| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:07:03 PM |
|
|
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million defense gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with a gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
Now stop asking stupid questions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:18:37 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051307039694%spam@aol.com...
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all
current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty
minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law
enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something
is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million defense
gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with a
gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
Now stop asking stupid questions.
Sorry, but I seem to have missed the part where they added up the benefits.
Oh, I see where they discounted such benefits, but such benefits do exist.
As shown by the statistics presented to you.
So tell me what is the savings in all those people NOT injured by criminals?
Why didn't your sources address those monetary benefits?
I mean it's nice that your source makes up numbers for the damages and then
discounts any benefits, but that hardly means that the benefits don't
outweigh the costs.
Care to include the costs savings of avoiding tyranny into those
calculations of yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:25:37 PM |
|
|
In article <s7OdnZVeP4Ncv2ncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051307039694%spam@aol.com...
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all
current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty
minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law
enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something
is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million defense
gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with a
gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
Now stop asking stupid questions.
Sorry, but I seem to have missed the part where they added up the benefits.
Oh, I see where they discounted such benefits, but such benefits do exist.
As shown by the statistics presented to you.
You seem to miss everything you don't want to be true.
So tell me what is the savings in all those people NOT injured by criminals?
Nonsensical.
Why didn't your sources address those monetary benefits?
Maybe it is a left wing conspiracy?
I mean it's nice that your source makes up numbers for the damages and then
discounts any benefits, but that hardly means that the benefits don't
outweigh the costs.
See? More denial? What makes you think they are "made up?" More
wishful thinking?
Care to include the costs savings of avoiding tyranny into those
calculations of yours?
What does tyranny have to do with this? You are getting pretty
desperate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:59:41 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051425372504%spam@aol.com...
In article <s7OdnZVeP4Ncv2ncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051307039694%spam@aol.com...
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all
current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty
minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law
enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic,
something
is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million
defense
gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with
a
gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion
that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
Now stop asking stupid questions.
Sorry, but I seem to have missed the part where they added up the
benefits.
Oh, I see where they discounted such benefits, but such benefits do
exist.
As shown by the statistics presented to you.
You seem to miss everything you don't want to be true.
Hard not to miss when it's not there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:01:46 PM |
|
|
In article <mbidnRgqtaT_sWncRVn-vw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051425372504%spam@aol.com...
In article <s7OdnZVeP4Ncv2ncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051307039694%spam@aol.com...
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all
current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty
minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law
enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic,
something
is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million
defense
gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with
a
gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion
that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
Now stop asking stupid questions.
Sorry, but I seem to have missed the part where they added up the
benefits.
Oh, I see where they discounted such benefits, but such benefits do
exist.
As shown by the statistics presented to you.
You seem to miss everything you don't want to be true.
Hard not to miss when it's not there.
More denial?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 01:55:01 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million defense gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with a gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
When you cite an organization that claims 15 or 16 deaths per day of
children or 5,480 deaths per year and the actual number of deaths for
children aged 0-14 in 2000 was 174, something smells bad about your numbers.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 01:51:34 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <vYGdnfkjSZM3kmncRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050946353597%spam@aol.com...
In article <hdqdnWdRvvsufG7cRVn-tg@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
According to whom???
Statisticians
Really?
Yeah - really.
Would those be the statistician who say we have 1.5-2.5 million defense gun
uses each year and indicate that a person who defends themselves with a gun
is 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see your statistics on the assertion that
their dangers outweighs their usefulness.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HarvardNoteAmmo1.htm
You mean this cite?
"Absolute liability of ammunition manufacturers represents a novel and
aggressive way to address the epidemic of firearm injuries.[101] Neither
the data nor this proposal calls for a ban of any type of ammunition or
firearm. To the contrary, the proposal recognizes that firearms and
ammunition have utility and that "some amount of private gun possession
would probably be better than complete disarmament."[102] Nevertheless,
there are significant costs associated with bullets, many of which are
not borne by owners and users themselves. The proposed Act allocates
these costs to manufacturers and consumers jointly as a means of dealing
with the mounting epidemic of firearm injuries."
http://www.amsa.org/programs/gpit/gunviolence.cfm
You this misleading statistical paper?
"One child in America dies from a gunshot wound every 90 minutes, and 30
children and adolescents under age 19 - a school classroom - die every
two days as a result of firearms."
That equals 16 per day....or 5,480 per year. Care to post any statistic
that shows children dying at that rate in the US? Apparently the
standard definition of a child as being between death and puberty
applies everywhere but when one is discussing firearms deaths. To get
to that every 90 minute number, one has to include children as being old
enough to vote, be police officers, drink, marry, attend college or be
sent to die on foreign soil by our president. The other number totals
up to 15 per day. You cannot get there even including those up to age
19. Try looking at the actual stats.
Now stop asking stupid questions.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 06:29:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:33:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 01:02:59 AM |
|
|
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 05:54:37 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<250120052302593707%spam@aol.com>...
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
You want to restict personal liberties by banning law abiding citizens
from owning guns. What are *you* afraid of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:11:10 PM |
|
|
In article <726cceb5.0502111554.5a8bd80d@posting.google.com>, Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<250120052302593707%spam@aol.com>...
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
You want to restict personal liberties by banning law abiding citizens
from owning guns.
What "personal liberty" would that be?
What are *you* afraid of?
Nothing at all. That is why I don't need a gun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:45:07 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051911107157%spam@aol.com:
In article <726cceb5.0502111554.5a8bd80d@posting.google.com>, Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<250120052302593707%spam@aol.com>...
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
You want to restict personal liberties by banning law abiding citizens
from owning guns.
What "personal liberty" would that be?
The right to defend oneself.
What are *you* afraid of?
Nothing at all.
Liar. You are afraid of law abiding citizens owning guns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 10:42:48 PM |
|
|
In article <420e86f3@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051911107157%spam@aol.com:
In article <726cceb5.0502111554.5a8bd80d@posting.google.com>, Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<250120052302593707%spam@aol.com>...
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
You want to restict personal liberties by banning law abiding citizens
from owning guns.
What "personal liberty" would that be?
The right to defend oneself.
Where do you get that from?
What are *you* afraid of?
Nothing at all.
Liar. You are afraid of law abiding citizens owning guns.
Whatever you say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Two Bears" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 11:14:03 PM |
|
|
Davey No Brains mewed:
What are you so afraid of?
reply
We're afraid of assholes like you hanging around our children.
ta tah...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:17:46 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
People with your attitude being police officers.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:02:59 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <61pdv01bk5cg8ov5u4nfeu99rbuh1fcbdi@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
What are you so afraid of?
I think the question is what are you afraid of. As myself, one of the
few things that fucking scare me are ***** ticks. So. Are you happy
now?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 07:45:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:29:19 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:33:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
How
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 07:46:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:29:19 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:33:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
How many documented cases are there of someone saving his own life
with the use of handgun?
How many documented cases are there of someone being killed with a
handgun?
--
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:17:20 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:29:19 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:33:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
Keep the people defenseless for their own good!
How many documented cases are there of someone saving his own life
with the use of handgun?
Even your own government (in a survey not even designed to collect such
data) estimates between 80,000 and 108,000 per year.
How many documented cases are there of someone being killed with a
handgun?
About 9,000 per year.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:25:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:17:20 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
How many documented cases are there of someone saving his own life
with the use of handgun?
Even your own government (in a survey not even designed to collect such
data) estimates between 80,000 and 108,000 per year.
So none, then.
How many documented cases are there of someone being killed with a
handgun?
About 9,000 per year.
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:02:51 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:17:20 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
How many documented cases are there of someone saving his own life
with the use of handgun?
Even your own government (in a survey not even designed to collect such
data) estimates between 80,000 and 108,000 per year.
So none, then.
How many documented cases are there of someone being killed with a
handgun?
About 9,000 per year.
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:31:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:02:51 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
No, your ability to understand math is.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 08:20:38 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:a2hgv09g50d20o6b03jdbg1g98n7k7cntr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:02:51 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill
me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
No, your ability to understand math is.
Odds of 900:0 is infinity. According to you there is NO chance my guns can
protect me, and every chance they will kill me. So why am I still alive?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:14:35 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:a2hgv09g50d20o6b03jdbg1g98n7k7cntr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:02:51 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill
me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
No, your ability to understand math is.
Odds of 900:0 is infinity. According to you there is NO chance my guns can
protect me, and every chance they will kill me. So why am I still alive?
Damn, you just busted his brain. He will have to reset it.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 05:11:11 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gN2dnSXsgojmvGTcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:a2hgv09g50d20o6b03jdbg1g98n7k7cntr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:02:51 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill
me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but
I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
No, your ability to understand math is.
Odds of 900:0 is infinity. According to you there is NO chance my guns
can protect me, and every chance they will kill me. So why am I still
alive?
Damn, you just busted his brain. He will have to reset it.
I think it was busted long before it got to me. I also doubt a reset will
fix the problems that are wrong with his brain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:14:03 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:02:51 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:146gv09fienp76bg4vrg1jhd3tj51kdqn9@4ax.com...
So the documented odds are 9,000 to 0 that your firearm will kill you,
not protect you.
Then why am I not dead?
According to you the odds are absolute certainty that my guns would kill me.
Yet, I've owned guns for many decades and not only am I not dead, but I've
never been shot by one either.
Are my guns defective?
No, your ability to understand m | | | | | | | |
