Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Shaun Eli wrote:
> If you believe that even a conservative newspaper like the NY Post
> deliberately omits news stories that show gun owners using their guns
> to stop criminals, and that this happens several hundred thousand times
> a year yet a vast conspiracy is keeping this out of the news, I don't
> know what more I can say to you.


Well, you can try to understand that the goal of a Newspaper is ......
to sell newspapers. Have you ever "rubbernecked" at an automobile
accident on the road? That's the same effect that gun crimes has on
people who read, watch or hear the news. More people will be attracted
to a heinous crime story with a gun than someone who stops a burglar or
scares off a robber from a 7/11 store...... without even firing the
weapon! It's not a conspiracy, it's business. It's the RESULT that it
has on private gun ownership that suffers.

>
> Except we do agree on much-- obviously a safety course isn't going to
> force a trigger lock on someone, but it may make them realize the
> advantages.  Just like all those gory driver ed films probably do get
> some students to think about seat belts, not driving drunk, etc.  And
> before you start saying that they're ineffective, I think thirty or
> forty years of actuarial studies would prove that wrong.

Yet the number of "children" (ie. under 18, same criteria use as
children killed with weapons) killed in automobile accidents is
considerably higher than those of gun use. Why isn't "something" done
to stop this carnage? But then, again, the number of children killed in
bicycle and pool accidents is also higher. When's the last time you
heard of a car, pool or bike banning law and dozens of groups to
support them? And comparably, all of these are only "privileges" while
gun ownership is a "right" Is it not alright to infringe upon
privlieges but ok to do so to a Constitutional right?

>
> As far as the NRA doing something 'right' because they have a lot of
> supporters, well, doing something that favors their members doesn't
> make it right.


Really? Hmmm I guess I and our Forefathers thought that was what our
government was all about? Remember? By the people?  For the people?
Convince people that your ideas are right and lobby the government for
change? Sounds to me as if it's working and that the NRA is using those
precepts in their purest form.

And I'm sure you wouldn't say that supporting the Second Amendment to
the Constitution isn't right ...... or perhaps because you've seen the
NRA painted as fanatics, with the broad brush of the media, and know
nothing else about them, you wouldn't have a basis to think of them as
a patriotic oganization ...... would you?

As I say, I've been involved with this for decades. I see where you are
coming from and can understand, that without closer investigation on
your part, that you are repeating exactly the same points and arguments
that the general public is prone to echo. You have only the general
media as a source for your opinion. Your replies are boiler plate
response of anyone who's only source is what they "read in the
newspapers". It's not a plot or a conspiracy but it is just the way
things are. Unfortunately the anti gun proponents can utilize these
conditions to favor their agenda. I'm here along with a few million
others, defending my right to defend my self. And hopefully cause
someone such as yourself to think that there might actually BE another
side and deeper more far reaching consequences to this anti gun drive,
rather than simply a minor inconvenience to law abiding people, who own
firearms.

>
> And in addition to the news stories about kids finding daddy's gun and
> shooting little Timmy by accident, there are also news stories about
> daddy going to jail.  Yes, they lock him up.  Sometimes even when it's
> his OWN kid who died.

I've never seen that, as a matter of fact. It always seems to me to be
..... what you said before. "It's punishment enough that he lost his
...... etc etc  " That, to me is BS.

I say, that if they do go to jail, it not for long enough.