[Jeff OTMG]

Allow me to respond to that:

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Firearms are, in almost all cases, totally unnnecessary except for 2 reasons: to kill people or to protect yourself against another person with a firearm that wants to harm you.

I shall assume by this statement then that you would then support a ban on firearms. That would then, of course, include police since we wouldn't want the police killing people and they would not need the protection since nobody else would have firearms (that would be illegal). That being said, you will find little support from the law enforcement community to disarm themselves. You don't see many cops getting mugged. Why is that? It is because they have guns. Your total premise is incorrect from the start. You state 'IN MOST CASES...'. I own nearly 100 firearms, the majority of them handguns. Zero have been used for criminal purposes. In fact there are 260,000,000+ firearms in the U.S., far less than 130,000,000 firearms are used illegally. Therefore that statement is a lie. You also state that there are two primary reasons to own guns. I have already shown that they don't kill people, do you honestly believe that I need 100 guns for self defense? No. Some of my battery are employed in the self-defense role, based on climate, attire, and activity, but the majority are owned purely for the enjoyment for the sport or competition. I also have 4 motorcycles because I like them. Some people like cars. As far as using the guns for self defense ONLY against another person with a firearm, I beg to disagree. A firearm can be employed anytime there is a disparity of force. For example, in Nov 1989 when 5 men attempted to abduct my girlfriend, my firearm negated the odds of 5 to 1. The firearm gave me the power to kill all five of them in under 2 seconds. I do not know if they were armed with guns or knives or nothing. 5 to 1 was enough that I was not going to risk my well being in a hand to hand confrontation. I say 2 seconds because I have engaged four separate 8" targets (about the size of a human head) at a range of 12 feet and placed one shot on each target in 1.44 seconds. Adding one more target would surely not take an extra half second. My score was only good enough for second place in the match, my friend beat me with a time of 1.27 seconds. My intervention allowed them to decide whether to continue with the activity or disengage. They decided to leave. Point is that a firearm can be used to defend against another firearm, a knife, a club, multiple assailants, or in one state (Texas) to protect the loss or damage of personal property regardless of value.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Sure, it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems.

Actually it would be the solution to many of the problems of criminals. Go to a prison sometime and interview burglars. Or you could just go to the library and read the Wright-Rossi report for the answers (they interviewed over 1500 prisoners). Ask them why they break into homes when nobody is there. If you look at home invasions (burglaries where the home is occupied) you will find much higher rates in all other countries. When you ask the prisoners why, the number one reason that they avoid occupied houses is the fear that someone at home might have a gun to shoot them with. If you are against firearms I strongly urge you to place a sign in your front yard declaring your home a 'Safe House - GUN FREE HOME. No firearms permitted on premises.' Go ahead and set an example for the rest of us. Lead by example. If you are not willing to do this ask yourself why not. If you are, let me know how long it is before you are the subject of a home invasion.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
People can find any number of statistics to suit their cause, but the fact remains that humans are so selfish and immature at most stages that they are not prepared to deal with the enormity of their power.

I am fully prepared to deal with the power of carrying a gun. I have had more than one opportunity to shoot people. LEGALLY. In Texas it is legal to shoot 'taggers' after dark. Last week a 14 year old was shot in the back for stealing chickens in San Antonio at 04:00. The shooter will not be charged, it is legal. Yes it is legal, but I go out of my way to avoid shooting people. I do still want the option to decide if I want to shoot the person that is in the process of caving my head in with a crowbar. I have found that introducing a firearm early into a confrontation of that type is sufficient to stop it before it starts.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
I am appalled by the paucity of intelligence exhibited by many of my fellow Americans and cannot believe that we think it doesn't infringe upon everyone's rights for people like these to own guns, drive vehicles, have children and any number of other things.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but gun ownership and having children are rights. Driving is a privledge. Are you saying that some people should not be permitted to have children? I have a serious problem with that. It may solve some problems and do some good in certain cases, BUT you cannot removed a persons right to have a family without some serious extenuating circumstance. China has restrictions like that, on guns as well, and as we all know China is not a republic nor does it use a representative democracy as a form of govt as found in the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Canada does fine without every other person owning a firearm...they seem like happy people and they have a lovely country (before anyone says it, don't worry, I AM considering moving there!)

There are about 27 million Canadians and 8 million Canadian gun owners. We have 275 million people and 80 million gun owners. the gun ownership rate is actually higher in Canada than here. They have a very different social order than the U.S. They do not seem to want to kill each other nearly as much as we do, but they do not have the violent history of the U.S. Guns are not the problem, if they were Canada would be much worse off than the U.S.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
And finally, I swear I see a correlation between arrogance and unadulterated testosterone-caused idiocy by gun-owners and proponents.

I would like to know where you see it? I see just the opposite. I see groups like the Million Mom March lie to the point that their parent organizations (The Trauma Foundation and the Bell Campaign) were thrown out of their office space that they were getting illegally from the San Francisco General Hospital Building 1 Room 300.
Here is the page of a friend of mine who helped get them kicked out: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/mmm/

With any luck we will have the Justice Department investigation underway before the end of the year and the mommies laid off 30 of 35 employees as a result. Best I can do is the opening of the article from the SF Examiner and a link to the New York Times.

4/12/01 - front page of the SF Examiner daily paper:

Million Mom March leaving its office space

By Christopher Merrill Of The Examiner Staff

The Million Mom March foundation is moving out of rent-free office space it enjoyed for two years on the third floor of a building at San Francisco General Hospital.

A pro-gun activist launched a campaign against the group this year when he discovered what he said were unapproved taxpayer subsidies -- meaning free rent -- going toward the ailing gun-control organization.

This contains only a reference to the layoffs: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/we...gewanted=print

If you want to see idiocy I can provide you with an unbelievable amount of information on the liars and criminals that make up the anti-gun groups. It even includes funding of 'studies' to get results they want published. In fact in my buddies link above are letters to the CDC asking that they withdraw money due to a misuse of govt funds. Members of the MMM charged with assault. A Colorado director of the Bell Campaign assaulting a person attending a speech by Charlton Heston note the first article and statements by police: http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive...aynesword.html
Then a follow up: http://www.bouldernews.com/news/local/09lgun.html
The story of a MMM member tracking down and shooting the person who whe thought shot her son, only she got the wrong guy. You want arrogance? Look to the radical anti-rights political lobbying groups. They are voilent and will lie and distort anything to fit their agenda.

Originally posted by SuperXO:
Hmm, if I ever get back into the sciences I will most certainly do a study to see if gun-owners are actually more arrogant, or if it is only a misconception.

I certainly hope that you don't get my tax dollars for something like that, but if you do I would like to take bets that, as any other person doing a study where there is a personal agenda involved, I am sure that it will come out exactly as you want it to. About that arrogance you mentioned earlier. You might want to read a piece published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., Medical Sentinel: Gun Violence Studies Based on Flawed Methods, Political Agendas, you wouldn't want to be included in that. http://www.aapsonline.org/aaps/press/medsentgun.htm

I do see a bit of meanness or a snide sarcastic tone to some of your post. I suggest that you read this and see if you see yourself in any of the doctor's observations: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Please feel free to respond to any statements which I have made to rebut your views. I would be particularly intersted in 'only two uses for firearms' (though I suspect that Dr. Sarah Thompson's article has you pegged see the Projection defense mechanism part), the part about removing peoples right to have children, and proof that your theory of 'getting rid of guns would be a solution to many of our problems' would work. On the last one, I would avoid crime stats from England and Australia since passing their sweeping gun control measures a few years ago, it will only prove you wrong.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 28, 2001).]