Thanks Panther. Well done rebuttal. I do not believe DAD actually followed the links and read them. What I see is reflexive reaction.
One point that really annoys me is Moore's implying Heston is a racist when in fact he was an early proponent of the civil rights movement and supported M L King when doing so was unpopular.
Rich
Gun control data
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
It appears to have been a reflex reply. I have spent time upon time upon time giving sources and cites to arguements without any truth coming back. "facts" that come from people like Michael Moor groups like the Brady Campaign (formerly HCI), and people like Bellesiles and Kellerman have been so thoroughly debunked and disproven that I won't allow them to be put forth in this debate. Those sources have been proven time and again to be blatant fabrications and outright lies. Intellectual honesty is the only basis for sources and cites that I will accept.
Take care...
Take care...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
-
jorvik
Well seeing as we are on about the rebuttal of lies 
Quote
WHERE WE'RE HEADED
By Robert A. Waters -
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
This of course refers to Tony Martin, who was sentenced to life for murder.
The reason that he was sentenced to life was because he shot the burglar
In The Back......under English law you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself....this may surprise you, but that was considered unreasonable.
While on the subject of guns however, it would be nice to have a few sources that were unbiased. When comparing the amount of deaths caused by firearms.....are you saying that the figure of 11,000 ( or just over) was incorrect and that for the UK 70 ( or a little under) was also incorrect Or that they were right?......also the figure of people " lawfully killed" surely must be influenced by the number of firearms available.......I'm guessing hear, but would an American Police officer use lethal force i.e. shoot a criminal if he were not armed.
Also consider the population levels in 2000 U.S had a population of 275,000,000.....UK had about 60,000,000...Japan had 126,000,000 and my source
http://www.geocities.com/syyen20/population_top12.htm UK has a population a quarter the size of US so you would expect the US to have 4 times as many deaths by firearms i.e. 280 but it has more than a hundred times,similarly Japan has a population just under a half so you would expect the US to have a little over twice as many deaths.....which would be
78
.......would somebody care to explain these figures.....
Quote
WHERE WE'RE HEADED
By Robert A. Waters -
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
This of course refers to Tony Martin, who was sentenced to life for murder.
The reason that he was sentenced to life was because he shot the burglar
In The Back......under English law you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself....this may surprise you, but that was considered unreasonable. While on the subject of guns however, it would be nice to have a few sources that were unbiased. When comparing the amount of deaths caused by firearms.....are you saying that the figure of 11,000 ( or just over) was incorrect and that for the UK 70 ( or a little under) was also incorrect Or that they were right?......also the figure of people " lawfully killed" surely must be influenced by the number of firearms available.......I'm guessing hear, but would an American Police officer use lethal force i.e. shoot a criminal if he were not armed.
Also consider the population levels in 2000 U.S had a population of 275,000,000.....UK had about 60,000,000...Japan had 126,000,000 and my source
http://www.geocities.com/syyen20/population_top12.htm UK has a population a quarter the size of US so you would expect the US to have 4 times as many deaths by firearms i.e. 280 but it has more than a hundred times,similarly Japan has a population just under a half so you would expect the US to have a little over twice as many deaths.....which would be
78
.......would somebody care to explain these figures.....If an intruder turns to leave, they are no longer a threat and there is no more imperative for you to stop the threat, therefore, you no longer have the right to attack. Generally, it is inexcusable to attack someone in the back; however, there is a case where it was shown that in the split second that the defender fired, the perpetrator turned and the shot hit and killed the intruder in the back. In that case, it was shown that right up to the last split second, the perp was advancing and threatening the home-owner.
Looking at a select few countries is a great technique, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You see, I can pick a few different countries and show a very different conclusion. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
To answer your question about the 11,000 US number. Yes, that number is incorrect as already shown by Rich Castanet previously posted. It should be noted also that the numbers you are using include justifiable homicide in the US, but exclude justifiable homicide in the other countries. The 11,000 number was achieved by adding up various other figures which should have remained separated in an intellectually honest discussion. Therefore, the US number that is being tossed about includes bad guys and good guys, while the other countries only inclue the bad guys numbers.
Regardless, your primary error is equating guns with murder. The truth is that guns do not cause murder any more than knives or baseball bats or martial arts study. Naturally, in a country that has a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, one would expect the murder rate using firearms to be lower. However, when looking at the murder rate by firearm of the countries that you have used... and knowing that private ownership of firearms in England and Japan has been completely banned... one must wonder and ask: Why do they have any murders by firearms?!?
Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made.
The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. However, since the ban on guns in England, the crime rate has been soaring at an alarming rate! In fact, the gun crime rate is rising phenomenally! The police in England have been carrying guns for a number of years now.
In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.
The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S.
But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Also, it should be noted that in Japan, when a distraught businessman decides to go home and murder his entire family and then take his own life, those deaths are all classified as suicides "to save face".
Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US. And the crime rate in Austrailia has soar exponentially since they passed a ban on the private ownership of guns. But, the politicians in those countries, as some do in this country, state clearly that they would rather see a woman raped and murdered by being strangled with her own pantyhose than to have her lawfully defend herself with a gun.
Looking at a select few countries is a great technique, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You see, I can pick a few different countries and show a very different conclusion. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
To answer your question about the 11,000 US number. Yes, that number is incorrect as already shown by Rich Castanet previously posted. It should be noted also that the numbers you are using include justifiable homicide in the US, but exclude justifiable homicide in the other countries. The 11,000 number was achieved by adding up various other figures which should have remained separated in an intellectually honest discussion. Therefore, the US number that is being tossed about includes bad guys and good guys, while the other countries only inclue the bad guys numbers.
Regardless, your primary error is equating guns with murder. The truth is that guns do not cause murder any more than knives or baseball bats or martial arts study. Naturally, in a country that has a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms, one would expect the murder rate using firearms to be lower. However, when looking at the murder rate by firearm of the countries that you have used... and knowing that private ownership of firearms in England and Japan has been completely banned... one must wonder and ask: Why do they have any murders by firearms?!?
Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made.
The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate. However, since the ban on guns in England, the crime rate has been soaring at an alarming rate! In fact, the gun crime rate is rising phenomenally! The police in England have been carrying guns for a number of years now.
In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.
The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S.
But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate. Also, it should be noted that in Japan, when a distraught businessman decides to go home and murder his entire family and then take his own life, those deaths are all classified as suicides "to save face".
Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US. And the crime rate in Austrailia has soar exponentially since they passed a ban on the private ownership of guns. But, the politicians in those countries, as some do in this country, state clearly that they would rather see a woman raped and murdered by being strangled with her own pantyhose than to have her lawfully defend herself with a gun.
-
D.A. Downing
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 3:43 pm
Dissemination of accurate data
Ok. Let's get back on topic and not start with the hypotheticals or personal attacks on what may or may not have been my reflex or reflection. This is supposed be "Tough Issues" where the issues are discussed. Not personalities. If a dissenting viewpoint is going to be so intimidating, just rename the site, "The Chorus."
Moore didn't imply anything about Heston's bigotry. Heston spoke for himself and on his own brought up immigrants as a reason to own guns, and was even given a second chance in the interview to clarify. Also, just because he supported civil rights for blacks in the 60's doesn't mean he's not now prejudiced against immigrants, about whom Heston was doing the speaking (not blacks). You're right, I didn't read through all the links. I have time, but not that much time.
Moore didn't imply anything about Heston's bigotry. Heston spoke for himself and on his own brought up immigrants as a reason to own guns, and was even given a second chance in the interview to clarify. Also, just because he supported civil rights for blacks in the 60's doesn't mean he's not now prejudiced against immigrants, about whom Heston was doing the speaking (not blacks). You're right, I didn't read through all the links. I have time, but not that much time.
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
If you respond without reading all of the info it is not a reasoned response but a reaction to my rebuttel. Who is being thin skinned? I was commenting on your reply, not you in person. I do not believe we ever met.
Likewise, if you read all of the referenced material you would have seen the fact that Moorer edited the responses of the Heston interview to fit his intent, just as he created the edited video using clips from unrelated events up to a year after the Columbine tragedy.
Rich
Likewise, if you read all of the referenced material you would have seen the fact that Moorer edited the responses of the Heston interview to fit his intent, just as he created the edited video using clips from unrelated events up to a year after the Columbine tragedy.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Panther: Regarding home invasions or 'hot' burgleries, in Virginia your home is considered your castle. You are not required to retreat from your home. In fact, if someone is in your home 'uninvited' they are considered a lethal threat and may be dealt with accordingly. TV and movies have created the myth of the fair and honorable fight - it is just that, a myth. A home intruder must be dealt with immediately. A warning to turn around or some such thing is giving a criminal an opportunity to get you. The only recourse is to stop the threat.
Now, as I understand MA law, in such a case you must retreat, even if it means leaving your home. Fortunately we are not as enlightened in Virginia.
Rich
Now, as I understand MA law, in such a case you must retreat, even if it means leaving your home. Fortunately we are not as enlightened in Virginia.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Joe Graziano
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:01 am
- Location: Milford, MA, US
Yes, Deb, we would be a lot better off if more of us do stand squarely behind some of our great Americans in Hollywood - Ronald Reagan, Heston, Arnold, Bo Derek, and many others I'm sure. Didn't mean to besmirch all Hollywood people.
Sounds like you're in with the Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon - the list goes on and on - types. To each his own. I'm still waiting for some of these clowns to leave the country though - as they promised - if our great President George Bush got elected.
Sounds like you're in with the Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon - the list goes on and on - types. To each his own. I'm still waiting for some of these clowns to leave the country though - as they promised - if our great President George Bush got elected.
The Massachusetts doctrine that one must retreat from their own home (which came about under the Dukakis administration) has been reversed. You no longer have to retreat from your home, but it remains that if an intruder is leaving the premises they are considered to no longer be a threat and taking action at that point makes you the aggressor.RACastanet wrote:Now, as I understand MA law, in such a case you must retreat, even if it means leaving your home. Fortunately we are not as enlightened in Virginia.
It is becoming more and more my hope to move to Virginia in about three years...
No one has brought up personalities or made personal attacks. There was an opinion given that a post was a reflex response rather than being based on the rebuttal given. Your viewpoint isn't "intimidating".D.A.Downing wrote:Ok. Let's get back on topic and not start with the hypotheticals or personal attacks on what may or may not have been my reflex or reflection. This is supposed be "Tough Issues" where the issues are discussed. Not personalities. If a dissenting viewpoint is going to be so intimidating, just rename the site, "The Chorus."
It has been pointed out at least twice in this thread and again in the links, sources and cites (sites) provided that Moore intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively edited and manipulated Heston's comments to get the appearance of a bigot where one does not exist. The proof is there and has been cited.D.A.Downing wrote:Moore didn't imply anything about Heston's bigotry. Heston spoke for himself...
Here, by your own admission, you have not read the rebuttals... sources and cites that disprove assertions you have made based on a fictional film by an ultra-left-wing person (by his own admission in a recent interview) and based on "information that is well known". You have not backed up any of your assertions with facts and you have not viewed (by your own admission) the credible rebuttals that have been made to those assertions. Then, you have accused others of being intimidated by your position. If you would like to put forth a well-reasoned and thought out position backed up with credible sources and cites, feel free. But this topic has been thoroughly discussed on these forums many times and sources such as the Brady Campaign (formerly HCI), VPC, SHV, Bellesiles, and Kellerman have already been completely and thoroughly debunked and discredited, so please use credible sources. We don't need to rehash and spend time re-debunking lies of the past. Rich Castanet gave sources and links. I mentioned my sources of the UN reports and the U.S. Department of Justice. In your posts, we see for sources... Michael Moore...D.A.Downing wrote:You're right, I didn't read through all the links. I have time, but not that much time.
If it is getting off topic to rebut, debunk and discredit Michael Moore and those of his ilk, then be forwarned that is allowed. No personality shots, no disparaging remarks, no flippant responses... Respond to the sources, cites and rebuttals given in a like manner.-
D.A. Downing
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 3:43 pm
I didn't say I didn't read all the rebuttals so pleeeeze don't put words in my mouth. I just said I didn't have time to read each and every link you care to post. We can post links ad nauseum on the gun control issue.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 03,00.html
http://www.futureofchildren.org/informa ... _id=154420
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... earms.html
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://ifrm.glocom.ac.jp/gii/dan20000502en.html
http://www.americanlifecare.com/health/commonsense.htm
http://www.kidsandguns.org/images/Gun%2 ... vented.doc
Get my point? In addition I can post 75,700 articles on Bowling For Columbine alone. YOU GOT THE TIME? The accolades this film has won is certainly an indication that the movie struck a cord in America and indeed the world.
But you say Moore editted Heston. What do you believe he left out? Or is it you believe he took advantage of a man we now know was suffering from a debilitating brain disease who resigned from the NRA ironically after yet another high school shooting?
Also I can no longer post anymore from my server at home. AOL denies the problem is with them. Is it the forum? Or with you? Anyhow, makes posting and response nigh on impossible.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 03,00.html
http://www.futureofchildren.org/informa ... _id=154420
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... earms.html
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://ifrm.glocom.ac.jp/gii/dan20000502en.html
http://www.americanlifecare.com/health/commonsense.htm
http://www.kidsandguns.org/images/Gun%2 ... vented.doc
Get my point? In addition I can post 75,700 articles on Bowling For Columbine alone. YOU GOT THE TIME? The accolades this film has won is certainly an indication that the movie struck a cord in America and indeed the world.
But you say Moore editted Heston. What do you believe he left out? Or is it you believe he took advantage of a man we now know was suffering from a debilitating brain disease who resigned from the NRA ironically after yet another high school shooting?
Also I can no longer post anymore from my server at home. AOL denies the problem is with them. Is it the forum? Or with you? Anyhow, makes posting and response nigh on impossible.
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
"In addition I can post 75,700 articles"... OK, post the links. I'll read them and rebut them. AOL works fine here so I will have no excuse to not read them all thoroughly.
As I said earlier, if you followed the links (by the way, they were not to other sites but to details supporting the rebuttals) you would have seen the blatant editing. Do not make light of Mr. Heston's physical condition until you see the edits. Moore's film cuts back and forth very quickly but if you watch closely Heston somehow must be quickly changing his shirt and tie between questions. This was the tip that excerpts were taken out of context from various times and reassembled to meet Moore's agenda. Sound fair to you?
As stated earlier, my facts and Panther's are solid and backed by reputable sources. I'm still waiting for more than your opinion to support your position and Mr. Moore's.
Rich
As I said earlier, if you followed the links (by the way, they were not to other sites but to details supporting the rebuttals) you would have seen the blatant editing. Do not make light of Mr. Heston's physical condition until you see the edits. Moore's film cuts back and forth very quickly but if you watch closely Heston somehow must be quickly changing his shirt and tie between questions. This was the tip that excerpts were taken out of context from various times and reassembled to meet Moore's agenda. Sound fair to you?
As stated earlier, my facts and Panther's are solid and backed by reputable sources. I'm still waiting for more than your opinion to support your position and Mr. Moore's.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
Now you are playing word games. Strictly speaking, you didn't say you hadn't read all the rebuttals, however, your prior post and last post both strongly indicate that you did not and don't have the time. Do not play word games with me.D.A. Downing wrote:I didn't say I didn't read all the rebuttals so pleeeeze don't put words in my mouth. I just said I didn't have time to read each and every link you care to post.
I don't know whether it is AOL or the forums in general, but no actions have been taken against your posting abilities in this forum and I strongly resent the insinuation that they have. However, that can change.D.A. Downing wrote:Also I can no longer post anymore from my server at home. AOL denies the problem is with them. Is it the forum? Or with you? Anyhow, makes posting and response nigh on impossible.
-
Freespeech
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:48 pm
You don't just have my opinion on Bowling For Columbine, Rich. THE FILM WON AN ACADEMY AWARD. It is internationally recognized. Does that give you and uneasy queasy feeling that maybe, just maybe there might be something of substance there?
Just curious. Which one of my links was from an unreliable source? Or didn't you read them all?
And yes. It would seem you don't like any voices that aren't singing in your choir. Pity. Censorship is never ever a good thing.
Just curious. Which one of my links was from an unreliable source? Or didn't you read them all?
And yes. It would seem you don't like any voices that aren't singing in your choir. Pity. Censorship is never ever a good thing.
the ChubbChubbs http://www.oscar.com/nominees/nom_32122.html also won an academy award, nobody believes there is much substance there....
