I just got this in an e-mail from my band header.

Marine Corps' General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and
you have to read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and
children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!


This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US
Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop
visiting his military installation.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach
these young boys when they visit your base?


GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and
shooting.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?


GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle
range.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity
to be teaching children?


GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper
rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.


GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not
one, are you?


The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Wow. (if this is real)

"Well, you dressed overly sexy, so you asked to be raped, didn't you"

I've seen this before, and I've actually heard the interview. It makes perfect sense. It's all about choices.

JediKirby

completely different, molgrew.

that's hilarious!!! and true.
funny thing is some honest fellow with a legal gun can become a killer after believing his wife is sleeping with his neighbour. :/ that would be bad.
some chick that decided to charge me for the sex we just had would suck but it wouldn't hurt anyone.

it is all about choice.

Yes, completely different, just like calling her a whore

And doing something in affect is choosing to do it?

Presuming this was true, the comeback was very crude, but still effective. I cringed at it, and wish he had taken a more articulated method.

As for teaching Boy Scouts shooting, I do think it might be a good idea, presuming there was also a lot of instruction without the guns to go with it, particularly with safety. I presume that they were likely being taught to use a standard form of rifle, which are used in very few murders; most deaths by them are not intentional at all, instead caused by improper use of the firearm. However, I do think it would be a problem if they were teaching them to use, say, an SMG or assault rifle. The Boy Scouts are just trying to gain experience, not recieve training to become soldiers, so I'd be somewhat against it in that case. Of course, it's still nothing like giving each of them a firearm of their own...

in JROTC i was tought how to use an M-16

[additonal... so now i'm equiped to be a hore and a killer]

I think it's scary that children are being taught that guns are 'normal'.
You should be ****ing scared of guns.

But anyway, considering that we had a big debate on gun control a few pages back, I don't think there's much point in bringing that one back up.

Yeah. I mean, if suddenly they are being trained with a rifle whose name someone decides to put the word "assault" in front of, it's bad. But as long as it's just a "rifle," it's fine. That makes perfect sense.



I think it was an excellent comeback by the general. That interviewer was trying to attack him, insult his integrity, make a sensational story to make big news on the front page to advance her career...IOW do everything except responsible, honest journalism. The general's line blew away her pathetic attempt and made his point stick. Oorah to him.

No. You should be scared of murderers, robbers, and thieves that are willing to hurt you. Your fear is misplaced, my friend.

By the way, good story, but it's fake.

http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm

No, what's scary is that people fear guns. Fearing something without any basis for fear is why they're a problem right now.

And yes, the word 'assault' being placed in front of the term 'rifle' is suddenly bad. Please, I'll say it earlier in this thread:

DO NOT MAKE ASSUPTIONS ABOUT FIREARMS UNLESS YOU'VE EVER SHOT ONE. ASSAULT DOES NOT MEAN AK-47

JediKirby

It's better if they think guns are normal, but respect them. Fear of guns would be a horrible thing were they ever in a position to use one or were being chased by someone with one. I mean think about it--would you rather be aware and respectful, or ignorant and fearful?

I know, there's the few that always act like idiots with them, but that's the few, and while it's a tragedy that people get hurt or killed by guns by these few, that's no reason to make every child ignorant.

Besides, it's not exactly new to Boy Scouts--I shot a BB gun when I was 8 in Boy Scouts. Not a big deal, and neither SHOULD it be.

Hahaha, NPR

People fear getting shot.

Why? People all too often assume that if someone else has a gun, that they're going to shoot you, and that you WILL die. That's ignorant.

Any sane person is just as afraid to shoot someone as they are to be shot. Assuming you WILL be shot is assuming that YOU would shoot someone else.

JediKirby

fact - the more guns there are, more people die because of guns. where's the debate? :/

it's not ignorance. i'm scared of guns. if i knew someone had a gun in the house i would not allow my kids to go over there.
the statistics show that if there is a gun in the house, the chances of being 'accidentally' shot rise astronomically compared to there being no gun in the house. i don't need a gun and other than the police around here, i don't know anyone who does. therefor if there is no gun in the house the chance of being shot 'accidentally' is less than being struck by lightening 78 times in the same thunder storm. where's the debate? :/

surely being 'equipped' to be a prostitute is comparable to just being given a gun and that's it?
training with a gun would be comparable to teaching a girl how she can go about making money from sex...

my automatic reaction anyway.

and I'm just gonna stick with guns = bad. I'm saving my brain power for when I have to go back to uni.

Beautiful.

There's a huge difference between a standard rifle and an assault rifle. The rifle was one of the original types of firearms, and fires a single shot at a time, each round being capable of easily piercing flesh, though not much else. Also, it doesn't have a magazine, instead usually holding a mere handful of rounds (easily less than 10). Such weapons are designed for hunting, as well as deterrent to crime. Assault rifles, on the other hand, are perhaps a bit mis-named. They are the successors to the WWII machine gun; they are either semi-automatic or full-automatic, and can usually carry 10-30 rounds that are designed to be good at piercing most things, including armor and walls. (of course, there are specifically "armor-piercing" rounds, but they are yet another step up in piercing capabilities). Such weapons are designed to be only more useful than other firearms if your intent is to kill people, otherwise you're better off with a different weapon. (a shotgun, for example, is the best firearm deterrent to crime)


Though such an event was fictitious, it would show a lacking of speaking capabilities for person holding such a prestigeous position (A U.S. three-star General). Real generals tend to be more thoguht-out than that, and actually make a sound, reasonable argument against what a reporter might ask. That's how you look good.

Accidental injuries and death from firearms is due to the ignorance and fear of firearms and safety of firearms. If the guns aren't locked up, than that's a lack of care taken by the owner. If they are, you're being silly for not sending your child over to the house for those reasons.

And really, the less guns the less people are killed by guns is a very valid point... as well as, the more hammers are made, the more people are going to be hit in the head with one.

JediKirby

You see, in America, people really do need guns. I know that may or may not be the case in Canada, Dave, but in America, crime is a very real possibility. They are also collectors items, though rather dangerous ones.

I think the smartest thing to do is get two separate lockboxes, keep your gun in one and your ammo in the other. As long as YOU know where the keys are and hide them well enough or at least make them anonymous enough (Keys can be rather hard to distinguish from one another) there's little to no danger of your kid shooting his/her/themselves.

i agree. the trouble is there are too many stupid people out there. they don't take care of thier guns and then someone gets killed.

I...really don't know what to make of that.

I live in an area where crime is "a very real possibility". My flat has been broken into three times in the nine years I've lived here, but it would never make me want to get a gun. (ignoring the legality for now).

Okay, and that's your right. You don't have to own a gun.

But people in America tend to want to protect and cherish their things--part of the whole capitalist system. If they CHOOSE to buy a gun, then they can, and they should be able to. If not, they don't have to.

I do want to protect my home, who wouldn't?! But instead of bringing dangerous weapons into the house, my mum and I made the (rather depressing) decision to have retractable bars put up.

Okay maev--but what if someone gets past those? And they have weapons?

It's not that you don't want to, it's that you only want to to a certain point. If you truly wanted to totally protect your house, you would get a gun, get ANYTHING you thought might help (disregarding legality). Instead you put up retractable bars in the hope that anyone who tries to break in, can't.

Now I'm not saying your opinion is bad--in fact I can't comment, it's YOUR opinion (though it is wrong ;)) but that's just not the opinion of everyone else. There's a definite point to having guns--hunting, protection, collection--but not all find the need to have one. And that's perfectly fine.

I've always preferred killing my victims with my trusty wooden broadsword. Once they start cutting back on those, I'll just switch over to scissors. I can forsee a day when I'll be forced to use a pencil to commit my homicides. What is this world coming to, when a man can't take people out with the weapon of his choice?

fact - the earlier children are introduced to firearms, their capabilities, AND RAISED WITH PROPER FIREARM SAFETY PROCEDURES, they fewer people will die because of guns.

i'm not scared of guns. the chances of being accidentally shot in a house where everyone has been educated in proper range safety are VERY SLIM. If you know what it can do, and you know how to use it, you won't **** with it or screw it up. more than likely. sure, most people don't need guns, that's exactly right. the chances of anyone getting shot accidentally by the guns in my family's house are less than the possibility of me getting struck by lightning 87 times in one storm. I know how to use a gun, and therefore, i know EXACTLY how to NOT misuse a gun.

That's a generalization. Perhaps true in some cases, but that's an overly broad statement in my opinion. There are many cases where guns have saved innocent lives. In those cases, fewer people died because guns prevented further death. So remember that it can work both ways.



Well, that sounds like at least partial ignorance to me. You know that guns don't spontaneously combust, right? Neither does ammunition. That's within your full rights as a parent, but the mere existance of a gun in a house doesn't mean that someone will be accidentally shot. Perhaps it would be better to properly educate your children on firearm safety, and then you would not need to fear them being around them. If they knew what not to do around firearms, they would know to either stop the unsafe practices, or get out of the area.



You don't show any statistics, but even pure logic can't argue with that. However, being so afraid of being accidentally shot that you won't set foot in a house that has a gun somewhere in it isn't logical either.



Depends on what you need it for, I guess. But what if an armed robber breaks into your house? The chances of being shot go up astronomically then. So would you rather sit there and watch it unfold, or would you rather try to do something about it? There's the debate.



Well then, no offense, but please don't post if you aren't willing to put forth a little thought effort.



You ignored my point. Does knowing how to use an "assault" rifle make a person more likely to commit murder or other crimes than if they only know how to operate a "standard" rifle?



Certainly it wouldn't project a dignified image of the Army brass. But since it didn't actually happen, that's a moot point. The point I was making is, the "general's" argument easily refutes the absurd argument that knowing how to operate a firearm makes a person kill other people.

See, this is a situation where it comes down to those who know about guns, and those that do not. I note that everyone who agrees with guns in the home, or at least understands and respects the idea of the legalization of firearms actually OWN or have SHOT a firearm. Those that haven't, are ignorant and fearful of them.

JediKirby

Hooah.

Regardless of his leverage, I still think that was a great comeback even though it's fake. Guns are great...
"If you squeeze me, I'll make the bad people go away!"

That was a real story. And i've heard it many times before.

I'm just saying there is a basis for the fear of guns. People worry about getting shot (or their family member getting shot). Much ignorance over this issue, true.



It is fake. Get over it.

Read thread. Story fake. :p

What?!?! My dad told me that and said it was true about a year ago! NOOOOOO!!:mad: