JohnRich 4 #151 February 9, 2004 QuoteHave you ever shot anyone? No. Don't want to. Hope I never have to. I have had one occasion where I needed to shoot someone, but I didn't carry a gun at that time. And several other occasions where I had a gun in my hand in case I needed to use it, such as when someone tried to smash out my apartment's glass patio doors with a rock in middle of the night. QuoteI decided that I would rather be shot than shoot someone To each his own. I am all in favor of you having the right to make your own self-defense choices. I just want the anti-gun folks to allow others to make their own choice to have a gun for self-defense. It's all about freedom of choice. The anti-gun folks want to remove that freedom of choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #152 February 9, 2004 QuoteI don't expect to find myself in a situation where I might get shot at as I no longer work in dangerous neighborhoods No victim of a violent assault ever expected it to happen to them. And violent crimes don't just happen in "dangerous" neighborhoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #153 February 9, 2004 I'm going to step in and steal this away for a sec. I just realized that according to those definitions, I have never handled a firearm in my life. Quote(3) The term ''firearm'' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; Every "gun" I've ever handled and fired used a combustible, not an explosive. Black powder is explosive, but I've never shot black powder. Modern gundpowder creates force through combustion, not through explosion. Hmmm... I wonder if that means the BATFE will leave us all alone now... Yeah, and maybe newcasters will start being accurate. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #154 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd how about providing an answer to my previous question: "Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?" Now I know "The Truth". I am so grateful that you deign to reveal the Truth to me. Once again you dodge a tough question. Why is it that you are so afraid of giving direct answers to direct questions? Your failure to do so, makes you an irrelevant participant in this debate. It isn't just me that pointed out the truth to you; several others have pointed it out to you also. You seem to have accepted that truth at one point. Yet despite that fact, you can't seem to bring yourself to answer a question that would place you on the pro-gun side of the issue. And that is quite curious, coming from someone who claims to be in favor of gun ownership. So that leads me to believe that this is what is going on here: You aren't really pro-gun, and you said that only to deflect criticism away from yourself. In fact, you are so anti-gun, that even when the fallacy of your position has been proven, you still can't bring yourself to admit it. Your psyche just won't allow you to admit that something is wrong with the anti-gun argument on this so-called "assault weapon" ban. And that, yet again, makes your arguments here irrelevant and lacking in credibility. If you can't admit the truth when it stares you right in the face, then nothing you say can have any credibilty. Here is one more opportunity for you to acknowlege the truth, from one of those independent sources you so highly prize; Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 921: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html Note definition number 30. After reviewing that material, I'll give you one last chance to save your credibility and provide a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question: "Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?" Please provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer. No more game-playing, and no more deflections. Yes. That was obvious to everyone except you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #155 February 9, 2004 QuoteI'm going to step in and steal this away for a sec. I just realized that according to those definitions, I have never handled a firearm in my life. Quote(3) The term ''firearm'' means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; Every "gun" I've ever handled and fired used a combustible, not an explosive. Black powder is explosive, but I've never shot black powder. Modern gundpowder creates force through combustion, not through explosion. Hmmm... I wonder if that means the BATFE will leave us all alone now... Don't bet on it. Model rocket fuel doesn't explode either, but BATFE has it nicely restricted now. In fact the NH State Police did an experiment on APCP rocket propellant at the request of their fire marshal's office, and they could not make it explode even when set off with a blasting cap or det. cord. And still BATFE regulates it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #156 February 9, 2004 QuoteDon't bet on it. Model rocket fuel doesn't explode either, but BATFE has it nicely restricted now. In fact the NH State Police did an experiment on APCP rocket propellant at the request of their fire marshal's office, and they could not make it explode even when set off with a blasting cap or det. cord. And still BATFE regulates it. I wasn't betting on it, hence the newscasters and accuracy statement. It is a nice thought, though... too bad they have a bunch of retarded s running the house.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #157 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuote"Now that you know the truth, are you opposed to renewing the so-called "assault weapon" ban, which really only banned folding stocks, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?" Please provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer. No more game-playing, and no more deflections. Yes. That was obvious to everyone except you. Thank you for that straight-forward answer. Finally. It was not already obvious to "everyone else", because at least one other person besides myself indicated that he would like to see you answer that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #158 February 10, 2004 From the NRA magazine: More Guns - Less Crime! (my own title) For years, "gun control" supporters have argued that an increased collection of statistics would enable them to make a convincing argument for more restrictions on the right to arms. Just the opposite is true. Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the United States has risen by about 70 million, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms ("Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002"). That includes about 30 million handguns and hundreds of thousands of semiautomatics mislabeled as "assault weapons," the two particular types of guns that gun prohibition groups want outlawed first. Also since 1991, the number of states that have Right-To-Carry laws has risen from 17 to 36, and the share of the U.S. population that lives in Right-To-Carry states has doubled from less than 30 percent to nearly 60 percent. In other words: more gun owners, more guns, more Right-To-Carry states, and more people carrying guns. And the effect on crime? According to the FBI, the nation's violent crime rate has decreased 12 straight years and is now at a 26-year low. Overall, between 1991-2002, the total violent crime rate dropped 35 percent, with each category of violent crime experiencing significant decreases: murder by 43 percent, rape by 22 percent, robbery by 47 percent and aggravated assault by 28 percent. Based upon National Crime Victimization Surveys, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports violent crime at an even more impressive 30-year low ("Criminal Victimization", 2002). Federal and state government studies and local police department reports have always shown that "assault weapons" have been used in too small a percentage of crime to have any bearing on total crime rates. And government studies show that most criminals get their guns illegally; not from Brady Act-regulated firearm dealers, but from personal acquaintances, black market transactions and theft. And to make matters worse for gun prohibitionists, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-once a reliable advocate of virtually any "gun control" scheme recently reported that it could find no evidence that "gun control" has had any effect on crime trends in America. All in all, if you're an anti-gunner these days, the numbers just don't add up. * * * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Croc 0 #159 February 10, 2004 "I can't fathom your way of thinking on this subject." No problem--maybe this is my midlife crisis. After fifteen years in the NRA and other gun rights groups, I am going off the offensive. Hell, I'm even going off the defensive. You are right, but yours is just one perspective. Trust me, later on you may feel differently. It's a kind of fear, isn't it? A fear that someone is going to take something from you, in this case a "right"--a piece of fiction invented by John Locke during the Age of Reason. Even Jefferson did not believe in the phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," but Franklin convinced him to add those words. I no longer believe in any of that. And, I am not opposed to those who do. It is human nature to divide the world into halves: us and them, Christians and Jews, black and white, whuffos and skygods. It gives us a sense of identity to know who our enemies are. We are Democrats, they are Republicans. It's the same everywhere. I'm just through with all that. It's very liberating--like freefall--to let all that palaver go on without me."Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so." Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #160 February 10, 2004 QuoteFrom the NRA magazine: Well, thanks for using an unbiased source. Quote All in all, if you're an anti-gunner these days, the numbers just don't add up. * * * Don't add up whoever you are. Even you claim an effect and then cite a study showing no effect. All in all, "no conclusion possible" seems most likely.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #161 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteFrom the NRA magazine: Well, thanks for using an unbiased source. The source is irrelevant. The facts are correct, and the source for those facts were quoted: government reports. I don't know how you could have missed that. It must be those anti-gun filter glasses you're wearing that make you see what you want to read, rather than what is actually being said. Any professor should know that one should examine the arguments being made, and not dismiss them simply because of who is saying them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #162 February 10, 2004 ad hominem attacks anyone?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
