"Bowling for Columbine"

If the person commited suicide by walking into their garage,
starting the car, and die from carbon monoxide poisoning,
would you put any blame on the fact that a car was present?

The numbers show that guns being present do NOT
change the RATE of suicides.

People who are bent on killing themselves, find a way, regardless
if a gun is present, or a car is present, or a plastic bag and
a rubber band are present.

Since guns ARE effective in self defense, then a gun being
present in the home, raises your probability of living.

Having a gun in the home does NOT increase
your chances of ending up dead.

If you wish to assert this, then your going to have to come
up with some hard numbers.

The studies by the reputable guys show the opposite.


Guns are used defensively millions of times a years.
The number of lives they SAVE far far far outnumber the
very small fraction of accidental gun deaths.

Looks at the stats for accidental deaths. Guns are nearly
all the way at the bottom.

Your FAR better off getting rid of your swimming pool.
ESPECIALLY if you have children.

peace

axeman



Quote from mrmarket:



Excuse me....but if the handgun is used for the suicide, I'd say the fact that the handgun was in the house contributed to the death of the individual in the house.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

If the person commited suicide by walking into their garage,
starting the car, and die from carbon monoxide poisoning,
would you put any blame on the fact that a car was present?


peace

axeman
More...

yes. with the car CO2 poisoning is much easier to do. :)
 
How come whenever I go to a gun club convention, all of the gun owners are little scrawny guys? This is just my observation...it may not be factual.

Since I'm extremely strong (I weigh 255 lbs, have 19" biceps and a 385 lb bench press), I've never felt I've needed a gun for protection...is there a correlation??

Your comments are welcome.
 
Hmmmm... haven't been to a gun show in years, but last
time was in North Carolina, and there were a lot of
VERY LARGE men who all looked like they were named bubba :)

255lb, and 19" biceps mean nothing against my .45 :D


Now... say you were a woman, and some 255lb guy with 19"
biceps just broke into your house.
You would be WISHING you had my .45 :D

Firearms are a great equalizer for women.

peace

axeman




Quote from mrmarket:

How come whenever I go to a gun club convention, all of the gun owners are little scrawny guys? This is just my observation...it may not be factual.

Since I'm extremely strong (I weigh 255 lbs, have 19" biceps and a 385 lb bench press), I've never felt I've needed a gun for protection...is there a correlation??

Your comments are welcome.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Hmmmm... haven't been to a gun show in years, but last
time was in North Carolina, and there were a lot of
VERY LARGE men who all looked like they were named bubba :)

255lb, and 19" biceps mean nothing against my .45 :D


Now... say you were a woman, and some 255lb guy with 19"
biceps just broke into your house.
You would be WISHING you had my .45 :D

Firearms are a great equalizer for women.

peace

axeman
More...

Again...I can't say my observations at the gun show were representative of the entire gun owner population. They must grow them bigger in the South.

Funny, but I don't ever recall having a gun pulled on me and I've lived 43 years. I'm sure I would have remembered that. It seems to me like the probability of this happening to me in the future are extremely remote. However, I've had other men change their mind about wanting to threaten me, based on my physical appearance. Sorry, but just can't go running around town waving a .45 in other people's faces. If that's what gives you pleasure, unfortunately it's illegal. You can, however, roll up your sleeves and make women swoon and make other men jealous (if you have the proper equipment, of course).

Those types of break-ins your refer to just don't happen around these parts. It comes from living in a good neighborhood, I guess. Again, I'm playing probabilities. If I lived in a neighborhood where it was likely my house would be broken into while my wife was home, I wouldn't buy a gun, I'd move.
 
"Sorry, but just can't go running around town waving a .45 in other people's faces. If that's what gives you pleasure, unfortunately it's illegal."

Straw man fallacy. I never said or implied anything of the sort.



"Those types of break-ins your refer to just don't happen around these parts. It comes from living in a good neighborhood, I guess. Again, I'm playing probabilities. If I lived in a neighborhood where it was likely my house would be broken into while my wife was home, I wouldn't buy a gun, I'd move. "


Lucky you. How about the poor who live in crime filled neighborhoods?
Should we disarm them because YOU live in a nice neighborhood?

I live in a nice neighborhood now, and have my gun locked away
because I seriously doubt I will need it here.

But this was not always the case.
I also lived in a real bad part of Baltimore Maryland at one time, (when I was dirt poor)
and NOT owning a gun would have been foolish in my opinion.

And YES, I was broken into WHILE I was at home.
Fortunately, there was no confrontation.

Everyone does not have the means to avoid crime by living
in "nice" areas.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would move out of a neighborhood
that had a LOT of swimming pools, since they pose a FAR
greator threat than a gun does.



peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

"Sorry, but just can't go running around town waving a .45 in other people's faces. If that's what gives you pleasure, unfortunately it's illegal."

Straw man fallacy. I never said or implied anything of the sort.



"Those types of break-ins your refer to just don't happen around these parts. It comes from living in a good neighborhood, I guess. Again, I'm playing probabilities. If I lived in a neighborhood where it was likely my house would be broken into while my wife was home, I wouldn't buy a gun, I'd move. "


Lucky you. How about the poor who live in crime filled neighborhoods?
Should we disarm them because YOU live in a nice neighborhood?

I live in a nice neighborhood now, and have my gun locked away
because I seriously doubt I will need it here.

But this was not always the case.
I also lived in a real bad part of Baltimore Maryland at one time, (when I was dirt poor)
and NOT owning a gun would have been foolish in my opinion.

And YES, I was broken into WHILE I was at home.
Fortunately, there was no confrontation.

Everyone does not have the means to avoid crime by living
in "nice" areas.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would move out of a neighborhood
that had a LOT of swimming pools, since they pose a FAR
greator threat than a gun does.



peace

axeman
More...

You have the right to own a gun. I never said I disapproved of your right to own one. My point is that I don't need one because of the fact that I am very capable of defending myself without one.
 
Quote from resinate:




It is a great movie. Enjoy.

I'm curious if anyone who actually saw the movie picked up that Moore's thesis was that Americans' chronic fear of the "other" and resultant aggression is at the root of the excessive violence, not guns per se.
More...

yeah, i cannot believe how many people here missed the entire point of this movie. i mean, 99% of you COMPLETELY missed the point. all of you are talking about guns and how they are bad. lol! you should watch the movie again.

the problem with america is the FEAR that it breeds. everyone is AFRAID of something.

but you see, it has to be this way. FEAR keeps people down, it causes them to consume. it causes people to be AFRAID of change. the poor are kept just that. they are held to a point where they are getting by just enough, so things don't get out of hand. big corporations feed the media via advertisements, and the media feeds viewers with FEAR. in turn, people consume because of FEAR and make the corporations rich. the cycle goes on and on -- made efficient in the beginning by slavery of the black man; now made efficient by slavery of the 'middle-class' man.

unfortunately most people can't think that deeply when they read a book or see a movie, and directors like michael moore, who don't spoon-feed the punchline, are quite hard to understand.
 
Quote from funky:



yeah, i cannot believe how many people here missed the entire point of this movie. i mean, 99% of you COMPLETELY missed the point. all of you are talking about guns and how they are bad. lol! you should watch the movie again.

the problem with america is the FEAR that it breeds. everyone is AFRAID of something.

but you see, it has to be this way. FEAR keeps people down, it causes them to consume. it causes people to be AFRAID of change. the poor are kept just that. they are held to a point where they are getting by just enough, so things don't get out of hand. big corporations feed the media via advertisements, and the media feeds viewers with FEAR. in turn, people consume because of FEAR and make the corporations rich. the cycle goes on and on -- made efficient in the beginning by slavery of the black man; now made efficient by slavery of the 'middle-class' man.

unfortunately most people can't think that deeply when they read a book or see a movie, and directors like michael moore, who don't spoon-feed the punchline, are quite hard to understand.
More...


I finally got around to seeing this movie & thought it was a great documentary. Wether you agree or disagree with Moore, I think you should take the time to see this movie. He really makes you take look at ourselves & makes you think about some tough issues.

I then took the time to read through most of this thread (which took about the same amount of time to watch the movie) & I got about the same thing out of this movie as resinate & funky did.
 
Axeman you are barking up the wrong tree by using utilitarian arguments. You will never win a utilitarian debate with a convinced gun opponent, just as you will never win a small government argument with a left-winger. Gun ownership is a question of rights, not utility.

My view on the issue is very simple:

Anyone has the right to do anything, so long as it does not harm another - that is the meaning of liberty. The mere act of carrying a concealed weapon, or keeping a weapon in your home, does not harm anyone. Therefore I have the right to own and carry that weapon. Banning me from exercising the right to peacefully carry a weapon for self-defence would be a breach of my right to go about my business unmolested.

So I would ask anti-gun people - if someone carries a gun simply to defend themselves, what gives you the right to throw them in jail for that? Who have they harmed, whose rights have been infringed? On what moral grounds can you punish someone who has never wrongfully hurt or threatened anybody? What have they done wrong?

The counterargument may be "but it makes society safer". But how does it do that? I have never endangered anyone with my weapons. And the law holds people innocent until proven guilty - therefore I must be assumed not to be endangering anyone, until such time as you *prove* to the contrary in a court of law. You must show an injured party whose rights have been directly compromised by me personally, as a result of my gun ownership, otherwise your charge cannot hold. Of course, no such case will ever be proven against a normal law-abiding citizen.

One may then argue that a blanket ban may adversely affect law-abiding gun owners, but the reduction in unlawful usage of weapons will justify it. But once again, it comes back to individual rights - it can only be morally justified to punish someone for something that *they themselves* has done wrong. It is immoral to punish someone for the crimes of another. Therefore, punishing me, because other people use guns unlawfully, is also immoral.

It all comes down to the key question - is it morally justified to harm an innocent person, in order to benefit another. If you believe it is ok to deliberately screw an innocent person who has done nothing wrong, then you will be ok with a total ban on guns. If you think that screwing innocent people would be wrong, then you cannot logically support a gun ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top