Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Shaun Eli wrote:
>And which facts should I get?
>The ones that say that you're more many
>times more likely to be shot with your own gun (by a family member OR a
>burglar) than you are to ever shoot an intruder?

Well, even if you can show me where, in the Dept of Justice statistics,
that is stated, what does that address so far? Are you saying that even
if that were true, it would be a reason for someone to not have a
firearm? Because it was dangerous? I'd guess I'd better give up driving
also. What could be more dangerous than being on a highway traveling at
60 mph, in a 300 horsepower machine, along with hundreds of other of
people, whom I have no idea of what their driving skills are? I'd also
have to give up being a passenger too. That would seem to be MUCH more
dangerous than owning a firearm that I might discharge accidently.

 >Or the ones that say
>that households with guns have a much higher suicide rate than
>households without guns?  (probably simply because suicide attempts
>with guns are much more likely to be successful, not because people
>with guns are more likely to try)

I don't think that's in any Dept of Justice statistics either. But even

if it were true, what does it pertain to .... so far ..... here?  That
people should be tested for suicidal tendencies before being issued
a gun permit? With an annual questionnaire re-affirming it?
Or, put a multiple choice question on the test that would determine
that  if they ARE, going to commit suicide, if there were a gun in
the house, would they choose poison or a razor or a rope, instead and
if so, which would be their preference?

All of that has nothing to do with the facts that you obviously DON'T
have. What you've stated above is what is commonly believed by
many people because it is stated over and over again by people who
want to ban the public from exercising their right to bear arms. They
claim this information is a "statistic" or a "fact" when, if anyone
would do the actual research or ask these people to reveal their
source of information, you would find that it is mostly fabricated or
an extension or assumption or twisting of available information.
Unfortunately, the press coverage of what these gun banning
groups say, is considered valid while the gun support groups, are
considered fanatical and their statistics are not even published,
much less considered valid. Have you ever seen or read an
article having to do with gun control,  where the NRA wasn't
mentioned in a bad, unsavory way or ridiculed? Have you ever seen
an article where Hand Gun Control or the Brady group, was
mentioned with similar disdain?

But in answer to your question about which "FACTS" you should get.....
no, the items you mentioned above are not what I was referring to but
they
too, are not valid until you actually look up the sources to see if
they are simply propaganda or not. I can tell you that it IS, but until
YOU look it up and research it, you would tend to doubt me. The facts
that I suggested you get, in my previous post, had to do with the
number of times firearms were used to stop a crime, or bodily harm.....
and the 1 in 3 homes that fire arms are not locked away. Find out if
the "several times in NYC" is actually true or not. And in the process
of finding out about the number of "kids" harmed or killed by a gun
every year, you just may discover that in all those so called
"statistics" that it includes all the gang members that are under the
age of 18 .....in the category of CHILDREN.  And then investigate if
registration of firearms, through history and that which is actually
happening TODAY in other countries, is true or not. It's not here in
the US ... yet but with every new restriction on the use and ownership
of a firearm by a law abiding citizen it's just one step further down
the slippery slope towards the loss of the individuals natural right to
protect his life, property and freedom.


>All of this still does NOT convince me that you shouldn't have a gun,
>but it does convince me that America is in desperate need of some sort
>of education requirements for gun owners, just like we have for people
>who want to drive, or fly, or dispense medicine, or certify financial
>statements, or operate a restaurant.  Yes, these aren't foolproof, but
>they're better than if we didn't have them.

I don't know what state you are in but in NY you are required to take
a safety course before owning a firearm. It's not as comprehensive as
it could be, but it is some semblance  of effort. There is also a
hunters
safety course that is required before being issued a hunting license
too.
It's cursory, but, again, an effort. I'm sure you realize that any test
or
qualification to perform any activity does not control how well
someone will use that information. It's certainly an "effort" but all
licensed activities that you named have more than their share of
dumb, uncooperative and oblivious participants. And, I'd venture a
guess,
that there are far more atrocious events that happen every year in any
one of those categories than there are involving firearms. You see, in
those categories, they have to blame the people. There isn't an
inanimate
object that can be blamed. The only other place I've seen this tactic
used is with SUV's. Did you ever notice that descriptions of auto
accidents, never refer to mini vans or sedans or pick-ups. But will be
referred to as "the driver of the vehicle". But let there be a SUV
involved, all of a sudden the SUV's become the perpetrator and not the
driver. You'll hear things such as, "The SUV swerved into the crowd of
people" The SUV, ran head on into the ...... " and so on. Firearms have
heretofore been alone, in that kind of characterization.

I saw a cartoon once that said it all as far as what the gun banning
groups try to portray.

As the cowboy hero rides off into the sunset, there, hanging from a
noose in the hanging tree, .... is  ...... a six shooter ..... and the
bad
guy is riding off in the other direction.

If you keep these things in mind when you hear and see things in
the media, regarding firearms ..... if you question the source of
the information that is given ..... and if you actually research for
the truth of the matter, you'll more often than not, see that most
people, only hearing one side of the information regarding gun
use and crimes, will believe that what they hear is the truth. And
gun banning groups, obviously having an agenda and the media
with them, gives them special access to the public. If the other
side is never allowed/permitted to rebut the claims, how can the
public be "informed" .... And obviously the answer is ....it can't.
And this is where the politicians pick it up, to pass the "feel good"
laws and restrictions on the ownership of firearms by the law
abiding citizens and they do nothing to call for enforcing the
thousands of laws already on the books ... nationwide. Stronger
enforcement is finally beginning to show results in lower gun crimes
after many years of liberal pandering for shorter sentencing. And one
by one states are passing "right to carry" laws. There are presently 38
states and growing. There are millions of people who are aware of the
true significance and results of banning guns from law abiding
citizens. I can only hope that they hold on strongly to their rights to
do so.