guns & cars

[The Cynic]

Just thought I'd throw out an idea and see what kind of response I got.

I am against most gun control because I see guns like cars. If used responsibly they are safe but in the hands of an idiot they are deadly. We're not banning cars so why are we banning guns?

Now that said here is where I'll probably draw the ire of some hardline gun owners. I wouldn't have a problem with treating guns like cars. You have to have training in them and be licensed to carry them. If your an idiot with them, just like if your a bad driver, you get your license pulled or suspended. This would kind of be similar to a concealed weapons permit but I would expand it to cover ownership of guns, not jus carrying them.

[RyanP]

I agree with the analogy to an extent. With cars, or more accurately, drivers, a series of typically non-lethal marks pave the road to losing your right to drive. Speeding, running red lights, stop signs, failing to yield, etc. are all screw ups / irresponsibilities that will lead to a license suspension / revocation.

Unfortuntately there are not mechanisms in place to paint the same picture. People either use their firearms responsibly, or they go kill someone with them. There's no in between as there is with cars.

However, furthering the car vs. gun analogy, I guess it could be argued that a criminal history of non-violent crime like robberies, auto theft, etc. could be the trail of early warning signs against a "gun license".

Its amazing how anti-gun a majority of people are. Just the looks you get carrying your shotgun and box of ammunition in from the car. Especially if you live in an apartment complex or other type of close living.

[The Cynic]

Oh yeah, people freak when they see a gun. I was off duty one night in Walmart and carrying my gun concealed under my t-shirt. Well I bent down to get something and the shirt came up. I didn't realize it but apparently a customer saw the gun and freaked. Next thing I know cops are everywhere. There all asking me "Did you see the guy with the gun" since they all knew me and knew I was a cop. We were all surprised to find out I was the gunman.

And I've been on a call like that. Got sent to a movie theatre for the same thing. Guys sitting there watching the movie and he had a gun on his hip. His jacket had come up and another patron saw it and freaked. He showed me his concealed weapons permit and I told him have a nice day. The complainant then complained on me because I let the guy keep his gun.

------------------
All politicians lie. Clintons are just more erotic.

[Niteshift]

Essentially, that's where we're at now. While you don't need a license to buy a gun, you don't need one to own a car either. You only need the license to drive the car. Likewise, you need a license to carry the gun. You can buy a new Vette, park it in your yard and never license it, nor have a drivers license. Likewise, you can buy a Glock, stick it in your sock drawer and never need a license.

As far as revocation goes, it IS terribly easy to lose your CCF license. But, the fact is that most people that go though the trouble of applying for and paying for a license are responsible people. They try not to do stupid stuff. Florida has issued over 300,000 licenses and have a revocation rate of around .02%. Can't say drivers licenses have that good of a compliance rate.

I agree with you Cynic (twice in the same day, what is the world coming to?), but I think we are pretty much there, at least in some places.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[The Cynic]

Niteshift, I've noticed that we actually do agree on a lot of things but that the reasons behind our agreement are so different that its almost like we disagree. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[dkiefner]

Unless of course, y'all live in VT. Don't need no permits here!
http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Nancy]

One problem>>>>
Driving an automobile is a priveledge
Owning a firearm is a RIGHT!

What part of "shall NOT be infringed don't you understand?

------------------
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

[Nancy]

Originally posted by dkiefner:
Unless of course, y'all live in VT. Don't need no permits here!
http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


They got it right in VT ;-)

Asking and paying fees to exercise a RIGHT turns that RIGHT into a Priveledge which can be taken away at the govt's whim.....

[Nancy]

> THE DANGERS OF AUTOMOBILES
>
> - Did you know that automobiles are used in 100% of the drive-by
> shootings in America, according to the FBI?
>
> - Did you know that automobile accidents and homicides claim over
> 28,000 lives per year? In two years this casualty total exceeds that
> of the ENTIRE Vietnam War.
>
> - Did you know that there is NO state-mandated waiting period to
> purchase an automobile? And that you may purchase AS MANY automobiles
> as you wish in any month?
>
> - Did you know that importation of 'assault' sports-cars, IS STILL
> LEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY? These assault-cars usually have engine capacity
> in excess of 6 cylinders and are capable of speeds of 120 MPH (or
> more) and serve no useful driving purpose.
>
> - Did you know that there are NO restrictions on owning FULLY
> AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS...?! These transmissions are the preferred
> gear-shifting method of criminals and gangsters everywhere!
>
> - Did you know that there is NO criminal background check before
> purchasing a car? That you can go into any sleazy car dealers and
> purchase a snub-nose 'Saturday Night Special' Subcompact Economy car
> on nothing more than a signature, if you have the money?
>
> THE BLOODSHED MUST STOP! WE MUST *TAKE* *BACK* OUR STREETS! No more,
> will we sit idly by as our young people crash into one another and
> kill one another with depraved indifference to human life. Not one
> more innocent bystander shall be mowed-down by an out-of-control
> driver who 'snaps'!
>
> Now, there is a group dedicated to controlling and eventually
> banning the automobile:
>
> AUTOMOBILE CONTROL INC.
>
> Our goals are straightforward:
>
> 1) A national 7-day waiting period before a car may be delivered,
> after purchase
> 2) Total bans on all 'assault' sport cars.
> 3) Total bans on all snubnose 'Saturday Night Special' Subcompact
> cars.
> 4) Eventually, a total ban on all automobiles
>
> Let me introduce our spokesperson, Sarah Brainless.
>
> Sarah: "You may know my husband, Jim Brainless. During the attempted
> assassination of The President, Jim was hit in head by an
> out-of-control car...and..(sniff)...well, he's (sniff) never been the
> same since... (sniff, sniff, HONNNKK). So I dedicated the rest of my
> life to banning this evil object, the automobile. I know that there
> are a bunch of groups who will fight back against my efforts, such as
> the AAA. These whackos would like to see a car in every garage! ...and
> those Merchants of Death themselves, the Big Three carmakers... "As
> you know, the AAA claims that there is a constitutional right to
> travel. Well, I dispute that - If you read the whole amendment like WE
> do, it is clear that the founding fathers only intended that ORGANIZED
> MILITIA may be allowed to travel...it is NOT to be construed as an
> individual right to travel!"
>
> If you join Automobile Control Inc, we will send you the following:
>
> - A really neat pin that shows a car with a red line through it.
> - A fact sheet that dispels the myths of those who would argue for the
> owning cars.
> - A subscription to One Cylinder Short, the magazine that reflects
> the goals of ACI.
> - A really boffo bumper sticker that says "This car should be
> banned."
>
> Call: 1-800-BAN-CARS. Have a credit card ready.
_________________________



------------------
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

[Walrus]

There is one major problem with the analogy made between guns and cars.

Cars were designed specifically to make transport easier and faster, and has proven to be one of mankind's greatest inventions.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed for one reason, and one reason only. To kill. Anyone who says otherwise are kidding themselves.

The simple fact is that mankind has benefited greatly from the invention of the automobile. What have guns contributed to society, aside from death, destrucion and the impending grief of families?

[Nancy]

What have guns contributed to society, aside from death, destrucion and the impending grief of families?[/B][/QUOTE]


1)Guns won us our freedom/independece from England.
Just think where we would be had our Founding Fathers NOT had guns.

2)GUNS SAVE LIVES! The purpose of guns is to protect it's owner. And they do their job.. Over 2 million times a yr.

What good sre guns?

The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck
hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional
tyranny.
-- Walter Williams

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at
243-244.

"More than 90 percent of all uses of guns in self-defense do not
involve actually firing the weapon, despite gun control advocates'
assumption that we are all such trigger-happy idiots that letting
ordinary citizens have guns will lead to bullets flying hither and
yon. Like virtually every other liberal crusade, gun control is based
on the assumption that other people lack common sense and must be
controlled by the superior wisdom and virtue of the anointed."
--Thomas Sowell

"It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools;
it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men."
--Mencken on Gun Control

"The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale
developments with armed security guards -- and who want to keep other
people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about
lower-income
people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such
people
be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can 'make a
statement' by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?"
--Thomas Sowell

-----------

==============================
>From the Phoenix Gazette, b-17
Dec. 3, 1993
==============================

Why good people own guns
Self-protection is job for individual; government can't do it


By Dave Kopel
(Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute in Denver.)


Early one Sunday morning in November, factory worker
Arthur Boone was walking home in Brooklyn after shopping in a
neighborhood _bodega_. Carl James, age 15, allegedly came up to
Boone, stuck a gun to his head and ordered, "Give it up," while
19-year-old Taz Pell began searching through Boone's pockets.

So far, a typical Sunday morning in New York. Then Boone
pulled out his .44 magnum and shot both robbers dead.

Each of the assailants had police records; one had been
arrested for robbery just two weeks earlier. The 41-year-old
Boone, who had been mugged twice before and pistol-whipped so
severely that he required hospitalization, was promptly arrested
on weapons charges.

A few days before, in Chicago, a 16-year-old with a
burglary record broke into the home of Bessie Jones, a
92-year-old widow confined to a wheelchair. She was wheeled
around and ordered to point out everything of value. When the
burglar stepped outside for a moment to confer with his lookout,
Jones reached under a blanket, pulled out a .38 Colt revolver and
killed him. Although possession of the revolver was clearly in
violation of Chicago's handgun prohibition, the state's
attorney's office decided not to prosecute.

As national gun control even stricter than the Chicago
and New York models is proposed, some attention is due to the
many millions of Americans who, like Arthur Boone and Bessie
Jones, possess firearms for protection.

In all nations that have achieved popular compliance with
strict gun-control laws, there has always been one common
condition precedent: public safety. That is, before the gun laws
were enacted, the public already felt little need to have guns
for protection because there was little crime.

Contrast the situation in, say, early 20th century
Britain with the late 20th century United States. Not only does
the U.S. government fail to provide effective protection; the
government insists it has no legal duty to do so. The courts have
concurred, holding that the police have no duty to protect anyone
and cannot be held liable, even in cases where the victim was
targeted in advance but was denied police protection.

The American people are, for all practical purposes, left
to take care of themselves. If a criminal attacks, it is almost
certain that a police officer will not be there to help. Until
this fundamental reality changes, tens of millions of Americans
are going to hold onto their guns, no matter what.

But isn't it a fact that guns kept for protection are
almost never used? Well, no. In a 1981 survey conducted by
pollster Peter A. Hart for the National Alliance Against
Violence, 4 percent of the households polled reported at least
one use of a handgun against a person in the previous five years.
Even if we assume only one incident per reporting household,
that's 645,000 defensive uses of handguns per year. Based on
these figures, about 18 percent of people who owned handguns for
protection actually used them for protection.

Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser's research found
similar rates of protective uses by Canadian handgun owners,
despite Canadian laws allowing handgun possession only for sport.

This year, Florida State University criminologist Gary
Kleck conducted a more in-depth survey. Detailed questioning
weeded out respondents who confused merely owning a gun for
protection with actually using it. The questions also accounted
for persons who had used a gun defensively more than once.

Kleck's data show that guns of all types are used
defensively between 850,000 and 2.5 million times a year in the
United States. Most of the defensive uses involved handguns, and
the vast majority of such uses do not involve firing the weapon,
but merely brandishing it to scare away an attacker.

The surveys of citizen use of guns for protection are
consistent with surveys of criminals. In a National Institute of
Justice study of incarcerated felons, 38 percent said that they
had decided not to commit a particular crime out of fear that the
victim might be armed.

The United States has much more violent crime than other
industrial nations, yet, oddly, it has a lower rate of burglary
of occupied residences than do nations that prohibit gun
ownership for protection. The best explanation is that only in
the United States do burglars face a risk of getting shot that is
as large as their risk of getting arrested.

As Florida law enforcement officials have noted, one of
the important reasons for foreign tourists being singled out for
robbery is that in Florida, licensed, trained citizens (including
American visitors) can obtain permits to carry a concealed
handgun for protection. But in New York City and Los Angeles (and
the rest of the country if the anti-gun lobby gets its way),
gun-control laws put everyone in the same position as the
tourists in Florida -- government-certified defenseless prey.

A rational gun-control policy needs to focus on reducing
the crimes that inflict grievous harm while increasing the
citizens' ability to protect against such crimes. Most
gun-control proposals offer little prospect of reducing criminal
use but pose a substantial threat to lawful defensive use.

The implicit theory of the gun-control movement -- that
most Americans are too incompetent or mentally unstable to use a
gun for defensive purposes -- simply is not borne out by the
facts. Learning how to shoot well is easier than learning how to
type.

One problem -- perhaps the major problem -- in achieving
a rational debate on this issue is the news media, which tend to
broadcast uncritically any "expert findings" that support gun
control. Typical was the recent "news" that a study in the New
England Journal of Medicine had found that owning a gun increases
a person's risk of being murdered by 2.7 times. The author, a
prominent epidemiologist, had taken a set of homicide victims,
identified some of their socioeconomic and behavioral variables
and matched them to a control group of non-victims.

The very same data that "proved" the risk of gun
ownership also "proved" that renting a home, rather than owning
it, increased the homicide risk by 4.4. Does this mean that when
your apartment goes co-op, and you own it instead of renting it,
your risk of being murdered falls dramatically?

Of course not. Instead, renters might be more likely to
live in a rough neighborhood or unstable circumstances, which
puts them in a higher risk category. Similarly, people at risk of
being assaulted might simply be more likely to own guns than
people in safer circumstances. Getting rid of the gun might not
make the renter any safer than buying out the landlord.

Most significantly, the study made no effort to
investigate the 99 percent of protective uses of guns that do not
involve a fatality. The folks who got murdered are, after all,
the folks for whom protection did not work. A study that ignores
survivors, the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns for
protection each year, can't say much about the overall protective
effect of gun ownership.

Despite the limitations of the study, almost every news
report treated the 2.7 figure unquestionably, as a scientific
fact. Many academic criminologists thought the study was
worthless, but the only dissent reported was from a researcher
for the National Rifle Association.

Other published factoids purporting to show the dangers
of gun ownership are similarly vacuous. If the media spent
one-tenth as much effort looking into the truth behind these
claims as they spend investigating the conflicting stories about
President Clinton's haircuts, the quality of the gun-control
debate would improve considerably.

It's true that in some homes, such as those of
alcoholics, the mentally ill or ex-felons, the presence of a gun
does substantially increase the risk of a homicide. But here,
too, the "facts" can be twisted to the anti-gun lobby's favor:
The male felon killed by his girlfriend is counted as the victim
of a "tragic domestic homicide," not the perpetrator of vicious
abuse.

But most households are not violence-prone; rather, most
gun owners' concern is about violence directed against them from
the outside. They know, intuitively, that the government will not
protect them from criminal attack. Arthur Boone and Bessie Jones
correctly understood this, and they have the support of the tens
of millions of other Americans who own guns for protection.

(Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service.)

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Nancy:
What have guns contributed to society, aside from death, destrucion and the impending grief of families?


1)Guns won us our freedom/independece from England.
Just think where we would be had our Founding Fathers NOT had guns.

A nonsense argument, seeing as though the British were also armed.

2)GUNS SAVE LIVES! The purpose of guns is to protect it's owner. And they do their job.. Over 2 million times a yr.

I often hear this argument, yet the stat always varies. Any proof of that figure?

I have ignored the rest of your post. Please try and stick to the topic in your response. I'm not debating for nor against gun control in America, personally I couldn't care less what your country does. I'm arguing against the stupid analogy people make between cars and guns.

[jl23]

Walrus,

I understand you are from "Down under", but why don't you give this some thought, seriously. Hypothetically speaking, the US gov't outlaws ALL guns. All law abiding citizens turn theirs in. Are you that naive to believe the criminals will be in line with them?? That's giving them a free ticket to victimize whoever, wherever, whenever. We, as AMERICAN citizens, will do our best to NEVER let that happen. I will protect myself from the bad guys.

bad guys = criminals = non law abiding persons. Get it?????

[jl23]

Walrus,

check out this link. You want stats to support what Nancy said, here ya go!
http://www.gunowners.org/index.cgi?5&0&275#275

[The Cynic]

Although I am against gun control I don't think the "guns saves lives" idea is true. Sure there are lots of examples where guns theoretically saved someones life. But in how many of those cases would anyone have actually died? Not all of them. Plus your gun control people can come up with just as many examples of guns killing people due to paranoid people killing those they thought were criminals but weren't.

Case in point: I don't remember how long ago this was but I'm thinking the last ten years. Also, it was in the south, New Orleans I think. It was Halloween and some kids were trick or treating. One of them was an asian exchange student. He knocks on a door and goes trick or treat. Well the homeowner, also a gunowner, thought "Oh my god, I'm going to be robbed. Nevermind its Halloween and he said trick or treat." The homeowner opened fire and killed the student.

So even though I'm for guns I don't buy into that arguement. I'm sure if I was a die hard liberal gun control nut I could give lots more similar examples. Plus as a cop, I prefer not running into people carrying guns in public. You might be Johnny Good citizen but when I see you carrying a gun my hackles are going to go up and I'm going to assume your Johnny dirtbag who's going to shoot me unless I get you away from that gun. Because unfortunately criminals look eerily like citizens and I haven't figured out how to tell the difference yet.

[Niteshift]

Walrus,

How is it "nonsense" since the British were armed? What better reason to be armed than facing an armed opponent?

Guns don't save lives? University of Chicago researcher James Lott shows otherwise. And he started his research as a gun control supporter. Fortunately, he had enough integrity to be honest about his findings. Even if you quibble with the numbers, who are you to tell someones whose live was saved by a firearms that if you had you're way, they wouldn't have a gun (and by extension, they'd be dead)?

The analogy between guns and cars is not stupid. On it's face, there are several very real similarities.

What is as "stupid" is the statement that all guns are designed to kill and nothing else. There are guns designed to do nothing else in the world than to punch little holes in paper. From drawing board to consumer hands, there is not a single other intention for that gun. In fact, they'd be p*ss poor for criminal use (or defensive use).

You made a universal statement, which is wrong (as most universal statements are). If there is a single exception, your statement is faulty. Since I can show you a gun that was designed with no intention of ever being used to kill, it disproves your universal statement.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[This message has been edited by Niteshift (edited 08-21-2000).]

[Walrus]

Originally posted by jl23:
Walrus,

I understand you are from "Down under", but why don't you give this some thought, seriously. Hypothetically speaking, the US gov't outlaws ALL guns. All law abiding citizens turn theirs in. Are you that naive to believe the criminals will be in line with them?? That's giving them a free ticket to victimize whoever, wherever, whenever. We, as AMERICAN citizens, will do our best to NEVER let that happen. I will protect myself from the bad guys.

bad guys = criminals = non law abiding persons. Get it?????

Did you read my post at all? Or do arguments that contradict your opinion quietly slip through your little brain?

I simply argued the ridiculous analogy made between guns and cars, for reasons I have already mentioned.

Now let me repeat this part for you again. I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT YOUR COUNTRY DOES. Get it???? Am I being clear enough for you? Please tell me where in my post I suggested that Americans should give up their guns.

I don't wish to tell you how your country should be run, it's none of my business. My government made the right decision, for which I'm thankful.

[Niteshift]

Walrus, I see you asked jl23 if he failed to read all of your post, yet you've ignored the specific responses to you. http://www.officer.com/ubb/confused.gif

Will that be the extent of your input, making some erroneous statements and then ignoring when you're called on them?

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
Walrus,

How is it "nonsense" since the British were armed? What better reason to be armed than facing an armed opponent?

The statement is nonsense, simply because my argument is that the world would be better off if guns were not invented. The statement "Guns helped us win the Revolutionary War" is ridiculous. The only thing guns contributed to that war, like any other war, was more deaths.


Guns don't save lives? University of Chicago researcher James Lott shows otherwise. And he started his research as a gun control supporter. Fortunately, he had enough integrity to be honest about his findings. Even if you quibble with the numbers, who are you to tell someones whose live was saved by a firearms that if you had you're way, they wouldn't have a gun (and by extension, they'd be dead)?

I would presume the attacker was also carrying a firearm, which brings me back to my original point. The world would be better off if guns were never invented.
Like others on this thread, you seem to be accusing me of trying to 'take your guns away'. At no point have I mentioned anything about gun control in the US, I don't have the right to tell you how to run your own country. Why is that so difficult to see?


The analogy between guns and cars is not stupid. On it's face, there are several very real similarities.

What is as "stupid" is the statement that all guns are designed to kill and nothing else. There are guns designed to do nothing else in the world than to punch little holes in paper. From drawing board to consumer hands, there is not a single other intention for that gun. In fact, they'd be p*ss poor for criminal use (or defensive use).

You made a universal statement, which is wrong (as most universal statements are). If there is a single exception, your statement is faulty. Since I can show you a gun that was designed with no intention of ever being used to kill, it disproves your universal statement.


Geez, you're really clutching at straws there Niteshift. Anybody with common sense knows I'm talking about the type of guns that put holes in people's heads, not holes in paper.

Do I have to start using the word "firearms" from now on? Or will you confuse that with the "safe" kind of firearms?

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
Walrus, I see you asked jl23 if he failed to read all of your post, yet you've ignored the specific responses to you. http://www.officer.com/ubb/confused.gif

Will that be the extent of your input, making some erroneous statements and then ignoring when you're called on them?



Which specific responses to me are you talking about? The ones which were totally irrelevant, I ignored. As I have said (3 times now), I'm not interested in debating gun control in the US.

[Niteshift]

"I would presume the attacker was also carrying a firearm...."

Then you'd be wrong Walrus. There are a number of reasons why it would be perfectly legal, ethical and reasonable to resort to a firearm against an attacker who was not armed with a firearm. Do you need me to list them for you?

"Anybody with common sense knows I'm talking about the type of guns that put holes in people's heads, not holes in paper."

No, Walrus, anyone with common sense would not make the universal statement "Gun, on the other hand, were designed for one reason, and one reason only. To kill. Anyone who says otherwise are kidding themselves." You made a universal statement which was, as most of them are, wrong. Now, you differentiate between the two (holes in people vs. holes in paper), therefore proving that either a) Your universal statement was wrong; or b) You're kidding yourself (your words). Which is is Walrus? Were you wrong or are you kidding yourself?

"...Will you confuse that with the "safe" kind of firearms?" I'm not the one who is confused here. You are. What is a "safe" kind of firearm? Even those designed with the sole purpose of target shooting in mind CAN be lethal. I never called them safe. My firearms knowledge is sufficient to know that they are still capable of being lethal. Where I differed with you is on the incorrect statement was you made about the design.

What responses am I referring to? For one, you asked if anyone had information to back up the claim that guns save 2 million lives per year. Proof was offered, you didn't even address it. You asked the question, so I would assume that you didn't feel it was irrelevant.

"...you seem to be accusing me of trying to "take your guns away." Appearences can be decieving......I never accused you of anything Walrus.

You keep telling us that you don't care about gun control in the US, yet you make the implication that we are wrong. How you ask? You said "my government made the right decision." By implication, if theirs (gun control) is right, our must be wrong. That's where everyone is drawing that idea from. Would you like to retract that statement so that nobody will have a hook to hang their hat on?

The statement "Guns helped us win the Revolutionary War" is kind of incomplete. It should be that PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of guns helped us win the Revolutionary war. Private ownership is the answer. For as long as history has recorded, oppressive governements have kept the masses oppressed by restricting the ownership of weapons. Whether is was the Japanese restricting the ownership of swords or other weapons from the peseants or the English prohibiting the oppressed Scots from training with weapons, it's the prohibition of the "weapon of the day" that is the issue. If firearms had never been invented, we'd being making the statement that swords helped us win the Revolutionary war. Or spears. Or bows. That's the point of that statement. It's not about firearms, it's about freedom from oppressive rule.

Talk all you want about "if guns had never been invented." They were invented, so get over it.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[jl23]

Originally posted by Walrus:
Did you read my post at all? Or do arguments that contradict your opinion quietly slip through your little brain?

I simply argued the ridiculous analogy made between guns and cars, for reasons I have already mentioned.

Now let me repeat this part for you again. I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT YOUR COUNTRY DOES. Get it???? Am I being clear enough for you? Please tell me where in my post I suggested that Americans should give up their guns.

I don't wish to tell you how your country should be run, it's none of my business. My government made the right decision, for which I'm thankful.

Walrus,

First of all, I don't appreciate your insults. I never insulted you but I see how you want to play and that's fine. If you want to compare brain sizes, please remember that I wasn't the one to enter a LE forum based in the US and ask what guns have contributed to society! That statement there insinuated your gun-banning opinion.

Although you are right about comparing guns to automobiles. Although I don't agree with your "one major problem with the analogy." My problem with the analogy is simple. Driving a car is a priveledge. Owning/carrying a gun is a RIGHT. Lets not compare apples to oranges!

And since you DON'T CARE what this GREAT NATION does, don't worry about our guns!

--------------------------------------------
BTW Niteshift, thanks for backing me but I wanted to correct one teeny-weeny bit of your post. I'm a she http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
I still luv ya, though http://www.officer.com/ubb/wink.gif

jen

[Niteshift]

Mea culpa jen......... http://www.officer.com/ubb/redface.gif

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
"I would presume the attacker was also carrying a firearm...."

Then you'd be wrong Walrus. There are a number of reasons why it would be perfectly legal, ethical and reasonable to resort to a firearm against an attacker who was not armed with a firearm. Do you need me to list them for you?

I'm not saying that the only time one would use a firearm is when the attacker is armed. I made the assumption that a majority of attackers are armed. Is that not true?


"Anybody with common sense knows I'm talking about the type of guns that put holes in people's heads, not holes in paper."

No, Walrus, anyone with common sense would not make the universal statement "Gun, on the other hand, were designed for one reason, and one reason only. To kill. Anyone who says otherwise are kidding themselves." You made a universal statement which was, as most of them are, wrong. Now, you differentiate between the two (holes in people vs. holes in paper), therefore proving that either a) Your universal statement was wrong; or b) You're kidding yourself (your words). Which is is Walrus? Were you wrong or are you kidding yourself?

Okay. A different analogy of sorts. Our road authorities down here have a slogan, "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot". Would you call that an erroneous universal statement? You can drink water and drive, and you'll be fine. But anyone with common sense knows the slogan refers to the drinking of alcohol.


"...Will you confuse that with the "safe" kind of firearms?" I'm not the one who is confused here. You are. What is a "safe" kind of firearm? Even those designed with the sole purpose of target shooting in mind CAN be lethal. I never called them safe. My firearms knowledge is sufficient to know that they are still capable of being lethal. Where I differed with you is on the incorrect statement was you made about the design.

Are you always this pedantic? A little interpretation never goes astray.


What responses am I referring to? For one, you asked if anyone had information to back up the claim that guns save 2 million lives per year. Proof was offered, you didn't even address it. You asked the question, so I would assume that you didn't feel it was irrelevant.

I've come to the conclusion that any statistics quoted from organisations such as GunOwners.Com, just like those from anti-gun websites, are often manipulated to suit their side of the argument. I would, however, be inclined to beleive stats quoted from an official government site, such as the DoJ.


"...you seem to be accusing me of trying to "take your guns away." Appearences can be decieving......I never accused you of anything Walrus.

You keep telling us that you don't care about gun control in the US, yet you make the implication that we are wrong. How you ask? You said "my government made the right decision." By implication, if theirs (gun control) is right, our must be wrong. That's where everyone is drawing that idea from. Would you like to retract that statement so that nobody will have a hook to hang their hat on?

Actually, what I meant by that statement is that my government made the best decision for my country. Australia's crime rate has always been significantly lower than the U.S., so our gun owners' reasons for keeping guns would be different from yours. Perhaps your citizens, given your nation's frightening levels of violent crime, are better off armed. I don't know.


The statement "Guns helped us win the Revolutionary War" is kind of incomplete. It should be that PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of guns helped us win the Revolutionary war. Private ownership is the answer. For as long as history has recorded, oppressive governements have kept the masses oppressed by restricting the ownership of weapons. Whether is was the Japanese restricting the ownership of swords or other weapons from the peseants or the English prohibiting the oppressed Scots from training with weapons, it's the prohibition of the "weapon of the day" that is the issue. If firearms had never been invented, we'd being making the statement that swords helped us win the Revolutionary war. Or spears. Or bows. That's the point of that statement. It's not about firearms, it's about freedom from oppressive rule.

If this had been said in the first place, I would not have argued. I ain't a psychic, ya know http://www.officer.com/ubb/wink.gif


Talk all you want about "if guns had never been invented." They were invented, so get over it.

I only made the statement in response to the gun/car analogy, stating that cars have given us more than guns.

Walrus

[Walrus]

Originally posted by jl23:
Walrus,

First of all, I don't appreciate your insults. I never insulted you but I see how you want to play and that's fine.

You don't consider patronising to be a form of insult?

"bad guys = criminals = non law abiding persons. Get it?????"

Does this ring a bell? It was never my intention to insult people in here, but hey, you give what you get.


If you want to compare brain sizes, please remember that I wasn't the one to enter a LE forum based in the US and ask what guns have contributed to society! That statement there insinuated your gun-banning opinion.

I was simply arguing the analogy. Any way in which you interpret that is up to you. My point was that cars have contributed alot more to society than guns.


Although you are right about comparing guns to automobiles. Although I don't agree with your "one major problem with the analogy." My problem with the analogy is simple. Driving a car is a priveledge. Owning/carrying a gun is a RIGHT. Lets not compare apples to oranges!

Who makes that decision? Why is driving a car any less a right than owning/carrying a gun? I fail to see the logic behind this.


And since you DON'T CARE what this GREAT NATION does, don't worry about our guns!

I don't.


Walrus

[Niteshift]

Who determines that gun ownership is a right and driving is a priv.? Pretty simple walrus, the government did a long time ago. I can explain it to you or you can just accept this answer. Your choice.

You made the assumption that a majority of attackers were armed. Where you are failing to make the distinction is armed vs. had a gun. If he has a knife, he's armed. If he has a baseball bat, he's armed. You're missing the point.

Yes, their slogan can be erroneous. Of course, they didn't preface it by saying that all beverages were designed to kill and anyone who says different is kidding themselves. You can pretend you never made that broad, incorrect statement that you did, but the rest of us know you did.

You're dealing with an issue that you really know little about, so you resort to being insulting when someone points out your errors.

Another explaination about what you meant walrus? Try saying what you mean in the first place. If you really have no interest in gun control in the US, why comment on the analogy you think was wrong?

The reason the Revolutionary war statement was made was because guns were involved. The statement WAS and IS correct. You missed the point of it, called it nonsense and now try to back out of calling it nonsense? Talk about pedantic.

That reminds me, no, I'm not always this pedantic. I save it for guys who simply can't face the fact that they made an incorrect and overbroad statement, instead choosing to try to turn it around and pretend that it's someone else's fault. Why can't you simply admit that you mispoke yourself and correct it, instead of trying to make it sound like I'm not smart enough to understand?

You're killing me walrus.........if you're not going to back it up, don't say it. So far, you've said darn little of substance on this topic.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[This message has been edited by Niteshift (edited 08-23-2000).]

[G30man]

Give Walrus a break. He can't possibly understand us, he is from a country full of gutless people that rolled onto their backs and gave up their guns. They are relying on their Govt to protect them. ROFL. How can he understand anything concerning the U.S. or our firearms or self-reliance. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif I used to have alot of respect for Australia, not anymore, not after their spineless response to their Govt.

Funny how the rest of the world judges us, yet they always need our help to save their butts. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Walrus, the troll from down under.

Mikey

[Rebecca]

Walrus...

Please visit this link:

http://www.officer.com/ubb/ubbcode.html

Here you will find ways to distinguish the difference between another member's words and your own replies to them. Trying to decipher your words from anothers is becoming very difficult to do.

Thank you. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
***Rebecca***

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
Who determines that gun ownership is a right and driving is a priv.? Pretty simple walrus, the government did a long time ago. I can explain it to you or you can just accept this answer. Your choice.

I don't recall the Australian government ever coming to that conclusion, seeing as though that is the government who makes my laws and takes my taxes. Since when did the US government make social judgements for the rest of the world?

You made the assumption that a majority of attackers were armed. Where you are failing to make the distinction is armed vs. had a gun. If he has a knife, he's armed. If he has a baseball bat, he's armed. You're missing the point.

The whole point of that discussion was that I assumed most attackers would be carrying a firearm!! Why do you insist on picking out and scrutinising single words from my posts? Read between the lines, for christ's sake.

Yes, their slogan can be erroneous. Of course, they didn't preface it by saying that all beverages were designed to kill and anyone who says different is kidding themselves. You can pretend you never made that broad, incorrect statement that you did, but the rest of us know you did.

Once again, scrutinising one word from a whole sentence. You're making a fool of yourself. If I changed the quote to "All firearms were designed to kill, and anyone who says different is kidding themselves", the whole point of my argument doesn't change a bit. Yet you decide to pick out one word and argue that. Pedantry at its best.

You're dealing with an issue that you really know little about, so you resort to being insulting when someone points out your errors.

I don't recall insulting you, if I did you would know. I haven't insulted anyone who didn't first insult me. You say I know little about the issue, is this because I disagree with you on the issue? So far, you've shown your debating ability to be nothing more than immature nitpicking.

Another explaination about what you meant walrus? Try saying what you mean in the first place.

Funny, I never usually have to explain myself over and over to the same person. Doesn't that tell you something??

If you really have no interest in gun control in the US, why comment on the analogy you think was wrong?

I often heard the ridiculous analogy when gun control was being argued down here. The Australian gun-owners also needed some teaching on the subject.

The reason the Revolutionary war statement was made was because guns were involved. The statement WAS and IS correct. You missed the point of it, called it nonsense and now try to back out of calling it nonsense? Talk about pedantic.

The original statement was complete nonsense, as was your attempt at salvaging the ridiculous comment. I decided not to get into a long-winded argument, given the gun-lobby's well-known inability to accept facts that work against their side of the argument.

That reminds me, no, I'm not always this pedantic. I save it for guys who simply can't face the fact that they made an incorrect and overbroad statement, instead choosing to try to turn it around and pretend that it's someone else's fault. Why can't you simply admit that you mispoke yourself and correct it, instead of trying to make it sound like I'm not smart enough to understand?

Correction - "All FIREARMS are designed to kill, anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves". Happy Now? All that whining over one word? LOL

You're killing me walrus......

I'd say publicly thrashing would be more appropriate.... http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

...if you're not going to back it up, don't say it. So far, you've said darn little of substance on this topic.

Coming from Mr Pedantic? LMFAO....you really make me laugh Niteshift.

[Walrus]

Originally posted by G30man:
Give Walrus a break. He can't possibly understand us, he is from a country full of gutless people that rolled onto their backs and gave up their guns. They are relying on their Govt to protect them. ROFL. How can he understand anything concerning the U.S. or our firearms or self-reliance. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif I used to have alot of respect for Australia, not anymore, not after their spineless response to their Govt.

LOL. Your ignorance is quite ammusing. The gun control laws had the support of around 80% of the community. I know, being a redneck and all, that must be difficult for you to beleive, but the fact remains we don't NEED guns. Our crime rate is less than a quarter of yours, and is still dropping. Unfortunately organisations such as the NRA publish figures on their website which states the opposite. Just shows how desperate the gun-lobby has become for new supporters.

Funny how the rest of the world judges us, yet they always need our help to save their butts.

Like the Vietnam War, perhaps? Don't forget to pass on my thanks to the US government for the needless murder of 570 Australian soldiers. And why were we there? The yanks asked us, perhaps?

Or what about East Timor? Why don't you tell me why the US decided not to send troops there?

Walrus, the troll from down under.

G30man, the little xenophobe from up over. (I can hear the crumpling of dictionary pages as we speak) http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[dkiefner]

Publicly thrashing? Now I'm ROTF.

I hope you're never looking down the business end of a firearm someday, Mr. Walrus. Oh that's right - there are none in OZ, so you've nothing to worry about, right?

Just keep following the yellow brick road.....

------------------
Dave Kiefner
[i]Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die S

[Niteshift]

Who cares what decision your govt. made? This conversation is about guns in the US. I replied that our govt. made the distinction between gun rights and driving priv. Who the hell was talking about Autralia or the rest of the world?? http://www.officer.com/ubb/confused.gif

Read between the lines? I am......and I found out that you don't know what you're talking about and that you are to vain to admit that you mistakenly overstated several points.

I'm making a fool of myself? Dream on Bullwinkle....... http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif You can talk all you want about the "true" meaning of your quote and how it wouldn't change. The problem is that you vanity is interfering with your intellect. You know I'm right (that you made a very incorrect statement), but you keep trying to deflect me from the issue by calling me names and implying that I just can't understand. I fully understand, I just want to see you be honest for a change.

"I don't recall insulting you, if I did you would know it." Oh my, you're not threatening me with your scary intellect are you Walrus? Someone protect me. http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
The entire tone of everything you've said has been insulting......from saying that anyone who doesn't believe your incorrect statement is kidding themselves, to how your govt. made the "right decision." You've called me immature, pedantic and other things. Simply, you've been nothing but insulting.

"Doesn't that (explaining over and over) tell you something?" Yes, it does. It should tell you something to. It should tell you that unlike the people in your country, I won't roll over for everything that comes down the pike. It should tell you that I won't be fooled by your lack of honesty, your excess of vanity and your pseudo-intellectual ramblings. From what I can see by the other posts, nobody else here is buying your truckload of crap either.

Firearms ARE guns Walrus. Changing the word from guns to firearms does not change the meaning of your statement at all. To even think that is does proves you really have a pathetic (mis)understanding of the whole issue.

Your contention that guns did not help us win the Revolutionary War is still ridiculous. They did. The British had them. Without us having them, we would not have won. Therefore they did help. You contention that "if they'd never been invented" is childish. They were, long before the Revolutionary War. Your whole counter to that statement based on a hypothetical "if" wish on your part. I can understand your confusion. You live in an allegedly independant country that still pays homage to it's former master, a master from whom you did not free yourselves, but were released from by their good graces.

Public thrashing? You hear that sound..... that's your alarm clock going off. Time to wake up and leave dreamland.

Mr. Pedantic? See, there you go again.... nothing of substance to say, so you deflect attention by name calling.

You should be a politician. You're really cut out for the job...... can talk at length about a subject you don't understand, try to dance around words and pretend you didn't say what you said and try to put a spin on it to make it look like more than the pile of dung that it really is.

Do me a favor.....
point a the monitor screen and say "I did not have sexual realtions with that woman..."

Yep, a politician in the making.


------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[This message has been edited by Niteshift (edited 08-24-2000).]

[G30man]

Walrus,
So only 80% of your country are cowards. Thanks for clearing that up. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
BTW, what's a dictionary??

Laughing at a troll,
Mikey

[G30man]

Walrus, it appears that you don't know the meaning of the word xenophobe. It does not apply to me, so I copied the definition off of the Meriam Webster online dictionary for you. Go see for yourself what the word means.
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Main Entry: xe

[G30man]

Where's Waldo... errr Walrus???

I hope he didn't get banned, he was good for a laugh. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Niteshift]

No, he wasn't banned.

No, I don't miss him. There are enough trolls on this forum without him. My pet troll has returned to the drug laws section.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Walrus:
There is one major problem with the analogy made between guns and cars.
Guns, on the other hand, were designed for one reason, and one reason only. To kill. Anyone who says otherwise are kidding themselves.
The simple fact is that mankind has benefited greatly from the invention of the automobile. What have guns contributed to society, aside from death, destrucion and the impending grief of families?

This is about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard in a long time. Guns have one purpose - to kill? What about sport shooting? Skeet, target shooting, etc? What about self defense? Is every person shot killed? Hunting, while killing, serves a greater purpose - eating. have you forgotten that too?

Now what is the great benefit to making from cars? Drunk driving kills more people that firearms in this country every year, and HAS done so for decades. How about the toll in accidents that don't result in death? Millions of dollars every year in increased costs to the economy. Great benefits!

And what have guns done? How about assuring that people with their heads up their butts are free to write nonsense like yours, while other countries who forbid individual ownership of firearms are falling like dominos and forfeiting what rights they enjoyed?

My God - are you a cop? Do you have a clue what the Constitution is all about? Or are you one of the new breed of elitist cops who forgets that someday YOU will be just a civilian and subject to this gun control nonsense. 20 THOUSAND gun control laws are already on the books. We need more?


------------------
Bruce
NYPD, Retired

[TM]

Hm...

This is about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard in a long time. Guns have one purpose - to kill? What about sport shooting? Skeet, target shooting, etc? What about self defense? Is every person shot killed? Hunting, while killing, serves a greater purpose - eating. have you forgotten that too?

You misread what he said. He did not say that they were used just to kill, but designed to kill. And he is correct. You can't wash your car with a gun. You can't make pancakes, or make it clean your room.

Walrus is right, guns were designed to kill. Whether it was killing animals for food, stopping murderers, or using them to defend a country, their purpose is to kill.

Some may use guns for sport, but that does not mean that do not have the potential for causing death.

Now what is the great benefit to making from cars? Drunk driving kills more people that firearms in this country every year, and HAS done so for decades. How about the toll in accidents that don't result in death? Millions of dollars every year in increased costs to the economy. Great benefits!

But cars cannot come close to the death toll from guns over the past 600 years.

And what have guns done? How about assuring that people with their heads up their butts are free to write nonsense like yours, while other countries who forbid individual ownership of firearms are falling like dominos and forfeiting what rights they enjoyed?

And why are they "falling like dominos"? Because the people who DO have the guns are the ones in power. Makes you think that we might have been better off without the invention of the gun altogether. It would be very hard to control thousands of angry citizens with spears, huh.

My God - are you a cop? Do you have a clue what the Constitution is all about? Or are you one of the new breed of elitist cops who forgets that someday YOU will be just a civilian and subject to this gun control nonsense.

I think Walrus is from Australia, if that means anything to you.

[Niteshift]

You can join the ranks of the uninformed TM. The universal statement that ALL guns are designed to kill is WRONG. While all guns may be capable of killing, they are not all DESIGNED with that purpose. Walrus is in host nation of the summer Olympics, perhaps he should go over to the shooting venue and look at those guns in use. Those guns, from drawing board to firing line were DESIGNED with no other purpose on earth than to punch small holes in paper.

The universal statement, as most of them are, is wrong. Why are you guys unable to see that?

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

Originally posted by Nancy:
What have guns contributed to society, aside from death, destrucion and the impending grief of families?


1)Guns won us our freedom/independece from England.
Just think where we would be had our Founding Fathers NOT had guns.

>A nonsense argument, seeing as though the >British were also armed.


Of course the British were armed!
You missed the point dude! I said where would WE be had our founding fathers NOT had
firearms. We'd still be speaking British.
Firearms gave us our freedom from Britain. Can't help it if your still a British Subject
:roll eyes:

---------
2)GUNS SAVE LIVES! The purpose of guns is to protect it's owner. And they do their job.. Over 2 million times a yr.

>I often hear this argument, yet the stat >always varies. Any proof of that figure?

Plenty of proof IF you'd care to do your homework!

>I have ignored the rest of your post.

SOOOOOOOOOOO!
YOUR LOSS! That only goes to show you that you are just one of those who don't want to learn the truth.

> Please try and stick to the topic in your >response. I'm not debating for nor against >gun control in America, personally I >couldn't care less what your country does.


Go back and read your own posts! You asked what good are guns!

>I'm arguing against the stupid analogy >people make between cars and guns.


THERE IS NO ANALOGY! http://www.officer.com/ubb/mad.gif



------------------
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

[Nancy]

Originally posted by TM:
Hm...

This is about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard in a long time. Guns have one purpose - to kill? What about sport shooting? Skeet, target shooting, etc? What about self defense? Is every person shot killed? Hunting, while killing, serves a greater purpose - eating. have you forgotten that too?

You misread what he said. He did not say that they were used just to kill, but designed to kill. And he is correct. You can't wash your car with a gun. You can't make pancakes, or make it clean your room.

Walrus is right, guns were designed to kill. Whether it was killing animals for food, stopping murderers, or using them to defend a country, their purpose is to kill.


they wer designed to defend and feed their owners. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

Some may use guns for sport, but that does not mean that do not have the potential for causing death.

Now what is the great benefit to making from cars? Drunk driving kills more people that firearms in this country every year, and HAS done so for decades. How about the toll in accidents that don't result in death? Millions of dollars every year in increased costs to the economy. Great benefits!

But cars cannot come close to the death toll from guns over the past 600 years.


Your right all those innocent people killed by their governments!

And what have guns done? How about assuring that people with their heads up their butts are free to write nonsense like yours, while other countries who forbid individual ownership of firearms are falling like dominos and forfeiting what rights they enjoyed?

And why are they "falling like dominos"? Because the people who DO have the guns are the ones in power. Makes you think that we might have been better off without the invention of the gun altogether. It would be very hard to control thousands of angry citizens with spears, huh.

My God - are you a cop? Do you have a clue what the Constitution is all about? Or are you one of the new breed of elitist cops who forgets that someday YOU will be just a civilian and subject to this gun control nonsense.

I think Walrus is from Australia, if that means anything to you.


That says it all http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Nancy]

The universal statement, as most of them are, is wrong. Why are you guys unable to see that?

[/B][/QUOTE]

actually the statement that should be made is that firearms were designed to protect and feed their owners!

[Niteshift]

I would have to differ with that statement too. The simple fact of the matter is that some guns are designed for the sole purpose of target shooting. They would be p#ss poor choices for defense or hunting because they were not DESIGNED for that function. These guns, like the ones that you will see in use at the Olympics were designed and crafted with no other puspose in mind than to put holes in paper in a very small group. The key problem with both definition is the words "all" and "designed". All firearms were not designed for the same purpose.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

Used Car Dealer Offers Gun Voucher

(FAIR USE)
.c The Associated Press

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A gun giveaway at a used car dealership attracted
lots of attention Saturday and new members for gun groups, but just three
customers bought a vehicle and accepted a voucher for a free rifle.

``No one bought a car today just to get a rifle, it was just icing on the
cake,'' auto dealer Greg ``Lumpy'' Lambert told The Knoxville News-Sentinel
as the sale ended.

Lambert, a member of the National Rifle Association and a local pro-gun
group, said even if no one showed up for his promotion ``the media attention
was well worth the trouble.''

Each buyer accepted the voucher for a bolt action, 8 mm deer rifle, valued at
about $100. The vouchers will be voided if the holders aren't qualified to
own a gun.

One buyer was a man in California who purchased a 1992 Mazda pickup truck
over the phone for $2,795, plus shipping costs. Lambert arranged to have the
rifle shipped to a local gun dealer.

``He just wanted to make a statement,'' Lambert said.

Gun opponents complained last week that Lambert's promotion was
irresponsible, but no protesters showed up Saturday at the small, family
dealership in the Knoxville suburb of Powell.

A modest banner hanging outside the car lot read: ``Buy a car, get a gun this
Saturday.''

Members of the East Tennessee Friends of the National Rifle Association
distributed literature and signed new members. At least 26 people joined the
NRA and 19 bought memberships in the local pro-gun group, the Rights
Education Fund, which previously only boasted five paying members.

Lambert said he was sure that ``now the whole world knows there's a car lot
here. It's already successful beyond my wildest dreams.''

AP-NY-08-26-00 2038EDT


.c The Associated Press

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A gun giveaway at a used car dealership attracted
lots of attention Saturday and new members for gun groups, but just three
customers bought a vehicle and accepted a voucher for a free rifle.

``No one bought a car today just to get a rifle, it was just icing on the
cake,'' auto dealer Greg ``Lumpy'' Lambert told The Knoxville News-Sentinel
as the sale ended.

Lambert, a member of the National Rifle Association and a local pro-gun
group, said even if no one showed up for his promotion ``the media attention
was well worth the trouble.''

Each buyer accepted the voucher for a bolt action, 8 mm deer rifle, valued at
about $100. The vouchers will be voided if the holders aren't qualified to
own a gun.

One buyer was a man in California who purchased a 1992 Mazda pickup truck
over the phone for $2,795, plus shipping costs. Lambert arranged to have the
rifle shipped to a local gun dealer.

``He just wanted to make a statement,'' Lambert said.

Gun opponents complained last week that Lambert's promotion was
irresponsible, but no protesters showed up Saturday at the small, family
dealership in the Knoxville suburb of Powell.

A modest banner hanging outside the car lot read: ``Buy a car, get a gun this
Saturday.''

Members of the East Tennessee Friends of the National Rifle Association
distributed literature and signed new members. At least 26 people joined the
NRA and 19 bought memberships in the local pro-gun group, the Rights
Education Fund, which previously only boasted five paying members.

Lambert said he was sure that ``now the whole world knows there's a car lot
here. It's already successful beyond my wildest dreams.''