| 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: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 08:06:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:05:44 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1108060119.643692.8580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1108050926.228809.61570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David Lentz wrote:
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108045095.018570.35310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David Lentz wrote:
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You
have
made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion
that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly
determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported
by
actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no
substitute.
It is a sad fact in that in many localities if you report
using a
gun
to
stop a crime, the police will ignore the criminal and arrest
you.
David
Would this be in localities with gun bans in place?
Well no city actually ban guns. For example in Chicago you have
a
gun if
you donate to the mayor's reelection campaign. The so-called
gun
bans, are
not designed to eliminate guns only to restict the the
politically
favored.
For example while many politicians talk of banning guns, most of
them
remained armed. Gun grabbers don't want to surrender their guns.
They want
to take yours.
David
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Are there laws, then, in some
places that make it illegal to chase off a would-be criminal (no
shots
fired) if the would-be victim reports it?
Brandishing a firearm is illegal in most states, if that is what you
mean.
I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure of the legal meaning of "brandish".
The dictionary meaning, as I'm sure you know, is to shake or wave [the
weapon] menacingly. If someone were to attempt a hold-up, say with a
knife, and the victim pulled from his pocket a gun instead of a wallet,
thus discouraging the possible crime - is that "brandishing"?
Here is California's law, for instance:
417. (a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense,
Therefore, chasing off a criminal is not "brandishing"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 10:46:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:29:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1108050926.228809.61570@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Are there laws, then, in some
places that make it illegal to chase off a would-be criminal (no shots
fired) if the would-be victim reports it?
Brandishing a firearm is illegal in most states, if that is what you
mean.
That's not brandishing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 10:27:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it would be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which you base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no substitute.
Common sense is evidence. We aren't all sheep. We don't need to have
everything told to us.
Do you support people having rocket launchers, too?
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone broke into a
home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most cases,
shooting a
burglar will land you in jail). You can find some weird instance
were
a guy is attacked by a bear in his backyard and, lucky for him,
he
just
happened to have an AK-47 with him.
According to government statistics, you are correct that there are
relatively few cases where a citizen has killed another in
self-defense. On the other hand, the cases where a citizen didn't
need
to kill another, or even shoot at them, but successfully defended
themself reportedly are greater in number by far than the number of
deaths involving firearms.
The "unreported" cases, right?
I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring here. If you mean that
not all cases where a gun was used in self-defense are reported to the
police, it wouldn't surprise me at all. (I'll confess that I'm guilty
of using 'common sense' here.)
No problem there. As above, it is valid. We aren't all sheep. We
don't need to have everything told to us.
Granted, if this is the case, it would
make the benefits/costs study more difficult, but certainly not
impossible.
But when you weigh those RARE
cases against the common cases where a person gets mad at his or
her
spouse and, in a fit of rage, kills the spouse, or when a child
is
playing with the weapon, which children always do, and shoots
himself
or his friend, or when some guy cuts you off on the freeway and
you
lose it for a moment and jump out and shoot them, or when a child
grabs
a gun and goes to a school to shoot the schoolyard bully, it
isn't
worth it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, accidental deaths
involving firearms are about 1000 per year (I haven't looked at the
figures for quite a while, so I may be misremembering them, or they
could have changed). Something like 17000 firearm related deaths
are
suicide, and another 12000 are murders. The types of situations
you
mention above tend to get a lot of media coverage, but are likely
to be
relatively uncommon.
Lets not forget those that are paralyzed, maimed, etc.
No argument from me on that.
Don't get me wrong here - a parent's worst nightmare is losing his
or
her child. Guns need to be kept away from unsupervised young
children,
which is what responsible parents do (not unlike keeping young
children
away from medicine and poisonous substances).
Handguns need to be controlled.
Right. The issue is: who does the controlling.
The people - through the government.
If you agree guns need to be controlled, why is that?
As a society, we weight the value of things constantly. Guns are
the
same. Society would simply be a better and safer place without
all
these angry, insecure, gun nuts running around.
What about the hunters? Yeah. I understand. I hunt. I
wouldn't
like
it either. But if that is what it takes - I will give up my
shotgun.
I used to be a police officer. I have a weapons permit. I can
own
and
carry a concealed handgun. I don't. When I left the force I
sold it
to another officer. I felt I couldn't advocate gun control if I,
as
a
civilian, kept a handgun.
Well, I've never owned a gun, and I don't hunt. But I am leary of
prohibition, given its track record, particularly when the vast
majority of the owners/users of whatever is prohibited do no harm.
Not the point. It doesn't matter how many people own them. Balance
their utilitarian value.
Unfortunately, this type of reasoning can be used to justify many types
of prohibition. Alcohol - or the abuse thereof - causes all kinds of
health and other social issues. Alcohol and driving don't mix well,
for instance. Many of the anger crimes you mentioned earlier have
alcohol in the equation. The cure of prohibition, however, proved to
be worse than the disease. This should not be repeated, unless the
outcome is known to be different.
In that sense, it does indeed matter how many people own them.
It SHOULD be used.
Funny, though. I've never needed it. Maybe I WILL need it some
day?
Sure. Maybe I'll need some plutonium, too. But for the sake of
society, I'll just have to do without it.
Well, I won't get you any plutonium for Christmas. Thanks for your
reply.
Thanks.
Thank you again for your reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 04:11:24 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:100220050827141942%spam@aol.com...
In article <1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it would be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which you base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no substitute.
Common sense is evidence.
Common sense is the means that the ignorant use to arrive at a false
conclusion 99.9% of the time.
Common sense tells us the Earth is flat. Common sense tells us that the Sun
goes around the Earth. Common sense tells us that big ***** planes can't fly.
Common sense tells us that space ships can't work because they will have
nothing to push against in a vacuum.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 12:22:13 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding
the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been.
Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their
SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess
you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have
happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier
to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have
been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at
their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of
sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation
does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment
will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that
guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are
you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it would
be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which you
base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have
made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly
determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by
actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no
substitute.
Common sense is evidence.
Common sense said that alcohol prohibition would end the social
problems associated with alcohol. It didn't; in fact, it made things
worse. I want to be sure that any new prohibitions will not also
backfire.
We aren't all sheep. We don't need to have
everything told to us.
Of course. But to make an informed decision, one needs information.
I'm not advocating having the government or some non-government entity
tell me what it thinks is best. I'm advocating that people get the
relevant data so they can make intelligent decisions.
Do you support people having rocket launchers, too?
This would be a strawman argument, and should have no place in our
hitherto civilized discussion.
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone broke
into a
home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most cases,
shooting a
burglar will land you in jail). You can find some weird
instance
were
a guy is attacked by a bear in his backyard and, lucky for
him,
he
just
happened to have an AK-47 with him.
According to government statistics, you are correct that there
are
relatively few cases where a citizen has killed another in
self-defense. On the other hand, the cases where a citizen
didn't
need
to kill another, or even shoot at them, but successfully
defended
themself reportedly are greater in number by far than the
number of
deaths involving firearms.
The "unreported" cases, right?
I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring here. If you mean
that
not all cases where a gun was used in self-defense are reported to
the
police, it wouldn't surprise me at all. (I'll confess that I'm
guilty
of using 'common sense' here.)
No problem there. As above, it is valid. We aren't all sheep. We
don't need to have everything told to us.
See above: seeking information on a particular subject is not the
action of a sheep.
Granted, if this is the case, it would
make the benefits/costs study more difficult, but certainly not
impossible.
But when you weigh those RARE
cases against the common cases where a person gets mad at his
or
her
spouse and, in a fit of rage, kills the spouse, or when a
child
is
playing with the weapon, which children always do, and shoots
himself
or his friend, or when some guy cuts you off on the freeway
and
you
lose it for a moment and jump out and shoot them, or when a
child
grabs
a gun and goes to a school to shoot the schoolyard bully, it
isn't
worth it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, accidental deaths
involving firearms are about 1000 per year (I haven't looked at
the
figures for quite a while, so I may be misremembering them, or
they
could have changed). Something like 17000 firearm related
deaths
are
suicide, and another 12000 are murders. The types of
situations
you
mention above tend to get a lot of media coverage, but are
likely
to be
relatively uncommon.
Lets not forget those that are paralyzed, maimed, etc.
No argument from me on that.
Don't get me wrong here - a parent's worst nightmare is losing
his
or
her child. Guns need to be kept away from unsupervised young
children,
which is what responsible parents do (not unlike keeping young
children
away from medicine and poisonous substances).
Handguns need to be controlled.
Right. The issue is: who does the controlling.
The people - through the government.
That is one option.
If you agree guns need to be controlled, why is that?
I apologize: you lost me on this one. Why is what?
As a society, we weight the value of things constantly. Guns
are
the
same. Society would simply be a better and safer place
without
all
these angry, insecure, gun nuts running around.
What about the hunters? Yeah. I understand. I hunt. I
wouldn't
like
it either. But if that is what it takes - I will give up my
shotgun.
I used to be a police officer. I have a weapons permit. I
can
own
and
carry a concealed handgun. I don't. When I left the force I
sold it
to another officer. I felt I couldn't advocate gun control
if I,
as
a
civilian, kept a handgun.
Well, I've never owned a gun, and I don't hunt. But I am leary
of
prohibition, given its track record, particularly when the vast
majority of the owners/users of whatever is prohibited do no
harm.
Not the point. It doesn't matter how many people own them.
Balance
their utilitarian value.
Unfortunately, this type of reasoning can be used to justify many
types
of prohibition. Alcohol - or the abuse thereof - causes all kinds
of
health and other social issues. Alcohol and driving don't mix
well,
for instance. Many of the anger crimes you mentioned earlier have
alcohol in the equation. The cure of prohibition, however, proved
to
be worse than the disease. This should not be repeated, unless the
outcome is known to be different.
In that sense, it does indeed matter how many people own them.
It SHOULD be used.
Again, I apologize: what should be used? Common sense? Prohibition?
The fact that the majority of gun owners are not a source of trouble?
Funny, though. I've never needed it. Maybe I WILL need it
some
day?
Sure. Maybe I'll need some plutonium, too. But for the sake
of
society, I'll just have to do without it.
Well, I won't get you any plutonium for Christmas. Thanks for
your
reply.
Thanks.
Thank you again for your reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 10:05:43 PM |
|
|
In article <1108059733.926435.227760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding
the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been.
Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their
SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess
you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have
happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier
to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have
been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at
their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of
sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation
does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment
will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that
guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are
you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it would
be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which you
base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have
made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly
determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by
actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no
substitute.
Common sense is evidence.
Common sense said that alcohol prohibition would end the social
problems associated with alcohol.
Stop propogandizing. That wasn't the reason alcohol was banned.
It didn't; in fact, it made things
worse. I want to be sure that any new prohibitions will not also
backfire.
Wrong. It works in other countries, Right Wing propaganda
notwithstanding.
We aren't all sheep. We don't need to have
everything told to us.
Of course. But to make an informed decision, one needs information.
We have that.
I'm not advocating having the government or some non-government entity
tell me what it thinks is best. I'm advocating that people get the
relevant data so they can make intelligent decisions.
It is there, and I have read it.
Do you support people having rocket launchers, too?
This would be a strawman argument, and should have no place in our
hitherto civilized discussion.
Not at all. You argument applies to Rocket Launchers, too. Rocket
Launchers don't kill people, people kill people. "Murder is means
independent."
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone broke
into a
home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most cases,
shooting a
burglar will land you in jail). You can find some weird
instance
were
a guy is attacked by a bear in his backyard and, lucky for
him,
he
just
happened to have an AK-47 with him.
According to government statistics, you are correct that there
are
relatively few cases where a citizen has killed another in
self-defense. On the other hand, the cases where a citizen
didn't
need
to kill another, or even shoot at them, but successfully
defended
themself reportedly are greater in number by far than the
number of
deaths involving firearms.
The "unreported" cases, right?
I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring here. If you mean
that
not all cases where a gun was used in self-defense are reported to
the
police, it wouldn't surprise me at all. (I'll confess that I'm
guilty
of using 'common sense' here.)
No problem there. As above, it is valid. We aren't all sheep. We
don't need to have everything told to us.
See above: seeking information on a particular subject is not the
action of a sheep.
Granted, if this is the case, it would
make the benefits/costs study more difficult, but certainly not
impossible.
But when you weigh those RARE
cases against the common cases where a person gets mad at his
or
her
spouse and, in a fit of rage, kills the spouse, or when a
child
is
playing with the weapon, which children always do, and shoots
himself
or his friend, or when some guy cuts you off on the freeway
and
you
lose it for a moment and jump out and shoot them, or when a
child
grabs
a gun and goes to a school to shoot the schoolyard bully, it
isn't
worth it.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, accidental deaths
involving firearms are about 1000 per year (I haven't looked at
the
figures for quite a while, so I may be misremembering them, or
they
could have changed). Something like 17000 firearm related
deaths
are
suicide, and another 12000 are murders. The types of
situations
you
mention above tend to get a lot of media coverage, but are
likely
to be
relatively uncommon.
Lets not forget those that are paralyzed, maimed, etc.
No argument from me on that.
Don't get me wrong here - a parent's worst nightmare is losing
his
or
her child. Guns need to be kept away from unsupervised young
children,
which is what responsible parents do (not unlike keeping young
children
away from medicine and poisonous substances).
Handguns need to be controlled.
Right. The issue is: who does the controlling.
The people - through the government.
That is one option.
What else is there?
If you agree guns need to be controlled, why is that?
I apologize: you lost me on this one. Why is what?
You seem on one hand to say you oppose gun control, but on the other
hand agree handguns need to be controlled.
As a society, we weight the value of things constantly. Guns
are
the
same. Society would simply be a better and safer place
without
all
these angry, insecure, gun nuts running around.
What about the hunters? Yeah. I understand. I hunt. I
wouldn't
like
it either. But if that is what it takes - I will give up my
shotgun.
I used to be a police officer. I have a weapons permit. I
can
own
and
carry a concealed handgun. I don't. When I left the force I
sold it
to another officer. I felt I couldn't advocate gun control
if I,
as
a
civilian, kept a handgun.
Well, I've never owned a gun, and I don't hunt. But I am leary
of
prohibition, given its track record, particularly when the vast
majority of the owners/users of whatever is prohibited do no
harm.
Not the point. It doesn't matter how many people own them.
Balance
their utilitarian value.
Unfortunately, this type of reasoning can be used to justify many
types
of prohibition. Alcohol - or the abuse thereof - causes all kinds
of
health and other social issues. Alcohol and driving don't mix
well,
for instance. Many of the anger crimes you mentioned earlier have
alcohol in the equation. The cure of prohibition, however, proved
to
be worse than the disease. This should not be repeated, unless the
outcome is known to be different.
In that sense, it does indeed matter how many people own them.
It SHOULD be used.
Again, I apologize: what should be used? Common sense? Prohibition?
The fact that the majority of gun owners are not a source of trouble?
Common sense. Guns cause more problems than they are worth - simple as
that.
Funny, though. I've never needed it. Maybe I WILL need it
some
day?
Sure. Maybe I'll need some plutonium, too. But for the sake
of
society, I'll just have to do without it.
Well, I won't get you any plutonium for Christmas. Thanks for
your
reply.
Thanks.
Thank you again for your reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:40:07 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:100220052005437042%spam@aol.com...
\
Not at all. You argument applies to Rocket Launchers, too. Rocket
Launchers don't kill people, people kill people. "Murder is means
independent."
Rocket launchers are legal and widely available. How many do you want?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 04:15:55 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:100220052005437042%spam@aol.com...
In article <1108059733.926435.227760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding
the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been.
Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their
SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess
you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have
happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier
to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have
been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at
their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of
sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation
does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment
will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that
guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are
you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it would
be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which you
base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have
made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly
determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by
actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no
substitute.
Common sense is evidence.
Common sense said that alcohol prohibition would end the social
problems associated with alcohol.
Stop propogandizing. That wasn't the reason alcohol was banned.
"In 1920, the national policy of Prohibition began. The 18th Amendment to
the Constitution had been officially ratified:
It sought, by law, to make the whole Nation into enforced teetotalers and to
put an end to all evils associated with drinking. It sought to eradicate a
taste deeply rooted in the habits and customs of a large part of the
population through outlawing the business that ministered to its
satisfaction (Hu, 1950: 48)."
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc2a.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 06:16:13 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1108059733.926435.227760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1108019225.231438.213910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107981249.676629.199510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>,
SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote
in
message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in
message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article
<XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop
avoiding
the
issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been.
Guns
are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things.
Sometimes
bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave
their
SUV
on
a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I
guess
you
feel
we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns
are
tools.
They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have
happened
anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could
hardly be
real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it
easier
to
kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have
been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at
their
attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking
of
sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation
does
NOT
mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment
will be
more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that
guns, or
the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some
proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation
are
you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple
as
that.
All right, guns don't necessarily cause crime, but do more
harm
than
good. If you have proof that this assertion is true, it
would
be
helpful to see it. Is there a web site or report on which
you
base
your assumption that I might access?
Common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is sometimes an oxymoron. You have
made a
very logical point a number of times in this discussion that,
basically, a benefits/costs analysis is in order. To truly
determine
if guns do more harm than good, this needs to be supported by
actual
evidence. Common sense, as right as it might seem, is no
substitute.
Common sense is evidence.
Common sense said that alcohol prohibition would end the social
problems associated with alcohol.
Stop propogandizing. That wasn't the reason alcohol was banned.
I am not propogandizing. Prohibition was closely associated with that
part of the Temperance movement which wanted to make alcohol illegal.
You are aware of the Temperance movement in the United States, of
course.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement:
"The movement blamed many of society's ills--including joblessness and
domestic violence--on the drinking of alcoholic beverages, and tried to
persuade people to abstain from these by becoming teetotalers."
"Led by churches, some Americans began the temperance movement, which
was a campaign to stop the drinking of alcohol. Heavy drinking was
common in the 1800s. Some workers spent most of their wages on alcohol,
which left their families without much money to live on."
It sounds to me like people wanted to solve the social problems
associated with alcohol.
However, if that is not the reason alcohol was banned, perhaps you
could point me to another source.
It didn't; in fact, it made things
worse. I want to be sure that any new prohibitions will not also
backfire.
Wrong.
I disagree. Alcohol prohibition did not work, and it did make things
worse.
It works in other countries, Right Wing propaganda
notwithstanding.
You would be referring to gun prohibition here, not alcohol
prohibition, correct?
We aren't all sheep. We don't need to have
everything told to us.
Of course. But to make an informed decision, one needs
information.
We have that.
Has a benefits/costs study been done? If so, are the results available
through the Internet?
I'm not advocating having the government or some non-government
entity
tell me what it thinks is best. I'm advocating that people get the
relevant data so they can make intelligent decisions.
It is there, and I have read it.
Do you support people having rocket launchers, too?
This would be a strawman argument, and should have no place in our
hitherto civilized discussion.
Not at all. You argument applies to Rocket Launchers, too. Rocket
Launchers don't kill people, people kill people. "Murder is means
independent."
Possibly, but the discussion is about guns, not about rocket launchers
or if murder is means independent.
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone
broke
into a
home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most
cases,
shooting a
burglar will land you in jail). You can find some weird
instance
were
a guy is attacked by a bear in his backyard and, lucky
for
him,
he
just
happened to have an AK-47 with him.
According to government statistics, you are correct that
there
are
relatively few cases where a citizen has killed another in
self-defense. On the other hand, the cases where a citizen
didn't
need
to kill another, or even shoot at them, but successfully
defended
themself reportedly are greater in number by far than the
number of
deaths involving firearms.
The "unreported" cases, right?
I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring here. If you
mean
that
| | | | |
