1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Michael Moore using death.

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by drslash, Oct 25, 2002.

  1. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    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

    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.
  2. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    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.
  3. jamming

    jamming Banned

    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.
  4. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    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.
  5. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Thanks for the link MikeKy, for those who missed it.
    Then from a link off that page:
    And then this, which I used in another argument elsewhere:
    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.
  6. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    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

    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?
  7. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    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.
  8. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    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.
  9. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    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

    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
  10. Sir Joseph

    Sir Joseph Registered User

    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.
  11. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    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.
  12. EMIG

    EMIG Yup

  13. -Ken

    -Ken Guest


    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.
  14. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    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
  15. Kangaroo

    Kangaroo Passed Away June 15th, 2009

    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.
  16. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    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.
  17. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    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.

Share This Page