A world with just more guns is not a safe world

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I think the why was obvious and he made that clear... unfortunatly the point was lost to those who need it spelled out for them.

Good Lord... the guy made a 90 minute flick.

The guy is a flake, a liar and a self-centered, porky dweeb. He plays to, and inflames, people's fear, ignorance and bigotry and peddles that as "journalism".

Who puts out a Teacher's Guide with their radical "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.....unless it was really intended as propaganda?

Did I also mention hypocrite? I know I said liar, but I'll say it again, with an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WA

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Someone did not know this fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nership/table/

Gun ownership in the US 88.8%

Gun ownership in Canada 30.8%

Total guns in the US is 270,000,000

Total guns in Canada 9,950,000

Population of the US is 313,914,040

Population of Canada 34,482,779

In 1977 the Canadian Dept of Justice claimed there were 17 million firearms in Canada. Considering the usual rates of import/export it is reasonable to expect there are about 25 million firearms in Canada today.

When we were having a go-around in the ninetys about registration, I would write letters to the local paper on the subject. When Alan Rock was Prince of Justice, I wrote to him and asked why the numbers the Dept. of Justice were useing were so low and he did not answer. I know he got my letter because I sent it registered. I put all of this into a letter to the paper and it was published.

It is my opinion the low number of firearms used reflects the low expectation of firearms to be registered. If the higher number had been used, the level of registration as a percentage would have been dismal.

Useing the higher Dept of Justice numbers from the 1970s and allowing for the normal increase, I don't think gun ownership levels to be that much different between the US and Canada.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The guy is a flake, a liar and a self-centered, porky dweeb. He plays to, and inflames, people's fear, ignorance and bigotry and peddles that as "journalism".

Who puts out a Teacher's Guide with their radical "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.....unless it was really intended as propaganda?

Did I also mention hypocrite? I know I said liar, but I'll say it again, with an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WA

Michael moore a hypocrite and a liar?

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti...-carries-a-gun

[MtnGiant]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Michael moore a hypocrite and a liar?

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti...-carries-a-gun

Shall I mention a lowlife bottom feeding scum bum?

I really found it offensive when he gate crashed Charlton Heston's home and rudely insulted and attacked the man...Hated Michael *****head ever since that cheap lowlife stunt.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

In 1977 the Canadian Dept of Justice claimed there were 17 million firearms in Canada. Considering the usual rates of import/export it is reasonable to expect there are about 25 million firearms in Canada today.

When we were having a go-around in the ninetys about registration, I would write letters to the local paper on the subject. When Alan Rock was Prince of Justice, I wrote to him and asked why the numbers the Dept. of Justice were useing were so low and he did not answer. I know he got my letter because I sent it registered. I put all of this into a letter to the paper and it was published.

It is my opinion the low number of firearms used reflects the low expectation of firearms to be registered. If the higher number had been used, the level of registration as a percentage would have been dismal.

Useing the higher Dept of Justice numbers from the 1970s and allowing for the normal increase, I don't think gun ownership levels to be that much different between the US and Canada.

post a link

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by mtngiant

Shall I mention a lowlife bottom feeding scum bum?

I really found it offensive when he gate crashed Charlton Heston's home and rudely insulted and attacked the man...Hated Michael *****head ever since that cheap lowlife stunt.

I can't stomach the guy.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

post a link

That came out pre computer, called a book. Mountie, Samurai and the Cowboy by Kopel.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silver

That came out pre computer, called a book. Mountie, Samurai and the Cowboy by Kopel.

Cool. Them hard ready things are fun.

Comparing some guess work from 1970 to the present age of data capture and reporting at our fingertips...I will defer to the present.

Current estimates are more accurate than 1977 and then predicting data for the next 36 years.

And please don't say there is a conspiracy to state lower numbers.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by mtngiant

Shall I mention a lowlife bottom feeding scum bum?

I really found it offensive when he gate crashed Charlton Heston's home and rudely insulted and attacked the man...Hated Michael *****head ever since that cheap lowlife stunt.

I thought Charlton Heston made a fool of moore in spite of coping with Alzheimer's, setting up in front of that big clock showed the viewer just how edited that interview was.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Cool. Them hard ready things are fun.

Comparing some guess work from 1970 to the present age of data capture and reporting at our fingertips...I will defer to the present.

Current estimates are more accurate than 1977 and then predicting data for the next 36 years.

And please don't say there is a conspiracy to state lower numbers.

The question I asked Alan Rock was ...How did you come to these new figures and why are they more accurate than the figures from 1977 and he refused to answer.

So, I ask you, why are the later figures more accurate than the earlier ones?

I know of a lot of people that told me they would register a rifle, a shotgun, and a 22 so they could hunt and not register the rest. A compliance rate of 35% sounds about right.

Don't call it a conspiracy, gee whiz, why not. Are you really so naive that you believe the politicians wouldn't lie to you, to look good, to get what they want?

I must say ,you did read that book very fast.

[Metalmike123]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Guns don't make you safer

Well you had better inform the police and military fast, they have been spending billions on guns in the name of "safety"

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The guy is a flake, a liar and a self-centered, porky dweeb. He plays to, and inflames, people's fear, ignorance and bigotry and peddles that as "journalism".

Who puts out a Teacher's Guide with their radical "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.....unless it was really intended as propaganda?

Did I also mention hypocrite? I know I said liar, but I'll say it again, with an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WA

Steady big fella....lol

The best lies contain a pretty big dose of truth and he hasn't been all wrong.

Folks have tried sueing him for slander and libel and so far... they have all lost.

I'm not saying he is my hero or a brilliant journalist.
He's little more than a showman but he isn't quite the spawn of satan you paint him as either.
And he's no fool.

Now... breath away and check your pulse...it will help calm ya down.

Incidentally.... I find some of his moxy pretty funny.
The Heston thing was a bit off side though... the guy was unwell and had been for years.

Course that did in and of itself illustrate a point Moore was trying to make quite neatly.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Metalmike123

Well you had better inform the police and military fast, they have been spending billions on guns in the name of "safety"

Really?
I thought we bought those things to kill people.
They certainly work well for that anyway.

The helmets and vests are for safety though.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Meow

Good points.. for sure.

Easier to say, rather than to do, if ever in the situation.

For the vast majority of people... its impossible to do with out considerable condition response training.
We're talking over 80% here.

So... 10 guys doing the CCW thing without that training... confronted by a well schooled hyper-aggressive killer results in 8 more guns in baddies hands.

I guess if CCW ever comes to Canada... we better start traveling in packs or wait.... maybe gangs is a better term.

[Unregistered user]

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/...gn=OneShotBlog


Hunters: The Founding Fathers Want A Word With You
1/31/2013


In 1759, before the Declaration of Independence was conceived of, and before the American Revolution began, Benjamin Franklin made what would seem to be an obvious observation: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Old Ben knew what he was talking about, I think: The right of human beings to self-defense with arms is inalienable, given by God. The point of the Second Amendment, as so clearly stated in numerous texts attributed to Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin, is to enable a peaceable citizenry to protect itself from tyranny and oppression. It is the right of human beings everywhere to be able to stand in a militia, if needed, in defense of self and country.


Who are the militia? A Virginian put it best. In 1788, George Mason, who urged passage of the Second Amendment before he would ratify the U.S. Constitution, said: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

The very possibility of citizens standing in defense of self and country keeps us free. The fact that every man and woman in this country is part of the militia protects the United States of America. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why Japan didn’t invade us during World War II. Might it have had something to do with millions of hunters and millions of guns behind every door in America in the 1940s?

It is inarguable that hunters play a key role in defense of our country. Few segments of our society handle firearms as regularly or as adroitly as hunters; next to self-defense, hunting is the primary way Americans exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Hunters were the first members of American society to stand in our militia. The arms they carried at Lexington and Concord, muskets popular in colonial America, can rightly be called the first “assault weapons.”

Of course looking back, no one would think of a musket as an “assault weapon.” So what gives now? Why is the most popular rifle in America being demonized? What makes the AR-15—popular with collectors, recreational and competitive shooters and yes, even hunters—so dastardly? Nothing, really. Its design is rooted in military history, same as every sporting arm in use today.

If you are a hunter who doesn’t own a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and never wants one, someone who thinks the present debate about banning so-called “assault weapons” doesn’t apply to you, think again. As a member of the militia you have an obligation to be prepared to use any and every arm available to civilians to defend yourself and your country. You have an obligation to fight against tyrannical calls to ban such arms as the militia may need to defend our free state.

So the next time you hear someone say, “I support the Second Amendment; I don’t have a problem with hunting; I understand many folks in America hunt and would like to keep their guns,” remember such thoughts have no relevance to today’s debate. The Second Amendment is about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. As such it does not mention hunting, but there is no doubt hunters play a key role in our security. The Founding Fathers knew that when they wrote the Second Amendment. American hunters would do well to remember it.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Really?
I thought we bought those things to kill people.
They certainly work well for that anyway.

The helmets and vests are for safety though.

Poor logic. The vest just stops bullets. The gun stops the person shooting the bullets therefore making the area safe.

Visible firearms are a deterrent (and so is the possibility of a concealed one).

Does a fire extinguisher not make a home safer? By your logic the answer is no, it just puts out fires.

My hammer doesn't build a house, I build a house with my hammer. It's really that simple.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Michael moore a hypocrite and a liar?

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti...-carries-a-gun

I'll raise your bodyguard to:

Micheal Moore owns a gun.

He picked it up at a bank promotion during the making of Bowling for Columbine! I believe banks usually give away pistols for minimum deposits on these promos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4138T2VRgxs

The f_t *9&*(**98!* ho*8 makes me gag.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

So... 10 guys doing the CCW thing without that training... confronted by a well schooled hyper-aggressive killer results in 8 more guns in baddies hands.

ORrrrrr....

10 guys doing the CCW thing with proper training but 8 of whose ammunition is coincidentally dud while 2 of whose guns snag in their armpits while drawing their weapons......confronted by a 7th Dan martial artist killer 7ft. tall with silver teeth and bad breath results in 4 dead CCW guys, 3 more guns in the possession of a baddy with silver teeth, 2 cases of PTSD and 1 more example of why armed guards at schools is just....stupid?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rem338win

Poor logic. The vest just stops bullets. The gun stops the person shooting the bullets therefore making the area safe.

Visible firearms are a deterrent (and so is the possibility of a concealed one).

Does a fire extinguisher not make a home safer? By your logic the answer is no, it just puts out fires.

My hammer doesn't build a house, I build a house with my hammer. It's really that simple.

And my logic is right.
It is yours that is flawed.

A fire extinguisher doesn't make the home safer.
The home is as fire safe as it is constructed to be.
The fire extinguisher does nothing to prevent fire.
It is however a good response to a fire caused by an unsafe condition.
It helps minimize loss but it doesn't make the home safer.
Only something that prevents fire would do that.


Trust me... that sort of stuff has been my bread and butter.

Further make no mistake... the military doesn't have guns as a safety measure.
Cops don't carry guns for safety.
They are purchased and carried for one purpose.
The fact that they also intimidate is nothing more than a fortunate windfall effect.

When we or the police point a gun at you we aren't saying.... I want you to be scared.
Professionals don't shoot to wound or level firearms to bluff.

What they are saying is... I am going to kill you and through the miricle of proper training and response conditioning... they will carry that out.

For the average firearm owner without that sort of training and constant rienforcement... 95% can't bring themselves to take up the slack.

It really isn't that easy to kill someone especially if you have time to mull over the idea for a bit.
Honest.

If it was as easy as point and shoot.... we could save a load of money that is being spent on trying to make traingh more realistic than it used to be.

Way back when only about a quarter of guys actually tried to kill the enemy.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

And my logic is right.
It is yours that is flawed.

The facts support what he said. Whether or not you find facts "logical" does not change them one iota.

Facts do not require your, or anyone's, permission or agreement.

For example....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

I'll raise your bodyguard to:

Micheal Moore owns a gun.

He picked it up at a bank promotion during the making of Bowling for Columbine! I believe banks usually give away pistols for minimum deposits on these promos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4138T2VRgxs

The f_t *9&*(**98!* ho*8 makes me gag.

If I recall correctly... he was pretty up friont about having hunted and stuff in his youth.
I do not believe he is anti-gun pers se.
He is more... anti gun lobby and pro some sort of effective control of the distribution of guns.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by pesky672

If I recall correctly... he was pretty up friont about having hunted and stuff in his youth.
I do not believe he is anti-gun pers se.
He is more... anti gun lobby and pro some sort of effective control of the distribution of guns.

“The short term solution is we have to ban the assault weapons, ban the semiautomatic weapons, ban the magazines that can hold more than ten bullets. That's it. That should be the bottom line of what we need to start with," he argued. “We are a violent people. We as Americans believe it’s OK to kill people,” he added.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/liz-tha...#ixzz2JzQJVrDZ

Wake up.

He's just another shallow, hypocritical left wing loudmouth that has made millions peddling fear, misinformation and class warfare. If it would stroke his ego and line his pockets to take all your guns, you can kiss them goodbye.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

“The short term solution is we have to ban the assault weapons, ban the semiautomatic weapons, ban the magazines that can hold more than ten bullets. That's it. That should be the bottom line of what we need to start with," he argued. “We are a violent people. We as Americans believe it’s OK to kill people,” he added.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/liz-tha...#ixzz2JzQJVrDZ

Wake up.

He's just another shallow, hypocritical left wing loudmouth that has made millions peddling fear, misinformation and class warfare. If it would stroke his ego and line his pockets to take all your guns, you can kiss them goodbye.

Did he say something that's not true ?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pesky672

And my logic is right.
It is yours that is flawed.

A fire extinguisher doesn't make the home safer.
The home is as fire safe as it is constructed to be.
The fire extinguisher does nothing to prevent fire.
It is however a good response to a fire caused by an unsafe condition.
It helps minimize loss but it doesn't make the home safer.
Only something that prevents fire would do that.


Trust me... that sort of stuff has been my bread and butter.

Further make no mistake... the military doesn't have guns as a safety measure.
Cops don't carry guns for safety.
They are purchased and carried for one purpose.
The fact that they also intimidate is nothing more than a fortunate windfall effect.

When we or the police point a gun at you we aren't saying.... I want you to be scared.
Professionals don't shoot to wound or level firearms to bluff.

What they are saying is... I am going to kill you and through the miricle of proper training and response conditioning... they will carry that out.

For the average firearm owner without that sort of training and constant rienforcement... 95% can't bring themselves to take up the slack.

It really isn't that easy to kill someone especially if you have time to mull over the idea for a bit.
Honest.

If it was as easy as point and shoot.... we could save a load of money that is being spent on trying to make traingh more realistic than it used to be.

Way back when only about a quarter of guys actually tried to kill the enemy.

A fire extinguisher makes the house safer if you have lots of dangerous flames and potential fire hazards and don't do anything to be proactive and preventative.

X1000

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Did he say something that's not true ?

Really, please pass the koolaid....

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

The facts support what he said. Whether or not you find facts "logical" does not change them one iota.

Facts do not require your, or anyone's, permission or agreement.

For example....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

What facts?

Did he provide facts?
No.

The only facts that keep coming up are that folks leading the fight on your side of the arguement are just as sneaky, manipulative, and self interested as the antis. They pander to fear like the antis but use a different set of fears for a different target audience to advance their interests.


He (the other member) suggested that a fire extinguisher deters fire which it does not.
Any more than a gun in and of itself deters crime.

Guns might be used to respond to crime like a fire extinguisher is used to respond to fire but guns do not prevent initial crime.

If they did.... then nobody would ever need to draw one.

Unless you think its OK to start leveling firearms at people who have not yet done anything?
That might work ... nobody would mess with a guy that waved a gun in their face as soon as they approached.
Cept maybe another gun carrying citizen interested in crime prevention that is....

It the same logic flaw that is used when people say... manditory or longer sentences prevent crime.

If that was true... jails would be empty.
And obviously... since sentences follow trials which follow crimes... they are not a preventive measure.
Preventive measure interupt an action BEFORE a crime is commited.
Therefore manditory minimums are a reactive measure and not a preventive one.

Its really just a matter of understanding the meaning of some words and applying a bit of basic logic.

Shouldn't be too hard to understand but if it gives ya brain ache... I understand.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

Really, please pass the koolaid....

Answer the question don't make a statement.

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Did he say something that's true ?

No

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Answer the question don't make a statement.

There ya go..^^

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

No

Proof ?