4-20 and the NRA

[ticklebutton]

For those of us who live in Colorado, 4-20 has the same emotional ring as 9-11.

It's the date that two sociopathic high-school students chose to massacre their classmates at Columbine High School with assault weapons and homemade bombs.

The father of 14-year-old Daniel Mauser who was murdered that day showed up at the NRA's national convention yesterday during Dick Cheney's speech to ask him to comment on the Assault Weapon Ban expiration next September.

Mr. Mauser was booed & jeered at with shouts of "vote for Bush", and "get a life".

Get a life.

His son and the other children who were massacred that day would now be old enough to vote.

Button

[KoocheeKoo]

As a gun owner since age 18, the conduct of those folks in attendance at the NRA convention is very dissapointing to me. I'm also friends with a couple for former Columbine students....and the good friend of a youth minister who's a personal friend of Columbine murder victim Rachel Scott's family.

No matter how one feels about gun control, to boo and jeer a man who lost his son that horrific day in 1999 is beyond classless.....it's honestly sickening to me. :(

[Flatfoot]

That is a terrible shame. It really bugs me when people display such ignorance as to act on emotion, being defensive about an organization they belong to, not even taking into consideration someone else's reason for disagreeing with what they feel, and just agreeing to disagree. These people really showed their ass. :sowrong:

[BOFH666]

After reading this.... I don't know, I guess I should be angry but instead... just numb. Says a lot about society in general doesn't it, if it happened more than a week ago it's not important. If it's a personal thing take two weeks and if it was a genuine tragedy take a month. After that you have no right to complain, line up with the rest.

In all seriousness... what's the point? Why do we bother trying to be, for lack of a more apt phrase, "better people" when with each passing year we as a species seem to get more and more isolated from each other and increasingly see things in black and white, us and them.

As for gun control... it comes down to a very simple thing, responsibility. There are those, like (I hope) KoocheeKoo for example, that seem to 'get it', that these things are lethal and need to be treated as such. Yet after Columbine all I saw in the media was a desperate search for something, anything, anyone to blame. Anything and anyone that is except for the parents of these two.

And on a side note, here's a quote that I read while trying to find out if this was actually true (I was hoping it wasn't truth be told):

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04109/302610.stm

One speaker, Dr. Barbara Gaines, trauma surgeon and co-director of the Benedum trauma program at Children's Hospital, said on average 10 or so children die of gunshot wounds daily in the U.S. Sometimes it's an accidental discharge, or a child hit unintentionally, or a teenager who uses a gun to escape depression.


So an average of ten kids a day... in a little under a full year more children die of gunshot wounds than the sum total of people killed on 9/11. Surely that should deserve a public outcry? And yes, I know that probably the majority of those cases were crime-related, but if there's any chance of cutting that figure by making it harder, much harder, for these kids to obtain weapons shouldn't it at least be given a fair, unbiased hearing?

I just can't understand how anyone could yell "get a life" at someone who's been through the pain of having to bury his own child... words fail me.

To all those that lost loved ones or were affected by Columbine and other similar incidents, my deepest sympathies.

[MrMacphisto]

Michael Moore's Academy Award winning documentary from 2002 showcases some of the NRA's own numbness with regard to firearms-related tragedies. The NRA held a major rally in Denver within a month of the Columbine occurrence, despite pleas from parents and family members of victims. Personally, I'm all for the right to bear arms, but the NRA is obviously a fanatical gun-worshipping special interest group that has little concern for the repercussions of its actions. I would guess that the average member of the NRA is somewhat rational, but the leadership of this group has some serious problems. Charlton Heston, in particular, has proven that he's an idiotic has-been time and time again. To fully appreciate the lunacy of the NRA (and to see some other disturbing things), watch "Bowling for Columbine" someday.

[TicklishSinner]

I dont get people..seriously, i dont see how this world can be so cruel

[Psycho]

Its sad the way the world turns these days. Used to be things like this only happenned in the ghetto. Now they reach the burbs as well.

Psycho

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Personally, I'm all for the right to bear arms...
Yes, responsibly.

Daniel's father commented that "...the NRA "is an organization with a Field and Stream magazine membership, but a Soldier of Fortune magazine leadership."

Thanks for all your responses, you guys - comforting to read. :)

[Roseblossom]

Why does anyone want assault weapons to be legal, anyway?

~Rose~

[gibby59]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
Why does anyone want assault weapons to be legal, anyway?

~Rose~

The bill has nothing to do with banning ownership of "assuault" weapons.....they are simply ones that look like them.....to leagally own a true assualt weapon, you have to go through an FBI background check and pay a $250/year permit fee.....

[Roseblossom]

Do you mean to tell me that those murderers went through an FBI check and paid $250 a year for a permit?

I'm sure not.

My understanding of the bill is that it bans the sale of such weapons as were used in the massacre.

Thereby making them illegal, so if one is in possession of an assault weapon it is assumed that one has done something illegal.

Hopefully they get caught with it BEFORE they kill people with it.

~Rose~

[gibby59]

Your understanding is correct. The point is, they are not "assault" weapons, just look alikes. They are not fully automatic "machine guns".

In the case of columbine, under current laws, the boys were not leagally allowed to have the one weapon they did. They were both under age. Someone bought the weapon for them. Someone stupid and greedy. When you can pass a law that makes it illegal to be stupid and/or greedy then maybe we can stop a lot of violence.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
...My understanding of the bill is that it bans the sale of such weapons as were used in the massacre...
Renewing and enforcing the ban on such weapons will work, too.

"Domestic gun manufacturers are required to cease production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use."

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The weapons used in the massacre at Columbine were the TEC-DC9 Hi-Point. (included in the list above)

*A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

*A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

*A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon.

*A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating.

*A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night.

*A threaded barrel designed designed to accommodate a bayonet, and to accommodate a silencer.
(Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.)

[http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb]

So...what kind of person wants these kinds of weapons legalized, and why?

~Rose~

[gibby59]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
Renewing and enforcing the ban on such weapons will work, too.

"Domestic gun manufacturers are required to cease production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use."

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The weapons used in the massacre at Columbine were the TEC-DC9 Hi-Point. (included in the list above)

*A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

*A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

*A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon.

*A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating.

*A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night.

*A threaded barrel designed designed to accommodate a bayonet, and to accommodate a silencer.
(Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.)

[http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb]

So...what kind of person wants these kinds of weapons legalized, and why?

~Rose~

Inaccuracies -


First bullet - "dozens of rounds" ? Exaggrgeration - The ban limits magazines to 10 rounds. Even M16s in Vietnam had magazines that usually held no more than 15 to 20 rounds.

Second bullet - A folding stock does not necessarily mean a sacrifice in accuracy.

Third bullet - Only idiots in the movies fire from the hip. To fire any long weapon accurately, you need to fire it from the shoulder. The pistol grip also gives you more control during recoil.

Fourth bullet - A barrel shroud is more to protect the shooter from the hot barrel than to aid in cooling.

Fifth bullet - A flash suppressor is to aid in concealing the muzzle flash at any time of day, not just at night.

Sixth bullet - Actually there is no such thing as a silencer. The best they can do is supress the noise of a weapon. Even a .22 caliber pistol will sound like a very loud hand clap with a "silencer" attached. And noise suppressors are not illegal to own, just to use it. You need a federal permit to legally own one.

Fact - No LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime since the 1932 law was passed regulating the ownership of them.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by gibby59

First bullet - "dozens of rounds" ? Exaggrgeration - The ban limits magazines to 10 rounds. Even M16s in Vietnam had magazines that usually held no more than 15 to 20 rounds.

(Rose's reply) *So...why do you need to spray 10 rounds? What for?

Second bullet - A folding stock does not necessarily mean a sacrifice in accuracy.

(Rose's reply) *But it's oh so much easier to conceal and carry. Again,what for?

Third bullet - Only idiots in the movies fire from the hip. To fire any long weapon accurately, you need to fire it from the shoulder. The pistol grip also gives you more control during recoil.

(Rose's reply) *Accuracy is not as important to a killer than being able to pull the concealed weapon and spray-fire it.

Fourth bullet - A barrel shroud is more to protect the shooter from the hot barrel than to aid in cooling.

(Rose's reply) *After he's shot many rounds in rapid succession.

Fifth bullet - A flash suppressor is to aid in concealing the muzzle flash at any time of day, not just at night.

(Rose's reply) *Why would someone need to conceal a muzzle flash, day or night?

Sixth bullet - Actually there is no such thing as a silencer. The best they can do is supress the noise of a weapon. Even a .22 caliber pistol will sound like a very loud hand clap with a "silencer" attached. And noise suppressors are not illegal to own, just to use it. You need a federal permit to legally own one.

(Rose's reply) *What do you need a silencer for, legally or illegally?

Fact - No LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime since the 1932 law was passed regulating the ownership of them.

(Rose's reply) *But we're not talking about LEGAL, now, are we?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by gibby59

Fact - No LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapon has ever been used in the commission of a crime since the 1932 law was passed regulating the ownership of them.


But how many have been stolen from properties where they are legally owned or stored and then used in a crime?

[MrMacphisto]

This discussion has gotten even more interesting... Hmmm.. I guess the only thing I can add to this is that the current restrictions on firearms sold in stores seem to be sufficient, but gun shows are totally neglected by most regulations. Gun shows are where people can get weapons illegally with relative ease; thus, more regulation needs to focus on the shows rather than the stores. I would seriously doubt they do background checks on people attending these gun shows.

[BOFH666]

Another thought... what about second hand sales? Isn't there a clause that only applies the current regulations to weapon made after / during 1994?

[gibby59]

Originally posted by BOFH666
But how many have been stolen from properties where they are legally owned or stored and then used in a crime?

None

[MrMacphisto]

Oh c'mon gibby, there have probably been a few... Regardless, guns are here to stay, just like alcohol. An all-out ban is simply not feasible. Besides, I like having the right to bear arms, and I'm sure the Canadians and Swiss enjoy it too.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by gibby59
None

Riiiiiiight. Sixth link on a google search for "full automatic weapons stolen": http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11072003/utah/108954.asp


Leaking mustard gas drums and "hotter" radioactive waste are not the only legacies of war causing unease about 35 miles west of Salt Lake City near Tooele.
A collector of war memorabilia including tanks, cannons and fully automatic machine guns -- one with a silencer -- was robbed late last month and police say seven military-style weapons remain unaccounted for.
The theft happened Oct. 25 while 63-year-old Jack Tomlin was spending the day with some of his wares at the Fort Douglas military museum. His Tooele compound and salvage yard -- visible from state Route 112 -- was robbed of powerful military-issue weapons including:
* A fully automatic 5.56 mm Colt AR-15 carbine;
* A full-auto 9 mm Heckler & Koch MP5-SD submachine gun with silencer;
* A World War II-era full-auto .45-caliber M3A1 "Grease Gun";
Advertisement
* Four .45-caliber Colt M1911A1 pistols with magazines.
Police say the suspect or suspects used a power tool to remove padlocks on a railroad car where the guns were stored.
"They weren't playing around. We think they knew exactly where they were going and what they wanted," said Tooele police Detective Roger Niesporek Jr., who said two or three people may have been involved. The guns are worth an estimated $25,000.
The fully automatic rifles are all under 2 feet, making them "really concealable," said Niesporek. No ammunition was stolen and the magazines, which were stored with the rifles, were not taken.
"I'm sure those magazines wouldn't be hard to come by," he said. "If a person wants to sell them [guns] on the street to a gang or something, they could do some damage."


And while this topic is about full autos, a search on "Gun Store Robberies -convenience" turns up this fourth in the list:

http://www.fultondailynews.com/html/40443.asp


Police agencies across Oswego County continue to search for information that will lead them to those responsible for a series of recent gun thefts.

In total, more than 80 guns have been stolen during three separate robberies in Hastings, Oswego Town and Pennellville.

"This is a completely joint investigation," state police Sgt. Edwin Croucher said. "It is a concerted effort among all police agencies in the county."

Though it is unknown whether there is any connection between the three incidents, police say the number of guns that remain unaccounted for raises red flags.

The first incident took place nearly two weeks ago in Oswego Town.

Croucher, who heads the state police barracks in Fulton, said the guns were stolen during a series of storage shed break-ins at a self-storage facility on State Route 104. The facility is owned by Legislator Doug Malone. In total, 32 handguns and several rifles and shotguns were reportedly stolen from one storage unit at the site.

Sgt. Ed Foster, who heads the state police barracks in Hastings, said Central New York Sports on U.S. Route 11 in Hastings was broken into sometime between 3 p.m. on Saturday and 9:30 a.m. on Monday. The perpetrators sole a variety of guns, including more than 30 handguns, during the robbery.

"Someone made a serious effort to break into the store," Foster said, noting that a steel security device was cut through to gain entrance.

The investigation of the store robbery is headed by Inv. Steve Bourgeois of the state police barracks in Pulaski, Foster said. Bourgeois was unable to be reached for comment this morning. Neither Foster or Croucher could report if ammunition was taken during the two robberies.

In a third robbery, five high-powered rifles were reportedly stolen from a home in Pennellville. The investigation is being headed by the Oswego County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Reuel Todd was unable to be reached for comment.

"I can't say whether the home or gun store incidents are related," Croucher said. "But I feel confident saying that the storage shed robberies are not connected to the other two."

Croucher said he believes the shed robberies were related more to "dumb luck" than a planned theft.

"Approximately eight to 10 storage sheds were broken into during that incident," he said. "It seems like the shed that contained the guns was the last one. ... I think had someone known the shed contained the guns, it would have been the only one hit."

From the other sheds broken into, Croucher said it appears the perpetrator(s) stole only items of higher value, such as tools. The robberies took place sometime between Feb. 19 and Feb. 22.

The shed robberies were reported after a contractor, who used a shed at the site to store his tools and supplies for work, discovered his shed was broken into and his tools were missing. The man contacted police who discovered several of the sheds had been broken into.

Croucher noted that state police have received a number of leads in the investigation.

"We have had a lot of calls on this case," Croucher said. "Incidents that would not normally spark suspicion from people are right now. ... We are following a number of leads."

Of more than 80 guns stolen during the three incidents, Croucher noted that the majority of the weapons are handguns.

Unlike rifles, Croucher pointed out that handgun sales do not have the same rules as rifles or shotguns and are much more restrictive.

"You cannot legally sell a handgun without registering it with the county first," Croucher said. "Even from a dealer, you cannot walk in, buy a handgun and walk out with it."

Croucher explained that dealers must first issue paperwork to a person buying a handgun. The papers have to be taken to county offices and the gun is registered. The county then issues paperwork to the buyer that has to be taken back to the gun dealer before a handgun leaves a store.

"It is nothing like selling a rifle or shotgun," Croucher said. "I could sell a shotgun to anyone who is over 18 years old. ... The rules are not the same."

Because the investigation is ongoing, Croucher said police can reveal few details at this time. He noted, however, that all aspects are being investigated, including the original possession of the guns that were stolen.

Anyone with information on any of the three robberies has been encouraged to call state police in Fulton at 593-6194 or the Oswego County Sheriff's Department at 349-3411, toll free at 888-349-3411.


Now I know neither article refers to tracking one of these weapons to a crime, but who's most likely to buy them from these thieves and for what?

[gibby59]

Great job of tracking down info. Most likely buyers are going to be people you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley....But more laws aren't going to prevent this type of thing from occuring.

[BOFH666]

Prevent? No. Reduce? probably.

I've been holding back from posting my own views on gun control, mainly because I wanted to think about it for a day or two first. Now I'm from the UK and have grown up in a very anti-gun culture which will obviously cloud this issue somewhat. Certainly I've never understood the determination to hold on to the second ammendment, more so these days as free speech and personal liberties are removed or restricted wholesale.

For most things that are considered 'ban worthy' (for lack of a better term) I have to say I don't support such bans. I'm not a smoker, or drug user and don't drink much alchohol but I wouldn't support a ban on any of these. In fact I'd be perfectly happy to see Marijuana legalized. Frankly I'd rather live in a country where people are free to make their own lifestlye choices than a nanny state.

BUT, as far as gun control goes... I really wish that they were illegal, full stop. A small group of exceptions for those that need to use them professionaly, and even those subject to tight license and useage restrictions, and that's it. I know, after what I said above about supporting free choice that makes me a hypocrite. But while all the above have negative social effects (be that crime or health related) none can be taken out of the hands of a legitimate user and used to kill others. I just can't see any valid reason for owning a firearm. Yes, its a hobby, but check the statistics on child deaths and injuries to guns obtained, for the most part, from their own home. This hobby is worth the lives of 3,000+ people a year (and that's just in the US)? As for home protection, I still shake my head in wonder every time I hear that. If that is a real, overriding reason to buy a gun then I'd suggest it's time to take a good, long, hard look at the society that requires such drastic lengths to keep the evil-doers at bay. To my ears at least this sounds like a very convenient excuse. Again, I can only speak for myself but I sure as hell wouldn't feel any safer with a gun in the house. In fact it would be the other way around as having such an item vastly increases the odds of the criminal being armed, either with his own weapon or the one he's just stolen from you.

Would a global ban stop gun crime? Of course not and anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined. Unfortunatley there will always be channels to obtain firearms just as there will always be hard drugs and there will always be terrorism. But if it reduced the number of units available, if it made it more and more difficult to obtain ammunition and spare parts, it surely follows that it would cut the number of incidents that occur.

Would this be a miracle cure? No, definately not, and in fact gun crime would probably increase in the short term as banned weapons made their way from private collecters / enthusiasts on to the streets. Still, in the long run (and by long term I'm thinking decades at best) it would have to start reducing the numbers, even if only because there was no way to repair or reload existing weapons.

And there, really, is the crux of the matter for me. Weapons. To me I see no difference, no difference at all, between weapons of mass destruction and firearms. Both are quite capable of killing in the wrong hands (though both are not necessarily built for 'evil' purposes) and both represent a serious threat to society.

I'm afraid I haven't done a very good job at laying out my point of view here, and for that I apolgise. The fact is though I know what an emotional subject this is for many people on BOTH sides of the debate and don't want this thread to turn into a flame war. Let me try and sum it up this way:

I grew up in a little town on the Welsh coast, maybe 15,000 people on a good day. I've spent the last five years living in London, about two miles from one of the more notorious council estates. There have been several bomb incidents in the area and the building I work at was actually involved in an explosion several years ago. And yet never, not once in my life, have I walked down a street and thought "I could get shot here". Okay, granted I've thought "I might get punched", "I might get knifed" and "Run Away!" on a few occasions but shot? Nope, and I have to believe that's down to the fact gun ownership here is so tightly controlled. You can't just walk into an Asda (Wal-Mart for the UK) and buy ammo. While gun crime is on the rise, it's predominantly centered in a few very small areas between rival gangs and THAT'S the key. The whole thing can be traced back to social issues, and it is those that need to be addressed which is a task far, far too large to be accomplished quickly. If in the meantime a global ban on firearms sales to the public has to be enforced then so be it... and I for one would hope it stays in place.

[gibby59]

You should have held back and not posted your views. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am thankful you are not a US citizen. The last thing we need here is one more person who wants to try to end crime by banning gun ownership. You had it right by saying it's a much more complicated problem. You have to change human nature not control what type of tools that are available. Even in your country where private gun ownership is banned, there are still weapons.......

Why am I bothering to try to respond? You already know what's best for everyone. You stay in England and I'll stay in the US and I think you'll have a greater chance of being shot than I will.....

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Prevent? No. Reduce? probably.
Very well-considered & intelligent post BOFH, thank you!

It's refreshing to read a poster who has done his research and given some thought to the issues. I've read it in its entirety a couple of times.

I wish everyone had, before they posted a response. :rolleyes:

Are you a journalist, by chance? You remind me of a columnist I like, whose work is always full of well-balanced reflection.

And it's comforting to know that for every one like you who takes the time to write, there are thousands more who think like you yet haven't written, but are out there.

~Rose~

[BOFH666]

You should have held back and not posted your views


Charming.

I'm bowing out of this conversation at this point as I have no wish to turn a thoughtful and touching thread highlighting a genuine social problem into something that, well, that leads to reactions like this. Ticklebutton, and indeed everyone else that's contributed to this thread, I apologise and can only say it wasn't my intention.

But I have to wonder... how much of this post did you actually read before reaching for the napalm?

Originally posted by BOFH666
Would a global ban stop gun crime? Of course not and anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined.

(Snip)

Would this be a miracle cure? No, definately not.

(Snip)

The whole thing can be traced back to social issues, and it is those that need to be addressed which is a task far, far too large to be accomplished quickly.



The last thing we need here is one more person who wants to try to end crime by banning gun ownership


And.... where did I say that exactly, mmmm? All I said was that banning gun ownership may provide the 'cooling off period', the reduction in violent crime if you wiil, that society may need to address the current issues.


Why am I bothering to try to respond? You already know what's best for everyone


Discussion: An exchange of ideas between individuals.

Are these my views and opinions? Absolutley. Did I at ANY point get on a soap box and start thumping "Guns Are EVIIIIIILLLLL: For Dummies" and saying I KNOW this is the right way and all those who choose to ignore the prophetic words of truth are doomed until the last generation! Ummm, no, no I don't think I did. Hang on, let me check...... nope, just an opinion and the reason I hold that opinion. I can't help but notice however that in your rush to put me back in my place with the second-class riff-raff of Europe you seem to have missed giving any real insight into your views. Believe it or not, I'd have liked to hear them. After all, the first thing one should do when faced with an opposing point of view is understand it, then evaluate it and apply the results of that evaluation to your own beliefs.

*Shrug* We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting.

Oh, and once more: Button, sorry that this thread ended up on this, hopefully it'll get back on track now.

[BOFH666]

(Yes, I know I said the post above was my last in this thread, but it's rude to ignore a direct message)

Originally posted by Roseblossom
Very well-considered & intelligent post BOFH, thank you!

It's refreshing to read a poster who has done his research and given some thought to the issues. I've read it in its entirety a couple of times.

I wish everyone had, before they posted a response. :rolleyes:

Are you a journalist, by chance? You remind me of a columnist I like, whose work is always full of well-balanced reflection.

And it's comforting to know that for every one like you who takes the time to write, there are thousands more who think like you yet haven't written, but are out there.

~Rose~

A Journalist? Sorry, nope. See I suffer from a disease called "Moralus Ethiculus"... ;) Apparently this pretty much sinks your chances of making it in the journalistic world :D

Unfortunately I think you're going to be seeing far less of this sort of thing from me. Frankly I really don't see the point in taking the time and energy any more as it seems that it's far easier to subscribe to the theory of "Flame, flame and flame some more" than actually bother having a discussion about an issue. Any attempt to engage in a serious discussion ends up degenerating into a barrage of unsuported facts (usually beliefs packaged as the obvious truth) and then into name calling and personal attacks. As I have no wish to sink to that level, and as there seems to be no desire (or possibly ability) to respond in a calm, rational, researched and adult manner there seems little point in continuing.

Frankly it's depressing as it's the same sort of thing you see every day with society as a whole becoming far more... I don't know, black and white? "My way is the right way and everyone else is my enemy." It's an attitude that sickens me when I see it in real life and its no different on here. Whatever happened to shades of grey?

Of course then there's the little problem that I get replies like yours both in public and private, and that makes me think it's all worthwhile after all. Stop confusing me darn it! :D

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by BOFH666
[B... a serious discussion ends up degenerating into a barrage of unsuported facts (usually beliefs packaged as the obvious truth) and then into name calling and personal attacks.

Frankly it's depressing as it's the same sort of thing you see every day with society as a whole becoming far more... I don't know, black and white? ...and its no different on here. Whatever happened to shades of grey?

Of course then there's the little problem that I get replies like yours both in public and private, and that makes me think it's all worthwhile after all. Stop confusing me darn it! :D [/B]
LOL c'mon, the intelligent ones consider the source & recognise the crap for what it is.

Be philosophical, and consider the fact that a discussion forum like this is a little terrarium of life.

Weigh the value of the intelligent response and compare it with the value of the moronic response. Now, are you really gonna let the moronic ones drive you away? I think not.


~Rose~ looking forward to more

[Ghost2004]

Do not let the narrow minded opinions of some keep you from expressing a fresh, intelligent and well researched point of view. There are many who appreciate your point of view so do not let the actions of a few discourage you from being the one of the MUCH need moderate intelligent voices, esp on a delicate subject such as this.

, NOt to make light of the serious nature of this discussion but to use a car analogy( pardon in this context) you have the Bimmers and Mercs.. who make impressions with very little noise and fanfare, and then you have the growling pickup trucks who belch and fart smoke and only add nastiness and confusion.


Ghosti

[BOFH666]

I have of late, — but wherefore I know not, — lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,—why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Hamlet, Act II, scene ii (287-298)


And as for "letting the *word removed to avoid wrath of mods* ;) ones drive me away"... I guess not, it's just... considering what the topic of this thread is, it's depressing to see this sort of reaction.

[gibby59]

BOFH666,

I owe you an apology for my outburst yesterday. I should not have responded the way I did, even though I was having a rotten day. You expressed your views in a very intelligent and articulate manner and I was extremely rude and crass in my response. I would like to ask for your forgiveness and in the future I will try harder to think before I post.

We do agree on the point that the issue is a social/human nature problem more than anything else. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to regulate human behavior. But that's another discussion.


Once again I am sorry and I hope you will forgive my rudeness.

[MrMacphisto]

There is a side to reality that asks the question: Which is more important? security or freedom Though it may seem otherwise at first, freedom and security are often at odds with each other. Take, for example, Singapore: this small Asian country is probably one of the safest countries to live in, because the crime rate is absurdly low, and the government has successfully banned drug use and firearms. Yet, the government is so powerful that freedom is pretty much a joke in Singapore. You're free to do whatever you want, unless it involves drugs, guns, or (most importantly) speaking out against the government. Personally, I'd rather live in a country where you're free to own a gun, do drugs, have abortion, have gay marriages, and (once again, most importantly) speak out against the government. The U.S. may not be the safest place in the world due to our various freedoms, but most of the things on that list (not including drugs or gay marriage) are freedoms in this country. If there was a country that allowed all of these things, I'd probably move there (Canada is closer to this list than the U.S., actually). (Allowing gay marriage is more of a freedom principle for me than anything else, since I'm not actually gay myself.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is: I totally agree with you, BOFH666, but I still think that allowing gun ownership is a good thing, because it's in the direction of freedom. This may sound harsh, but all those statistics on gun-related deaths could be seen as a method of population control. Let's face it: the world already has too many people, and if a few kids accidentally kill themselves with guns, I don't see how that's any worse than the thousands of Africans who die of starvation everyday while we live here with a surplus of food and focus our political efforts on acquiring oil from Arab states. It might just be karma... Who knows?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by gibby59
BOFH666,

I owe you an apology for my outburst yesterday. I should not have responded the way I did, even though I was having a rotten day. You expressed your views in a very intelligent and articulate manner and I was extremely rude and crass in my response. I would like to ask for your forgiveness and in the future I will try harder to think before I post.

We do agree on the point that the issue is a social/human nature problem more than anything else. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to regulate human behavior. But that's another discussion.


Once again I am sorry and I hope you will forgive my rudeness.

:yowzer: :yowzer: :yowzer:

Ummm.... okay, I admit, I wasn't expecting that. Classy move mate, and consider it all forgiven and forgotten. Besides, I've been looking to work that Hamlet quote in for months now ;)

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
There is a side to reality that asks the question: Which is more important? security or freedom Though it may seem otherwise at first, freedom and security are often at odds with each other. Take, for example, Singapore: this small Asian country is probably one of the safest countries to live in, because the crime rate is absurdly low, and the government has successfully banned drug use and firearms. Yet, the government is so powerful that freedom is pretty much a joke in Singapore. You're free to do whatever you want, unless it involves drugs, guns, or (most importantly) speaking out against the government. Personally, I'd rather live in a country where you're free to own a gun, do drugs, have abortion, have gay marriages, and (once again, most importantly) speak out against the government. The U.S. may not be the safest place in the world due to our various freedoms, but most of the things on that list (not including drugs or gay marriage) are freedoms in this country. If there was a country that allowed all of these things, I'd probably move there (Canada is closer to this list than the U.S., actually). (Allowing gay marriage is more of a freedom principle for me than anything else, since I'm not actually gay myself.)

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is: I totally agree with you, BOFH666, but I still think that allowing gun ownership is a good thing, because it's in the direction of freedom. This may sound harsh, but all those statistics on gun-related deaths could be seen as a method of population control. Let's face it: the world already has too many people, and if a few kids accidentally kill themselves with guns, I don't see how that's any worse than the thousands of Africans who die of starvation everyday while we live here with a surplus of food and focus our political efforts on acquiring oil from Arab states. It might just be karma... Who knows?

Lets face it, at some point in the not too distant future there's going to HAVE to be some fairly major sociological changes in the world or the current situation is going to look like a walk in the park in comparison. I guess it comes down to the more... umm, forgive me for using this word but extremist elements on EVERY side (whether that's religious, political or anything else) being willing to work towards something greater than their own needs and desires. Now that's a whole other discussion but... at some point SOMEONE'S going to have to step forward and break the cycles we're stuck in right now and sadly I don't hold out much hope of that happening.

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by BOFH666
[B]I have of late, — but wherefore I know not, — lost all my mirth.../B]
Well, then, you're just going to have to get your mirth back, mister.

Are you familiar with the german word "Weltschmerz"? Literally when the world seems full of pain; and people either don't care, or like it this way, or feel the pain but are too fragile to help.

Using our considerable brain power, including & especially the humour areas, is the only way to feel we have some control over what our world becomes. Seems to me you've got that part down most of the time. :p

Button :cool:

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by gibby59
I owe you an apology for my outburst yesterday. I should not have responded the way I did, even though I was having a rotten day. You expressed your views in a very intelligent and articulate manner and I was extremely rude and crass in my response. I would like to ask for your forgiveness and in the future I will try harder to think before I post.
Well done, gibby :)

[jk666uk]

sorry i did not see your thread there
BUT what will it be next BROOKS BROWN was the 3gunman?

[General Zod]

This question is for the people who want private ownership of firearms banned How would you go about taking all the privatley owned firearms from law abiding people? It's one thing to make a law banning them It's another thing trying to enforce it

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Lets face it, at some point in the not too distant future there's going to HAVE to be some fairly major sociological changes in the world or the current situation is going to look like a walk in the park in comparison. I guess it comes down to the more... umm, forgive me for using this word but extremist elements on EVERY side (whether that's religious, political or anything else) being willing to work towards something greater than their own needs and desires. Now that's a whole other discussion but... at some point SOMEONE'S going to have to step forward and break the cycles we're stuck in right now and sadly I don't hold out much hope of that happening.

I think we see eye-to-eye on this one... I suppose the difference in our viewpoints is that I hold no hope for human nature, but I do have hope for science. Science seems to be the only thing that saves us in the end, and if used correctly, we can overcome this current political quagmire that conservatism, corporations, and religion have gotten us into.

[Haltickling]

Hmm, I must state that this community has gone through some positive evolution. About 2 years ago, I dared to post something about a student running amok at his school in Germany, killing many people. I didn't even mention gun control, just asked for a moment of commemoration for the victims. The result: I was steamrollered instantly by several people in the most unpleasant way.

None of the posts there had your intelligent style, BOFH, and certainly no quotes from Shakespeare. And there were no apologies either.

I agree with your point of view 100%, BOFH. Thanks!

As to the original topic: I consider the NRA's stance fundamentalist and sometimes even extremist. Not the opinion itself, but the style. And this lack of inteliigence, morals, and style is responsible for the disgusting attitude towards a victim's father. Sad state of world! :sowrong:

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Well done, gibby :)
I concur - good going, gibby.

~Rose~



GenZod, I wouldn't bother with the law-abiding folks, only I'd make sure they know it's illegal to re-sell their weapon without a careful background check, etc.

(I still haven't gotten an answer as to why anyone would need sophisticated killing weapons like these - maybe you can tell me, Zod.)

It seems to me that the controls should concentrate on gunshows & criminals, as MacPhisto mentioned.

I think the import and manufacture of sophisticated weaponry should be stopped completely, also.

~Rose~

[BOFH666]

How would you go about taking all the privatley owned firearms from law abiding people? It's one thing to make a law banning them It's another thing trying to enforce it


Hmmm, interesting question that. Treating this as a purely theoretical and intellectual exercise (or, in other words, this isn't my own opinion):

1) Set restrictions on the locations where firearms may legally be used. This would basically take the form of 'licensed' gun clubs and shooting ranges that are only granted a license to operate after meeting certain conditions. These conditions would include secure facilities for the storage of weapons and ammunition, some form of background check on new members and a compulsory 'orientation' course for all new members that would cover gun safety and responsible ownership. In return these venues would receive government subsidies to cover the cost of providing such facilities.

2) Introduce legislation preventing the sale of new firearms to private buyers

3) Introduce legislation preventing the sale of ammunition to private buyers.

4) Offer a two year 'rebate' policy during which gun owners could, at their discretion, sell their guns to the government for their current market value + 10%. Yes, this would be extremely expensive in the short term but the funding should be found from 'non-essential' programs (for example, don't give out tax breaks to the “rich” ;) ). Hopefully this would be enough to convince people to sell their firearms to the government rather than second hand as it would be more profitable and far less effort to take this option than, for example, post on Ebay.

5) Run a simultaneous educational program of advertising along the same lines as the “don't drink and drive” campaigns run in the UK. These should not preach or take sides but seek to drive home the message of responsible ownership and the availability of the 'rebate' offer.

Would the above completely remove all firearms from private ownership? No, and you're quite right that would be impossible. However it should hopefully ensure that only those that are truly interested in firearms (and therefore tend to act more responsibly towards them) will retain them while at the same time decreasing the chances of a kid (or thief for that matter) getting their hands on them.

[General Zod]

BOFH666,you make aninteresting case there I can actually agree in princapal with it However,basically,at least to my thinking,it asks everybody to place faith in the government That is a joke IMO I have never trusted any form of government A lot of my fellow Americans feel the same
I drive tractor trailer (articulated lorry) here in the U.S. I listen in on the conversations of a lot of drivers For the most part none of us have any faith or trust in our govenment,either now or during the Clinton years

[Iggy pop]

Honestly, I do not think people should have assault weapons. In fact, I believe if you have children you should not own gun. With that said I don't think guns should ever be made illegal. Look at our drug war, it has not stopped people from getting drugs. Marijuana was illegal the whole time I was in high school, but somehow I was buying some every week. Do you think people are going to stop buying guns just because they are illegal? Do you think organized crime is not going to make a killing on the illegal sale of firearms? How will you enforce the ban on firearms? Are we going to start throwing violaters into already overcrowded prisons?

[Iggy pop]

Originally posted by gen.zod
BOFH666,you make aninteresting case there I can actually agree in princapal with it However,basically,at least to my thinking,it asks everybody to place faith in the government That is a joke IMO I have never trusted any form of government A lot of my fellow Americans feel the same
I drive tractor trailer (articulated lorry) here in the U.S. I listen in on the conversations of a lot of drivers For the most part none of us have any faith or trust in our govenment,either now or during the Clinton years

You have no faith in the government at all? You do realize that the government has nuclear weapons. If you have no faith in them then I would be very scared.

[buggs]

Michael Moore's Academy Award winning documentary from 2002 showcases some of the NRA's own numbness with regard to firearms-related tragedies. The NRA held a major rally in Denver within a month of the Columbine occurrence, despite pleas from parents and family members of victims.
Actually this again is more of Moore's lies. This is how Moore says the speach happened in Columbine:
Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;

Cut to Charleton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover intones: "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charleton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." [But for this break, the viewer would spot that two different speeches are being merged, since Heston has lavender shirt and tie in the above speech, and white shirt and red tie in the one below.]

Heston (supposedly) continues speech...

"Good Morning. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today." [Footage of protest outside] "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. [picture of Webb, then back to Heston] He sent me this, and said 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I said to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. [cut to crowd cheering, then back to Heston] Don't come here? We're already here."

And this is an actual transcript of the speach that heston gave that day:
Charlton Heston's Speech to the NRA

04 May, 1999

By Charlton Heston
CNS Information Services

(Editor's Note: The following remarks by NRA President Charlton Heston were transcribed by CNS from a RealVideo presentation of his speech before the NRA's national meeting in Denver, Colorado May 1.)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction, but we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction, but it's not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surly among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.
If you watch the film, hestons clothes change during the two speaches that Moore edited as one speach. That is one of the many reasons why people say that his Oscar nees to be taken away per Rule 12 of the Academy's own rules for Doucmentaries.

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, whose place and date had been fixed years in advance. And, at Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting as Reported by the Rocky Mountain News:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml

Again, another lie that Moore puts in his film that they didn't cancel anything.

but the NRA is obviously a fanatical gun-worshipping special interest group that has little concern for the repercussions of its actions.
The NRA had nothing to do with Columbine. Not a thing. And as stated above, it did cancel all events, and it would have moved them if it legally could to another state.
Charlton Heston, in particular, has proven that he's an idiotic has-been time and time again. To fully appreciate the lunacy of the NRA (and to see some other disturbing things), watch "Bowling for Columbine" someday
Again, look above. Hey if you want to be lied to and watch a piece of fiction passed off as a so called documentary, then go ahead.

[MrMacphisto]

Ah... Such an old thread this is... Oh well... You're right Buggs; Moore conveniently lies about a lot of things. Some would say he lies just as much as O'Reilly or Hannity, but whatever the case, maybe you can now understand why I rarely post here now.... Politics are pointless, because the only thing that is bipartisan in this country is the willingness to oppress and vex each other....