Is anyone upset by the band's anti-gun position?

[LeftyEdge]

They're entitled to their opinions, but they miss the point entirely.

If they would see that the dramatic rise in Britain's violent crime rate is directly related to the fact that the government passed strict laws.

In the US, it's no coincidence that those states with strict laws - New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusets - have among the highest crime rates, while states with few gun laws enjoy the lowest.

I may not agree with Charlton Heston on many matters, but the point he made that guns protect good people from bad people is one I totally agree with.

------------------
~ <A HREF="http://www.LP.org" TARGET=_blank>www.LP.org ~</A>

 

[frogbat]

How u manage correlate the rise in crime with increased gun control measures smacks of propagandism.

What type of crime has gone up? Petty, violent, killings? Not to mention the huge cultural divide between the States and Britain regarding guns. Britain previous to the stricter measures was not as enamoured with firearms as America is. Other Aspects you may wish to consider when analysing those statistics include the population density and the amount of proper large metropolis in those states.

The last gun massacre in Britain occurred in Dunblane where a lunatic killed several children and was able to be in possession of a firearm without raising criminal suspicion. It took one incident for the British government to take action. Similar case in Australia (Port Arthur). In America High Schools Shootings are a way of life.

Gun control is not about fighting crime. It's about fighting a cultural predisposition towards violence. It's also about preventing massacres where normal people all of a sudden flip and go on a rampage. It's about limiting accessibility to persons that are unable to own a gun responsibly, be them kids, past criminals or mentally unbalanced people.

Also, as with the son of star wars, you might wish to see the economic reasons behind pro weapon legislature in the US (both hand held weapons and those of mass destruction) : the republican party was heavily backed by the gun lobbyists, gun manufactures and military equipment manufacturers. They are taking decisions in the only way modern governments take decisions - by counting the money that enters their coffers.


My favourite quote at the mo comes from an old Guinness ad?

97.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


[This message has been edited by frogbat (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[LeftyEdge]

How u manage correlate the rise in crime with increased gun control measures smacks of propagandism.

No. It comes from fact. And by violent crimes, I mean murders, robberies, and shootings.

Britain previous to the stricter measures was not as enamoured with firearms as America is.

That's probably because people could use them in defending themselves against criminals.

The last gun massacre in Britain occurred in Dunblane where a lunatic killed several children and was able to be in possession of a firearm without raising criminal suspicion.

That was a horrendous crime and my heart goes out to the dead kids and their families, but the SOB who shot them could have gotten the gun(s) he used regardless of the law. The same goes for Australia, too.

Gun control is not about fighting crime. It's about fighting a cultural predisposition towards violence.

I disagree. Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction that places the blame of armed crimes on the guns, not the criminals who commit them.

Here's a few questions:

1. In America, what percentage of ALL guns are used by criminals in the commission of their crimes?

2. In America, approximately how many defensive gun uses - incidents where a victim used a firearm to stop a criminal - were there in 2000?

3A. What was the success rate of criminals against unarmed victims in 2000?

3B. What was the success rate of criminals against armed victims in 2000?

It's also about preventing massacres where normal people all of a sudden flip and go on a rampage.[/i]

Which is all the more reason for an armed citizenry. It's happened here. For instance, a seemingly normal man walked into a busy restaurant in Texas soon after the state relaxed it's gun laws, and was armed and intent on shooting people. A few patrons were also armed and stopped him. He was shot several times, but survived. No innocent person was harmed. Similar incidents have happened thousands of times across America, and it was armed citizens who saved the innocent.

It's about limiting accessibility to persons that are unable to own a gun responsibly, be them kids, past criminals or mentally unbalanced people.

And who is to decide that one person is not responsible enough to own a gun while another is? Does a gun salesman also have to be a trained psychologist to sell guns? Some people with mental problems are often able to mask their affliction. And as I stated before, it's very easy for anyone, criminal record or not, to obtain a firearm in America or Britain or Australia.

Also, as with the son of star wars, you might wish to see the economic reasons behind pro weapon legislature in the US (both hand held weapons and those of mass destruction) : the republican party was heavily backed by the gun lobbyists, gun manufactures and military equipment manufacturers.

I wouldn't say the Republican Party was heavily backed, but I would say that there are more pro-gun Republicans than anti-gun Republicans. It's in the Democratic Party that you'll find the anti-gun people.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are supported by firearms manufacturers, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Yes, I am a staunch Libertarian.

They are taking decisions in the only way modern governments take decisions - by counting the money that enters their coffers.

It happens on both sides of the gun control issue. The anti-gun politicians are supported by groups such as the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center with the same zeal as the National Rifle Association supports the pro-gun politicians.

My favourite quote at the mo comes from an old Guinness ad? 97.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

What is the context of the quote? Gun control? It sounds like an ad against drunken driving.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

 

[frogbat]

"No. It comes from fact. And by violent crimes, I mean murders, robberies, and shootings."

I stand by what I said since those statistics have been interpreted and also spun in accordance to the message wished to impart. That interpretation does not analyse deeper more plausible reasons for an increase in crime rate.
------------

"That's probably because people could use them in defending themselves against criminals."

In Britain they do not attribute a rise in crime with stricter weapons controls because guns are a non issue. You'll find that the political spin on the higher crime rate focuses on the financing of the police and the number of officers on the street (or lack there of).
--------

"That was a horrendous crime and my heart goes out to the dead kids and their families, but the SOB who shot them could have gotten the gun(s) he used regardless of the law. The same goes for Australia, too."

The opposite can be held true too. The slack gun laws meant it was easy for him and normally acceptable to carry a gun. (In most of Europe if you possess a gun that isn't of the hunting or accuracy sport shooting you are looked upon as an oddity.)
-----

"And who is to decide that one person is not responsible enough to own a gun while another is?..."

How many people need to purchase a gun and have it that same day? Trained professionals, background checks, criminal and heath records. Simple common sense too. Doesn't take much to judge another these days it happens all the time hence the judiciary system and the jerry springer show.
-------------


"I disagree. Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction that places the blame of armed crimes on the guns, not the criminals who commit them."

Phew thank gawd I can rest safe at night knowing my neighbour is not in possession of a firearm if we ever should have an argument. (AS far as all your questions, I'm sure you can answer them for me since you prolly have the statistics at hand and since I'm not American. Also, if you do quote statistics please quote the source and who commissioned the research)
------------------


"I wouldn't say the Republican Party was heavily backed, but I would say that there are more pro-gun Republicans than anti-gun Republicans. It's in the Democratic Party that you'll find the anti-gun people."

I don't know the political make up of the media in the US but I was watching CBS news and they threw in a quote from an NRA vice president about how, if the Bush administration got elected the NRA would be working out of the White House pretty soon.

-------------------

"It happens on both sides of the gun control issue...."

Agreed, and I said "like any modern government", if the Democrats were elected they'd be taking decisions in the same manner.
------

"What is the context of the quote? Gun control? It sounds like an ad against drunken driving."

It was making fun of statistics. It quoted a whole lotta statistics then left with that message.

----

P.S. excuse my unorthodox quoting style but I can?t be arsed to use the ubb code especially since it's seems to have gone a lil awry for yourself.


[This message has been edited by frogbat (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[Angela Harlem]

Lefty you said: "I disagree. Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction that places the blame of armed crimes on the guns, not the criminals who commit them."

That for starters is not true. Even so, it is about the only measure any government can take to lower the rate of shooting related crimes. They cannot pass legislation on people with a propensity to use a firearm in a manner which may harm others, so the only thing left to do is ban the weapon itself.

You also said that obtaining a gun in Britain and Australia, like America is easy enough to do. I can only speak for here, but I know it isnt as easy as you make it to be. Anything is available of you have the resources and money.

Where I live, the only people who have a need for guns are farmers and the police service. That is fact. The success of the buy back schemeshows how the Australian community is keen to help prevent these types of tragedies. Sure we still have the one offs, where gangs etc or robberies involve the killing of people. But we have very strict gun and knife ownership laws. And it no doubt lessens the occurance of these crimes.

Nobody has yet to prove WHY it is necessary for a civilian to carry a weapon. The reasoning of self defense is on the surface a good reason, who doesnt want to protect themselves? But it still doesn't explain why everyone should have access to guns.

 

[Klodomir]

I don't really want to get into this discussion until you have backed up the claims made in your first post. I could be equally simplistic about it and say look to Europe - people don't have guns - people don't get shot.

If you go back in the archives of this forum, you will find a great number of discussions about this issue, and many participants - from both sides of the argument - have had some much better arguments than you do (I'm not even sure what your arguments are, to be honest), and have been able to back them up with both logic and hard facts. Just saying that strict gun laws increase violent crime doesn't make it true.

You want random statistics? How about these statistics from the American government:

- For every 100 American schoolchildren killed by other schoolchildren, there are 0 European schoolchildren killed by other schoolchildren.

- There are more guns than bibles in America.

What do these statistics tell us? Not a lot, really. But anyone can pick up a line like that and make it their truth.

[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[BLOCK]

hey cool there are new faces things.....


anyways what i was going to say...in Canada we have about the same rules as britain if not more harsh....and ..i'm not sure...but i think we have soemting like 8 killings a year from guns or somehting like that...soo...ya guns(and insain ppl) are the problem not the rules

 

[BLOCK]

o ya! and one more thing

if no one is legally able to have a gun then one wouldn't need a gun for protection..just a long stick, and then we would go home with a hurtin' arm when someone mistakes you for a criminal. (instead of being dead...obviously)

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Klodomir:
I don't really want to get into this discussion until you have backed up the claims made in your first post. I could be equally simplistic about it and say look to Europe - people don't have guns - people don't get shot.
[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 07-21-2001).]

Not true.
Switzerland has at least one gun in just about every hosuehold. No high murder rate there. And why? One reason is that people know how to properly handle guns in Switzerland.

Look at America's past, for instance. We have ALWAYS been a nation of guns. But it wasn't until the last 3 or 4 decades that violent crime has taken such a swing upward.
Sure there were occasional incidents, but nothing like it is today. In fact, when I was in high school in the mid 80s, no one worried about being shot at school. It just didn't happen.
What does all this tell you? That it's not the gun's fault! How could it be a gun's fault? It is an inanimate object. the problem lies with the hearts of wicked people who don't think life is sacred. They've been told by society (entertainment, expecially)that life is disposable and worthless, and that killing is no big deal. That wasn't always bthe case in America. When we started caring "for number one" instead of looking out for and loving our neighbors, that's when it all started. When parents started spending 80 hours a week at work, and didn't give a crap about their family. That's when it started. When physical pleasure and financial greed became more important than spending time with their kids, that's when it started. To blame it on a gun is irresponsible and shifts the blame away form where it belongs - a society that has let evil take over. You take the guns away from good, law abiding citizens who only wish to exercise their God-given right of protecting their families, and you give the criminals a HUGE advantage, because now only criminals will have gun, because they don't obtain them legally anyway. The black market for guns will NEVER be stopped, so by taking guns away, you are only hurting law abiding citizens. I rankly don't understand why extreme gun control advocates can't understand that (and by extreme, I'm not talking about people who just want certain restrictions)

 

[rougerum]

Klodomir,

The percentage of Americans that attend church weekly are higher then every single European country with the exception of maybe Ireland and Poland.

I have seen this fight here many times before and it usually comes down to the Americans defending their right to own guns while people that aren't American are against people owning guns. Let me make this one statement: There is always going to be this difference of belief, it is like someone that lives in a socialistic government not agreeing with a government like America. Since I come from America I believe every law biding citizen has a right to carry their own weapon that they are properly trained to use. I believe that all criminals should lose the right to carry a gun and I think the people that abuse gun laws should be punished much harsher then they are now, if I was in charge I would make the penalties so harsh for abusing gun laws that people would be in fear to do so. I would also make guns a little harder to get, make the background checks more detailed. This only means the person has to wait a few extra days to get the gun and I think that isn't a problem.

You must also understand how the problem is not at all guns in America, the problem is how divorce is becoming the accepted norm of marriages and how a family staying together is getting more and more rare. America is becoming a place where both parents are being forced to work just to keep up with every bill so kids are left alone and put into the Daycare centers where they are competing with 30 other kids for the attention of a few adults. Drug abuse now isn't looked down upon as it was before because most people know someone doing drugs and they don't want to judge them because they are afraid of making them mad. It is becoming more and more sympathy for the devil in every way. People are saying single motherhood is great when 52% of all single mothers live in poverty and can't spend the necessary time with the kids because they have to work. Kids more and more aren't getting the time they need with the family to learn the neccessary rights and wrongs in this society so they begin to listen to their friends and become more and more influenced by them. Slowly the strongness of the family in America is breaking down and no one wants to try to change it, most people are sympathetic to it and make excuses it is not doing anything really wrong when it is actually the core of 80% of every problem.

Do you people understand how hard a heart someone must have to purposely kill another person with a gun? People that are brought up right have their own safety lock that tells them to not to kill someone. Guns don't kill people, it is the hard heart that kills and do you really think that taking guns away will put an end to someone with a hard heart? Not at all, they will just find another way to accomplish what they would have tried with the gun.

But this whole issue is like someone disagreeing with someone elses religion. The arguments become endless. People go back and forth and keep on giving the same arguments and nothing is achieved when what you believe in is more where you come from and that is the exact problem with these arguments. They will never end, so it is best for the person to respect the belief the other person has and realize some arguments will never be won and their thinking should be placed elsewhere. Americans believe stronly in their right to own a gun, soldiers in the American Revolution died for that right they now have, can't you respect their decision to allow guns?

~rougerum

 

[Klodomir]

80s and Rouge,

I think you both missed my point. I think you took one look at who posted and assumed that I was arguing against the American's right to own a gun. I wasn't. If you read my post again you will see that I asked Lefty to look in the archives because this discussion has indeed already taken place, and proper arguments from both sides been brought forth. My "random statistics" and the simplistic statement I made in the first paragraph were in response to his - in my opinion - simplistic post.

I was annoyed at the tone of his post. It dit not strike me as an invitation for discussion, but a list of statements beginning with "they miss the point entirely".

Now, I just want to make the following clear:

- I am not anti-American
- I am not telling anyone how to run their country
- I am not telling anyone how to live their lives
- I try not to judge people by their previous posts but look at the topic at hand - I fail sometimes, but I try

I am not saying that either of you has accused me of any of the above, I just want to make it clear.

... and Rouge, three comments especially for you. 1) As much as I respect your opinions and your way of debating, I really dislike your use of words such as "you must understand" and "you people". 2) I completely agree with your stand on family values. 3) I do respect Americans' right to own a gun, but I don't think it's fair to expect of me that I let a post like that stand unchallenged.

[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[radiodivision]

I am glad that someone brought up the economic aspect of the issue. Just like immigration, people tend to ignore the major cause of the problem and concentrate on the effects. The question we should be asking is why do people commit crime in the first place? Sure, there are cultural reasons (e.g. more violence on TV and movies) but I think the major reason is economic. People that grow up poor and disadvantaged tend to commit more crimes and one should not be surprised. When someone grows up in a bad neighborhood and his or her parents (if he or she is lucky enough to have both) have to work two jobs just to survive it is not surprising for those individuals to turn to crime. Of course this also happens in middle and upper income households but obviously not as much. Instead of concentrating on the major cause of the problem, what does our government do? Throw more money into prisons and law enforcement and thus getting us closer and closer to a police state. Having said that, I do think that there are common sense gun control laws (e.g. background checks) which should help minimize the problem but we will not solve this simply by passing more gun control laws. We need to look at what I call the cause of the problem: the growing gap between the haves and have nots.

[This message has been edited by radiodivision (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[LeftyEdge]

80sU2isBest is correct.

By the way, here are the answers:

1. In America, what percentage of ALL guns are used by criminals in the commission of their crimes? Answer: .25 to .50 percent. (That's one quarter of one percent to one half of one percent.)

2. In America, approximately how many defensive gun uses - incidents where a victim used a firearm to stop a criminal - were there in 2000? Answer: 2 to 2.5 million.

3A. What was the success rate of criminals against unarmed victims in 2000? Answer: about 92 percent.

3B. What was the success rate of criminals against armed victims in 2000? Answer: about 23 percent.

Repeal all gun laws in America ans watch the crime rates in California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Massachusetts drop as law-abiding citizens exercise their Second Amendment Rights and keep and bear arms..

It worked in Florida, it worked in Texas, it'll work in the other 48 states, and it'll work in Britain and Australia.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

 

[frogbat]

lefty edge: could u please quote sources and the organisation or person who commisioned the research?

Find me the statistics of:

the number of killings in which the victims totalled 2 or more in america and were carried out in a public place over the past 3 years in europe and america.

it is interesting to note that people mentioned that the violence has increased and that other countries in spite of the freedom of the having guns "know how to use them". So then it appears that american society has regressed into a state where persons cannot be considered responsible enough to exercise this "right".

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Klodomir:
80s and Rouge,

I think you both missed my point. I think you took one look at who posted and assumed that I was arguing against the American's right to own a gun. I wasn't. If you read my post again you will see that I asked Lefty to look in the archives
[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 07-21-2001).]

I did misread your point, bu not based on who posted it. I honestly just missed the "I could say" part. Sorry. How I should've responded was "If you WOULD have said that, I'd just have to say that Switzerland has at least one gun in almost every house and their violent crime rate is low..."

 

[LeftyEdge]

Sources:

Books: More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr. and The Ten Things You Can't Say In America by Larry Elder

Websites: The Seven Myths of Gun Control, The Worldwide Gun Defense Clock

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

 

[doctorwho]

Originally posted by LeftyEdge:
3A. What was the success rate of criminals against unarmed victims in 2000?

3B. What was the success rate of criminals against armed victims in 2000?

I have NEVER heard of a scenario where a crime was prevented due to a gun. I have NEVER read any article where a person said, "Thank God I had my gun, otherwise...". In contrast, I have heard people say, "If only I had a gun, then I would have...". You tell me, which is better?

I applaud U2's anti-gun stance, trouble is, it's falling on deaf ears or those too blind to see that there is little reason for guns in this world.


[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 07-21-2001).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by doctorwho:

I have NEVER heard of a scenario where a crime was prevented due to a gun. [This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 07-21-2001).]

You haven't? I live in Texas, and it happened twice in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, area within a month. One was an armed home invasion!

This is my favorite of Lefty Edge's stories! Gotta love it!

A PISTOL-PACKING Para?aque parish priest yesterday showed a father and son team of cell phone snatchers the wrath of a man of God.

Fr. Rico Nobleza, 32, of the Sta. Rita Parish in Para?aque City, was on board a jeepney going to Baclaran when two men also boarded the jeepney at around 5 a.m. yesterday.

One of the men, later identified as Manuel Samson, 49, of 119 F. Progreso St., Para?aque, sat beside the priest in the front seats. Samson?s son, Christian, 19, sat in the back.

Police learned that Manuel poked a knife at Nobleza and asked for his cell phone.

"I told him, 'Wait a minute, child, I shall get it from my waist,'" Nobleza told police.

However, instead of getting his cell phone, the priest pulled out a .45 caliber pistol and told the Samsons to surrender.

Seeing the pistol, father and son jumped out of the jeepney and ran.

But Nobleza, together with the other male passengers, chased the Samsons and eventually cornered them. The passengers brought them to the nearest police station.

At the police station, Manuel and Christian begged the priest not to file charges against them.

The priest refused and said only God could forgive them for what they had done.

"They should rot in jail for the things they have done," the priest boomed.

 

[Klodomir]

I can understand picking up whatever is handy in order to defend yourself or others, but a priest carrying a gun??!

I never really got into the discussion this time, but this is most definitely where I'm getting out.

 

[dream wanderer]

Pick up a copy of the NRAs "American Rifleman"...they have a column called the 'Armed Citizen" that recounts reports of citizens with guns who stopped crimes.
At first I thought this was just so much NRA propaganda...but then they reported on an incident that happened less than five miles from where I live ( the dad shot to death an armed intruder). That story was reported accurately...I would assume the other reports are as well. Right now I have no reason not to believe so.
The idea of a crime being prevented doesn't make the news all that much unless there some unusual aspect to it...like the 80 year old lady who blows away a thug or whatever...

I'm not a rabid proponent of gun rights...but in the interest of fairness I just wanted to say the armed citizen protecting himself is not a myth...it does happen.

Dream Wanderer

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by dream wanderer:
but then they reported on an incident that happened less than five miles from where I live ( the dad shot to death an armed intruder).

...but in the interest of fairness I just wanted to say the armed citizen protecting himself is not a myth...it does happen.

The other times you haear about these stories is when the assailant (or his/her survivors) turns around and tries to file charges or a lawsuit against the defendor. After all, if the intruder was "only" going to rob, rape or harm the family, maybe he shouldn't have been shot!

~U2Alabama

 

[LeftyEdge]

I have NEVER heard of a scenario where a crime was prevented due to a gun. I have NEVER read any article where a person said, "Thank God I had my gun, otherwise..."

You haven't, doctorwho? Well, here are a bunch of them for you! Scroll down about 3/4 and look for the "Most Recent Armed Self-defense News Stories" header.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

 

[Klodomir]

No problem, 80s. Happened to me just the other day, remember?

 

[U2Bama]

I would expect U2 to have an anti-gun position, and although I disagree with parts of it, I don't have a huge problem with them having that position.

But there are MANY cases of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defending themselves witht their legally-owned guns. These cases usually don't make it to the media because tragedy is averted: there is no murder, and usually the attacker is not even shot. And it is all settled in a police report and non-jury trial and the assailant pleads guilty and goes to jail.

But I have a terrible suspicion, which I hope isn't true, that some parts of the alleged "anti-gun" movement do not have a problem with potential robbers and such having guns, just as long as the "law-abiding" types do not have guns. Maybe as a method of redistribution of the wealth?

~U2Alabama

 

[erok]

My two cents:

It's not about guns, it's about our society.
Without the freedom to bear arms, we would still be and English colony. Without our constitution, we would not have freedon of speech and freedon of religion. If they take away our right to own guns, will they take away or freedom of speech and religion too?

I grew up in a household where we always had guns. They weren't even locked up. I was free to use them as I pleased. It was my parents who instilled upon me the proper mindset and responsibility regarding guns. The fact is, it is the degradation of the American family that is to blame for the violence in America. I've been whitness to too many parents who just don't give a shit about their children to instill individual responsibility.

If crimials want a gun, they'll get a gun. No matter if they have to go through legal channels or not.

My motto is: "it's not our constitution that's obsolete, it's our society that's obsolete".

The family in America is in danger. And, with it, so is our freedom.

 

[Zoomerang96]

personally, ive become very wary of big issues like this. so, since to my knowledge none of us have much power in government, why dont we wall try to make the world a better place, in any way we know how.

try it, it starts with the little things.

this DOES have to do with this thread.

------------------
-death bear

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by zoomerang II:

I'm bored with this. I thought the human race had evolved to the point where a man was big enough to use his brain to get a message across without hiding behind a lethal weapon. Suppose we're not there yet.
[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 07-22-2001).]

You're right we're not there. And we never will be. As long as evil exists, we're gonna have to deal with it.

 

[LeftyEdge]

There are several references to self defense in the bible. Surely you theists know this.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

 

[pub crawler]

There are people who grow up with guns in their house and are taught how to use them properly and taught gun safety, and then there are the kids in the inner city (and suburbs, for that matter) who grow up in material or emotional poverty or relative poverty and are looking for a way out. For the latter, violence becomes a means to an end. They don't have guns sitting on a gun rack on their wall. They go get the guns they need, by any means necessary. This is problematic.

 

[zoomerang II]

I suppose we all have the right to carry some semtex as well just in case we need to defend ourselves against a revolution or some army that may come along.

I'm bored with this. I thought the human race had evolved to the point where a man was big enough to use his brain to get a message across without hiding behind a lethal weapon. Suppose we're not there yet.

[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 07-22-2001).]