Michael Moore is being sued!

[tony emerson]

-Carnifex- I had to read your post a few times the double negative can make people misunderstand you. Not that you wouldn't understand what I am saying because you are young. I think that may have been where this started to go bad


*EDIT*
Or would it be
Not that you wouldn't misunderstand what I am saying because you are young.

[tony emerson]

reading back would just like to point out that saying banning guns is the only factor in higher rates of violent crime has

A: been proven wrong in other nations, i wounder why we have such an issue with it

I would like to see you back that up with some facts!

B: like saying colombine high would have been safer if all the students were armed

I think that you can not have guns in schools. Funny how that proves how that A is wrong Way more violent crime there and in a place where it is ILLEGIAL to do so. I think I remember hearing they broke like 42 laws before the first shot.

[nippinout]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26481

[Quoting retired Air Force Gen. James Chambers, Kopel points out that the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes, such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration or damage from bullets from enemy fighter-jet machine guns.]

[Aircraft engineers agree the risk of catastrophe caused by a bullet hole at altitude is low.]

I think a USAF General is a good enough resource.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Those two paticular teen agers shouldn't have had access to the guns. But that doesn't mean that every shouldn't have. The parents who owned the guns had a responsibility for their weapons, and they failed. Miserably.

I can't remember the details of the story so I don't remember if the guns belonged to the parents or to an older friend who made them accessible to the teenagers. But for the point it doesn't matter.

The question is, however, should being negligent with your firearm be a crime? Are you responsible if you leave the Markov Pistol out that you need to defend your family within easy access to your kid and then he/she takes it to school and shoots some other kid with it? (by either total accident or intentionally doesn't matter) If the answer is "no" then I have to ask whether you believe non gun owners have the right to protect their family by holding gun owners accountable for being responsible with their firearms?

To be perfectly honest I don't know how I feel about this one. This would be a VERY complicated legal mess. I bring it up more as a discussion point and to hear how those who believe in responsible firearm use feel.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by nippinout


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26481

[Quoting retired Air Force Gen. James Chambers, Kopel points out that the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes, such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration or damage from bullets from enemy fighter-jet machine guns.]

[Aircraft engineers agree the risk of catastrophe caused by a bullet hole at altitude is low.]

I think a USAF General is a good enough resource.

The article fails to draw a difference between a modern plane being a pressurized plane and its own example of the B 17 not being a pressurized. Which is why it can take a a "hail of bullets and still remain a loft".

Now the whole article is one sided in a way, like I said, will one bullet bring down a plane, probably not, but when will there ever only be one bullet. This is something that it fails to acknowledge. The believers in this purposely look to the best case scenario and do don't plan for the worst.

No matter what you believe a gun is something that does not belong in an airplane. There are far too many risk involved with it, and far too many other ways in which to get the job done without risking the lives of all on board.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
You must not have seen the movie since you seem to mess up on the easiest thing. Again watch the movie your view point might change, though I doubt it for you have your mind made up without even seeing it.

YOU'RE going to lecture me on having a closed mind?

Funny!

Again read what I wrote there and later on when I explained it for those who could not understand what you quoted, though it is there.

You said that if we all had guns we'd shoot each other in the street and we'd all be dead. That's what you said. IT's right there.

Could it be the attitudes of the people, the background, the population density, etc........ But of course you first turn to the gun or lack there of.

So what would you suggest we do? Change their attitudes? Change their background? Deport some of them? None of the things you listed are things we can do something about. Your solution then is to just let them continue being victims?

Allowing them to arm themselves can be done. It is physically possible. Changing the population density or people's backgrounds isn't something we can really do. (although the murderers you don't seem to want to stop are trying their best)

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hardr0ck68
reading back would just like to point out that saying banning guns is the only factor in higher rates of violent crime has
A: been proven wrong in other nations, i wounder why we have such an issue with it
and
B: like saying colombine high would have been safer if all the students were armed

And don't forget C)

Not what any of us are saying. Nobody said crime would disappear.

from my poly sci class we are taught ot look for the warrants then attach the warrant not the argument, the argument that

You're poly sci course is almost 90% likely to be taught by a left wing idealogue that only demonstrates one side of an arguement. I wouldn't take anything you learn in that class too seriously.

banning guns is dirrectly responciable for higher rates of violent crimes therefor you are at risk in regions without "right to carry" laws

Almost true. You are at HIGHER risk. The risk is lower in areas where the consequences of crime are more likely to happen and more severe.


personal safty is dependant on the ability to legaly carry a gun

Personal safety from crime is partially dependant on the likeyhood that an armed citizen in nearby the scene of a crime.

while i am pro gun, i believe that this is incorrect, their are many other factors to personal safty. if you believe i am wrong, then give me your addy i will get good and hammered and drive up and down your street soon you will feel not so safe gun or no. (are you going to shoot all drunk drivers, or drivers you believe to be drunk??)

That's because the way you're saying it is incorrect. The way your phrasing it is basically saying that we think owning a gun makes us invincible to anything that can happen. And that's not what anyone is saying. Your drunk driving example is just retarded.

i believe that guns need a level of responcibility that many "adults" in this fine nation do not have, i for one would not trust our commander and cheif with a pistol around my childern. (btw i have no children, it just sounded better than cat, call me MM if you like)

Um, our commander in chief, while not a combat vetern, did go through training to use a firearm and is almost certainly a safe shooter (how good a shooter I have no idea).

As for responsibility nearly every pro gun person here, myself included, has stressed that notion plenty of times. You're not telling us anything we don't know.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
The question is, however, should being negligent with your firearm be a crime? Are you responsible if you leave the Markov Pistol out that you need to defend your family within easy access to your kid and then he/she takes it to school and shoots some other kid with it? (by either total accident or intentionally doesn't matter) If the answer is "no" then I have to ask whether you believe non gun owners have the right to protect their family by holding gun owners accountable for being responsible with their firearms?

That's a VERY tricky question.

Should I be liable if I leave a gun on my table and someone steals it and shoots someone? What if I had locked in my gun closet and someone spent 2 hours breaking into it with a drill and then shot someone? Certainly in the second case it can be proven that I did take precautions to keep the gun out of the hands of the wrong person. And in the first case I'd say that while I didn't take precaution the gun is on my property (my home) and anyone stealing it committing a crime against me. Does it matter in those two cases that it was easier to steal from me in the first case?

I would say that no. It doesn't matter. I would say I cannot be held accountable if someone steals a gun from my house without my permission and then shoots someone with it.

However, if my 16 year old son (which I don't have one) took a gun from my desk and shot a classmate I would say then that I am responsible. As the boy's parent, and being that he's a minor, I would say that it was my responsibilty to keep the gun out of his hands and out of the school. But what if my son's freind stole the gun? What then? Then it's a little trickier. If it could be proven that my son was a willing accomplice then I would have to say that I have some responsibility for that crime.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No matter what you believe a gun is something that does not belong in an airplane. There are far too many risk involved with it, and far too many other ways in which to get the job done without risking the lives of all on board.

Besides, what could go wrong in a plane with an unarmed pilot? It's not like there's any evidence that someone could, say for instance, take over a plan and use it to murder thousands of people.

CB, pilot should be armed. There are all kinds of different rounds of lethal and non-lethal ammo that will not puncture the side of an airplane. I would not allow normal people to bring a gun in a plane, simply as a precaution. There's a lot of unforseen things that go wrong in a plane and I wouldn't take that risk.

[Collegeboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You must not have seen the movie since you seem to mess up on the easiest thing. Again watch the movie your view point might change, though I doubt it for you have your mind made up without even seeing it.

YOU'RE going to lecture me on having a closed mind?

Funny!

Again read what I wrote there and later on when I explained it for those who could not understand what you quoted, though it is there.

You said that if we all had guns we'd shoot each other in the street and we'd all be dead. That's what you said. IT's right there.

Could it be the attitudes of the people, the background, the population density, etc........ But of course you first turn to the gun or lack there of.

So what would you suggest we do? Change their attitudes? Change their background? Deport some of them? None of the things you listed are things we can do something about. Your solution then is to just let them continue being victims?

Allowing them to arm themselves can be done. It is physically possible. Changing the population density or people's backgrounds isn't something we can really do. (although the murderers you don't seem to want to stop are trying their best)

I am not the one who has made a judgment on a film without ever seeing it and continue to push my ideas of it over people who have seen it and has constantly told you it is different.

As for you calling me close-minded, again prove me wrong and I will admit it, but you first have to prove me wrong.

Quote Collegeboy
_______________________________

I think some of you need to go back and reread my post. I didn't say that guns would turn people into killing machines. I didn't say guns automatically lead to death. etc.........

I said that when a person is in a state of mind that he will beat you up if you bump into you (Should be him), what do you think that same person would do if he was carrying a gun.

....

And I purposely used a stupid low level occurrence incident to show how even the small things can result into innocents being killed.

_______________________

If they make a bullet that will take down a hijacker, but will not puncture the shell of the plane of puncture into the cockpit, that will not fire unless it is being used by the person intended to use it. Then I am for it. But then that goes from being a gun to being a nonlethal option which I have never said I am against. But it need not be the pilots job, his job is to fly the plane, and he has all his hands busy dong that.

You all have this romanticized view of the gun as the great equalizer, as this instrument that put in the hands of an average Joe will prevent crime, will prevent murder, etc.... But the reality of the matter is it is not that.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

You all have this romanticized view of the gun as the great equalizer, as this instrument that put in the hands of an average Joe will prevent crime, will prevent murder, etc.... But the reality of the matter is it is not that.

[shartley]

[tony emerson]

I wish I could state my point half as well as you Shartley! Thank you!

[davidb]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I am not the one who has made a judgment on a film without ever seeing it and continue to push my ideas of it over people who have seen it and has constantly told you it is different.

As for you calling me close-minded, again prove me wrong and I will admit it, but you first have to prove me wrong.

Quote Collegeboy
_______________________________

I think some of you need to go back and reread my post. I didn't say that guns would turn people into killing machines. I didn't say guns automatically lead to death. etc.........

I said that when a person is in a state of mind that he will beat you up if you bump into you (Should be him), what do you think that same person would do if he was carrying a gun.

....

And I purposely used a stupid low level occurrence incident to show how even the small things can result into innocents being killed.

_______________________

You know, if you would just re-read your OWN posts (since you're so quick to compel everyone else to study them like they were Holy Writ) and CORRECT them, BEFORE posting, you could save everyone, including yourself, a lot of trouble.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
If they make a bullet that will take down a hijacker, but will not puncture the shell of the plane of puncture into the cockpit, that will not fire unless it is being used by the person intended to use it. Then I am for it. But then that goes from being a gun to being a nonlethal option which I have never said I am against.

Did you read the article, or just the preview? Albinonewt DID watch the movie.. The article mentioned the use of bird shot, bullets that have good stopping power but laughable penetrative power.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You all have this romanticized view of the gun as the great equalizer, as this instrument that put in the hands of an average Joe will prevent crime, will prevent murder, etc.... But the reality of the matter is it is not that.

Wow. Post a few facts, note a few trends, and suddenly you're a romantic idealist, eh guys? I promise you, CB, that we don't ALL have a romanticized view of guns. Possibly one or two, but I'd have to go back and look.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
But it need not be the pilots job, his job is to fly the plane, and he has all his hands busy dong that.
_________________________
The article fails to draw a difference between a modern plane being a pressurized plane and its own example of the B 17 not being a pressurized. Which is why it can take a a "hail of bullets and still remain a loft".

When they mention "airliners", I think we can safely assume they don't mean vintage P-51's. From this we can draw two conclusions (careful here, we're working off an assumption):
1. The article, and the statements therein, likely pertain to "compressurized" (look, I embiggened my vocabulary) aircraft.
2. The plane is not going to suddenly start doing barrel rolls and crashing into mountainsides if the pilot has to respond to screams from the passenger area (assuming, of course, that the copilot did not eat the fish, and that the autopilot is properly inflated ).

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
A bank giving out instruments of war seems a bit odd to me.

Referring to that gun as an instrument of war seems a bit odd to me. 100 years ago you could have brought that to a war and felt pretty good, but today I don't think I'd be terribly keen..


My apologies, in advance, for being a smartass.

[tony emerson]

CB here is a link to the kind of bullet developed for the Air Martial back in 1974 guns have been on some flights for YEARS! I am suprised that you didnt know that! So that fixes 1/2 of your problem.

Go to an airport or ask a pilot what is done after takeoff the airplane can controll it self via autopilot! Also they have 2 pilots for a reason.