source = www.gunsafe.org
Subject: Why Gore is wrong about Columbine
source= http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel.shtml
--------------------------------------------
Ernest2's opinion: I would like to point out the 65 propaine bombs planted through out
the school.
Even if the Colombine murderers
were unable to get any firearms what-so-ever
They still could have blown the school sky high and incinerated all the students.
So , in a sick way, we were lucky that they had guns, which only killed 13 people instead of not haveing guns and using the propaine bombs , which could have killed 2,000 people.
Colinbine, which is a tradgity, had been and is still being misused by the anti civil rights gun grabbers to hood wink the American people into victim disarmament schemes which can only lead to more unnecessary deaths because law abiding gun owners would no longer have firearms to prevent criminal attcks from occuring in the
first place. Instead , honest disarmed former gun owners would die victims of still armed criminals.
The benifit to society of firesrms is 2.5 million law abiding gun owners using guns not to kill, but rather to prevent criminal violence from occuring.
The benifit of gun control is 46,000 lives saved from a contention that "susposedly
there would be less gun violence".
Any way you slice it,gun control sacrifices 2.5 million lives each year to save 46,000
lives each year. The bottom line is
gun control could cost 2,454,000 lives each year.
Of course, this looks like good math to the federal government; just look at how they squander our tax dollars if you feel you
need proof.
Sorry, I sliped into rant mode and forgot all about the following post. Gore and gun contol just gets me so worked up that I could chew forged steel nails.
---------------------------------------------
10/12/00 10:40 a.m.
Getting Columbine Right
More gun control wouldn't have stopped this tragedy. You're wrong, Al.
By Dave Kopel, author of The Truth About Gun Shows
In the presidential debate last night, Al Gore claimed that more gun control might have prevented
the Columbine murders. While this statement
was not a lie — because Gore
may well have believed it — it was palpably false.
What Gore said was this:
Look, this is the year — this is in the aftermath of Columbine and Paducah and all of the places around our country where
the nation has been shocked by these weapons in the hands of the wrong people.
The woman who bought the guns for the two boys who did
that killing at Columbine
said that if she had had to give her
name and fill out a form
there, she would not have bought
those guns. That conceivably could have prevented that tragedy.
The truth is this:
Several months before the
Columbine massacre, the killers obtained
firearms from two suppliers.
The first was a 22-year-old Columbine
graduate named Mark Manes
(ironically, the son of a longtime Handgun
Control, Inc., activist). Manes
bought a pistol at a gun show and gave it to
the two killers (who were under
18 at the time).
Colorado law prohibits giving handguns to juveniles, with certain
exceptions, and Manes is currently serving time for this offense in a Colorado prison. The second
supplier was an 18-year-old fellow student at
Columbine, Robyn Anderson, who
bought three long guns for the killers at
a Denver-area gun show in December 1998.
Both Manes and Anderson were
lawful gun purchasers and could legally
have bought the guns from a
firearms dealer at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else.
Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun
prohibition groups began
putting out press releases about the "gun show loophole."
This is an audacious
lie, since there is no "loophole" involving
gun shows. The law at gun shows
is exactly the same as it is everywhere
else.
Mark Manes committed a felony
by obtaining a handgun for the young
killers. He has never claimed that the existence of another law, regarding
gun show sales, would have deterred him.
What about Robyn Anderson?
On June 4, 1999, Good Morning America presented a "kids and guns"
program. Anderson was flown to
Washington for the segment. The first
part of the program discussed
various proposals, including background
checks on private sales at gun shows.
Immediately after the
introductory segment, Diane Sawyer introduced Robyn Anderson and asked:
"Anything you hear this morning [that would]
have stopped you from accompanying them and help[ing] them buy the guns?
" Anderson replied: "I
guess if it had been illegal, if I had known that it was illegal, I wouldn't have
gone."
Yet, on January 26, 2000, testifying before the Colorado House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Anderson claimed that even if the purchase were legal, but there had been a background check of her
entirely clean record, she would not have
purchased the guns.
Whichever version is true, the facts show that Anderson was not afraid to divulge her identity when
buying a gun for her wicked friends.
When Good Morning America asked, "And
they actually paid for the guns, or did you?"
Anderson replied: "It was their
money, yes. All I did was show a driver's license."
(The private
collectors asked to see a driver's license to verify that she was over 18, even
though there was no legal requirement that
they do so.)
Since Anderson did not mind revealing her identity to three separate
sellers, is it realistic to believe that revealing her identity for an instant
check would have stopped her?
The Colorado instant background check
does not keep permanent records
on gun buyers, so even with background
checks on private sales at gun shows, there would have been no permanent record of Anderson's purchase. And Anderson's new and
improved talking points claim only that the prospect of a permanent record would have deterred her.
Putting aside Anderson's
shifting stories, she is plainly an irresponsible, self-centered person.
After the murders took place, she refused to come forward and help the police
investigation.
It took an anonymous tip for the
police to find out about her.
And, in marked contrast to Mark Manes,
Anderson has never apologized for her role in the Columbine murders.
Even if you accept the version of Robyn Anderson's stories that is most supportive of gun control, no
gun-show crackdown would have prevented
Columbine.
The older of the two
killers could have bought his guns in a
store legally, since he turned 18 before the Columbine attack.
Indeed, in a videotape made before the killings, the murderers said that if they had not obtained their guns the way they did, they would have found other ways.
There is no reason to disbelieve them on this point.
The only law that would have some effect on Robyn Anderson and similar gun molls was introduced in the Colorado legislature this year by Colorado State Representative Don Lee, whose district includes Columbine.
His"Robyn Anderson Bill" now makes
it a crime to give a long gun to a juvenile without the consent of his parents.
This law covers Anderson's first version of her story, in
which she told Good Morning America that
the only deterrent for her would have been a law making her conduct illegal.
Whatever the other merits of proposals to impose special restrictions on gun shows, these would not have
prevented Columbine, and it is chillingly
cynical for their proponents to use Columbine as a pretext.
Subject: Why Gore is wrong about Columbine
source= http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel.shtml
--------------------------------------------
Ernest2's opinion: I would like to point out the 65 propaine bombs planted through out
the school.
Even if the Colombine murderers
were unable to get any firearms what-so-ever
They still could have blown the school sky high and incinerated all the students.
So , in a sick way, we were lucky that they had guns, which only killed 13 people instead of not haveing guns and using the propaine bombs , which could have killed 2,000 people.
Colinbine, which is a tradgity, had been and is still being misused by the anti civil rights gun grabbers to hood wink the American people into victim disarmament schemes which can only lead to more unnecessary deaths because law abiding gun owners would no longer have firearms to prevent criminal attcks from occuring in the
first place. Instead , honest disarmed former gun owners would die victims of still armed criminals.
The benifit to society of firesrms is 2.5 million law abiding gun owners using guns not to kill, but rather to prevent criminal violence from occuring.
The benifit of gun control is 46,000 lives saved from a contention that "susposedly
there would be less gun violence".
Any way you slice it,gun control sacrifices 2.5 million lives each year to save 46,000
lives each year. The bottom line is
gun control could cost 2,454,000 lives each year.
Of course, this looks like good math to the federal government; just look at how they squander our tax dollars if you feel you
need proof.
Sorry, I sliped into rant mode and forgot all about the following post. Gore and gun contol just gets me so worked up that I could chew forged steel nails.
---------------------------------------------
10/12/00 10:40 a.m.
Getting Columbine Right
More gun control wouldn't have stopped this tragedy. You're wrong, Al.
By Dave Kopel, author of The Truth About Gun Shows
In the presidential debate last night, Al Gore claimed that more gun control might have prevented
the Columbine murders. While this statement
was not a lie — because Gore
may well have believed it — it was palpably false.
What Gore said was this:
Look, this is the year — this is in the aftermath of Columbine and Paducah and all of the places around our country where
the nation has been shocked by these weapons in the hands of the wrong people.
The woman who bought the guns for the two boys who did
that killing at Columbine
said that if she had had to give her
name and fill out a form
there, she would not have bought
those guns. That conceivably could have prevented that tragedy.
The truth is this:
Several months before the
Columbine massacre, the killers obtained
firearms from two suppliers.
The first was a 22-year-old Columbine
graduate named Mark Manes
(ironically, the son of a longtime Handgun
Control, Inc., activist). Manes
bought a pistol at a gun show and gave it to
the two killers (who were under
18 at the time).
Colorado law prohibits giving handguns to juveniles, with certain
exceptions, and Manes is currently serving time for this offense in a Colorado prison. The second
supplier was an 18-year-old fellow student at
Columbine, Robyn Anderson, who
bought three long guns for the killers at
a Denver-area gun show in December 1998.
Both Manes and Anderson were
lawful gun purchasers and could legally
have bought the guns from a
firearms dealer at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else.
Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun
prohibition groups began
putting out press releases about the "gun show loophole."
This is an audacious
lie, since there is no "loophole" involving
gun shows. The law at gun shows
is exactly the same as it is everywhere
else.
Mark Manes committed a felony
by obtaining a handgun for the young
killers. He has never claimed that the existence of another law, regarding
gun show sales, would have deterred him.
What about Robyn Anderson?
On June 4, 1999, Good Morning America presented a "kids and guns"
program. Anderson was flown to
Washington for the segment. The first
part of the program discussed
various proposals, including background
checks on private sales at gun shows.
Immediately after the
introductory segment, Diane Sawyer introduced Robyn Anderson and asked:
"Anything you hear this morning [that would]
have stopped you from accompanying them and help[ing] them buy the guns?
" Anderson replied: "I
guess if it had been illegal, if I had known that it was illegal, I wouldn't have
gone."
Yet, on January 26, 2000, testifying before the Colorado House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Anderson claimed that even if the purchase were legal, but there had been a background check of her
entirely clean record, she would not have
purchased the guns.
Whichever version is true, the facts show that Anderson was not afraid to divulge her identity when
buying a gun for her wicked friends.
When Good Morning America asked, "And
they actually paid for the guns, or did you?"
Anderson replied: "It was their
money, yes. All I did was show a driver's license."
(The private
collectors asked to see a driver's license to verify that she was over 18, even
though there was no legal requirement that
they do so.)
Since Anderson did not mind revealing her identity to three separate
sellers, is it realistic to believe that revealing her identity for an instant
check would have stopped her?
The Colorado instant background check
does not keep permanent records
on gun buyers, so even with background
checks on private sales at gun shows, there would have been no permanent record of Anderson's purchase. And Anderson's new and
improved talking points claim only that the prospect of a permanent record would have deterred her.
Putting aside Anderson's
shifting stories, she is plainly an irresponsible, self-centered person.
After the murders took place, she refused to come forward and help the police
investigation.
It took an anonymous tip for the
police to find out about her.
And, in marked contrast to Mark Manes,
Anderson has never apologized for her role in the Columbine murders.
Even if you accept the version of Robyn Anderson's stories that is most supportive of gun control, no
gun-show crackdown would have prevented
Columbine.
The older of the two
killers could have bought his guns in a
store legally, since he turned 18 before the Columbine attack.
Indeed, in a videotape made before the killings, the murderers said that if they had not obtained their guns the way they did, they would have found other ways.
There is no reason to disbelieve them on this point.
The only law that would have some effect on Robyn Anderson and similar gun molls was introduced in the Colorado legislature this year by Colorado State Representative Don Lee, whose district includes Columbine.
His"Robyn Anderson Bill" now makes
it a crime to give a long gun to a juvenile without the consent of his parents.
This law covers Anderson's first version of her story, in
which she told Good Morning America that
the only deterrent for her would have been a law making her conduct illegal.
Whatever the other merits of proposals to impose special restrictions on gun shows, these would not have
prevented Columbine, and it is chillingly
cynical for their proponents to use Columbine as a pretext.