they or their estate) sue. It's a shame the jury can't find the plaintiff guilty and cause the judge to remand for sentencing.

Like I said, I have nothing against you, and I wish you well.

No, I don't think that would warrant killing someone unless I thought my life was seriously in danger, and I don't think it would even be legal unless my life or someone else's was seriously in danger.

Who are you and what have you done with the real d33zY?

I locked him away in the left half of my brain.

lol...now that's funny

For the record, the reason the second ammendment is in the constitution is not so the people could kill deer really fast, It's so we have the ability to overthrow the government if the government becomes tyrannical or oppressive.

Yeah, I'm aware of the reason.

If the military has machine guns and the populace has nothing but barrel loaded black powder muskets, where do you think the odds lie?

About the same as they are now -- 0%.

However, If we BOTH have machine guns, and the problem is big enough for the people to mount a resistance to the military in significant numbers, things can be different.

That's just it -- if we BOTH have machine guns, and nothing BUT machine guns, things can be different. However, the general populace does NOT have: anti-personnel mines; anti-tank mines; cruise missiles; drone planes; fighter jets; smart bombs; nuclear weapons; tanks; howitzers; Patriot missiles; etc. Look how well the machine-gun totin' Taliban did against the US military. Do you honestly believe that an insurrection by the citizenry would fare any better? The only way that the US government can ever be overthrown through the use of force is if it's a military coup, in which case, they already have machine guns (and better).

If you are going to look at the historical record about why the second amendment exists, you also have to remember that at the time it was written, there wasn't such a disparity between the government/military and what the average shmuck could get his hands on (cannonnade not withstanding).

That leads me back to my previous argument, which is that the only other use I've heard for these weapons is hunting. Neither of the two uses stand up to any valid reasoning that I can find, and, as such, have no need to be in the hands of the general populace.

cannonnade not withstanding

And it's not like the cannon is a good anti-personnel weapon, anyway. They're useful for destroying infrastructure like forts and ships, but it's unlikely that a guerilla army is going to have such things anyway (in their time or ours).

And it's not like the cannon is a good anti-personnel weapon

Oh yeah? You'd better talk to Napoleon about that. Or Henry Shrapnel.

Once again I have learned something interesting from this forum. I never realised Shrapnel was actually named after a person. Although, I have to admit I never really thought about the origin of the word, other than it maybe sounded a bit French

Hmmm. Good point. I was thinking about the sea-defense mortars that I see around here more than anything else.

Just FYI:

During the Napoleonic conflict, to use a cannon in an anti-personnel role, you'd generally fire "grapeshot". In essence, you'd stick some gunpowder in the cannon, and then stuff a load of crap (metal shards, pebbles) down the barrel. When you fire the cannon, the crap all comes rushing out of the barrel and splays out, like a blunderbus. This will make a mess of anybody in front of the business end of the cannon.

Unfortunately, the range of grapeshot sucks -- after a few metres, it's all dispersed and you're lucky if you do more than annoy people with the noise.

Onto the scene comes one Mr Henry Shrapnel, who invents a cunning way of increasing the range of anti-personnel weapons.

Essentially:

1. Take a hollow cannon ball.
2. Put a charge in the centre of it, with a fuse.
3. Around the charge, pack all of the crap that you would have stuffed into the cannon. Musketballs are good.

Hey presto, you have a weapon suitable for maiming people at a distance. It looks like those bombs that Wile E Coyote always seems to end up with.

You then put this shell in the cannon, with a small gunpowder charge to propel it towards the enemy.

The cunning (and difficult) part is that the fuse of the shell is lit by the propellant charge firing. You have to cut the fuse to the correct length, otherwise it'll either detonate before it gets to the French (in this case), or it'll still be fizzing when it lands (and can be snuffed out and subsequently fired back at the English).

Yeah, but look at Vietnam. They didn't have much more than machine guns. Face it, The US government with all of it's technology and high powered weapons, couldn't tell 250 million armed people what to do. Yeah, they could nuke or carpet bomb the whole country, but a huge wasteland with no economy is worthless, so it would defeat the purpose of their quest for power. The only way they could win is by killing the opposition, and the more Americans that are armed the greater our chance is of staying in control. And their weapons for man-on-man combat won't be superior to ours, that is unless they manage to take our guns away.





That gun is an AR-15 style rifle, and in terms of it's function and legality, isn't much different from this rifle:




That gun is a Remington .22 caliber semi-auto. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber semi-auto. The main differences is the AR-15 was designed in the battlefield, so it is easy to disassemble and clean, is very accurate, has little recoil, very rugged, has a pistol grip, and it looks like a badass machine gun. The law sees no difference between the Remington and the AR-15, and the differences in the way someone would use either to hunt would be minor, except maybe the hunted animal would a little intimidated by the looks of the AR-15....

Banning either of these semi-auto rifles isn't going to happen anytime soon, and I won't be surprised when a court rules the assault weapon ban unconstitutional. Keep in mind that the Crime BIll of 1994 had nothing to do with fully-automatic guns; it basically only banned certain accesories from legal semi-automatic "assault rifles". In other words, put a bayonet and a pistol grip onto that Remington and it suddenly becomes an illegal "assault weapon" under the law.

Fully-automatics are legal but it is a pain in the ass to register it and you have to pay a $200 fee, and it is a felony to possess an unregistered automatic.. Not an ideal route for a criminal, but they could (illegally) buy parts off of the black market (and I say on the black market because it is a felony just to own these parts as unregistered) and modify a semi-auto gun like the AR-15 to fire auto.

My roommate hunts sometimes. He's got a rifle in our house, but it doesn't bother me too much. I know it's for hunting and he keeps it pretty much in storage so there's little chance of accident in our particular case.

I can't imagine what he would think about people using automatic weapons for hunting. He'd probably call them lazy and stupid. As would I.

and can be snuffed out and subsequently fired back at the English

Hehehe, takes more balls than I've got to attempt this. Like playing a life and death game of Hot Potatoe.

Not many people own automatic weapons, and yeah it would be pretty rediculous to hunt with one, not to mention irresponsible since most of your shots are probably going to miss your target.

Reminds me of the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the Jewish guy plays hot potato grenade style with the Germans. I've seen it a thousand times, but I still leave a crease in the sofa.