View Full Version : Michael Moore using death.
drslash
10-25-2002, 10:03 PM
Michael Moore is a total whore. He is selling the idea of defeating Repiblicans on Nov. 5th based on the sad and senseless deaths of innocent people. I thought no one would go that low. I am not one for name calling but I am so pissed right now. MM is and idiot and low life scum. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He also tries to sell movie tickets on the dead bodies. Here is a letter sent out on his mailing list (I only received it as a forward):
Yes, It Was a Bushmaster
October 25, 2002
Dear friends,
Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was
involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it
because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?
Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton,
MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not
being shot by The Sniper.
Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was
shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in
Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too
busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by
The Sniper.
Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT
reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just
aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --
unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and
exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.
Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after
the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those
bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad.
How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New
Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John
Mohammad!
Many more people died needlessly in the days and weeks after that first
hour of the shootings, and every one of their deaths could have probably
been prevented had we had a national ballistics fingerprinting data base.
Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush,
for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the
criminals.
And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to
shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E.
Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential
campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's
finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business
dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to
sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too
tragically perfect.
If everyone reading this letter (and you now number in the millions) would
share this fact with just one person who is thinking of skipping going to
the polls on Nov. 5th, I believe that on Nov. 6th, Mr. Bush will have
neither the Senate nor the House doing his or Heston's bidding. Americans
don't like people who assist serial killers in being able to ratchet up
their kills because The Sniper knows that his bullets are prohibited by law
from being traced to his gun.
That, in a nutshell, is what the NRA is all about -- and I implore all
responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the
NRA agenda once and for all. Don't give Bush his majority on November 5th.
He's already seen to it that his cronies in big business have wiped out
your 401 (K), and they are doing their best to see that you are left with
no pension at all. That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single
lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mike@michaelmoore.com
www.michaelmoore.com <http://www.michaelmoore.com>
PS. "Bowling for Columbine" opens in a few dozen new cities this weekend,
including Portland, Minneapolis, Sacramento, South Florida, Atlanta,
Dallas, Houston, Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, a bunch of
towns in New Jersey, that village in Connecticut where we liberated the
beaches, a theatre in Times Square, Detroit (Royal Oak), and Denver. Click
here (http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/about/theaters.php) to see the
full list of theatres where it opens today.
PPS. Don't forget to show up in DC or SF tomorrow to voice your opposition
to the War on Iraq. Many other cities are holding rallies. Check out my
mission from the Office of Homeland Security (http://www.michaelmoore.com)
for details.
PPPS. You can find out more about the candidates to beat and the ones to
support in the upcoming election here:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/involved/gop.php.
---
If you wish to be be unsubscribed from this mailing list, please click the
link below and follow the instructions.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mailing/unsubscribe.php
ShinyTop
10-25-2002, 10:08 PM
Why do I think knowledge of this letter will only enhance the NRA's position. Michael Moore is the left's yellow journalism equivilent of Rush. Both tell enough to back their position and ignore the half truths and lies.
bruzzes
10-25-2002, 10:22 PM
sigh...Politics as usual...
One must treat these viewpoints with the cynisim they deserve.
immortal one
10-25-2002, 10:39 PM
Dick Dyke...Chairman of Bushmaster. Who can top that one?
I thought Bill C. was the 'Bushmaster'. :thumbsup:
Seriously though...
I've been around firearms, was taught the care and proper respect of them when I was but a very young lad, owned and carried legally all my adult life, and I've never witnessed one by itself taking aim and shooting a human, or anything else for that matter...without human intervention.
Blame the death on the weapon, and
not on the person using it. Irrational.
Mr. Moore, you're capable of a better argument than that.
ethics
10-25-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by ShinyTop
Why do I think knowledge of this letter will only enhance the NRA's position. Michael Moore is the left's yellow journalism equivilent of Rush. Both tell enough to back their position and ignore the half truths and lies.
Well said. I think your point on strengthening the people he disparages will be the result.
But hey, folks, what would Michael Moore's of this world be without people to trash?
jamming
10-25-2002, 11:05 PM
Actually give the Sniper a $2 circular file and let it rattle around in the barrel awhile and then the barrel print would be unrecognizable.
I had never heard of this boob until a certain site owner's acclaimation for Bowling for Columbine. I guess my literary and cinematic habits must travel in better circles than do yours drlash :D
When I read rubbish like the cited email, I can only presume that the buffoonery is producing new wonders at a record pace.
ShinyTop
10-26-2002, 12:01 AM
He was used as reference in there a while back until the disdain reached record levels. Then they shut up til now. Funny, the site owner claimed in that thread that MM was not against guns.
mikeky
10-26-2002, 12:40 AM
Now there would be a debate: MM vs Rush.
I find MM's fast and loose facts and logic play particularly distasteful, as well as his ambush interviews. I sometimes wonder how he would fair in a one-on-one situation where he had to defend his stance.
Originally posted by mikeky
I find MM's fast and loose facts and logic play particularly distasteful, as well as his ambush interviews. I sometimes wonder how he would fair in a one-on-one situation where he had to defend his stance. From what I've read so far, he and Donahue could make their own porn flick.
Watching the news the other day, I saw an interview with some British guy - don't know if he was a politician over there or just a journalist, but the guy made a very interesting point:
In Europe, where privately owning a gun is not allowed, they do not have the crime rates we have in the states. Murders involving firearms in 1 state (I think he mentioned NY) outnumbers the murder rate by firearm for all of Europe. The crime rate per capita is lower in general.
Gun supporters here are quick to point out that it's not the gun, but the person holding it. They also say if the criminal didn't have the gun, he would use something else, like a knife or a bat or a lead pipe.
Well, I can't help but wonder if that is really the case. I seriously doubt our country is full of brutish neanderthals - at least, more so than in Europe. I do not believe our country incubates such violence in it's people, that the murder rate in 1 of our states outnumbers the murder rates in all of Europe.
Sure criminals would use lead pipes or knives or whatever - but you have a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat than you do a bullet through your face. I'm sure if my husband's friend had gotten hit in the face with a bat or even a knife instead of the 'accidental shooting' of a bullet in his FACE done by his friend while he was visiting him, he'd of been out of the hospital MONTHS ago, and he would not be paralyzed and his life completely wasted right now.
Maybe it's just that I have witnessed more negative things with guns held in the hands of civilians than positive things.
BTW - I didn't see anything different that Moore said about the sniper shootings from what I saw people publicly posting about in forums (whether over there or over here). He raised an interesting point - one based on fact - many people were killed by guns the 3 weeks of the sniper's killing spree, but you didn't hear about it on the news because it wasn't 'sexy' enough. The fact is people are getting killed every single day - and many more are threatened and victimized by someone with a gun (whether by a criminal or an accident). Is the right to bear arms worth all this blood?
RRedline
10-26-2002, 02:16 AM
Michael Moore is a dolt. Reading that only makes me want to join the NRA. Very few people irritate me more than this guy does. I am so tired of hearing about how guns kill people. CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE WEAPONS. Stricter gun laws will only affect law abiding citizens. It's just like all the tactics the RIAA are trying to us to stop music and software piracy. Whom is it hurting? If I want Whitney Houston's new album, which won't be in stores for several weeks yet, I could get it in less than thirty minutes. Making it so it won't play in a PC CD player only prevents someone who purchased it legally to enjoy it the way he or she wants to.
Does anyone take Michael Moore seriously? I seriously would like to know. If I had to listen to either he or Barbra Streisand babble on about politics, I would actually have a hard time deciding! :)
RRedline
10-26-2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Misu
Maybe it's just that I have witnessed more negative things with guns held in the hands of civilians than positive things.
With all due respect, cars kill more people than guns do, so should we band the use of automobiles? Just because some people are irresponsible and some people like to run over other people, that doesn't mean that I am going to do it too! And owning a car isn't even protected by the US Constitution the way that owning a gun is.
I'm sorry about your husband's friend, but how on Earth does somebody get 'accidentally' shot in the face? It sounds like gross negligence was involved to me. That is hardly a reason to prohibit MY owning a handgun for protection. I would never point a gun in someone else's direction - certainly not somebody's face.
HaYwIrE
10-26-2002, 04:49 AM
<strike>Talk about your Neo-Liberal, pinko, commie, hypocritical, naive, blind, politically correct assholes. :rolleyes: </strike>
<small>oh yeah... I said I wasn't gonna do that anymore....</small>
Oh <i>myyyyyy</i>.... What a nice man! :love:
immortal one
10-26-2002, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Misu
Is the right to bear arms worth all this blood? [/B]
Are any of our rights worth all that blood? Yes, they are.
Our rights are written in blood.
many people were killed by guns the 3 weeks of the sniper's killing spree, but you didn't hear about it on the news because it wasn't 'sexy' enough.
You didn't hear about it like you did the sniper's killing spree because they weren't serial killings.
IMO, there's a big difference.
Boy, talk about half-assed.
Let's talk a few facts here.
Michael Moore is a lifelong member of the NRA. He is not
against gun ownership by law abiding people. He is against
the loopholes which allow criminals to get and use guns.
(You know, like the kids at Columbine.)
What he is discussing in the above letter is the failure to
enact legislation which would help to catch the criminals
who are killing innocent people.
This sniper was a law abiding gun owner UNTIL he crossed
the line. If we could have matched the markings on the first
bullet recovered with his gun, we might have been able to
save a dozen or so lives.
So do me (and yourselves a favor) get accurate information
before you go off half cocked. (pun intended)
matched the markings
I think this is a great idea and am confused as to why anyone would object. I've read that people are arguing that it is an infringement on their privacy rights. How? :huh:
mikeky
10-26-2002, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by -Ken
What he is discussing in the above letter is the failure to
enact legislation which would help to catch the criminals
who are killing innocent people. True, and maybe the database is a good idea, although jamming has mentioned defeating it would be easy. Last story I read said the White House was rethinking their position on it.
But what irritates me about Moore is that, while not as explicitly in this article (see his website), is that he blames Bush for not enacting the system and so for the deaths. He conveniently ignores that even if the system was implemented when Bush first took office, it most likely would not have been sufficiently developed at this point to have made a difference. So why not partially blame Clinton for not pushing the system into place? Because it doesn't fit with his agenda to blame big-business/Republicans for everything.
mikeky
10-26-2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Misu
...
In Europe, where privately owning a gun is not allowed, they do not have the crime rates we have in the states. Murders involving firearms in 1 state (I think he mentioned NY) outnumbers the murder rate by firearm for all of Europe. The crime rate per capita is lower in general.
... I'd hoped what you said was wrong, but evidently not.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Mike,
I don't believe President Clinton is blameless, I do think President Bush
passed on what could have been a good opportunity to do something.
The database would not have hurt anybody and might have saved some
lives.
What I am upset with here is the apparent lack of understanding what was
sent out in that email message.
Both Michael Moore and I have NO problem with respectable people owning
guns. For me, it has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Anyone should be
allowed to own anything which doesn't harm anyone else.
The other side of this has to be the gentleman who owned the guns the kids
who committed the Columbine atrocity was not as responsible as he needed
to be with his weapons.
If guns need to be accessible in case of emergency they also need to be
rendered useless if stolen. We cannot allow people to have guns unless
they can be responsible for storing them in a way that two teenage kids
can't steal them.
Otherwise, we all pay the price.
All I am saying is that I believe the fact that we're allowed to have guns so freely gives some of us a false sense of "we can do whatever the F we want". Gives us a sense of empowerment - like if we had a gun, and someone pissed us off, we could teach that person a lesson. And when people get angry, they do REALLY stupid and irrational things. You don't have to be crazy to do a stupid and irrational thing - you just have to be pissed off enough.
Sure rights are worth blood - my question was is it worth this much blood, as in the blood of people who don't want to fight and just want to live their lives, not the blood of people who <u>CHOOSE</u> to lay their lives on the line, like police, firefighters, and military. To me, there is a huge difference.
And yes cars cause death as well - but you can't carry a concealed Jetta and blow someone's brains out with it. Cars have tons of safety measures installed in them, such as airbags, ABS, sturdy steel frames, and seatbelts, to minimize the chance of injury/death in an accident. A gun is something designed to kill - some designed more lethal, or 'accurate', than others.
jamming
10-26-2002, 12:46 PM
Misu, it is interesting that your signature quote, is the Unofficial Motto of one of the Sniper Schools in the US Military. How about we say a care is not a less lethal weapon than a gun but less discriminate. Several times cars have been purposely driven into crowds of people. If we have less access to guns will that mean we will have more of these Drive Thru's.
RRedline
10-26-2002, 12:58 PM
I don't believe for one second that enacting stricter gun measures is going to take any guns away from criminals. Cocaine and heroine are illegal, yet somehow people manage to get it. Will it be any different with guns? No.
I understand that Britain may have a lower crime rate, but how do we know for fact that that is due to their gun laws? Perhaps there are other factors involved? The USA has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, yet we practically give out condoms to kids in schools, and we 'educate' about sex on cable television. It's called CULTURE.
It would make more sense to point out a country that enacted similar gun laws and show their before and after statistics. I don't see how Britain's statistics are even relevant here since guns have always been more restricted there than they have been here.
I don't see how a database or gun locks or whatever are going to save people's lives. If someone is breaking into my home, I don't want to have to fiddle around with a gun lock. I want to be able to grab it quickly and shoot the REAL criminal.
What we need to do is teach people responsibility. Irresponsible people and criminals are what kills innocent people - not guns. Why is it that we teach kids how to have safe sex in our middle schools, yet we don't teach them basic firearms safety? Instead we teach them about how dangerous and how evil guns are in the first place, even though the 2nd Ammendment protects all our rights to own one.
I am so tired of hearing about how television, guns, video games, bartenders, fast food restaurants, etc. are all to blame for STUPID PEOPLE'S MISTAKES. There is a huge blame game going on in our courts, and it needs to stop. If I accidentally shoot myself with a gun, I AM STUPID. If I leave a loaded gun out on my sofa, and a child finds it and shoots himself with it, I AM STUPID. If some asshat uses his legally purchased gun and shoots a dozen or so innocent civilians in the DC area, HE IS AN ASSHAT.
Please, let's stop pretending that gun manufacturers, current and past Presidents or our laws are to blame for STUPID PEOPLE and ASSHATS. Honestly, I am seriously considering buying a handgun and joining the NRA. I might even put an NRA sticker on my car to warn all the mother fuckers who might think about carjacking me that I will blow their faces off if they try it. Speaking of which, how many people are alive and well today BECAUSE of guns? Oh, people like Michael Moore don't even care about those statistics.
Thanks for the link MikeKy, for those who missed it.The United States leads the industrialized world in level of gun-related deaths." - 1997-98 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, p 2 (citing two newspapers and the United Nations Study on Firearms Regulation) "Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.
Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.
Rather than being the "league leader" in violent death rates, as the sensational and misleading media reports suggest when focusing exclusively on guns, though the U.S. is still high, its violent death rate is not orders of magnitude higher than other countries.
Then from a link off that page:
The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?) And then this, which I used in another argument elsewhere:
Crime Factors According to the FBI:
Population density and degree of urbanization.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
As has been pointed out, a national ballistics database, while being a very expensive proposition would only have in its database the gun signatures of law abiding citizens. Anyone intent on commiting a crime with a gun would easily and quickly alter the ballistics characteristics of the gun. For those of you advocating this...sure we could go ahead and spend a not too inconsequential amount of money to provide little or no real value and a completely false sense of security...in fact, let's go ahead and get it over with. It might just put a cork in this for a couple of years.
Coot,
So if each gun was fired at the time of manufacture,
the results recorded, the gun tracked and linked to the
person who purchased it, you feel that wouldn't help?
And, if we catch the criminals who are not smart enough
or careful enough to alter their markings, that would not
be somewhat of an improvement?
So, what we would be left with is we catch the stupid and
careless criminals easier and the professionals stay at the
same level of difficulty to catch and convict. Isn't that a net
gain?
As to the cost, how much is a human life worth today?
How much is it worth to get one lunatic off the street a
killing or two earlier?
Anybody got today's market quote on those numbers?
Ken,
I don't think it would do much of anything with respect to total gun violence. The vast majority of gun violence here on the left coast is either gang related or 'accidental'. With accidental meaning unauthorized or unqualified handling of a firearm...A database will serve no purpose in either of these. But hey, I am fully in favor of it. While it is fairly innocuous in terms of legitimate ownership (barring database errors), expensive and impotent with repect to catching criminals, it will give the gun control crowd a sense of accomplishing something and hopefully keeping them busy working on this will keep them from advocating more unconstitutional measures.
drslash
10-26-2002, 05:53 PM
The single most under reported fact about law abiding gun owners is: by the best statistics available, crimes thwarted by legal gun owners brandishing or using their gun out numbers gun related crimes by almost 7 to 1. http://www.nraila.org/Speeches.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=13 Another perplexing piece for data for liberals is that violent crime and crime rates in general have dropped over the last ten years but in that same time access to guns and availability have increased. Can it really be that more guns means lower crime rates? Me thinks so.
Of course, during those same ten years the economy went up.
Historically, when the economy goes up the crime (especially the violent
crime goes down). Considering this is true for any time period we choose
to look at, there is a pretty good chance the economy has more to do
with the crime rate than guns.
We could also point out, the bulk of the last tens years Bill Clinton was
president. I would suggest he had as much to do with the drop in crime
as gun sales. Finally something we can say about Bill Clinton which is
good.
Secondly drslash, I am going to have to point out the source you are
referring to is definately a little slanted.
I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. I would like
to point out that most criminals obtain guns from legitimate gun
owners. While I am not implying these people are actually selling
guns to criminals, somewhere between the manufacturer and the
criminal is a legal, law abiding person.
As I have said, if you all will take the responsibility to make sure the guns
you buy DON"T end up in criminal's hands, there really won't be much for
anyone to complain about.
Conversely, if you want your toys, you need to find a way of taking of
them.
Sir Joseph
10-26-2002, 08:46 PM
Misu,
Washington DC which has one of the strictest gun ownership laws in the US has one of the highest homicide rates in the US. Comparing homicides in the US to homicides in Europe is apples and oranges. Americans are different than Europeans. You can compare Americans to Americans. Then you'll find that when a victim has (or might have) a gun, there would be less homicides on the books.
drslash
10-26-2002, 09:04 PM
I agree, Ken, that the NRA link is slanted but that doesn't it make it untrue that thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of crimes against person and property are thwarted by law abiding citizens excercising their right to keep and bear arms. I should have stated that this point was directed at Misu. Misu seemed to be questioning our 2nd ammendment rights in light of all of the blood being spilled. There are many lives saved, injuries prevented, rapes prevented, and property protected by citizens who are armed and willing to use their gun when circumstances warrant.
I feel that the drop in crime is more due to the tough sentencing imposed by state legislatures enacted in the mid to late 1980's. If you want to give credit to Bill Clinton for what the states did, I guess that's your choice to do so. Crime prevention, successful prosecutions, and tough sentencing are local and state issues.
Originally posted by Misu
Sure rights are worth blood - my question was is it worth this much blood, I believe rights are at least as valuable as swimming pools.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Drslash,
Please believe me when I say the reference to President Clinton
was honestly meant as a joke. <I>I'm not a smiley face kind of guy.</I>
I don't know if the harsh sentencing of the eighties had very much
to do with the drop in crime. Just about anyone sentenced in the
early 80's would have probably been released by now, except for
the very worst.
I have concerns (as I'm sure all law abiding gun owners do) about
firearms falling into the hands of criminals. As I have said before, if
you all can find a way of significantly preventing this from happening
you will find most of the objection to gun ownership will go away.
There is another concern, which I would like to suggest needs to be
looked into. This latest lunatic (the sniper) caused too much pain.
Most people believe if the guns were never made, he wouldn't have
been as deadly. How do we prevent people who are apparently
law abiding and responsible from having guns should their mental
condition change?
I'd love to hear some concrete suggestions on that one which wouldn't
impact anyone's Constitutional rights.
drslash
10-26-2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by -Ken
I'd love to hear some concrete suggestions on that one which wouldn't
impact anyone's Constitutional rights. That's a tough one.
My biggest problem with this sniper was the fact the he could take aim, put a human being's head in the middle of the crosshairs and pull the trigger. I can't imagine ever reaching the mental state of willingly and knowingly carrying out that act. Aim, pull trigger, death. It just doesn't register with me. The mental state of the sniper was more dangerous than any gun left out in the open. Our society allows for someone to freely become mentally unstable. A person who wants to kill someone bad enough will get a hold of a gun and attempt to carry out the act. If the intended victim has the right to possess a gun, that is the only chance the victim has. In the sniper case, the bastard was nearly 100 percent concealed in the back and trunk of the car. This was due to the sniper's cunning and steadfast desire to kill. The poor innocent people did not have a chance (even if armed) and the authorities had nearly zero clues except for those offered up by the sniper himself.
Perhaps technology some day will allow for only the rightful owner of a gun to fire it. Like ballistic finger printing, this will only affect new guns going forward at some point in time.
edit:Bolding added for emphasis
Kangaroo
10-28-2002, 02:11 PM
With respect Misu, your logic is shaky. Crime rates cannot be linked to access to guns. And crime comparisons with countries which do not have anywhere near the same kind of rights criminals are afforded in the States is meaningless.
One is much more likely to die or be significantly injured by a myriad of means other than gunfire from a criminal. It is not something about which thinking people worry overmuch.
RRedline
10-28-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by EMIG
I believe rights are at least as valuable as swimming pools.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html More people die each year from falling coconuts than from shark attacks, and look at all the attention coconut safety gets. :happy:
I don't understand why the media and people like Michael Moore act like gun accidents, shark attacks and kidnappings are on the rise. All are worthy of mentioning and addressing, but guns always get attackd from the left relentlessly. And as someone else has already pointed out, guns protect people too. There may be some corpses out there due to improper gun usage, but there are quite a few healthy people living productive lives BECAUSE of guns.
RRedline
10-28-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by -Ken
How do we prevent people who are apparently
law abiding and responsible from having guns should their mental
condition change?
I'd love to hear some concrete suggestions on that one which wouldn't
impact anyone's Constitutional rights. We don't. Unfortunately we do not have mind reading devices to install in guns.
Why not take your question one step further? How do we prevent people from committing crimes? I'm afraid there is no answer. There always have been, and there probably always will be assholes in this world. It is because of THEM that we have laws in the first place. Many of us want to own guns to protect ourselves from these people. If you make guns completely illegal(I am not suggesting that you have suggested this), upstanding citizens will have none to protect themselves from the criminals WHO STILL HAVE GUNS.