SkyDekker 1,123 #426 November 26, 2003 QuoteIt is a stigmata which I believe is the direct responsibility of the mainstream media and its extreme sensationalism for cold cash. I am assuming you meant stigma since stigmata has to do with religion, bleeding hands and feet etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #427 November 26, 2003 QuoteQuoteBut humans have been killing each other for a long time now, and we're likely not going to be stopping anytime soon. But that's the point, then, isn't it? It doesn't matter about guns/knives/poison/whatever, what matters is that there are murderous hearts... And the title of this thread is still "Bowling for Columbine" which, the last time I watched, was not a film about gun control. I've mentioned several times now that it's a shame we can't drag this thread out of the "Guns are Bad" vs. "Guns are superb!" sink-hole that it seems to be stuck in. Fact is, gun-crime is higher in the states because violence is higher in the states. Gun-lovers say "You can kill with a lot more then a gun.".... then I would present that "Table related deaths" (you weren't very specific with that one Michele) are also higher in the States. That more Americans wield the knife, the vase, ... whatever, as a weapon. The sensible say: "It's not the gun, the gun is just 'the tool'. It's the person, the murder. He/she had some problems." Then I would present not that there are more people with problems in the states but that America has a much larger tendency to 'solve' their problems with violence. Let's not ban all guns... let's just ban the word... from this thread. See what you all have to say about why more Americans Shoot eachother every year without blaming "the tool". And let's not be childish. Guns can be used for all sorts of things "Watch me open my bear" -Homer J. Simpson. But they ARE an insrument of death. Let's not miss the forest for the trees, badmouthing Moore for blaming guns. That's somewhat hypocritical I think as the Gun-murder stats used by Moore were only the "tool" of his argument. The man is a marksman for gods sake!.. and a long-term member of the NRA... he's not blaming guns in "Bowling for Columbine". My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #428 November 26, 2003 But, that's not to say the analogy made by the VPC is not misleading. Justifiable homocides are defensive uses of firearms which are adjudicated by a court to be as such. The number quite possibly does not reflect defensive killings which have not been prosecuted or brought before a court for adjudication. Simply, that number tries to distract the reader from the quantitative studies of overall firearms uses in the prevention of crime, which have been thoroughly researched, observed and recorded by Prof. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck. Their studies have shown that concealed carry reduces crime in states which adopt CCW laws and that there are in excess of 2,000,000 self-defensive uses of firearms EACH YEAR. I know the folks at the VPC would love to downplay the statistical evidence documented by Lott and Kleck. But in doing so, they minimize the costs of life--"Only" 184 homocides were justifiable in 2002. More than twice that were hit by lightning. Wow, what a trivial outlook. Isn't it preferable that simply brandishing a firearm will deter a criminal? I believe it is. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #429 November 26, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe here, but not in other societies. And the root of the matter is society. Please name one other society which has the diversity in backgrounds, religions, races, creeds, colors, etc.... CUT... Already been there in this thread. Canada is by far more multicultural. Toronto is known as the most multicultural city in the world... but it ain't all that violent. (having said that, there have been two recent shootings.... makes me sad. It's nearly unheard of around here) My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #430 November 26, 2003 You're representing Canada as having a more diverse cultural, racial and religious background than the United States? Gee, I must have missed that somewhere. Please enlighten me. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #431 November 26, 2003 QuoteBut, that's not to say the analogy made by the VPC is not misleading. Justifiable homocides are defensive uses of firearms which are adjudicated by a court to be as such. The number quite possibly does not reflect defensive killings which have not been prosecuted or brought before a court for adjudication. Simply, that number tries to distract the reader from the quantitative studies of overall firearms uses in the prevention of crime, which have been thoroughly researched, observed and recorded by Prof. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck. Their studies have shown that concealed carry reduces crime in states which adopt CCW laws and that there are in excess of 2,000,000 self-defensive uses of firearms EACH YEAR. I know the folks at the VPC would love to downplay the statistical evidence documented by Lott and Kleck. But in doing so, they minimize the costs of life--"Only" 184 homocides were justifiable in 2002. More than twice that were hit by lightning. Wow, what a trivial outlook. Isn't it preferable that simply brandishing a firearm will deter a criminal? I believe it is. Look at all the words you just typed. Look at the simplicity of my repply: A point was made. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than use a gun to kill in self defense. You may chose to retort with "That's just downplaying". But it remains true. John either read hastily and didn't realise what he was replying to, or thought he could change the original point to ease bashing it. I called him on the BS. or creative editing that's all. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #432 November 26, 2003 QuoteYou are more likely to be struck by lightning than use a gun to kill in self defense. Then you missed one of my points. Justifiable homocide is the number we're talking about. Justifiable homocide is not the number times a gun was used to kill in self defense. Justifiable homocide is a time a gun was used to kill in self defense as adjudicated by a court and reported to the FBI, which deals in crime statistics. If a prosecutor does not file charges, the FBI doesn't get a number. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #433 November 26, 2003 Just for shits and grins, I looked it up. Based simply on census numbers, I disagree with your statement. Highlights: Total Population of the United States (2000): 281,421,906 Total Population of Canada (2001): 29,639,030 Total Population of whites in US: 211,460,626 Total Population of whites in Canada: 25,655,185 Minority Population Percentage of US: 25% Minority Population Percentage of Canada: 13% Nearly half of the US minority population is black. Two-thirds of Canada's minority population is of Asian decent. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #434 November 26, 2003 Quote"Table related deaths" (you weren't very specific with that one Michele) What details were you looking for, Goose? I'll supply them if it's not to personal. I'd also add that table related deaths is not a phrase I used, and the examples I supplied were simply to demonstrate that violence does not rely on guns, but rather the mentality of the violent one. QuoteAnd the title of this thread is still "Bowling for Columbine" which, the last time I watched, was not a film about gun control Agreed, the film was not about gun control. It was simply about how bad guns are, and how horrible the NRA is. It was touted as a documentary, yet it was not a documentary. It won an Academy Award in a catagory it should NOT have been entered in, and it is nothing more than a piece of fiction (see the endless discussions about what was factual v. was not factual, contained both in this thread and in others...and check out the supporting websites and articles for the actuality of the situation.) Quoteviolence is higher in the states And that, to me, is the crux of the matter. Why is that? And is that a true statement? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the studies done, independent and bias free, of violence in the US v. violence in other societies and cultures. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #435 November 26, 2003 QuoteYou're representing Canada as having a more diverse cultural, racial and religious background than the United States? Gee, I must have missed that somewhere. Please enlighten me. What do you know about Canada? Do you know anything about our history and how certain types of people came to live in different parts of the country at different times in the past? What about immigration? How has our ethnic diversity expanded there? I think you've got us on the religious aspect of your argument, but racially Canada is just as much if not much more diverse than the USA. If you want I could go into some depth about the different types of people you will encounter in your travels across Canada (if you ever found yourself traveling there), but honestly I need to start doing more work right now and less DZ.COM. But I tell you if you're interested. Canada is a very interesting country with some of the most friendly people you will ever meet (and hence the reason why many parts of the country don't feel the need to lock their doors). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #436 November 26, 2003 QuoteTotal Population of whites in US: 211,460,626 Total Population of whites in Canada: 25,655,185 Minority Population Percentage of US: 25% Minority Population Percentage of Canada: 13% Are all white people from the same ethnic background? Really? Instead of judging a person by the color of their skin, how about trying to judge and classify a set of people based on how they act and their history. You can't tell me a Newfie is the same as a someone on the prairies. Yet they both have white skin? So they must be from the same ethinic background according to your stats. Let's talk people not numbers. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #437 November 26, 2003 Quoteyada ... yada ... yada ... did you say something? I didn't hear you. Thank you for all the intellectual power you put into understanding my messages. I'll guess I'll chalk this up as this kind of a response; "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #438 November 26, 2003 QuoteBut humans have been killing each other for a long time now... Yes, every since the very first murder: Cain & Abel. They didn't have guns yet then, and the Bible isn't clear on how it was done, but it must have been with fists, a stick or a rock. The government would have a hard time regulating those objects. And then for thousands of years mankind managed to slaughter each other in great numbers, once again without guns, but with great efficiency anyway, using swords and spears. But all of a sudden the anti-gun folks think that guns are at fault for the murder problem. Go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #439 November 26, 2003 QuotePlease define what you think a "military assault weapon" is. QuoteI consider automatic weapons to be military assault weapons. But things like Tec9s or AK47s (just to name a fraction of the stuff out there) just shouldn't be on the open market. There are one-quarter million automatic firearms in private hands. They have been regulated since 1934, requiring that the owner and the firearm be registered with the government. Only *one* murder has been comitted with these legally owned firearms in over 60 years. They are not a problem! The politicians have a new definition for "assault weapons", which goes beyond yours. It applies to *sem-auto* firearms, which have a removable magazine, a bayonet lug, and flash suppressor and/or a folding stock. That's it! That's the new political definition. These are just semi-auto firearms that function exactly like any other common semi-autos. What makes them "assault" is that they have some cosmetic feature about them that makes them "look scary" to the anti-gun folks. The AR-15 is one of these so-called "assault weapons", yet there are many tens of thousands of them used in sport shooting competitions. They are the most popular high-power rifle for many forms of target shooting. So what did manufacturers have to do to make AR-15's legal under the assault weapon ban? They just had to remove the flash suppressor from the end of the barrel. That's it! Presto-Chango - it's no longer an assault weapon. Ahhhh, don't we all feel so much more safe now? The assault weapon ban is bullshit. It's about cosmetic features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is. It is not about machineguns. But the anti-gun forces managed to make the public think so in order to get them to support it, along with the complicity of the media. QuoteBut things like Tec9s or AK47s (just to name a fraction of the stuff out there) just shouldn't be on the open market. I would like to see less semi-automatic weapons out there in the public's hands. There are semi-auto versions of those guns that are perfectly legal, and functionally no different from any other semi-auto. There is no reason to fear them any more than you do any other semi-auto. It's interesting to note that previously you have claimed not to be in favor of banning any guns. Yet here you are singing a different tune now, wishing that some guns could be banned. Your facade is slipping. QuoteHey if you want to go shoot military quality weapons? Why don't you either join the military or setup some sort of system where licensed Actually, military firearms are usually less accurate than civilian firearms. They are built to looser tolerances, which aids reliabilty when they get dirt and sand in them. Thus, the idea of "military quality" in a firearm is not a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #440 November 26, 2003 QuoteI'll guess I'll chalk this up as this kind of a response; "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind!" Dude how many times do I have to say this. Neither one of us is about to change their minds on the subject. I did realize one thing though last night and that was many Americans feel safer with guns and if that's the society they want, who am I to think that I can change millions of people's opinions and almost 240 years of history. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #441 November 26, 2003 QuoteLess guns equals more crime!!!! QuoteMaybe here, but not in other societies. Oh how quickly you have forgotten my graph of gun crime in England, showing a sharp rise in incidents beginning in 1997, after all handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #442 November 26, 2003 Quote I'm sure one day, a DZ.COMer is going to pop me at a boogie. Because after reading this thread, they'll know that I'm not armed. Just because you disagree with gun owners, does not mean that gun owners want to kill you. Statements like this continue to show your unfounded paranoid fear of people who own guns. 40% of American homes have one or more guns in them. If they all acted like you expect, the other 60% of Americans would be long gone by now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #443 November 26, 2003 QuoteI'm sure one day, a DZ.COMer is going to pop me at a boogie. Because after reading this thread, they'll know that I'm not armed. Dude lighten up and taken a breather will you. Can't you recognize humor? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #444 November 26, 2003 QuoteOver 300 people are struck by lightning each year in North America. That's almost double your agreed number of 'justifiable homicides' Only if you disregard all of that information which I provided from Kleck, showing how the number of justifiable homicides reported by the FBI is grossly understated. I know it's convenient to ignore facts which don't match your beliefs, but it doesn't do much for critical analysis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #445 November 26, 2003 Quote Then you missed one of my points... That's 'cause I didn't read it. I called him on the BS. or creative editing that's all. Take your points up with Cannuck... he's the one with the lightning argument. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #446 November 26, 2003 QuoteCanada is by far more multicultural. That's not clear to me. According to my world Almanac: America: 74% - White 13% - Blacks 10% - Hispanic 4% - Asian 1% - Indian/Eskimo Canada: 40% - British 27% - French 20% - Other European 1% - Indian/Eskimo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #447 November 26, 2003 QuoteTake your points up with Cannuck... he's the one with the lightning argument. Hey leave me out of this. I'm just trying to absorb my new found realization that it's open season and that I really should be visiting my local gun shop on the way home tonight. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #448 November 26, 2003 Even though I'm on your side with the gun issue, you're a little off on the multi-cultural issue. Culture does not equal race, or even nationality of ancestors. I've spent some time in Toronto, and I've got to say, the only place close in terms of the number of different cultures represented is NYC. A neighborhood representing just about every European and Asian country can be found with 1st generation immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #449 November 26, 2003 QuoteQuote"Table related deaths" (you weren't very specific with that one Michele) What details were you looking for, Goose? I'll supply them if it's not to personal. I'd also add that table related deaths is not a phrase I used, and the examples I supplied were simply to demonstrate that violence does not rely on guns, but rather the mentality of the violent one. Oh none. I just didn't know if the person you were speaking of actually killed someone with a table rather than assaulting them... it's moot really. Sorry 'bout the quotation marks... guess they should have closed around the word "Table". Again, Moot. I agree with your stance... my posts to this thread have included, many times now, that I don't think guns are the problem. QuoteAnd the title of this thread is still "Bowling for Columbine" which, the last time I watched, was not a film about gun control Agreed, the film was not about gun control. It was simply about how bad guns are, and how horrible the NRA is. No it wasn't! No it wasn't! It's about VIOLENCE and OPPRESSION in American society? That statement is completely false. Moore doesn't think guns are bad per say. Guns are just an easy way to keep track of violence because they are tools of violence. I'm not too sure you can find stats on "table" assaults. That's all I was getting at by refering to your post. I agree that guns aren't the problem... Moore agrees that guns aren't the problem. Quoteviolence is higher in the states And that, to me, is the crux of the matter. Why is that? And is that a true statement? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the studies done, independent and bias free, of violence in the US v. violence in other societies and cultures. Well, I would present the fact that nobody in on this thread has yet contested it as proof that it is, at the very least, accepted. The Biggest question asked in Bowling was Why do more Americans shoot eachother every year than any other similar nation?... and it's all been about "Don't blame the guns!" since. That's why I say "..forest for the trees" I blame the Americans doing the shooting...and the all the ones who refuse to care, saying "It's not my fault" My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #430 November 26, 2003 You're representing Canada as having a more diverse cultural, racial and religious background than the United States? Gee, I must have missed that somewhere. Please enlighten me. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #431 November 26, 2003 QuoteBut, that's not to say the analogy made by the VPC is not misleading. Justifiable homocides are defensive uses of firearms which are adjudicated by a court to be as such. The number quite possibly does not reflect defensive killings which have not been prosecuted or brought before a court for adjudication. Simply, that number tries to distract the reader from the quantitative studies of overall firearms uses in the prevention of crime, which have been thoroughly researched, observed and recorded by Prof. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck. Their studies have shown that concealed carry reduces crime in states which adopt CCW laws and that there are in excess of 2,000,000 self-defensive uses of firearms EACH YEAR. I know the folks at the VPC would love to downplay the statistical evidence documented by Lott and Kleck. But in doing so, they minimize the costs of life--"Only" 184 homocides were justifiable in 2002. More than twice that were hit by lightning. Wow, what a trivial outlook. Isn't it preferable that simply brandishing a firearm will deter a criminal? I believe it is. Look at all the words you just typed. Look at the simplicity of my repply: A point was made. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than use a gun to kill in self defense. You may chose to retort with "That's just downplaying". But it remains true. John either read hastily and didn't realise what he was replying to, or thought he could change the original point to ease bashing it. I called him on the BS. or creative editing that's all. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #432 November 26, 2003 QuoteYou are more likely to be struck by lightning than use a gun to kill in self defense. Then you missed one of my points. Justifiable homocide is the number we're talking about. Justifiable homocide is not the number times a gun was used to kill in self defense. Justifiable homocide is a time a gun was used to kill in self defense as adjudicated by a court and reported to the FBI, which deals in crime statistics. If a prosecutor does not file charges, the FBI doesn't get a number. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #433 November 26, 2003 Just for shits and grins, I looked it up. Based simply on census numbers, I disagree with your statement. Highlights: Total Population of the United States (2000): 281,421,906 Total Population of Canada (2001): 29,639,030 Total Population of whites in US: 211,460,626 Total Population of whites in Canada: 25,655,185 Minority Population Percentage of US: 25% Minority Population Percentage of Canada: 13% Nearly half of the US minority population is black. Two-thirds of Canada's minority population is of Asian decent. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #434 November 26, 2003 Quote"Table related deaths" (you weren't very specific with that one Michele) What details were you looking for, Goose? I'll supply them if it's not to personal. I'd also add that table related deaths is not a phrase I used, and the examples I supplied were simply to demonstrate that violence does not rely on guns, but rather the mentality of the violent one. QuoteAnd the title of this thread is still "Bowling for Columbine" which, the last time I watched, was not a film about gun control Agreed, the film was not about gun control. It was simply about how bad guns are, and how horrible the NRA is. It was touted as a documentary, yet it was not a documentary. It won an Academy Award in a catagory it should NOT have been entered in, and it is nothing more than a piece of fiction (see the endless discussions about what was factual v. was not factual, contained both in this thread and in others...and check out the supporting websites and articles for the actuality of the situation.) Quoteviolence is higher in the states And that, to me, is the crux of the matter. Why is that? And is that a true statement? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the studies done, independent and bias free, of violence in the US v. violence in other societies and cultures. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #435 November 26, 2003 QuoteYou're representing Canada as having a more diverse cultural, racial and religious background than the United States? Gee, I must have missed that somewhere. Please enlighten me. What do you know about Canada? Do you know anything about our history and how certain types of people came to live in different parts of the country at different times in the past? What about immigration? How has our ethnic diversity expanded there? I think you've got us on the religious aspect of your argument, but racially Canada is just as much if not much more diverse than the USA. If you want I could go into some depth about the different types of people you will encounter in your travels across Canada (if you ever found yourself traveling there), but honestly I need to start doing more work right now and less DZ.COM. But I tell you if you're interested. Canada is a very interesting country with some of the most friendly people you will ever meet (and hence the reason why many parts of the country don't feel the need to lock their doors). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #436 November 26, 2003 QuoteTotal Population of whites in US: 211,460,626 Total Population of whites in Canada: 25,655,185 Minority Population Percentage of US: 25% Minority Population Percentage of Canada: 13% Are all white people from the same ethnic background? Really? Instead of judging a person by the color of their skin, how about trying to judge and classify a set of people based on how they act and their history. You can't tell me a Newfie is the same as a someone on the prairies. Yet they both have white skin? So they must be from the same ethinic background according to your stats. Let's talk people not numbers. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #437 November 26, 2003 Quoteyada ... yada ... yada ... did you say something? I didn't hear you. Thank you for all the intellectual power you put into understanding my messages. I'll guess I'll chalk this up as this kind of a response; "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #438 November 26, 2003 QuoteBut humans have been killing each other for a long time now... Yes, every since the very first murder: Cain & Abel. They didn't have guns yet then, and the Bible isn't clear on how it was done, but it must have been with fists, a stick or a rock. The government would have a hard time regulating those objects. And then for thousands of years mankind managed to slaughter each other in great numbers, once again without guns, but with great efficiency anyway, using swords and spears. But all of a sudden the anti-gun folks think that guns are at fault for the murder problem. Go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #439 November 26, 2003 QuotePlease define what you think a "military assault weapon" is. QuoteI consider automatic weapons to be military assault weapons. But things like Tec9s or AK47s (just to name a fraction of the stuff out there) just shouldn't be on the open market. There are one-quarter million automatic firearms in private hands. They have been regulated since 1934, requiring that the owner and the firearm be registered with the government. Only *one* murder has been comitted with these legally owned firearms in over 60 years. They are not a problem! The politicians have a new definition for "assault weapons", which goes beyond yours. It applies to *sem-auto* firearms, which have a removable magazine, a bayonet lug, and flash suppressor and/or a folding stock. That's it! That's the new political definition. These are just semi-auto firearms that function exactly like any other common semi-autos. What makes them "assault" is that they have some cosmetic feature about them that makes them "look scary" to the anti-gun folks. The AR-15 is one of these so-called "assault weapons", yet there are many tens of thousands of them used in sport shooting competitions. They are the most popular high-power rifle for many forms of target shooting. So what did manufacturers have to do to make AR-15's legal under the assault weapon ban? They just had to remove the flash suppressor from the end of the barrel. That's it! Presto-Chango - it's no longer an assault weapon. Ahhhh, don't we all feel so much more safe now? The assault weapon ban is bullshit. It's about cosmetic features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is. It is not about machineguns. But the anti-gun forces managed to make the public think so in order to get them to support it, along with the complicity of the media. QuoteBut things like Tec9s or AK47s (just to name a fraction of the stuff out there) just shouldn't be on the open market. I would like to see less semi-automatic weapons out there in the public's hands. There are semi-auto versions of those guns that are perfectly legal, and functionally no different from any other semi-auto. There is no reason to fear them any more than you do any other semi-auto. It's interesting to note that previously you have claimed not to be in favor of banning any guns. Yet here you are singing a different tune now, wishing that some guns could be banned. Your facade is slipping. QuoteHey if you want to go shoot military quality weapons? Why don't you either join the military or setup some sort of system where licensed Actually, military firearms are usually less accurate than civilian firearms. They are built to looser tolerances, which aids reliabilty when they get dirt and sand in them. Thus, the idea of "military quality" in a firearm is not a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #440 November 26, 2003 QuoteI'll guess I'll chalk this up as this kind of a response; "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind!" Dude how many times do I have to say this. Neither one of us is about to change their minds on the subject. I did realize one thing though last night and that was many Americans feel safer with guns and if that's the society they want, who am I to think that I can change millions of people's opinions and almost 240 years of history. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #441 November 26, 2003 QuoteLess guns equals more crime!!!! QuoteMaybe here, but not in other societies. Oh how quickly you have forgotten my graph of gun crime in England, showing a sharp rise in incidents beginning in 1997, after all handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #442 November 26, 2003 Quote I'm sure one day, a DZ.COMer is going to pop me at a boogie. Because after reading this thread, they'll know that I'm not armed. Just because you disagree with gun owners, does not mean that gun owners want to kill you. Statements like this continue to show your unfounded paranoid fear of people who own guns. 40% of American homes have one or more guns in them. If they all acted like you expect, the other 60% of Americans would be long gone by now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #443 November 26, 2003 QuoteI'm sure one day, a DZ.COMer is going to pop me at a boogie. Because after reading this thread, they'll know that I'm not armed. Dude lighten up and taken a breather will you. Can't you recognize humor? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #444 November 26, 2003 QuoteOver 300 people are struck by lightning each year in North America. That's almost double your agreed number of 'justifiable homicides' Only if you disregard all of that information which I provided from Kleck, showing how the number of justifiable homicides reported by the FBI is grossly understated. I know it's convenient to ignore facts which don't match your beliefs, but it doesn't do much for critical analysis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #445 November 26, 2003 Quote Then you missed one of my points... That's 'cause I didn't read it. I called him on the BS. or creative editing that's all. Take your points up with Cannuck... he's the one with the lightning argument. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #446 November 26, 2003 QuoteCanada is by far more multicultural. That's not clear to me. According to my world Almanac: America: 74% - White 13% - Blacks 10% - Hispanic 4% - Asian 1% - Indian/Eskimo Canada: 40% - British 27% - French 20% - Other European 1% - Indian/Eskimo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #447 November 26, 2003 QuoteTake your points up with Cannuck... he's the one with the lightning argument. Hey leave me out of this. I'm just trying to absorb my new found realization that it's open season and that I really should be visiting my local gun shop on the way home tonight. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #448 November 26, 2003 Even though I'm on your side with the gun issue, you're a little off on the multi-cultural issue. Culture does not equal race, or even nationality of ancestors. I've spent some time in Toronto, and I've got to say, the only place close in terms of the number of different cultures represented is NYC. A neighborhood representing just about every European and Asian country can be found with 1st generation immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #449 November 26, 2003 QuoteQuote"Table related deaths" (you weren't very specific with that one Michele) What details were you looking for, Goose? I'll supply them if it's not to personal. I'd also add that table related deaths is not a phrase I used, and the examples I supplied were simply to demonstrate that violence does not rely on guns, but rather the mentality of the violent one. Oh none. I just didn't know if the person you were speaking of actually killed someone with a table rather than assaulting them... it's moot really. Sorry 'bout the quotation marks... guess they should have closed around the word "Table". Again, Moot. I agree with your stance... my posts to this thread have included, many times now, that I don't think guns are the problem. QuoteAnd the title of this thread is still "Bowling for Columbine" which, the last time I watched, was not a film about gun control Agreed, the film was not about gun control. It was simply about how bad guns are, and how horrible the NRA is. No it wasn't! No it wasn't! It's about VIOLENCE and OPPRESSION in American society? That statement is completely false. Moore doesn't think guns are bad per say. Guns are just an easy way to keep track of violence because they are tools of violence. I'm not too sure you can find stats on "table" assaults. That's all I was getting at by refering to your post. I agree that guns aren't the problem... Moore agrees that guns aren't the problem. Quoteviolence is higher in the states And that, to me, is the crux of the matter. Why is that? And is that a true statement? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the studies done, independent and bias free, of violence in the US v. violence in other societies and cultures. Well, I would present the fact that nobody in on this thread has yet contested it as proof that it is, at the very least, accepted. The Biggest question asked in Bowling was Why do more Americans shoot eachother every year than any other similar nation?... and it's all been about "Don't blame the guns!" since. That's why I say "..forest for the trees" I blame the Americans doing the shooting...and the all the ones who refuse to care, saying "It's not my fault" My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #450 November 26, 2003 QuoteQuoteOver 300 people are struck by lightning each year in North America. That's almost double your agreed number of 'justifiable homicides' Only if you disregard all of that information which I provided from Kleck, showing how the number of justifiable homicides reported by the FBI is grossly understated. I know it's convenient to ignore facts which don't match your beliefs, but it doesn't do much for critical analysis. Dude! You changed what the man said in order to negate it... didn't you? He said 'struck by lightning' and you changed it to 'killed by lighting' That's all I was calling you on. Frankly, I don't care about what you had posted except that you had messed with someones statements to debunk them and I called you on it. If I must though... You had agreed to some 143 'justifiable homicides' and then put all that Kleck info up to... do you think the Kleck info would possibly bump that number to over 300? I don't think so. Therefore, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than use a gun to kill in self defense and that's that! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
