Michael Moore Responds to BFC Critics [Archive]

Ranb

12th November 2003, 10:23 AM

>>>>>>>>And before any of the usual gun nuts start ranting, keep in mind that the issue is gun control, not banning them.>>>>>>>>

It is about banning guns. No rational American gun owner should allow him/herself to think otherwise. Michael Moore sides with The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. This group clearly hates gun owners and does not hesitate to lie on it's website to promote their version of morality.

Moore says, " The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain." Yeah right!!! That is a good one. If the NRA was so powerful, then a piece of crap movie like The Runaway Jury would not be on the screen.

I have not watched BFC, so I do not have an opinion on it. But Moore's words on his own website speak for themselves. He does not like gun owners. People like him and the Brady group who say they do not want to ban guns, but only control them are lying. Their idea of common sense gun control laws are banning any guns they do not like.

Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own. If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol. If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars. Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too. Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA. Trimming a rifle barrel down to 15.75" without paying a $200 tax and getting permission from the local sherrif is a good way to end up in the slammer too.

That these are examples of victimless crimes does not stop the Brady bunch from getting all worked up over gun ownership and lobbying to create more oppressive gun control laws in a country that already has too many.

Ranb

GroundStrength

12th November 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Ranb
>>>>>>>>And before any of the usual gun nuts start ranting, keep in mind that the issue is gun control, not banning them.>>>>>>>>

It is about banning guns. No rational American gun owner should allow him/herself to think otherwise. Michael Moore sides with The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. This group clearly hates gun owners and does not hesitate to lie on it's website to promote their version of morality.

Moore says, " The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain." Yeah right!!! That is a good one. If the NRA was so powerful, then a piece of crap movie like The Runaway Jury would not be on the screen.

I have not watched BFC, so I do not have an opinion on it. But Moore's words on his own website speak for themselves. He does not like gun owners. People like him and the Brady group who say they do not want to ban guns, but only control them are lying. Their idea of common sense gun control laws are banning any guns they do not like.

Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own. If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol. If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars. Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too. Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA. Trimming a rifle barrel down to 15.75" without paying a $200 tax and getting permission from the local sherrif is a good way to end up in the slammer too.

That these are examples of victimless crimes does not stop the Brady bunch from getting all worked up over gun ownership and lobbying to create more oppressive gun control laws in a country that already has too many.

Ranb

Amen.

Any form of gun control will only 'control' law abiding citizens. Thugs, punks, gang members and trash would not obey any law concerning gun control.

Chaos

12th November 2003, 10:56 AM

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Tony
His lies have already been proven, there is nothing he can say that will make his lying come true.

For those of us who missed it, which parts are the lies? I realize how much editing goes into a movie, but a lot of what has been said about the movie is alos not true.

The most damning thing I heard was that he rearranged the order of the various parts of the interview to make Heston look dumb, ala 60 Minutes.

Surely bowling leading to gun deaths is true!

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Chaos

I confess I have not seen BfC myself, but I heard repeatedly that Moore concludes that the problem is not guns, but the American culture itself - which would mean it is not about banning guns.

Quite true, he does point out that canada has as many guns in freedom as the US, he basicaly doesn't make any points except for the evilness of the NRA and american hysteria.

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 12:09 PM

No way to prove it either way, I just want to register guns, because I think a lot of stolen guns aren't stolen they are sold and then resold.

My compromise is that allowing for gun registration would mean that any weapon except a nuclear weapon could be owned by a citizen, no restriction.(period).

But if you get your weapon stolen it must be reported as stolen.

So is it a deal, no more silly laws about automatic weapons and the size of magazines that clip onto guns, you can own any weapon as long as it is registered and you accept full responsibility for it. So if a neighbor kid steals your tank, you have a consequence.

Is that fair?

Second point, cities outlaw the freedom of the press all the time, should cities be allowed to ban guns?(Stupid but feasible)

Ranb

12th November 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Chaos

I confess I have not seen BfC myself, but I heard repeatedly that Moore concludes that the problem is not guns, but the American culture itself - which would mean it is not about banning guns.

Take a look at the link posted by Manifesto. It clearly shows that Moore supports The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. I was not commenting on his movie, just on his personal attributes. He supports a group of people who hate gun-owning Americans. The Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA, and they tell lies to do it. He say he will give them money to support their twisted cause.

There is of course a gun violence problem in America. But a supporting a hate group like Brady is not the way to solve it. Perhaps you have heard of the saying, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." Moore has fleas.

Ranb

DavidJames

12th November 2003, 12:23 PM

"group of people who hate gun-owning Americans"

Could you please provide some evidence of this?

I briefly looked at the Brady site and found this quote:

"The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing pro-gun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that:

"Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA"

aerocontrols

12th November 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

For those of us who missed it, which parts are the lies? I realize how much editing goes into a movie, but a lot of what has been said about the movie is alos not true.

The most damning thing I heard was that he rearranged the order of the various parts of the interview to make Heston look dumb, ala 60 Minutes.

Surely bowling leading to gun deaths is true!

Try here (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore). I think the most damning thing he did was altering a Bush/Quayle campaign commercial about furloughs. He added text specifically referring to Willie Horton to the commercial, making it appear that the Bush/Quayle campaign had run the commercial with the text. The text, by the way, falsely asserts that Horton 'killed again' while on furlough.

Moore apparently thinks that his alteration is fairly damning as well, considering that he has further changed it for the DVD release. He know has changed the caption to correctly state that Horton raped a woman and stabbed her boyfriend. The caption still appears to be a part of the campaign commercial, though it never was.

He staged (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233) the scene at the bank:

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

I recommend all of Spinsanity's research, from Moore and Scheer and Rall to Limbaugh and Coulter and O'Reilley.

Tony

12th November 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

For those of us who missed it, which parts are the lies?

I dont see how you could miss it, it was posted on this very website a long time ago, with sources and everything. I forgot who posted it, but I think he has a Bugs Bunny avatar.

Skeptic

12th November 2003, 12:53 PM

Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own. If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol. If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars. Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too. Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA. Trimming a rifle barrel down to 15.75" without paying a $200 tax and getting permission from the local sherrif is a good way to end up in the slammer too.

Is it just me, or does this paragraph display a worrying tone of increasingly dangerous weapons? First a pistol, then a silencer (to use on a rifle range? Go figure), then a 30-cartridge magazine for a semiautomatic rifle, then a privately-owned machine gun, then a sawed-off shotgun...

I can see the next paragraph: "Modifying my hand grenades is TOTALLY outlawed now, I need a special permit for my APC, My Abrams' tank has to be registered, and don't speak to me about the mess I had with that H-bomb..."

Really, having a pistol, a silencer, a semiautomatic with 30-bullet clips and a machine gun should be enough no matter how p*ssed off you are. Do you REALLY need that sawed-off shotgun as well?

Grammatron

12th November 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own. If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol. If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars. Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too. Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA. Trimming a rifle barrel down to 15.75" without paying a $200 tax and getting permission from the local sherrif is a good way to end up in the slammer too.

Is it just me, or does this paragraph display a worrying tone of increasingly dangerous weapons? First a pistol, then a silencer (to use on a rifle range? Go figure), then a 30-cartridge magazine for a semiautomatic rifle, then a privately-owned machine gun, then a sawed-off shotgun...

I can see the next paragraph: "Modifying my hand grenades is TOTALLY outlawed now, I need a special permit for my APC, My Abrams' tank has to be registered, and don't speak to me about the mess I had with that H-bomb..."

Really, having a pistol, a silencer, a semiautomatic with 30-bullet clips and a machine gun should be enough no matter how p*ssed off you are. Do you REALLY need that sawed-off shotgun as well?

Though the question was not directed at me, let me answer it in two parts. First part, yes I do. Second part, who the heck are you to tell me what I do or do not need?

deanerk

12th November 2003, 01:25 PM

OK, so you do need a sawed off shotgun and you don't have to answer why. As an owner of several shotguns I just wanted to say that I've never had the need for a shorter barrel. I don't do a whole lot of short range hunting.

EdipisReks

12th November 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by deanerk
OK, so you do need a sawed off shotgun and you don't have to answer why. As an owner of several shotguns I just wanted to say that I've never had the need for a shorter barrel. I don't do a whole lot of short range hunting.

good luck using a 24 incher in close quarters against a home invader.

deanerk

12th November 2003, 01:39 PM

Sorry, I don't hunt home invaders. In fact I'm not sure how that works. Enlighten me. I wouldn't reach for a shotgun if my home was invaded.

Ranb

12th November 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"group of people who hate gun-owning Americans"

Could you please provide some evidence of this?

I briefly looked at the Brady site and found this quote:

"The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing pro-gun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence."

Can you provide evidence to support your claim that:

"Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA"

Take a longer look at their website and you can see what they want. Their front page looks all nice, but look deeper and you get this.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/loophole.asp

Here is where they demonize private transactions between gun owners. They want the government involved everytime I want to buy or sell a gun. There is no such thing as a gunshow or internet loophole. Licensed dealers are ALWAYS supposed to comply with the federal Brady law when transferring a firearm, all others NEVER have to. No loophole here, it is about taking away a right that Americans now have.

They have also demonized standard capcity magazines by labeling them as "high capacity" and trying to ban manufacture and importation.

Here are more lies from the Brady bunch.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/aw_safesec.asp

"A BATF survey of 735 hunting guides, conducted during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, found that sportsmen do not use assault weapons."

Appearantly, the opinions of 735 people are enough to convince the Brady group that no real American would dare use an "assualt rifle" for sport shooting. Very undemocratic and unamerican of them to say this. I guess they do not think target shooting is a sport.

"A threaded barrel designed to attach a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon."

This is a obvious lie. Silencers are legal in most states of the Union. They also prevent the most common injury asocciated with shooting; hearing loss. Silencers do not actually silence a firearm, they only reduce the noise. It is very rare that a weapon firing a bullet fast and heavy enough to do harm can be quieted down less than 100 decibels. They would brand me as an assassin because I build my own suppressors after paying a $200 tax for each.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/50_cal.asp

"While there is no evidence that the .50 caliber sniper rifle was designed for recreational use, its manufacturers have often labeled it as a sporting rifle to legitimize their sale of this deadly weapon to the public."

The M2 50 cal machinegun is a war weapon. The single shot and semi-auto rifles were made for the civilian market. Just because the military found a use for them does not make them "designed for war". I participate in a shooting match each month ( I try anyway) using my 50 caliber rifle. Here is where I do it. http://www.members.tripod.com/unsc/benchrest/PNW50SA/PacificNorthwest50shooters.htm This page also shows me shooting my "sniper" rifle. Believe it or not, dispite what the Brady group says, I am enjoying myself and am not a terrorist in training. They would want you to believe that the 50bmg rifle is an effective terror weapon. It is so "effective" it has never been used in America as a terror weapon. I do not think it has been used to murder anyone in the USA either. If it had, you can be sure they would be touting the event on this link.

The Brady organization wants to prohibit myself and other good Americans from owning the firearms we want and backs laws that would put a non-violent person in jail for merely owning a banned weapon. This tells me they hate gun owners.

Start thinking for yourself and don't let these creeps dupe you into thinking they do not hate gun owners.

Ranb

DavidJames

12th November 2003, 02:17 PM

"Start thinking for yourself and don't let these creeps dupe you into thinking they do not hate gun owners."

As I suspected, you are unable to support either of your claims.

Have a nice day :)

Tony

12th November 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Start thinking for yourself and don't let these creeps dupe you into thinking they do not hate gun owners."

As I suspected, you are unable to support either of your claims.

Have a nice day :)

He showed you 3 pages that suppored his claims idiot.

Chaos

12th November 2003, 02:37 PM

Ranb
I admit I know next to nothing about firearms, and I have never in my life even touched one.

However, two of your points make me wonder:

Assault rifles:
I suppose this term refers to rifles that are capable of bursts (fire several bullets by pulling the trigger once) and full-auto (fire a rapid succession of bullets as long as trigger is pulled) fire - the kind soldiers use.
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.

Silencers:
Again, I see some use of this for terrorists, but no use for hunters or sportsmen that they could not get with ear-muffs or such.

NightG1

12th November 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

"A BATF survey of 735 hunting guides, conducted during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, found that sportsmen do not use assault weapons."

Appearantly, the opinions of 735 people are enough to convince the Brady group that no real American would dare use an "assualt rifle" for sport shooting. Very undemocratic and unamerican of them to say this. I guess they do not think target shooting is a sport.

Just an observation....735 hunting guides would represnt a fairly large population of hunters (assuming they all have a large clientel). And if they are saying that none of their clientel use assault rifles, then that would be far more substantive than just 735 "opinions" you assert in your strawman. And why would hunting guides care about "target" shooting. Do you need a guide to "target" shoot?

I also noted that nowhere in your link did anyone afiliated with the Brady Campaign state that they "hated" gun owners or that they wanted to "ban guns in the USA". I think you need to stick to plain old facts and leave the hyperbole and hysteria to Tony and RichardG.

DavidJames

12th November 2003, 02:43 PM

Tony
"He showed you 3 pages that suppored his claims idiot"

Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans".

And his claim that "Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA" is also unsupported. Perhaps he would like to restate this something to the effect of the "Brady Campaign is trying to ban some guns here in the USA".

Regarding your "idiot" comment, considering the source, I view that as a compliment.

In this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681
when you said:

"This is a case in which I advocate deadly force against the police"

You are saying the police officer should be killed for arresting the boy.

I have no interest in further discussions with someone who advocates cold blooded murder of policemen.

a_unique_person

12th November 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Tony
His lies have already been proven, there is nothing he can say that will make his lying come true.

You've convinced me.

Blarg

12th November 2003, 03:11 PM

While I cannot speak for Ranb, I hope to address some of his points:
If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol.
He may be referring to an "assault weapon" ban similar to this one (http://www.claremont.org/projects/doctors/990914wheeler.html) in California. Smallbore target pistols were mistakenly classified as "assault weapons" because their magazines were in front of the triggers instead of in the grips. However politicians may feel about "assault weapons" (http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml), is it too much to ask that they double check for this sort of thing before passing kneejerk legislation?
If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars.
Despite the Federal paperwork, $200.00 tax and registration (http://www.ontarget-inc.com/smgpurchase.htm) that he completed to legally own that suppressor, that state doesn't trust him with it. Does it magically become more dangerous there?
Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too.
I have never understood the notion that one 30-round magazine is more dangerous than a dozen 10-round magazines. Please also note that the AR-15 is not a machine gun.
Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA.
Yep. It's perfecly sensible to outlaw threaded barrels on semi-automatic(one shot per trigger pull) rifles while allowing the ownership of fully automatic firearms if you fill out the paperwork (http://www.ontarget-inc.com/smgpurchase.htm).
Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own.
The Gun Owners' Lament is the proliferation of all of these technicalities(most of which are felonies to violate, even in ignorance or by accident) that don't really inconvenience(much less disarm) criminals.
Originally posted by Skeptic Is it just me, or does this paragraph display a worrying tone of increasingly dangerous weapons? First a pistol, then a silencer (to use on a rifle range? Go figure), then a 30-cartridge magazine for a semiautomatic rifle, then a privately-owned machine gun, then a sawed-off shotgun...
I can see the next paragraph: "Modifying my hand grenades is TOTALLY outlawed now, I need a special permit for my APC, My Abrams' tank has to be registered, and don't speak to me about the mess I had with that H-bomb..."
Really, having a pistol, a silencer, a semiautomatic with 30-bullet clips and a machine gun should be enough no matter how p*ssed off you are. Do you REALLY need that sawed-off shotgun as well?
TBNT for the "dangerous gun nut" stereotyping. That was almost as impressive as Moore ad homing his critics as "Wacko Attackos". If Moore wanted to impress with his sincerity, he would not descend to the level of his nastier detractors.

More on BFC:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Originally posted by Chaos
Assault rifles:
I suppose this term refers to rifles that are capable of bursts (fire several bullets by pulling the trigger once) and full-auto (fire a rapid succession of bullets as long as trigger is pulled) fire - the kind soldiers use.
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.
It is already illegal to hunt with full-auto firearms in the US. Many people shoot them recreationally. I posted a bit here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870172441#post1870172441) about recreational full-auto shooting (and more concerning Brady "mistakes" and the "assault weapons" controversy, if anyone is interested).

Segnosaur

12th November 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
No way to prove it either way, I just want to register guns, because I think a lot of stolen guns aren't stolen they are sold and then resold.

Personally, I do believe that having enforced gun registration would save some lives (a small number of people would secure their guns better, report them stolen, etc.) However, you have to look at the relative costs. A registration program will cost money to set up, and the government doesn't have unlimited cash; decisions have to be made. If the goal is to save lives, instead of spending money on a gun registry (that not everyone will bother with; certainly not criminals), better results might be obtained by putting the money into better policing, education, or health care.

Here in Canada, we have had much stricter gun laws for a while. Recently, the government started a program to register all firearms (including rifles). They originally said it would cost $35 million, then upgraded that to $200 million. Now that they've actually started implementing it, the costs have already reached $1 billion, and the process is nowhere near complete. In fact, its been a disaster. There have also been far too many problems; people sending in their applications, and either getting 2 registrations, or none at all, misassignments, etc.

Now, you have to wonder... what could you have done with $1 billion? How many free vaccinations could be given? How many new MRI machines could be set up (reducing the wait for medical tests). How many police could be hired to crack down on real crime?

Ranb

12th November 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
Is it just me, or does this paragraph display a worrying tone of increasingly dangerous weapons? First a pistol, then a silencer (to use on a rifle range? Go figure), then a 30-cartridge magazine for a semiautomatic rifle, then a privately-owned machine gun, then a sawed-off shotgun...

I can see the next paragraph: "Modifying my hand grenades is TOTALLY outlawed now, I need a special permit for my APC, My Abrams' tank has to be registered, and don't speak to me about the mess I had with that H-bomb..."

Really, having a pistol, a silencer, a semiautomatic with 30-bullet clips and a machine gun should be enough no matter how p*ssed off you are. Do you REALLY need that sawed-off shotgun as well?

It is just you. I am not an angry man. I just do not like reading about how it is wrong to own firearms. I do not like giving an inch, because then they will want a whole mile.

I do need that sawed off shotgun. I don't have one yet, but I intend to have a pistolgrip mossberg 500 registered as an AOW so I can attach a 7" barrel. This will make it a pistol and not an SBS. Why do I need it? Just to enhance my firearms collection. :)

I'm sure I can't convince people like you, that I present no threat to anyone. But I should not have to justify my ownership of small arms to anyone, especially someone who seems to be as insecure as you and DavidJames.

DavidJames,

Surely you can read between the lines. Regarding your "Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans"." when someone tells a lie and tries to demonize people who make or own guns, then it is clear to me that they hate them. When the Brady's say they are trying to only ban SOME guns, what they mean is all the guns they do not like. To them almost all guns are either, too small, too big, too cheap, too powerful, too accurate, too military looking, or otherwise offend them too much that they will get to any gun you yourself may own someday if given the opportunity. If they come right out and say that they hate gun owners, then they will lose too many people who are sitting on the gun control fence or are willing to give up anything they themselves do not own. They speak in full-blown lies, and half-truths where it suits them.

You really believe them when they say silencers are illegal in the USA when they are actually legal to own in 35 states of the union? Illegal in the USA is a blanket statement. They are clearly legal here.

Ranb

Ranb

12th November 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by NightG1

Just an observation....735 hunting guides would represnt a fairly large population of hunters (assuming they all have a large clientel). And if they are saying that none of their clientel use assault rifles, then that would be far more substantive than just 735 "opinions" you assert in your strawman. And why would hunting guides care about "target" shooting. Do you need a guide to "target" shoot?

I also noted that nowhere in your link did anyone afiliated with the Brady Campaign state that they "hated" gun owners or that they wanted to "ban guns in the USA". I think you need to stick to plain old facts and leave the hyperbole and hysteria to Tony and RichardG.

Well, lets see.......... 735 guides said that "sportsman" do not use assault rifles. Sportsman is a rather broad term. I think the guides were referring to hunters of large game, I may be wrong, but I do not think so. The Brady group is equating "sportsman" with anyone who shoots for a sporting purpose. Why didn't they go to the local target range during a three-gun shoot to get opinions on the sporting uses of assault weapons? Because it would not have fit their agenda. Instead they use a survey conducted by someone else that was a perfect fit for them. That survey will not work so well if/when they decide to go after the owners of scoped 460 weatherby magnums.

Not everyone uses a guide either. Take a look at the second quarter VHP magazine. It shows a lady who used her 50bmg to take an elk at 750 yards. Good shooting. Not luck.

What would you say is sport?

High power target shooting? I have worked long and hard to make myself into a skilled shooter at high power matches.
An ar15, sks, ak47, m1 carbine all work well at the 3 gun shoots. They are accurate when aimed from the shoulder and powerful enough to drop popper targets. Tell the IPSC shooters they are not engaging in sport. I'm sure you can think of other sporting uses for a semi-auto rifle.

Since it was only "guides" who were surveyed, and not the likely large number of clients, I was not making a strawman argument.

I am not engaging in hyperbole. I know a rat when I smell it and Brady stinks.

Ranb

Ranb

12th November 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
Ranb

Assault rifles:
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.

Silencers:
Again, I see some use of this for terrorists, but no use for hunters or sportsmen that they could not get with ear-muffs or such.

I have about 30 guns in my collection. Most of my rifles are suitable for hunting, including my semi-auto rifles. I prefer bolt action rifles for hunting though. I have a couple of rifles and handguns capable to taking game between 100-400 yards away. Hunting is not the reason I own most of my guns. Some of them (including the semi-autos) are useful for target shooting and competition. The rest I own merely because it pleases me to do so. I enjoy shooting loading ammo and gunsmithing. I have a few antique guns, but they are not collector's items.

Assault rifles (usually shooting medium or low power cartridges) are not suitable for so called monsters. They can be suitable for small game. I saw an elephant rampaging in Honolulu one time. I watched on TV as the HPD tried for a long while to put it down with M16's and shotguns. The poor thing suffered for too long until it finally succumbed to all the 22 caliber bullets and buckshot.

Please do not get hung up on hunting as the only reason for owning guns of any kind. There are many other reasons to own them as you can find out for yourself by looking into American gun culture on the net. Shooting paper and busting up hard targets is lots of fun when using a semi-auto rifle.

Silencers, more properly called suppressors, are useful because they reduce noise pollution and reduce the chance of hearing loss. While there is no substitute for using good hearing protection, (even when using a silencer, gunfire can hurt your ears) a good sound suppressor or moderator can reduce the chance of hearing loss for the shooter and any bystanders who are not wearing protection. Also they are useful for the hunter when he can use them legally. Hunters find game by listening for it as well as using their eyes.

I make my own suppressors. It is as rewarding as making something in high school wood shop.

If you live in an area where guns are legal, I would encourage you to learn how to shoot. You may find it to be a rewarding experience.

Ranb

Tony

12th November 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames

You are saying the police officer should be killed for arresting the boy.

I have no interest in further discussions with someone who advocates cold blooded murder of policemen.

Nice strawman.

NightG1

12th November 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

Well, lets see.......... 735 guides said that "sportsman" do not use assault rifles. Sportsman is a rather broad term...snip
735 guides have a representative clientel that do not use assault rifles. You went off on a tangent claiming that only 735 "opinions" were used to arrive at a conclusion. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that these guides were lying, then the 735 guides could actually represent the defacto standard for a far greater population of hunters on the issue of whether assualt rifles are used as hunting weapons. Why would a "sportsman" need a guide for anything else other than assistance in finding game (i.e. to hunt)? If each guide had 50 clients, that could be over 35,000 hunters. Get it now spunky?

Tony

12th November 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You've convinced me.

Convincing you of anything beyond your pre-conceived notions is akin to convincing a gay dude to have sex with a woman.

Tony

12th November 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames

Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans".

It doesnt have to, you judge by their actions. Using this "logic", the KKK wouldn't hate black people because their website doesn't say "We hate *******".

And his claim that "Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA" is also unsupported. Perhaps he would like to restate this something to the effect of the "Brady Campaign is trying to ban some guns here in the USA".

You just believe their propaganda.

a_unique_person

12th November 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Convincing you of anything beyond your pre-conceived notions is akin to convincing a gay dude to have sex with a woman.

You're very pursuasive. Where's the woman?

Ranb

12th November 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by NightG1

735 guides have a representative clientel that do not use assault rifles. You went off on a tangent claiming that only 735 "opinions" were used to arrive at a conclusion. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that these guides were lying, then the 735 guides could actually represent the defacto standard for a far greater population of hunters on the issue of whether assualt rifles are used as hunting weapons. Why would a "sportsman" need a guide for anything else other than assistance in finding game (i.e. to hunt)? If each guide had 50 clients, that could be over 35,000 hunters. Get it now spunky?

"A BATF survey of 735 hunting guides, conducted during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, found that sportsmen do not use assault weapons"

I am quite certain that what the guides said in the survey is in fact true. Most hunters do indeed use far more powerful rifles than the assault weapons that the Brady's are trying to ban. I could not give a rat's ass what 35,000 hunters had to say about what I can use to hunt.

I am saying that the Brady group is distorting the truth with this report. They are using the BATF survey of a small group of Americans to define what sporting use is. I am saving my venom for Brady, not the BATF, guides, or Bush.

Ranb

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Tony

I dont see how you could miss it, it was posted on this very website a long time ago, with sources and everything. I forgot who posted it, but I think he has a Bugs Bunny avatar.

I was involved in other hreads at the time, I was hoping for a 'best of' but I am sure this thread will have links. many of the anti-Moore sites seem even whackier than Moore, which is pretty whacky!

BTox

12th November 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by deanerk
Sorry, I don't hunt home invaders. In fact I'm not sure how that works. Enlighten me. I wouldn't reach for a shotgun if my home was invaded.

Actually a shotgun is the best home protection weapon. Intimidating, easy to aim and shoot, better chance of hitting the invader, and much less chance of accidentally killing a neighbor as could happen with a rifle or pistol slug blowing through a wall or window.

BTox

12th November 2003, 07:18 PM

And BTW, Michael Moore is a blithering idiot. Anyone really cares about his movies?

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Try here (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore). I think the most damning thing he did was altering a Bush/Quayle campaign commercial about furloughs. He added text specifically referring to Willie Horton to the commercial, making it appear that the Bush/Quayle campaign had run the commercial with the text. The text, by the way, falsely asserts that Horton 'killed again' while on furlough.

Moore apparently thinks that his alteration is fairly damning as well, considering that he has further changed it for the DVD release. He know has changed the caption to correctly state that Horton raped a woman and stabbed her boyfriend. The caption still appears to be a part of the campaign commercial, though it never was.

He staged (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233) the scene at the bank:

I recommend all of Spinsanity's research, from Moore and Scheer and Rall to Limbaugh and Coulter and O'Reilley.

Thanks, thats about what i figured from reading around on the web, but trusting those conservatives opinion spinners, about as much as I would truest Moore.

Thanks again!

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Personally, I do believe that having enforced gun registration would save some lives (a small number of people would secure their guns better, report them stolen, etc.) However, you have to look at the relative costs. A registration program will cost money to set up, and the government doesn't have unlimited cash; decisions have to be made. If the goal is to save lives, instead of spending money on a gun registry (that not everyone will bother with; certainly not criminals), better results might be obtained by putting the money into better policing, education, or health care.

Here in Canada, we have had much stricter gun laws for a while. Recently, the government started a program to register all firearms (including rifles). They originally said it would cost $35 million, then upgraded that to $200 million. Now that they've actually started implementing it, the costs have already reached $1 billion, and the process is nowhere near complete. In fact, its been a disaster. There have also been far too many problems; people sending in their applications, and either getting 2 registrations, or none at all, misassignments, etc.

Now, you have to wonder... what could you have done with $1 billion? How many free vaccinations could be given? How many new MRI machines could be set up (reducing the wait for medical tests). How many police could be hired to crack down on real crime?

My goal would have to be to decrease the illegal trade in arms, not that vehicle registration stops auto theft.

And for the cost, we spent much more than that firing off Tomahawk and other cruise missles this year.

I never claim to be right just what i think.

Thank you for your post.

Canada always has sounded like a great if cold place! (My step-son is a Newfie.)

Wolverine

12th November 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Thanks, thats about what i figured from reading around on the web, but trusting those conservatives opinion spinners, about as much as I would truest Moore.

In regard to the NCB scene, I stumbled across this (http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html) bit from a writer who doesn't appear to delve into matters political:

One of the segments of the movie that gets the most airplay on TV takes place at the very beginning. There's a bank in Northern Michigan that will give you a free gun if you open an account. Moore is shown walking into the bank and asking to open "the account where you get the free gun." He's led to an office where he fills out a couple of forms, answers a couple of questions, a quick background check is completed (Moore comments about the speed and ease of the process) and presto: he exits the bank, proudly raising his new Weatherby rifle in the air.

So I called the bank, North Country Bank & Trust. The spokesperson who processed Moore's free gun in the film doesn't work there any more, but I spoke to one of the gun program's customer-service reps. It turns out that it's impossible to duplicate Moore's experience.

Here's the procedure for the gun program, as it was explained to me:

1) You walk into the bank and ask for "the account where you get the free gun."

2) You're shown a catalogue of available products. They're famous for their guns, but you can also choose a set of golf clubs, a grandfather clock, or other expensive bric-a-brac. You pick out an item.

3) The gun isn't actually "free"; you're buying a Certificate of Deposit and the bank is paying you all of the interest from the account in advance, in the form of fabulous prizes. The bank employee knows what each item costs and calculates how much money you'll have to desposit and how long you'll have to keep it in there to pay off the gun. For instance, I was told that to get the Mark 5 Stainless Weatherby, I'd have to deposit $5697 and keep it there for three years.

4) You fill out paperwork. Two sets, actually. One is the usual paperwork for opening a CD, the second is information for the required firearms background check.

5) You go home and wait. The bank processes your paperwork, both to make sure that no other bank has ever lost money doing business with you, and to make sure that they can legally sell you a firearm. I asked the rep how long the bank took to approve a customer and get him his gun, but she was uncomfortable with giving me an actual number.

"Well, are we talking hours? Days?" I asked.

"Oh, days, definitely." Later in the conversation, she described it as "Like, two weeks' worth of days."

6) When the bank is satisfied that it's safe to issue you a CD and a gun, they notify you. You have the option of picking up the weapon at a local gun dealer or right at the bank but in either case, the weapon has to be shipped there from a different location. No gun inventory is kept at the bank; the only firearms they have on hand are display models so you can fondle the merchandise before you make a selection.

So there are obviously some major disconnects between the experience Moore presents and the experience a customer would have if they didn't appear with a film crew. Again, this is preliminary stuff: it's possible that the process was indeed just that simple when Moore came to film. But it's also possible that the bank agreed to streamline it for the purposes of filming. Unfortunately, the woman who actually chairs the program (and perhaps can speak more authoritatively) was on vacation when I called, but I've got her return-date circled on the calendar. Stay tuned.

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You're very pursuasive. Where's the woman?

I take it your looking for a transexual?

For the others;
I am supporter of registration but i am a shooter, never fired a BAR but hope to some day, an AK-47 was way fun, as was a WW-2 10mm mauser and my favorite, a Springfield M-1 Garand. .22 are okay but I like the bigger rounds for target practise, they just make bigger holes in the Bibles . :)

BTox

12th November 2003, 07:39 PM

I think NJ where I live does handle this issue pretty well. I had to get finger-printed, FBI check and wait a month or so to get a permit to buy a handgun. And you need a firearms ID card to buy ammo.

Dancing David

12th November 2003, 07:41 PM

Wolverine: Thanks, that was what i had heard and it was what i figured when I watched the movie. the Brady Bill and the state would have required at least a background check.(Say, I guess Mr. Moore was never hospitalizaed for a major mental illness!)

truely the worst part of the movie was the stunt he pulled with the two kids who were shot at Columbine, it was clearly exploitative, had he called in advance those kids would have gotten much better treatment and lots of cool publicity. Even as a bed wetting liberal I thought that scene was sickening!

ImpyTimpy

12th November 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by BTox
I think NJ where I live does handle this issue pretty well. I had to get finger-printed, FBI check and wait a month or so to get a permit to buy a handgun. And you need a firearms ID card to buy ammo.

That's the most reasonable gun control measure ever. Just make people have special permits to buy ammunition. :) Guns don't kill people, bullets do :p

Skeptic

12th November 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

It is just you. I am not an angry man. I just do not like reading about how it is wrong to own firearms. I do not like giving an inch, because then they will want a whole mile.

Actually, I agree with you. I was writing tongue-in-cheek... it was just the escalating arms race in the post that made me chuckle.

a_unique_person

12th November 2003, 09:21 PM

Looks like half the web is having a go at Mike. I just watched it, and half the criticism is not about his facts, but about the fact he has to edit a film. For example, Aerocontrols first link. What do they want, a clip that shows the whole meeting of the NRA?

Everything in that clip was true. It was filmed there, and has not been denied. He just left out the bits that didn't support his case. And the actual procedural bits.....

Unmoored From Reality
An ideological con artist is the favorite for an Oscar.

lets start with the ad homs.

With Hollywood in a fever pitch against the war in Iraq, Michael Moore is likely to win the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards. "Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore's work of anti-American propaganda, has grossed over $15 million, an amazing sum for a film billed as a documentary. But the film, a merry dissection of America's "culture of fear" and love of guns, is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that it ought to be classed as a work of fiction.

Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation. "Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism," observes Andrew Sullivan in London's Sunday Times.

Anti Americanism? There are plenty of good Americans. MM is American. He just doesn't like the wacky aspects of it's culture, which seem to include teenagers and younger going to school and shooting other students. This happens in other countries, too, but nowhere near the rate at which it happens in the US.

Mr. Moore plays into all of the worst stereotypes and distortions about America. "Bowling for Columbine" attempts to explain interventions by the U.S. military as rooted in an inherently violent domestic culture. "I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people,' " he told NBC's "Today" show. "Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' We're the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?"

To make this strained connection, Mr. Moore tries to make us believe that the two mentally disturbed high school students who massacred their fellow students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., grew up in a community that has a sinister connection to the military-industrial complex. A Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton manufactures "weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Moore claims. The factory actually makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space. And the very title of Mr. Moore's film is based on a deception. It refers to the bowling class that the Columbine killers supposedly took the morning they committed their murders. The only problem is that they actually cut the class.

He appears to have believed that they went there. It was their regular activity at on those days.

It is one of the theories he postulates about why this all happened. He goes through several. He does not say that any one theory is wholly correct. One thing that cannot be denied, which is his main contention, is that the US is a much more violent and paranoid country than other similar countries, including Canada, just across the border.

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

This appears to be a matter of opinion that differs between the Bank and Michael. Either way, they said they have hundreds of guns in their bank vault for just that purpose. They hand out guns for new accounts. They advertise this fact. They are a registered arms dealer. They hand out guns in the bank.

Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.

Preposterous? Debatable at worst. The rebuttal does not dispute that single mothers have to work in places that take half a day to get to and back from. They cannot leave a child alone for that length of time. They leave for work before the child even wakes in the morning. Maybe she should have put him into paid child care. Yeah, right. The jobs she was on were strictly "working poor" type.

Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

Yet the UN is still owed millions in fees from the US. Once again, the US is able to cough up the money for selective causes. It will use the UN when it suits, and ignore it other times. This author also ignores the other aid that was given to fight the USSR in Afghanistan in one of many proxy wars. The fact is, Afghanistan was better under Russia than the Taliban.

David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.

So, when is he going to have a go at Heston?

This is a distortion itself. For me, it was pretty easy to tell the difference between Charlton Heston the sendup "From my cold dead hands", and Chuck at the NRA meeting.

Ben Fritz ofSpinsanity.org also notes that Mr. Moore has "apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988" to buttress his claim that racial symbolism is frequently misused in American politics. His leading example is the case of Willie Horton, a murderer who became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. Mr. Moore shows the Bush ad that generically attacked a prison furlough program in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts . Superimposed over the footage of prisoners entering and exiting a prison are the words "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." While the caption appears to be part of the original ad, Mr. Moore actually inserted it; the ad made no mention of Horton. (Another ad, sponsored by the National Security Political Action Committee, a conservative group independent of the Bush campaign, did mention Horton; it aired only briefly in a few cable markets.) The phony Moore caption also is inaccurate; Horton brutalized a Maryland couple and raped the wife, but didn't kill anybody while on furlough.

The intent of the ad, and the actual imprisonment rates, speak for themselves. The US, for a Western, Democratic country, has a remarkably high prison population. Blacks are held in contempt by many conservatives. Ref: Our own Hammy. I have seen that "revolving prison" ad. It is a massive distortion in it's own right.

Once again, nit picking. The basic thrust of Moores work is spot on. The US is a remarkably violent and paranoid country. My children watched the documentary and were amazed at the material standard of the school that the two boys went to. It is much more luxurious than their own. But at ours, any hint of a weapon is swiftly dealt with, any bullying ditto.

You get the same thing on this board. The constant paranoia about having to look after yourself and your family with weapons. For all the paraonia, how many JREF members have actually ever had to use a weapon in such a situation. That is, there are constant references to needing a gun, the desire for one is almost palpable. Compare that to the actual use of one.

In fact, the real problem appears to be that majority of deaths are young males, often black. These are people who definitely don't need guns. The white poseurs, who insist on having them, almost never use them for their stated needs. It is just an ego boost.

Ranb

12th November 2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by BTox
I think NJ where I live does handle this issue pretty well. I had to get finger-printed, FBI check and wait a month or so to get a permit to buy a handgun. And you need a firearms ID card to buy ammo.

Do they also control ammo components such as powder, brass, primers, and bullets? Reloading equipment controlled at all? Are records kept on ammo purchases?

A month is a long time to wait, I thought it sucked waiting for 14 days when I lived in Hawaii.

Ranb

Questioninggeller

12th November 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Tony
His lies have already been proven, there is nothing he can say that will make his lying come true.

I hope you can say the same about Bush's lies...

sickstan

13th November 2003, 12:41 PM

My problem with BfC is that Michael Moore is not a social scientist and fails to bring up many issues that science has implicated in youth violence. I would have liked to see a discussion of:

1. Increased neurological injury scores seen among violent youth.
2. Unwanted pregancy rates.
3. Availability of mental health care.
4. Types of guns in US vs. other countries.

and others I can't think of off the top of my head. I think the problem many people had with BfCis that at various points, Moore seems to stop and point the finger at one particular factor. That would be oversimplifying the problem of gun violence. A good example is Britain. In Britain, it is illegal for civilians to own firearms, and YET there are 67 (69?) deaths from gun violence. That should be remarkable. I'd bet that outside of firing squad executions, Singapore has no gun deaths. Contradictions abound. I think we need to stop comparing and confusing with other countries and begin examining varied communities within the US for factors that contribute to gun violence among the young.

Tony

13th November 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Questioninggeller

I hope you can say the same about Bush's lies...

Take your baggage somewhere else.

jimlintott

13th November 2003, 02:06 PM

Bowling for Columbine completely changed my opinion on this subject. Before seeing it I would have banned every firearm in existence. I hated guns (still do to a lesser extent).

I felt that he said fear is the problem. Fear of everything. Fear of burglars, fear of neighbors, fear of the paper boy. Fear is rampant. I'm sure many people own guns because they are scared. That is what was important about the scenes in Canada. We're not scared of each other. Even the people who had been victims of crime weren't scared. Heston, who admitted that he had never been a victim of crime, kept a loaded gun for protection. What is he so scared of?

I know people who own firearms. I can't imagine any of them claiming that it is for anything but hunting or pest control. Personal protection just doesn't come up.

I own no firearms. I frequently go to bed at night without locking my door. I'm not scared. I'm not even the slightest bit worried. I live in a city of 35,000 and we just had our fifth murder of the year.

I think Bowling for Columbine may be very close to the truth, many are just scared to admit it.

GroundStrength

13th November 2003, 02:10 PM

My problem with BfC is that Michael Moore is not a social scientist and fails to bring up many issues that science has implicated in youth violence

Yes, because you can never have too many social scientists.:D

Ranb

13th November 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by jimlintott
Bowling for Columbine completely changed my opinion on this subject. Before seeing it I would have banned every firearm in existence. I hated guns (still do to a lesser extent). ..........

.............Heston, who admitted that he had never been a victim of crime, kept a loaded gun for protection. What is he so scared of?

If you do not mind me asking, why did you hate guns and why do you still hate them to a lessor extent?

I can say that some people who carry concealed or keep a loaded gun in the house for protection are not actually frightened. It is just another precaution like locking the door, having a dog, or an alarm system. I sometimes carry in the state of WA just because I can. I am much more likely to flee a dangerous situation than to use or threaten to use deadly force. But I have the option if need be.

Ranb

sickstan

14th November 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by GroundStrength

Yes, because you can never have too many social scientists.:D

I didn't say "lawyer".;)

My point is that his approach is visceral and unscientific. It purports to examine the question, but fails to take into account data already collected regarding violence by kids.

The viscerality (is that a word?) of the movie was its strong point but also its hubris. Without the authority of science behind it, the moral of this tale is confusing and desultory.

My personal belief is that solving any one issue presented by the movie will not solve gun violence in the US. It remains a fascinating multifactorial phenomenon.

Luke T.

14th November 2003, 12:35 PM

I don't speak hardly ever on the gun control issue, so I hope you guys take some time to read something from someone new. I know this topic comes up a lot, and I imagine a lot of the same people say the same stuff over and over. Maybe I have something new to say, I don't know. I haven't even read the gun control topics that keep coming up on here, and only skimmed the first page of this one. Kinda hypocritical of me to ask you to read my entire long post, eh?

I have no idea where I stand on gun control or bans. I don't see much difference between "control" and "ban," though.

I find it strange that one of the arguments against people owning fully automatic, powerful rifles is that they don't have any practical use for hunting or whatever, so why would anyone need one, blah, blah, blah, except for something nefarious.

Well, if there is one weapon that has no other purpose than to shoot human beings, it is a pistol. A "hand"gun.

So it seem to me if you are going to ban automatic weapons because they only have one evil purpose, it isn't that much of a step to make the exact same argument for handguns.

Because of this, it seems to me that people who are for gun control are only going to get themselves confused and end up making bans that make no sense at all. Some weapons will be allowed, while others that appear to serve the same function won't be. And they will go round and round trying to make sense out of nonsense. They will finally have to admit they want to ban all firearms of every type or none at all.

Now, before you think I am against gun control, let me address the issue of registration.

I have heard that some people want every gun to be ballistic tested and a record kept so that if that gun was ever used in a crime, it would be simple to look up the ballistics of the bullet and trace it back to the gun/owner.

I am no expert, but I can believe those who say that after so many firings, the ballistics "fingerprints" of a gun change.

Even so, I wonder how many times the average gun is fired. I just don't think the "only outlaws will have guns" kind of outlaw is running around firing his gun that often, as murderous as he might be. The only people I can think of who fire a gun that often are target shooters, and we really don't need to worry that much about them, do we?

(Edited to add: ) After all, the human fingerprint system is even easier to override with a pair gloves, isn't it? Yet we wouldn't dream of eliminating the fingerprint system.

So getting a fingerprint of a gun doesn't sound all that ridiculous to me.

But then we have the most common arguments against registration, and that is the cost. All I can say to that is it is a good thing we didn't have people like that arguing against fingerprinting people. I can't imagine what that costs, but it sure does pay off.

The only difference I can see between fingerprinting people and fingerprinting guns, and it is a significant one, is that you only fingerprint people when they have committed a crime or are going to be doing a sensitive job, whereas you would be fingerprinting a gun prior to its use by anyone.

Fingerprinting of humans is considered an invasion of their privacy. I would think fingerprinting their gun might be, too, except a gun is an object and not a part of their person. That make the whole issue a gray one.

Proud gun owners have a certain paranoia about who knows they have a gun. I remember back in the days of the Cold War that it was argued if the commies invaded the good old USA, they would go down to the local Town Hall and get the records of all the registered guns and round them up. I think the dregs of that paranoia has remained. Maybe even a certain paranoia that Uncle Sam might one day repeal the second amendment and come round up all the guns.

Here is the truth. Despite all the efforts of the gun control lobby, criminals still get guns. Nothing can stop them from doing so except a complete change in the American way of life, and that isn't going to happen.

A lot of the arguments in favor of legalizing drugs could be made for giving up trying to ban guns, but that would make my post even longer. :D

a_unique_person

14th November 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Proud gun owners have a certain paranoia about who knows they have a gun. I remember back in the days of the Cold War that it was argued if the commies invaded the good old USA, they would go down to the local Town Hall and get the records of all the registered guns and round them up. I think the dregs of that paranoia has remained. Maybe even a certain paranoia that Uncle Sam might one day repeal the second amendment and come round up all the guns.

Good old "Red Dawn". The most interesting part of that film was left out. How did the commies get to parachute into the middle of the US undetected and unharmed?

Here is the truth. Despite all the efforts of the gun control lobby, criminals still get guns. Nothing can stop them from doing so except a complete change in the American way of life, and that isn't going to happen.

If you want to go on the empirical evidence, look at other countries like Australia with hand gun bans. The crime and murder rate is still low. The only recent mass murder was with a legally owned hand gun in the state of Victoria, where I live. (He was a member of a gun club).

This has resulted in a crackdown on handgun owndership even more.

There is a series of murders being committed, but this is a war between drug gangs. When only criminals are armed, criminals shoot criminals.

A lot of the arguments in favor of legalizing drugs could be made for giving up trying to ban guns, but that would make my post even longer. :D

Gun bans do work, although not perfectly. What they do is drive the price of guns up. The most desperate and reckless criminals, who are the ones most likely to kill, cannot afford the guns. Even professional criminals who have access to guns find them expensive to obtain.

Luke T.

14th November 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Good old "Red Dawn". The most interesting part of that film was left out. How did the commies get to parachute into the middle of the US undetected and unharmed?

"Red Dawn" merely played on the paranoia I mentioned. Those lines in the movie were inspired by it, not the other way around.

And there were a lot of silly problems with "Red Dawn" beside the parachutists. :D

If you want to go on the empirical evidence, look at other countries like Australia with hand gun bans. The crime and murder rate is still low. The only recent mass murder was with a legally owned hand gun in the state of Victoria, where I live. (He was a member of a gun club).

I don't know much about Australia. Did they have an equivalent to the second amendment? Did they have a gun culture like ours with a gazillion guns about? If so, how did they get all the guns back without a revolution?

There is a series of murders being committed, but this is a war between drug gangs. When only criminals are armed, criminals shoot criminals.

No innocent people get held up or murdered by criminals with guns? Amazing!

Gun bans do work, although not perfectly. What they do is drive the price of guns up. The most desperate and reckless criminals, who are the ones most likely to kill, cannot afford the guns. Even professional criminals who have access to guns find them expensive to obtain.

That kind of fits in with what I was saying in my last post. You either have to have a complete and total ban on every type of guns or nothing. And Americans will never go for a complete and total ban.

WildCat

14th November 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, if there is one weapon that has no other purpose than to shoot human beings, it is a pistol. A "hand"gun.
I have to correct you on this Luke, look here. (http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2003/Sept/DeerHandgunRegsSept03.htm) I'm sure many other states have handgun hunting seasons also, but I'm going out soon and don't have the time for lengthy gun control debates.

Bullets fired from handguns don't travel as far as they would from a rifle, so they're safer to use in more populated areas. Note that it is illegal to use a rifle (except muzzle-loading) to hunt deer in Illinois.

aerocontrols

14th November 2003, 04:58 PM

BTox

14th November 2003, 05:09 PM

Faithkills

14th November 2003, 05:21 PM

"I know people who own firearms. I can't imagine any of them claiming that it is for anything but hunting or pest control." - jimlintott

I own one. It's dual purpose, but I don't think I would have bought it without the self protection issue.

I live in what many think of as a "bad area" of New Orleans. I am not afraid at all. I don't live in fear or think about the gun much. But as a practical matter if I have it and never need it it's not a problem. If I need it and don't have it it's a mistake I probably won't get to learn from.

Most people I know that own them own them for protection.

"let me address the issue of registration." - Luke

Luke I think the reason people are opposed to gun registration is prophylactic. It has always been a precursor to bans.

If the gun grabbers were honestly simply interested in registration and NO MORE EVER then I think most pro 2nd people would go for that compromise. I would.

But that takes a lot of trust and they have not shown themselves to be trustworthy.

As a general point.. don't get caught up in hunting as a purpose of gun ownership. The second amendment was not put in to protect hunters. Even a casual study of the writings of the times shows that it was to provide for a ready source of people familiar with arms as well as to provide a last ditch protection against tyranny. As arm confiscation was viewed as a prerequisite step in tyranny evolution they simply ruled that out.

Ultimately the best protection of the 2nd amendment is to own weapons and promote such ownership. A lot of gun grabbers are motivated by gun fear. Exposure to them solves that.

FK

epepke

14th November 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
Ranb
I admit I know next to nothing about firearms, and I have never in my life even touched one.

However, two of your points make me wonder:

Assault rifles:
I suppose this term refers to rifles that are capable of bursts (fire several bullets by pulling the trigger once) and full-auto (fire a rapid succession of bullets as long as trigger is pulled) fire - the kind soldiers use.

Yes, a neophyte might assume that.

The military definition of an assault weapon is a rifle with a short barrel and a low charge, with full auto capability. Intended to be used for assaults, that is, where you run into an emplacement.

Full auto weapons are already illegal for civilians unless you have a very expensive Federal license.

The political definition of an assault weapon is a weapon that looks scary.

Silencers:
Again, I see some use of this for terrorists, but no use for hunters or sportsmen that they could not get with ear-muffs or such.

Call me a wacky woo-woo ear fetishist, but it would be nice if I could use a firearm for home protection that did not cause permanent hearing damage. Or perhaps I'm supposed to ask a home intruder on PCP to wait for me to get my ear muffs?

Ranb

14th November 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Full auto weapons are already illegal for civilians unless you have a very expensive Federal license.

Not to be picky, but machineguns are easy (sort of) to own here in the USA. All you need to do is fill out an ATF form 4, get it signed by the local sherrif (unless you are a corp), send it in with mug shots, $200 and fingerprints. Then you just need $2000 to $30,000 to buy the actual piece which probably cost less than $1000 when made back before 1986. Loved the rest of your post though.

I'm glad someone jumped on Luke T's post about handguns only being good for killing. It is rather insulting to us handgun owners. The rest of his post was rational though. What kind of rock does a person have to live under to think handguns are only good for killing? Maybe if I can get him out at the range with my one of my fav handguns, a Thompson Center contender in 375 jdj (used to hunt elephants in Africa) he might have a change of heart. At 20" long and 6 pounds, it is hardly the gun a bad guy will use to commit a crime. Lots of fun to shoot as long as you don't forget to wear a padded shooting glove.

Ranb

Ranb

aerocontrols

14th November 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Ranb

Not to be picky, but machineguns are easy (sort of) to own here in the USA. All you need to do is fill out an ATF form 4, get it signed by the local sherrif (unless you are a corp), send it in with mug shots, $200 and fingerprints. Then you just need $2000 to $30,000 to buy the actual piece which probably cost less than $1000 when made back before 1986. Loved the rest of your post though.

Seems to me that some (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1113gunsentence13-ON.html) of those rules may be going away, as long as you build the weapon yourself. All the federal law parts, anyway.

15th November 2003, 05:03 AM

I enjoy target shooting with a pistol more than with a rifle. I moght also point out that hand gun ammunition is generally cheaper than rifle ammunition.

Dancing David

15th November 2003, 07:57 AM

Ranb

15th November 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Seems to me that some (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1113gunsentence13-ON.html) of those rules may be going away, as long as you build the weapon yourself. All the federal law parts, anyway.

I read about that yesterday, it is very exciting to see less Gov control in our future. I can't put my " How to make a submachinegun" book to use yet. WA bans them.

Ranb

Iconoclast

15th November 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't know much about Australia. Did they have an equivalent to the second amendment?
The Australian constitution has only been amended 8 times, and our amendments are nowhere near as dramatic as those made to the US constitution. Typical of our amendments is the one made in 1909, copied below to show you how riveting it is, the clause in red was (yawn) deleted:

<blockquote>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The Parliament may take over from the States their public debts <strike><font color="#ff0000">as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth</font></strike>, or a proportion thereof according to the respective numbers of their people as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert, renew, or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over, and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient, or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency or the whole amount shall be paid by the several States.</font></blockquote>

So no, we didn't have the equivalent of a second amendment. Our constitution addresses the issue of gun ownership the way all constitutions should, i.e. it makes no mention of guns at all.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Did they have a gun culture like ours with a gazillion guns about?
We have not the slightest tint of a gun culture. In Australia, civillians who own guns are pretty much all put into the same category -- gun nuts -- unless they happen to win a gold medal at the Olympics by shooting their gun... but then only until they beat up their girlfriend, after which they go into the gun nut pile with all the others. I can't stress highly enough how small the role of guns is in Australia, if a person was to whine about how they need a gun for protection they'd be laughed at, a good funnel web spider vaccine has much more utility if not dying is the goal.

Originally posted by Luke T.
If so, how did they get all the guns back without a revolution?
We had a gun buy-back scheme, implemented not long after the massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.

Originally posted by Luke T.
No innocent people get held up or murdered by criminals with guns? Amazing!
In a first order analysis, that's quite true. I can scarcely remember the last time a non-criminal was killed by a criminal with a gun. Gun deaths are so very rare in Australia that they will always make headlines when they occur.

At the moment there's a media feeding frenzy about a "gang war" with US style "drive-by" shootings, there's been about 4 poeple killed in the last two years, it's a gang war being played out in slow motion.

a_unique_person

15th November 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Call me a wacky woo-woo ear fetishist, but it would be nice if I could use a firearm for home protection that did not cause permanent hearing damage. Or perhaps I'm supposed to ask a home intruder on PCP to wait for me to get my ear muffs?

This is the sort of cr@p argument that really riles me.

How many home intruders on PCP are there? In your neighbourhood? I thought so. None.

Most homes are burgled only when the intruders think there is no one home. If guns were banned, and more expensive, the "PCP" kooks would not be able to afford them.

The "professional" crooks don't rob individuals or homes, they are after bigger, safer dollars, like drugs or vice. The person who robs someone in the street is the most desperate and stupid criminal there is. With a gun ban, they would not be able to afford a gun. When they do rob someone, it is not in the nice, middle class suburbs, it is in their local suburb.

Underemployed

16th November 2003, 01:54 AM

I don't own any guns and, living in the UK and not having an interest in shooting for fun, I doubt I ever will.

I do however own a fairly powerful home computer with several non-standard features. I thought that PC ownership could be a great analogy to gun ownership. After all, in the wrong hands, my computer could do an enormous amount of people a great deal of harm, quite possibly physical harm.

It is ludicrously overpowered for my needs. Some might argue it is antisocial and the games I play lead to violent behaviour. It grants easy access to hard-core pornography and information on explosives. It makes stealing copyrighted information childs play.

You could make a strong case that computer ownership is just as dangerous, if not more so, than gun ownership.

Being a computer owner of course, I only see the good side. I would fight tooth and nail to retain my right to owning this expensive, time-consuming machine and to make it as powerful as I could.

Is the analogy flawed? I'm not sure, but I can see how legitimate gun owners are confused and angry at people trying to limit their rights to own these objects which please them so.

Originally posted by epepke:

(...)it would be nice if I could use a firearm for home protection that did not cause permanent hearing damage. Or perhaps I'm supposed to ask a home intruder on PCP to wait for me to get my ear muffs?

...Is this a real fear of yours? This is what has been touched on by this thread and by the film. Do you really live in an environment where such an invasion is a real possibility? If this is truly the case, I fear for your safety and urge you to relocate rather than rely on firearms.

a_unique_person

16th November 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Underemployed

...Is this a real fear of yours? This is what has been touched on by this thread and by the film. Do you really live in an environment where such an invasion is a real possibility? If this is truly the case, I fear for your safety and urge you to relocate rather than rely on firearms.

For all the picking at details in the film, the central premise and questions have been overlooked. Moore is not concerned about getting the details perfectly correct, I'll admit, but the questions he raises about such killings happening in the US but almost never in other Western countries have to be addressed by the US.

Some Friggin Guy

16th November 2003, 03:26 AM

Frankly, I don't normally weigh in on gun control debates. My personal thing is that I don't like guns. It's my personal choice. I don't try to foist it on others, and the fact is, I am a collector of other types of weapons (15 swords, sevearl knives, staves, whips, two crossbows, etc.) I collect these things and train with them as a form of mental discipline. I would not (and in one case in the past which I mentioned in another thread somewhere, did not) hesitate to use any of these for personal or home protection. I would assume as much for gun owners, as well.

If you want my personal opinion (and bear in mind, I don't know ANYTHING about current gun laws), I don't think the problem is restricting the guns any more than they are. I think the issue is that, as far as I can tell, we don't treat the actual licensing of gun OWNERS correctly.

Let me explain, and it is based on a basic idea:

Gun owners (legal gun owners, I mean) need to be lisenced. I presume there is some kind of test to gain this lisence. If not, why not? And how often must a gun owner renew their lisence?

Using a very rough idea, why not have gun owners take a test for lisence initially (if they don't already) and when their lisence comes up for renewal, no more than 5 years later, have then required to retake the test.

This will show that the gun owner still maintains a knowledge and required proficiency with the weapon, which will at least lower accidental shootings. I understand it does not deal with the crime element. It is not meant to. It is also not meant to take guns of any sort away from law abiding citizens, merely to ensure they aren't going to accidentally blow their kid's head off.

I am aware that many licensed gun owners are very responsible with their weapons. I am also aware, however (and I'm sure the rest of you are, too) that there are also many who are not.

Edit to add; I know this is not a solution, but an idea to perhapse help move toward one.

John Harrison

16th November 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
This will show that the gun owner still maintains a knowledge and required proficiency with the weapon, which will at least lower accidental shootings. I understand it does not deal with the crime element. It is not meant to. It is also not meant to take guns of any sort away from law abiding citizens, merely to ensure they aren't going to accidentally blow their kid's head off.

I am aware that many licensed gun owners are very responsible with their weapons. I am also aware, however (and I'm sure the rest of you are, too) that there are also many who are not.

It's extremely doubtful that this scheme is worth the cost for the small number of accidental deaths each year (776 in 2000) compared to the number of gun owners in the US (>80 million).

Exactly how many licensed gun owners are not responsible with their weapons, specifically?

John Harrison

16th November 2003, 02:07 PM

As far as ballistic fingerprinting being viable, there are a number of factors involved for it to be useful:

1) You must recover a bullet (and/or casing).

2) The bullet/casing must be in a condition to read. Bullets can be severely deformed and even destroyed.

3) The print must not have been altered (purposely or through wear/ a barrel can be altered quite easily with a bore brush and/or a file).

4) The gun must be in the system. You know there will be a black market of non-system guns.

4b) The gun must be owned legally. This knocks out a huge swath of crime guns -- in D.C. Chicago, etc. the guns will be outside the system.

5) The gun still must be owned by the person who registered the fingerprint, and that person must be the perpetrator or tied to the perp.

6) The gun must be recovered in the possession of the perpetrating owner. "Gee officer, that gun was stolen six months ago" -- indeed, a savvy perp will make such a report ahead of time to cover his tracks. (this is different from #5 -- ownership vs. possession)

Is there a need for this?

1) The crime must have no witnesses who can identify the perp -- if there are such witnesses, then the fingerprint is moot.

2) Of the unwitnessed crimes, there must be no other readily available ways to tie the perp to the crime. For example, a woman is shot, and her estranged husband slips town. Again the fingerprint is moot in identifying him to aprehend/question.

What about cost?

For comparison, consider the FBI's computerized (real) fingerprint database -- Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). It cost $640 million to just implement about 34-35 million records (source http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel99/iafis.htm).

Thats about $19 per print just to set up the system. Just getting the estimated 200 million guns into the system would cost $3.8 billion (latest estimates go up to 270 million guns = $5.13 billion).

Now let's talk maintenance costs.

While I can't find what FBI spends a year to maintain IAFIS, the system is significantly cheaper to maintain than a ballistic fingerprint system would be for two reasons:

1) Real fingerprints do not change form over time. There would have to be a system to update the ballistic fingerprints every so often, or the records will become useless (see number 3 above). That updating is unneeded with IAFIS.

2) Real fingerprints do not change owners. There would have to be a system to change the ownership records. (Yes, this would be de-facto national registration).

Incidentally, the system would have to be run by the federal government. The reason we got IAFIS was that the state-level and regional fingerprint systems did not speak to each other.

Luke T.

17th November 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by WildCat

I have to correct you on this Luke, look here. (http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2003/Sept/DeerHandgunRegsSept03.htm) I'm sure many other states have handgun hunting seasons also, but I'm going out soon and don't have the time for lengthy gun control debates.

Bullets fired from handguns don't travel as far as they would from a rifle, so they're safer to use in more populated areas. Note that it is illegal to use a rifle (except muzzle-loading) to hunt deer in Illinois.

From the link:

The regulations will allow any hunter with a permit for the firearm deer season to use centerfire revolvers or centerfire single-shot handguns of .30 caliber or larger with a minimum barrel length of four inches.

So there are even qualifications to what type of handgun. You pretty much have to use a cannon.

Handguns are a recent addition to the hunting scene, according to the article. And I don't think any reasonable person would believe that handguns weren't designed for anything but shooting human beings.

But allowing handguns for hunting actually only amplifies my point. Trying to distinguish one type of gun from another by its uses in order to ban some and not ban others just causes a lot of contradictions in those attempts. So it only convinces me the actual long term goal is to ban ALL guns.

Luke T.

17th November 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by John Harrison
As far as ballistic fingerprinting being viable, there are a number of factors involved for it to be useful:

There are a number of factors involved for human fingerprinting to be useful:

1) You must recover a bullet (and/or casing).

You must recover a fingerprint.

2) The bullet/casing must be in a condition to read. Bullets can be severely deformed and even destroyed.

The fingerprint must be in a condition to be read. Fingerprints can be smeared or only partial.

3) The print must not have been altered (purposely or through wear/ a barrel can be altered quite easily with a bore brush and/or a file).

The fingerprint must not have been altered. Purposely or more easily than a gun through the wearing of gloves.

4) The gun must be in the system. You know there will be a black market of non-system guns.

The fingerprint must be in the system.

4b) The gun must be owned legally. This knocks out a huge swath of crime guns -- in D.C. Chicago, etc. the guns will be outside the system.

I will depart from the fingerprint comparison here to say that at the point of origin (manufacture), a gun can be "fingerprinted," and it is easier to track a gun than a human. (Edited to ask: ) How many gunshots in the US are by people shooting people they know and people shooting people they don't know? If you don't know where I'm going with this; I imagine most "crime guns" as you call them, are used menancingly and not actually fired.

5) The gun still must be owned by the person who registered the fingerprint, and that person must be the perpetrator or tied to the perp.

Again, guns can be fingerprinted at the time of manufacture and tracked by a trail of centralized sales records.

6) The gun must be recovered in the possession of the perpetrating owner. "Gee officer, that gun was stolen six months ago" -- indeed, a savvy perp will make such a report ahead of time to cover his tracks. (this is different from #5 -- ownership vs. possession)

If it wasn't reported stolen, that won't wash. (Edited to add: ) A savvy perp? There just aren't that many. Otherwise, we wouldn't be catching them at all. I don't think most killers think that far ahead. They might remember to wear a ski mask and gloves. But report a gun stolen six months ahead of committing a crime with his gun? Come on!

Is there a need for this?

1) The crime must have no witnesses who can identify the perp -- if there are such witnesses, then the fingerprint is moot.

2) Of the unwitnessed crimes, there must be no other readily available ways to tie the perp to the crime. For example, a woman is shot, and her estranged husband slips town. Again the fingerprint is moot in identifying him to aprehend/question.

Apply number 1 to a human fingerprint. Same argument could be made. And a fingerprint is not usually the sole piece of evidence used to convict someone, but it can make or break a case. At the very least, a fingerprint provides an excellent "lead."

(Edited to add: ) We would basically be giving the policeman another tool for his crime fighting toolchest.

What about cost?

For comparison, consider the FBI's computerized (real) fingerprint database -- Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). It cost $640 million to just implement about 34-35 million records (source http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel99/iafis.htm).

Thats about $19 per print just to set up the system. Just getting the estimated 200 million guns into the system would cost $3.8 billion (latest estimates go up to 270 million guns = $5.13 billion).

Cost arguments are always the weakest. Do we even have to go there?

Now let's talk maintenance costs.

While I can't find what FBI spends a year to maintain IAFIS, the system is significantly cheaper to maintain than a ballistic fingerprint system would be for two reasons:

1) Real fingerprints do not change form over time. There would have to be a system to update the ballistic fingerprints every so often, or the records will become useless (see number 3 above). That updating is unneeded with IAFIS.

2) Real fingerprints do not change owners. There would have to be a system to change the ownership records. (Yes, this would be de-facto national registration).

Incidentally, the system would have to be run by the federal government. The reason we got IAFIS was that the state-level and regional fingerprint systems did not speak to each other.

Yes. It would have to be a federal system. Obviously. And I don't believe a gun's fingerprints change over time that often. I mentioned that in my first post in this topic. The only people I can think of who fire a gun so often that it changes its fingerprints are target shooters.

Think about it. If the whole thing was that iffy, then the whole field of ballistics matching would be MOOT!

Luke T.

17th November 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Iconoclast

We have not the slightest tint of a gun culture. In Australia, civillians who own guns are pretty much all put into the same category -- gun nuts -- unless they happen to win a gold medal at the Olympics by shooting their gun... but then only until they beat up their girlfriend, after which they go into the gun nut pile with all the others. I can't stress highly enough how small the role of guns is in Australia, if a person was to whine about how they need a gun for protection they'd be laughed at, a good funnel web spider vaccine has much more utility if not dying is the goal.

This difference alone makes the Australian solution unworkable in the US.

We had a gun buy-back scheme, implemented not long after the massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.

We also have buy-backs here in the US. I doubt any NRA members partook. :D

Ranb

17th November 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

From the link:

So there are even qualifications to what type of handgun. You pretty much have to use a cannon. .....................And I don't think any reasonable person would believe that handguns weren't designed for anything but shooting human beings.

........................So it only convinces me the actual long term goal is to ban ALL guns.

It is obvious you do not live in any kind of gun culture at all. The requirements listed in the posted link and repeated by yourself certainly do not require a cannon. A 357 magnum or a 10mm would fit the bill.

No reasonable gun-owner would really care what a handgun was designed for. They care about what they will be using it for.

So what good will banning guns do? They will not go away. Would you take them away from the bad guys first? Still let the cops and military have them? Oh, I know, you would support the passage of laws that take away firearms from the decent people that own them. People willing to break the law will find a way to get guns, even if they have to make them. Guns do not make criminals kill, just make it easier.

You just do not like guns. You want to spoil the party for everyone who does.

Ranb

Luke T.

17th November 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Ranb

It is obvious you do not live in any kind of gun culture at all. The requirements listed in the posted link and repeated by yourself certainly do not require a cannon. A 357 magnum or a 10mm would fit the bill.

No reasonable gun-owner would really care what a handgun was designed for. They care about what they will be using it for.

So what good will banning guns do? They will not go away. Would you take them away from the bad guys first? Still let the cops and military have them? Oh, I know, you would support the passage of laws that take away firearms from the decent people that own them. People willing to break the law will find a way to get guns, even if they have to make them. Guns do not make criminals kill, just make it easier.

You just do not like guns. You want to spoil the party for everyone who does.

Ranb

You are letting your emotions get away with you. I do not support the banning of guns. I was merely trying to show that a close examination of the anti-gun lobby reveals a lot of contradictions than can only be logically solved by reaching the conclusion to completely ban all guns.

I'm playing devil's advocate to both sides. I am undecided on the issues around guns. Issues of liberty usually resolve to one of only two ways; complete freedom or none at all. Complete freedom to own any gun you wish, or a complete ban. I do not know which way I would want to go.

Edited to add: To some people, including me, a 357 Magnum is a cannon. :D

Edited again to add: Not only do I live in a gun culture, the USA, but I am retired military. :D

Ranb

17th November 2003, 09:47 AM

OK, you got me. This thread is getting a bit long. Time to start another one I think. Or maybe I need to read all the posts twice before I reply.

Ranb

Faithkills

17th November 2003, 10:23 AM

"With a gun ban, they would not be able to afford a gun. When they do rob someone, it is not in the nice, middle class suburbs, it is in their local suburb." - a_unique_person

So people who don't live in "middle class suburbs have it coming"?

And of course they will be able to afford a gun. Drug interdiction provides a ready source of wealth for those who are of a criminal mind in the first place. And there's a lot of latent capital in that sector of the economy to provide "start ups". Even if you legalized drugs tomorrow it would be years before that capital would be drained. And guns are necessary to that economy as there is no legal recourse for broken contractual agreements.

"but the questions he raises about such killings happening in the US but almost never in other Western countries have to be addressed by the US." - a_unique_person

See preceding. I submit for your consideration most human social phenomena have an economic basis. Drug interdiction is the root reason why things are so "bad" right now with gun violence.

The "fear" he talks about isn't unbased. It's based on reality. You cannot get rid of the fear until you get rid of the cause of the fear.

"So there are even qualifications to what type of handgun. You pretty much have to use a cannon." - Luke. T.

A .30 revolver with a 4" barrel is a cannon? Unconscionable hyperbole. This makes it hard to take you as intellectually honest.

"And I don't think any reasonable person would believe that handguns weren't designed for anything but shooting human beings." - Luke T.

Snakes. That's why hunters carry them. And as for the ones that were designed to shoot human beings.. point being? Sometimes you need to kill someone. The whole point of the Second is about arms for killing _people_ not fauna. Unless we fear a army of Frogs attacking or a tyrannical govt of Donkeys attempting a coup the Second doesn't really bear on arms for killing animals.

FK

Luke T.

17th November 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Faithkills

"So there are even qualifications to what type of handgun. You pretty much have to use a cannon." - Luke. T.

A .30 revolver with a 4" barrel is a cannon? Unconscionable hyperbole. This makes it hard to take you as intellectually honest.

"And I don't think any reasonable person would believe that handguns weren't designed for anything but shooting human beings." - Luke T.

Snakes. That's why hunters carry them. And as for the ones that were designed to shoot human beings.. point being? Sometimes you need to kill someone. The whole point of the Second is about arms for killing _people_ not fauna. Unless we fear a army of Frogs attacking or a tyrannical govt of Donkeys attempting a coup the Second doesn't really bear on arms for killing animals.

FK

Well, since two people have misunderstood me, I have to conclude I am the one failing to communicate properly. :D

I absolutely agree with you when you say "The whole point of the Second is about arms for killing _people_ not fauna."

That is precisely the point I have been making. Are we going in a circle here?

I don't believe handguns were created for hunting. I just don't. I think the hunting thing was just handgun owners looking for something else to do with them. Really, do you think it is better to hunt deer with a rifle or a handgun?

I have carried a handgun for snakes. But it had snakeshot in it. How much snakeshot do you see on the shelves next to the gazillion conventional rounds?

As for a .30 cal with a 4" barrel, you don't see those every day. You do see snub-nosed .38's every day, but according to the link on hunting, you can't hunt with it. Ergo, it is just more and more obvious they aren't intended for hunting.

At every target range I have been on, and that is quite a few, the target silouhette was of a human, not an animal. And on the few occassions it wasn't a human, it was a circle or a square.

I think both sides of the debate need to be more open and honest about the reasons they do or do not want guns. Nobody buys the hunting argument. At least I don't.

Some people think guns are cool, and they like to take them out to the range and shoot them, and that is the extent of their love affair. And they want to make as big a bang or hole as they can. I am totally ok with that.

Some people think guns are for self-defense and they will have their guns pried from their cold, dead fingers before they give them up. That is ok, too.

Some people are scared witless just at the sight of a gun and would like to see them all disappear. And that is ok, too. If I don't ever want to see a gun, I don't have to. Except when a cop is giving me a speeding ticket and I glance at his batman utility belt.

But there are some people on both sides of the issue who scare me. On the right, you have guys who just can't wait for some kind of civil war to break out between the races or between the religions or between the government and citizens with themselves on the side of God and Justice. On the left, you have guys who want to bring down the entire system and have us all living on collective farms. I don't have time for either one of them.

Faithkills

17th November 2003, 12:30 PM

"I don't believe handguns were created for hunting. I just don't" - Luke

Well I assumed we were in the process of discussion not belief. If you "just believe" something this whole dialog is pointless no?

You will cling to your belief as proof, and others will never accept your belief as proof, and rightly so.

Be that as it may, many sidearms are clearly designed for other purposes than killing people. But again.. so what if none were? The deciding factor in my having a gun is to have it in case I need to kill someone. The recreational aspect is just gravy, and of late, infrequently asserted. For some people the latter is predominant. But it is the former which the Second Amendment protects, and rightly so. In fact it was generally considered that any gentleman SHOULD own a gun. And I do honestly think that if everyone (unconvicted) owned a gun we'd have a much safer lifespace, and there are many example that indicate this. In fact I suspect it's much easier (and socially safer) to arm enough people to have a critical mass of arms that violence is reduced than to interdict them sufficiently to achieve the same result.

For example if all of the faculty at Columbine were armed I doubt that massacre would have happenned. Those kids MAY have been prepared to die, but they wanted some fun of terrorising and killing first. Else they would have just killed themselves. Faced with widespread arms possession they would have known they would have had a very shortlived killing spree. They probably never would have planned it at all. But we presented them with a veritable paradise of ducks _gauranteed_ to be defenseless.

I know the very idea of arming treachers makes a lot of people's urethras' want to release. But the reality is that when arms possession is homogenous and approaches unity violent crime becomes largely untenable.

Predators don't prey on the strong, or else predators would cease to exist. Even cougars don't hunt even the weakest or oldest or youngest wolf in a wolf pack. So shall we be sheep or wolves?

More importantly shall we set other sheep to protect our lambs?

That doesn't seem to be working.

And it's not the police's duty to save people. This has been upheld by the courts. It's the polices duty to attempt to apprehend criminals after the fact. The police at Columbine were there a while before they went in. Too dangerous. And no the parents can't sue. Been tried and doesn't work.

Speaking for myself I would feel WAY more comfortable sending my child to school where I knew EVERY faculty member was armed, by policy.

"As for a .30 cal with a 4" barrel, you don't see those every day." - Luke

But I do see a 4.02" barrel length EVERY DAY:)

What is it with men and unrealistic mental images of how long several inches is?:)

"On the right, you have guys who just can't wait for some kind of civil war" - Luke

Well I don't know what "right" you are talking about, but it's my impression that most of that right that you _seem_ to be talking about are concerned for their right to bear arms to forestall just that revolution. There are always noisy people on both sides. But most people just like the hedge against tyranny that widespread gun ownership represents.

FK