Response from my "rosie" webpage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two types of guns in this world, guns for hunting and target shooting and those automatic assault guns. Semi-automatic, automatic, what's the difference--they are made for one purpose and one purpose only--to kill people. We don't need those type of guns on our streets. Ban the sale and possession of these guns.
*********************
The above is the response from a newspaper editor whose paper had two articles regarding a series of armed robberies by men carrying automatic assault rifles. When informed that the men were not caring automatic weapons but a 30 caliber semiautomatic carbine, they refused to print a correction. Note that they never say "machine guns" but say "automatic" and assault rifles. BTW any rifle with a clip is an assault rifle.
Result--many believe that automatic weapons are for sale to anyone, without even a background check at gun shows. That they are "legal." But the media doesn't care, they will intentionally and purposefully lie because of their agenda.
 
Miss D-
Your are hereby named TFL's Member of the Month for your patience and open minded approach.

Judy's post is so filled with talking head sound bites as to peg her IQ in the "limited" range (this is generous). From statements about "cop killer bullets", to the claim that the NRA is aginst all gun laws, to her credentials as a student of the boob-tube, to the statement that I am an LEO...it goes from ignorant to absurd.

I assume I am the "Rich" she is referring to. I further assume that I met her, as you, on the Rosie Board. Please post or email me her name there, so that I can put the character in perspective.

You needn't agree with everything you see on TFL. Just keep thinking for yourself. You're abrave person...I only wish there were about 60 million more like you out there.
Rich
 
ps:
Regarding the LA shootout, you might educate Judy to that fact that the weapons used have been banned from import and illegal to posess for years. So much for making "harder" for criminals to get thse guns.
Oy!
Rich
 
Well, Judy wrote back and I feel that my time was wasted.
*************EDIT************
I posted the following EMail Exhange BEFORE I READ the most recents posts to this thread. Some of you may applaud my change in attitude, but I don't think Rich will give me any awards ;)

And, What's wrong with being "Cute & Married" ??
******************end edit******


Here is round TWO:


Letter to ME:

Jumeaujs1@aol.com wrote:
>
> I appreciate your response to my comments BUT, let me assure you that Rosie
> O'Donnell had nor has NOTHING to do with my feelings regarding rapid fire
> automatic weapons. I have felt very strongly about this for several years now.
> I'm sure that, as you said, a competition shooter may be able to fire several
> successive shots with a Single Action Revolver but how many of those are out
> there on our streets selling drugs and doing driveby's???
> I thoroughly disagree with your comment that "it's hard to get an automatic
> weapon in this country". You know as well (or you should know better than I
> do) that they are everywhere on our streets. If a criminal wants one badly
> enough - they can always find someone to sell them one.
> According to your philosophy - it should have been impossible for those two
> boys who killed students at Columbine High School to get those weapons due to
> their ages - BUT THEY MANAGED TO GET THEM, just as any other criminal, drug
> dealer, gang member, etc. is able to do.
> You may be correct that the average person cannot "just walk into a shop and
> buy one" but the "average person" is NOT who I am concerned about. It's all
> of the others who do manage to get them that concerns me.
> I keep well informed (AND I DON'T MEAN BY WATCHING POLICE STORY or TV movies)
> about what is happening on our streets. You can't tell me that every police
> dept. in the nation is not concerned about being "out-gunned" by street thugs!!!
> I would like to add here, that the fact you are a police officer makes me even more appalled at your attitude about gun control.
> My husband's hunting rifle is kept locked away and he does not use "vest
> penetrating" bullets. You know that THESE are often what kill our officers -
> these, AND automatic weapons, against which our average police officer has no
> defense.
> I think YOU are the one who needs to be better educated if you truly believe
> all of this "crap". And, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it is.
> I firmly belive that ALL RAPID FIRE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, NOT JUST THE TECH 9,
> SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE U.S. They should be banned from sale, manufacture
> and importation.
> The NRA is so afraid of legislation regarding gun control that they refuse
> even to address even the most basic gun safety issues. How many more of our
> children or police officers have to die, before we wake up and make some
> changes in our gun laws.
> I DO NOT oppose gun ownership, but I do oppose those weapons whose sole
> purpose is to KILL. These are not hunting weapons or weapons for home or
> personal protection - these are designed solely for killing human beings.
> When is the last time you went hunting with a Tech 9 or any other type of
> rapid fire assault weapon?? They serve NO purpose in this nation but to KILL
> IT'S CITIZENS.
> Judy

Letter FROM me:


Listen, Darlin', I tried to be nice and I tried to be patient. Unfortunately, you have completely ignored my letter.

Please try to understand that I am a cop. I see the records of what guns are used in crimes in a major city in the Southern US and the surrounding area. Approximately NONE of them are automatic weapons.

I hope you understand the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant".
I don't think you are stupid, but you are very ignorant of the facts. I tried to share a couple with you and encourage you to learn about this issue, but you have ignored me.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I would, once again, like to encourage you to visit The Firing Line. Your original letter has become quite a topic of conversation there and I have including a link below to that discusssion. I hope you will check it out.
The Firing Line: Response to my Rosie Web Page

Take Care,

Rob

FOLLOW UP BY ME, after I RE-READ her letter:

In fact, darlin', I think you may be a complete fruit-loop. Your ignorance on this topic is demonstrated by your claim that your husband "does not use vest penetrating bullets" is absurd. Any hunting rifle used in North America is capable of penetrating a Police Officer's vest. That is not up for debate. It is a matter of physics. VGo to any website about bullet proof vests and you will see that level IIa & Level II vests (which most officers are wearing) are only designed to stop handgun bullets, and not even all of them!
Rifle bullets are pointy and they move very fast (2-4 times faster than a Pistol round), which allows them to pentrate vest rather like the proverbial hot knife through butter.
If your husband has a bunting rifle, then he has the capability of shooting through a cops vest.

Furthermore, if you want to see a whole bunch of other Cops and justice minded citizens who are in favor of LESS gun control, I would direct you to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America's Website: Http://www.leaa.org.
-Rob


------------------
-Essayons


Edited by Rich Lucibella to correct HTML formatting errors only.

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 11, 1999).]
 
Hey these emails sound alike check this last one out:

----- Original Message -----
From: Jumeaujs1@aol.com

Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you for your response


I can see that we will never agree on these issues so to continue this
discussion would be a waste of my time and yours.
I did not mean to imply that Rich was the source of your material only that
he spouts the same, identical comments - therefore they must come from the
same source.
As to the children in the 20/20 story - the one little boy that I mentioned
was brought up with two parents who totally opposed guns of any type - he was
not even allowed to watch violent tv programs. He had been "drilled" for all
of his 6 years with the dangers of touching a gun. He had been told - as had
the other children in the story - to NOT touch it and to go to an adult. My
point is that even this child - whose mother made her living teaching gun
safety - took the gun and pointed it at another child and pretended to shoot
him. He even pretended to load the gun.
You are right that the parents have to be responsible. But, often our
children play in homes where there are unsecured guns. That is why I think
that gun manufacturers MUST be forced to add gun safety features to all guns
in the U.S. For the very reason that we will always have parents who just
don't care.
But, this "so-called" gun safety education has been proven NOT to work with
children under the age of 10. They are just too tempted by guns. Guns are
too glorified in the movies and on TV.
My husband is a hunter and he does "range" shooting and I can ASSURE you that
NO ONE ever does hunting or range shooting with assault or rapid fire
weapons. They are for one purpose and that is to kill human beings!! Why
else do you think the military and the police have them.
You are COMPLETELY WRONG about what you referred to as "cop killer" bullets.
I don't know where you got your information but they do manufacture them here
in the U.S. and they are currently advertised in the backs of gun magazines
as "being able to penetrate bulllet proof vests" - I'VE SEEN THE ADS!!!
These bullets are made with a special metal alloy with a tip that explodes
AFTER it's hit the target. Sort of like an arrow - you can't pull it out. I
heard a Dr. say that an injury with a normal bullet would just sever a few
nerves and blood vessels but an injury with this type of bullet would nearly
blow the arm off. So, you need to do some further research into this matter!!
I watched a live emergency room film showing these types of injuries - they
are directed at police officers and their vests. That's why it angered me so
much to hear a police officer (Rich), advocate the continued sale of these
weapons.
You are right in the fact that we need to use the laws that are already on
the books regarding gun safety. Here in Fla. we are doing that. Several
parents have been prosecuted because children found unsecured firearms and
killed or injured other children.
But, back to the assault weapons - why do you think that these are the
weapons of choice for gangs and drug dealers??? Because they can kill more
people, more quickly than a regular handgun. Even the police don't stand a
chance against them.
Making them illegal won't stop them - I know that - but it certainly will
help to keep them out of the hands of teenagers who choose to "mow down" a
school full of classmates. Those two boy who did the shootings at Columbine
could never have killed as many children as they did without those types of
weapons!!! If they had had to fire one shot at a time - all of those
children would not have died.
I also want you to know that I am not naive or foolish enough to believe
everything I see on the "news". I do my OWN research!!! I don't let other
people tell me what to think. But, most of what I am saying is just pure
common sense even though I HAVE done the research..
When is the last time you EVER heard of anyone hunting or range shooting with
a Tech 9 or other assault weapon. Give me a break!!!
*********************************************
I would like to see these "ads" for cop killer bullets, oh I remember where I saw those MAD magazine thats it!
I havent responded to her yet, give me the weekend to come up with some facts for her to check out.
Rich...I dont post at Rosie, it has been a long time, I am at ACME but I really dont know her handle, never heard of her before I read this thread. She seems to know you! ;)

Here is one link I am going to provide her: http://civilliberty.about.com/index.htm
go to the left and click on "Gun Rights"

She is repeating her opinions without anything to back it up with, therefore I am going to find these facts to back up my opinion....ooo the brainwashing ! A big LOL!
 
Where can I get some of those bullets that "explode AFTER they hit the target". Exploding before they hit the target would be a touch self-defeating, donchathink?

And the bit about the kid playing with the gun. First, he was never allowed to watch violent tv, then he was drawn to the gun because of the violent tv shows that glorify guns. We've run up against a master logician, careful all.

Yeah, we're nearly plumb outta cops, 'cause the bgs done shot 'em all with COP KILLER BULLETS! Pretty much any bullet that kills a cop is a cop killer, now ain't it? Looks like Judy got her BS(of course) from the Chuck Schumer School of Propaganda.

And all of you RAPID FIRING ASSAULT WEAPON owners out there, quit taking them to the range, because NO ONE DOES THAT! They just KILL PEOPLE!

Is there a doctor in the house? Can anyone prescribe a hefty dose of lithium for Judy? And perhaps instruct her in the use of italics and bold?

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited July 10, 1999).]
 
An FYI on the 20/20 show. My wife and I happened to watch that show. There were 2 or 3 guns involved. The guns were placed in a toy box along with several toys.The box of ammunition was placed on the edege of a desk in plain view with the ammunition exposed.The experiment was staged with the outcome pre-determined. All it proved was kids will play with anything put inside what they consider their toy box.

Methinks some of the more level headed here are being set up in a similar "experiment". This sounds like the teaching a pig to fly routine, Wastes your time and irritates the pig.

Just my $.02,with a nickle change.
 
Rob-
You're right: "fruit loop".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Argument with one who has rejected reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine[/quote]
 
Greetings to you all, this is my first apearance on this forum. And what better way for me to begin than to comment on "Judy's" comments on the 20/20 segement on children and guns.
For those of you who were unable to view the segement, count yourself lucky , I nearly spit my teeth across the room, and I have a good set of choppers!
The scenario they constructed was in their opinion "good science", what they did was to take a group of 3 to 5 year old children, give them the Eddy eagle course, then aprox. 2 hours later with the permission of the childrens parents who watched via close circuit monitors.They placed 2 children at a time in a room (at a day care center) with 2 or 3 tables and boxes covered with toys, and among them were placed the "real" guns, the children were then left to play on their own.
Results : As expected within moments the handguns were spotted, remarked on, then picked up and played with, to the horror of the parents who were watching. As well as the intended TV viewing audience. They achieved the exact results they wanted, NOT good science.

Conclusion : What they did was crimanal.! After a short lecture (the Eddy Eagle program ) they placed these inocent children ,who must rely upon the loving adults who care for them, to provide them a safe place to play.
Instead the producers and the parents put them in a seemingly safe play room ,and by there actions said " Go ahead and pick up these real guns we left for you with these other toys and , forget everything the nice policeman just explained to you."
Of course the 3-5 yr olds could not resist the temptation, they did not have the time nor the parent reinforcing of the lessons learned. How different the results might have been if a cabinet with a glass window was placed in the room on the opposite end from the toys, and left unlocked , "does anyone think that children would have confused these as toys, I think not.
They may have just suprised us all by following the lesson, just given and stayed away from them.
And what parent leaves a pre 5 yr. old alone in a room anyway.

In my opinion : Each of these parents must be held acountable for the possible injury or death of these children or others by there caloss disregard for the proper education or supervison of their precious children.
I would urge each of them, "No I insist that they correct their mistake - NOW."
They should spend every waking moment teaching these babies, the difference between TOYS and No-TOUCH items they may find in a household such as a gun.
They must do this to re-earn the trust these parents should have proctected. They did not - and the producers of 20/20 should be held responsible for there actions as well.

In conclusion : I urge you all to send an E-mail to the producers of 20/20, and ask them to post your outrage as a follow up, to this program. Alas- I do not have the E-mail address to provide here.

Thankyou for your attention , I remain your Humble servant, Fred.
I urge you all
 
Now that you mention it, a similiar experiment would be interesting. Give the little tykes a DARE session then stick them in a play room with a toy box filled with bongs, roach clips, and other drug paraphernalia. The results would be exactly the same. Ditto for any other safety lessons such as following Smokey the Bear with a toy box full of matches and Bic lighters.

What does it prove? Toddlers have a sieve-like attention span. You have to have constant supervision, repetition, and feedback before lessons start to sink in.
 
Dear Judy,



I have read your comments at TFL with regard to what you think is best for gun owners and have decided to join the NRA, and what's even better, convinced my Mom, as well. A little background about her, might be useful to give your the import of how significant that is. My mother was always opposed to guns when I was a kid, and though we had an old revolver lying on the top shelf of a closet, she threw away the bullets for it. However, after the first robbery at her business, that all changed. She went out and bought herself a .357 magnum, and carries it always. Fortunately for her, and for potential robbers, she hasn't fired it in anger, and, with luck, never will.



I noticed the comments you made aout bullets that penetrate vests and explode, could you provide me with a reference for these? This sounds strongly suspicious and spurious to me. Especially since these so called "cop-killer" bullets were prohibited by federal legislation. The closest I can figure out about what you are saying is that the are what is known as "frangibles." These are designed NOT to penetrate very deeply. You sure that you didn't misread the ad, like you do when you call Rob, "Rich"? About Hunting, you need some more info about the bullets used. Any large caliber handgun, with bullets used specifically for hunting will penetrate most bullet-RESISTANT vests. With rifles, any centerfire round will go through a vest. Most will penetrate steel helmets like those used by soldiers if they strike dead on, and some will penetrate at any angle. What caliber is your husband's rifle BTW?



Rapid fire weapons have been available in this country since BEFORE 1900, and in large numbers since the 20s. High capacity weapons have been around since the 30s, and the "assault" weapon since the 40s.



My question is, why aren't you dead right now if these are so lethal? My mom remembers not loclking the house when she grew up in the 50s and 60s, but no one does that today. What changed? Was it all these new rapid fire weapons, or the development of deviants who would employ what existed already so cavalierly? My guess is the latter. You, however, see fit to blame the implements. Why were there no school shootings in the 50s, 60s, and 70s like what we have today? These big bad "assault weapons" were around then. "It is a poor workman that blames his tools."



Likewise, it is irresponsible people that blame the weapons and hope it will all go away if they are banned. Did you know that Tec-9s jam often and the one carried by the two nuts with the HOMEMADE bombs (already illegal, and guess what: THEY DIDN'T CARE) also jammed if my LEO reports are correct. They did most of their killing with sawed off double barrel and pump shotguns that have been around in design since the LAST CENTURY. These are the very same guns Hunters use. We might as well ban them and other hunting weapons, such as your husband's armor and vest piercing hunting rifle. I saw a Chevy truck last week that had a hole through each the door on each side that was put there by a .25-06 hunting rifle, which is probably too small to be your husband's deer rifle. Think about that for a while. Your husband's deer reifle might even (GASP!) be a semi-automatic.



Sincerely, but regretfully yours,



Brian P. Shipley



P.S.: Please visit TFL as requested by others. You seem very closed minded and misinformed (Please don't foist that NRA brainwashing crap on me, as you seem to have been brainwashed by someone on the other side of the issue.), and a visit could give you insight into our opinions and values, should you choose to do anything other than dismiss them out of hand (you aren't a teacher, are you? Sounds like their M.O.).
 
Okay, This thread has gotten pretty slow to load.

If anyone has any further comment or interaction with "Judy", Feel free to start a continuing thread.



------------------
-Essayons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top