Gun control data

[ljr]

But you say Moore editted Heston. What do you believe he left out?

here is a quote from an earlier post that you clearly did not read:

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.



(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

[RACastanet]

You are back!

Much of Moore's film has been refuted. That 'documentary' is in fact fiction. Go and watch the curtain behind Heston change color during the interview. watch his shirt turn from white to blue... watch the audience he is in front of change from being seated to being in a convention hall. Moore pasted events from over a 12 month period into an 'interview.

I have read the links you posted (did you?). Some of the info is woefully outdated, being printed in 1998 and using data from 1994. However, there is much I do agree with regarding educating firearm owners and teaching responsibility, a theme being repeated by most sites, and the position of the NRA. A few sites even support my position that firearm fatalities continue to decrease and much of the hype about firearm dangers in schools is media hype. Here are direct quotes from your list of sites...

Time Magazine:

But even in the wake of Columbine and Santee, the figures are chilling, if only because they reinforce every parent's worst fears about life at today's high schools. Those fears are, of course, for the most part fabricated out of the media's breathless, round-the-clock coverage of school shooting sprees. In fact, government records show that gun violence at schools is actually down 65 percent from the 1970s — but these days, the violence gets better coverage.

The Future of Children:

In 1994, the number of gun deaths among children and youth under age 20 reached a historic high of 5,833; by 1998, annual deaths had fallen to 3,792.

It has in fact continue to drop into 2002, a result of education in my opinion.

Guncite:
"Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.
Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.

Rather than being the "league leader" in violent death rates, as the sensational and misleading media reports suggest when focusing exclusively on guns, though the U.S. is still high, its violent death rate is not orders of magnitude higher than other countries."

In fact, if you look at the table of total violent death rates in the world you will note that good old peace loving France has a higher rate, and the US rate is only a bit higher than Germany...

These sites are a great reference to help me support my position. Have any more?

Thanks, Rich

[Panther]

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?

An Oscar does not equate truth or substance.

Just curious. Which one of my links was from an unreliable source? Or didn't you read them all?

The information in the film has been discredited from a documentary standpoint. Reviews from film critics and people who do not know, understand or care that there is sufficient malicious manipulation in the film to warrant a conviction of slander for Michael Moore are not important to the discussion of the content of the film and the validity of that content... both of which have been discredited.

Rich gave links to the evidence proving that malicious manipulation. He did not innundate us with links. Regardless...

I have already explained the discrepancies in the calculations used on at least two of your links and will not rehash them.

At least three of your links are from anti-gun groups or prominent members of anti-gun groups. In those links, the "epidemic" they give an outcry about simply does not exist. It has been disproven and that evidence has been posted in these forums in the past. As previously stated, there is no need to rehash them. They are incorrect and flawed in their arguments and proven to be not only biased but also intellectually dishonest in their presentation of information. (not facts, because facts are based on truth and this information is a distortion of the truth)

The Harvard link is from someone who is/was trying to get a government grant of $3 million to "study" the cause and effect. That study has already been done, but the Harvard group is trying to get a grant for a conclusion that they have already drawn.

The article from Time is pretty good. There is more to the issue than mentioned in that article, but they also acknowledge that. They also provide some other information that is thought provoking and interesting.

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.

You have not been censored in any way. You have been allowed to post things and be sarcastic and rude in response rather than address the rebuttal. I strongly resent your continued accusations that you have been censored on this forum. Those accusations are unfair and unwarranted. You have merely been asked to respond with facts, sources and cites that are not from the anti-gun, anti-freedom crowd. Others have used verifiable stats, sources and cites which are not from the NRA. You have only been asked to follow suit.

Finally, your continued insistence that you have somehow been censored is disproven by the very fact that your posts have all remained exactly as you posted them. It appears that you are the one who is having a problem with the facts, sources and cites as given. But I will not tolerate your continued whining that you have been descriminated against or censored. That is completely unfair and you are being rude without cause.

[Freespeech]

Well I am not exactly "back." More like breaking and entering. No whine intended, but I cannot post on my server at all. I have to sprint across the street to the public library and wait behind some gum chewing, love struck teenager pouring out his heart to his girlfriend via e-mail in order to use a computer. Finally my turn. Username and password - doesn't work. My other name and password - doesn't work. OK. (I'll let the witch post when they pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands?) Reregister different name and my e-mail - doesn't work. OK. Different name. Different e-mail. Voila! I have a voice! (Small victory dance as the librarian looks up nervously)

Now quick review of the threads, there is a 10-minute limit on computer use, hmmmm interesting stuff on editing. Doesn't really debunk the premise that the NRA was insensitive to come and speak after the recent tragic loss of life but it will make me watch the movie more closely next time to see if I can detect any slate of hand curtain changes. Funny that Columbine was in the headlines again yesterday. They had the school under lockdown. What is the matter with these kids?

Panther wants to argue 70 thousand links. Got to give him credit but life is too short and the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

Rich thinks sources are outdated at 1999. Sheesh. Tough crowd. But on the issue of out dated, why does Heston wave a Kentucky long rifle (or musket or whatever the heck it is) and instead what is really on the table today - assault rifles. Rich also thinks one link is beneficial to his view. Well if you say so. Seems like a steep "collateral damage" to me. Isn't that more deaths then we lost in the war in Iraq? In both wars? I guess it's ok if it's not your loved ones you're burying. Post more links, Rich? I don't think so. I am a little stubborn and while I must admit that I find sprinting across the street to the library to have some slimming and toning effects, it really is much too much of a time consuming aerobic enterprise.

Instead I would like to urge all the readers to go see the movie, use your own brains, draw your own conclusions. I have to go now. 10-minute limit on computer use is up and the gum chewing kid is back waiting to use the computer. He is anxiously shuffling his feet and you never know these days - these days he may have a gun....

[Guest]

10-minute limit on computer use is up and the gum chewing kid is back waiting to use the computer. He is anxiously shuffling his feet and you never know these days - these days he may have a gun....

And he should have one if he meets the legal requirements, a love struck teen owning a gun is not a threat to society.

[Panther]

Well I am not exactly "back." More like breaking and entering. No whine intended, but I cannot post on my server at all.

I don't know why you are having troubles. I'll check and see if it's a problem here or not. Regardless, it is not a problem that I have created
for you.

Doesn't really debunk the premise that the NRA was insensitive to come and speak after the recent tragic loss of life but it will make me watch the movie more closely next time to see if I can detect any slate of hand curtain changes.

It proves dishonesty in the movie and if you read the original speeches that were made (some over a year apart from the Colombine tragedy) you will find that they were anything but insensitive.

Funny that Columbine was in the headlines again yesterday. They had the school under lockdown. What is the matter with these kids?

I have my beliefs... you would probably disagree.

Panther wants to argue 70 thousand links. Got to give him credit but life is too short and the sun is shining and the birds are singing.

YOU posted the links... it seemed in an attempt to innundate us with your position. But the same flawed distortions keep getting regurgitated by the anti-gun, anti-freedom crowd. That's not our fault... It just makes it easier to show they're disenginous nature. After you posted the links, a number of people went through them, in order to prevent your cries of being hypocritical for not going though them, and addressed each assertions... ultimately debunking them all. As previously stated and requested, please don't rehash already debunked manipulated information from those groups. It is a waste of other's time to answer and disprove, yet again, the lies of such organizations as HCI and VPC or individuals such as Bellesiles and Kellerman. They have already been debunked and discredited. We don't need to do so again.

Rich thinks sources are outdated at 1999. Sheesh. Tough crowd. But on the issue of out dated, why does Heston wave a Kentucky long rifle (or musket or whatever the heck it is) and instead what is really on the table today - assault rifles.

That was a commemorative rifle given to him. I do not believe you know what an "assault rifle" is OR the laws that control them. Do your homework on the subject and discuss them when you understand why your comments lead me to make that statement.

Rich also thinks one link is beneficial to his view. Well if you say so.

Rich answered your post with supporting evidence. There is other supporting evidence and links, but he was trying to discuss, debate, educate and enlighten... not innundate. On the other hand...

Seems like a steep "collateral damage" to me. Isn't that more deaths then we lost in the war in Iraq? In both wars? I guess it's ok if it's not your loved ones you're burying. Post more links, Rich?

You are changing and misdirecting the nature of the debate... and after recently admonishing others to stay on topic. Along the same lines, I could make the following accurate assertion:

On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the U.S. and killed around 3,000 of our citizens. The nation became enraged at that and we are now engaged in a "War on Terrorism" because of that. YET, around 130,000 people are killed each year by Medical Negligence and Malpractice! Over 43 times as many as were killed on 9/11/01! Yet nothing is done about this murderous epidemic!

While the facts in that assertion are truthful, there are good legitimate reasons for our actions concerning both sets of deaths. However, it is just as legitimate an assertion as the ones you are making... and the reasons for our responses are just as correct in your assertion as they are in this one.

Now. I will be making this formal warning:

Your comment to Rich about burying other's loved ones is rude, callous and uncalled for. You have this opportunity to rethink that statement. He has said nothing to deserve such a comment made directly at him and that is a blatant violation of the rules of this forum. I have already been giving you lots of leeway in your rudeness, sarcasm and responses that do not address the rebuttals and discussion of others. Regardless of your cute idea of picking the username "Freespeech", your posts here have not been stopped. However, that was unacceptable and uncalled for. You have crossed into dangerous territory on this forum and I strongly suggest you rethink your debating tactic around that type of comment.

I don't think so. I am a little stubborn and while I must admit that I find sprinting across the street to the library to have some slimming and toning effects, it really is much too much of a time consuming aerobic enterprise.

I should try that... There are plenty of folks who could use a little extra slimming and toning... and I'm one. Add a stubborn nature, and one would expect to achieve the proverbial "hardbody".

Instead I would like to urge all the readers to go see the movie, use your own brains, draw your own conclusions.

If they use their brains rationally with the knowledge gained from the information Rich has posted, and they are intellectually honest about the movie, they will probably visit the website that Kevin Mackie posted on another thread...

He is anxiously shuffling his feet and you never know these days - these days he may have a gun....

I was going to respond, but I see that Laird has already done so...

Then again... Given the fact that statistically (DOJ & US Senate reports) lawful gun-owners, as a group, have the lowest crime rates in the Nation... One would expect you to feel much safer knowing that there is a lawful and responsible person nearby to assist you.

[IJ]

As someone who hasn't looked at this thread since my last post in 1983 or so, and incidentally someone who's now and then accused of being some sort of liberal antichrist, let me just say that this argument is over and the anti-Moore side won. I can't even tell what the pro-Moore section is even trying to argue. All that's clear is that stating that you're too busy to know the relevant facts isn't very persuasive. What I'd be most interested in would be the TWO part commentary from those against guns: not only is it necessary to show that having guns around can lead to crime, it is necessary to show that gun control will help. I find the first thought plausible. I mean, sure, lots of other factors contribute but it's not as easy to hold up a bank with a knife. But that doesn't mean gun control will help because the guns are out there and the unsavory characters aren't going to return them even if we say pretty please. Everything short of this is just academic, isn't it? It's also apparently going on without vhanging anyone's mind.

[jorvik]

The " Gun Lobby" certainly haven't won this debate.....there is still a major problem in the US over guns......move the figures around if you like? it may not be 11,000 killed by firearms if you take out the " Justified" killings
and maybe there aren't 81 killed in the UK.....but I don't think that there would be a lot of difference. Going on population the UK has one fifth of the US so there should be 5 times more deaths by firearms in the US ......so say the UK had a death rate of 500 even....and that's going way over the top then the death rate in the US should be .............what? 2,500
Panther says that it is nearer 9,000. Whichever way you cut it you have a serious problem.....it is totally irrelevant to say that the Swiss have more guns...because, they do not have a problem even if they each had nuclear weapons in their homes they would not have a problem.....because they don't use them as freely as the Americans.
So you can have a go at Moore as much as you like for dishonesty....but from where I sit it sounds more like poetic licence.
Or look at it another way say 9,000 Americans were dying of Cancer and only 81 English were, you'd say that you had a problem.....wouldn't you?

[Don Rearic]

The " Gun Lobby" certainly haven't won this debate...

(stomp feet like child throwing temper tantrum) I will be heard! You bastards have not won any debate! Guns kill people, damnit I say!

..there is still a major problem in the US over guns...

Here is your wake-up call, my British acquaintance, there is "still a major problem in the U.S." over...EVERYTHING.

People, using the term loosely, people here will kill with ANYTHING they can get their little criminal hands on. The issue of the object they used is only an issue to people who don't want to do a damned thing about people who are violent and instead want to shift the focus to an inanimate object they use.

Only people who don't want to make the hard choices over here are quick to say there is a "gun problem" here. I don't see it as a "gun" problem. I see an extremely violent country, of that there is no doubt. I see a "violence problem" which is, at the core of it's rotten heart, a "people problem."

Here is how it goes...a little like this...

There is a woman jogging in a park. A man in the bushes, he jumps out, he overpowers the woman and threatens the woman with violence and a weapon and he rapes her, beats her and then goes through her purse. Takes her money and runs off on his merry way.

You can substitute whatever you want when it comes to "park," the environment changes but the crime happens every day here in the U.S.

This piece of sh*t we refer to as a "man," he might do this dozens of times before he is finally apprehended, that's the way it goes. Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, they're not God, after all...not omnipresent.

When they do get him, if he is not released with charges dropped due to the victim being dead (no witness and not enough evidence, etc.), intimidated or anything else...he might be released on some technicality.

Let's say that everything goes "right" and this person is scooped off of the streets and the evidence is good, he is stupid and he is found guilty of this crime and sentenced.

In most areas here that you would refer to as, "riddled with crime and violence," he won't serve long. He will go to a place where he can hone his violent skills on a Government-supplied whetstone. It's called Prison.

He's going to get out, even if he killed her, in our more "liberal" States, he will in most cases, be released and if he is young, he has plenty of killing time left. Rehabilitation as we have come to know it fails much more than it works. I don't think that can be argued at ALL when you look at the recidivist rate we have.

When he gets out, he won't be a Priest...seeing the error of his horrible ways, no, he's going to start doing it again in most cases. Again, this cannot really be argued except by the most combative liberals who carry the cancer of ideological narcissism that won't allow them to admit they are wrong when it comes to their various social engineering and wacky ideas of rehab...that lurk among us.

The same thing goes for burglary, armed burglary, strong arm robbery, armed robbery, incredibly violent assaults. Everyone is worrying about the "Hockey Dad" exploding on the ice in a fit of violence, that's a JOKE. What made that so "interesting" to people is the fact that he was more or less a regular guy because that sort of thing, again, in a different environment, happens EVERY DAY in this country. People are beaten, raped, robbed, stabbed, slashed, shot, you name it, every day in this country. What rocked people was the venue in the "Hockey Dad" Case. There is nothing special about it whatsoever except the circumstances surrounding the incident.

This is only a glimpse at our real "problem" and it is not a "gun problem" either.

You see, it's easy to blame an inanimate object for the acts of a violent human being. Especially for politicians. Guns don't have relatives that vote. They only have advocates like me and Panther and the rest of the "Pro-Gun" side.

Criminals have families and some of them vote and politicians know it and they pander to them.

Case in point.

The State of Maryland has its first Republican Governor in about four decades, right now. He wanted to pass "Project Exile." This "Project" or "Program" takes a violent offender who uses a firearm and extracts his worthless ass out of his area and transports him/her (usually a him, obviously) to a prison far away from home.

Guess what happened? Oh, people started crying, "I won't be able to see my husband/boyfriend/father/son/brother if you do that!"

Politicians listen to the constituents.

So, this Governor, Robert Ehrlich, the Democrats rose up and said, "Well! You want Project Exile, huh Bobby? You ain't getting it until we get some more GUN CONTROL!"

You see, Project Exile has worked in the State of Virginia. The Democrats don't give a damn about stopping any murder or other violent crime! They just want to ban some more GUNS! They will continue with FAILED IDEAS (Gun Control) and demand some more of them and thumb their nose at something that is proven to work like Project Exile. Then, if Ehrlich tries to appease them, they will GUT the law that he would want to the point it was ineffective anyway and they would say, "See, we have to have more gun control, Project Exile is not working...we have to go to the tools criminals use."

You want to stop armed robbery? THIRTY YEARS ABSOLUTELY NO PAROLE.

You want to stop rape? FIFTY YEARS ABSOLUTELY NO PAROLE.

Someone shoots someone over drugs or something else that is not justifiable (Self-defense, etc.)? LIFE, NO PAROLE.

Someone found with illegal drugs on their person and a gun? They were a crime ready to happen... THIRTY YEARS ABSOLUTELY NO PAROLE.

I don't do these things so I can sit here and advocate that. These are serious crimes and they demand serious penalties.

But we're not going to do that, we're just going to continue down the road to nonsense...

All the rest of your numbers don't mean much of anything to me. Gun Control has failed. Even if you could get them all out of private hands, both honest people and criminals, they would shift to knives or anything that will cut or thrust, then bludgeons, the numbers we have ALREADY POINT TO THAT.

[jorvik]

Hi Don,
Keeping well I hope
Sounds like you live in the Wild West or maybe Paranoiasville.........those 9,000 folks ( Panthers figures )......were all victims, not perpetrators....like those folks in Virginia got killed by the sniper.........now I don't know but me .......I would think that if he only had a knife, it would be kinda hard for him to kill all those folks............you don't live in a violent society you live in a " Trigger Happy" society. Look at the last Gulf war AKA Iraq.......hell your guys killed all sorts of folks. British troops, flying red flags, smoke trails......everything that you needed to know that they were your allies .......TV journalists, coupla them in there, and this isn't the first time....happened last time as well
Now I'm not saying that all American Gun owners are irresponsible.....but face it you have a p*ss poor record.( especially your military).....that is the problem. Folks like you shouldn't have guns,........
As to your other comments and the imaginery rape victim.......Hell Don ....you and I could be buddies
I think that prison sentences should match the crime.........Don't agree with the death sentence ( only because mistakes can be made )...but life should mean life........AKA leaving in a coffin
" Strength with out Justice is violence........Justice without strength is useless" Doshin So ( founder of Nippon Shorenji Kempo)

[RACastanet]

Hmm... I live in Virginia and no paranoia here.

The gun owners in VA that are licensed to carry concealed are truly the most law abiding citzens in the state. Out of over 100,000 permit holders only 24 have had their license revoked, and few because of a gun violation. In VA even a drunken driving ticket will cost you the permit so we as a class are not even drinkers. In addition, the 5 years following the right to carry law and the implementaion of 'Project exile' saw the homicide rate fall by over 50%. The bad guys were afraid of attacking potentially armed citizens (they said so) and many were locked up for 5 years under the law.

I am very offended by your comments about our military. Wars are tough business and the faster the goal is accomplished the better. The recent war in Iraq was fast and successful. Saddam and his regime killed thousands of innocents and these bodies are being dug up by the thousands daily. Do you not read the paper? The US and its coalition partners have saved countless thousands of lives by deposing Saddam.

US military lives were lost trying to be politically correct. Perhaps we should have just carpet bombed the cities or used gas as Saddam had done against the Kurds.

Give me the USA, warts and all, as long as I have a constiutional right to defend myself and speak my mind. By the way, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution came almost verbatum from the previously written Vrginia Constiution.

And remember, England still exists only because of the US and its willingness to support our friends. Before our entry into WW2, US citizens were sending personal firearms to the British for homeland protection since most of the arsenal was lost at Dunkirk. By the way, the British did return many of these weapons to their original owners, complete with the Lend-Lease stamp and today these firearms are cherished collector items. One reason they were sent back was that after the war, the British did not want their citizens to be armed... could not be trusted I guess.

You sir, live in a dream world.

Rich

[Don Rearic]

"Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb...

Mary had a little lamb and Bush invaded Iraq and killed a bunch of kids and gun control is good and all the war was about was oil and American bullying and guns are bad and her fleece was white as snow." -Jorvik

Can't someone BAN this person? I take a break and he is still posting this utter nonsense. No matter what you mention, there is going to be some sort of Iraq thing in a gun control thread???? Christ on a rubber crutch!

[Van Canna]

saw a discussion on CNN tonight about the possibility of extending the 'assault gun ban', along with a demonstration by the police of the 'killing potential' of the so called 'assault weapons' to include semiauto weapons with magazines of thirty rounds. the commentary was such weapons have no business being on the street because they are a killing waiting to happen, as opposed to other types of guns used to hunt birds or animals or even for self defense.

Same questions lurk here in the background. Would panther, rich or Don Rearic please straighten these people out on what an assault weapon is or is not and its place in a gun society such as our great country?

thank you.

[Don Rearic]

...saw a discussion on CNN tonight about the possibility of extending the 'assault gun ban', along with a demonstration by the police of the 'killing potential' of the so called 'assault weapons' to include semiauto weapons with magazines of thirty rounds.

Back when that utterly worthless, symbolic piece of feel-good nonsense was passed...back when they were pushing for it to be passed...CNN showed a deliberately misleading piece of film with, IIRC, a BATF Agent firing a FULLY Automatic AK-47, a weapon already heavily regulated, on a range and the narrator was talking about SEMI-Automatic firearms. People like Jorvik are not interested in the truth as long as they see a problem, examine his earlier comments about Michael Moron.

It does not matter what lie or distortion is told, the end justifies the means with leftists, that is why Moore can lie his ass off and people like Jorvik don't care.

Before I get any flak for insulting him, please examine his earlier statements, I think I am being more than fair in my assessment of him.

The point of the CNN film of so many years ago was to deliberately mislead the public into thinking the rate of fire was even higher. That's crappy and underhanded and it is the sort of docu-garbage Moore is passing off as "truth."

...the commentary was such weapons have no business being on the street because they are a killing waiting to happen, as opposed to other types of guns used to hunt birds or animals or even for self defense.

Same questions lurk here in the background. Would panther, rich or Don Rearic please straighten these people out on what an assault weapon is or is not and its place in a gun society such as our great country?

If one firearm is "a killing waiting to happen," then all firearms would be "a killing waiting to happen." I know you are just illustrating what you want discussed Van, I'm not saying this to you. You already know the deal. Others don't.

If someone is interested enough in your money, your VCR, body or anything else, it's not like their sitting around with their thumb up their ass waiting for an assault rifle so they can come and take it. They'll use whatever they can get their hands on.

Let's examine a little leftist nonsense now...

Earlier, Jorvik pulled a fast one and slid something by...check it out.

Hi Don,

...like those folks in Virginia got killed by the sniper...now I don't know but me ...I would think that if he only had a knife, it would be kinda hard for him to kill all those folks...

Now, this forum disrupter thinks he's slick, but he's not really. I just get tired of shooting down stupid arguments.

These two Muslim extremists that did that Bushwhacking (NOT Sniping), YES! They could have used a knife. They could have used a tire iron. Ever heard of Ted Bundy? Apparently no one has. Ted never used a firearm to kill any woman that the Authorities are aware of.

Jorvik says this and among all of the .............. periods and the purposely convoluted habit of wording things, he thinks he can pull the Jedi Mind Trick. All of those people were not killed in one place.

While it could be said that it would be hard for a person to start stabbing a bunch of people in a crowd and be a real success at it, this is not what these two vermin did. They were selective, YES, they could have used a knife and any number of things more commonly available than knives. They could have used a completely legal claw or ball peen hammer to work their evil. The fact that they did not is damned irrelevant.

...you don't live in a violent society you live in a " Trigger Happy" society.

I'll post a nice picture for you in a moment to back up what I said earlier about how violent this country is compared to yours and you can spare me the emotional nonsense with your trigger happy statement.

In this country, EVERYTHING is used and the BASIS, as I said earlier, to believe that the violence will not stop will be seen clearly in the picture I post which is a graphic on weapons used in crime. The proof is, the groundwork is already there, even if you could ban all guns that criminals have, they would simply revert to the next thing they can get their hands on.

In fact, in the graphic I will show, only in ONE year were LONG GUNS (non-Handguns) used in more homicides than EDGED WEAPONS/KNIVES. There is the proof. Take the handguns, take the long guns, you will simply shift the column over to edged, impact and "any other weapon." It would take a fool to think otherwise.

Look at the last Gulf war AKA Iraq...hell your guys killed all sorts of folks. British troops, flying red flags, smoke trails...everything that you needed to know that they were your allies .......TV journalists, coupla them in there, and this isn't the first time....happened last time as well

Now I'm not saying that all American Gun owners are irresponsible.....but face it you have a p*ss poor record.( especially your military).....that is the problem. Folks like you shouldn't have guns,........

That's why he should be banned, the guy is deliberately trolling and disrupting with nonsense. This is what he brings to the table. First he kisses us with not all gun owners are irresponsible than says, "folks like you should not have guns."

Hey Jorvik, if it gets me banned from Tough Issues, so be it, they have put up with your nonsense so I guess they can put up with a little bit of my frustration at your silly posts...but from me to you, McF*ck yourself, Pal.

This guy is a deliberate, baiting and disrupting troll and I don't know how much more you all can stomach of his B.S., but really... I have better things to do...again. Break time. Call me when he's banned, seriously. He adds nothing but a bunch of dots on my screen.

[Don Rearic]

As an afterthought to the above, let's see if you all can keep Jorvik on track. We don't need to hear about the numbers of firearms - related homicides in that picture, we already know those are HORRIBLE figures.

No, he needs to tow the line and tell us why we should believe for one damned second, why those people would not shift to "other weapons" even if we COULD, which we cannot, take their firearms. Further, ban knives as well. A damned bit of good that will apparently do.

Almost 86,000 people killed with knives in 23 years. Blunt Instruments and "any other weapon" had a really good showing as well.

There is absolutely NO reason to believe the column will not shift, Researcher David Kopel stated it quite nicely:

"Replacing 'gun deaths' with 'knife deaths' is not my idea of progress."

What that points to is a problem with violence, it's not a gun problem. He is absolutely, 100% correct. It WILL happen. The gun deaths would go up as well because then the criminals would be emboldened to victimize a disarmed society, that's another angle that people like Jorvik never address because if it is addressed, his house of cards falls.