<font color=plum>Well, I finally rented and watched Bowling for Columbine this weekend. Since most of the conversation on the other "Moore thread" centers around BfC anyway, I decided to create a new thread for discussion of the movie and the issues it raised.

First of all, I have to say that I found the movie to be far more interesting than I expected - and I thought Moore did actually raise some valid points. However, I also confirmed for myself that many of the criticisms offered by Hardy were - indeed - very accurate. Just for the sake of reference, here are the links to Hardy's site regarding BfC, followed by a site where Moore offers rebuttals for some of the criticisms, and finishing with another link to Hardy's website where he counters Moore's rebuttals.

(1)
The Point
(2)
The Counterpoint
(3)
The Rebuttal

Now for my own perspective on the film.

The things I liked (yes, there actually were some ;) ).

I thought Moore did a good job of addressing the usual reason given for so much violence in America. Blame is typically placed on movies, video games, TV shows, music, mixed racial ethnicity and a history steeped in violence. I did note that Charlton Heston echoed many of these "causes" in his interview with Moore, but Moore already had a rebuttal for him. He pointed out that most foreign countries watch many of the same graphically violent movies, listen to the same "goth/shock rock" and play the same violent video games. He also pointed out that countries like Germany, Britain and China also have very violent pasts and Canada easily has just as many guns as the U.S. Canada also has roughly the same mix of different races as the U.S. Moore did his homework very well, but I disagreed with one of his theories.

The violent past of other countries was conducted primarily by the government of those countries. Few countries have a history similar to the "Wild West" of America where the violence was often conducted among individuals rather than by the gov't. The only two countries I can think of that may have similar attitudes among their individual citizens would be Australia and Canada. Both of these countries have vast wilderness/wasteland where an individual has to rely on themselves for their survival and protection.

I also really liked Michael Moore's interview with Marilyn Manson (who took a LOT of the "blame" for Columbine from "experts" and the media). It showed that Manson really is just a normal person - albeit one with some rather strange views and an even stranger method of communicating those views.

I thought the best part of the whole movie was when Moore took two permanently injured Columbine survivors to the HQ of K-Mart to confront the executives about their policy of selling handguns and ammo. It really caught the K-Mart exec's flatfooted and put them in an extremely awkward and embarassing situation. Sometimes, that is the ONLY way to actually affect policy change. The real stroke of genius was when one of the survivor's suggested that - after basically being stonewalled by the exec's - that they go to the nearest K-Mart and buy ALL of the ammo they had. The fact that the person behind the counter DID sell them every bit of ammo they had in stock without asking any questions was very unnerving. When they returned to K-Mart HQ the next day to confront the exec's again, K-Mart was a little more prepared. They sent a VP down to issue a statement and she announced that K-Mart would "phase out" ALL handgun ammow within 90 days. I had to admit that was pretty impressive.

I also thought the segment on Michigans "Welfare to Work" program was informative. While I support "Workfare" as opposed to "Welfare", the movie highlighted the fact that there are situations where the policy causes more harm than good. In the Flint, MI shooting (in which a 6 yr old boy shot and killed a 6 yr old girl) the boy was staying with an uncle because his mom had to work two jobs 40 miles away because of the "Welfare to Work" program.

Now for confirmation of the criticisms.

Moore spent a great deal of the movie trying to prove that TV shows like "Cops" and the local news go out of their way to "demonize" blacks and hispanics ("demonize" was the term used in the movie). However, it is quite evident that Moore also goes out of his way to "demonize" the NRA. His "South Park" style cartoon (which was NOT drawn by South Park creators - although Moore does interview one of them in the movie) implies that the NRA has close ties to the KKK. The Heston speech at the Denver NRA meeting definitely WAS edited and arranged to make Heston and the NRA to appear completely insensitive to the tragedy that had just occurred 11 days earlier. The excerpts of Heston's speech were taken out of context to give them a different tone. NO mention was made of Heston addressing the tragedy of Columbine and offering his sympathy (as well as that of the NRA) to the survivors). It also blantantly ignores the fact that the Denver meeting couldn't be cancelled by the NRA, but they DID cancel the vast majority of activities planned and basically reduced the conference to the mandatory business meeting and left it at that. The opening statement of Heston shouting "..from my cold dead hands" is also used to create maximum "shock value" against the NRA, as it immediately followed comments and reactions from survivors of Columbine shortly after the tragedy occurred. Definitily designed to make Heston and the NRA appear to be totally self-centered and completely insensitive to the tragedy at hand.

The same goes for the "big gun rally" Heston supposedly held in Flint, MI. shortly after little Kayla was shot and killed. Moore's exact intro to the segment was "Just as he did in Denver after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston went to Flint, MI to hold a big gun rally shortly after Kayla's death". Here is irrefutable proof of Moore caught in an [b]absolute lie[/i]. The "rally" that Heston attended was a Voter's Rally for the elections held in November - [b]eight months[/i] after Kayla's death. So there was NO "big gun rally" at all in Flint, MI following Kayla's death.

I also didn't care for Moore cornering Dick Clark in his car to confront him about the mother of the 6 yr old that shot Kayla. One of her jobs in the "Welfare to Work" program was as a bartender at Dick Clark's American Bandstand restaurant. As Moore leans into the car and confronts Dick Clark about the situation, Clark basically ignores him and finally drives off. The implication is that Clark doesn't care that the mother had to work away from home - but the fact is he was obviously leaving wherever the building Moore had found him at and Moore went up to him out of the blue. While that "ambush technique" may have been appropriate for the exec's at K-Mart HQ, he should have given Dick Clark the same courtesy he gave Heston, and arranged a scheduled interview. That would have given Clark a chance to sit down and address the questions Moore had. Since Dick Clark most likely owns an entire chain of those restaurant's, it's rather naive' to think he will have an answer regarding one employee at one of the locations.

I also agree with Hardy's questioning the sources for Moore's numbers regarding gun deaths in the various countries. In every one of the foreign countries, Moore got his information from an agency associated with gathering crime statistics, but in the U.S., he used the Center for Disease Control - an organization designed to gather HEALTH statistics, not crime statistics. The only possible reason to use the C.D.C. instead of the F.B.I. (which does keep national crime statistics) is to "maximize" the number of gun deaths in America. As Hardy points out, the number from the C.D.C. would be much higher than the number from the F.B.I. because the C.D.C. does NOT differentiate between gunshot wounds inflicted in self-defense or by the police. It just lumps ALL gun-shot wounds into a single category.

So there is Cerek's Synopsis of BfC. I was impressed with a lot of what Moore did and I do agree he raises some very valid points - then investigates the supposed causes given for these points. But I also note that all of the criticims on Hardy's site are dead-on accurate. So certain parts of the movie have to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.</font>

At least nobody can bitch at you with "But you haven't seen it!" [/froth]

<font color=plum>Not anymore. :D

However, since the criticisms and rebuttals have been done to death, I really would like to actually discuss some of the issues Moore raised. I am most interested in hearing different theories of WHY the U.S. has such a higher rate of gun deaths and violence than other counters.

Moore highlighted many of the common excuses given: violent movies and video games, "shock" music that rails against society and glamorizes violence, murder, and suicide, abundance of guns and a history of violence in the countries past.

As Moore's research pointed out, most countries have ALL of these factors in common (at least to some degree) - but even if you take only half the number of gun deaths in America given by Moore, the gap between us and other countries is phenomenal.

There are no easy or perfect answers to the question, but I would like to hear the perspectives of other members - especially those from countries other than the U.S.</font>

[ 07-11-2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

Well, raw numbers are useless in solving the mysteries of statistical phenomena, especially if you happen to artificially inflate those numbers, using mixed data, as Moore did.

here is a neat little graph on per capita (per 1000) murder rates for the top 100 countries in the world.

The US is 24, at .04 per 1,000, which roughly equates to 11600 murders.

Then again, in Canada, he uses a biased sample (just happening to find a crowd of black people in Canada, saying they have a mixed ethnicity, which they don't, Canada's black population is proportionately 1/4 of what it is in the US (3%, compared to nearly 13% in the US) and it only follows that Moore is trying to mislead on this point...

Far be it for me to accuse any man of lying, but Moore -- intentionally or otherwise -- seems to mislead on quite a number of points...

I wish this thread much luck in staying the course with regards to actually discussing the issues raised in BFC rather than just being a continuance of the bash and bait.

That said I appreciate your perspective on the film, Cerek. While we will probably never agree on the validity and accuracy of Hardy's attacks Moore and critiques on the film, I am pleased you seem to think that movie wasn't all that bad and did have some redeeming qualities. This is more or less my take as well. It has it's flaws ( how many and how serious they are vary in the eye of the beholder obviously) but it explores a topic worthy of discussion.

I do not think there is one big "smoking gun" reason as to why there is so much gun violence and gun deaths in America. It is more like a big jig-saw puzzle, with many pieces- some big and some small. I think Moore missed a whole lot of issues, but then again he only had two hours and he needed to get his digs in as well. ;)

I think that many accidents can be avoided with training and new technology.

I think it will help to remove the incentives in poor communities for fast and easy wealth by entering the narcotic blackmarket created by the drug war. In the lawless underbelly of society an entire culture has been built upon violence, revenge and general disregard for life and is fueled by the get rich schemes of slanging drugs.

Along side the drug war created violence is the desire for a "hard" image. One example is in order to gain/keep credibility one must pack a gun and respond to any sucker who disrespects. This type of ego posturing doesnt always lead to violence or gunfare but it does enough.

One way to help solve this is by education. Teaching youth skills like conflict resolutiuon, anger mangement and instilling self-worth and a sense of personal responibility that is not dependent on external security props will help prevent them from entering this culuture or acting out violently later in life.

Anyway, I probably have more thoughts, but I will save them for later.

[ 07-12-2004, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

That's a very interesting source, Oblivion! Estonia is at 8th place, according to that! :eek: Heh, Columbia is at 0,02 frauds per capita, Estonia is at 1,27.

Funny how all the Baltic States(Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are at 7, 8, 9, and all are at 0,10 per 1000 people..

<font color=plum>Thanks for your comments, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>. One point where I didn't agree completely with Moore was the "demonization" of blacks and hispanics. He tried to blame the news and shows like "Cops" for always showing blacks and hispanics as criminals.

The TV show "Cops" probably is guilty (as the former producer reluctantly said) of showing crimes involving blacks more often, but I don't think the same is true with news. One of the biggest murder cases in the news for the past year has been the Laci Peterson case - and the primary suspect is her husband, Scott. I don't think the news is racially biased, I think they just show what happens. Moore ignored the fact that, according to ANY statistics you want to pull up, blacks DO commit more of the violent crimes in most urban areas. That is because of the poverty and gangland mentality you mentioned earlier.

It doesn't mean that blacks are inherently "meaner" or more evil than whites - it's just a reflection of the culture many of them are growing up in.

As for the show "Cops", I used to watch it quite a bit (before the kids came along). I'd have to agree that the vast majority of thier crimes involved blacks. Those that did involve whites were relatively few and far between by comparison.

Ignoring the accusation of racial bias, however, I think Moore DID have a good point about exactly what type of news our networks show as opposed to other countries. The fact that the news does tend to generate an atmosphere of fear is a valid point and one I hadn't really thought about before.

I used to keep two loaded pistols in my house, because my parents and I came close to having a man with a gun try to break into our house once. I finally UNloaded the guns because I realized the chance of one of my boys finding (and playing) with the guns was far more likely than a burglar coming into the house (I DO keep MY doors and windows locked ;) ).

Overall, though, I have to reluctantly admit I'm glad I watched the film. It did help soften my view of Moore a little bit and it WAS a very interesting film despite the flaws that have been mentioned before.</font>

Kudos to you Cerek - I mightn't agree with your take on everything there, but you have now watched the movie and opened yourself up to some of its precepts. For that I congratulate you, because it shows a willingness to openly consider that there might be some good as well as some bad.

Selection and consideration - that is the way I take Moores movies myself - I pick and choose what I will take out of them. It is also how I treat Hardy's campaign to impugn.

Welcome to the party Cerek! Now go see Farenheit 9/11. ;)

<font color=plum>I may watch it when it comes out on DVD/VHS. I won't be going to the theater to see it. If I go to the theater, it's going to be for a movie like Spiderman 2 or Alien vs Predator.</font>

Let's not forget about Alexander now.
Mmmmmm, more Oliver Stone goodness....

Good on ya, Cerek. I watched, and liked, BfC. I was disappointed to note the inaccuracies and misrepresentations, which you rightly note Hardy does a fine job of parsing out. My view is similar to Gene Siskel's: I do not like that Moore's dishonesty detracts from valid points he makes -- there really is something about the American character that bears discussion here. That said, it does not necessarily extend to outlawing firearms.

I've been the neighbor to victims of home invasions, and firearms can be a great deterrent. That particular individual, a doctor, would have been... well, robbed plus who knows what, if he had not fired shots at the intruders. He missed, hitting the wall. Afterwards, and upon the advice of the police, he replaced his .38 with a .357 which could actually have shot through the walls and hit the intruders.

A BfC topic cannot help but venture into gun control. On that issue, I note that I am in the process of buying a townhome in Chicago, and that by moving from the 22nd floor (with doorman) to the 2nd floor (no doorman) I am concerned with home invasions. Handguns are sadly illegal in Chicago, so I will be procuring a shotgun for home defense. About 4 types of paperwork is required, so I must get those in order.

Anywho, back to Moore. He does best when he just points the microphone and lets people hang themselves. When he gets into narration, his bias spews forth, and he gets tripped up. He has an undeniable bias on most issues, though I suspect it's more prevalent in F9/11 than in BfC. Note that he sat the fence on some questions in BfC -- which is fine because even Plato recognized that while he may not have the answers, raising the question is the first step.

Moore also raises the issue of "fear-Mongering" in F 9/11, though his main target is the current administration and their rollercoaster color-coded alerts, ect. rather than the media. I personally think that we will see the use of fear to manipulate alot in the current election cycle, from both camps.

Anyway....
I personally believe that fear is the single root cause of violence. Predatory humans use it to their advantage to prey on the weak-using panic and despair to take what they want. Fear inspires folks to arm themselves and can inspire a large amount of a nation's population to support offensive violent actions on another nation. Fear also drives agressive behavior in other ways. For example insecurity fueled the whole cold war- created mutual suspicion and distrust. Both sides thought the other wanted world domination and the total destruiction of the other, when in fact both sides largely wanted to defend themsleves from the real and imagined threat posed by each other. Insecurity also drives the behavior I described earlier- fear of seeming weak or foolish creates an aggressive backlash. Fear of what is different and of the unknown drives racism and xenophobia. Fear of authority keeps oppressed people down and afraid to anything about it- and authorities use this to their advantage.

I could go on and on...

Now ironically enough I do not think that fear is a "bad" thing at all. I see it as a teacher on the road of life. It is one of our strongest- if not the strongest instinct and learning to control it is a challenging and rewarding path in life to take and I think makes a huge difference in the quality of expirience when the time comes to face the greatest fear in the realm of the unknown- death.

Oh, and kudos to you Cerek for taking precautions with the guns for the kids sake. My brother keeps a clip in his nightstand and the unloaded gun in an oversized coat pocket in the closet even though the chances our 6 year old nephew would be unsupervised in his room is quite low. He can still get armed rather quickly if the dogs start going ape-crazy or he hears the door getting kicked-in and, ironically, Mom sleeps safer knowing that there is not a loaded handgun in the house. He locks the nightstand and the reinforced closet door ( which also houses his hunting guns) when he is not home.

One a note related to gun accidents-

One thing Moore could have really hard looked at rather than taking pot-shots at Charleton Heston and Dick Clark is the technological advances gun makers can and do take advantage of to decrease the number of accidental shootings. Highlighting some of the shortcomings and successes concerning this angle of the issue would have been time well spent IMHO.

Siskel has been dead for years, you must mean Ebert.

Nicely done to Cerek for actually watching the show instead of posting on from a point of ignorance.

<font color=plum>The incident with the potential armed intruder (he drove down our driveway and got out of his vehicle with a rifle - but decided to run into the woods instead of towards the house) occurred almost 20 years ago. Since then, there really haven't been any "close calls". I live across the street from a trailer park now, but most of the residents there keep to themselves. The only "incident" I've had at the house occurred when two black kids came knocking on my door at midnight one night. Fortunately, I was still up playing on the PC or it would have really scared me for somebody to knock on the door that late. Their story was that one of them had been hurt in a fight with some people across the street and they wanted to come in and use the phone. BUZZZZZZ!! Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. I DID call an ambulance for them and told them to stay on my front porch until the EMS guys arrived. In the meantime, I turned out what few lights were on in the house (so they couldn't see where I was standing) and got my gun out of the closet. I checked my back door to make sure the guys in front weren't acting as "decoys". That is the only time I've ever had to actually get my gun for a potential intruder.</font>

<font color=plum>That is a good point that Moore didn't explore. But I don't know how much they would actually be used. My college roommate had one of the cases that you have to stick your fingers into individual slots and push the buttons in a precise sequence to unlock it and get the gun. One night there was a HUGE storm in his area and lightning struck so close to his house that it literally shook the whole house. He woke from a dead sleep and thought somebody was trying to break in. He said that - when he tried to get his gun out of that case - it was almost impossible (since he still wasn't fully awake, but the adrenaline was flowing so strong). After that, he just kept the gun on the table (he doesn't have any kids to worry about).

I know that I also wouldn't use any "gun safety" devices. It's just as easy to simply unload the gun and keep the clip in a location with easy access (for me).

One point I really liked from BfC was the joke Chris Rock was making about needing "bullet control" instead of "gun control". He suggested that bullets should cost $5,000 each. If bullets cost $5,000 each, you won't have any "drive-by shootings" and there won't be any "innocent bystanders". If you pay $5,000 for each bullet, you're gonna make damn sure you hit what you're aiming at. It was done in jest, but he does have a good point. Our government is currently trying to force smokers to give up their habit by simply making cigarettes too freakin expensive to afford. If the same was done with ammunition, there WOULD be far fewer shooting incidents than we have now.

And I'm still just flabbergasted that the clerk at K-Mart agreed to sell her entire inventory of ammo to the kid that Moore took to K-Mart HQ. Of course, since the cameras were there and Moore probably went in to explain what they were doing - that might explain why she didn't really ask any questions. I would honostly hope that NO clerk would just sell their entire inventory of ammo to a single individual for ANY reason - I don't care if the person DOES have the money and doesn't raise any flags with a background check. I doubt Eric Harris and Dylan (the Columbine shooters) would have raised any warning flags either. But if somebody comes in and wants to buy several hundred rounds of various ammo's - that definitely should shoot up a red flag.</font>

Incidentally, if you did find one of those boys inside your house that night uninvited, would you have shot him?

Yeah, sorry about that. [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img]

Incidentally, if you did find one of those boys inside your house that night uninvited, would you have shot him? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Yes.</font>

Alright, there's one thing about this whole debate that is frosting my cookies to high heaven!

It's magazine, ma-ga-zine! NOT CLIP! Clips are for loading magazines, which load chambers!

Get it right, there is no excuse!

I see.

I see. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Let me clarify. IF they had broken into the house without coming to the door, then there is a very good chance they would have been shot - especially if I had been in bed also when it happened.

Since they came to the door first and I had determined they didn't seem to be an imminent threat, the situation was a little different. Even when I opened the door to speak to them, I kept most of my body behind the door - so that I could have slammed it shut (or against them) if they had tried to force their way in. Once I had my pistol handy, I would have held them at gunpoint and called the police instead of an ambulance. If they had tried to overpower me, they would have been shot - although I probably would have only shot to wound rather than kill (and yes, I am a good enough shot and confident enough to do that.

The potential intruder that came to my mom and dad's house was an entirely different manner. As soon as he reached back into his truck for his rifle and turned towards the house - he was an "imminent threat". Of course, had he actually tried to come into the house, he would have never even made it to the front porch. My dad was already in the living room with HIS gun watching him. Even though I didn't have a gun in my room at that time, I knew without any doubt that - if I did have a gun and the intruder did come towards the house - I would have shot to kill without hesitation.

So, actually, I probably would NOT have shot the two kids that came to my house. I knew there was nobody else trying to sneak into the back and it was just the two in the front. However, the "fight" they got into happened when they DID break into one of the trailers across the street, and the owner met them with a baseball bat! Since they were out to break into a dwelling, it was their good fortune that they went into that trailer first rather than trying my house first.</font>

Ok, thanks for clarifying that Cerek.

Although, I find what you say here quite interesting:
If the owner in question could non-fatally fend off the intruders with a baseball bat, is a firearm really necessary for the defense of your home? Granted, if the intruders are themselves armed with guns it may make defense a little trickier. But now we are merely delving into hypothetical 'what if' situations, the proliferation of which, in my eyes, is a primary motivator behind American gun culture.

[ 07-14-2004, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

<font color=plum>That's a good point, <font color=white>Heirophant</font>. I admit that when it comes to "home defense", MY first thought (and I'm sure the first thought of many Americans) is to buy a gun. <font color=tan>Timber</font> is following the procedures necessary to buy a shotgun because he is moving to a townhouse with less security than the building he is currently in. A shotgun is the ultimeate home defense weapon, but I favor handguns because a shotgun doesn't give you much option to just wound the intruder. Of course, I'm fortunate to live in an area where the purchase of ANY type of gun is fairly easy and there are no restrictions on ownership. In NC (at least in the rural areas), NO PERMIT is required to own a gun. You only need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Technically, I could walk down Main Street with a gun strapped to my belt and I'm not breaking any laws. The only reason the police would have to stop me or remove the weapon is if another citizen felt "threatened" by my carrying a gun (which means I probably couldn't actually go into any stores in town - I would have to stay outside as long as I wore the gun. That's the beauty of living in the South. You drive a pick-up truck with a gun rack in the back window and have a .12 guage pump shotgun and a 30.06 hanging there and nobody will say anything to you. You can also drive around town with a handgun laying on the seat beside you in open view (in fact, it is only illegal if I put the gun under the seat - because then it is a concealed weapon).

Getting back to home defense, though, a gun is only a good defense if you (a) are proficient with it and (b) are willing to actually use it if necessary. Gun control supporters cite data that says many homeowners are actually injured by their own gun because they weren't really willing to use it - they hoped that just showing the gun would scare the intruder away. Unfortunately, if you pull a gun and don't use it, the intruder may take the gun away from you and use it on you. Police reports also back up this data to a certain degree.

After the incident at mom and dad's house, I know for a certainty that I would shoot an intruder if need be. But you are correct that other - less drastic - measures are sometimes just as effective. That is why I finally decided to unload my guns. The chance of my boys getting hold of them is far greater than an intruder breaking in - and if someone does break in, I can either grab a knife out of the kitchen or just charge them and tackle them man-to-man. I'm not real big or strong, but when it comes to defense of my family, I think I could summon enough adrenaline to either subdue or scare off the intruder.

One last comment about my views regarding guns as home defense. I don't doubt at least some members are wondering if my willingness to kill an intruder conflicts with my religious beliefs (which I use to loudly proclaim back in the day when such topics were allowed). The answer is "YES", killing an intruder DOES go against my religious beliefs. It IS a sin and one that I would have to answer for when I face my own Judgement. However, I still would kill an intruder if they were a threat to my family - but I would also have to face the consequences of that action (both here on Earth and in the Afterlife).</font>

I'm glad to hear that you value the life of your loved ones more than your religion, Cerek. I know some religious lunatics who place God above anyone else, hence losing sight of things more dear to them then they know... until it is too late.

Hold on a second, bub. A good deal of home invasions do involve guns. Guns are very restricted in Chicago, and handguns are outright illegal. In fact, if you are driving through this city from one place to another and a cop stops you and you tell him (as most good gun owners do) that you have a gun, it will get confiscated & destroyed (C&D) and you will get arrested. It's a pretty draconian setup.

Nevertheless, handguns appear in robberies and other cases all the time. So, with the very real threat that your friendly neighborhood home invader may have a gun, do you really expect us to just buy some Louisville Sluggers and call it a happy day? I sleep within easy reach of two to four swords at all times, and the fact that that is my only home defense makes me feel *naked*. If the home invader is not armed, you just don't shoot him (unless he makes you). The hope is that the presence of the gun will let an unarmed home invader know it's time to back down, sit down, and patiently await the arrival of the authorities.

Of course, you never brandish any weapon unless you are willing to use it if need be.

All of this is discussing the reasonable ownership of a gun and what should be done. Me, of course, well... if I caught a home intruder, I'd just shoot him. In my house in the night uninvited = bang. Just doing my part to help the overpopulation problem. :D [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

Look, if some item of protection is available, and may be necessary to combat the threats of this world (e.g. home invader with a gun), isn't it responsible to make sure you have that item of protection? Do you buy homeowners' insurance? Life insurance? Can't you see that owning a gun is like a form of insurance -- you buy it hoping it will never be needed.

[ 07-14-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]