Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Shaun Eli wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Sorry, but if you're saying that newspapers don't report major stories
> because they're trying to please their readers, AND that people do NOT
> want to read about bad guys being shot, you're way off.  I can't
> imagine anybody who doesn't want to read about bad guys being shot.
> But it doesn't happen all that often.  And there is at least some
> separation between editorial and sales.

And I would suggest that you don't know how a business is run. It's for
profit and to gain the biggest profit you report the stories that sell
newspapers. You've never done any research on the subject yet you seem
to know by "gut feeling" that what you presume, is factual. You say you
"know" yet your only source is the general media. I say your wrong
because I've done the study and research. And you DON'T know. Robert
Campbell has given you some insight about both the subject of
confiscation and about what the newspapers do for a living, from his
experience. You don't seem to have any reply to his testimony that what
I'm saying is fact. You've never looked at the Dept of Justice
statistics, but you have looked at the NY Slimes archives. Do the
research and compare what you hear and what you "think" you know, to
the facts. Until you do, you'll not convince anyone on the basis of
"feeling" and what the media has led you to presume. I've had these
converstations so many times with people and you'd be amazed at how
much you all quote the same information ........ all of which is media
in origin.
>
> > >
> >
> > 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?
> >
> Okay, first of all, cars are used for transportation and it's only a
> bad side-effect that people are killed.  A hundred million cars in this
> country are used probably on average a half-hour a day.  Guns?  Not so
> much.  Furthermore, we have A LOT of laws to protect children in cars.
> Cars and drivers are licensed, we have thousands of traffic police, and
> traffic laws, and stop signs, and speed limits, and seat belt laws, and
> child seat laws-- AND TESTING before they LET YOU DRIVE.  Oh, and
> bicycle helmets.
>
> As far as pools-- there are fewer than 7,000 drownings a year in this
> country, and most are not in pools, and most are people who didn't
> intend to be in the water (fell in, etc.).  But still we have laws
> requiring lifeguards at public pools, and some great percentage of
> municipalities have laws requiring that private pools be fenced in.
> Your analogy of guns vs. cars and pools is severely flawed.  Guns are
> made to kill.  Sure, you own your handgun for defense, not offense, but
> the gun doesn't know the difference.

You are exactly right on .... but not in the context that you assume.
Firearms are a tool. Just like a power hammer or a chain saw it can be
used for good or bad. Just because neither of these tools was developed
for war use, they are just as lethal as a firearm. There are no laws
pertaining to the use of these "tools" as weapons. There are no
mandatory courses or training required for their use. Both can kill
someone just as easily as a firearm. They are not regularly used as
weapons, but they have the "potential" of doing serious harm to
someone. Shouldn't they be licensed, and controled and be required to
be locked up when not in use? Nope, nothing on the books covering their
use, storage or ..... anything.

By the way, if my memory serves me right, I think I remember that there
are about 37000 laws nation wide, concerning firearms. I think I
remember somewhere reading that they were the most "controlled" item on
the books.

>
> As far as the Constitution, it's clear to everyone who doesn't rally
> around gun ownership that the framers of the Constitution intended the
> Second Amendment to apply to state militias, NOT to private ownership.
> Otherwise there would be no way to stop you from owning machine guns or
> nuclear weapons.  But as I doubt either of us is a Constitutional
> scholar, let's leave the Constitution out of this.

You are compelety wrong about this and there are Supreme Court rulings
through history that negates this frivolous claim. Again, you are
parroting what you've heard and haven't done the reading and research.
>
> > >>
> > 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.
>
> The media may be a source of some of my information but it is not a
> source of my opinion.  My opinion is my own.


Based on ......... ? Certainly not anything other than what the general
public is fed every day by the media. I've given you information that
I've come across and researched at various times over the last 30 or so
years. You can take it or leave it. From your persistance in trying to
convince someone such as me that you are right, simply reaffirms, that
what I am saying is true. You've been led down the path that many
people travel. I can only suggest that you actually look into the
matter, and after a while, see if you still "feel" the same way.
Opinions based on incomplete information are not good opinions,
wouldn't you say?


>
> And if you'd read what I'm writing you'd see that I've repeatedly said
> that I'm not against guns nor against legal ownership, given some sort
> of requirements such as we have for car owners, so continuing to say
> that I'm anti-gun is not only disengenuous but just plain wrong.


I don't know that you are or are not "anti gun" I do know that you are
under some misconceptions that you should really look into before you
talk to an old hand such as me. I've been there and back again. You, on
the other hand, appear to have been only ...... here.

> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> The last couple of stories about this I've seen, the gun owner did get
> jail time.  I never said anything about loss of the kid being
> punishment enough.  Maybe those were someone else's words on this
> thread.

I don't think you "said" it .... but I think you may have quoted it.
Whatever!