Slashdot Mirror
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado
beaverdownunder sends the sad news that a gunman opened fire on an audience watching the new Batman movie early this morning, killing 12 and wounding 50 others. The shooting took place in Aurora, Colorado, and the suspect was arrested by police.
"Witnesses told KUSA that the gunman kicked in an emergency exit door and threw a smoke bomb into the darkened theater before opening fire. One movie-goer, who was not identified, told KUSA the gunman was wearing a gas mask. Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said."
I don't understand, in the past there was sometimes very strict rules in bars and pubs not to carry gun there. I don't care that you carry a gun for self protection on street. Why they were made obsolete?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
The shooter should have at least done the world a favor and taken himself out, too. What a fucking piece of shit...
It's dangerous there !!
I am not The Jerk !!
Pat downs and body scanners are coming to the movie theaters.
Straight to partisan blame? You've clearly found a tragedy to capitalize on.
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
If it's a right-wing nutjob, it's an incident. If it's a Muslim, it's terrorism.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
Sounds like he did have gun control. The gunman killed 14. But how 'bout some realism, eh? (sarcasm) Gun control is so effective... (/sarcasm)
What we need is idiot control. Not gun control. Stop coddling the morons and if they use a toaster in the bathtub? Too bad. We'd get rid of a bunch of idiots the old fashioned way... natural selection.
Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.
Wow they really get pissed off when you block their access to Rotten tomato http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/07/19/the-dark-knight-rises-raises-ugly-debate-on-rotten-tomatoes
"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Way to go fucker, that move was great, how dare you interupt it with your phyco rampage, I'd want at least a refund on my ticket.
Well, we tried to ban morons but that didn't work out so well(something about how morons were the ones who couldn't figure out the use of contraceptives), and apparently we can't even have the most basic of gun laws followed.
Since Colorado already has some of the least restrictive gun laws anywhere, we can only conclude that these laws are insufficient to protect us. What we really need is *mandatory* carry laws. Every able-bodied adult *must* carry a concealed weapon, everywhere. It is the only way to prevent this kind of mass shooting.
It caused violence even before it was shown.
impose strict laws like the rest of the first-world-west (even CH, which is strict, in the must-have-a-gun-direction) but this do-whatever-you-want-with-gunownership has got to slop
How would the people in that audience being armed, in a dark theater, with fucking smoke from the smoke grenades he tossed in before he started shooting, have made much of a difference at all?
How long did this incident go on? A minute? According to CNN he killed 12 people (their revised figure) and wounded 50 more. Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people. Those people would have died whether the audience was armed or not...
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
Sure, I bet we can even rehabilitate the guy who did this too?
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
Yes, you are right. Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attck before anyone got killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0 And yes, it was in Colorado as well.
It's too bad the majority of people have been brainwashed over the last 30 years to think that they should never take any active role in defending themselves.
While we can go to great lengths to guard against some types of security threat, we are reminded once again that the greatest risk is often from somebody who decides to take something lethal to a crowded place and do his worst with it.
People in the thread already engaging in partisan political speculation about motives relating to the film's plot or controversies surrounding it. Give it a rest, guys - too soon. It'll all come out in due course, but there's every chance it was nothing more than somebody with a random grievance picking a target area he knew would be crowded.
Colorado has concealed carry and open carry, and there were a lot of people in the theater.
I'm curious to know if there was anybody else there who had a gun and was either shot too quickly or just ran away.
Either way, I don't see this changing the debate at all in the states. I'm in my early 30s now and have heard about more massacres in the states that I can remember, and every time the arguments are the same. Gun control generates as much rational debate down south as abortion does.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
If you want attention, just post a sex tape like everyone else. Make love, not war
At least he would be forced to checked. 1 guy would have died instead of 14. I don't know, just my guess.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Do you think someone who is planning to commit multiple murders is going to care about a rule telling them they shouldn't bring their gun in? or care about setting off a metal detector as they barge-in?
Rules against bringing guns in are probablly good at reducing the damage when a fight gets out of hand (which is presumablly why bars and pubs had them) but they aren't going to stop premeditated attacks (indeed they may make them easier because they mean the regulars will be unable to fight back).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Yeah, that strange, because emergency exit door is usually closed from outside.
Ok, but that at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Wtf is in Colorado? Too much heat goes onto the people's brains?
So much stupid in one post, bravo.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Yeah, it would have probably been much worse.
He was just combining his right to bare arms with his right to free speech.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Or, they thought that shooting into a dark crowded theatre filled with smoke was far more stupid than just hiding under their seat.
It should be noted that this didn't happen in a bar or pub.
It should also be noted that shooting people is illegal. If you're inclined to obey laws, then you won't shoot them, even if you have a gun. If you're not inclined to obey them, then you're going to be willing to acquire and use a gun in spite of it being illegal.
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Kinda coincidental it happen when the US government is ramping up gun control, don't ya fink?
It wouldn't, but now there's a nice pretext to put body scanners!
We need that quick fix! Blame the Guns! Thats the Answer!
Don't blame the Society that desires a movie that glorifies violence and subversive behavior!
Don't blame the School that grinds down the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw a lost person and walked away.
Don't blame the Parents that watched Wheel of Fortune instead of constructive activities.
Nah, it must be the tools.
Where flying jet propulsion aircraft is safer than going to cinema.
He is a German exchange student who went to Colorado from Tennesee intent on doing a Columbine.
The attacker started with tear gas in a dark room. Especially with more than one person holding a gun it would be difficult to shoot the right one.
Concealed Carry permits in Ohio are pretty much worthless (I know, we're talking Colorado here, but maybe it's similar?) Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) has signs posted at the entrances barring the firearm from the premises. Makes it kind of worthless to a point.
Karnal
What's wrong with the Swiss? It's a country where almost every (male) citizen has a firearm at home, but there's not so much crime/accidents in proportion!
Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.
We can't possibly have, say, a 63 year old, getting off 4 shots in under 3 seconds --all of which hit both criminals-- in a crowded internat cafe: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery
Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided...
... next time around.
Would this be a Slashdot story if the shooting had occurred at a showing of "Magic Mike" or "Madea's Witness Protection" rather than "The Dark Knight Rises"?
Not to demean the original tragedy, or those involved in it, but lots of unpleasant things of this calibre or worse happen all the time and don't make it here because it isn't- and isn't meant to be- a general news site.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency. I agree that having no guns in public place like cinema is way much safer than having them. However, I would do prefer to have security guys with really good training which can act in seconds in such cases. You really can't hope that you will have some well trained guy between customers in every such situation.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I have a concealed carry permit, and do so on a daily basis. Assuming someone in the theater had a weapon on them, it would have been difficult for them to react safely. It's a crowded theater. I understand there was teargas involved. People would have been running around, screaming. Unless you happened to be within direct proximity to the gunman it would have been almost impossible to fire your weapon without hitting an innocent or three, and that would have prevented me personally.
Add to the fact that if you draw your weapon in a crowded theater with panic going on around you, you are automatically going to be assumed to the the gunman.
It's hard to judge without being there, but the best option for someone in that position quite likely would have been to stay low and return fire only if under direct threat.
Add smoke to panicked people carrying guns and that would had made a big difference,
A bunch of panicking civilians discharging firearms in a crowded and smoke-filled theater is the American dream.
JC
Because it works so well in DC...
I doubt it, more than likely he burst in and started spraying wildly in the theater, probably within mere seconds, so even if half the people in that theater had been packing, they likely wouldn't have prevented anything. If anything, they probably would have increased the body count as they started shooting crazily in the dark and smoke filled theater (he threw a smoke grenade, remember? He was wearing a mask, the audience wasn't) and there probably would have been another half-dozen or so people killed.
Of the people I know who have a concealed carry license (we just got CC here in WI within the last year or so), only a handful have any real firearms handling experience, mostly through prior military service. Most everyone else just took the 4 hour course the state mandates. The fact that they're able to carry a firearm doesn't make me feel safer at all, and a few of the people actually scare me that they're legally allowed to carry concealed (stupid kids that think it makes them tough).
What are you talking about? You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged. Of course, anyone who goes to these places to shoot people, is not going to care about the sign or being charged for breaking the business' no-guns policy.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
Two points, one to the parent directly, and one to later commentary.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob. This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
Second, to those who have already and will continue to claim that permissive concealed carry laws are ineffective in general because they were ineffective in this case: A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting. You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target, to clear the space in front of and behind him, to take aim or to prevent yourself from getting shot or harmed by others, police included, during or after the event. The worst, I think, would be a nightclub. So no, this neither affirms nor repudiates weapons ownership or carry, concealed or open, in any real way. You might as well take the Challenger as proof that man is never to leave terra firma.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
In China this would have just been a knife attack instead of a shooting.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You seriously think that banning guns will stop people, especially those that don't care about laws, from owning guns and using them? You honestly think that by enacting strict laws shootings will stop? Guns won't stop being produced and guns won't stop being obtainable. The cat is out of the bag. The best thing you can do is teach those who would be willing to take on the responsibility of gun ownership how to properly handle and use their firearm(s). If you knew one of 10 people were carrying (statistically), you would be _much_ less apt to try and pull off a stunt like this and if you did try, there would be (statistically) quite a few people willing and able to stop your threat. But just telling people to enact laws to make the problem go away... you mean like making marijuana illegal made it go away, right? If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will carry guns.
The actions of a few will be used to punish everyone in that case. Every single incident of misuse will likely be met with cries to punish all gun owners.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Bravo.
Thank you for that post.
add a Hollywood feeding endless violence, and a gun culture and guess what you get.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting. Most of these guys know it won't end well for them, sooner or later. Very few honestly expect to not get caught and punished (likely why it's so common for them to commit suicide at the end of the spree). What it really does is minimize the damage. The nutjob is going to open fire anyway and will kill people before anyone can react. However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people before being taken down as opposed to mowing down a crowd before the cops show up.
That said, this particular case is one in which firing back would have been a very bad idea. It was a crowded, dark and apparently tear gas filled theater with a whole lot of people dressed up as Batman (similar to the dark clothes the shooter was wearing). Even if you get a clear shot and you're 100% sure you have the right target and are 100% sure you won't hit someone else, another armed citizen might mistake you for the bad guy in the confusion and shoot you by mistake.
That guy just got naturally selected over the people he shot. In other words, the old fashioned way is extremely cruel and dumb, and not really what you want.
IMHO what we need instead are actively good things, like love and whatnot. I don't care if it sounds cheesy, "love" is a shorthand for a lot of things. You could also call it self-respect and sanity, whatever.
One thing is sure, punishment alone won't work. It just creates people and industries who have a roof over their head because criminals exist, and ultimately a stake in their continued existence. As much as I kinda wish this guy gets the chair, or just "accidentally" rolled over on the way to the prison, we seriously need to look further and deeper than just playing whack-a-mole with symptoms... :/
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
In Florida, such signs can safely be ignored if you have a concealed carry permit. Florida Statute dictates specifically places you shall not carry. It always struck me as odd that the Post Office was one such place...
Seconded.
I am John Hurt.
I don't know what you're talking about? This is clearly just a regular showing of the 4D version.
Yeah, that's what a dark, crowded theater people needs - more people with guns shooting blindly. Great idea.
They would have been correct. In this particular case, the nutter had body armour, too, so circumstances would have to be pretty ideal for any rambo citizen to save the day.
And really, if everyone in a theater of 300 people was armed, the odds that one of those 300 people would go crazy themselves in 1, 5, or 10 years is probably pretty good.
Giving every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to have guns is really unwise. Leave them to the cops, and do your damndest to disarm everyone else (except hunters).
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Isn't brown people, or gay people, or Muslims. It's crazy. Crazy is the root cause behind most of mankind's problems, be that war or criminal behavior or just everyday sociopathic behavior.
We need a "war on crazy", free mental healthcare for all and easing the ability for family and friends to compel treatment, coupled with increased government spending on treatment for mental illnesses.
Except there's more money to be made in cleaning up after other people's crazy (defense and police and corrections spending) than there is in trying to prevent it. So it'll never happen.
My condolences to all those affected.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Anders Breivik got all his guns and explosives ingedients legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common. Maybe it's a refelction on society and not access to inanimate objects?
Also, where I live in New York City, that is, we still have very strict gun control and that hasn't done one thing for the massive spike of shotting recently.
I laughed.
"Re:Willing to bet it was a Muzzy, because they were watching the "caped crusader""
Batman always wears his veil.
Don't blame the society that demands a movie that glorifies violence and subversiveness!
Don't blame the School that grinds the individual.
Don't blame the Friends that saw the pain and walked away
Don't blame the Parents that watched TV and ignored their child.
Don't blame the Individual that made a horrible choice.
Yeah, it must bee the tool used because we are too lazy t o fix the real problems.
Yeah the ones at my local theater don't even have handles on the outside of the door, and they have those alarm boxes on them with the push-bars like most places do for emergency exits, but I've seen those doors propped open many times so the alarms must either be broken or deactivated. Probably deactivated; I've seen people smoking near that door. More than likely, employees use it themselves to take a secret smoke break...
This is a case in which armed citizens would hopefully be intelligent enough not to fire back. It was a dark, crowded theater with tear gas and way too many people dressed as Batman (which looks similar to the shooter's garb in a dark, crowded and tear gas filled theater).
With all the massacres I hear about, I never hear about one in which the shooter met with resistance (maybe those don't make as good a news story?). However, I do hear about them happening at schools where guns are generally barred for anyone except uniformed police officers. The shooters probably pick these targets knowing resistance would be minimal.
In Israel, believe it or not, we have very strict gun control laws. We also have few massacres, and the ones that have happened have mostly been religious crazies attacking another group, which is a different kind of terrorism than this sort of massacre. I've lived in the US and grew up part of my childhood in America, and came back to America to work for many years as well.
What is interesting is that in Israel, we have thousands of people walking around not just with guns, but the most fearsome guns in the world usually. It's rare that I'm not on the train or a bus where someone isn't at least 3 seats from me carrying some breed of machine gun. You would think with all the 19 year old kids walking around with guns and often pissed off at this country and being in the army, we'd have more problems with shootings like this one, but we rarely do. It's not that it doesn't ever happen, but the gun culture here is very different than the US.
Firstly, in the army you are taught that a gun kills and you need to take your gun seriously. When you first are issued your gun and from that point on, you're not allowed to let it leave your sight ever. Technically you don't need your gun with you at all times, but you are definitely responsible for your own gun. If someone uses your gun or steals your gun, you're most likely going to prison and going to be in some serious trouble. So much fear is put into people about this, that most people will take their guns with them literally everywhere. It is not uncommon to see soldiers on leave going to the beach with their guns still around their shoulders. You are also taught to keep your safety on and to carry it without bullets loaded, unless of course you are on duty.
Therefore, we have entire generations of people who know how to use guns, and often use them well. They also understand gun safety, that a gun kills, and is only for last resort. Even if you are on duty, you often have to use rubber bullets first, and aim for the legs, never the head or heart. You can get in serious trouble for even following orders but shooting poorly at someone who is firing live ammo or fire bombs at you. People don't realize how much sometimes it can take to let IDF soldiers actually use proper ammunition (this often happens at the expense of the safety of our soldiers).
It's an interesting effect to see how serious people take guns here and how reluctant they are to use them. The media paints other pictures. One might also believe that massacres don't happen like this one as often because so many people have guns that you probably wouldn't last long. If it's not a soldier that gets you, it's a security guard or police.
One last point as well is that when we enter almost any populated building such as a mall or movie theater, we always go through metal detectors and sometimes a pat down or x-ray machine. And yet this process isn't like in the US where they screen so heavily and still don't find. We screen a lot lighter, but find lots, but we rely more on the human factor of looking for signs such as nervous twitches, sweat, and profiling of threats. In my time working the border, we found bombs on pregnant women and in ambulances all kinds of ridiculous things. It's a tough thing for everyone involved whether it is our own citizens or screening people entering and leaving our borders. It's sometimes humiliating for both involved (trust me, anyone who has worked guard duty and done searches in the IDF doesn't want to be doing it), but it keeps us safer than we otherwise be.
I hope the US doesn't become more of a police state. I also hope that people can learn more gun responsibility. Something seems like it needs to change as either an outright ban, or a different approach to all of it than exists now.
No, No, No
It was the Swedish branch of Hezbollah (Gitmo alma mater), under the direction of Iran, with spiritual guidance from AQ, punishing the evil movie goers or somesuch.
In summary, nuke Iran.
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Marijuana is another issue that the US can't decide if it's wants it legal or not. Either make it legal or don't, but don't leave it in the grey area. Guns/Marijuana/Homosexual Marriage should just be decided upon. America is very wishy-washy.
Then the Colorado theater should have such a sign. That would have prevented crazy man from going in with a gun.
What, you mean like Mexico and other Latin American Countries? "Oh, wait.." as people here frequently like to say..
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
In my day if we didn't like the movie we just slashed the seat. I miss the drive-in.
Blank until
The FBI, which is working with the police, says no terrorism link has been established.
This is the most amazing quote, ever.
if this was not 'terrorism', how is some "brown" guy working on his own branded as terrorist even if he hasn't done anything yet?
No worries guys, this was not terrorism, so you can just relax.
It's amazing that we leave in time where "terrorism" seem to be defined by color of the skin or ethnicity or religion, rather than action.
"Would have".
"It would have been better if..."
No sig today...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nijvel_gang
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
Rarely does one see such a long post being so thoroughly wrong from the very first sentence.
Yup, would have been a much higher death toll.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
YOU are fail. How do you know where to shoot in a dark crowded theater filled with smoke with everyone running around???
Yes, a darkened smokebombed theatre is exactly the same as a brightly lit Internet cafe.
Or 130 dead as multiple armed citizens in a blind panic open fire on other armed citizens, and all hell breaks loose.
Just like a sorry European killed 4,000,000 unarmed Jews in Europe??? Another nut killed 7,000,000 unarmed people in the Soviet Union??
Earlier this week, Fred Willard was arrested by LAPD for an attempted shooting at an adult theater.
Related incident?
You're suggesting there's a limit to the number of morons born? Or that doing this would raise the average intelligence of the population because smart people don't do stupid things? Every sentence of your post is ripe with flaws...
Lets say for a moment that gun control laws would have kept this individual from acquiring them. Waiting for the movie to let out and then driving a vehicle at high speed into the crowd would likely kill and injure as many or more people. If someone loses their mind and wants to kill people, there is little we can do to stop them. It's tragic, but it's part of the price of a free country.
As much as it would be great to be able to prevent horrible events like this, it is important to remember that at some point we have to accept that a certain amount of evil has to be tolerated if we want to live in a free society. A locked down police state would likely not be a state worth living in.
Regardless, I offer my condoleances to the families affected by this horrible attack.
.: Max Romantschuk
The Swiss also have an obligation to do military training, so it's not quite the same situation, as the population could easily be defined as a militia. But these kind of events might become less common in the US if their citizens had the same responsibilities to go with gun ownership.
Those rules were enforced by armed bartenders and guards. Do you want to give a weapon to the projector guy or the flashlight kid?
There's are rules against killing people too that clearly didn't prevent this tragedy, but you think a rule against carrying a gun into the building would have made this guy turn around and walk away???
Wow, that was a terrific well thought out comment. I agree with you 100% on this. also by the other comments you have received I find that a lot of slashdottors are morons.
Wtf is in Colorado? Too much heat goes onto the people's brains?
Nah, it's a red state. That's the problem.
Yeah, although the shooter in that situation was an armed, off-duty cop - not some random wanna-be with gun, like george zimmerman.
"Instead of doing the sensible thing and banning firearms"
We have this thing we call the Constitution that you obviously do not understand. There can be no 'banning'. If you want this changed what needs to happen is called an "amendment". You are free to work towards such an effort.
"Only the fucked up places like the US, Czechs, and the Swiss seem to need them to masturbate or something."
With an argument like that I guess it can't be disputed. Gee youre intelligent. Let's just all do things your way then.
Dumbass.
You'll note those countries have much more problem with losing liberty and relying on US efforts to regain it.
Right according to Second Amendment theory.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Bla Bla Bla... Take your NRA crap somewhere else.
You people always tag your non-sense to articles about death by guns.
Please just STFU.
Because such attacks NEVER happen outside the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
ok, the british practiced genocide of conquered subjects for hundreds of years and invented the concentration camp
the germans killed tens of millions in europe
the japanese killed tens of millions in asia
the british are always getting drunk and rioting after soccer games
but the americans are savages because people can have guns and we have a shooting incident sometimes
Washington DC is a unique situation, it's a city without its own true self-governance, meant to be a national capital, run by Congress, yet outside of their particular domains, they leave the rest of it to rot.
I wonder if it's symbolic of how they treat the nation.
Still, DC's homicide rate has dropped to its lowest level in years. But do remember, guns in DC can come from who knows where. Maybe DC's problem is something besides their gun laws.
it prevents them from shooting very many times :)
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
Doubtful. A human being intent on doing harm to others will invariably find a way to achieve their goals. If you plan on killing 14 people, I doubt you'll be terribly concerned about violating gun control laws.
Banning guns in the US would be less successful than banning alcohol or drugs.
put metal detectors every where at malls , at theatres and such LOL ...i endorse this.
lets make sure we kill off with cancer all the regular people going to these things
hollywood people and the govt of obama and his romney secret buddies are causing all this.
Corporation are trying to take over ....its gona get ugly people get used to it.
maybe the next time you goto a theatre you might wonder if its me about to kill you for supporting hollywood...or the metal detector.
or and for a few hundred bucks a galon i can make super plastic strong as steel and non detector works...imagine the guns i can make.
Special forces
Canadian Military
classified military ranking
Mortor Platoon
( waves )
President and Chairperson
United Hackers Association
haha
There was a smoke grenade thrown, but we do not know many pertinent details. Was visibility *totally* obscured for everyone? It's possible someone would have gotten a clear shot on the guy before he killed and injured most of the people he did. Of course, I guess it's possible it was about as much visibility as a moonless desert night, and everyone would of shot each and died too, but I find that extremely unlikely. Also, if everyone was armed, I doubt people such as the shooter would even attempt this, they'd usually be too scared they'd get shot too fast before causing lots of damage, and thus waste their one chance for fame and glory.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
"Sounds like he did have gun control. The gunman killed 14."
Sounds like real ballistics is even faster than the CSI one.
Nobody knows yet who shot whom, especially not you.
So it's the lack of gun control in combination with the American cultural and social state that is the problem then? Then choose what you wan't to change.
Because there totally haven't been ANY school shootings in Europe in the last 10 years.
Except for France, Italy, Norway, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Finalnd, the Netherlands or Russia. But they don't count, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
Nor have there been non-school massacres in Europe.
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html
Kinda missing the point of "a well armed militia."
Hint: The 2nd amendment isn't there to just protect us from each other...
If you look at The Communist Manifesto, it's a pretty good idea. But in reality, it doesn't work (due to factors which Marx didn't realise were important). So let's forget about rhetoric, and just look at the facts.
There's bugger all conclusive evidence either way. The Swiss have lots of guns, and similar crime rates to their neighbors. The US and Canada both have a lot of guns, and crime is mostly driven by socioeconomic factors.
There's some evidence that if you have legal guns, a few more women get raped, and a few less get murdered. Homicide against males remains pretty constant.
There's basically not factual reason for favoring either side - it's all just political bullshit.
Personally, I favor banning the kind of weapons which can be used for these kind of attacks - semi autos. Mass murders aren't just bad because of the number of deaths, but because they are a massive distraction for the police. Security measures against this kind of attacks are insanely expensive and ineffective. Counter-terrorism is probably the only thing more futile than trying to stop mass murders through anything other than gun control.
A knife attack ending up with 12 people dead and 50 wounded?
WTF is wrong with Slashdot lately? You people are immature little shitheads. Show some fucking respect for the victims... asshole...
An "armed churchgoer" is not somehow orthogonal to "off-duty police officer." I am pretty sure that the people best trained in the use of lethal force are criminals and hobbyists; do you REALLY consider governmental bureaucratic organizations to be exceedingly competent?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Are you implying that the other 2,000,000 Jews were armed?
Yeah, because opening fire in a dark, crowded, smoke-filled theatre would be a smart idea?
If everyone in that theatre had a gun, there would almost certainly be more than this many people killed and injured. Half of them would be shot by other theatre-goers shooting at everyone else who was shooting "for their own protection". In a confused and information-poor situation, more guns does *NOT* solve a thing. The only wise thing to do in a situation like that is to get out of that situation.
Look, if they had a good shot, they should have taken it. But most of the 300 people wouldn't have been in a position to do anything other than make themselves a small target.
You mean like that ultraviolent Switzerland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
As opposed to being mowed down like helpless sheep and cattle?
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
If you're going to troll against a country, you might as well spell the demonym correctly. That said, you might want to look up the case of Derrick Bird. The UK is an island and even they can't get gun control right after years of marching toward the Orwellian prophecy. Yes, violence is higher, per capita, than the rest of the Western world. Firearm ownership, however, is not a cause -- both the firearm ownership and violence are results of an underlying cultural and socioeconomic system. Namely, we have a culture where individualism is the highest ideal and violence is glorified. The fact that individualism is so important has two salient results: First, it means that we do not require practically any training prior to firearm ownership nor do we require all residents to be proficient or even familiar with firearms, unlike the Swiss. This means that children grow up without a full understanding of the effects of firearms except through the make-believe of the movies, where guns solve all problems. Second, it means that if we attempt true gun control there is likely to be violent resistance, especially if it is done without first somehow abolishing the Second Amendment.
Okay, that's enough for now. I have too much work to spend all day talking gun politics.
You sir are an idiot. You can't legislate evil away. Taking guns away from honest citizens only guarantees that the bad guys will be the only ones with guns. Unfortunately people like this are very hard to stop. But I think it's very naive to think if you have stricter gun control laws it would stop these people. If they didn't have guns they'd do it with a machete or a chainsaw. Some people are just that fucked up.
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base. And I see to recall that a certain politician in Arizona was surrounded by gun-carrying people, for all the good it did her and the other victims around her.
If you want to feel good, get a lollipop. All the weapons in the world aren't going to help if you don't have the wits to use them. Conversely, anything in the world can be a weapon if you do.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
That is correct. They will forget and disregard their training the second they begin fearing for their lives.
impose strict laws...
Laws only take the guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
No sig today...
So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Don't you dare to even associate opensource developers with violent terror in a sentence.
Us gnu/glib devs keep our terror limited to mailing lists. Apart from that, we rarely leave our basements.
If we wanted to do it, we would keep the planning opensource, with public git access for all.
The constitutional protection of firearms was not born of "survival need" but of the need to defend one's self from a dangerous government. THAT was the spirit from which the USA was born. Stop imagining things like "it's outdated because those were different times." Those times have never left us though the scale and intensity has risen significantly over the past 20-30 years.
>You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
When one country is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it's a menace to the rest of the world. When more than one country is armed, it's a factor of stabilization.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
but the americans are savages because people can have guns and we have a shooting incident sometimes
incident?
I'm actually not a big fan of the NRA. I'm under the bizarre notion that it's possible to support the right to carry arms without becoming a FUD/Spam factory.
>untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin
What the heck are you talking about? Dude was fighting him. Have you seen photos of ZImmerman's head?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
Which by all appearances was a justified shooting. Or haven't you been keeping up?
http://www.libertysentry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg.jpg
It has seemed over the last several months that the only thing he was lying about were his finances. There were injuries and police speculated on whether his nose was broken.
But no, keep feeding those racial-tensions narratives.
More likely it's the altitude. The state averages around 6800 feet (little over 2km) above sea level.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Ah, my good ol' friend correlation does not imply causality. Now, rather than explain anything I'll simply point out that number 4 on the list of gun ownership/capita is Switzerland where incidents like this are rare. So perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you jump to such glib conclusions as to the cause of this incident.
Well, I could be wrong, but I think that gun ownership in Switzerland is practically mandatory due to military service requirements. On the other hand, I hadn't heard that they run around the streets packing heat like in the USA.
Only idiots assume that citizens having guns *prevents* nutjobs from shooting.
Did you really have to put it that way?
We used to have unrestricted gun ownership and carry laws - think "Wild West" - and gradually laws were enacted to restrict those rights.
Why? Because a few people abused it. Folks with anger and impulse control issues were hurting and killing people. And even if one were in the "right", most people in conflict lose a bit of their marksmanship - bullets don't hit their target and hit other things and people. To be precise enough and calm enough to NOT do that takes quite a bit of training and who has the time, money (ammo is expensive!) or desire to spend the time everyday shooting targets? And considering some of the calibers out there, even if you hit your target, they go through it until it hits something or someone else.
In populous areas, guns are a horrible self defense weapon - or offensive weapon for that matter; unless you don't care about who or what you may hit.
These laws evolved over time for a good reason. Granted, because of the hap hazard way they were written and knee-jerk responses to the events of the time these laws were written, we get some really asinine restrictions - at one time one New England state required a carry permit to drive a gun from your house to the range even if it were locked up IIRC.
So, now that I got your attention. In Holland there was a young girl who wanted to sail around the world. Big fucking deal except the carebears thought she shouldn't. Turns out now she was stalked by several pedo's one of who has now been convicted. So, sailing around the word: to dangerous. Leaving pedo's running free, well, that is the risk you got to take for living in a "free" society.
However, the one convicted turned himself in. What to do? Lock away for life as some pedo's themselves have suggested? NO! Not for human rights. To costly.
Every early release, pre-release, test-release etc etc is not motivated by carrying for human beings but because long term stay either voluntary or mandatory costs a LOT of money. In Holland the right complained the left was to lax in sending people to prison, then there first act in power? To close prisons!
Some people need to be locked up for life. This doesn't need to be terrible, you can make such a stay very humane, just not optional. I talk about pedo's for a reason. Some WANT exactly this, to be taken away from the normal world where they are afraid to give into temptation and be allowed to live in peace? Why not? Arrange an island somewhere and create a gated community that locks from the outside. The not-yet dangerous pedo can live in peace and safety and so can the rest of society.
But you CAN'T! Because the bleeding hearts cannot accept that all people cannot be molded into the same one size fits all shape and the right refuses to pay for it.
Mental care for dangerous people is possible but is a long and costly process with no guarantee the person ever returns to a "normal" safe condition. Putting someone away for life is just not on anymore. A recent high-profile pedo case in holland revealed that the man in question had asked his doctor for chemical castration. The doctor refused. Didn't fit with his world view, so some kids had to be tortured instead because the bleeding heart thought the pedo didn't know himself well enough.
And it is not about money, that is just another sort of insanity.
It is that those in power have dreams and those dreams cannot deal with reality. Reality that some people just don't fit in society and the only answer is to remove them in time and that this is going to cost a fortune! But we find it more humane to send a person with severe mental issues home with an aspirin and an appointment and then send them to a hellish jail when they snap, rather then send them to a nice hospital for long stay.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490
If you see no3, this happened in Australia before gun control. After the ban was imposed a buy-back scheme was put in place. Now days the occasional gun caches found and the occasional theif or crim has a conciled gun in the street - most of which are single fire weapons.
Can I say it solved the problem? Yes, single fire weapons means people can disarm the criminal a single fire weapon makes it unfeasible to carry. Australia benefits from the fact it's a bit more isolated aswell. The US, however, would have a hard time keeping such laws into play considering who their neighbors are.
Guns make it easy to terminate another life. Get rid of the implement that allows such efficiency and yes it works. No it won't work in the US, cause blatantly the US is fucked.
In summary, it's not the guns fault, it's not the individuals fault. It's the nation at fault just like everything else to come from the US. GFC, Apple computers, Bush, hot dog encrusted pizza crusts.... The list is really pretty fuckin endless.
You are modded as a troll because this is not the forum to spout about gun control. This issue isn't about gun control at all - its about the lack of reverence for human life. The questions that should be asked are more along the line how do we educate our children to revere each other's lives and not place their pride before such reverence. How do we teach them to appreciate and respect each other, even when they have opposing views and beliefs? Clearly, we're failing in that regard.
As far as gun control, we need only look at Chicago to see how well that works. There needs to be a happy medium between Chicago and what's happened in Colorado.
Of major attacks (say, 6 or more deaths) in recent decades, think Islamist is in the lead over RWNJs, and are 2/3 of the top 3.
Right now talking heads are blathering about, hell, they're puling shit out of their ass, includimg he is a kid confused by movie and video game violence.
Everybody just wait and see, just wait and see.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Probably so the employees don't grab a gun off you and go to town. It's sort of like why you shouldn't antagonize the lions at the zoo.
No, it sounds like anyone who was legally carrying there acted intelligently - they didn't shoot back. This nutjob would have probably gotten a gun with or without better gun control. And if he couldn't get a gun, a bomb would probably be next on his list of things to do. Guns don't make people go crazy, it's just something they use when they go crazy. If a gun is not available, they *will* find another way.
Its this very reason that 2 years of compulsory military service should be manditory.
1) populace not dumbed down to be unable to recognize gunfire
2) a chance gunman would have been id'd as having mental issues
3)populace would have better chance to subdue gunman and protect themselves as they would have military training.
Actually everyone should carry a portable ICBM targeting system, with nuclear warheads. After all someone could attack you from an armoured vehicle, hold your family hostage, or all sorts of other things if you only have a gun.
Indeed. Our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear thermonuclear weapons should not be infringed.
Or a fertilizer bomb.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
You mean like no one is attacking NATO force in Afganisthan because they are openly carrying weapons? If some nuts decide to go mass murderer it is not some concealed weapon that are going to make him change hist mind, he will just use clever tactics.
And you practiced genocide
You are aware that Colorado is a "battleground" state, and just about evenly split between Libs and Conservitives? You are also aware that Aurora in particular is a fairly moderate suburb of Denver (which leans left, in general).
So no, this neither affirms nor repudiates weapons ownership or carry, concealed or open, in any real way.
I'm pretty certain if he didn't have a gun it wouldn't have happened, so there is that?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
That's actually entirely untrue. George Zimmerman was in violation of Florida's law when he confronted Trayvon Martin. Florida's law allows you to use deadly force to prevent, or stop, a forceable felony. He confronted Treyvon, and started the altercation. He claims that he retreated, and that Trayvon followed him to try and make the stand your ground law applicable.
I don't remember the exact stats off the top of my head, but I do know that less than 10% of all gun crimes committed in Florida are committed by concealed weapons holders. I want to say the number is somewhere around 4%. Either way, a study in Texas found that concealed permit holders were more likely to have a DUI, than to commit any other crime. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
So there you have it. If the rest of concealed weapon holders are like those in Texas, they are more prone to abiding by the law than other citizens.
Bad example with the Swiss. They have very high gun possession rates.
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their Army issued equipment, including all personal weapons, at home. Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens.
The weapons are stored at home. No CCW's.
The murder rate is less than a fifth of the US.
I see. So there is a correlation between lower murder rates and legal gun ownership.
How about this correlation:
Colorado is mostly White and DC is mostly Black.
So guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.
Not practical. How much do you think it would cost to have full time security in each screen in every theatre? You can't stop a nutter going mental with a gun, whatever country you are in.
To understand what medications he has been on.
Anti-depressants weren't around many years ago.
Neither were these types of random mass murders by youth.
Proof? No. Worth investigating, certainly.
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
I am officially gone from
That is in part because New York has very porous borders that people from states with no gun control laws whatsoever can cross with trucks filled with guns without inspection, guns which were produced by commercial enterprises for sale in the states which have less or no gun control. You can't have strict gun control laws unless you police your borders - and the only way New York City will ever police its borders is if Snake Plisskin is involved.
If you had the same strict gun control laws in every state, and thereby forced the gun companies to produce many fewer guns, and did a lot of work to buy back guns (without new ones being produced), you might see a better effect.
Yeah, because racist drunken hillbillies who think they're heroes and vigilantes are such a good thing, let's ask Trayvon Martin's opinion.
and greatly increase the number of single killings. hitlar was right about 2 things 1) gun control laws are good 2) doughnuts do taste great.
"Ok, but that at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema."
Omar Little !
Hint: The 2nd amendment isn't there to just protect us from each other...
and what is the point in guns when the entity the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect us form has tanks, jets, and nukes, and we aren't allowed to have any of those.
Although a shooting scares people more just as much carnage could be inflicted with a pickup truck driving through people waiting in line outside. It is the price you pay for freedom. You CANNOT stop a person that never committed a crime and decides to do this type of evil act. Unless you want to live in a complete police state and everyone under lock and key.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
From CNN:
Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said.
We'll never know for sure, of course, but I'm betting that it wouldn't have made a difference if the audience had been packed with people carrying concealed. People don't expect to be opened fire upon in a movie theater, and the incident itself lasted only a few minutes at the most. He shot the place up and then dipped out.
If 100 people start shooting in a crowded theatre, with a smokebomb adding even more confusion, and half the people shooting haven't even seen who started shooting in the first place... yes, that is totally the same as one person shooting at one other clearly identifiable person without a crowd of bystanders.
in the USA..
in another news, in europe i never used a gun, i never saw a gun and i never saw someone firing one, much less being killed by one.
AC, you are going to get thrown in jail. First of all, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm in any federal building. You may carry one on Federal property, if your state allows it, but not inside of any building. Secondly, the state of Florida does NOT allow you to disregard those signs. If a building has a conspiciously posted sign barring the concealment of weapons, then it is a felony (minimum 3 year sentence) to conceal a weapon inside that building. It can be a house, a church, an office building, whatever. It does not matter. You have to follow the wishes of the property owner. Failure to do so is tresspass, and since you are armed while committing a trespass, there are stiff penalties.
I highly recommend you read this book about Florida Gun Laws before you conceal a weapon again. And no, I am not in any way affiliated with Amazon or the author.
Define "better."
Background checks and waiting periods? We have those.
Outright banning of all gun sales? They still exist, and felons still manage to get them.
Dismantling the weapons industry entirely, destroying all existing stock, rooting out all hidden stock, brain-wiping knowledge of gunpowder from citizens' minds? Good luck.
Of course. Everyone commits felonies, but only the real hardened criminals commit misdemeanors. Grand Theft Auto was a great game, but there was way too much jaywalking in it so I wouldn't let my kids play it.
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
Right. Because a crowded, dark, smoke-filled movie theater is the perfect place to test your marksmanship.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I think it's safe to say that violence has always been with humanity since the origin of our species, and will continue to be with our species for the indefinite future. That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Weapons technology doesn't make people kill, but it sure as heck makes them a lot more proficient at it.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived.
And how many more would have been killed in the crossfire as panicked people start shooting wildly in a smoke-filled theatre?
I don't know about Mexico, but I live in South America and stuff like this simply doesn't happen (except for maybe, Columbia). You get the ocassional murders for robbery (if attempting to resist robbery with weapons) or revenge but people going into random killing sprees? Nope, that's news we hear mostly from the US.
"There would be shooting, but the shooter wouldn't have survived".
Are you 100% sure about the shooter not surviving? I am not. The smoke bomb probably would have prevented that, quite effectively.
An audience firing back into the smoke more likely would have killed even more.
Would the gun control have helped? Even if I'm pro gun control I don't think it would have helped here. It is really hard to tell as this was a seriously premeditated attack. This guy wanted to kill and harm and as judged by the gas mask it was planned well in advance.
Well, Rush did claim that Bane, the main villain who has been a Batman character in the comics for at least a decade or more, was propaganda against Mitt Romney because Romney's venture capital firm is named Bain.
So, lets get back to the theory that some right-wing nutjobs that have undue influence over stupid people.
Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know.
Look at the massacre on UT campus in the 60s. Troubled sniper got up to the bell tower and started firing mostly indiscriminately (1 shot, 1 kill or he left you alone). Once people realized what was going on, many of the students who owned guns got them and started returning fire, severely limiting the number shots the sniper (Whitman) could take as he was forced to take cover. There was even an armed civilian in the group of 4 people who got to the bell tower and ended the killing spree.
Authorities have stated that the large number of armed civilians returning fire was instrumental in keeping Whitman from inflicting further harm
Charles Whitman
It funny and sad that so many assume someone who owns a gun is going to go crazy in 1,5, or 10 years.
In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a Muslim. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think.
Please don't say that all Muslims are without hesitations, compulsions and morals. Some terrorists are Muslim, and no doubt use their religion to justify atrocity. Likewise, there are Christian terrorists, and Jewish terrorists, and atheist terrorists, and...
I'm an atheist, but hate-mongering should never be condoned.
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
Well lets think here... he decided that he wanted to kill a group of innocent people, he had access to tear gas and body armor... hmmm. Yep I think a law that makes it illegal to kill people would have been very important. If only it were illegal to kill people... That law would definitely be more effective than gun control laws, since it would bar people from killing others with more than just firearms.
It's a good thing no law-abiding citizen was armed there, someone might have been hurt.
Let me guess, the theater bans conceal-carry guns, I'd guess?
-Styopa
That must be why Obama won it in 2008.......idiot
>You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
When one country is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it's a menace to the rest of the world. When more than one country is armed, it's a factor of stabilization.
There could well been people who are allowed to carry weapons. That wouldnt have changed anything for this gunman. People thought the shots were effects, it was dark and he dropped a smoke or tear gas grenade. If someone would have tood up he most likely would have done more harm than good.
Dude was fighting him.
which still does not make him innocent.
If he first chased someone to the point they have to defend themselves, and then he shoot him after he got his just desserts from chasing him, it is still not justified. George Zimmerman started the confrontation and is thus responsible unless Trayvon used undue force. Since Zimmerman was the one warmed, this is a hard argument to make.
Yes but they are more mature and better educated than Americans.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The shooter was in early 20's, so we can't blame the parents.
The shooter was more than old enough to own weapons.
The shooter appears to have some training in use of such weapons.
While I'm horribly saddened for all those people who went out to enjoy a premier of an action packed movie.
For someone to kick open an exit door, clearly the individual had every motive and intent to just kill. This isn't because he saw the movie and it made him violent. He already had violent tendencies and cares little for human life.
I am not a gun owner, and have only recently looked into receiving proper gun training so I am familiar enough to truly respect the laws in place. We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country. The gun and canisters used were only tools that this individual used. Would we scream afoul of gun ownership if this guy had swords or throwing knives and killed people that way, and then some citizen who legally carried a concealed weapon stopped this guy with the concealed weapon? No, we'd be praising that person with the gun as a hero. Would we then start adding more law about knife ownership?
The fact is that people are unpredictable. And whenever you have that you will always have unpredictable results.
I do not mean to sound as if I don't care. I Do. But massacres have been happening for as long as humans have walked this planet. Before instant news, it would be something we'd learn later. And while it is still tragic, and I wish it never happened, it did.
Creating restrictive laws has never stopped someone whose intent is mass damage. Blaming a movie is just someone's way of trying to take the blame from the individual.
How many of us grew up to the 3 Stooges or the Little Rascals? Both of those TV shows had tons of violence in them. Kids would put poison in cakes or nails. The Stooges would ride on rockets that were fired. Of the millions who saw that stuff as kids, you don't see us going on rampages.
Lets actually blame the problem of the massacre on the person and not the crap that people will speculate caused the killer to kill.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Would he have been concerned about being charged with a gun control violation, when he already faces 50 counts of murder? One could argue that such a law might have been a deterrent by making it more difficult to get the gun. But if one is bent on mass murder, that seems unrealistic.
Right, because obeying the law was obviously his first concern.
I remember a young man being interviewed at the time on CNN. Chaos broke out, he squared himself in the doorway of whatever business he was in and kept his weapon tucked under his jacket.
Other than that, I don't remember hearing much about her being surrounded by gun carrying folks.
Stupid government, always trying to take away my Doomsday devices... Oh yes they'll rue the day...
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I was with you until the last sentence... What kind of logic is this?
We already have many examples of shooters not surviving their killing spree and you think the death penalty will deter any of them?
Fact is, neither giving everyone guns nor taking them all away from citizens, neither capital punishment nor lax and liberal handling of such things will stop all of the occurrences of these shootings. Period.
What we must decide is how much freedom we are willing to give up and what gain we can expect from that. Basically this means how many lives is our freedom worth. And that is a damn hard question to answer. I for one am of the belief, that since you cannot realistically save them all, some lost lives must be accepted as collateral damage. If you really aim for perfection in the security game, you're halfway down the road towards madness.
Indeed, the FBI has your back:
FBI spokesman Jason Pack said it did not appear the incident was related to terrorism.
They haven't released the name of the Gunman. Other then having a political motive, I am more willing to guess that it is a minor probably under 21.
Political Nutjobs, seemed to be more subtle. Better planned and calculated (Think Unibomber/Oklahoma bombing)
This seems more akin to the type of theatrics of Columbine, or Virginia Tech.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
and in other news, in europe those beasts prefer hand to hand combat with knives last I checked.
And if it's a left-wing nutjob, it's swept under the rug by the mainstream news media (who will have been speculating that it was a right-wing nutjob for the 24 hours before that).
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
and the mandatory training ... are you calling these guys crazy?
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
Wow that is one scary strawboogeyman you have there, Watch too much TV much?
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
dude, you suck. i am not the orig ac. i just wanna point out that "Amerikans" is a perfectly legit way to spell it. it alludes to the kkk. cepting the orig ac missed a couple ks. it should be "Amerikkkans".
also shoot whitey. shoot him dead. racist fucker.
I expect some liberal congressman will now propose a law banning assault Batman movies.
It's funny and sad that so many assume someone who is for gun control is already crazy.
So are victims of gun crime in the US more likely to defend themselves? You certainly don't hear much about it. Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know.
Surely you are trolling. This happens all the time. You could Google it, if you wanted. Here is something from Wikipedia. In fact, the language from the OP is remarkably similar to what you wrote here. Are you trolling multiple forums?
No on in the cinema had a gun, or if they did they didn't use it. A guy who forced his way in had a gun. Just like schools, nobody in the school has a gun, just the kids who break in the middle of the day and shoot their class mates. Nobody in the school had a gun.
Why would that indicate that it was justified? Just because you get into a fight doesn't mean you can shoot someone.
My state has pretty much no gun laws. I open carry every day of my life. I'm often asked why I find the need to do so. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and no have it. I'd like to die an old man knowing that I never had to draw my gun on anyone. Now, in a situation such as this one (dark, crowded room with lots of background noise) I would have just hi tailed it out of there. It takes MASSIVE amount of training to deal with such chaotic situations as this. Also, not everyone that carries is a gun toting maniac either. I feel as though everyone should own a firearm and should take a training course (much like driver's ed).
With all the massacres I hear about, I never hear about one in which the shooter met with resistance (maybe those don't make as good a news story?).
Or maybe all the basement heroes posting here about their gun collection would do exactly nothing in this situation because having enough money to buy a gun and visit a shooting range now and again does not make you a hero?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I live is Canada, so I'm certainly not an expert on less restrictive gun laws. I wonder about this however. I would think that even with laws that permit citizens to own and carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), in a situation like in Denver, the ability to carry and shoot (say the type of practice a gun owner would get at a shooting range) would be useless as this is a completely different ballgame from controlled target practice.
My major concern any argument for carrying a weapon is that I do not think that the average gun owner (i.e. one that practices in controlled shooting situations and does not have any situational or combat training) would have been effective in stopping a shooter like this. One can extend this further and ask if even in a one-on-one firefight (which again, is not a scenario that I would imagine a typical gun owner trains for), an average gun owner could not reliably be expected to assess the situation and determine if shooting back would be a good or bad idea.
All in all, I think that while denying the ability for a citizen to arm themselves may be putting the weapons in the wrong hands, putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained to use them effectively is not the full solution either. Perhaps having different types of weapon permits, one for hunting, another for shooting practice at ranges only, and carry permits that require mandatory combat and tactical training along with re-certification (like in the armed forces or law enforcement) would be a better idea.
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
A forum for their hateful speech isn't overcome by his reasonable statements on gun control. Stating that ANY sizable group of humans have no "hesitations, compulsions and morals." Is pretty bad in my book.
You mean like we all are trained to drive safely and responsively? You can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety because ordinary people don't care, won't listen and will quickly forget. Not until they get a close call, then they will listen... for a while, until their daily routine make them forget again.
And for the rest, those who do care, most will forget in the heat of the moment because of the stress of the situation. Or you need to train them until it all becomes reflexes. But that takes a lot of effort and dedication and ordinary people won't stand that, not when all it's needed to use a gun is point and press the trigger.
If you believe otherwise about ordinary people, you really need to go out and visit the world, not just your local militia.
As for your example, one data point doesn't make a statistics.
And from the look of the video, your 63 year old hero was just lucky he didn't hit a customer/employee. There was one right in the line of fire when he took a shot.
It is time that the manufacture of guns to be covered by legislation. There is no constitutional amendment about the right to manufacture fire arms.
You Americans cans still own them because of your archaic constitutional amendment they will just be much harder to get.
You are an idiot. Unlike the EU charter, the US constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates the powers of the federal government.
Then he would change tactics: Force open door, chuck some bombs and run. Face it, citizens armed to the teeth will not deter lunatics
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Not seems you cannot.
His last shots were through an open door into the street when the criminals were running away from him.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
This is hardly even related to Batman at all.
I don't know. Do you?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot people. It's really not rocket science, what part of it is hard to understand?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Ah Jesus. It should be noted that this kind of apologizing for gun-owners immediately after a gun massacre would only happen in America.
I don't understand. You Americans say you need guns for self protection (something we don't have over here in Europe).
With all these guns around why was no one protected?
Which by all appearances was a justified shooting. Or haven't you been keeping up?
Zimmerman got those injuries in response to provocative actions that he himself took. Simply losing a fight that you provoked doesn't give you the legal right to kill your opponent. It's a lot more complicated than that.
And my original point stands: untrained use of force leads to Zimmerman/Trayvon-type SNAFUs.
But no, keep feeding those racial-tensions narratives.
I did not mention race. You did. Who is feeding them?
A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting.
Also, he got in by kicking in an emergency exit door (so nobody could get him from behind), in a movie theater, where the seats are bolted down and are immobile obstacles to crowd movement. Strategically, he started out on high ground. Only a concealed carry shooter would have had a chance of getting him quickly, and that's if the heads of the crowd don't get in the way.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Actually, by all appearances, Trayvon Martin was lawfully defending himself from a dangerous and threatening person, and George Zimmerman escalated it into lethal force after provoking the whole situation.
Keep feeding your own narrative, but the reality is, Zimmerman caused the whole incident, and could have avoided the violent parts if only he had done one thing.
Stay in his car. I'll even accept that his calling the police falls on the spectrum of legitimacy, even if he'd also have been able to avoid it if only he'd gone about his business.
But getting out of his car? That make him the threat. Perhaps he wouldn't have made that choice if he hadn't had a gun.
Hasn't it been apparent in places like London that gun control and control of nearly everything probably including tactical rusty assault spoons really hasn't done anything to improve crime statistics or gun related crime?
Today, like every day of the year, an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". Yes, every day. So can we stop all the hand-wringing about "gun violence" and do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
You mean like the US Army/Marine Corps? I've heard they are decent shots.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Doubtful. A human being intent on doing harm to others will invariably find a way to achieve their goals. If you plan on killing 14 people, I doubt you'll be terribly concerned about violating gun control laws.
Wanting to kill people is madness. Some people will have attacks of madness, and then the attack goes away later on. If that person has a gun and ammunition handy, people get killed. If that person doesn't have gun and ammunition handy, the attack of madness may go away.
And for longer lasting madness, the person would have to find the means for killing lots of people. Getting a gun is a very easy means. If that possibility is not there, killing lots of people is hard.
For similar reasons, a lot of the suicides in the USA are men killing themselves with guns. The same person with no gun available would have probably tried some other method, which quite possibly would have failed. That's why the USA has higher suicide rates among males than other countries; not because they are more prone to suicide, but because they are most likely to have some effective means to achieve their goal.
Because those countries tend to have lower crime rates overall.
Years ago, the UN did a survey (they I can't find freely available anymore, unfortunately) of every country in the world. The correltaed "non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita" to "guns ownership per capita" along with a bunch of other figures. Based on those numbers, there was no correlation. For example: European countries with mandatory gun ownership had comparable non-suicide gun-related deaths per capita had similar crime rates to countries where guns were rare.
So were the laws working? Mostly yes: gun ownership per capita was lower in countries with stricter laws.
So what *does* correlate fewer non-suicide gun-related deaths? Better education. Lower overall crime.
It was a fascinating set of statistics and I wish I could link to it so that everyone could read it.
Fixed it for you...
"In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a *terrorist*. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. *Terrorists* do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think."
Muslim != Terrorist despite what you may have been taught by Fox News
How this is 'Insightful' is beyond me... All we have now ascertained that the extremes are untenable. As usual.
If that's your attempt at "reason", I can see why you didn't understand what that post was about.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
That's right, use both hands when pulling the trigger.
Seriously, all gun control does is keep guns away from the victims. The criminals don't give a fuck about it being illegal, and they'll find a way to get guns.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Even with an armed audience, the shooter might have survived this one.
"Holmes was wearing a bullet-proof vest and riot helmet and carrying a gas mask, rifle, and handgun, when he was apprehended, according to police. "
source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/mass-shooting-colorado-movie-theater-14-people-dead/story?id=16817842#.UAlanjtwZvx
I've lived in Colorado all of my life and that is news to me. The Denver/Boulder metro area (and Aurora is a suburb of Denver) is Left-leaning. Colorado Springs and rural towns are Right-leaning. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out where most crime occurs in Colorado.
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
Do you realize how poor the firearms training and proficiency is among actual police officers, much less security guards?
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often. With them you have people who have made a conscious choice to carry that gun and most who take the time out to get a permit and carry are fairly dedicated to the idea. Police and security guards on the other hand are carrying as part of their JOB. Many never have fired a gun in a real situation and only do the bare minimum in practice requirements (typically a yearly range qualification of pretty low requirements).
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic. Except for highly specialized teams like SWAT, police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are. Their main rule is the apprehension and detainment of criminals. IE, the aftermath. We ALL should take a role in the protection of ourselves when out and about.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
no amount of laws can protect any society from a sufficiently motivated individual regardless of a nation's laws and assumed demeanor of it's people. Anders Behring Breivik proved that. Timothy McVeigh worked with others, but he didn't need a gun.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Don't turn a tragedy into a snarky chain of know-it-all comments, Innocent people died. This isn't a place to prove your intelligence.
Read TF summary, numbnuts. Had the audience been armed, this wouldn't have happened.
You are one of those many people that are total dumb-asses in believing that carrying a gun will forever protect you against being shot by someone else that also carry the gun, especially if that person has the upper hand on surprise. It really amazes me that people really are that stupid to think so. Smoke (in this case,) people on panic, and a chance for you to be shot first before you even have the time to pull a gun at the shooter. /flame over
The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died.
Outrageous, take your hatred elsewhere.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not,
Did you even read the news story? The gunman was not even remotely a Muslim.
Even in the Bombay shootings that you were referring to, there was a huge difference in the training level of the initial police response and the later reinforcements which handled the situation by killing and capturing the terrorists. This was not that Indian police was hesitating but just that the police recruits that showed up first didn't know how to shoot straight and even when they knew, their guns were malfunctioning.
It's not testing when you have fired a weapon in a crowded room full of tear gas. Lot's of people have been there and done that, yet their state of residence does not allow them to obtain a CCW.
sudo make me a sandwich
neither, a security guard
Respectfully, you are wrong.
There is nothing in Florida Statute that says I must obey a "No Weapons" sign if I have a concealed permit. Florida Statute dictates those places concealed carry holders cannot carry, and that must be obeyed.
There are no sign laws. If a permit holder cannot carry at a location, it is because it is stated in Florida Statute, not because of the sign.
By way of example, it is not permissible to carry into a post office. If a sign is not posted, it's still not permissible.
There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. Actually, everybody in the rest of the world knows that, it's only in the US that some lobby wants to spin this fairly obvious fact into another direction.
Owning a gun does not increase violence or cause homicides, of course. Owning a gun simply makes it much easier for a violent person to kill.
Now whether gun control in the US could have a desired effect, that's another question. Given that the US is swamped in legal and illegal firearms, I guess the answer could be No. But don't fool yourself in thinking that there is no link between gun ownership and violent homicides.
Devil's advocate would say that it also arms and protects any potential victims, regardless of their physical strength. An elderly woman with a gun, trained to use it proficiently, can bring down a muscular adult male attacker just as easily as any other person. Guns are, as they say, the great equalizer.
There's also a simple thought experiment: suppose an armed gunman breaks into your theater. Would you rather A) be unarmed, or B) have a concealed pistol.
The equation for gun violence plotted with gun ownership might not be linear or exponential. Maybe gun violence initially goes up sharply with ownership and then drops off if enough honest, law-abiding, citizens are armed.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I'll match your anecdote with one of my own:
How about this?
My personal anecdote: I'm prior military. Target shooting and stress (combat) shooting are hobbies. I've shot along side various law enforcement officers and, with a few exceptions, they suck. I put 1000 rounds a month minimum through my weapons; some of them fire 200 rounds a year. They have no control, and some even fucking flinch. It's pathetic.
The point: being a cop doesn't make you qualified to engage targets in a populated environment.
Also, your Zimmerman example is lame: Zimmerman's rounds found their target. There were no bystanders hit.
4th Amendment tot he Constitution of United States:
"The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia."
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Speaking of a church...
Jesus taught against self-defense:
Yes, actually I do. Most hobbyists I know visit the range at least monthly. Many weekly (as a competitive shooter I tend to shoot around 200 rounds per week in practice and another 450 or so per month in competition). Excepting specialized teams like SWAT and the like, many police officers visit the range yearly for their annual qualification and not much more than that.
The idea that your average street cop is some tactical expert is simply not true.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
Who was armed and was going to church. Hence "armed churchgoer".
The Swiss gun ownership number is pretty meaningless in that context.
Because you cannot carry around a gun in Switzerland just because you want to, you need permission to do so based e.g. on the occupation (protection service etc.). You can transport your military service weapon only when you go to practice and such (direct route only) and even then, the weapon must not be loaded and the rounds must not be in the magazine.
atlatl
I learned a new word today.
I was referring to the guys that go on shooting sprees in public as nutjobs... not gun owners as nutjobs. I come from rural NY where it's unusual for a house to have fewer guns than people (although handguns are somewhat rare, most are higher powered rifles and shotguns). As far as I'm aware, we haven't had any gun-related violence in a very long time.
However, I would call the Swiss crazy just because of what the Swiss Guard is willing to wear in public.
Well, your comments are slightly uneducated, seeing as the "Wild West" was largely a myth http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-wild-west-of-myth-and-reality.html
in another news, in USA I have used a gun, I have seen a gun and I have seen someone firing one, but I've never seen anyone killed by one.
In fact, I at least 90% of Americans (outside of the military) have never seen anyone killed by a gun.
21st Century Renaissance Man
So apparently if 1 person in the theater was armed, everyone would be safe because he would open fire on the attacker (in the dark, loud sound, smoke and confusion, whatever).
What if 3 people returned fire? Then who is returning fire, and who is in league with the shooter? That could get alot worse, quickly.
but the americans are savages because people can have guns and we have a shooting incident sometimes
No. The americans are savages because they have problems with nudity.
You're clearly not European.
In Europe if it's a left-wing nutjob you get the random extremist right-wingers creating a dozen new fake accounts on every newspaper's website so they can create a right-wing echo chamber denouncing the "reds" and their wicked ways. Obviously there would also be a ton of comments about how this is a pro-islamist action.
You'd also have the majority of the media demanding the entire left immediately distance themselves from the nutjob (since most of the media is right-wing).
Oh, and you'd also have a bunch of crackpots ranting about how the left-wing media was trying to cover the whole thing up (even if every major paper was running it as headline news).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
If the USA would stop funding and arming the gangs in these countries it'd be a lot safer.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base.
You do realize that on a state-side base (such as Ft Hood that you're referring to) almost none of the soldiers inside are allowed to carry loaded weapons right? The fact that they're wearing camo and have Jeeps sitting outside means zilch if you're still force to walk around unarmed
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
A bolt-action rifle only has slightly slower firing rate than a semi-automatic, in the right hands. JFK was assassinated with a bolt-action rifle, the shooter got off 3 rounds in about 7 seconds. This guy was in the theater for 15 minutes. Semi-auto, bolt-action, whatever, he had plenty of time to commit these atrocities.
sudo make me a sandwich
Reading "gun owner ship" three times before understanding, I repeatedly thought of a Titanic where passengers simple shot the iceberg out of the way.
"Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm,"
A very US centric view of social interaction and society.
The Constitution of the US does not grant or enumerate rights to citizens; it limits the rights of the government. Huge difference from a European-style (and I mean that in a pejorative sense) "subject society".
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
If he just wore a purple suit, white face paint, and poison gas, and accompanied by maniacal laughter, it could have been a good PR stunt.
while we are making wild accusations, Ill say that he got his guns from fast and furious
He could have killed more people by tossing in a couple gallon jugs of gasoline and lighting it.
Big difference is that Europeans and Japanese have left their dark periods mostly behind, while the USA is in the middle of it. Don't play down the number of shootings in your country.
What adds to the image of Americans being cruel, money-oriented people, is that the USA have commercialized warfare (Blackwater and others, USA is by far #1 weapon manufacturer of the world), have initiated most of the wars of the past 30 years and have been involved in practically all others. The difference between rich and poor in the US is comparable to banana-republics, the country is bankrupted by its own corporations, the lobby-industry has become stronger than democracy, and it's scare-politics of the past 15 years are actually really frightening.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
I'll answer that with an unhesitating "no".
I'm not totally anti-self-defense-tools. For example, I think Iceland's anti-pepper-spray law goes too far, in that it's a pretty lousy weapon for committing crime with even compared with commonly available tools like a kitchen knife, and is pretty obviously only for self-defense, with non-lethal, non-permanent results. But do I want to live in a paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people at all times? No thank you!
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
What's wrong with the Swiss? It's a country where almost every (male) citizen has a firearm at home, but there's not so much crime/accidents in proportion!
The difference is that the Swiss have Milka chocolate and cuckoo clocks to keep them amused.
If a guy decides he wants to kill a whole lot of people and takes the time and effort to get body armor and tear gas, but finds guns are unavailable do you think he would:
A) Use a knife/baseball bat/bow and arrow/other relatively short range and less lethal weapon
B) Build a bomb or find another way to make an explosion using readily available materials at your local shop that are more accessible than a gun
C) Give up and go home, as guns are the only way to kill a bunch of unsuspecting and distracted people in a crowded, public place
How would they be much harder to get? Even if every US gun making company was destroyed outright, we'd be able to buy guns cheaply and easily from overseas.
I'm surprised you thought your idea would work at all, which indicates you're not thinking, just reacting emotionally.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
...that at least 12 are dead, 50 or more wounded, the shooter walks out uninjured and people actually believe the situation would have been worse if anyone in the audience had been armed? Wow. I'm quite sure there were people in the that theater desperately wishing they had a firearm with them. Those people were trapped because he was shooting those who fled for the exits. This is exactly the situation where someone armed could have saved numerous lives.
People on Slashdot apparently don't get out in the real world much.
We *should* be allowed to have them. You'll notice the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the right to bear "small arms", it protects the right to bear "arms". (And before someone claims otherwise, they had "arms" which were not "small arms" even back then. (Cannons, rockets, armed naval vessels, etc.)
> Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
This sort of attitude strikes me as just nuts. You're in a dark crowded space full of panicking people with a handgun that is not particularly accurate under ideal circumstances. Once you start shooting, how are the other whackjobs with guns (oops, my bias slipped out there) supposed to know whether you're one of the 'good guys' or not? In the best possible scenario you injure the shooter so they can face trial... in all of the other out comes, there are more deaths and injuries and you run the risk of getting shot yourself.
That hardly sounds stabilizing to me.
I feel for the young victims, and the pro-gun-control victims.
It was reported that the gunman was born in 1987. That would make him ~25.
The part where if guns were banned, there'd be a thriving black market for them and criminals would still be able to get their hands on guns. Banning guns will NEVER result in criminals not being able to buy them, not in the USA at least. Our nation is too big, borders too porous, and there are too many guns already here for a ban to work.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Good body armor will stop 2-3 rounds on a good day. And body armor only prevents the bullet from penetrating, it DOES NOT stop the kinetic energy from being imparted. It is common for people being shot in a vest to have broken ribs and extensive bruising from the impact. Two shots would have put this guy on the ground crying, even if the vest stopped it.
sudo make me a sandwich
One thing you didn't take into account: what effect does the *lack* of gun laws have on homicidal murderers' decisions to even try to commit an action like this? In a community where gun laws haven't had a chance to instill a fear of guns and of gun ownership, and where there is a strong possibility that several people in the audience have guns, how would that impact your decision?
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
I didn't mislead in any shape or form. An off duty cop is essentially the same as a private citizen with a firarm. No uniform to distinguish him from on duy bretheren; no radio to call for back up or give a description. Concealed carry permit holders can get training in lethal force tactics just like the police can.
But fine, I'll play by your rules. You wan't another example? Here: http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781 Another church incident, another private citizen stopping an attacker armed with a shotgun.
Here's the Huff Po version, sanitzed of any mention of a concealed carry permit holder stoppping the attack: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/south-caroline-church-ser_n_1378752.html He was magically "disarmed",
He was wearing a bulletproof vest and other protective gear. And he came in during a shooting scene in the movie. Very unlikely that anyone would have figured out what was going on to prevent much of the attack.
well one could argue even if you hit 1 innocent person, but you stopped him from shooting anymore than he already did than its worth it. If the total death rate was 3 including the killer, but your bullet hit 2 people and he had a full clip and or multiple weapons, I think the majority of people would be happy.
You're right, a gun is a great equalizer. One maniac suddenly has equal strength to 20 strong men.
> That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and
> injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint
> knife and an atlatl?
He would have had a hard time racking up those numbers inside a theater, but he could kill and injure just as many by driving a pickup truck through a public area--city sidewalk, public park, etc. Or, as another poster said, by setting a fire.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Because we're not just a country with ready access to guns... we're a country of 300 million people with ready access to guns submerged in a culture that glorifies gun violence, shuns personal responsibility, and enjoys polarization around nearly every issue. Switzerland actually has a higher gun ownership rate than America and yet it _also_ manages to avoid this kind of craziness.
All I am saying is that while it is easy to point to the availability of guns as the culprit, closer to the truth is the idea that the equation behind these horrible events is probably a great deal more complicated than that.
Not every Asian person is an expert martial-artist. Stop watching Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.
Ok, I get the sentiment to disarm the populace. I don't particularly agree, but I understand the reasoning.
But I want to know why you make an exception for hunters. Does it somehow become sacred once it's recreational activity? Are you a hunter? Does someone you know make a living on selling bullets or butchering deer?
Pepper spray is actually a great tool for mugging people. Dark alley/park/etc, fewer other people (typical mugging place). Spray someone in the face, grab what you want and run. They probably won't be able to ID you at all if you plan it just a little bit. And best of all, it appeals to those of us with somewhat of a conscience because it's going to be non-lethal in 99.99% of cases (whereas just brandishing a kitchen knife means someone could get seriously hurt).
Not in favor of the ban, just saying it's not as purely-defensive as it may at first seem. After all, even a motorcycle helmet can do a lot of damage if you swing it at someone.
But when somebody stops a shooter before anyone gets killed, you don't see it on national news. Obviously, if you go by what you see on the news, you are going to come to the conclusion that nobody ever stops violence with violence.
Plus, when somebody manages to stop somebody early in a killing spree, there's no way to tell how bad of a killing spree it would have been if he hadn't been stopped. You can't say "armed citizen prevents 50 shooting deaths", even though that very well may be the total body count if nobody did anything to stop the shooter.
Last midnight showing I went to at a theater, there were several police officers around the lobby in case of crowd control issues. And it wasn't a large city at all.
I'll bet he legally acquired the tear gas too.
It's a good think he ONLY used tear gas and guns and not road flares and gasoline.
You can't regulate crazy. Well, they used to, but not any more.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
it isnt hard to build a gun(ok yes it is, but it can be done) , if you REALLY want said gun,you will have it. Once a technology is out, its out.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
In China this would have just been a knife attack instead of a shooting.
Or a bomb. Or he just decided to drive his car into the huge line of people waiting for the movie to start outside... perhaps a rented Van or SUV.
The guy was psycho, he came in heavily armed with illegal weapons and gas grenades (perhaps tear gas, which is illegal for civilians).
So obviously he really wanted this to happen. Even if there were magically no guns in a 1000km radius, he'd just find another method. And to be honest, a bomb or a car or a car-bomb might have done even more damage.
We don't give the cops them in the UK and a lot of Europe and given our death rate I think well keep it that way thanks. The truth is that many Reps are right. You can have guns and less murder, but you'll need to work out why Americans are so keen to kill each other and deal with that first? If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
No, but a simple bomb or poison gas would be equally effective.
Thanks for writing this. Those with the negative replies only do so because they hate that the logic is correct. Removing guns from society leaves a society of vulnerable people to the criminals with guns. With all the talk of rights infringement by the NSA on this site, I thought people here would hate the idea of losing yet another inalienable right. Surprisingly they seem all to ready to hand those rights away. No wonder the government gets away with what they do. No one cares...
No worse than the strawman argument I was replying to.
Pics or it didn't happen.
(By pics, examples please. It's fun to tease, but uninformative if you don't at least give us a taste of what other options you're thinking about.)
Anon-2
Apparently you haven't seen the comments from witnesses. There was plenty of time to at least try to take this guy down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm1EYiC3mxI
Hm, where's the government in his argument?
Amazing that not only someone would write something as stupid but that someone would actually copy it into a slashdot comment and be modded up for it.
I love this attitude from the pro-gun mob... "Rules never stopped anybody doing anything!" Then why do we spend so much energy making rules?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
Spoken like a true military man. What a depressing summation. Reason and force, that's it? What about love? What about compassion and empathy? What if I do your bidding out of friendship or altruism? You are not reasoning with me, I am doing it out of a desire to help. I support gun ownership, but not for the reasons this guy gives.
Gay marriage is the only one on that list that is in any "grey area".
Guns are legal. Marijuana isn't.
People have differing opinions of what the law "should" be, but opinions on a law don't bring it into a grey area.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Common is it that people make a post about someone being dead wrong without merit, extrapolation, or a pair.
I have a love/hate relationship with the right to bear arms. On one hand, when interpreted the way I'm sure our founding fathers intended when they codified our rights, I think it is an excellent check on governmental power; if the shit truly hit the fan there would be militia's and guerrilla forces springing up overnight to fight back (the apathy of the modern-age be damned). " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Attacking the right to bear arms seems to me to be attacking our right of revolution as spelled out in the Declaration.
On the other hand, however, I cannot believe that our founding fathers would have intended for the high-powered weaponry we have available to us today to be freely available to anyone out there that's capable of passing a cursory background check. People aren't buying AK's for practical defense, they're buying AK's for ePeen. For instance, a friend of mine, who lives in an apartment and recently got his Concealed Carry license, the day he got his license in the mail he went out and bought a massive Desert Eagle hand cannon that he loves to show off to people. If someone were to break into his apartment, and he started firing with that gun...how many rounds would end up in his neighbors apartments as they blast through those poorly-insulated plaster-board walls? He tells me he's in the market for an AR-15 now...for 'home defense', and he's still in that apartment with the tissue paper walls. He's a fucking accident waiting to happen...which is precisely why I won't hang out with him when he's strapped. He'd probably end up taking me or someone else around him out just trying to draw down on someone...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Rarely does one see such a long post being so thoroughly wrong from the very first sentence.
How is this "insightful?"
How about an explanation of why the Maj. Caudill's opening statement was wrong?
Of course. I'm sure if this guy had just encountered a "No Guns Allowed" sign he would have pouted a bit and went home . . .
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The NRA aggregates and publishes official news reports of armed self-defense. There is also the now-defunct http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed.
The reason you don't hear about armed self-defense on national news is that it's pretty anti-climatic. "Man shoots would-be robber" is not national newsworthy; "ARMED GUNMAN KILLS 12 IN THEATER MASSACRE" is.
If you need a gun or armed security to feel secure something is deeply wrong with your country. And the fact that you only think how to solve this particular problem instead to focus on the reason it happened is even more tragic.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Did you post this hoping for the 'Funny' moderation ? Because if not, it's the stupidest thing I've read on the internet in a long time.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Maybe you should look up Friedrich Heinz Leibacher while you are pontificating on Derrick Bird. The Swiss haven't got the education aspect of firearm ownership right even after years of forcing people into military service.
Arrogance is the root cause of the US gun crime problem. The kind of arrogance that points at isolated incidents in other countries to prove gun control doesn't work while claiming isolated incidents (which are not so isolated) in the US don't prove gun ownership doesn't.
>Once you start shooting
You are presuming that the owner of the gun is an idiot. Though it might be true in some cases, most of the people are responsible.
Could you please give me real life examples of situation you keep describing, people shooting randomly?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
In Switzerland the majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons.
The regular abuse of these weapons has in 2007 made the Swiss stop the reservists having ammunition at home.
Because the murder rate using guns in the US is so out of whack with the rest of the Western world it's not really a fair comparison.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
When was the last time Switzerland was attacked by another country? Their "army" is for show and tell. That's about it. Switzerland did do one thing "right", though. They made it their policy to hold people's money in secrecy - Even gold from the Nazi regime most of which was from theft from their enemies which included gold from concentration camp victims. The Swiss have a very nice country - I've been there many times. None the less, their "success" has long been based upon their support of thieves and murderers by protecting their money. Nobody attacks the Swiss. Not even the Swiss attack the Swiss; their crime rate is minuscule. Not to mention, the population of Switzerland is less than 8M people.
An off duty cop is essentially the same as a private citizen with a firarm.
This statement barely merits a reply. Let me rephrase it so you can see how galactically stupid it is: "An off duty surgeon is essentially the same as a private citizen with a scalpel and a few hours of CPR training".
If you cannot see the difference between a trained officer who undergoes repeated training on the job and someone who once took some training there is nothing we can gain from talking. I'm more likely to get an intelligent statement from a park bench.
>And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?
The danger from one person who knows his gun and knows about shooting is much less than a danger from a sociopath shooting indiscriminately in the theater.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Original author is Marko Kloos:
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
A nutjob remains a nutjob, correct, and he/she might have found another way to kill people... the question is, why do you want to make their life easier by giving them easy access to lethal weapons?
but the americans are savages because people can have guns and we have a shooting incident sometimes
Naw, the Brittys think we're savages because we spell 'color' without a u.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yes, just take your statistics from within the US, a country with absurdly high gun ownership and murder rates.
>You mean like no one is attacking NATO force in Afganisthan because they are openly carrying weapons?
That is truly non-sequitur analogy. In this case the solution is completely different: get the heck out of Afghanistan and you will have no more NATO deaths. It's very simple really.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
loser...you would have to post as an AC. Because that's what you truly are.
In the best of circumstances, ignoring the confusion and panic, maybe...
Some people in the audience thought the thick smoke and gunfire was a special effect accompanying the movie, police and witnesses said.
Everything I'm reading says it happened very quickly. In a smoke filled theater, with people screaming and running around all over the place, I'm betting there would have been 'friendly-fire' incidents and and even higher body count. We'll never know either way, obviously, so I concede that it's possible, but I highly doubt it.
Or Mexico. Or Canada.
The UK has a hard enough time keeping them out, and they're an island with borderline Orwellian practices. Heck, they give the US a run for the money in terms of Big Brother.
Meanwhile, the US has them all here already and we have 2 countries that border us. Enough criminals want guns that, the worst case for them, they'd have to pay more for them to get smuggled in.
Only if you consider having lower per-head gun related crime as a bad thing.
This comes up every time there's a mass shooting in the US. The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice. Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
This seems to be a common belief with people who dislike gun possession. There are plenty of states that allow conceal carry. Most people choose not to. Can anyone provide any evidence something like this has ever happened? And I am not talking about one guy with poor judgement. I am talking about multiple people "shooting wildly."
In all honesty, what a load of bullcrap. Whoever is attacking you has the element of surprise and will come at you with guns drawn and safeties off. And if they want to shoot you then with bullets flying. Not to mention every choice of time and place and they only pick fights they're going to win, like when I'm on my way home from the pub after one too many beers. If you claim guns have "removed force from the menu" in the US you must be smoking the really, really good stuff. Nothing puts me on equal footing with the attacker, whether it's a gun pointed at me or a knife on my throat. Even in the wild west the sheriff and bounty hunters was a very important part of society, the less rule of law you got the more guns you need because you're on your own. Maybe he should try civilized society sometime, it's a pretty good alternative to the hand gun.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why was this marked +5 "Insightful"? I could understand "Funny" but Insightful is for a more serious & realistic point. The poster took "ready access to guns to the general public" to the extreme of "entire audience" will get guns and all are nutjobs shooting in all directions. What an insult to gun owners! If that was true, that would be the best thing that could happen for our society... we lose a whole bunch of nutjobs who probably would have done a ton of damage anyway with or without guns. Even the extreme gun people don't want such nutjobs to be around anyone let alone own guns.
More realistically, a few people will have guns and the majority of those who get them are sane enough not to shoot at the first moving thing. Most gun owners know the severity of the responsibility they carry. We are talking about a firearm, not a stinkbomb, slingshot, or BB gun. Grow up.
Without random people carrying guns, the attacker has the expectation (reward) of killing a lot of people. If they know they may face opposition, the attacker has to prepare for the outcome of engaging trained gunmen and face-planting dead after one step with no reward for their efforts. The attacker has to spend more resources (training, planning, equipment, etc) for less reward. This potential outcome is a big deterrant.
Even if they are ok with getting little to no reward, they will actually cause less damage as they will be gunned down after the initial surprise rather than wait for the ammo to run out. Imagine how armed undercover police officers all over the place would change the landscape. There is a reason why police stations don't get attached in this fashion. When it does, society is more shocked at the stupidity/crazyness/arrogance of the attacker than the inflicted damage.
It goes both ways. Do I want to be treated like I can't be trusted just on the off chance that some nutter will commit mass murder. The problem with gun control or any similar "category ban" is that it's fundementally democratic. It demonstrates a contempt for the citizenry. It's a blatant statement by the relevant politicians that they think the commoners can't be trusted.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Population of DC might be 600K but the reality is that it is sitting in the middle of a 5 million big agglomeration.
Firearms being illegal in DC does not mean a thing since you can have all you need in Virginia, a mile away.
Just keep the above in mind when you mix in the debate over gun control.
No, they would still use a gun. If someone wants a gun they are going to get it. Just like if someone wants heroin or meth, well, they are gonna get it. Prohibition or not.
I assume you live in Iceland since you made that comment about the pepper spray. Try to imagine living in the USA. Most of our states are several times larger than your entire country (and most of Iceland is uninhabited). The largest city in Iceland has a bit over 100,000 people. And the entire country is a remote island! It's almost like it was purposefully created to be easy to control imports and how imported products are used once they get there. The Icelandic police could get rid of all guns in a few weeks by literally going to every house and looking for them.
This is not the same situation we face in the USA. We are a continental country with two massive borders. To our South is a country without a functioning government (with respect to internal security). Smuggling is rampant. Let's say we decided to ban guns and follow Europe in their social policy. What would happen?
-Many gun owning citizens would be angry, hide their guns, and probably become violent if the government tried to take them.
-A black market for guns would be expanded (it already exists)
-Smuggling of guns from Mexico and Canada would increase immensely and we can't realistically stop them all.
-Citizens who give up their guns to follow the law will be unarmed, but their criminal attackers won't be.
In short, we'd be much worse off.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all. It's just something you see sometimes. I'm only afraid of criminals with guns, and they tend to hide them until the crime starts so you never knew they had one anyway. I'd much rather bullets being flying both directions during a shootout, than just coming from the criminal who wants to kill as many people as possible. The lawful armed citizens only want to kill one person, the attacker.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Fire is a great weapon against those in confined spaces.
That's just not true. I've used a single shot shotgun before, and I can easily get off three shots in less than 30 seconds. With a little practice, I could probably do better.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Your example is missing something important: discrete, visible targets that did not stand their ground, and gentleman that defended himself was a horrible shot: one assailant was grazed by a bullet, the other shot in the butt and hip. Thankfully no one else was hit or injured. So mission accomplished, but hardly in a controlled way that would have ended well in a crowded area.
Perhaps this gentleman had combat and/or tactics training, but this falls into my category of averting a crime of "opportunity" where the shooters were never intending on shooting or shooting back. So good for this guy and doing a good deed, but this is not the same type of scenario as in Denver, and had it been, the gentleman could easily have been dead before getting his gun out. Also remember the shooter in Denver supposedly had body armor on. Running out of cover towards the shooter would have been suicide.
-- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
Actually, there very likely wouldn't have been as long as the shooter's expectation was that the audience would be armed. Shooters are much less likely to go where they expect to face armed resistence, so it's possible that a common habit of carrying weapons in public would reduce such shootings.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Yep. And the places they come from generally make it legal to own and carry firearms, and have lower murder rates than DC.
If you say so. I don't much care, we're talking about DC, and their guns are coming into DC. What that means is you have to control for the influence of outside guns making the gun laws in DC ineffectual when considering those laws.
That, and as I said, the problem being that DC doesn't govern itself. If you want to talk about places where they very strictly control guns in DC, you can see they have relatively few firearms incidents.
Plenty of other crimes. To the point where I'd prefer the shootings.
But as I said, the homicide rate in DC hit its lowest level in recent years. Obviously the problem isn't escalating, but has been steadily in decline.
Most likely.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
Actually I've found the usual response is for people to scream for more and more guns. After all, if more people had guns, it'd be more polite or something. Except this case, where the person acted in a cunning way, pretty much set up a situation where an armed response would be less effectual and more dangerous.
Yup - That's how it works now. According to the news, Zimmerman has burned through over US$200K in "donations" and has his web site back up asking for more.
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon. Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the guns in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them? We need to have an honest conversation about this on a national level but unfortunately the issue is driven to extremes: Either you're pro-gun and anyone and their sister should be able to buy whatever gun they want, no questions asked, or you're anti-gun and think that they should be completely illegal for everyone but the police and military. There's no grey area anymore.
Hmm, interesting... I wonder if we can substitute 'gun' for something else here...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 16-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal automobile? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the car keys in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
Ha! This is fun...
The problem, as I see it, is how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 21-year-old kid... from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal bottle of booze? Just making sure the person in question doesn't have any felonies and isn't certifiably mentally ill doesn't seem like enough. How many kids in this country die every year because their dumbass parents don't properly secure the liquor cabinet in the home? How many kids have been killed by other kids because their parents didn't properly secure them?
K, that's all I've got (right now).
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Cause they are not filled with crazy white American men.
Seriously, only Muslims and White American men do this kind of thing. I don't think there has ever been a Chinese-, African-, Japansese- American serial killer.
Maybe, that's why the US hates the Islamic nations so much.
21st Century Renaissance Man
europe is big, do you care telling where is that?
Note that concealed carry licenses in the USA require some level of training to get (exactly how much and what kind varies by State).
Note also that "training", or being part of a "militia" in no way implies that you're less likely to wig out and shoot someone.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
half a million dead in a dozen years, several million more with permanent disabilities for life.
i'm pretty sure if I took away your car and your electronic gadgets, most of those wouldn't have happened.
close to 4 million casualties, in 12 years.
The shooter was reported to be wearing body armour so you would need to make a head shot in a smoke filled and very crowded theatre. So assuming you are even able to identify the shooter in the theatre trying to get that head shot with the panicked patrons running around would be difficult to say the least. What's more likely to happen is that everyone with a gun would have started firing at anyone else brandishing a weapon and the body count would be much higher and the gunman would most likely still have survived.
I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!!!
... I think it was his attempt at force.
I don't know if I would call one more dead person a much higher death toll.
In China this would have just been a kung-fu attack instead of a shooting.
There, FTFY.
I think it's safe to say that violence has always been with humanity since the origin of our species, and will continue to be with our species for the indefinite future. That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Weapons technology doesn't make people kill, but it sure as heck makes them a lot more proficient at it.
Sure weapons technology makes people more proficient at killing, and the guy probably couldn't have killed as many people with a knife or atlatl, but what about a car or homemade bombs?
A person who is sufficiently crazy is going to find a way to kill a lot of people if he wants to bad enough.
> i never saw a gun
Liar!
You should see how well armed the cops are in Europe. They look like friggen soldiers. Or perhaps in Europe they just have actual soldiers crawling all over the place everywhere. Although that's no better than having all sorts of SWAT looking guys lurking about everywhere.
Either way, if you say you never saw a gun in Europe you're a liar.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Jesus! Are all Australians such poor writers? They must be.
You see... I can generalize just as well as you can. I can even do it with better grammar and spelling.
Yeah... I happen to presume that taking a hand gun to the theater is idiotic but that is just my personal opinion... in fact, I think it says a lot about your culture (or personal insecurity) if you feel that you need to do this. Of course, you are entitle to disagree.
No, I cannot cite examples... it was a question (i.e., how... [sorry I forgot the question mark at the end]).
Can you provide examples to support your claim?
Banning guns in the US would be less successful than banning alcohol or drugs.
Hardly, neither of them really succeeded.
"Most average" ?!?
Citation needed, BTW; your post sounds like a poster child for confirmation bias.
But in America, today, banning guns is a practical impossibility. Like it or not, there are just too many out there, and guess what? -- criminals won't give up theirs. (Interesting fact: it's ALREADY ILLEGAL for felons to own guns, but many do.) If you ban guns, all you're doing is creating a whole nation of helpless victims. Yes, you'd get to (as my friend says) "just arrest anyone you see with a gun", but unfortunately, by the time you SEE the gun, it's already too late.
Yes, it sucks when a guy shoots up a theater, or when people fly planes into buildings. But more people are killed by car crashes and obesity every year than mass killings like this. As much as everyone here hates the nanny state, laws about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and happy meals and large sodas will probably save more lives than letting the TSA or HCI have their way. (Not that I'm a fan of either of the linked laws or organizations. Just sayin' they'd probably do more.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
American Conservatives income the name of Jesus as a sort of identification system. They don't actually give a shit what the guy taught, tending more towards Old Testament sensibities. "Turn the other cheek" is for Lefties and homos.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Once you start shooting, how are the other whackjobs with guns (oops, my bias slipped out there) supposed to know whether you're one of the 'good guys' or not?
Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
'Course, I can tell from your initial post that it doesn't matter what I say, you're going to believe what you choose to believe, and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Jeanne Assam, a former sworn Colorado police officer and a church member acting as security"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings
And if you want more proof, just google Jeanne Assam. There are articles galore in new and old media.
That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Because once guns are banned, nobody is able to get hold of them illegally anymore. Right.
Self-defense is a basic human right.
With a bolt you usually have to lower the weapon between shots to cycle the action, or at the least have to reacquire the target. Bolts also generally re-load either one at a time or with a stripper clip, while a semi-auto generally uses a replaceable box mag.
Semi-autos are much easier to have a high rate of fire with. That would be why US infantry units had much higher firepower than their counterparts during WWII, when we had semi-auto M1s and everyone else had bolts (ignoring SMGs, which outside the Red Army were far less common).
No mindless pro-gun bullshit, please.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It was a movie theater.
The mass murder weapon of choice is gasoline and a match.
This guy was after notoriety.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
And they were probably answering th
Why So Serious?
Guns are banned in many parts of Europe and even in countries where they are banned, gunmen open fire on crowds, e.g.:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1214/Belgium-gunman-also-killed-a-cleaning-woman
So:
D) Get an illegal gun, because no gun ban in the history of the entire world ever, anywhere, in any time nor place, has ever been meaningfully successful at keeping guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
... Secondly, the state of Florida does NOT allow you to disregard those signs. If a building has a conspiciously posted sign barring the concealment of weapons, then it is a felony (minimum 3 year sentence) to conceal a weapon inside that building. It can be a house, a church, an office building, whatever. It does not matter. You have to follow the wishes of the property owner. Failure to do so is tresspass, and since you are armed while committing a trespass, there are stiff penalties.
In practice, armed trespass only comes into effect once a person with authority to do so (property owner or employee) asks you to leave (source); and this is unlikely to happen if an individual is carrying a properly concealed firearm. So the GP was correct; the signs can be ignored; whether a person can be asked to leave or not has nothing to do with whether there is a sign posted or not. Contrast other states where properly formatted and placed signs make it actually illegal to enter with a firearm.
I've heard firearms trainers say that you never know how someone will react to the real thing until it happens. Some people freeze. Some people run. Some people use their weapon.
That said, is it possible that the marine didn't fire because he could not get a clear shot?
Yes, because the Aryan Nation is just a bunch of Muslims after all...
He probably went in unarmed. Left through the exit, propping the door open, and returned.
Not Quick Draw. El Kabong could have though!
I everybody in the theater was armed, maybe the shooter would have survived, but in my own personal opinion, the attack would have not happened. Shotting sitting ducks is a business, engage in a shooting whith 200 hundreds armed man on your own, it's a whole different history. Gun control only benefits wrongdoers, and only harm law abiding citizen. Legal drugs will end the black market and drug mafia, they will pay taxes instead, USA proved that with the alcohol in the '29. All "good" citizen crying for gun control, drug control, and so on, are in my own personal opinion, just being childish and trying to twart their own personal responsability on keeping Freedom. They don't want freedom, they want to be slaves, controlled and "protected" by their master... and, allas, USA citizen are getting what they want. In my own personal opinion, this episode is another chapter in the war against USA Citizen freedom, brought to you by the same company that gave you TSA and pats down. Old good USA is dead, what remains is a tumbling zombie with a lash. Full disclaimer: I'm not a USA citizen, and I don't live in USA. You were a country to imitate, now you are a pitty, man up gentleman. Even third world countries citizen have now more freedom that the average overweight and scared USA citizen who is controlled by his own cowardice.
Wow, so 10% have seen someone killed? 31,159,191 is a lot of people to have actually seen someone killed first hand... And you're saying that's a good thing?
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
I'm pretty certain if he didn't have a gun it wouldn't have happened, so there is that?
Correct. Instead, he'd have made a pipe bomb full of bb's, or brought in a couple of machetes and started slashing at femoral arteries. Perhaps a little ricin powder in the smoke grenade for added effect. Someone who's so psychopathic as to reach a point where they want to kill random people is going to find a way to get the job done. The gun is not the problem.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Giving up liberty for safety is a fool's bargain, because you are *never* guaranteed safety.
Anybody who tells you that they can guarantee your safety just wants control over you.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Didn't you know, there is a magic spell that gets rid of all illegal guns in a country 'at the snap of a finger', and the only reason the US government doesn't use it is because the NRA has bought them off, you see.
Just like 'gun-free-zones' around schools create a magical invisible barrier around them that prevents someone from bringing a gun in.
The 2n Amendment made sense when an army of citizens could mount a rebellion against the most powerful empire on the planet and win.
I'd say the intent of the 2nd Amendment has been superseded from the Civil War onward, as the State's ability to build an arm armies so superior in numbers and equipment made successful rebellion by anything less than anything not nearly at the same level impossible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Please AC, provide an alternative that isn't merely a synonym of either of those words.
would you like to add data points from a dozen other industrialized nations now?
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can't be done legally. Quite some time back, a tax was proposed on printer's ink. Said tax was shot down by the Supremes based on its effect on the First Amendment (it would adversely impact the freedom of the press).
By the same logic, restricting or outlawing the manufacture of firearms would adversely affect the Second Amendment....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
> Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
You're assuming that everyone [with a gun] is capable of behaving rationally in an entirely irrational situation. you are pointing your gun at someone else just like the initial shooter is doing. Do you trust the person on the far side of the theater to know that you're not an accomplice?
> and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
And you are entitled to your opinion too (even if it is wrong)
However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people
Which is also exactly why so-called "gun-free" zones are favorite targets for these nutjobs - they know their victims are all unarmed. It's also exactly why this chap picked a dark theater where people are relaxing, and threw in a smoke canister.
yes, i know how well armed "the police" is, in some places they even carry machine guns. though that is not regular police but the army that is on duty to protect critical places like train stations, airports etc..
point is, i never saw a civilian carrying a gun nor i don't see the point of carrying one. i guess our mentality is indeed different over here.
Yes, most male adults have a gun, but they are military assault rifles, people keep them locked up except when doing target practice, and the ammo is counted when they go on their annual military service. People in Switzerland are not walking around the street with concealed handguns.
only the USA makes this person have easy access to a gun
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's not what I said at all I'm sure the number is closer to 99.9% but I'm sure someone rose would have taken offense at that also.
21st Century Renaissance Man
They don't have the force of law.
That would probably be the Second Amendment, not the Fourth.
The Fourth is about illegal search and seizure.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe not with a knife, but he could have easily built a bomb with homemade components. He could have sewn it into a large jacket, then left it in his seat and detonated it from the safety of the hallway. Or as someone else said, he could have waited for the crowd to start leaving the theater, then plow into them at 60 mph in an SUV.
The only thing that will make people less proficient at killing are full frontal lobotomies and straight jackets.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
he was trying to terrorize people
what other description of the event applies? what other definition of terrorism applies?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm going to have to call you out on this. First of all, you have no data to make those assertions. Secondly, I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
I've been around guns my whole life due to my dad being a cop. He was actually the firearms instructer that did qualifiying for all local agencies (something every cop had to go through every so often). Once he retired, he did some CCW courses.
According to him, the worst "officials" were the parole officers that he would attempt to qualify. For their job, it was option to carry a firearm. Some never got qualified. Occasionally there would be a police officer that would struggle to qualify. But the officers often got a lot more practice on the range.
I'm not an expert on CCW laws but I know the qualifying is less stringent than police officers (in this area). Also, I'm assuming they need to re-qualify less often than the police. The idea that the typical CCW holder gets more practice is an absurd statement.
I haven't even touched the mental prep that the police go through to handle potential lethal situations. How many CCW holders go through extensive training? If I was in that theater, had my CCW and had a gun on me... would I stand up to be a hero? Heck no, I'd probably be on the ground hiding. Especially in a surprise attack which is what this sounds like. I imagine most people would react in the same manner.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency
So grow some balls, really. One day you'll have a wife and children, and one of your jobs will be to keep them safe. What are you going to do if your family is attacked - ask politely for them to please hold on while you call the police? Seems like men aren't men anymore ... "ooh, ooh, I don't have the nerve, please save me". I've been attacked before, let me tell you, the day it happens, nobody is coming to save you ... in those split seconds where it matters, you are the line of defense between you and your family surviving unscathed, or being tied up and watching your wife get raped and shot, etc. This isn't kindergarten, it's real life.
easy access to it means more deaths
it's that simple
i don't understand why our freedom depends upon this tool
i thought it depended upon civil discourse. a gun has no place in civil society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A high degree of social welfare and a very supportive state. Also low population and basically being able to support their life styles by being the global purveyors of criminal banking, for organised crime, corrupt politicians, country pillaging dictators and of course tax cheats. Also cheeto munching, idiot box controlled, redneck who blame others for the failure are more an American characteristic rather than a Swiss characteristic. Of course suck up you idiot gun control laws and wallow in the resultant mass murders, there will be many, many more to come. So cosy up in the blood and dead bodies and feel good about corporate profits in arms sales, the insane asylum, you're in it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Well I guess I can answer my own question - psychology is a nerd thing, I guess. I first thought it would say he designed his own equipment like Batman or something. No it just goes on about how another broken person went on a rampage to get a foot note in history so they will not be forgotten.
For the conspiracy people: Isn't it strange that this happens a few days before the ATT gun treaty the US is about to sign? Giving the government an example of why the ATT should be signed and how it will stop this type of thing from happening in the future. (yea I know it won't stop this type of thing but when would not telling the truth do).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty
Rush Limbaugh is responsible for a lot of damage to this country, but I doubt he is related to this.
Except he could have done all those things but didn't because it's not part of his "vision" of his heroic death, the gun wielding psycho. Plus most of those things require significant amounts of knowledge and planning. The problem is the guns and the people who wield them.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
While I do understand that this is news and this is mostly a site for nerds, the whole article should just be modded "off-topic".
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
In India, there was an attack a few years ago by Muslim terrorists and during that fully trained and higly experienced armed police were slaughtered as they ran into a Muslim. The reason is that normal people have hesitations, compulsions and morals. Muslims do not, so in the split second it would have taken these officers to determine they had run into an animal, they had already died. The evil can always act faster and quicker because they don't have to think.
Wow, I've seen you post here before, but I never realized you were a bigot.
WHERE WAS BATMAN???
Good luck going on a killing spree with a home made pop gun...
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
As opposed to being mowed down like helpless sheep and cattle?
Which they were. If you let every drooling nutjob aquire a tool designed to make killing as easy as possible with no oversight whatsoever, you need everyone else to be armed 24/7. If not, this happens.
I dunno, but I like living somewhere where I dont have to arm myself to go watch a movie.
You're thinking of the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The actual text of the Second Amendment as ratified reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
See it for yourself if you want to.
Right. NOTHING bad happens in countries where citizens don't have guns. Banning guns leads to ponies and rainbows every day.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I agree fully. Who the hell those gubbermint stooges think they are to forbid me from owning canister of sarin, some landmines hidden all around my property (it is *mine* after all) and kg or two of enriched U235. I am free man and this is attack on my liberty!
I'm pretty sure you still get mental institutions, if the culture in America wasn't so vindictive it's probably where he'd end up rather than on Death Row. Do you think you could get hold of a SAM? No? Why is that? Is it because weapon controls don't work?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Hundreds of people shooting wildly? So you think everyone would just close their eyes and spin around blasting away?
"Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt."
This wasn't an isolated incident.
Talking about ways to solve the problem isn't immoral or strange, it is necessary.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
People gotta get their political gigs in before the facts come out, because once the facts come out most agendas won't be able to find any support in it.
(Except for the True Believers, who'll continue to support their claims via conspiracy theories.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
at least explains how man with two shotguns and in full armor can walk into cinema.
He could have done it by wearing a batman costume.
I left that out as there's no indication yet as to whether or not the guns he had were legal... so that may very well be the option taken.
The Muslim terrorists are right-wing nutjobs. They're the right wing of a different culture.
Also, terrorism relates to the intent to create terror for political advantage. If the shooter was doing it to protest violent movies, he's a terrorist. If he was doing it because he's off his meds, he's just nuts. To the extent that the authorities, police and media, distort the definition of terrorism, they're just wrong.
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days is much, much higher than it was in my day, and my day was only 20 years ago. I waltzed into the DMV in Georgia and got my license on my 16th birthday after passing a written test only a real retard could possibly fail and taking a road test that consisted of 4 right turns around the block, a Y-turn in the parking lot, and then backing into a parking space. Contrast this with the mandatory 6-months of Driver's Ed that kids are required to take here, the many hours of practical driving time with an instructor present, and the fact that kids can only get a probationary license until they're 18, which carries restrictions on how many people can be in the car, what hours they're allowed to operate the car, and that a single fuck-up results in them losing their license for a varying length of time. They are also required to take and pass an alcohol awareness course. Getting busted for underage drinking, even if it has nothing to do with driving at all, results in suspension of their license up here. That's automatic.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient? Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns "for their protection"...a sentiment that, coupled with my first-hand experiences with that friend of mine packing that ridiculous weapon, is frankly terrifying.
The constitutional protection of firearms was not born of "survival need" but of the need to defend one's self from a dangerous government.
I have zero idea where you got that idea. The Constitution protected the right to bear arms so that each state would be able to quickly assemble and equip a militia in the event that the country had to defend itself. The idea was that the federal army would remain small while state militias would make up the bulk of the fighting force. There are some people today who are worried about a big federal government, but that was never a fear of the writers of the Constitution because they were trying to remedy the issue of a national government that was too weak. They certainly wouldn't have wanted too see a federal government that was too powerful, but I they probably didn't think that there was a significant possibility of the federal government ever getting that powerful, considering how much bickering there was between the states at the time.
As far as "defending" your self against the government, let's think about a situation in which that might actually happen. A future fascist federal government sends in a death squad of five highly trained soldiers equipped with automatic rifles and ceramic armor into your house to kill you and your family. Do you really think you are going to be able to defend yourself with a semi-automatic pistol that you've only ever used at the firing range? No. What would really happen if there were a conflict between the people and the US government is something akin to what happend in Libya and what is happening in Syria right now. Those rebel militia groups obtained most of their arms illegally. They didn't need a second ammendment to help them.
FYI, I'm a rape victim too, and wanted to buy pepper spray after I found myself freaking out in certain situations.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Your right to drink a beer can hardly be compared to your right to carry deadly weapons.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
That right there is the problem. You have left off the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, which would require gun owners to be well trained in the proper handling, storing, and use of firearms.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
You seem to have a well reasoned response that I largely agree with. However, your opinion about banning semi-automatic firearms seems to promote limitation to firearms of the barrel loaded variety. Is my admittedly poor knowledge of firearm nomenclature misleading me?
I grew up there, thanks.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln
I was referring to the guys that go on shooting sprees in public as nutjobs... not gun owners as nutjobs. I come from rural NY where it's unusual for a house to have fewer guns than people (although handguns are somewhat rare, most are higher powered rifles and shotguns). As far as I'm aware, we haven't had any gun-related violence in a very long time.
However, I would call the Swiss crazy just because of what the Swiss Guard is willing to wear in public.
The problem is, a nutjob can aquire a gun in the USA with ease. Im aware you have (varying by state) restrictions on buying handguns, but cant you pick up an automatic shotgun and ammo at Walmart along with your groceries and just need an ID-check to make sure you are 18?
When its harder to legally drive a car than it is to own a firearm, theres something wrong.
What makes you think police officers get "repeated training on the job"? Most police officers never fire their guns except at annual qualification training. Most police officers go their entire career without ever firing a gun except at that same annual training.
On the other hand, my little brother spends one day every week working at a firing range as a range safety officer - not for pay, for fun. Because he gets to shoot his own guns for free when he's not being the RSO.
So he puts a couple hundred rounds a week through targets as opposed to your typical cop who might shoot fifty rounds a year....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
No one can say that. I personally haven't heard of this hypothetical situation happening at all. Do you have any links to an incident where individuals with a license to carry started shooting each other and bystanders because of a criminal that started shooting first?
The only example I can find is where a gun store was robbed and many individuals shot the robber and no one was injured but the robber. http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp yeah I'm lazy and snopes was first in google.
He probably did so because he is from a country/culture which:
a) Finds the frequent occurrence of these kinds of incidents in the US, and the rates of US gun crime in general, to be both notable and disturbing. And
b) Nevertheless views US society and culture as an aspirational or progressive model for their own.
If you're from another country, particularly an anglophone country, which looks to the US for leadership in many fields, the automatic response to these incidents is to blame a single, easily identifiable flaw---in this case gun ownership. Doing this allows them to be dismissed as a correctable or ignore-able aberration in a system otherwise worth emulating.
However, as you have pointed out, the reality is that gun ownership does not by itself explain why such things happen so frequently in the US. In reality, the reasons are probably much deeper and indeed systemic issues and pathologys within American society and culture which remain unresolved or even unrecognized. All of which would present a problem for anyone who is trying to order their own country in the model of the US.
The basic point is that society and culture is more important than gun ownership. But recognising this forces you to conclude that there is something wrong with US society and culture and this is a difficult thing for both Americans and for people who look to America for leadership. It's easier to blame gun licences than to reassess your own world view.
May the Maths Be with you!
wait for movie to let out. Drive car fast. Drive over people. Kills more then 12 people. [p] I don't know why anyone would use a gun if all they want to do is kill people. Guns are good for targeted attacks, but not mass killing.
If you can't see the assailant because of the tear gas he deployed first, then how on earth are you going to try to aim at and shoot him?
In some states that is.
So he's saying right there that while it may not be clearly ruled via case law, it is possible you have committed trespass. The author of the book doesn't think you have, but I believe that most reasonable people will assume that the sign expressly forbids you to enter while possessing a weapon.
The marine explained that he didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting another innocent bystander. The reason I brought up his combat experience was to point out that he knew how to react, and had reacted in precisely that kind of situation. He had a gun, he had the training and experience to use it effectively, and certainly would have had no qualms about shooting the guy if he'd thought it would help, but he did none of those things.
I am officially gone from
Because self-defense is a widely recognized legal defense, and this new narrative totally tears apart the picture of "white on black unprovoked violence" that was pushed as the story for a while.
So http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704630004576248600469362440.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-646126.html and http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_eEAC03XCJX2eCY9xSIDd4qDzdA just didn't happen?
in North Korea.
Twitter: @dainsanefh
The shooter is 24 year old James Holmes. His car has TN plates, but he had an apart in/near Denver.
Not true.
One can ask get some one else to do something for him by reason, money, threat and trick.
As it should be....
"And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?"
I was in north hollywood when there was that ugly bank shooting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout). People move out of the way fairly quickly.
I'd bet that at the theater incident above there were masses of people around the shooter for about 3 or 10 seconds. After that, if you weren't hit, you bugged out or were hiding behind something. At that time someone could have probably had a clear shot.
Not that I'm advocating this -- just your reasoning is incomplete.
"You mean like no one is attacking NATO force in Afganisthan because they are openly carrying weapons? If some nuts decide to go mass murderer it is not some concealed weapon that are going to make him change hist mind, he will just use clever tactics."
Not building a better mousetrap isn't necessarily a reason to prevent getting better mice -- it's likely the mice will figure out what you have and use "clever tactics" to get around your stale technology. Sometimes you need to have an "arms race".
Not even overseas, you'd just have a booming used market with owners doing a lot of work to maintain old models, as with retro gaming or affordable sports cars.
Actually that might help a little bit to keep them out of the hands of common street thugs, due to the effort involved and a community intention of keeping the items in good hands.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The problem with all of this rationale is a simple one: he's a trained soldier who knows how to use his gun. This is like the experienced chauffeur or race track driver talking about driving. He is right: IF everybody in the world could use a firearm as well as he can. Instead, just like driving your car on public roads, you have to deal with idiots who barely know which end of the gun to point away from them. In that circumstance having guns widely available in society is a recipe for disaster. Guns should not be banned, they should be tools that you get access to only if you can demonstrate high proficiency, just like this guy would be able to do.
The problem with his "disparity" and "equal footing" argument is the same as with cars. Sticking an incompetent driver in a big, powerful, heavy SUV doesn't solve a damn thing. In fact, it makes things worse and less safe for everybody else. Guns are NOT an idiot-proof tool, which is why this guys argument is flawed. Yet again, it is not the tool that is the problem, it's the people wielding them. You can't level the playing field by handing everyone guns, because an idiot with a gun is probably worse than an idiot without one. He should be free to carry a gun, but I expect he would be a lot less happy and feel a lot less safe if everyone he met on the street also carried one.
Pretty sure you're the first person in this thread to suggest a political affiliation for the shooter.
You can carry a gun in public in Switzerland. There are a few restrictions, such as that it has to be unloaded and can only be carried for the sake of transport (permits to carry a gun for the sake of self-defense can be hard to acquire), but it is done and I have myself seen it done (I saw people carrying a rifle on the public transport and in the street a few times - it's usually people on their way to the shooting range)
Now as to why Switzerland has less shootings: The USA have a 'rambo' kind of gun culture. Switzerland doesn't have that.
When you, as a society, start to tell people that guns are cool, and killing 'bad guys' (whoever they might be) is cool, you are also creating a society where individuals value human life less and believe that solving problems with guns is acceptable.
When a person like this suffers psychological or emotional problems, they're less likely to be able to dismiss the idea of killing somebody to feel better or solved their problems.
3 != 15+50
If you had a room of 50 people you'd be overrun
Misquote and wrong amendment.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
We should also ban anything that can conceivably make a bomb too because if you can't make a bomb, then you can't blow up people. Good luck keeping your bathroom clean, your vegetables fertilized and your car running.
What is it we learned so many times in school and in Disney movies? "Where there's a will, there's a way"
My question stands: would you rather be armed or unarmed in that situation, all else considered?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
As someone who has his concealed carry (My job requires it). Emphasis in the course is on the ramifications of using the firearm, even against an individual like the jackarse in Colorado. Firing blindly in a smokey dark environment is the perfect way to ensure that you lose the ability to carry a gun and that's if nobody is harmed. Injure someone and it becomes a court case in which you stand a good chance of losing your freedom to the prison system for an extended duration! Kill someone innocent and that becomes almost a guarantee! Just drawing your sidearm in public becomes a situation that involves the police and can end up with a night (or longer) in jail.
As for WI law, you've had open carry for YEARS without licensing! And there hasn't been chaos in the streets.
So implying that if there had been CCW holders in the audience would have turned it into a worse situation is completely off base. Likely, they would've evacuated the theater and fallen back to a safe location like the rest of the people, barring a close encounter with the shooter, and then because he already had his weapons out, they would've stood only a marginally better chance than a knife carrying individual.
As for the people who are armed and 'scare' you, first, they are an 8 hour course, with shooting test. Second, depending on the course giver, the test can be harder than what your local police officer has had to go through.
Agreed. This incident should not be taken as an example either for or against gun control. Gun control would not likely have stopped the guy from getting a gun, and lack of gun control would not have allowed another armed citizen in the theatre to aim through tear gas, a dark, crowded theatre, with lots of commotion, nor even realize that this was not just an act by the theatre employees (as some people reported they first believed).
Let's try to find out why this guy did such a horrific thing instead of fighting about gun laws that wouldn't have had an effect either way.
The person in question had a bullet-resistant vest, a helmet, smoke (or tear-gas, I see different accounts) grenades, and kicked in a door that normally opens outward (I've kicked in doors that open away from me, I can't actually imagine kicking in a door that opens towards me).
All of which tends to suggest that this was pretty well planned out in advance. In other words, NOT an attack of madness.
Hate to say this, but who really cares about people who commit suicide? If they want to end their lives, I have no real problem with it.
Unless of course they choose "suicide by cop" - take a gun downtown and start shooting till the cops blow you away....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
First blame it on a political motive. Must be a right-wing nut. Couldn't just be a plain old garden-variety nut, gotta be some way to blame your political opponents for this. Don't wait for the facts to come out, get the idea out there circulating that it's all part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
This is especially funny because the new Dark Knight movie actually carries a very right-wing message.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't know what state you're talking about, but in Kentucky the sign doesn't carry any weight. All the store owner can do is ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops. If you don't leave when the cops ask you to, then you can be charged with trespassing. Granted, buildings such as courthouses are another issue.
Sig: I stole this sig.
What about Twitter?
May the Maths Be with you!
Ok, so how do they know you're just not shooting at them yet? They can't see who you are shooting at and they don't know if you're going to swing your gun and shoot them next.
You're ignoring the possibility that innocents would have likely been hit in the crossfire. A permit to carry doesn't mean the person carrying a sharpshooter or even necessarily a good shot. I know a person that carries a ridiculous hand-cannon he bought when they legalized concealed carry here recently and he's only fired the weapon a couple times total (he joked about how he could barely keep the thing on target due to the recoil and this is a weapon he carries for self-defense in public!). I actually feel less safe when I'm with him and he's packing, which is why I won't hang out with him when he is. He chalks it up to me being afraid of guns, but in actuality, I'm afraid of him with a gun...
In the right hands it's possible that someone could have taken this guy out and prevented this many deaths, but it's equally possible we could be talking about even more dead, with some of them tragically being killed by people trying to shoot the asshole that shot up the place. I doubt the families of those victims would have taken much comfort in the circumstances, regardless of who was pulling the trigger and why.
every country has senseless gun deaths, but not at the rate of the USA, because the USA makes guns too easy to get
now mod me troll and get back to worshipping your holy gun
sad, pathetic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cause they are not filled with crazy white American men.
Seriously, only Muslims and White American men do this kind of thing. I don't think there has ever been a Chinese-, African-, Japansese- American serial killer.
Maybe, that's why the US hates the Islamic nations so much.
Virginia Tech shooting...
This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
I submit that nutjobbery of any sort is correlated with way with mass murdering as a result of causality.
Zimmerman got those injuries in response to provocative actions that he himself took. Simply losing a fight that you provoked doesn't give you the legal right to kill your opponent. It's a lot more complicated than that.
I assume you have proof, a reliable witness, or else a courtcase where that was decided by a jury to back you up?
Maybe when you know that everyone has a submachine gun in their closet at home, people are less likely to use guns as threats. Of course they likely don't have a huge culture that revolves around guns without necessarily the responsibility that comes with it.
True. For example, you can deal with one another by ignoring one another, which is neither force nor reason...
But getting out of his car? That make him the threat.
What kind of fantasy world do you live in where getting out of your car entitles someone to attack you?
Most military bases are practically gun-free zones, believe it or not. As a rule of thumb, firearms are only allowed on base with specific permission from the base commander, or when duty specifically requires it (e.g. military police). Most soldiers can't even keep their personal firearms in on-base housing or in the barracks; they're kept locked up in the armory.
Which makes it odd that the usual response to a lunatic killing people is to scream for tighter gun laws...
That's interesting, because all I've heard so far are a bunch of John Wayne wannabes saying that had they been in that theater with their 9mm handgun, they would have been able to kill the shooter. You know, the shooter who had them outgunned, outarmored, outpositioned, and didn't have to worry about firing around a theater full of panicking people.
I won't be surprised if this turns into a public outcry for stricter gun control, but I don't think it's likely. I'm sure this guy had a copy of Modern Warfare somewhere in his house; that's much easier to pin the blame on.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too vehemently.
Take it fron an old-school conservative and veteran: what we have out there on the "political right" are a bunch of authoritarian extremists that mainly serve as the "tick" to the not-quite-so-right-wing "tock" of the other side.
Nixon would have been branded a raving communist fascist by this bunch, too "liberal" to even run as a Democrat in many parts of the country.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Even Quick Draw McGraw wouldn't have been able to stop him from killing a few people
No, but perhaps he wouldn't have been able to murder a few of the other people.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Colorado has no where near the population density of DC. As in most large cities, there are lots of poor people and gangs - both of which lead to more violence. Gang violence also isn't prevented by the fear of the victim having guns - you're not going to find someone spraying bullets out of a moving car stop to worry that the people they're shooting might shoot back.
Note:
Depending on the State, simply putting up a sign that says "No Guns Plz. Kthnxbye. " doesn't cut it.
In Texas ( I can't speak for Colorado ), in order to legally keep concealed carry pistols out of a place of business, a sign must be posted at every entrance to the building where it is easily seen. It MUST be in a very specific format ( letter height of one inch, contrasting color, English and Spanish language ) or the sign and prohibition of concealed weapons within the premises, is invalid.
That being said, according to what I've heard so far. This guy came in the back entrance ( no way he's going to kick in the emergency door considering they're usually metal framed, outward swinging, locked from the inside setup ) and tossed in a teargas or pepper-gas canister. He then opened fire.
He was supposedly wearing body armor and a gas mask to counter the canister he tossed in.
In this scenario, it's fish in a barrel.
Even IF there are folks in the crowd with decent training or skill, the teargas goes a long way in nullifying that. Those of you who have had the pleasure of standing in a cloud of that crap sans mask know exactly what I'm talking about. It's bad enough outside, it's REALLY bad inside a closed space. It's damn tough to draw, aim and fire at a target when your doubled over coughing your lungs out, your eyes burning so bad you can't see anything and your sinuses are trying to turn themselves inside out. Multiply that against the number of people in that theater and they didn't have much of a chance. I'm just surprised more didn't die.
It's also been said prohibitions of weapons in said places are pointless. They are 100% right.
The individual who is going to rob the bank, shoot up an establishment, or commit any other violent crime really doesn't give two shits about violating some weapons law in the process. The only thing the prohibition laws do is make it easier for the criminal as they know it is unlikely they will face any threat that can counter what they are bringing to the party.
Folks will try to blame the availability of guns for this atrocity. He could have easily waited till the show ended then run his car through the crowds of folks walking out. He could have used something far more lethal than teargas such as explosives or other chemical devices. The list of potential means to do harm to others is only limited by the human imagination. ( We're actually pretty damn good at coming up with ways to kill each other )
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place. In fact, the gun laws are getting much stricter in an attempt to quash the gun violence that we DO have. There was recently a shooting here, and it was a big deal that TWO people were killed. 12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
The USA and Canada are different; I wouldn't suggest that you adopt our system per se, because your circumstances aren't the same. But it seems obvious to me that sufficiently strict gun laws CAN work if they have an appropriate societal context to exist.
I have heard this straw man quite a bit but have never heard of any actual news stories where a person intervening in a shooting rampage has caused more harm than good. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever to back this up?
What are you talking about? Do you have any studies, numbers, even an educated guess at those numbers? I know a lot of cops and they practice plenty often. I'm not at all worried about whether then can wield the weapon responsibly when the need arises.
A quick face book search for James Holmes, Aurora will give you some info.
Yup.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29"
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
Like driving, which everyone complains about, just because you're driving doesn't make you any good at it. Just because you sat through 30 hours of school and had 30 - 60 hours of practice, doesn't mean you're not going to screw up, willfully, or through negligence, ignorance, or lack of wisdom.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
So if an armed man threatens me I'm not allowed to defend myself by say punching him the face and attempting to subdue him before he can shoot me?
But if someone punches me I can shoot them?
That seems a strange pair of rules.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all.
I think you are exactly right that it is the relative cultural norm that would define your reaction. For example, if you saw a landscaping crew in the USA all "armed" with machetes, you might be nervous or uncomfortably surprised. However, in places like Costa Rica, only tourist would be surprised, as it is a normal tool for clearing brush there.
Ah Jesus. It should be noted that this kind of apologizing for gun-owners immediately after a gun massacre would only happen in America.
That's because the news media typically blames the gun instead of the criminal. Just wait - they'll talk more about the gun than the shooter, especially if it's an "automatic" or "assault weapon" (neither of which actually exist in the U.S. outside of military and police). So that immediately puts law abiding gun owners on the defensive.
Worse, politicians will use this as justification to push more laws that wouldn't have prevented the tragedy to begin with.
i'm glad he is retired.
Even less newsworthy is the more common "man points his gun at would-be robber, robber decides that robbery is a bad idea"....
Which is one reason breaking into an occupied home is much less common here than it is in, say, the UK.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html
"President Barack Obama, who was notified of the shooting on Friday morning by his homeland security adviser, John Brennan,"
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/07/northeast_portland_man_who_str.html
"Judge acquits John Brennan on indecent exposure charge"
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
And left wing people are perfectly innocent?
Well said...
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Ability scales with population. To say it's easier for a small country to enforce a law is to say that the US can't build roads or armed forces like Switzerland has because we're too big. Obviously ability scales with population and size. And certainly with wealth - the US has enormously more resources per capital than Iceland has. Same deal with the "expense" of installing fiber-to-the-home and such - of course we can do it, at reasonable cost for everyone, and run it for pennies per terabit - it's just that some people don't want it to happen for their own reasons.
I agree that we can't eliminate guns without turning us into a police state. I also look up at all the cameras, the GPS trackers in our phones and our cars (soon), the drones, the blimps, the private cop armies being built - we already have the police state. The 50 cal you have in the basement, ready to revolt? Useless. This isn't pioneer America. Look what happened to Occupy, a totally peaceful and unarmed organization - arrested before they even left their homes. You think you can wave *guns* at the state and live?
Yes, I am afraid of the man on the street with a gun. I know too many people. The man you see before you could be bipolar, angry, depressed, sociopathic, ideologically insane, consumed with end-times nonsense (very common in the US). I am afraid because if everyone is armed, some MUST crack and start firing, every damned day - just as what happened last night.
Keep in mind that being armed would have saved few last night - he tossed in a smoke bomb and started firing. Pop guns, machine guns, armies - nothing works against a simple plan that plays on people's confused perceptions. Surprise trumps defense, every time.
I am afraid it is too late to "control" guns in the US - too many, too ideologically mad. But I think "no military assault weapons" is a sane rule, as no one needs those. Those are for mass slaughter. You need them to kill crowds, not muggers.
And just to remind everyone: laser guns are coming soon. Mass murder with a damned flashlight at distance and with no sound. They are already outlawed. But they will come.
In CC states, what percentage of business have a no guns policy and what percentage of those business will allow you to check a gun at the door?
And finally, it should be noted that even including this incident, the murder rate in Colorado is lower than it is in Washington DC, where owning a firearm is essentially illegal....
Actually it should be noted that, ignoring RATE, there are more murders in Washington DC (population 600k or so) than in Colorado (population 5.1 million or so) in a typical year.
I put it in the same category as similar paradoxical factoids -- for instance, that the states with the most stringent marriage-defense laws tend to have highest rate of out-of-wedlock births. The laws are an attempted reaction against an existing social problem (perhaps a mal-adaptive, but an attempt at a protective response nonetheless); states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action.
Unfortunately, in either of the two cases, ideology locks leaders into a fixed and unhelpful response.
Major Caudill does not exist. This essay was originally written by Marko Kloos in 2007.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Shortly thereafter it was plagiarized and falsely attributed to the nonexistent Major Caudill. It even appeaed in a certain celebrity's book.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/major-caudill-hits-the-big-time/
Not with a flint knife and an atlatl, but there are plenty of easily improvised weapons. You would have to take us back to the stone age to remove our ability to improvise such munitions.
And then we'd just be subject to whoever's biggest.
would you like to put up a dozen more data points from other industrialized countries with stricter gun control laws?
thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No. Citizens with the ability to legally own and carry a firearm gives them at least some sort of fighting chance against bullshit like this. :|
With no means to protect yourself, you may as well line up against the wall and let them shoot you in the back of the head.
The police are not there to protect you. They are there to pick up the pieces afterwards and try to determine the why behind it.
Actually, unless legislated for the venue, those signs do not mean anything for a CC. The sign is just expressing the policy of the business and holds no power over CC permit holders.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Removing guns from society leaves a society of vulnerable people to the criminals with guns. With all the talk of rights infringement by the NSA on this site, I thought people here would hate the idea of losing yet another inalienable right. Surprisingly they seem all to ready to hand those rights away. No wonder the government gets away with what they do. No one cares...
Yet it is almost without exception, those who rave about the need for firearms who are the most gung-ho in favor of government surveillance, wars of aggression, freedom destroying drug laws, government intrusion into the womb warrantless spying on Americans and such similar rabidly anti-freedom legislation.
Were these cowardly traitors to believe a word of their own bullshit, they would have murdered Reagan and the Bushes who were directly responsible for most of the push to fascism in this country, instead they call everyone who stands against totalitarian fascism terrorist sympathizers. Oh until a black man gets elected and continues lockstep with the right wing extremist attack on freedom and then pretend that they weren't the driving force behind it. The goal? To elect even greater extremists to do the same damn thing.
So, please, save your deluded fascist propaganda.
have less senseless gun deaths
end of common sense observation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thing is most people aren't very good at making bombs and will likely fail, usually at a not insignificant cost to themselves. Every idiot with an inferiority complex who wants to be like John Wayne can buy a gun over the counter.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Was visibility *totally* obscured for everyone? It's possible someone would have gotten a clear shot on the guy before he killed and injured most of the people he did.
Unfortunately the night vision scope on my AR15 makes it difficult to stuff into my pants.
:wq
[Citation Needed]
I live in Denver and this is the first I've heard of this. Sounds like bullshit to me.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
Yeah, you'd have to be crazy to do that. Oh, wait.
... how much are killed in traffic every day?
The police shoot random unarmed people just for moving their hands. Being shot by friendly fire is far preferable to that, so get back to me about gun control after you've disarmed the police.
Your argument is moot actually.
Sans firearms, I would have simply tossed in home-made explosives. Or something a bit more lethal than tear-gas. Or would have waited until the show ended then run my car through the exiting crowd at high speed. Dump some ( insert powdered poisonous substance here ) into the air intakes. Get the whole theater at the same time.
We're human. We WILL find a way.
Citation?
Still not as hilarious as when they claimed that the Star Wars prequels were anti-Bush. They were basically saying themselves that Bush was evil, the only things Bush and Palpatine had in common otherwise was that they were both old white men. Somewhat similar to the situation with the V for Vendetta movie.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Concealed carry by citizens" is the free software movement of the security world, if that makes any sense. Rather than rely on "trained professionals" for my security I have the means to protect myself and my family.
Had I been at that theatre it might well have turned out very different. I can't say. I am usually armed in public and I know how to use my guns. That doesn't guarantee success in a case like this but it sure makes the odds better.
One of the PR problems with CCW is that the successful foiling of an attack like this is a local headline, whereas the successful attack is an international headline.
Do you have ESP?
The data bellow , clearer shows a conspiracy from The Avengers producers to prevent Batman to get even richer.
The Avengers
Studio Marvel Studios
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures
Budget $220 million
Box office $1,458,170,615
The Dark Knight Rises
Studio Legendary Pictures,Syncopy Films,DC Comics
Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures
Budget $250 million
Expecting Box office +$2,000,000,000
Average person is not a murderer. If they panic they are more likely not to draw the gun at all than to start blasting in every direction.
Zimmerman was on the ground with his head being bashed into the concrete by Martin - this according to eyewitnesses. He had a broken nose and a huge gash on the back of his head. That was the correct time to use a gun. He should have stayed in his van to begin with, but in the situation he ended up in he did the right thing.
Do you have ESP?
I haven't even touched the mental prep that the police go through to handle potential lethal situations. How many CCW holders go through extensive training? If I was in that theater, had my CCW and had a gun on me... would I stand up to be a hero? Heck no, I'd probably be on the ground hiding. Especially in a surprise attack which is what this sounds like. I imagine most people would react in the same manner.
No, if you had proper gun training, and were an ordinary civilian, you would most certainly not stand up and be a hero. Why? Because you would know how dangerous it is to the others in the area for you to do so. As so many others have mentioned, this was not a good scenario to go shooting off your gun. Remember, as a private citizen, you are legally liable for every bullet that leaves your firearm. If you accidentally injured or killed an innocent bystander, you would likely end up in jail and face severe criminal and civil penalties. Unless you could clearly see and identify the perpetrator, and had a safe line of sight, you are better off seeking cover and concealment.
Overkill, depending on how armored it is.
When you truly care, say it with HEAP
Bonus, it turns body armor into walking frag grenades.
As a well trained soldier, he may have realized that discharging his firearm would cause more harm than good. Every situation is different, and must be handled accordingly.
Yah, strict gun-control laws CAN work. And complete lack of gun-control laws CAN work too. It's not like there's a correlation between gun control laws and murder rates - Louisiana is pretty free about gun control, and has a relatively high (by US standards) murder rate, Colorado is just as free and has a relatively low (by US standards) murder rate. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and some of the highest murder rates.
And on and on and on.
For that matter, over the last couple decades, gun laws have, in most parts of the USA, been relaxed quite a lot - and the murder rate has declined steadily while this was happening.
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
BLOCKQUOTE>There was recently a shooting here, and it was a big deal that TWO people were killed. 12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
Trust me, this will make (probably already has made) the front page of every major newspaper in the USA.
And every place I've ever lived would have had a banner headline if two people had been killed in the same event.
Mind you, I've never lived in Chicago, Washington DC, or New York City....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The "training" for my concealed carry permit was a 1 hour online video and a 20 question multiple choice test. I may be a crazy right wing gun owning nut, but even I think that was too easy. A hunting license (for deer) is a whole weekend course.
That said, we're statistically in the the most law abiding category, but I'd like to know that we've at least proven we can hit a target.
:wq
In 2008 the DC gun ban was struck down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The provisions in the Bill of Rights is not open for debate, it simply enumerates rights that the government has no power to infringe/remove/curtail. It is the Supreme Court's duty to prevent any substantial infringement of any rights listed in that amendment. For all intents and purposes the Bill of Rights IS the constitution. The first three articles are just as valuable in establishing a government but wane in importance next to human rights. One of those rights is the right to protect myself *and* to remain a threat to the government. We live in a VERY safe society so it easy now to get all huffy about firearm ownership, but to make them unavailable to anyone for personal protection is inhumane. Being driven to use a firearm is a terrible thing, most of the time the mere presence of one is enough to establish the security of a person. No issue arises in that case and so you do not have the data for which to say that it prevented an altercation. A catch 22. But we do have incidences like this for which there is no answer or solution. If a person is willing to give up their life to hurt others then you will be hard pressed to stop or limit the damage in any case.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Then why do we spend so much energy making rules?
Because politicians feel they have to make rules to be perceived as "doing something".
If a politician spent several years of time cleaning up existing laws (and removing "duplicates" or old laws against carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket) so they were more logical and readable to regular people, they'd be seen as not having "done" anything during that time. Add to that the fact that there are so many special interest groups, and you get lots of laws passed just to help win some votes.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
There was an incident in Montréal (Canada) last year where police officers firing upon a criminal hit and killed a random passerby about half a block away. If trained police officers in relatively controlled conditions can kill innocent people, I'd hate to see what would happen if a bunch of amateurs started firing in a crowded and smoky movie theater.
Likely not. Most people who carry are trained and won't shoot indiscriminately in a darkened room.
In colorado, one must take a class in order to get the concealed permit. While a single class is nothing compared to real military training, they usually cover "don't shoot in crowded areas where you can't even see your target."
While having a gun might not have done much good in this circumstance, it seems unfair to assume that any carrier would automatically just start shooting randomly.
Note also that "training", or being part of a "militia" in no way implies that you're less likely to wig out and shoot someone.
Yes. statistically in fact, I think you are actually MORE likely to do it.
Statistics show a citizen with a CCW is safer than an LEO, in that regard.
If I had to wager a guess on why, it'd be that citizen training is, "don't shoot" while LEO training is, "always be ready to shoot, quickly".
No, there they kill for a reason. In the US people kill mainly because they're societies rejects and because they have a problem committing to reality.
Says who? Having a gun doesn't automatically make a person start shooting randomly, when they can't even see a target.
All it would take is one armed citizen, sitting near the shooter.
This guy was going to kill people with or without guns, so before all you people who don't believe in the second amendment go after someone's constitutionally protected right to own a firearm you better think about those other constitutional protections that you enjoy which the other side of the isle will be equally willing to take away. This is the price we pay for living in a somewhat "free" society.
Remove the right to legally own guns and you still have a crazy person intent on killing innocents. He'd just obtain the weapons illegally, or choose another method like a car or homemade explosives that can do just as much or more damage.
Maybe when you know that everyone has a submachine gun in their closet at home, people are less likely to use guns as threats. Of course they likely don't have a huge culture that revolves around guns without necessarily the responsibility that comes with it.
Somehow I don't think that this particular person was worrying about what people had at home.
Dear God, I just watched that movie a few days ago. You're absolutely right on.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The interesting thing about guns is that there is really no such thing as "outgunned" - one shot can kill a man, whether from a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or a machinegun. And having a pistol/rifle/shotgun/machinegun doesn't actually protect you from the other guy's pistol/rifle/shotgun/machinegun.
If *I* had been there (which I wouldn't have been, even if this had happened where I live, since I never go to opening night movies - too damn crowded), and I had been carrying (which I wouldn't have been, since I see no real need to do so), I would probably not have taken a shot (darkness, smoke, the movie itself interfering with both vision and hearing, etc). But if I had had a pistol, and a clear shot, I would have used it, and he would have stopped shooting (yes, a bullet-resistant vest would have meant I couldn't kill him with a shot to center of mass, but I don't use a 9mm, and either a .40 or .45 (which I do use) would have put him on his ass).
Why not? The Democrats have used every single shooting that made national news in the last half century as an excuse for stricter gun control....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
hitlar?
white on black unprovoked violence
That word does not mean what you think it means.
Why do people keep posting this nonsense? This is the third comment I have seen that assumes that owning a gun somehow makes a person stupid. People with guns on them wouldn't automatically start shooting randomly into a crowd of civilians when they can't even see an assailant. Sheesh.
Sorry, but you've got that backwards.
I see, why are so many of the rules adhered to, oh fount of wisdom?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Yep.
And DC still makes it as difficult as possible to own a firearm.
There are places where it is more difficult to own a gun than DC, but not many in the USA.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. Not true. I think you will find that humans will generally do what other humans do around them. Humans are basically sheep.
This person who pulled this "tactical" attack meant to ensure that people would die no matter what. He certainly planned on someone having a firearm on them and perhaps he was worried about getting shot by police as well. You are right, a CC holder may or may not have stopped him or limited the damage, and it is not really their job to do so. Like I mentioned, the attacker had already planned this and had contingencies in place (smoke grenade, bullet-proof vest, multiple weapons of varying utility). Although, getting hit with a vest on is still going to stop the perpetrator. I'm very good with a firearm, but I don't know if I would have tried to stop him unless he directly threatened me or I had a clear shot.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
That's an impressively high density of tired cliches you have there.
This attack likely would have happened no matter if the audience were all armed. However, the more dangerous ranged weapons that are available to the public, the more victims a mentally unbalanced person can potentially claim before being taken out themselves.
You rarely get mass shootings like that here in the UK, because hardly anyone has access to, or even an interest in, guns. The last serious incident was in 2010, but the only other ones before that were in 1996 and 1987.
which is totally what she said
Probably none if the armed were all trained. You have to show proficiency to get a CC license. This is what happens when a couple of armed robbers try to rob a casino full of people when there's one seventy one year olf man armed and fighting back (the video is amusing). Bottom line -- several shots are fired, the only people shot are the robbers, who flee and are caught and jailed.
Free Martian Whores!
No. That's not a case of untrained used of lethal force.
That's a case of untrained law enforcement in general. It was a case of unchecked vigilantism. They guy even went so far as to disobey the instructions of an official dispatcher.
So it goes even further than inept vigilantism and is a case of blatant insubordination and lack of discipline.
Cop wannabe gone bad and ignoring orders.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
To every person asking for personal armed defense I ask: "Do you drive a car? If you do so everyday, how many other drivers would you lock behind bars for being assholes even though they presumably passed their tests?". Yes, with guns it's going to be the same. I don't want to wear kevlar suits everywhere I go "just in case"...
no, I think he would have killed more.
THINK about it. A dark loud theater. Everyone's attention is directed at the screen. A knife is silent. running that flint knife across your neck would only take a second before I can move on to my next target.
A gun VARY loud. It attracts everyone's attention. While the panic is somewhat useful (from the attacker's persective), it also means potental targets have all identified atleast the area the threat is at and are reacting. To the knife wielding attacker only those in an area of one or two seats have chance at realizing what is going on.
To be honest, if you are trying for a body count in a venue like this, a knife would be a far better weapon.
Where was this guy? http://boingboing.net/2012/07/19/elderly-gentleman-shoots-armed.html -- That link there shows a video of an elderly man thwarting an armed robbery in an internet cafe. No guarantees, but it sure could've made a difference at the theater.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Because the laws did not seem to stop Breivik.
Gun laws did not seem to stop the Columbine shooters either - they did not obtain their guns legally.
No. Shooting into the ceiling might not have been a bad idea. There is such a thing as suppressing fire you know. You don't try to hit the target so much as you try to force him to hide. A few rounds embedded in the ceiling might have startled the gunman or scared him off.
Your kind of defeatist attitude is why we all have targets painted on our backs. We're conditioned to give up when things get a little difficult.
It's a hard problem. Let's cower.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Which is precisely why gun control legislation does not work: when you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. In states which have "shall issue" CCW laws and "castle doctrines", this type of thing tends to occur less frequently than in heavy gun control states. After all, it's not a good risk to a criminal if he doesn't know which of his potential victims is armed and might prematurely end his criminal attempt.
it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
If a mugger is pointing a gun at me, it doesn't matter whether I'm armed or not. If I try to draw, he'll shoot me.
Don't take this to mean that I agree with the rest of the post - this was just the most obvious fallacy.
The argument for 100% armament is fatally flawed in that it assumes everyone who engages in any form of interaction with other people will be both reasonable and averse to violence. Sooooo naive...
Murica
First: you may run. I may not. Bravery is sometimes described as not the absence of fear, it is the control of it.
Second: Not everybody is required to own a gun and just a couple of people in the theatre could have stopped this goon. (Also, practice can be fun.)
Third: There is a simple solution to this. If another person with a gun is pointing it at the goon who is shooting unarmed people, then you don't shoot him, you help him.
Serious?
You did read the part where the guy threw in a smoke grenade, which FYI makes it kinda hard to see. So if anyone had fired back, it would have been done blindly.
I think you can imagine how high the hit ratio against the gunman would have been.
Though the article did not mention if it was dark or not. Even without a smoke gren it might have been dark enough for the gunman to not be seen.
And don't start with muzzle flash, that is reserved for Hollywood.
Not to mention most cinemas are filled with rows and rows of chairs. I.e. cover
And to repeat the article most thought it was a gimmick for the film. Even the gunfire might have seemed gimmicky. Even a few screaming might have been 'surprisingly cool' because, well there are always some that scream around when they get frighted in such a movie.
So by the time everyone realized what the fark was going on, the cinema was full of smoke and most of the damage done.
So if we would have taken your 'armed cinema goers firing back' theory, you would have had a cinema full of people firing around blindly at a gunman that probably already would have ducked / gotten out (presumably he knew where the exit was he just entered through) after the first return shots.
How many would have been killed in the ensuing chaos of gunfire and people fleeing. And with the gunman already gone (if he was smart he would ditch the weapon & mask and told everyone the gunman was still inside! evident by the shots still being fired) all further dead would have been by the people IN the cinema.
Yep, I can totally see that arming the people REALLY makes sense.
He had a gas mask. He could have just as easily made homemade nerve gas and skipped the firearms entirely.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, the obvious solution is to outlaw large cities.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well that's all very grand, until somebody comes up and shoots you in the back.
Leveller? Not really.
And as you writhe there on the ground and have your gun taken off you, you'll be forced
to realise that your gun is actually part of the problem. Not a solution to anything at all.
I take it you assumed everybody plays by your rules of honour?
Not in the real world, only in internet comment land.
Please mod this up, as all military bases are like this. Firearms are locked away and strictly controlled.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"and then hope that amateurs take him down"
All the regular gun-carriers I know train regularly and frequently.
The fact that they don't get paid for it does not make them less proficient than people who do.
Wait, Fox is left-wing?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
This reminds me of the Hunter Safety and Education Course that we took as kids. One segment was the "Shoot or Don't Shoot" video exam. The joke was to just say "Don't Shoot" for every example and you'd score well. It was a bit like those old drivers ed videos that were designed to terrify you.
I thought it said he kicked the door in?
"If you look at The Communist Manifesto, it's a pretty good idea."
No, it's not a pretty good idea, it's absurd class warfare oriented thievery disguised to look altruistic.
Marx was an unemployed leech who lived off of the largesse of the capitalist father of Engels and dreamed of and wrote about his plans to steal the productivity of the rich for the 'good of the people'.
And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of the people to bear arms.
“A well armed society is a polite society.” George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson.
You must also understand this; it is your duty and right to protect yourself and your family. The police are only there to clean up and take notes afterwards. As many have said, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. As you can see the police in this case did absolutely nothing whatsoever to protect the people in the theater. And as a previous poster has mentioned, this has nothing to do with guns either, a nutcase, determined to murder and mayhem can find any number of means to accomplish these ends.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hmm, Washington DC (low gun ownership rates, high homicide rate), Colorado, (high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates), Switzerland (extremely high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates).
I fail to see the correlation. Or perhaps you were carefully ignoring the differences among the States?
Note that the USA is an interesting test of gun ownership/homicide correlations in that we have 51 different sets of gun laws (not counting individual cites such as Chicago and New York) and one reasonably uniform culture (while US culture is in no way "uniform", we're more alike than, say, a Swiss and a Brit).
Note that in the USA, homicide rates are all over the map - high in some places, low in others.
Note that firearms ownership in the USA is all over the map - high in some places, low in others.
And some of the places with high gun ownership have low homicide rates, and some don't. However, none of the places with high gun ownership rates have homicide rates as high as DC. Or Chicago. Or New York City....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
those who trade guns for plows will plow for those that don't.
only criminals have illegal guns.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Some guy in China went into a child care center and killed half a dozen people with an axe a few days ago. Your right, these kind of things don't happen with guns in those countries.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Depends on the jurisdiction. In TX there is a legally defined format the sign must have or it isn't enforceable. They can have a sign that says "No guns please." and if you carry, the worst that can happen is they can kick you off the property.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
With a bolt you usually have to lower the weapon between shots to cycle the action
That's why I said "in the right hands." Now, if this guy was firing for 30 seconds, a semi/full auto would have done considerable more damage compared to a bolt-action rifle being fired. However given the long duration of this incident (15 minutes), the mechanism his firearms used for reloading and taking another shoot is irrelevant. Banning semi-automatic weapons would not have prevented this incident. It only takes one shot to kill someone.
sudo make me a sandwich
All of which is really easy to say right up to the moment that you're in the midst of a shooting.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base.
You do realize that on a state-side base (such as Ft Hood that you're referring to) almost none of the soldiers inside are allowed to carry loaded weapons right? The fact that they're wearing camo and have Jeeps sitting outside means zilch if you're still force to walk around unarmed
Not, allegedly, if you're combat-trained. Not having a gun handy isn't considered an excuse.
Yes, I know. A lot of military personnel are pencil-pushers and not combat-ready in any way shape or form. But I'd still lay odds that you'd find more guns and training on a randomly-selected corner of a military base than on a random street corner. Or at least more military training, depending on the street corner. But when all was said and done, the outcome wasn't really any better than it would be in a civilian office.
I don't think you have a full appreciation for the situation. If the attacker believes/knows that the victims are armed, it's reasonable to believe that the attacker will choose not to attack due to the fact that the attack could be answered by his/her own death. Most attackers know that most populations are unarmed, therefore an attack can be executed with relative impunity.
I'm willing to bet (just because I don't have any links to proof) that home invasions in the deep south either a) don't happen, or b) result in the invader's death and that the same in 'anti-arms' areas results in the opposite.
There was a mass shooting at a community barbecue in Toronto this passed weekend. 2 people killed, 23+ people shot/injured. If, say, 3 of the 50+ (could have been 100+) people that were present were lawfully armed (it's illegal for non-LEOs to carry in Canada), I believe the death toll and number injured would have been much lower...if the incident would have happened at all.
If the number of armed 'victims' out numbers the attackers, there's little chance of success. No one ever robbed a gun show or a police station.
Yes, it happened quickly because the shooter knew that if he continued it would have cost him his own life, as highly trained well armed people were likely on the way--fast.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
What the FUCK does this submission have to do with nerds and tech?! And don't give me "because it's batman", like 90% of the audience going to see Batman aren't just regular every day non-nerds.
Short of a wall bordering Mexico/Canada and America, there's no way to physically stop travel over 3,000-4,000 miles of open border. That's a ludicrous notion.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
How about something like this?
A bunch of street thugs decided to take potshots against each other, with civilians in between.
Now add a situation where there's gas obscuring the view, and tons of people with guns exchanging fire. Maybe you can identify the "bad guy", but what's to stop you from blowing the brains out of somebody else either
a) by accident
b) mistakening him/her for the malicious shooter
You're right on all but one point: If a law abiding citizen with CCW gets caught in a private venue with a no-guns policy, they'll be asked to leave, at the worst. If they refuse to leave, the cops will come, and they'll be arrested for trespassing--it's not really any different than violating a store's "no shirt, no shoes no service" policy. That's actually pretty universal across the US--excepting a few states which completely ban carry inside of bars and liquor stores even if you're not partaking in the alcohol, in which case simply being on premises can be enough for arrest.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but conceal carry licenses are already reasonably available in all but 4 states (Illinois is the ONLY state that doesn't issue them at all - Hawaii, New Jersey, and Maryland have them but it's virtually impossible to get one). There are MILLIONS of legal concealed carry permit holders out there. Nearly half the population has a firearm in their household. You still don't have to "wear kevlar suits everywhere".
Realistically, incidents such as this are a rarity. Most gun owners are responsible and upstanding citizens. Every time the issue of of conceal carry comes up you always have the naysayers who claim that there will be blood in the streets. Innocent bystanders will be caught in the every present crossfire situation and people will be shooting each other up for parking spots in the grocery store. It never happens.
As a matter of fact as gun carry laws have gotten ever more permissive in the last few decades violent crime rates have continues to drop. Now is that a direct result? I'm not sure. Crime rates might have dropped anyways. Regardless, permissive concealed carry certainly hasn't resulted in any INCREASE.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Watch out, someone just flipped an ash on your straw man.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
This is so true. I am also a competitive shooter, or was, and knew many cops too. Stories among the cops of cops who could not shoot, or who made poor choices on when to shoot, were very common. The idea that only a police officer is fit to carry a weapon is absurd.
And yet, the murder rate in Virginia is 1/3 that of DC.
Of course, Maryland is right there too. But wait, Maryland has a murder rate that is 1/2 that of DC.
It should also be noted that it is illegal to buy a firearm in a State that you are not a legal resident of.
Which means that anyone from DC buying a firearm in Virginia is a criminal, by definition.
So, why is that DC has a high murder rate compared to its neighbors? After all, if it's easy to get a gun in Virginia/Maryland to use in DC, it's even easier (and legal to boot) to get one in Virginia/Maryland to use in Virginia/Maryland....
Just keep the above in mind when you mix in the debate over gun control.
Trust me, I do keep the above in mind. So, you'll be getting back to me to explain why the murder rate in DC is higher than in Virginia and Maryland, right?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Please get out into the real world more often.
but the americans are savages because people can have guns and we have a shooting incident sometimes
No. The americans are savages because they have problems with nudity.
Nudity earns you in a trip in jail, gunning down someone earns you a pat on the back.
Fucked up country US of A.
Just because you can't make a normal gun in no way means that I can't.
I bring the Maadi Griffin to your attention. http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2005/01/the_maadi_griff.html
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
But you can deal with me by force. And me and my buddy can also deal with you by force, because if you shoot one of us the other one will shoot you. And I alone can also deal with you by force if I get my gun trained on you before you can draw your weapon.
Another perspective, from Geoffrey Canada, who grew up in the rough neighborhoods of New York.
I am officially gone from
Because decent human beings are decent.
See also Internalization.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Switzerland (extremely high gun ownership rates, low homicide rates).
I fail to see the correlation.
That's because you didn't care to look at the link I gave you, where Switzerland comes directly behind the US in terms of homicide and suicide rate.
And regarding the US-only statistics you refer to it is equally blatant that you didn't read the rest of the post either.
Denial does not change facts.
If that's the case, I'd imagine that the theatre is going to face a rather serious safety investigation and/or lawsuit.
That was my question as well. Most emergency exists don't have handles or even lock cylinders on the outside, and they are usually heavy insulated metal doors with heavy metal frames which only open outwardly. I'm not buying that he was able to kick in that sort of door easily before someone watching the movie complained about the noise to theater management. I know those crash-bar alarms can be deactivated; I believe there's usually a key switch somewhere on the bar. Also, I think most of those door alarms are battery-operated, and I've heard somewhere that batteries do lose their charge occasionally.
Unfortunately, you are right that many who conceal carry do not put in the time required to be decent with their weapon. That is not the only "defense" though to having a well-armed populace.
If it were the "norm" for a large number of people to carry, and such a thing was common knowledge, it might have made him think twice about performing his cowardly act to begin with. If everyone and their dog carried a gun, would he really have felt that much more powerful walking in with a couple rifles and body armor, knowing that perhaps 50-60 of those that he was terrorizing carried?
Why didn't someone in that theater with a lawful right-to-carry firearm stand up and put an end to that? People must make themselves secure! Your government WILL NOT DO IT for you.
$ whatis msft msft: nothing appropriate
Given the biggest "news" channel in America is... oh, to avoid pointless superlatives, let's just go with the plain "right-wing"... and by "biggest", I mean "by an incredible margin", and this is something they brag about every chance they get, could you please point out to me how the "mainstream news media" is apparently left-wing-controlled anymore? Is there some new definition of "mainstream" I'm not aware of, one made by the right-wing media out of convenience to their narrative?
Why not? The Democrats have used every single shooting that made national news in the last half century as an excuse for stricter gun control.
I don't consider a handful of politicians starting a (usually) futile effort to pass stricter gun control laws to be a public outcry. While that's all but guaranteed to happen, I'm assuming the public outcry will be against some movie/music/video game/book/etc that the shooter was obsessed with. I think the "think of the children" crowd will only go after guns if they can't find something else to blame. Some people just can't accept the fact that there are crazy people in the world; it has to be *something's* fault, and that something will almost always fall within their preconceived notions.
The interesting thing about guns is that there is really no such thing as "outgunned" - one shot can kill a man, whether from a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, or a machinegun.
True, but it certainly makes it a lot easier for them to shoot you before you're able to shoot them.
If *I* had been there, I would probably not have taken a shot
I don't think *any* sane person would have taken a shot in that situation, based on what I've been hearing third and forth hand.
I read in another article that Aurora is about 13 miles from Columbine, where two gunmen killed several people in 1999.
In a dark smoke filled space where likely no one could be sure where the gunfire was coming from, it's likely it would just have meant more casualties.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
First he misses a standing target a couple of yards away. Then he chases the fleeing criminals running and firing at the same time. Then he fires thru an open door at the fleeing criminals.
The man should be charged.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Not, allegedly, if you're combat-trained. Not having a gun handy isn't considered an excuse.
Ok, so by your logic, you can hold up a military base shooting as an example of that fact that weapons aren't going to save you, but when its brought to light that the victims in that shooting didn't have access to any weapons then that's "no excuse"?
Boy if that isn't taking the "magic military" complex to a whole new level.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Good point. My right to drink a beer isn't explicitly constitutionally protected. It's only indirectly constitutionally protected by my right to carry deadly weapons.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Spoken like a true military man. What a depressing summation. Reason and force, that's it? What about love? What about compassion and empathy? What if I do your bidding out of friendship or altruism? You are not reasoning with me, I am doing it out of a desire to help. I support gun ownership, but not for the reasons this guy gives.
You are using a very limited definition of "reason". It isn't just someone convincing you to do something...it's that you have reasoned that this is a good course of action. I'm altruistic because I think it betters society and I'm a member of society. Perhaps it makes me feel good to have this desire. These are places where the reason area plays out. It is a reasonable thing to do based on my upbringing.
The Wikipedia entry for "The Dark Knight Rises" was updated with a section discussing the shooting shortly after it occured--that entry has now been removed entirely, as well as the citations for the information included.
Shooting proficiency and threat validation are two separate things. If you want to carry you should be trained in both.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Oh please, that's far from bullet proof.
It's the rampant amount of guns! It's the gays in the military! It's the moral decline of America! It's because we don't pray in schools! It's because of the liberals! It's because of the conservatives! It's the atheists! It's pornography! No personal responsibility, too much personal responsibility! Bad parenting! Schools! Bullies.
Here's one that's not really being mentioned: hate and fear. That's where it starts. How does it get fed? Look at the shit above. Individually, we each have a certain amount of hate. And fear. Some Jesus people really hate the atheists. Some of the atheists really hate the Jesus people. Conservatives hate the liberals, the liberals hate conservatives. After that, it's just details. Some love posting stuff to make the other side feel dumb. Some will yell stuff at the other side, to make them feel dumb. Think of the vitriol that gets spewed on /. over the silliest, mindless things. Insults get hurled.
Human beings being what they are, some have a hard time understanding where their hate comes from - and how to deal with it.
Some of us are even just plain old crazy.
So, it starts with being angry and afraid. Really, how much personal power do you have to change your situation? Most of us are stuck, and need to figure out ways to cope - we chat with friends, etc.
Sadly, some get stuck. Backed into a corner.
Then they pop. Individual acts of hate like this are just the tip of becoming like Israel and Palestine. When enough tip, the US is no longer.
Have you seen the photo? Why do you automatically assume that it proves that the little boy was beating him up? Why are there small cuts without any bruising of the surrounding tissue? Does that indicate damage by a fist or by something such as gravel?
It is enough training to establish that you are mindful of your weapon, know exactly how to use it, and are well acquainted with its unsettling destructive power. It does not qualify you to wield a weapon in a "tactical" situation.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
...and replaced with a section about the release in the time it took me to post here.
After all, even a motorcycle helmet can do a lot of damage if you swing it at someone.
Just ask Bane how effect a motorcycle helmet can be.
I know, right? If only it were socially acceptable for me to carry my AK with me... dang. Wait, if I used a trench coat, could conceal carry it. And interestingly enough, it is legal for me to do so in my state. Hmm, but once again, social stigma.
Kinda missing the point of "a well regulated militia."
FTFY. Know your Bill of Rights!
Jesus fucking Christ. The guy threw tear gas into the theater and had a gas mask. Anyone wanting to return fire would have been at a huge disadvantage. This isn't an open fucking field where the shooter is wearing a big bullseye on his chest. This is a crowded enclosed dark space with a cloud of tear gas fucking with your senses.
The idea that a bunch of theater patrons packing heat would have made this particular exchange less deadly is beyond moronic. This guy clearly had the equipment and the planning to pull it off, whereas anyone in that theater, even if they were packing serious guns, wouldn't know what was hitting them, and by the time they did, would be in the middle of teargas-filled chaos. Not only that, because it was chaos, it meant anyone with a gun would be a target for anyone else with a gun, making the likelihood that you would be shot by a fellow Rambo thinking he was taking down the bad guy would greatly increase.
There are arguments for allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. This situation isn't one of them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Google 'Grease Gun'. Learn some history. Idiot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show?
Quoting a site with the domain name "libertysentry" seems to indicate to me that you're not terribly interested in what actually happened.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://denverteaparty.ning.com/profile/JimHolmes
Same guy?
If the attacker believes/knows that the victims are armed, it's reasonable to believe that the attacker will choose not to attack due to the fact that the attack could be answered by his/her own death. Most attackers know that most populations are unarmed, therefore an attack can be executed with relative impunity.
Exactly. He used a gun and a smoke bomb at a movie theater. The guy didn't show up with a banana and start making "pew pew" noises with his mouth. He didn't try an assault on a police station. Clearly, he was rational enough to make decisions on what kinds of things would succeed or fail. I highly doubt he'd show up and try the same thing if the odds of failure were a lot higher. The claim that every gunman is batshit insane and that nothing could deter any of them doesn't hold water.
Self-defense doesn't mean you're allowed to bring a gun to a fistfight.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A: That seems to be a kit
B: You'd still have to make ammo
C: It's still not accessible to anyone with a grudge and $x00
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You are assuming we have the power to make our own laws. We don't. That power has been ceded to politicians.
With all the comments here linking to massacres elsewhere, and posting anecdotes, I'm surprised no one (that I've seen) has linked to epidemiological data.
Per capita, does the United States do worse on gun deaths than other Western democracies?
The best data we have says (drumroll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Yes!
So everyone who will be hopping up and down yelling "guns don't kill people, car crashes/people/the government does/do...", science says THE GUNS ARE A PROBLEM IN THE US.
Your post is stupid and so are you, you racist pig. Eat a dick and die somewhere.
I didn't recommend a wall, I recommended gun control. Oh that's ridiculous too because you don't want that to happen either?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
First: you may run. I may not. Bravery is sometimes described as not the absence of fear, it is the control of it.
I disagree. "He who turns and runs away, lives to run another day."
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
FYI most attempts at making ricin are discovered when the neighbors call the cops because they haven't seen the 'moody loaner' in a week and their is a bad smell.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot people. It's really not rocket science, what part of it is hard to understand?
And if drugs are illegal, you can't get high.
The shift key is the one with the arrow on it.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I'm a home invasion victim.
I wanted to buy a gun after I found myself freaking out in certain situations. Certain situations like occupying my home.
Crazy guy does it: we must protect our right to bear arms, and keep selling them to the mentally ill.
Terrorist does it: we can torture, detain indefinitely, wiretap everyone.
No it's indirectly protected because anyone can do it and most fundamentally believe it a right. There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
My CCW holding friend calls those CPZs. Criminal Protection Zones.
considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob
U.S. News and World Report analyzed Obama's 2008 victory in Colorado, "... his biggest sources of support, returns show, are voters in Denver and its northern suburbs (Boulder), whose ranks have swelled in recent years."
Considering only the demographics of Colorado, there is about an equal chance of him being a nutjob from either wing. Do some research next time, dopey.
The gunman broke into the theatre via the emergency exit. That's not going solve the problem.
Brings the question whether the lights should have been immediately turned on after gunfire was heard and/or if that would've made the situation more or less dangerous. I'd think that after a fire/emergency-door/exit was opened, it shouldn't by default have been very dark. But you do make a fair point. Of course, though, with any further speculation, I think I can predict the general destination of this conversation. And while valid and interesting from multiple points of view, probably best to resign now on my part. I guess I'll only say that I'd prefer to see security placed more in the hands of citizens and not so exclusively into the single indifferent fist of authority, which I predict, is where we are all headed.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
If there were zero stars I would do that.
Do you really use the phrase 'discharge his firearm' in normal conversation?
Don't you say 'shoot his gun'?
If not, why not?
A lot of people hunt for reasons other than recreation.
:wq
So, you'll be getting back to me to explain why the murder rate in DC is higher than in Virginia and Maryland, right?
As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown...
Of course murder rate is lower both in Maryland and Virginia, the parts of these states neighboring DC are mostly where the more well-off part of the population lives in the suburbs and in general they face much less crap. Still, you might see a real difference between Prince Georges and Montgomery counties of MD, for example.
From your I guess you are for the "right to bear arms". For long I have not cared. Since I have seen a ~25 years old father of three in Virginia walking around with a gun in his belt at the kid's playground of a Burger King . Since that I just think these people are idiots. Yes, pick up a gun when you go hunting or when you go shooting to the range. Otherwise, when you spend long periods of time in public, there is no reason to have one on you. Point.
Too soon, man
Chuckles.. 3 continents combined only 13 school shooting. What's the total count for Aaamerica alone ? may those in power learn to clean the system at root. General public in america (the ones born/raised here) glorify and sugar coat government fed unrealistic information (right/left or a stupid tea party opinion) from day 1. Go figure! "Comic-Con brings in $163 million per year for the city of San Diego! There’s talk of Comic-Con leaving San Diego. For the sake of their local economy, they’d better hope the nerds stay in their fare city." http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-much-does-comic-con-make-for-san-diego/ my two cents..focus should be in teaching math this could potentially assist in "done the math enough to know the danger of second guessing"....
There have been plenty of deranged arsonists who have tried to kill more people by fire than with guns. But I think the mentality is what lies behind the motivation. Movies and games do tend to glorify the man with a gun. The psychological experience of the gunman is very different from that of the arsonist. The gunman kills his victims almost effortlessly, in an instant, seeing the terror in their victim's eyes fade to death's blank stare. And the gunman can repeat this experience over and over until his victims are either dead or fled or he has run out of bullets or is tackled or killed. Setting off a bomb from a distance or setting a fire does not compare to the adrenaline rush of the mass-murderer with a gun. Of course, if you take away guns some deranged schizo or fanatic is going to find a creative alternative, but the fantasy of wielding a modern firearm to terrorize an entire crowd of people might indefinitely delay the plans of many would-be terrorist gunmen if procuring a gun was more difficult for them. Perhaps, in addition to the standard background check, if potential gun owners needed to provide a certificate from a qualified psychologist that the individual had no identified propensity for violence, emotional disturbance, or any other mental deficiencies that should disqualify them from gun ownership. In most of the worst gun-related mass murders in recent history there were clear signs of serious problems with the mental health of the assailants. There also needs to be more restrictions for gun owners to allow others access to their firearms. In Texas private citizens can still sell handguns and assault rifles at a garage sale without checking the ID or background of the buyer or reporting the transfer.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
Let's do a simulation:
When one country is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it's a menace to the rest of the world. When more than one country is armed, it's a factor of stabilization.
It's a stabilizing factor only until someone pulls the trigger. After that, it becomes mutual assured destruction.
The problem is, if you have someone who is crazy enough to just go out and start shooting at random people, they either expect to get killed in the process anyway or have completely lost their sense of reality. Either way, it's unlikely that a possibility of their own violent death would affect their behavior.
Hey idiot firstly the grease gun was never home made, maybe try google yourself? Secondly where are you going to find ammo, plus the tools and hundreds of hours to build one, probably more time than that to build one that actually worked adequately. By that time you'd probably have gotten out of whatever idiotic state you were in thinking that you needed one in the first place.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Not, allegedly, if you're combat-trained. Not having a gun handy isn't considered an excuse.
Ok, so by your logic, you can hold up a military base shooting as an example of that fact that weapons aren't going to save you, but when its brought to light that the victims in that shooting didn't have access to any weapons then that's "no excuse"?
Boy if that isn't taking the "magic military" complex to a whole new level.
Not every weapon is a gun. Having a gun doesn't make you bulletproof. If the other guy has a gun and I have a knife, it makes my job harder. And if the other guy has a gun and all I have a stapler or can full of soda, it's harder still. But the most dangerous weapon of all isn't what's in you hands. It's what's in your head.
Nice article, but I disagree with the premise somewhat:
Putting aside the obvious objection that poking fun at the powerful isn’t the same as bluntly confronting them, it’s important to give Stewart and Colbert their due.
They do in fact bluntly confront the powerful. Did you see the white house press correspondents dinner that Colbert hosted? No really, watch this.
Watch the audience, the looks on their faces. Some are in total shock. Others look like they're ready to kill him.
That took some serious balls.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
When did it become acceptable to shoot someone just cause they were kicking your ass? You take the ass kicking.
The evidence suggests none. It's not like we have no experience with these types of incidents in places where people were carrying weapons with a concealed carry permit. It's just that you don't hear about them because the death toll is too low to make national news. Now the incidents I am aware of do not involve smoke grenades in a darkened location, but considering that the argument you make (other people being killed in the crossfire) has been brought up in those types of scenarios suggests that it no more applies here than in those situations.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Imagine you're a honest politician (they exist), and you want to do something about US citizens dying prematurely. You don't want to touch the guns issue because that's political suicide, so... What about traffic deaths then? Over 15000 people a year die in the US because of the inadequacy of the traffic system. US roads are over two times as dangerous as German roads, and almost three times Swedish or Dutch roads. And it's not as if Germany has some magic recipe. They just about make the OECD average.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~International%20comparisons~191
33000 US citizens were road kill in 2009, and international experience shows that at least 15000 could have been avoided. How many US soldiers died in Vietnam?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_soldiers_died_in_the_Vietnam_War
One Vietnam of easily avoidable US traffic deaths every four years is low hanging fruit in comparison to gun control. But even that doesn't seem to be high on the political radar.
Establish private, accredited, gun licensing organizations. Make licenses graduated (basic handgun license all the way to automatics and concealeds).
Let them come up with the timelines and curriculum, as long as they are held partly responsible financially for graduates who commit crimes with guns.
In fact, hold them civilly liable for heinous crimes committed by graduates that a jury feels they should have had the foresight to realize was a bad thing waiting to happen. Cancel their accreditation for any situation where they are judged negligent.
This way, the government is not involved in deciding who gets guns and who doesn't, nor what types of guns but we instill enough paranoia in the system that it makes damn sure the wrong people are not licensed (or licensed too soon or for the wrong weapons).
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
So everyone should carry guns around? Strapped to their hips?
Potentally? Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8650626.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-23-china-stabbing-eight_N.htm
I agree that training is absolutely essential. However, I'm not sure I buy your analogy entirely. Although it can be used to kill, the main purpose of a car is to transport people/things from point A to point B. Although it can be used to kill, the main purpose of alcohol is to make people feel good. The main purpose of a gun is to maim or kill. I am perfectly willing to concede that this may be a distinction without a difference.
Meh. I disagree with the first assumption of that essay: "Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."
Bullshit. That's a false dichotomy. Additional basis for human interaction includes: love, compassion, unreasonable greed, and random impulse.
Since the essayist starts with a flawed assumption, I can't really be bothered to read the rest of it.
As a matter of fact, police are required to regularly practice. If they do not, they get in trouble for it and shit on by their peers.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This was not an act of "terrorism". The shooter was caucasian and does not have a foreign sounding name, so, by definition, this cannot be called terrorism. Apparently.
SOME states (maybe most -- I'm not sure) require training but not all. Washington State, for example, does not mandate training to obtain a concealed pistol license.
My 2 cents on this thing is the danger of those trend setting Coloradans...Columbine set off a worldwide wave of copycat carnage and mayhem; the novel angle
here is the overt targeting of "entertainment". You reap what you sow; did the comicCon culture inadvertently create misfit class of individual who identify with the Super Villain? The promotional campaign for "Batman" now IS the promotional campaign for these violent and evil acts.
I kind of wish Frank Miller had never made Daredevil cool.
They guy even went so far as to disobey the instructions of an official dispatcher.
Those instructions were not legally binding "orders", you idiot.
The dispatcher was not on the scene.
The police had proven to be ineffective in stopping the crime in
Zimmerman's neighborhood. Zimmerman did not threaten Martin,
he simply stopped and asked him what he was up to. It was Martin
who threatened Zimmerman and Martin who attacked Zimmerman.
You really need to shut the fuck up, and get the facts straight before
you spew any more bs out of your idiot child cake hole.
All of a sudden typically left-wing Slashdot turns hard right for this thread. Hm.
> The danger from one person who knows his gun and knows about shooting is much less than a danger from a sociopath shooting indiscriminately in the theater
Irrelevant. Your odds of getting shot still go up.
That's a dumb question. I'd rather have a high powered assault rifle, since the guy was armored and a little pop gun wouldn't have wounded him.
Play Command HQ online
It seems to me that you fear taking personal responsibility for your own security. I do not know your nation of origin, but this is a typically European "nanny state" point of view. Over here the cops aren't for protection, they're to mop up the mess and conduct an investigation after the fact.
From the grandparent:
From you:
Read about Joe Zamudio for that.
From the link on the Gabby Giffords shooting:
Here is a man that heard gunshots and ran towards them in an effort to help however he could. He did this without knowing the situation or who was in danger. Arriving on scene he recognized that the criminal was no longer a threat and provided assistance in restraining the assassin. Several things should be noted: He did not draw a firearm and charge into an unknown situation. That would have added to the confusion, possibly leading to him being identified as a second gunman.
He was aware that there was a crowd and recognized the danger of hitting bystanders.
A person other than the assassin was in control of the firearm when Joe arrived. He did not misidentify the criminal and fire on an innocent.
He did not act as “judge, jury and executioner”.
He has stated (on the Fox and Friends interview) that he has no special training for such situations.
will any one who took a video of this get bootleg changes?
According to your wikipedia link, there has been 19 shootings in 2010 and 2011 in the US, while there has been 22 over the last century in Europe (litteraly, the first recorded event in this table happened in 1913). I am glad we have gun control laws.
I don't care whether I'm armed or not, because I know I wouldn't be stupid enough to try to shoot under those circumstances. That said, I'd rather everyone else be unarmed. If everyone were armed and no one could see who the shooter was, the odds of me getting hit by somebody trying to shoot the shooter are far higher than me getting hit by the shooter him/herself.
The only thing that arming the population could do would be to serve as a deterrent. However, given the way the attacker did this (blinding everyone, and being the sole shooter), it is unlikely that it would be a significant deterrent even if every person in the theater were visibly wearing a holster.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You did see this in comparison yeah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#United_States
This is a false premise, so the rest of the comments are crap.
Wrong - And this one scares the shit out of me if the Marine's are teaching that there is nothing we can do if people have guns.
Wrong - there are tons of weapons that are equally lethal.
Wrong, A carload of attackers with guns is not equal to one guy with a gun.
Injury is not death
ONLY???? There are all kinds of weapons that would be just as lethal.
Wrong, 10 Navy Seals vs 1 Taliban isn't level in any equation. Especially if both are armed.
Wrong, If this is true we would have to negotiate with terrorist every time because they cant be forced to do anything. Your stuck in the assumption that its always a 1 to 1 confrontation. Another false premise
I think you should ask the Syrian rebels whether or not you are correct. They seem to be successfully overthrowing a totalitarian state at the moment. (Not to say that what follows won't be as bad or worse, but the argument that government superiority in numbers and equipment automatically equates to success ignores the very real moral component.)
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
>Go to movie premier
>Have to deal with jerk offs and assholes who yell and clap at the movie
>Baby starts crying and cries through most of it
>End of movie
>Get shot
>Pirate movie
>Stay home
>Watch it on HDTV
>Pause it whenever I have to piss
>Have a good time
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's no coincidence that the Century 16 Cinema in Aurora, CO, where this shooting took place is less than 21 miles from Columbine High School where on April 20, 1999, gunfire killed 12 students and 1 teacher. Suburbs of Denver, Colorado are getting a reputation for being the Wild West.
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
Ladies and Gentlemen, This is the state of your current educational system.
I weep for you and your future generations.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Of course, but with which frequency?
In reality we have so few few people with gun shot wounds here in Sweden that we have exchange programs with hospitals in USA and South Africa so that our surgeons will have a chance of learning how to treat such a wound. Which also probably means that you are more likely to die if shot here since there is so little experience of it.
This is one of the most preposterous things I ever read on /.
It already starts with the first sentence: force or reason.
It is wrong. You could run away, or appeal to emotion. Beggers use it all the time. Do you think it is reasonable to give a few $$ to a drug-addict? Many people do so nonetheless.
Then a lot of blabla about putting thins on equal footing. It is wrong. There are guns, and bigger guns and even bigger guns. By the time any on the front row would have drawn a concealed weapon, a half-automatic rifle would have killed several. Then there is people who shoot quicker than others.
I fired guns. I know they are dangerous, I would not want them near me or my family at any time. They get stolen, lost, misused, etc.
Guns allow people to use force to avoid dealing reasonably with things.
"A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly."
Do you want me to show data on how few muggers there are in some US states compared to some EU countries?
The Syrian Army, as strong as it is, is pretty small potatoes in comparison to the US military and law enforcement. And even in the Syrian situation, the rebels have been receiving a good deal of foreign help.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Combat is entirely different than range time, but I'd rather take my chances surrounded by armed citizens. Otherwise, the criminal is 100% in control of the situation. The fact that these things go on until the shooter decides to stop is clear indication that people need to be ready to defend themselves. If the police show up at all, they'll be waiting outside until it's over.
I've never in my life fired at a moving target, but I'd rather have the chance than to just sit there and wait for my turn.
:wq
It does. It also makes us more proficient defenders.
But the trick here is for us to stop being like our parents. Something bad happened and now the debate ensues as to which of our fundamental liberties we need to infringe to "make things better." The movie these people were seeing contained no shortage of innocent crowds of people being violently attacked.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 1st Amendment has to go, that people shouldn't be allowed to make movies like this, under the premise that they inspire this behavior.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 2nd Amendment has to go because the tools of self-defense can be abused to hurt people.
One could have the knee-jerk reaction that the 4th Amendment has to go because if the police had searched this guy's car at his last traffic ticket, they might have found incriminating content.
Just stop. These people have suffered a tragic loss, and people with empathy want to "do something" to make it better. But there are no quick fixes. The real fixes can only be tracked by the emotionally unsatisfying math that shows when you:
Fund the existing background check system's connection to the mental health care system (under laws that already exist), you make it harder for crazy people to buy guns.
Fund and fix education, you give young people options and opportunities to find things they are passionate about. It is from a large pool of hopeless, directionless youth that most violent criminals are drawn.
These solutions work, and there are others. But they work slowly over time. The goal of a high-opportunity society is achieved with patience and dedication. They don't "feel" like they are working in any one individual's life, the coefficients of variation are simply too high on any individual person's experience. But they show quite clearly in the math. To advance, we need to be the people who measure, understand and improve. The next Enlightenment will be data driven.
Who would be better suited toward trusting the math and working the solution that computer geeks. This is our problem to solve.
Or some plastic explosives, fragmentation grenades or maybe nerve gas. And yet for some insane reason those are still regulated. Why bother? If someone wants grenade or dozen, he is going to get it anyway.
Do gun nuts really see world as set of binary options? You don't have to make access to guns impossible, just make it hard. Then only worst criminals will have one and you are pretty unlikely to meet one. Much better situation than every local hooligan, two-bit mugger and meth addict running around with a gun.
With the Canadians I can buy this.. but the Mexicans? It's a bit more complicated than that.
Strength of will to do what? Self defense is a fundamental human right.
Let me guess: you're either a Canuck or a Eurocunt.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
I can't speak for the OP, but the reason why it scares me is because my grandmother had a gun. She had no idea how to use it, but she kept it loaded under her pillow at night. She was paranoid that someone would come in and try to attack her. I'm not kidding--she was so paranoid that, even with a full set of drapes and blinds on her windows, she used to turn off the light to change clothes at night because she though someone might be peeking through the window. (Why? I guess because nothing attracts peeping toms like an 80-year-old woman changing clothes, I guess. I don't know.)
She once came home and told us a story about how she was at the mall, and a black man followed her out. (Keep in mind that she grew up in pre-segregation South, and yes, she fit the stereotype you can imagine that goes along with that.) It rattled her so badly that when she got to the car, she got her gun out of the glove compartment and held it up so that he knew she was armed, and it worked, because apparently he changed direction to give her car a wide berth. Of course, I'm sitting there thinking that she's pulled a gun on an innocent shopper and that when he saw some crazy old lady pull out a gun, he didn't want to have anything to do with her. It's probably a good thing too, because if he had not been paying attention and walked too close to her car, she probably would have killed or seriously injured him. (Or herself, or at least done some nasty property damage.)
So why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare me? Because I know that there are, practically speaking, absolutely zero controls on who gets guns. There are no requirements for training, no evaluation of responsibility, little to no ability to track where weapons come from if one is used in a crime, and thanks to organizations like the NRA, virtually no control over the types of weapons those law-abiding citizens can own.
I used to be pretty staunchly in favor of banning all guns. These days, my stance is what I consider a bit more practical and well-thought out. I'm not for banning guns completely, but I am for measures such as requiring training and evaluation that has to be periodically repeated before issuing a permit to allow people to legally have guns, implementing methods of tracking guns, requiring all guns sold adhere to certain standards of safety, and restricting the sale and distribution of the types of assault weapons that are designed for killing massive numbers of people quickly. Because the fact is that I'm MUCH more afraid of well-meaning--but stupid and untrained moron--hurting or killing me with a gun than some nutjob opening fire in a theater. My grandmother passed away around 10 years ago so she's no longer a threat, but living with her as a kid was a bit of an exercise in terror, thinking that if I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night I might get mistaken for a burglar and shot. And in my day I've met and known a lot of people like her, people who are grossly irresponsible with guns.
And THAT is why being around law-abiding citizens who have guns scares me.
--gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years
Just imagine how many accidents there would have been without guns... the same amount.
Now wait for it..... of the people that weren't accident free how many more accidents would there have been without guns???? Damn I guess I dont see your point at all since its stupid
And then another armed citizen, who didn't see what happened (dark after all), and sees they're sitting next to a shooter....
Marines are awesome shots, Army varies widely.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
that if something else had happen, people would have been saying something else?
Profound. Deep. Insightful indeed.
now mod me down, gun lovers
this comment of mine was at a 5 rating, with 15 responses:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2993071&cid=40711611
then suddenly it shot to 0
how did that happen?
ideologically motivated moderation is alive and well on slashdot
but you won't know about it. because you won't see this comment
it will be moderated into oblivion by those who think the second amendment is a religious text, and all who oppose their quasireligion need to be squelched
weep for my country. it is held hostage by idiots who think guns are the answer, and loony tunes, hot heads, and gang bangers continue to practice their mayhem on innocents, enabled by the gun lovers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Holy crap thats just wrong - you havent looked at gun related crime statistics in NY before and after the laws were imposed. Ignorance is bliss...
I'm curious what your conclusions were... mine were inconclusive based on an admittedly limited sampling:
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/colorado/
Aurora: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Aurora was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 39.22%.
Colorado Springs: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Colorado Springs was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 45.04%.
Denver: In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Denver was higher than the violent crime rate in Colorado by 70.98%.
It seems like other factors might be at play here.
I think "Fast and Furious" has exposed the hypocrisy of the NRA and 2nd amendment purists. In this case they are claiming guns are not the problem, that the shooter could have found other ways of killing. In F&F the people who "allowed" the guns to get in the hands of gang members are to blame for the agent's death (implying the actual guns themselves are important and part of the agent's death).
Gun rights advocates need to pick one talking point and be consistent. You can't have it both ways to score political points.
I'm not sure about faith moving mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers.
But the American population is larger and better armed than the Syrian population, so it's probably a wash.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
13 shootings with 62 victims in Europe the last 10 years, versus 67 shootings and 132 victims in the US. Europe has more than twice the population. That's a pretty significant difference.
PS. I'm not counting the Breslan shooting for obvious reasons.
Almost by definition, the left wing is more tolerant. Therefore, if you aren't on the brink of civil war, the people who are more likely to be dangerous are the right-wing nutters. They want everyone to think like they do, and are willing to resort to violence to force the issue.
By contrast, the left-wing nutters are the ones who started the uprising against the Syrian regime. When the left wing starts bringing out the guns, it is because the government has become so abusive to the common man that it simply can no longer be tolerated. Once that happens, odds are good that the vast majority of the people are ready to rebel but are not quite crazy enough to be the person who lights the match. Thus, when the liberals get out their guns, it is safe to assume that you have at best a few months before the government falls entirely.
So to recap, right-wing nutters tend to cause terrorist incidents, while left-wing nutters tend to cause successful revolutionary wars. As we are presumably not on the brink of a revolutionary war (yet), odds are in favor of this guy being a right-wing nutter if he is a wingnut at all.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Not in Pennsylvania. We have an affirmative concealed carry law. The state has to prove that you shouldn't have a concealed carry license, so unless you've got an absurd number of parking tickets, or have a felony under your belt, you can have the permit.
Yes, I think that's exactly what people are afraid of:
A person with a gun, firing in the general direction of a threat, disregarding anyone who might be behind that target.
So did Jon Stewart and Democratic adviser Christopher Lehane. Rush said he was joking when he did it and commented that Bane reflected Obama and that it was a good movie.
I'll activate bullet time and leap to the side, making me difficult to hit while giving me time to aim carefully.
I'm pretty certain if he didn't have a gun it wouldn't have happened, so there is that?
If he didn't have a gun, he absolutely would not have shot anybody with a gun, I'll give you that. But I would bet large sums of money that he still would have done some sort of destructive deed. He probably just would have a killed either less or more people with whatever weapon he chose. Most likely a bomb, judging by the fact that he used a smoke bomb as well.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Grease guns can be stamped out in any shop with a punch press. They were home made in WWII (behind German lines) before the US army adopted the factory built versions.
Like I said, learn some history, idiot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But I'm guessing the Dark Knight wasn't among the 12.
I'm not quite getting your post. You made the decision while being occupied? Really, that's what was on your mind, "what am I doing to do next time", rather than "what can I do to get out of this"?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
When the right to bear arms was placed into the constitution, the bayonet was still the most important, deadly, and most used weapon on the battlefield. There's a reason you don't read about mass shootings from a lone gunman back in the early 1800's, given the time it took to reload a musket. Native Americans had more rapid firepower in their bows and arrows.
But I have mixed feelings about gun control, because I do think that a population armed with pistols, shotguns, deer rifles and such could provide at least some deterrence against the abrupt rise of a despotic regime or the swift passage of tyrannical laws. Of course a handgun isn't going to stop a tank, but the revolt in Libya showed that a nation that rises up with handguns can raid military outposts to quickly arm themselves with weapons more suitable for modern combat.
That said, restricting gun ownership from people with a violent history or mental deficiencies could help to reduce the frequency of these types of events. And by violent history I'm not saying convictions only, but even a record of gang involvement, threats against others, bullying behavior, and even posts on Facebook or Slashdot should be considered. And gun owners should be required to secure their guns from unqualified persons - no more lending your gun to others without verifying through a web portal that their gun license is valid on the day they lend the weapon.
Interesting observation, in an environment where people are trained to use firearms, the weapons are strictly controlled, why not enforce the same good sense in a civilian context?
prepare the survey weasels.
What world do you live where someone with a concealed carry license doesn't have any "real" firearms handling experience? Do you not understand how incredibly easy it is to become at least semi-proficient with shooting a modern firearm? The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target.
And while a panicked crowd is going to create sighting problems, for you to sit there and say that someone lining up their shots to try to stop the shooter would somehow make things worse is just laughable on its face.
Just because you're terrified of guns and have no experience with them doesn't mean that those of us who do have that experience should be deprived of our right and ability to defend ourselves (and others).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
"If you plan on killing 14 people, I doubt you'll be terribly concerned about violating gun control laws."
The person selling you the guns, however, whose motivation is likely profit, would be more concerned with following those laws, staying in business, and thus continuing to make profits...
No Spandex (tm) suit, no dyed hair, not even a getaway plan.
And isn't Colorado one of the states you can concealed carry? Where was the gunfight at the Dark Knight corral?
mark "guns make us *so* much safer"
Well said. Bad guys and psychos do not respect rules, laws, morals, or any other outside regulation. You can't legislate away evil. This is why the individual right to CCW and be able to protect yourself and your loved ones is critically important.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Pretty simple really.
This is about the least uninformed comment in this whole story. Military bases in the US are effectively as much a gun-free zone as your average US high-school. I take that back, there are probably some high-schools in which more students illegally carry guns than your average on-base soldier.
Many military men and women have concealed carry licensees so that they can carry off base, but their personal weapon is stored either in the armory, or in a locked box in their domicile if they live on base, depending on how anti-gun the CO is, it's usually the former. If a soldier maintains a residence off base, they'll usually never bring their firearm on base, because it's not worth the hassle to take it in and out of the armory. Contractors who work on base may also have concealed licenses for their daily lives, but holy shit is their ass in a sling if they ever forget to leave the gun at home.
Were the victims of Fort Hood expected to fight back by making a gun shape with their fingers and loudly yell "BANG!"?
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Please do not call OC non-lethal. Less-than-lethal.
I'm an asthmatic. That stuff can kill me.
I don't expect what basically amounts to allergies or an immunological order to factor into the life of the every day populace. Banning peanuts at schools. Or shellfish, or whatever. We need to take care of ourself.
But the problem is the "non lethal" component ...causes people to use it in situations where they wouldn't normally feel justified in killing someone.
Any situation where you can legally use OC in most states, you could also legally shoot. The trial would be worse maybe, but by the time you're justified in using a chemical weapon -- you've already got good cause to argue reasonable fear for your life or well-being. Otherwise you /could/ have retreated without resorting to use of a weapon. And if you couldn't retreat... but did try...lethal force is justified pretty much everywhere, even if you outright provoked the violence.
Thing is, people will use OC because they got startled, for muggings so they aren't caught carrying a 'weapon', they'll give it to kids to 'protect themself'. People who don't want to "be responsible for killing" will carry it because they think it can't be used against them... and I've seen that used in anger once at a club.
If you aren't willing to kill...you're either
a) a committed pacifist. You have my respect
b) A coward or a fool.
Keep in mind, that the committed pacifist is willing to watch their children and loved ones die in front of them, when they have the power to stop it through a mere, momentary act of violence. I've seen a lot of people /claim/ pacifism -- but I do not believe I have ever met a genuine pacifist. Read of one or two.
I'm all for de-escalating the violence of a gun where possible. Pepper spray may be a desirable alternative.
But don't call it non-lethal.
And...just for the record... I object to calling someone carrying a pistol heavily armed. Old common law found a man carrying three pistols, a rapier, and a dirk... armed according to the custom of the times. I'm not sure what heavily armed is, but I'm fairly certain to me it would require...a grenade or select-fire weapon at a minimum.
I don't think you actually object to people being heavily armed. I think you're scared of people that are armed and capable of killing you before you can blink. Maybe you consider *any* gun heavily armed.
But that wouldn't make sense. The point of being armed is the ability to apply effective violence. Not necessarily overwhelming or mass...but effective enough to apply lethal force to eliminate a threat. A gun is pretty much the most effective means available to any individual...without requiring years of training, drill, peak physical and mental conditioning. It works.
I don't have the time to dig the citation out, but according to interviews with surgeons, if you get to the hospital with a pulse after a gunshot, you're basically 95% likely to stay alive. A knife wound...it isn't so good.
So, let's not frame the issue shall we? You object to your neighbors being armed. Period.
I guess that means, this being /., you fancy yourself smarter than them? As better than them? As fit to be their leader?
Also-- let's stop with "amateur" attacks. All that means is it isn't your profession. People like to use it for the connotation of unskilled. That's often a true and strong correlation. I'm an amateur photographer. And I'm bad at it... I understand lighting because I know how my camera works as a geek. I don't /get/ composition.
As an amateur shooter, my three times to the range this year means I've had more target practice than is required of the local police department, with the exception of paramilitary units.
Being amateur does not necessitate you are worse than the professionals, although it often implies it.
One of the most terrifying assumptio
The fact that you're modded Flamebait right now says a lot about the direction Slashdot has taken over the years.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Better armed in what respect? If the US Government were to become a military dictatorship, how exactly is even your best armed citizen going to take on bombs dropping from 40,000 feet? How are they going to do against a military with direct control of numerous spy satellites and other surveillance technologies?
Even with foreign help, it isn't force of arms that is going to overthrow Assad, it's going to be large elements of the Syrian army switching sides, or possibly a palace coupe as other members of the inner circle decide Assad has become a liability. Think back to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, for all the people working to oust the Shah, in the end it was the Shah's own military and government essentially abandoning him that did his regime in.
If Assad could maintain near total loyalty, as the Chinese government has due to its symbiotic relationship with the PLA, contemplating a successful armed revolution becomes almost impossible. It's a rule of governments that probably goes back to when they first formed; if you can guarantee the loyalty of the troops, then short of foreign intervention or some sort of massive disaster (like a plague or famine), you will win.
So, if we're to contemplate the US government becoming some sort of tyranny, then I wouldn't hold out any hope that the citizens of the United States could in and of themselves command sufficient armaments and intelligence to be able to overthrow the government. The best hope would be the regime turning on itself; large swathes of the army either refusing to fire or going to the rebel side. If that doesn't happen, the rebellion, even millions strong, is toast.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Has it ever occurred to you that you might just deserve to be modded down into oblivion, maybe for using murder to push an unpopular political agenda and demonizing those who disagree with you?
Particularly if the other guy has decided to be a stationary target.
Guns aren't legal in ALL contexts and marijuana is legal under SOME contexts. Also enforcement is very subjective, which is the real problem. America has a serious decision-making problem.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
You are discounting the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
I'd hate to see what would happen if a bunch of amateurs started firing in a crowded and smoky movie theater.
Whatever does happen, know that there is only one person to blame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/colorado-mall-shooting.html#commentsContainer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are completely disregarding the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
Not every weapon is a gun. Having a gun doesn't make you bulletproof. If the other guy has a gun and I have a knife, it makes my job harder. And if the other guy has a gun and all I have a stapler or can full of soda, it's harder still. But the most dangerous weapon of all isn't what's in you hands. It's what's in your head.
And what I'm saying is you're still stuck on that hollywood "magic military" or "magic badge" complex. Training is good and important, but you have to be able to meet a threat on equal grounds. If your attacker has a weapon then aside from sheer luck you generally need a weapon thats at least in the same ballpark of capabilities to counter that threat.
As a quote from Jet Li himself (who has amassed more training and expertise than most of us could dream of):
A gun outdoes years of martial arts training in a split second. Like I've said many times before, it is important to differentiate between movies and reality. The hero in movies may be able to knock the gun off his opponent and save the day, but in real life - probably that is not the case.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
We better not provide better education for Americans though, that would be OMG SOCIALISM!
Second your recommendation on that book. At my concealed carry class in Orlando it was included in the class price. Considered the authoritative text if you CCW in Florida. Reading it may make the difference between accolades for a noble deed or putting yourself inadvertandtly in prison.
The problem with this argument is the assumption that "force" as on option is negated by the possession of a gun. I see no rational argument for this assertion.
General apology here about my initial statement -- apparently Colorado is rather split between left and right wing nutjobbery. Apologies. Point two is the one that I actually care about though, I was merely attempting to defuse the OP's statement with my first point.
I'll toss in a guess: The one with higher unemployment, lower median income, and less education.
Sadly the militia was not meant to become part of the government. Now if you try and form a militia you'll be getting a visit from the ATF, and the FBI. The only allowed militias are the Reserves.
i in fact agree that gun toting individuals have and will continue to save lives
it is just that for every experience like yours, there are 10x more experiences of tragedy due to easy access to guns
therefore, guns should be strictly controlled to prevent needless bloodshed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Their "army" is the reason no one wants to attack them. When you have every single male citizen of a population (even a small one) as part of the militia, it makes you a rather unattractive target.
My original reply to this appears to have gone bye-bye. *shrug*
Respectfully, you are wrong.
There is no sign law in Florida regarding concealed weapons. Signs advising against weapons do not carry the weight of law. Florida Statute dictates where concealed weapon holders shall not carry weapons. If Florida Statute says you shall not carry a weapon at a location, you can't do it - whether or not there is a sign.
Now, you are correct in that if a concealed weapons holder is asked to leave, he must do so - or he's committing armed trespass. A simple sign that says "No Weapons" carries no more legal weight to a concealed weapons permit holder than a sign that says "No shirt, no service".
So what is advertising? It may be persuasion, but is it reason?
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
Almost everyone at the Battle of Gettysburg had a gun; I don't recall Union soldiers attempting to dissuade the Army of Northern Virginia from the secession.
The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.
This is going to undo some rather necessary modding.. but...
You're dead wrong. How's that War on Drugs working out? How about the one on prostitution?
These are facts:
Passing gun bans does not reduce crime. If crime does go down, you can likely find a far more logical reason why real close by.
Passing bans on anything has never stopped anyone from buying them. It at best raises the bar and prevents the law abiding from acquiring them. Those who are willing to break the law will simply do so anyway. This is true for guns, drugs, prostitutes or anything else you care to name. This has been true since day one.
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I would say that advertising is neither force nor reason. Would you disagree?
Exactly. Mutually assured destruction only works as a deterrent when everyone who has their hand on the trigger wishes to protect themselves. This man obviously did not care what happened to him, he simply wanted to incur a maximum amount of damage (for whatever reason). More bullets flying through the air would likely have caused more damage, not less.
An armed citizenry is (would be) a deterrent and a repercussion to people performing these mass shootings and acts of violence. Look at the old man who prevented a robbery of that internet cafe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RKMtLcacU
People types like James Holmes or Jared Loughner who commit these types of crimes are why the death penalty makes sense. They are beyond redemption on this world.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Your argument is also logically flawed, because you are assuming how a rational person would carry out an irrational act. Of course the handgun is the less effective way to kill a crowd of people. But considering that most mass murders are carried out with firearms, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the mentally ill people who commit these acts derive personal satisfaction from using the firearm. Given that small arms like pistols and shotguns are the most often depicted weapons in movies and video games, I think that the perpetrators of these types of attacks prefer to use them to satisfy their own fantasies.
I'm pretty sure you still get mental institutions, if the culture in America wasn't so vindictive it's probably where he'd end up rather than on Death Row. Do you think you could get hold of a SAM? No? Why is that? Is it because weapon controls don't work?
For the same reason you can't buy nukes. They're expensive and generally not worth the trouble.
Want to know the real reason criminals don't generally buy machine guns? They aren't useful for crime. They're large and expensive to run. It's not because a stupid ass law was passed to ban new ones for civilians. They weren't used for crime much prior to that law. The only criminals to ever use them regularly was organized crime. Which we practically created by a.. wait for it... ban on alcohol. Funny how those bans work out.. huh?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Cite please.
As worded in the Constitution, the cited motivator for ensuring that all citizens have the right to own weapons was so that they could protect the country and the government, not fight against it. More to the point, citizens do not have the right to raise arms against the federal government: that's called treason.
It's always going to come down to an argument of opinions, but the "protect ourselves from the oppression of the British" motivation was based more in the idea that the colonies at the time had already formed their own collective identity, one that they felt they had the right to protect. Nowhere in the Constitution or any court ruling is there any protection given for citizens to rise up in armed protest against the federal government.
Its interesting to me how many arguments against gun control essentially follow the following line of reasoning,
1) Mentally unstable / criminal / dangerous individuals exist.
2) Mentally unstable / criminal / dangerous individuals will use whatever means available to inflict harm.
3) Therefore, controlling the means of harm won't do any good.
This argument is of course ludicrous. Tools do matter. Human beings are a species that have co-evolved with the tools we've built over time to get on in the world, and tools are, for all practical purposes, an extension of who we are. They aren't really purely inert extensions of our behavior, they recursively influence our behavior in sometimes counter-intuitive or unpredictable ways.
The machine gun, for instance, is the most deadly weapon ever invented. The malicious intent behind these massacre's might not have changed over the years, but the means to inflict increasing magnitudes of harm has changed, and that matters.
Not that I am really for / against gun control per se, but I think the arguments on either side should at least make sense.
I think soldiers won't say "shoot his gun" because a pistol or rifle is not a gun.
That is the very worst moderation I've seen this year! +3 insightful for saying "nu hu, yer rong" in response to a passage using reason and logic! How is it wrong at all, especially thoroughly wrong? Whoever modded this utter tripe up, please undo your mod by explaining exactly what was wrong with the GP's post?
I don't own a firearm, as I believe that those who live by the gun, die by the gun, and although everyone has to die, not everyone has to kill. But I don't want to lose the right to should I choose to excersize it. And I support your right to carry arms, as well.
Free Martian Whores!
I grew up in a military family. My step-father was career Army, my brother and his wife are both Marines, and not only that, but pretty much my entire extended family comes from rural settings where guns are ubiquitous and I spent many a summer on a farm. I've been around guns almost my entire life. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of the number of idiots out there that think they're fucking Rambo because they took an 8-hour course and fired at a few paper targets.
My brother carries a piece and I don't feel nervous around him because he not only has been trained how to use the weapon, but he's actually used weapons in combat while in Iraq during the initial invasion back in '03, as has his wife. My step-father did multiple tours, both in Desert Shield/Storm and Iraqi Freedom (not to mention the random ops he was involved in down in Central and South America in the 80's and 90's doing who knows what), and he also has combat experience. My extended family were born and raised with guns and are avid hunters (not to mention a few police officers in the mix as well). They've got the experience.
Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock, went out and bought a ridiculous hand-cannon that he can barely handle because he wanted a 'Deagle' just like the ones in the FPSs he likes to play that he's shot a handful of times, and is now looking to pick up an AR-15, because the hand-cannon wasn't enough for the "defense" of his apartment with papier-mâché walls. I would trust my step-father or my brother with that weapon, but him? Absolutely not.
The law doesn't make a distinction for fucking retards getting a gun for all the wrong reasons, and I don't know how it ever would without impinging upon the rights of those mature enough to handle a weapon, but to pretend like it's not a worthy concern and stems only from a fear of guns is ridiculous. I'm betting you yourself know people in your own life that you know should not be carrying a weapon that are legally in their rights to do so because there is nothing to stop them from applying and receiving the permits. Hell, I'll make it even easier: How often do you see people driving that you cannot believe they actually managed to get a fucking license? They fulfilled the training requirements, they took the test and passed, but they still drive like a fucking retard? Surely there are gun owners out there that fit the same criteria, and if you deny that, you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Good luck going on a killing spree with a home made pop gun...
You are just wrong all over the place, aren't you?
To build your very own Super Evil Military Assault Rifle you need: Basic metal working skills and pretty basic tools.
An AK-47 receiver isn't particularly complicated. An AR-15's receiver is a bit more complicated but not so much so that a person couldn't make one. Since legally only the receiver is "the gun" (in the US) it is the only regulated part and the rest can be ordered online easily. Even if not, an open bolt machine gun is a damned simple design and could probably be done from blank paper to working machine in short order. All you'd need is someone with a bit of brainpower who understood machines.
None of this addresses that you can make a workable AR-15 receiver using several of the 3-D printer systems that are currently available. It wouldn't be strong enough to take Hill 58, but you could easily commit evil with it if you're of a mind.
You clearly have no idea of what you speak.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I thought the Swiss Guard worked for the Vatican, and that the Renaissance-style uniforms were for the tourists. And even the ones without guns have those nasty ax/pike weapons, so I wouldn't play fashion police with them.
Thing is most people aren't very good at making bombs and will likely fail, usually at a not insignificant cost to themselves. Every idiot with an inferiority complex who wants to be like John Wayne can buy a gun over the counter.
And any dumbass can fill a plastic or glass bottle with gasoline (available in all 50 States without a background check!!!) stuff a rag in it and toss it at the right (wrong) time. Would you like to say anything else stupid or are you done?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
This is not a direct comment out your point, but you surely noticed that this was not merely Colorado, but Aurora, the suburb where the shooting occurred. Another massacre in another suburb of Denver, only a short drive from Columbine?
I've been to Denver a few times and noticed nothing peculiar in the city or state as a whole. Can someone from Denver please explain what is going on there? Is this just wild coincidence? Matt and Trey, perhaps?
Why aren't US soldiers on-base allowed to carry loaded (or easy-to-load) weapons? Soldiers defending a country whose Bill of Rights specifically forbids government from taking away arms... have their guns taken from them at their own military base.
I also ask because higher up, we had a comment about Israeli soldiers carrying their assigned weapon almost all the time in-country, because they are personally responsible for any (mis)use even if it wasn't them who pulled the trigger.
If the Army doesn't want soldiers walking around with loaded weapons, why should I want civilians packing?
Even so, the Zug massacre still happened in Switzerland, where a man walked into a government building and started shooting people.
Not true, very much depends on the context and the service. 'Guns' are way more apt to refer to a mounted or otherwise crewed weapons in the Navy (or Marines), but as a serviceperson, calling rifles and sidearms 'guns' is perfectly normal in less formal situations.
When recounting a serious (read: tactical) situation involving a firearm, a serviceperson would likely not say 'shoot a gun', simply because of the training to describe those situations as specifically and efficiently as possible, without the need for context to explain ambiguity. You're extending that formality to be pedantic, which just seems silly.
When my buddies and I want to go to the range for fun, we're way more likely to say we're "out shooting guns" than "discharging our firearms".
LegendMUD
The reason is most state laws require you, personally to be the target of a threat in order to respond with lethal force. If the Gifford shooter didn't target him, and the marine shot the attacker, he could have been in hot water. Here in this state you could beat my wife to an inch of death and I can't do a damn thing. I'm moving to Utah where at least I can defend my own family. Check your state for Castle Laws, without them, your murderer has more rights then you.
would you have liked to be armed or unarmed?
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
And this is the fallacy where the rest of the essay falls apart.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
One has to wonder where all those bullets fired from citizens on the UT campus went. Having dozens of people firing bullets upward in an arc is a formula for trouble, despite their best intentions. Bullets come back down and they do injure and kill people.
But how did those injuries occur? Why did Zimmerman insist on confronting Martin?
> We have laws in place, but we have this other thing called a Constitution, which is clearly designed to allow each person to enjoy their rights as a citizen of this country.
But I assume you are OK with other laws that override your rights? So stricter gun laws could be a good thing.
Because I don't think you go like "DDT is only a tool, if you know how much to use it's harmless and my (still living) kids are just fine, and I can drive 120 mph with no problem but now the government won't let me do either. My constitutional rights!!"
Why do NRA-fans never say:
"Well it's sad that it is so easy to buy a gun, and the amount of uncontrolled arms in circulation is scary. As a gun nut I wouldn't mind jumping through more hoops and red tape to get a weapon to have my addiction at the shooting range. It might not have stopped this lunatic, but it sure would be a step in the right direction."
And for the record; I would rather face a guy with swords or throwing knifes than a rifle.
Domestic terrorism is a bigger problem than threats from foreign terrorists. There are numerous incidents yearly from superpatriots, anti-government no-tax types, end of world christians and race hate groups.
To claim its not terrorism just because its a white guy is jumping the gun. The FBI should find out why this guy did it first before dismissing it as a lone gunman.
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
Most people will agree that some things are too dangerous to have people carrying around on them. The argument is really where you draw the line: ...) ...). ...) ...). ...)
1) Biological weapons (Ebola, anthrax,
1) Nuclear weapons (Suitecase nuke,
2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades,
3) Chemical weapons (Chlorine gas, sarin,
4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,
5) Knives
6) Pepper spray
7) Tazers
If you're a reasonable person, no matter where you think it should be drawn some people will think more weapons should allowed and some people will think fewer weapons should be allowed, and some people will just think different weapons should be banned.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
Not really. People can't be trusted to carry around weaponized biological weapons because the chances of accidental or deliberate release are too high and the consequences too dire. Only a total idiot couldn't understand that.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Trespass as a law in most states requires someone to ask you to leave. Refusal merits tresspass. For example, signs that say "No Trespassing" are pointless beyond a deterrent.
I find it interesting that many robbers are stopped by MMA fighters, who never carry weapons. The outcome is always universally bad for the robber, who ends up in the hospital for a few days. Gun battles between citizens and robbers often end up to be bullets zinging but nobody even hit because of both the robber and the citizen being so woefully unfamiliar with shooting, they miss each other even though they're 10 feet away.
Tell that to the Japanese school children an their teachers that were murdered at the Osaka School in their class rooms when a nutt with a kitch knife came in and started killing everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Background checks and waiting periods? We have those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Who is this left-wing nutjob you speak of? I guess the mainstream media swept it under the rug so fast I didn't notice. I can't recall any body randomly shooting or blowing things up while proclaiming that education is underfunded and the rich should pay taxes. Not trying to take sides but I'm just saying.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
The firearms that citizens have access to should be roughly equivalent to those issued to regular soldiers. This was covered as the intent behind the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment per the Federalist Papers. We have already covered that.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Yes indeed, the douchebag/reasonable person ratio is different in Switzerland than it is in the USA.
If guns made you safe, Afghanistan would be the safest place in the world. Obviously when you compare Denver to Washington D.C. in terms of gun related murder, you're comparing differences in racial makeup, poverty, and the culture of the city, which contribute far more to gun violence than gun ownership.
I love it when people can't change their mind in light of factual or superior reasoning. Isn't that just an impressive aspect of some human beings? The weight they must carry is certainly deadening.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
you are the line of defense between you and your family surviving unscathed, or being tied up and watching your wife get raped and shot, etc. This isn't kindergarten, it's real life.
No, it's not real life. It's a Hollywood fantasy that does, unfortunately, happen to a very, very tiny percentage of the population -- but for the vast majority is a completely unrealistic situation to even consider worrying about.
And also, grow some balls and live your life without fear. We're lucky enough to live at one of the safest times in human history, despite what you see on the news.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The modern Swiss Guard is primarily the ceremonial guard for the Vatican, but they are soldiers from Switzerland (also single, male, between age 19 and 30, and Catholic). Although their regular uniforms are fairly normal (if a bit antiquated looking), their ceremonial uniforms make them look like they work at a vaguely Renaissance themed amusement park. I suppose it's sort of like the big burly biker with the heart tattoo with 'Mom' in it. Giggle at them from afar, but you wouldn't say anything to their face.
If you want me to do something for you
What gave you the impression that the shooter wanted the victims to do something? Did he say "get up and dance" before he started shooting?
The whole essay is based on the premise that you're dealing with a person who WANTS something from you. Please point out a recent massacre where the person actually WANTED something from his victims and tried to get it by executing them?
The idea that your average street cop is some tactical expert is simply not true.
Same can be said for the idea that your average CCW permit holder is some tactical expert.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Bet they all were talking during the movie.
Seriously, funny?
12 people die, and many other injured and you think this is modded f'ing funny.
Exactly, the individual who happened to fire that particular bullet. While the initiator is to blame for the situation each individual holds their own responsibility for how they respond. Think of it this way, if a gunman entered a crowded room and shot some people, would it be acceptable to take him out with a grenade?
This is not such a black and white issue. If people who are not properly trained respond in a reckless manner then they are responsible. There is a line somewhere between do nothing and everybody should be armed.
As an aside, I think that the do nothing crowed is just as loney and the guns for everybody crowed.
-rd
The only time the regular gun-carrier I know uses his gun is to shoot live ammo to the air (and he lives in a city, not in the boonies) during new year's eve.
Dilbert RSS feed
You realize you sound like a douche, right?
Back your shit up, don't just say "zOmG thatZ st00pid!@"
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
When did GP mention race? Strawman arguments are lies.
And who says that Trayvon wasn't defending himself when stalked by some unknown dude with a gun? Unfortunately, he's dead -- thanks to this idiotic stand-your-ground law -- and can't tell his side of the story.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
No, that should only be allowed by more responsible people, such as the governments.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Sniper rifle (slow repeat rate) vs automatic (rapid-fire) weapon.
Immobile, isolated position (bell tower) vs front area of theatre with lots of space, and line-of-sight to gunman potentially blocked by panicking people if you're seated higher up.
Clear day vs room filled with teargas.
And a huge difference between Whitman and this incident, and the attack on Rep. Giffords: "Around 20 minutes later, once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police..."
It was 20 minutes before he *started* getting return fire, if the wiki article is correct. Granted it's not easy to determine where a sniper is firing from at first, but regardless, that is a lot of time for an armed group under fire to retreat to relative safety, collect themselves, and organize a response.
Not saying that armed civilian population can't do some good, and you did answer the GP's request for an example, but I wouldn't say the Whitman shooting is close enough to yesterday's circumstances to say it's proof that an armed population could've limited the number of dead and injured.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
Except that in real life, it never seems to happen that way. Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 instances with attackers stopped by armed citizens, with no collateral damage. Two of them were school shootings, and in that case the armed citizen didn't even have to fire--the sight of a gun caused the attacker to give up. Two others, total was 4 out of 5 attackers dead, 5th one was lucky enough to be standing near an emergency exit door when the intended victims started shooting back.
It's amazing to me how such highly dramatic news does not seem to get reported beyond the local area--it demonstrates how deeply biased the national news media is against "armed citizen fights back" stories, even though I'm perfectly sure that such stories would be great for ratings. In the case of the Tennessee law school shooting, I saw a media study where out of 800 news items about the shooting and the victims, only 8 mentioned that the attacker was stopped by an armed student. 99% of the news omitted that--imagine.
Of course this exchange will end with you accusing me of making this up, and I'm not interested in taking time to dig up actual references to prove that I actually read what I read--from reputable mainstream media, not some gun-nut web site. Oh well--you can continue to believe that we all have no choice but to submit to such violence should it ever come our way, and I will continue to know perfectly well that's not true.
Oh yeah, if your instinct is actually to run, congratulations, you'd be out of the gene pool! My instinct is to duck & assess ;-)
If the case is as you describe it so certainly, yes, Zimmerman started the confrontation.
But, if you believe Zimmerman's version, he did nothing wrong, although he probably put himself at more risk than was prudent. He didn't chase down Martin and did follow the dispatcher's suggestion that it wasn't necessary to follow Martin. He was going to check the address for the police dispatcher, who had requested an address, and during that process Martin surprised and attacked him - well after Zimmerman thought Martin was gone.
Check out the video of Zimmerman's "on scene walkthrough" with the police the next day to get a perspective on his side. The first couple minutes of this video appear to be the police/investigators talking between themselves then it switches to the car that Zimmerman is in and the actual walkthrough. It's instructive also to go back and listen to the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police and see how that syncs up with his recollections during the walkthrough.
I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the details of this case as they leaked or were released and I'm betting that Zimmerman is either acquitted outright (most likely) or the jury is deadlocked with most in favor of acquittal and the prosecutor, having extracted all the political value she could (and having suffered unexpected political embarrassment due to her overcharging), won't retry him. Zimmerman's worst case scenario is, I think, that the jury will "compromise" and find him guilty of a lesser charge such as some form of manslaughter even though if that was the original charge they would also have acquired him on it - sad how juries work sometimes.
It looks to me like all the prosecutor can do is pick at the corners of Zimmerman's claims that have nothing to do with the core of what really happened. Unfortunately for her, her own witnesses also lack total recall and photographic memory in times of stress so she will screw herself in this strategy. But, she's kind of in a box, there appears to be no actual evidence that supports her case and all the actual evidence seems to support Zimmerman's version or is neutral so she has to rely on shaky witnesses. Since conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt", she's pretty much screwed.
To be fair, I think there is something to be said for the old pro-gun slogan "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". There is an odd chance that a citizen who pulls his licensed concealed weapon to shoot at the attacker in a mass shooting could miss and hit innocents or the others in the room could think he is also an attacker (in which case, they probably would have been firing at the original attacker if they had a gun themselves). So if they mistook the citizen with a gun for the attacker, at worst they might try to tackle him, but with a 2nd gunman in the room, if you presume they are working together, you'd be more likely to wrestle the gun from the citizen to take out the original attacker. So in all but a highly unlikely set of circumstances the armed citizen responding to an attack is not likely to suffer worse repercussions than if he was unarmed.
If an off-duty or undercover cop was in the theater and took out the gunman with his concealed weapon, wouldn't he be taking the exact same risks? I have read of many cases where a lawfully armed citizen or off duty officer used his weapon to end the violent actions of a would-be murderer or mass murderer, but I don't recall ever hearing about some horrible tragedy where another citizen or cop made matters much worse during the confusion of the event. Even if it did happen, siting a single example would not negate the value of citizens and off-duty officers carrying concealed weapons given the many other cases where they have been used to stop further violence.
Because DC is such a walled fortress that it can prevent people from bringing guns into it.
Smoking is not allowed in US movie theaters.......oh wait are you telling me he broke those laws too? What is it with criminals and their inability to follow simple laws? That's right they are CRIMINALS. According to the anti-guners we are all better off just sitting there and taking it than to fight back.
I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain cell and a CWP would not just open fire on a crowd of fleeing people just to get a crack at the gunman. Besides it' about the ability to protect yourself not necessarily everyone else. It's nice if you can help, but otherwise the rest of the herd is on it's own as you get yourself and your family and friends to safety.
According to Colorado and NY police, the guy had red hair and was comporting himself as the Joker. And I think all of us geeks can agree that this is something the Joker would do: set off a shooting massacre and then watch society tear itself apart rather than focus on him. Ideas can become real, and I believe the Joker killed Heath Ledger, and I think the Joker probably did kill those people in Aurora. If the reports are true and this guy wanted to become the Joker, then he succeeded.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
This particular situation was very complex, it's not a good example.
OTOH there's plenty of situations where a bit of range time and some common sense is enough training to do the right thing, eg. you hear somebody breaking into your house at night so you put yourself in a position covering the top of the stairs.
There's lots of things you can do, eg. make a course on basic situations a mandatory part of the concealed carry license.
The only thing I'm sure of is that gun prevention laws in a country which is already *full* of guns isn't going to make anything better.
No sig today...
and they'll find a way to get guns.
Will they? If people can always find a way to get guns, why do we need the Second Amendment?
Just based on the tone of your post, it's obvious you have an unhealthy bloodlust and thirst for violence. Good luck with that.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
In this case I think Insightful actually means "idiotic"
The Swiss also have a very unified culture and the racial diversity of the population is limited. The per capita income is also very high, violent crime is low. And they like to ice skate.
Take away every gun in Switzerland and the above won't change.
The guy claims he's the Joker.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
If you watch Zimmerman's "walkthrough" on scene the next day, you will find a completely coherent story that matches most of the evidence I'm aware of (head injuries, grass on back of jacket, police call, etc.). And this story has Zimmerman walking back to his truck and of the opinion that Martin had left the scene when Martin calls him out, approaches him, and punches him in the face.
It's to Zimmerman's advantage here that he's not an ubergenius. Coming up with a consistent story that matches physical evidence, police tapes, and witness recollections (he knew there were witnesses because he says he interacted with a third party in a nearby house as he was being beaten, but at this point surely had no idea who they were, how many witnesses there were, or what they saw) would be very difficult even for an evil ubergenius less than 24 hours after the event. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe Zimmerman's story unless some of the evidence or multiple witnesses blow big holes in it (vs. little things like he might have recalled that he yelled "help" x times but a witness claims it was x-1 times because that was all the witness heard).
IANAL, and clearly YANAL, because that is just plain wrong. The signs have varied impact depending on the state. In South Carolina, the sign must meet be posted conspicuously, meet specific size requirements and have a specific phrase and artwork or it carries no legal weight. In North Carolina, the requirement is merely "... notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice ..." In both cases violators can be arrested for carrying a weapon illegally - essentially carrying without a permit since a valid notice supersedes one's concealed carry permit. In Kentucky, violating the notice is not a criminal act. Unless you know the letter of the law in a particular state, you should assume that any prohibition has legal weight.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
South Park?
I'm glad we're on the same page with this. The U.S. government has no right to take /any/ arms from the populace. The constitution doesn't mention anything about what sort of arms we're allowed to have, is expansive and all-encompassing. Whether or not this is the way you think it should be is completely moot, since it's the constitution that matters, and not your opinion.
Easy, buddy. No need to call someone a liar, if you find something hard to believe. I really hope you act like this only on the web.
I don't remember seeing a single gun when I was in Europe either. I don't even remember seeing LEO except in airports.
And if it's a left-wing nutjob, it's swept under the rug by the mainstream news media (who will have been speculating that it was a right-wing nutjob for the 24 hours before that).
It's funny that you were modded "Troll".
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Just based on the tone of your post, it's obvious you have an unhealthy bloodlust and thirst for violence.
I simply cannot imagine a more absurd response. What exactly in my post was evidence of my bloodlust?
actually...
The email attributed the piece to "Colonel L. Caudill USMC (Ret)." We did some research and found that apparently there is no Col (or Major) L. Caudill USMC (Ret). Rather it appears that the essay was written by Marko Kloos and posted on his blog on March 23, 2007. You can read more of his essays by clicking here. Unfortunately there are none posted after July, 2008. But if you like the essay above you will also find this one interesting, particularly if you are in the market for a handgun. And there are other gun related pieces on Marko's blog you will likely be interested in.
Take a look at google for more details
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
It (reason or explanation for the 2nd Amend.) is not in the Constitution. But then, the Constitution is not an essay or a diary.
How the writers of the Constitution felt about the issue is well known, however. From this you can reasonably infer that yes, one of the reasons the Founders put that "right to bear arms" thingie in there was as a backup strategy in case the Federal government becomes a tyranny.
Example:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" --Thomas Jefferson
The Muslim terrorists are right-wing nutjobs. They're the right wing of a different culture.
What's right wing about Muslim terrorists? Right wingers believe in individual freedom. Unlike left wingers, the right wing true freedom of religion as one of those freedoms (yes, even for Catholics who don't want to fund contraception). As far as I can tell, Muslim terrorists, like left-wingers, don't believe in true freedom of religion either.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
But, but, but... a thermonuclear device would be even more effective!
I hope you understood how faulty your logic was.
Because its a stupid policy, that obviously bit them hard. A single gunmen took out 13 high trained people and wounded 29 more - all because they weren't allowed the tools to defend themselves. Its a dumb decision to disarm anyone - soldiers OR civilians.
The Army made the exact mistake that WAY too many people make. They assumed that there was an area where they were safe. Every time the issue of carry comes up there's somebody spouting off "OMG Why do you need to carry a gun to the mall?" or "OMG Why do you need to carry a gun to the grocery store?". And so on for some unimaginably long list of places.
The reality is that that none of those locations are safe. Its not that you "need" the gun at any of them. If I truly thought I needed it there then I just wouldn't go in the first place. The issue is that that I'm not sure that I don't need the gun. If I carry it and don't need it then its of no trouble - it sat unobtrusively and harmlessly in its holster. If I don't carry it and DO need it then the consequences could be far,far worse.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
In a dark theater, even if there was some smoke, you could probably see the flash from the gun going off easily enough.
I doubt it would have been terribly difficult to shoot back, although the element of surprise was apparently in his favor.
But the people who are trying to blame guns in this circumstance are silly. He could have just as easily tossed in a pipe bomb or some other home-made device and done even more damage.
How is this flamebait?! What is wrong with you people?!
Actually everyone should carry a portable ICBM targeting system, with nuclear warheads. After all someone could attack you from an armoured vehicle, hold your family hostage, or all sorts of other things if you only have a gun
I laugh when I read that. I remember watching "Breakdown" with Kurt Russell and getting real pissed off. I found it impossible to watch any Thriller after watching Breakdown where the premise of the whole movie would have stalled in the first 5 minutes if one or more of the main characters had a weapon, more specifically a gun and the willingness to use it.
bad guy "Muhahahaha we beat you up and have your wife, now we are going to drag her away screeming while you sit there and watch."
Main character " Draws his Glock empties the 17 round magazine into the bad guy and his partner in the get away vehicle, reloads looks around for more targets sees none. Takes his shaken but grateful wife home and fuckers her like the man he is. The End.
Version two:
bad guy "Muhahahaha we beat you up and have your wife, now we are going to drag her away screeming while you sit there and watch."
Wife pulls compact Glock 45 out of concealed holster shoots bad guy in the foot, get's loose and finishes up with two the chest and one to the head.. Husband cleans up the second guy in the car. He takes his very hot wife home and let's her fuck him like the man he is because it was he who got her the gun for Christmas , took her to the range, and taught her how to shoot even though she didn't think it was a good idea. The End
Interesting I read a different interview with Joe, where he said he drew his weapon and pointed it at the woman with the gun, and was a split second away from putting a bullet in her head before he decided she wasn't the shooter. In the interview, he was obviously shaken by how close he came to shooting an innocent woman.
The interview I read indicated the opposite of what your blog post says, that he played no significant role in subduing the shooter, came very close to making the situation worse, and almost got himself killed.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
At 9:20 a.m. EDT, the @NRA_Rifleman account, which describes itself as "an official journal of the National Rifle Association," tweeted: "Good morning, shooters. Happy Friday! Weekend plans?"
"The reason so many states have such low requirements for their classes is because it is incredibly easy to pick out a man-sized target from 10 yards and put rounds into center mass of that target."
That's one reason. The other main reason is the "who decides?" scenario: make the requirements too strict and you would be de-facto limiting availability to only ex-military and the professionally trained. But that isn't workable, because the whole point is that citizens are supposed to be armed, not just the police and military.
Mainly, your belief that guns solve more problems than they cause.
I don't believe you made up the incidents you described, but that those incidents happen doesn't mean the solution is more armed people.
In this particular case, a man in a bulletproof vest opened fire in a darkened theater. Please tell me how people there being armed would've made any positive difference.
And then, of course, you closed with a veiled threat, and an inaccurate one, to boot. Running or ducking may be appropriate depending on the environment and proximity to the shooter. Obviously, running straight away from a shooter is a recipe for getting shot in the back.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
"Contrast that with the idiot friend of mine that found out that they were legalizing concealed carry here in Wisconsin and treated it like a goddamned Xbox 360 achievement to unlock..."
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
It's not about preventing nutjobs from shooting, it's more about nutjobs reloading and continue shooting innocent civilians in public places.
Considering the demographics of the college he was attending I would suspect otherwise. In fact reports indicate he was a registered democrat. I don't though see what party affiliation has to do with a guy dressing up like some kind of crazy villain in a movie and murdering a bunch of people.
Easily? Easier than buying an assault rifle and spraying bullets around? That's silly.
Your SUV plot is silly too. First, people will see you driving at them from afar. If you get close slowly you won't be able to speed up enough to do serious damage. Second, they will run away and hide behind other cars, poles, trees, inside, etc.
I agree with the last sentence though.
Incorrect. Those signs have no force of law in Florida.
http://handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf
"You do not get 'checked' when a business has a sign that says no guns, it simply means if you are a law abiding citizen with a CCW and someone finds out you have a gun in there, you will get charged."
You won't get "charged", you'll get kicked out. You haven't committed any crime, you just violated somebody's policy.
Exceptions are Federally-insured banks, because they are considered (improperly) to be Federal property, and not subject to State laws. Same with Post Offices, but in that case they have a legitimate case for calling it Federal property.
Indeed. I don't think many CCW holders are experts at all (nor do I consider myself one - though I do shoot quite a bit). My point is simply that most of them still have at least the same weapons proficiency as the cops that so many think are the magic cavalry riding in to save the day.
Put it this way - I don't think most average citizens are great chefs either, but I'd trust them to cook up a meal just as much as I'd trust the teenage fry cook down at McDonalds - even though he is technically the "professional".
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
So, when that joke went over your head, was it like WHOOSH!, or was it more like bzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Most of your statements sound like those of someone with a pre-formed opinion who is struggling to find "facts" to support it.
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often.
Do you have actual evidence of this, or it this just down to your anecdotal (and possibly selective) experience?
Many [LEOs] have never fired a gun in a real situation
What is your argument here? Do you think that CC'ers have been in more "real situations" than LEO's? Does shooting at a range count as a "real situation"?
As someone who does pretty heavy competitive shooting (USPSA and IDPA), I see a LOT of law enforcement (and military) competitors, and most of them turn in some pretty poor scores (except those that have a separate interest in firearms and put in the same practice as the other competitors).
So, most of them are bad except for the ones that aren't. Either this has some great profundity which my non-actualized self is unable to grasp, or, this statement actually means nothing, because it can be said for anything.
I believe it would be similar to me saying "I play a lot of pool in bars, and most women I see are bad at playing pool, except for the ones that are really interested in it and practice a lot." Does this actually mean that men are better than women at pool? I wouldn't think so, though I probably won't get marked +5 insightful either.
People just have to get away from the idea that the badge is magic.
I will charitably disregard the fact that this is a straw man on its face, and just point out, someone with a badge probably has more training than someone without one. In any "real situation" I would rather have an actual LEO present than some mall ninja who thinks he's the answer to crime generally.
police are generally not all that much more qualified to "handle" defense of people than the actual people being threatened are
Even if your above claims that the average CC'er is more highly trained than the average LEO was true, there's still the inconvenient fact that the average citizen is not an average CC'er, and wouldn't put in the time to become more highly trained than their local sheriff's deputy.
Your entire post is little more than proclamation dressed up as fact.
I am not against gun ownership. I grew up in a house with guns, and have been considering getting a CCW permit myself. I really dislike ignorant arguments of any stripe however.
This guy rigged his apartment with enough explosives to take it out and the surrounding buildings. I very much doubt denying him access to a firearm (assuming you could how the heck did he get a tear gas grenade anyway) would have kept him from causing damage in that theater.
Technically speaking, banning guns would probably lower both the quantity and quality of guns in America. After all, guns are complicated to produce. I'm not sure how many good guns could be manufactured in black market gun shops. There are lot of other effects as well, but I'm not sure Guns have the same demand curve as prostitution and drugs. Do gun owners need to have their "bullet fix" or they go through withdrawal? Does every woman and man come pre-equipped with all the gear to have "guns"?
If none of the other bans on various things have prevented their acquisition, why in the world would it work any better for guns? Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Then why do companies make new guns? The stock of guns increases over time because the rate of creation exceeds the rate of destruction. It's unknown whether that would be true under a complete ban. Of course, a complete ban isn't going to happen. I'm just pointing out that you haven't thought this through very well.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Also last time I check even the military and the police, that supposedly have "really good training" do a really piss poor job at times. That's because there is no such thing as training that will make people flawless at the execution of their duties and in reality the training that the police and military get is not that much better than what you get by going to the shooting range now and then and practicing.
You have no clue whether or not public places will be safer free of guns. You are talking out what most people call "the ass".
"... because that is just plain wrong"
No, it's not, in most states. South Carolina must be an exception.
In most states, if you carry inside an area that is posted, you haven't committed ANY crime, you have simply violated someone's personal policy.
If they find you out and ask you to leave, you are then trespassing, and that is a crime, of sorts, and they can call the cops. But that has nothing specifically to do with carrying a gun.
There are exceptions. You can't carry in a Post Office or other places that are considered to be Federal territory, because those are exempt from state laws.
Fourth amendment to be proposed, perhaps, but only the second to be ratified.
Good god, what does that have to do with the OP?
love is just extroverted narcissism
I should have written that if you are asked to leave and you refuse, you are trespassing. You are not trespassing if you comply with a request to leave.
"...the need to defend one's self from a dangerous government."
Any sources?
"If a law abiding citizen with CCW gets caught in a private venue with a no-guns policy, they'll be asked to leave, at the worst."
That is true of most states, but according to the people here, apparently Texas and South Carolina are exceptions.
The problem with exceptions of that nature is that they let people effectively decide their own law on an ad-hoc basis.
A report that I read said that one of the victims in Aurora had previously survived a mall shooting in Toronto.
=(
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The concealed carry requirements actually go down to the lowest level of training of "none" for at least one state (AK).
There are clearly other social differences between the US and Switzerland that would have an effect on relative occurrences of mass shootings in the two countries. Prevelance of guns in a population and the populations training in gun use are far from the whole picture on why people develop mental health issues that cause them to go on shooting sprees. I would also argue that the simple fact that there is now a history of shooting sprees in the US makes it more likely for additional incidents to occur.
But Bane showed up in Batman (comics) back in 1993. He was also in the "Batman & Robin" film in 1997.
Is Rush claiming that the Democrats started attacking Romney in "93?
That's as silly as saying somebody planted birth notices in obscure Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 to prove... oh, never mind...
The idea that the average skeet shooter is a tactical expert is also simply not true. Good for you that you like shooting targets. It changes nothing.
Seriously, if I am in a theater, and joe-sixpack sitting next to me whips out a gun and starts shooting, if I can't run, I'm probably going to try to gouge out his eyes with my thumbs. There is no way to tell in that situation which shooter is on which team. UNLESS THEY ARE WEARING A BADGE.
Just some people? And no armed security guards?
Who's being naive about the effect that gun laws have on the culture?
Modern advertising is often a 'friendly' version of coercion, therefore it probably falls into the force category.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
While the initiator is to blame for the situation each individual holds their own responsibility for how they respond.
Certainly not. If someone starst a fire in a theater, and a panic leads to a stampede, the only person responsible for anything that results is the arsonist - period.
Think of it this way, if a gunman entered a crowded room and shot some people, would it be acceptable to take him out with a grenade?
If he has body armor and is heavily armed, certainly. The context determines what the valid response should be.
Columbine (and all other school shootings in recent years), the massacre in Killeen, Texas, and on and on... they ALL took place in areas where it was already illegal to have a gun. So passing more laws against guns would not have made the slightest difference.
Some kids and their parents at Columbine said that if responsible adults had been allowed to have guns, the outcome would probably have been far different.
Spend a few short minutes and watch this YouTube video of testimony before Congress.
A crowded, dark movie theater, during an action scene is pretty much the second worst place you could possibly attempt a defensive shooting. You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target, to clear the space in front of and behind him, to take aim or to prevent yourself from getting shot or harmed by others, police included, during or after the event.
That's a great point. One that I would hope any defensive shooters would take into consideration. (I know that might be difficult in the heat of the moment.) Maybe they did take it into consideration. If I was in that environment, and I was still breathing when it was all over, and I found out there were folks who CHOSE not to shoot because of the poor shooting conditions, I would thank them.
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
Whatever, most progressives are against prohibition's modern-day equivalent: pot. Most progressives also are not against gun ownership -- we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one.
Do you mean, "An 'armed churchgoer' is orthogonal to 'off-duty police officer.'"
Hobbyist on the other, especially enthusiastic hobbyist train ALOT. When I was in my full gun nut days I would shoot 200-500 rounds per week out of my pistol, and 200-300 rounds a week out of my rifle. Now I go shooting maybe once per month or two. When I was going weekly I could quick draw and hit soda can sized targets at 30 yards as fast as I could switch targets and pull the trigger. Now I'm no where near that fast, but I still can draw, put 3 rounds in the 9-10 ring and two more in the head of a silloutte at 10 yard in under 3 seconds. There was an old guy at the last compitition I attended he only had two holes in his targets. A small one in the head, and a big one in the chest. All he was interested in was bullseyes since he had a perfect score.
I would say that most regular hobbiest are much better trained than the police if the news reports on overkill police shootings are any indication.
There is nothing keeping the police and military guys from shooting on their own, but if the guys I work with are any comparison maybe 5-10% shoot occassionally in any given year.
That would, by all accounts, be "Trayvon Martin, the innocent choirboy who was in the process of beating George Zimmerman up"? Apparently the point of view of the Martin family is "our son didn't deserve to die. If you just keep out of his way and don't walk near him on the public streets, he won't attack you."
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
I'll answer that with an unhesitating "no".
I'm not totally anti-self-defense-tools. For example, I think Iceland's anti-pepper-spray law goes too far, in that it's a pretty lousy weapon for committing crime with even compared with commonly available tools like a kitchen knife, and is pretty obviously only for self-defense, with non-lethal, non-permanent results. But do I want to live in a paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people at all times? No thank you!
I love how people who are opposed to firearms carry always seem to use wildly hyperbolic phrases like "armed to the teeth" and "paranoia-society surrounded by heavily armed people". How exactly does a personal self-defense handgun in a hidden pocket qualify as being "heavily armed"? Oh, and I always love this one: "Guns blazing," used to describe how apparently ANY private citizen will defend themselves with a firearm. As if any person who carries a self-defense firearm will ALWAYS whip out a full-auto MAC-10 with a 30-round clip and spray the room indiscriminately, no doubt killing as many innocent bystanders as possible. The evidence for this kind of thing occurring in the real world is of course non-existent. It doesn't even happen in Hollywood movies that way!
You fail to realize of course that most of the paranoia is your own. Let's see, you're stuck in a theater with someone who is ACTUALLY "heavily armed" with "guns blazing" trying to kill you, yet you are far more worried about someone with a defensive firearm ACCIDENTALLY shooting you while they're trying to stop the guy who is doing his best to kill everyone in the room ON PURPOSE. I don't think I will ever be able to understand this upside-down way of looking at things, as if you're actually in MORE danger from the people who might try to protect you. This is such a bizarre twisting of priorities and reality that I just can't fathom how it makes sense to anyone. It seems you'd rather be a [highly probably] victim of a violent attacker than a [possible but improbable] victim of accidental friendly-fire.
[What is this, I don't even... *bewildered face*]
Oh, and I also love how I always see people talk about how "likely" an event is to happen, rather than talking about how bad the consequences are. In most circumstances it's not "likely" that you'll be stung by a bee. But I'll bet if you were highly allergic to bee stings you'd make damn sure you carry your epi-pen with you at all times, and you'd train all your coworkers and friends on how to use it so that--in the unlikely event you do get stung--you won't, you know... DIE FROM IT.
The consequences of being in a theater when a raving lunatic breaks in and starts shooting people are possibly equally grave, and I guarantee there are only a couple ways of avoiding those consequences, the main one of which is to either be armed or for at least one other person in the same room with you to be armed. No, not "heavily armed" or "paranoid", just "armed". No hyperbole necessary. And people who carry self-defense firearms are also quite likely to not be "amateurs". Many spend a lot of time learning to use their firearm effectively and safely. Many are also retired or off-duty police or military. Shocking, I know. In other words, there is a good chance that ANY person near you who is armed will react quickly and shoot accurately, and perhaps save your life in the process.
If something is highly likely to kill you, I would think you'd want to take reasonable precautions to avoid it or survive it. But I guess I just live in a different reality. Maybe mine's the one
Zimmerman was trained, he hit the Trayvon Martin with every shot in the chest.
"As a european who have spent the last 3.5 years in the DC metro area, I have my ideas why the murder rate is so high in the DC area. Racial segregation and poverty, with no chance for social ascension, effectively creating ghettos, play a key role. you can bet on it, the murder rate is not driven up by the murders in Georgetown..."
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause, because there are so many other reasons.
This is not Europe. No matter how things work there, we have solid statistics from close to 90 years of experience with "gun control" (firearms restrictions) to varying degrees, in various states, at one time or another.
And the statistics are clear: it doesn't work. Not here, in the U.S. Areas that have the most restrictions continue to have the most homicides from firearms. Areas that reduce restrictions see crime rates (including death by firearm) go DOWN.
These are the government's own statistics (Department of Justice).
Over the last 20+ years (close to 30 now), the crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping steadily. Over the same period, private firearm ownership, per capita, has continued to go UP.
Am I saying that more guns cause less crime? No, I am not claiming that. But the statistics clearly prove that more guns DO NOT cause more crime.
That's a reasonable counter-argument.
However, if that was the stated intent, why make it expressly illegal (a capital offense, even) to protest or protect yourself against the federal government?
Point here: There is inherent contradiction. The second amendment is a sword that cuts both ways, and if we are to assume that the founders were super-clever bastards, we might come to the conclusion that they purposefully wanted it to be that way.
However, the point stands that the supposed "protect yourself from the government" reason for the 2nd Amendment is implict at best, and probably more likely simply "assumed". The actual application of that assumption would require a situation where the Constitution is no longer in effect, thus, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment becomes a question of philosophical history rather than law.
Put more simply: If you ever have need to take up arms against the federal government, then you wouldn't care what the 2nd Amendment --or any amendment-- actually said. Until that time, you're pretty much just making excuses (because guns are fun, because they make you feel like more of a man than you are, because you want an object that guarantees you to have more power than someone else, etc).
You can't go running down the street with your gun drawn, you have no police powers, which means you cannot arrest or stop someone, that is true. You can on the other hand go talk to anyone about anything, any where you are legally allowed to be, and if they start beating the tar out of you, you can shoot them and continue shooting them till they stop attacking you.
The only thing that got this whole thing stirred up in the first place was the idiot media who kept posting pictures of Trayvon when he was twelve, rather than of his current adult thug persona which would have garnered absolutely no headlines or sympathy.
Yeah that's why the British lost more soldiers to the US "friendly fire" than to the Iraqis in the first gulf war...
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
Well, despite being inside his bulletproof vest and well armed himself, he surrendered to the armed police in the parking lot rather than fight it out with them, so, yes, perhaps if he thought some of the moviegoers were armed he might have stayed home.
This is a manifesto of a society culturally behind. It can work for a tribe, not for the nation that wants to lead the world. Living in group requires giving up the right of personal violence and revenge, in favor of an organized law enforcement and justice system. I learnt that at school, didn't you? this text describes the old far west. Please, let's end with it! Your ideology is killing people. (because ideologies do kill)
There are those that have been actively trying to strip away many of the other things we are allowed to have, such as explosives, which when I was a kid was something you could pick up in just about any rural hardware store.
Saint Tray Tray the Angelic's own girlfriend said he stopped the phone call with her to go confront Zimmerman. It's in her witness transcript released by the Sharptonite lawyer. The entire event was caused by the actions of the dead thug.
You have been sucking the cock of the brady bunch again haven't you, Mr Liar.
"... states with laxer laws don't have lower rates because of their stance, it is their lower rate that prevents development of cultural pressures to demand governmental action."
Which would be true if, in the United States, some cause-effect had not been strongly indicated. Areas that enact firearms restrictions tend to see crime go up. Areas that relax firearms restrictions tend to see crime rates go down.
Prior to some loosening of the firearms restrictions, 20% of homicides in the U.S. occurred in just 4 cities: New York, Detroit, Chicago, and District of Columbia. Their combined population is about 6% of the U.S. And all 4 cities had stringent firearms restrictions.
When licensing requirements for firearms ownership in D.C. were relaxed in 2008 (due to the court decision that it was unconstitutional), the crime rate dropped significantly. And that is not an isolated case... the same sort of thing has happened all over the U.S.
The answer to "why" is he was probably crazy. He might have been crazy and voting Republican, but most Republicans I know don't do this sort of thing. And crazy people do weird stuff. But they most often also have serious deficiencies that prevent them from more effectively carrying out their objectives. They tend to imitate crimes committed by others or something they saw on TV or a video game.
I support gun rights for intelligent, sane, law abiding citizens. I'm not sure how this person got their weapons, but if there were more requirements that gun owners limit other people's access to their firearms (not just children), and persons had to be screened to determine if they were mentally competent to have a gun then fewer crazies would be able to carry out such attacks. Yes, guns are available on the black market. But how is a crazy, right-wing, Caucasian guy with limited social skills going to make his way down to the ghetto, chill with the homeboys, and walk off with some gangsta's tool?
While a flat-out ban on guns, or most guns (allowing only rifles, shotguns, and revolvers - no more high-capacity, fast-changing preloaded magazines), would not stop street gangs and drug cartels, over time it would slow down the frequency of mass shootings such as these are more dangerous types of guns become more difficult to come by. Ironically, Mexico has some of the most strict gun laws in the world, but the cartels smuggle their guns in from the US, where they are often purchased legally. If the US and Mexico could get on the same page with their gun laws then perhaps there could be some progress for both countries.
Politically, the greatest obstacle to further limits on who can buy guns and what type of guns they can buy is the "slippery slope" theory, that once you start down a path of restricting rights, more and more rights will be stripped until there are none left. While I agree that the "slippery slope" is a genuine risk to liberties, I think the consequences for gun owners in the future may be even worse, such as an all-out ban in response to a series of violent attacks involving guns. Most Americans today do not own a gun and even many of those who may own a shotgun for sport or hunting would welcome a ban on assault rifles and pistols. Revolvers are much harder to reload and you usually only get five or six shots before reloading again, so the odds that you can shoot 50 people in a crowded theater are rather limited. Yet such a revolver could be suitable for defending one's home from an intruder. The hoarding instinct could actually further limit the availability of firearms on the black market, again keeping guns out of the hands of lone-wolf crazy types. Gangs and cartels would not likely be immediately affected, but citizens who could still legally carry a revolver for personal defense would limit any sudden rise in street crime of well-armed thugs against an unarmed society.
The key issues for implementing moderate gun control would be:
- Better screening to decide who should have access to firearms.
- Rules to limit private sale of such arms only to qualified buyers.
- Consider the possibility of illegal weapons being smuggled in from neighboring states. For example, Mexico's strict gun laws don't help as much because the cartels can smuggle guns that are easy to procure in the US.
- Phase out dangerous weapons gradually. Begin with guns that have high rates of fire, quick-change high capacity magazines, and high caliper rounds, but leave citizens with access to traditional sport and hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers for personal defense.
Implement these changes and you would see a major reduction in mass shootings, and some reduction in act-of-rage shootings of one to three people (like school shootings, etc. where the shooter shouldn't have unlimited access to handguns).
But I'd still lay odds that you'd find more guns and training on a randomly-selected corner of a military base than on a random street corner.
Can you read? Military bases have about the strictest gun control of everywhere. You are far more likely to find someone carrying in your office, at the bank or the local supermarket than you are in a line of people waiting to get lunch on an army base. Like, for example, this old guy in an internet cafe: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175170/Harrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html
Being led into the slaughter houses like helpless glassy eyed cattle seams to be the European dream.
In yesterday's scenario, yes, I would have to agree. You've got a small, very crowded, dark environment mixed with tear gas, a shooter dressed in riot gear (when a lot of the crowd is dressed up for the movie), and mass panic. In this situation, it's hard to say anything short of a full SWAT team on site immediately would have really helped. That's not an argument for tighter gun control.
The notion of disarming a civilian population really does not sit well with me. There are plenty of situations where knowing not only how, but when to use deadly force is appropriate and will save more lives then simply waiting for Uncle Sam to come rescue you (see my above post). He's not always going to come around in a timely fashion.
In a world where criminals are willing to kill, tighter gun laws are not going to be much of a deterrent. Just look at how the "war on drugs" has been working out. If criminals want guns, they will have guns. I at least want to be on equal footing and not a severe disadvantage if there comes a time (rare that I hope it to be) where me being armed could have saved the lives of innocents.
Same with plastic utensils, pocket knives, oil, salt, a taser...
Heck a bag of rocks will do. Guys in the middle east have shown us the old tech works just fine in this new world.
Anything can be used as a weapon. It is the efficiency as the OP mentions.
And usually efficiency is countered acted by either a. lack of training (how many people really know how to use a AK properly) or b. scale (the western gun fight with 100 people).
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
Either this man has never been seduced, or he believes seduction falls under one of those two categories.
Never underestimate the power of the pussy.
I can see the fnords!
Ultimately, the problem is cultural. Fixing the cultural problem doesn't require removing the guns.
Though it probably requires removing the Prohibition-type drug laws that seem to spark much of the gun violence (just like the real Prohibition sparked some of the worst gun violence in US history).
Mod up.
Exactly. The vast majority of firearms-related homicide in the U.S. is drug- or gang-related (which are quite often the same thing). It is criminals killing criminals, generally over illegal drug profits (or some other kind of illegal profit, but most of it drugs).
Take away the illegality, you take away the ridiculous profits. Take away the profits, you take away the motive for killing. It sounds simplistic, but our own experience with Prohibition shows it to be true.
To prevent gun issues try welfare. Less people with nothing to lose, less people with no known address (everyone has a PO box at minimum). And there's no downside as welfare is direct economic stimulation, the money is spent instantly (not intelligently, necessarily, but fast, taxis to the liquor store or grocery bills, doesn't matter) on receipt.
Gun ownership is pretty much neutral toward crime, more random shootings, less bar fights/home invasions, but it increases accidental deaths. Training would be good. Teaching people (at least people who want them) guns aren't toys would be better; too bad it's impossible without the corresponding body count. Like for Zimmerman it's fun and power until the trigger pull, and then you're back to real life. And jail.
And any sort of self-defense with a gun gets massively played up by the NRA. You don't hear about it because it is rare. Accidents come up rarely, but frequently relative to the number of self-defense actions. You hear about them because they tend to be tragic (kids) and/or because gun control groups publicize them. And finding honest stats is a mess now, and more effort than I'm willing to make. The propaganda to truth ratio is low at both ends of the spectrum and they drown out the middle.
Gun ownership laws in Canada are applied way differently in the city, where guns stay locked or en route to/from the range, and outside where shotguns (for farmers) and rifles (for hunters) can be carried pretty freely. There generally aren't a lot of incidents in the rural areas, other than occasional drunk hunters shooting farmers, mostly in their own fields right next to the "no hunting" and "no trespassing" signs. This makes total sense to me. So many red state/blue state issues are just rural/urban divides with no comprehension on either side, though the propaganda (from politicians and media owners) doesn't help.
Or we could try the Chris Rock solution and make ammunition expensive. So if someone gets shot they had it coming... Like the dogbert solution: guns for everyone but ammunition only for me.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Except for when they take them out of the hands of the right people. Will some criminals get their hands on guns even with stricter gun laws? Sure. But many will not, and people with criminal records are not the only people I'd consider the "wrong" people.
It really just goes to show how meaningless most discussions on gun control are that this crap gets moderated insightful. I mean, really? You believe that not a single gun crime can be prevented by gun control? You're so steeped in your own philosophical musk that you've lost touch with reality.
"James Holmes, 24 was a PhD student of neuroscience at the University of Colorado.
He lived in an apartment in the north of Aurora, only five miles from the cinema.
He has no previous criminal record and is in police custody."
Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/20127209345105689.html
Given the education, I doubt he was a 'right-wing nutjob' as some have said. The seemingly innocuous location suggests this wasn't a revenge-based killing, ie. motivated by Holmes' losing a job or getting dumped. One expects the location to bear significance for the intent of the crime, whether that intention is sane or not. So he shot up a movie theatre, a centre of lower- and middle-class economic excess and the substitution of culture and genuine social interaction for mass comfort and 'entertainment'; following these lines, I suspect his 'message' was anti-capitalist (if it was at all explicit). Indeed, it seems like this person took the Joker's message from the last Batman film rather seriously: "introduce a little chaos into people's lives".
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
This kind of statement is quite common from people who oppose firearms carry, but I have yet to see any sort of evidence why it would be true. Why exactly does it have a "better" chance of making the situation worse? The situation can hardly GET any worse! Several people shooting back at a gunman usually results in the gunman either stopping what he's doing, running away, or dying. I would think any of those outcomes would be preferable to everyone just sitting there continuing to get shot at by the gunman while waiting for the police to show up, even if someone does get hit by friendly fire. Maybe I'm crazy.
If the gunman could see through smoke and a gas mask well enough to be shooting people, then I would think those same people should be able to effectively shoot back without significantly endangering the rest of the people in the room. Again, maybe I'm crazy.
"The solution to gun violence is not ensuring that everyone is equally armed."
That a direct result to why the 1st option happens. People are trained to go into 'flight' mode and that's a result of 'not ensuring that everyone is equally armed.'
Otherwise, it would be the 1850's and we'd be in gunslinger battles. Though cool to some, the toll would be 2-3x the size and 10x more casualties/collateral damage.
And so you have just invalidated any argument you may have that guns themselves are the cause
You would be right if I had ever stated that.
>I think it says a lot about your culture
Ironically enough, I do not own a gun. I am afraid I might use it out of temper.
>Can you provide examples to support your claim?
Major Hasan
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient?
My bias: I don't own a firearm, don't plan to own one anytime soon, but I would someday like to, and when I do I would like to have a concealed carry permit, even if I do not plan to carry on a regular basis (and am unsure if I would at all). The history nerd in me feels strongly in support of the "shall not infringed" idea about guns.
Now, to answer your question. A lot of training, with mandatory annual range time or rounds fired. Practice makes perfect, and the more you hang out with people that value safety while armed, the more likely you are to incorporate that in your reflexes and actions. I believe that anyone looking to bear a gun should have similar training and upkeep of the skills of gun use and ownership. Here's the training I would like to have before I own a gun -- and who knows, a CC permit might even require more (I don't know, as I haven't looked):
I think this would be an admirable and effective way to ensure that an armed populace knows how to use their weapons both effectively and safely. I have a hard time reconciling that with the language of the second amendment and the views of our founding fathers, but I imagine they figured that an idiot with a musket was unlikely to be able to hit anyone, let alone several, and that the people who could afford a weapon tended to be those who would know how to use one.
Why do you presume that gunman in Aurora was crazy?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
Witness reports indicate he paid for a ticket, left via the door (presumably propping it open), suited up and armed himself and came back in. His vehicle was out back there.
Many of those doors are down a dark hallway, and at 12 AM starting time it would be an easy thing to miss that it was open, and an easy disabling of the latch to get it open again.
Why do so many people in this thread assume that any one with a gun on them would instantly start wildly shooting? If I was there with a firearm, I would try to make it to the exits first and only shoot if absolutely necessary.
>Let's do a simulation:
Let's don't
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The real question would be: If you were in the theater with the smoke grenades going off and you were lucky/unlucky enough to find your self standing within 10 feet of the shooter, would having a gun made a difference to you? I dare you to answer no to that question.
Having and carrying a gun has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with the right of the individual to protect themselves. The public derives benefit as a byproduct of that right because once the invidual is protected the public is protected.
The argument that the public should be protected by the police results in the individual becoming expendable and then all kinds of nasty things happen. Just look at history.
I wish I'd read your comment before I decided to comment, as I found that very insightful. Thank you.
He bought a ticket to the movie and propped the door open himself, then left and reentered from outside.
Probably the only way he could get into the theater with all his gear. He couldn't very well walk in as a patron with full body armor, his weapons, and a gas mask on and bringing everything in a bag would have raised the theater's suspicions he was sneaking in snacks from outside.
Do you guys actually believe that criminals have a superpower that lets them cause guns to spontaneously appear in their hands, or are you really just that good at pretending that gun control presents logistical concerns for acquiring guns above and beyond getting arresting for having one yourself? I mean, I don't know for sure that anything would have changed in this particular case, but you don't know that it wouldn't have, either. Claiming that he would have had guns anyway because he was uninterested in the law is seriously begging the question.
Going out to movie theaters were a great social event in the early decades from 30's to 80's, heck people even dressed up fancy to go to the theater. They even would broadcast news before the movies began in the 50's, 60's.
Now more and more people would rather enjoy movies at home in front of their large screens, surround sound in the comfort of home with them self or with family and loved ones in a nice quiet atmosphere.
the only way to get that first run experience at home is through piracy. No one wants to sit in a crowded theater full of strangers all lip smacking on candy/popcorn and slurping sodas.
The price of a movie ticket plus small drink, small popcorn is the same price as owning the DVD anyhow.
So now this just proves it's much safer to stay home
go to
http://icefilms.info/ - for direct download television and movies.
or for torrent fans
http://kat.ph/
http://thepiratebay.se/
or
http://demonoid.me/
For those that enjoy watching downloaded media on their television can purchase a western digital WD TV plus, made for pirates by pirates was on of their early slogans since it works like VLC media player supporting all codecs. Can stream your movies off your lan from a shared drive. Or plug in a usb flash drive or external usb hard drive for local storage and can stream movies that way and can even stream youtube for 100 bucks.
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-1080p-Media-Player/dp/B003MVZ60I
Fuck theaters, noone wants to go to theaters with strangers, noise, talking, smells, etc.
piracy is safer and much more enjoyable
That's actually entirely untrue. George Zimmerman was in violation of Florida's law when he confronted Trayvon Martin.
False. Florida has no law against "confronting" people. If I see somebody walking on the street near my house, I am entirely free to ask him what he's doing. He's not required to answer, but I can ask him what he's doing, and I can watch what he's doing.
Florida's law allows you to use deadly force to prevent, or stop, a forceable felony. He confronted Treyvon, and started the altercation. He claims that he retreated, and that Trayvon followed him to try and make the stand your ground law applicable.
Talking to somebody isn't a crime. Asking someone what they're doing isn't a crime. There's no crime at all until someone threatens violence, and there's no evidence that Zimmerman offered any reasonable threat of violence towards Martin before Martin attached Zimmerman.
Yes, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car, the incident wouldn't have happened. That's not relevant. Yes, Zimmerman is probably an inadequate little man with a hero complex. Again, what of it?
is 8 dead 13 wounded. Close enough?
Losing a fistfight that you started is not a legal defense to shot someone. Read it up.
It's not a spoiler, it was in the trailer.
So you'd be cool with your neighbor building a nuclear reactor in his back yard? I mean, if he can't be trusted with a personal nuclear reactor, how can he be trusted to participate in governing himself?
"A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make peoplebetter. And I do not hold to that. "
Progressives have just made Reavers. Not like in the story, but just as scary.
Do you think its a common occurrence for Americans to watch each other get killed or shot at? Unless I am somewhere that people are hunting or in a sporting goods store, it is extremely rare to actually see a gun.
D) Possibly get caught trying to get the guns and never have the opportunity to make a decision A-C
E) Give up on killing people with guns and take any number of still violent, but less effective actions such as suicide, crashing his car into somebody's house, etc.
Oh, was I supposed to pick one of your stupid, artificially limited answers?
What about rules preventing him from buying those guns in the first place.
MABASPLOOM!
"There's no chance that the amendment would have been passed if it was possible to foretell what it would lead to."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right.
Please note that (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed), the right to bear arms is an individual right, and (as historical documents clearly show) was guaranteed not only because of the fundamental truth that one has a right to defend oneself against aggression, but also from acknowledgment that was possible that aggression could come from our own government.
I frankly don't care if you're terrified of guns. That has no bearing on my right to have one.
The more I read about it, the more I think that taking a shot wouldn't necessarily have been a hard thing.
Supposedly, Butthead there was wandering up and down the rows of seats shooting people at random. Which means Butthead didn't have the protection of his smokescreen for more than the first few seconds.
Admittedly, you probably couldn't have gotten a safe shot (pretty much defined as "no innocent bystanders behind the bad guy, and noone especially near you either") till most of the murders were done.
Interestingly, I just read the very first editorial in the Washington Post calling for more gun control.
Note that when I referred to Democrats, I wasn't just talking politicians. The media is largely Dem, and will be all over this like white on rice....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I wouldn't argue that a citizen with a firearm would have responded preventing this from occurring. I would contend that perhaps if more people carried, the nutjobs would have a different set of parameters to consider. kicking in a door, walking into a room of innocent bystanders and shooting a crowd of fleeing sheeple is very different than walking into a police station and attempting the same task. Responsible persons carrying concealed doesn't eliminate violence because they shoot people, it reduces the population of victims presented to an attacker and creates a threat which may deter the crime from occurring in the first place.
God Bless the victims and their families.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides?
Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse?
And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them?
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
You are a fucking asshole, as is every moderator that marked this as funny
I'm not sure if you saw, but apparently someone who barely avoided your shooting was shot and killed in the Colorado shooting last night.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
That is not true. Florida requires you to retreat. The law states:
See this book for more information. By confronting Treyvon, he started the altercation. You can never, in the state of Florida, use deadly force to resolve any altercation that you start, without first retreating. Had he been on his property, he would have been covered. He was not. He was in his neighborhood, and therefore has no right to do anything without retreating. The guy was a moron who thought he could do whatever he wanted.
I would bet that the overlap between people who choose to carry and people who choose to watch a Batman movie at the local movie theatre is quite small. There are about 20K CCW licences issued in Colorado, for a population a little north of 5 million. So on average, one person in every 250 would be entitled to carry a gun. Probably a bunch of those CCW licences are issued to hunters who don't routinely carry, but find that having one simplifies the logistics of a hunting trip, so I can't tell what fraction of the CO population routinely carries.
So maybe one or two people in the theatre might possibly have been entitled to carry a weapon. The odds are that they weren't in a useful place to get a good shot. Arm a few percent of the people, and it might be a different story, but one armed person on the other side of a crowded theatre is unlikely to be able to do anything.
"You would be right if I had ever stated that."
True, you did not say that in so many words. But I felt you strongly implied it here:
"Firearms being illegal in DC does not mean a thing since you can have all you need in Virginia, a mile away."
Communism and Anarchism ideologies specifically state that revolution, terrorism and violence must be used as a mean to an end. Islam's holy book specifically state that violence and slaughter has to be used towards infidel. That's why these ideologies are seen as bad by right-wing extremists, who preach love to others and try to live like good citizens.
Unless you mean the nationalsocialists, which are a different kind of left-wing extremists that are only seen as "right-wing" because they specifically target other left-wing extremists.
How did you take my "this incident doesn't relate to gun law" and turn it into a tl;dr post in favor of gun law reform? And who said anything about this guy being a Republican??
Crazy people usually are not able to circumvent rules or common sense as well as a normal person. Some do but most do not. Nothing is perfect but you can deal with the majority cases. The process of buying guns should be aggravating and involve a bunch of triggers so nutters are filtered out; somebody who is found nuts must lose their guns until they are healed (if possible.)
Yes, there is a problem where anybody outside a certain political group is labeled nutcases. But then you have actually sane people labeled nuts who will figure out ways to get weapons and when you are dealing with invasion or mass revolt the law does not matter anymore. Some think arms are just toys and REAL arms too dangerous so banning the toys makes sense while others think we should have access to serious weapons. The point often lost is the whole purpose to the right is not for hunting or other hobbies or for some silly libertarian anarchy where everybody shoots whomever scares them (black kids in hoodies for example.)
Gawd, where was that? Every State I've lived in that had CCW required some range time as part of the training...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How many violent deaths are depicted in the Batman movie for entertainment purposes?
There is something oddly ironic and contradictory about the response of shocked horror to this massacre. A massacre in the midst of a hyper violent movie where violent and gruesome death is an unremarkable prop that nobody gives a second thought.
I've shot guns on many occasions including assault rifles, I just don't see the need for them in civilian hands.
It was 20 minutes before he *started* getting return fire, if the wiki article is correct. Granted it's not easy to determine where a sniper is firing from at first, but regardless, that is a lot of time for an armed group under fire to retreat to relative safety, collect themselves, and organize a response.
They had to go and get their rifles. People don't carry rifles around with them - they're too big and inconvenient. Trying to suppress a sniper up a bell tower with a handgun would be almost useless.
"... we just think a bit of screening might be in order before getting one."
Really? But then you run up against the same fundamental problem as always: who decides? Would YOU decide who can have a gun and who can't? If you did, what basis would you use? What if someone is a bit mentally slow... but is being stalked by a dangerous person or an ex-spouse? And there is the further problem that if you let government decide who gets guns, doesn't that infringe upon our individual constitutional right to have them? Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude. You can tweak the damn rules, improve the situation, and it won't destroy the fucking country. And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias (e.g. the National Guard) the right to bear arms. You don't have a constitutional right to carry a gun for personal protection, that's what we call a 'privilege'.
Humor is a protection and coping mechanism.
When I carry a gun, I don't have to deal with you by reason. I can just shoot your face off, sucker.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Sometimes more of a response is a waste of breath, demeaning to both parties.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
My 15 year old niece is visiting Denver and happened to go to a midnight showing of Batman in Denver. She wasn't in that theater because it's in the suburbs but it's a little close to home for me.
You felt it wrong.
On the other hand, I'd rather make new rules about police and security guard training than have more civilians carrying guns. I'm a firm believer in the constitution and citizens' right to bear arms, even the scary kind that should make the government think twice about going all despotic... but I don't think that the average person having greater access to handguns will make us safer. It will make some people safer, because they will learn to use it properly and make good decisions about how and when to bring the gun into play; for loads of other people it will only lead to more violence, accidents and tragedy.
Many of our citizens can't even be trusted with a mobile phone and a driver's license.
Many people will fall into the trap of feeling invulnerable with a gun in their pocket. They will get into stupid situations. They will stand their ground when running would be smarter. They will rush into a situation rather than hold back and call for police or other support. A lot of people will feel like they can handle a situation that they really can't just because they've got that reassuring weight at their side.
US citizens are promised the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that most people should do so.
Funny how molotovs are never used by lone psychopaths, in fact they are more commonly used in the way you supposedly intend your guns to be used in your wet dreams: as a weapon against state forces.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You idiot, why would you ban guns and allow the sale of parts to build one. Are you bring deliberately obtuse?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
if this happened in Syria, he would be a "Friend of the Syrians" fighting for the rights of the people against a regime which runs torture camps for foreign countries and Hillary would have given him hugs an kisses, its all relative, isn't it?
Sad, very sad but very disturbingly true.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of Colorado, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob.
First, to the parent, considering the demographics of ARIZONA, yes, he probably was a right-wing nutjob.
Huh. Sounds familiar...
Actually, now that you mention it, no, I'm willing to bet that this guy was really a leftwing nutjob. Check out his bio on wikipedia. Guns aside, he didn't fit in well, in Colorado.
Maybe you don't see many machine guns in crimes, but they exist. Look south of three border where you have been giving them away to gangs to see the risks of unrestricted access to weapons.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
that the gun nut considers his manhood enhancement to be more important than his wishes. Then they are trespassing. It doesn't matter how self-important their little friend makes them feel. Owners property, owners rules.
So you admit they can't be made easily. Thanks, idiot.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You've kind of got it the wrong way round, you need the guns before the murders, so the fact you are trying to get some or travelling around carrying them means you stand a good chance of being caught before you even get to the murdering stage.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
> Uh, maybe the fact I'm not pointing my gun at them?
You're assuming that everyone [with a gun] is capable of behaving rationally in an entirely irrational situation. you are pointing your gun at someone else just like the initial shooter is doing. Do you trust the person on the far side of the theater to know that you're not an accomplice?
Regarding this particular situation, the right thing to do would be to not draw, as the smoke permeating the darkened room would make identifying the target next to impossible, and as every shooter with half a brain knows (granted, that's not all of them), you never take a shot if you don't know what your shooting at, and what's behind it.
Concealed carry or not, the smart people are the one's who took cover and avoided shooting/getting shot.
> and no amount of fact or rational thought can change that.
And you are entitled to your opinion too (even if it is wrong)
The great thing about opinions is, their subjective nature prevents them from being right or wrong. How the opinion is expressed, however, can be decidedly so - i.e., referring to all concealed carry licensees as "whackjobs with guns" is likely the wrong way to express it (unless your intention is to make yourself appear an asshole).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A simple solution for this: Compulsory military service of 1-year, training in weapons and tactics, upon reaching age 18.
Why not have the government subsidize the training of America's youth in proper exercise of their 2nd amendment rights while making a larger pool of able young adults in time of need?
there are more murders in Washington DC than in Colorado in a typical year.
this is the stupidest argument for anything. DC and Colorado are radically different places sociologically, demographically, in pretty much every way that you can think of.
it's like saying, "hey, there's no gun ban on the moon, look how many murders they have there!"
Liar. Anders Behring Breivik killed 90 people alone, LAST year. Forgot to add that into your little lie didn't ya?
Way to pick some bullshit numbers.
Either arming everyone is good, and everyone should have access to any weapon, or giving weapons to almost everyone is bad, and nobody should have them. Artificial differences between automatic, number of rounds... just serve to emphasize that even guns advocates don't believe their own discourse.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
The funny part, is he DID dress up as the Joker.
Several police statements have indicated he had painted his hair red, like the Joker in the comic book, and stated "I am the joker" a couple of times.
Can't blame the movie's, it was only 39 minutes into a premiere.
I don't know what state you're talking about, but in Kentucky the sign doesn't carry any weight. All the store owner can do is ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the cops.
It's the same in all states where carry is permitted otherwise.
The USA and Canada are different; I wouldn't suggest that you adopt our system per se, because your circumstances aren't the same. But it seems obvious to me that sufficiently strict gun laws CAN work if they have an appropriate societal context to exist.
The question is, do you have low crime because of your gun laws? Or is it because of the other numerous policy differences between US and Canada (like, say, much better social welfare net, leading to fewer desperate people)?
The fact alone that you confuse target practice with training on the use of lethal force is an example of exactly why an off-duty officer is not the same as an "armed churchgoer".
Officers confront dangerous situations routinely. Every such situation is a rehearsal of when to unlock the holster, when to grip the gun, when to pull the gun but still keep it pointing at the ground, when to pull it up and issue a warning, when to shoot to a warning shot, when to shoot to maim/disable, and when to shoot to kill.
It depends on what you're shooting him with and the distance. E.g. for my daily carry piece, which is a .32, it is certainly quite literally bullet proof. And there are vests out there that will hold a 9mm or a .45, too, and you can buy them on e.g. Amazon.
That said, it would be really interesting if someone did actually try to shoot him and failed to do damage, or if nobody even tried. The people who were near the exits all rushed out - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with the circumstances, and I'd do the same thing. But a lot have, apparently, just crouched under the sits and waited there while he walked around picking and shooting them at random.
And despite the strict gun laws being in place, shootings are still happening with the restricted weapons. And while only two were killed in the Danzig shooting, dozens were shot. I don't know how one can attribute the lower death rate in one mass-shooting vs. another to the presence of gun control laws.
Toronto's gun violence problem grows despite the city's ever increasing crackdown on firearms. As the police here have been pointing out, the difference between violent crime in the US vs.Canada is one of culture. The increase in this very public violence in Canadian streets is due to the cultural shift in Canada, and how the Canadian street gangs are starting to view the use of public violence in the same way as American street gangs have been for decades.
They're cliches, but they're still true: correlation doesn't equal causation, and guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun control doesn't stop violence, it is simply more popular in communities which are less disposed to violence. Gun violence is ultimately a social and cultural problem, and should be treated as such.
I'm not sure why this article was posted on slashdot without mentioning that the shooter was in grad school for neuroscience. It seems as least somewhat relevant to this audience to reveal, without ascribing any causation.
How does a guy who was smart enough and focused enough to be going for his graduate degree in neuroscience end up dressing up as the Joker and going off the deep end? I suppose it will come out that he was suffering from emotional issues combined with some psychological problems, but you would think he would be more aware of these issues than the average person due to his study of interest.
Umm... Would the name calling gentleman be so kind as to explain, why incidents like this are very rare in countries which do not provide ready access to guns to the general public?
Mainly because those countries are different from the United States in many other ways; most importantly, they tend to be more "socialist" in that they provide a wider and broader reaching social welfare net, free healthcare etc. It's well known that poverty breeds crime, so a society that combats it better will have less crime.
If you want an example of a country that has gun laws similar to US (including the ability to own and carry a pistol concealed) but doesn't have similar troubles with violent crime, look at Czech Republic.
Hint:
target practice != training on use of lethal force
The "news channels" get a lot of coverage (by other channels), but Fox News's viewership, while the largest of the news channels, pales compared to NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox.
If we want to change the 2nd amendment, article five is right there, provided specifically so we can do exactly that.
Article III, which establishes the supreme court, in no way assigns article V powers to the justices or to congress. No restriction, license or ban they have implemented or rubber-stamped is relevant or authorized with regard to the 2nd; the thing explicitly says the government can't infringe on the rights to keep and carry, and that covers the entire scope of it any law dealing with any arms whatsoever. Likewise, congress can make no legitimate law that restricts these rights. Any such law they create is government malfeasance, a direct violation of the oath they swore when they became members of congress, and an exercise of unauthorized power. If we want to change this, then we must turn to article five. There is no other legitimate path.
Furthermore, I would even argue that we SHOULD change it -- I don't want my neighbor cooking up Anthrax or cobbling up a nuke somehow -- but it CAN'T be changed legitimately by congress enacting legislation or SCOTUS' sophist hand-waving. They simply do not have that authority. Power? Sure, they have the power, and they're 100% ready to misuse it, but that is no different in any sense from any banana republic where some buffoon declares "because I said so."
Let me leave you with this quote:
"Who are the militia?" asked Tench Coxe, friend of Madison and prominent ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their ... The unlimited power of the sword is not
Federalist, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788. "Are they not
ourselves.
swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American.
in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
1) Yes, the militia were, and are, "ourselves" -- that's what it meant when they wrote it. Not national guard, etc.
2) You would probably be amazed at the variety of arms the authors were aware of when they wrote the second. Yet they didn't say guns: They said arms. They were also well aware that arms were under development at all times, and they *still* just said "arms." You have every right to own any arms you can afford, build, receive as a gift, or trade for. You don't legally require a license for any of it, and you don't need to tell anyone what you have. Just be aware that the government does whatever it wants, as it is, and has long been, out of control due to our consistently electing idiots to power.
Read the Wikipedia article. While it's true that armed civilians made it more difficult for Whitman to aim, the civilian (Allen Crum) in the group storming the tower almost screwed it all up, the rest in the group were police officers and they alone were responsible for taking him out.
"Several feet before reaching the southwest corner, [Allen] Crum accidentally discharged a shot from his borrowed rifle."
Charles Whitman
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
And what is the probability to hit a perfect innocent in these circumstances?
If the guy is shooting a perfect innocent every five seconds and seems unlikely to stop, then the possibility of my hitting a single innocent trying to take him down is the lesser of the two evils.
shut down Colorado.
Otherwise, it would be the 1850's and we'd be in gunslinger battles. Though cool to some, the toll would be 2-3x the size and 10x more casualties/collateral damage.
Um, what? You do know that the whole gunslinger cowboy myth is just that, a myth, right? Actual shootouts were INCREDIBLY rare, despite lots of people being armed. Funny how that works, it's almost like people are less likely to start violent confrontations when the odds aren't heavily stacked in their favor.
Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
Scene 1. Shooter A starts shooting at audience. Police arrive to find shooter A shooting so they know right away who is at fault and can shoot the shooter without warning. Scene 2. Shooter A starts shooting at audience. Person B in the audience starts shooting at shooter A. Police arrive to find two persons shooting at each other so they must somehow figure out which one of the two is the criminal. I would assume in this case the police would have to identify themselves and ask both people to lay down their weapons. Policeman arrives at door behind shooter A. Shooter A. turns his weapon toward policeman. Shooter B sees this and attempts to shoot shooter A but misses him. Policeman interprets this to mean shooter B is the criminal and shoots shooter B. The only safe way is for the only shooters to be either the criminal or the police. A lot of these shooters are suicidal so if there were armed people in the audience, it might just encourage the shooter to shoot. I can not figure this out as I have several paragraphs now but when I press preview everything just runs together.
Personally, I favor banning the kind of weapons which can be used for these kind of attacks - semi autos
A level action is only marginally slower. A pump shotgun is a fair bit slower, but can be much more devastating (in sheer body count) than a pistol caliber semi-auto carbine, for example.
You even said it yourself earlier:
There's basically not factual reason for favoring either side - it's all just political bullshit.
I happen to agree with that. So why try to come up with another arbitrary criteria for a ban, then? The way I see it, people should be free to do whatever unless and until that freedom is convincingly demonstrated to be detrimental to the interests of society as a whole. Since, as you note, relaxed gun laws by themselves have not been shown to be that, the default shouldn't be a ban.
Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attack
It wasn't an "armed churchgoer" as you misleadingly state. It was an off-duty police officer, trained in the use of lethal force.
When you start with untrained use of lethal force you get George Zimmerman shooting at Trayvon Martin.
Uh...
Was he... armed?
Was he... at, or going to, a church?
Sounds like an armed churchgoer to me.
Fortunately a lot of the people who are carrying concealed personal defense firearms are actually off-duty or retired law enforcement or military. It is not the case that ALL armed citizens are clueless amateurs. Even the ones who aren't cops typically spend a significant amount of time practicing how to use their firearm effectively and safely, because most people that choose to carry firearms really do understand that having a firearm is a heavy responsibility.
Oh, and I'm about 99.999% sure that Trayvon Martin would still be alive if he hadn't seen fit to get into a brawl in the middle of the night with someone who happened to be armed. I'm also absolutely certain there are thousands of off-duty or retired cops who might have also ended up shooting Mr. Martin had they been in the same circumstances. Cops are not magically immune to making mistakes in heated circumstances. It was a very unfortunate incident, but it does not serve to prove in any way that citizens who don't happen to be members of law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms. Doesn't matter how much training is involved, when things go down sometimes people get shot even when it may not have been absolutely necessary by the definition of someone after the fact who wasn't there when it happened.
Living in group requires giving up the right of personal violence and revenge, in favor of an organized law enforcement and justice system.
You seem to be confusing self-defense with "personal violence and revenge". And organized law enforcement and justice system is not a substitute for self-defense, at least until I can press a button and have an armed police officer instantly teleported to my side.
2) Explosives (Dynamite, C4, grenades, ...) ...)
4) Firearms (50 caliber machine gun, AK-47, M-4, Shotgun, Pistols,
5) Knives
6) Pepper spray
7) Tazers
Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
So limit ammunition instead. There's a Chris Rock skit about that, which is straight to the point and hilarious. But yeah, with proper care, guns last a long time. Ammo actually expires or gets old and useless.
So you'd be cool with your neighbor building a nuclear reactor in his back yard? I mean, if he can't be trusted with a personal nuclear reactor, how can he be trusted to participate in governing himself?
I would bet most people wouldn't buy one in the first place.
They're expensive.
If you f*cked up and irradiated your neighbors, you'd be liable for millions or billions of dollars.
Your insurance company would refuse to insure you until you got training from the Homer Simpson College of Nukuleer Physiks.
etc...
I don't know what you were aiming for, but your post seems to be actually making an argument in favor of relaxed gun laws - if we permit people to drive cars just like that, even though statistically they are far more deadly, then surely guns are not a problem.
Here's the thing. This is not a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. That's mostly because democracy is inherently dangerous to minorities, a problem which the founders were well aware of -- they didn't just skip the idea of a pure democracy because they missed it, you know. The statement "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner" illustrates the basic problem. It's actually worse than that, but even just that is enough to say "a pure democracy is a very bad idea."
The US process is not "we do what popular opinion (democratic majority) says", it is "we establish a government which is constituted with specific limits" and then we vote on representatives who swear to act within the bounds of those limits.
One of those limits is that if we -- actually, the government acting in our stead -- want to change the constituting rules, then the procedure described in article five must be followed. We don't just get to vote changes in, nor is the legislature authorized to simply write law that makes such changes. That is allowing the fox to define the combination for the chicken yard, and that's why they're not authorized to do it. Instead, there is a tedious and annoying process, even somewhat democratic in nature which I suspect would please you, that must be followed.
And the bottom line with the second amendment is that it authorizes the keeping and carrying of arms, no restrictions, and furthermore it explicitly denes the government the power to apply restrictions.
If we want to change that, and actually, I agree it needs updating, as nukes and bioweapons and chemweapons strike me as needing rather more stewardship than Larry the plumber down the street is likely to be able to provide, we have that opportunity. See article five.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Same can be said for the idea that your average CCW permit holder is some tactical expert.
Certainly not. His point, though, is that anti-gun folk seem to be putting a lot of trust in cops somehow magically always doing the right thing with respect to guns, but take the badge away, and we're talking about "gung-ho rambo wannabees randomly shooting in all directions" etc. The reality is much more mundane in both cases.
By the way, one thing you can reliably count on is that, on average, both cops and CCW permit holders are far more proficient with their guns than the average criminal. Criminals simply don't have the time nor money to practice enough, and their guns are usually crappy as well.
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
I think training and education will go a long ways towards addressing this issue... but I can see entrenched pro-gun rights organization (i.e. the NRA and their allies) fight it every step of the way. They'll complain about added costs, added regulations, etc.
So he paid attention to his target and his backstop, and didn't shoot when he wasn't sure about one. Which is what they teach in any firearms 101 course. Good for him, and I hope he serves as a role model for many other people out there.
One of the worst shooting incidents in recent times came on an army base.
Never been in the military, have you? Unless you're A) a military police officer on duty or B) about to go directly to the shooting range under supervision or C) about to actually go into battle (unlikely within the US), you will find yourself in SERIOUS, deep doo-doo if you are found to have any live rounds in your possession. You MIGHT have a firearm with you for training purposes, but those are often kept locked up as well and only issued from the armory when necessary. But without the ammunition they are only useful as clubs. So... what was your point again?
And I see to recall that a certain politician in Arizona was surrounded by gun-carrying people, for all the good it did her and the other victims around her.
You are absolutely right. What were those people thinking? They should have told her bodyguards to stay home that day. That way, everything would have turned out much better.
Wait... I don't... I'm so confused. Did you even *have* a point?
what Jerry said I am amazed that any body can profit $7827 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this web page http://goo.gl/UUZFR
If you can't get a gun, you can't shoot people. It's really not rocket science, what part of it is hard to understand?
How exactly do you intent to prevent criminals from getting guns?
The same way you prevent people from getting illegal drugs? How well does it work?
That's an assertion that is both without facts in evidence, and patently wrong. Someone with decent self-awareness (probably almost any ranked martial artist, for instance, or ex-military) and a hand gun could have stopped that fucktard within a second or two of the first round leaving his weapon. And if we didn't have unauthorized, not to mentioned stupid, gun laws, that might have been a good possibility. As it was, the gun laws just about guaranteed he'd have a longer spree as opposed to a shorter one.
And even if you were by magic able to make all arms disappear, what's to stop this evil sack of shit from committing mass murder simply by throwing [redacted] into a reservoir, or injecting [redacted] into a bunch of baby formula, or stealing a bus and sliding it sideways through a noonday crowd? And how do you defend against those? Whereas if assneck has a gun and starts shooting, and the rest of us have guns too, he's going down and it'll be over.
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
Maybe he realized that he couldn't be accurate enough in that situation at that distance with his pistol to avoid possibly hitting bystanders. Sounds like he did the right thing under the circumstances.
That doesn't mean there aren't many other shooting situations where it's much easier to be able to shoot back and stop the attack. On the other hand, if the shooter is ALWAYS the ONLY one present who is armed, the result is always bad. At least if others are armed there is a chance THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE EXIST. You decry the idea of an armed populace yet you provide no alternative that would be better in any way.
Some quick googling around seems to indicate that Florida, much like my state, only makes it trespassing when you are legally told to leave or to not enter but still don't leave (or try to enter) regardless; and merely posting a sign saying "no guns" does not qualify for a "legal requirement", so it's not trespassing until they notice and tell you to leave and you don't. However, I couldn't find the relevant Florida law that would clearly indicate which way it actually is. Do you know what that law is?
Self defense means you are allowed to use proportional response. If someone is attacking you about the head, lethal force may well be in order. And its not as if several shots were fired once the situation was over-- the shot was fired, Martin was apparently incapacitated, and Zimmerman called emergency response. Those parts arent really in question.
We can wait and see what the jury decides and what evidence is uncovered, but at this point the whole case is so tainted by unfounded public opinion and biased media coverage that I dont think we will ever really know the truth; media is generally showing whatever will back up that particular station's belief. The whole situation has been a sterling example of media unreliability in controversial issues.
Which, if true, is really funny because WA doesn't have a reciprocal relationship with Texas which requires a full day course plus a practical examination. (IIRC WA objects to TX CHL licenses because 18 year olds with military service can carry which is still illegal in WA. Someone should check me on that though.)
They guy even went so far as to disobey the instructions of an official dispatcher.
They werent instructions in the sense of an "imperative", since that dispatcher had no legal authority and Zimmerman had a legal right to be there; he also had a duty as part of neighborhood watch.
And really, are you implying that his getting out of his car without brandishing any weapon is justification for an attack?
... and also handgunlaws.us (which is usually pretty reliable) states that posted signs do not have the force of law in Florida unless the property is otherwise off-limits while carrying (the usual list consisting of bars & pubs, schools, hospitals etc).
Noone has demonstrated ANY evidence that ZImmerman initiated a conflict, nor brandished his weapon, nor confronted Martin. Even hypothetically if he had confronted Martin, that would not justify an attack by Martin, and Zimmerman would remain jusitfied in defending himself.
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
It depends on what, exactly, you mean by "gun control". Among other things, the guy's primary weapon was a rifle, not a handgun.
GP didnt, but the narrative of Zimmerman attacking Martin as initially reported WAS racially driven, as has been widely noted.
There was nothing the least bit threatening there. His statement indicated that ducking and assessing is more likely to keep him alive than running would. You may disagree, but it's not a threat.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
There are shooting yes, but they faaaar damn rarer than int he US.
Canada has begun to shift the focus from prevention to punishment, in keeping with the ideology of those in power. As this shift continues, and 'our gun laws get stricter in an attempt to quash gun violence' (actually in an attempt to appease frightened elderly shut ins who form most of the Conservatvie party's base), we will see more and more gun crime as root causes go ignored and the percentage of our population that has been in prison increases.
Getting attacked by an unarmed person (if you believe Zimmerman's account) and responding by fatally shooting said assailant is not proportional response.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The only thing that removes force from the menu is a threat of force.
It looks like he's used his laser sights and shot himself in the foot.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Likelihood is of course a critical factor. Because the negatives - accidental shootings, children getting ahold of the guns, people using the gun when drunk or angry when if it wasn't so available at that instant they wouldn't have, mistaken identity, etc - are very real, so the likelyhood of that has to be weighed against any potential benefit.
And yes, having 400 amateurs in a movie theater shooting in the dark, fog and chaos trying to hit some guy on the other side of the theater sounds a *lot* worse than the one guy shooting.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I will assume you are referring to the Pontifical Swiss Guard of Vatican City. During regular guard duty they wear a solid blue uniform, not unlike uniforms worn by most police forces around the world. The three colored uniform you are probably referring to, is only for ceremonial duties and its not much more ridiculous in appearance than those of many other ceremonial uniforms in use around the world. At least they are not wearing man-skirts like the Greeks or the Scots.
Except that the shooter EXPECTED a large group of unarmed folks. If you EXPECT everyone to be armed, you are much less likely to act on those impulses.
Crime rates tend to be higher in large cities for obvious reasons. At the same time, within those cities, there is often great variation by neighborhood.
The only relation to right/left-leaning here is that cities tend to trend left on average. The indirect correlation with crime rates here is not causative.
I think that's the only thing blocking reciprocity. You do have to be 21 to get a Washington State CPL. http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx gives a state-by-state breakdown for Washington.
Those kind of common incidents for Europe and the Middle East that almost never happen in the US?
I think you accidentally got it right "it's fundamentally democratic". If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
If the majority of people do that, I don't see a problem. That's why we have countries with gun bans and countries without.
Coincidentally, there doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation between gun laws and crime. Everyone likes to nod at US, but Czechs don't seem to have a problem with violent crime anymore so than their neighbors, and they can (and do) legally carry handguns. Which just goes to show that there are many other more important policies that significantly reduce violent crime (generally speaking, try to keep people out of poverty & sickness, and they don't bother with crime, few sociopaths excepted).
Many of my local stores have security guards to monitor the entrances, and insides of the building. Why should a movie theater be any different? It should be illegal to operate a public meeting place without a security guard or two.
I think most people who carry OC for self defense specifically want to have it just to point it at someone if they get threatening. In particular, the case of a guy who won't take no for an answer. The envisioned scenario is, they point it, the guy decides it's not worth being blind and feeling like they're on fire for half an hour, and backs off. The trigger doesn't get pushed. I think a lot of people who carry it would actually have trouble pressing the trigger. I know I would.
Just like with guns, the trigger gets pulled sometimes. But the consequences of a pulled trigger are very different from with a gun. Even with asthmatics, papper spray alone is rarely sufficient to cause death; in the couple dozen documented cases of death, there were other contributing factors. A large minority of gunshots are fatal.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Your'e absolutely right. The entire audience should have been armed so that instead of one nutjob shooting there would also be tens or hundreds of people shooting wildly in all directions as they hear gunshots and see someone near them with a gun.
And all the bloodshed would have been avoided.
Or maybe everyone in the audience who feels responsible enough to obtain a concealed carry permit and purchase and carry a firearm might, oh, I don't know, NOT shoot wildly in all directions but actually wait until they could SEE the guy who's walking around actively SHOOTING people, and THEN they might aim carefully and shoot directly at the shooter, thus having AT LEAST a 50/50 chance of actually STOPPING the shooter. Which is a hell of a lot better than just sitting there and waiting until he kills everyone in the room.
Honestly, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING COMMENT from people like you (people opposed to concealed carry) goes to the absolute extreme of assuming--no, DECLARING WITH CERTAINTY that even a SINGLE other armed person is going to turn a... bloodbath... into a... multiple bloodbath?
I really don't f**king understand you people. It's already a fucking bloodbath! People who go to the trouble of carrying legal firearms for self defense DO NOT have the tendency of just randomly and blindly shooting in all directions! I don't know where you get this idea!
No. They don't. Seriously. Only crazy people shoot wildly in all directions at things they can't see. Because that would be f**king insane.
Show me ONE account in the real world of someone wielding a firearm in self defense (outside of a Hollywood movie) where they actually just started randomly firing in the dark in a crowded room. One!
Gaaah! I don't know why I bother.
No, not a flint knife and atlatl, but how about one of these?
A couple of balloons filled with gasoline and match.
A bomb made from fertilizer, fuel oil (or whatever) and filled with nails.
Wait outside till the movie lets out, then drive a car through the crowd.
A gun is a tool, that is all. If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way.
"""
you are the line of defense between you and your family surviving unscathed, or being tied up and watching your wife get raped and shot, etc. This isn't kindergarten, it's real life.
"""
The US sounds ghastly.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
For someone without criminal connections finding criminals to sell him weapons would not be all that easy
You are correct. The average person who has a CC permit is capable of seeing through smoke and darkness so easily that he could have easily missed all the panicking people running about and gotten off a clear shot at the guy before he started shooting. In fact they would have had the uncanny perception to be able to detect someone setting of smoke while have all of their attention focused in a direction away from the attacker. It is amazing what supernatural physics defying abilities you gain when you have a CC permit.
Of course, I understand that there are many vectors through which morons can harm others either deliberately or through the fact that they're fucking morons, but I was talking about guns because that's the subject at hand; alcohol abuse and inexperienced drivers is another argument.
Not really - in all three scenarios, the bad outcome is almost always a direct result of insufficient education/training.
The problem is that the second I utter my concerns about how easy it is for people to get guns in this country that really shouldn't have them I get pounced on by a ton of rabid pro-gun people that mistake my misgivings for me advocating that all guns be banned forever from civilian hands. They use the same arguments you do.
Yea, sometimes, and sometimes the anti-gun people use equally-if-not-more ridiculous rationales for their position as well. No worries, though, I can tell from the fact your posts lack terms like 'gun nut' that you're not one of those types (or at least, it appears that way), I was merely pointing out the similarity for the sake of those reading our conversation.
For what it's worth, the amount of training required to get a license these days...
Not around these parts. Sure, they have the standard 'graduate license' BS, but in reality most kids in the city I currently reside in don't take their license exams here - they go to one of the little podunkt towns nearby, where the test consists of making a loop around the city square and parallel parking in front of the DMV. So, the result is a bunch of untrained (driver's ed is not a required course) young folks, who happen to think they're bullet proof, piloting 300 lb+ death machines in city traffic (or on the nearby interstate, fun fun) that they have zero experience with... needless to say, it's a recipe for disaster.
What level of training do you feel is appropriate for firearms ownership? Do you believe that the level of training required today for gun ownership is sufficient?
Honestly, I've been reading the responses to your post (specifically calzones and dknoy's posts), and I like where they're taking it.
Honest question, because many of the people I talk to that are decidedly pro-gun feel that there are already too many restrictions on gun ownership and that it should be easier for people to get guns
For those who have proven (to their fellow citizens, not the government) themselves to be proper stewards of the right, I think it should be easier to access all types of weapons and ordnance (yes, ordnance). I think this is where a lot of people make their mistake: they seem to think the government should be in the business of deciding who does and doesn't have access to the tools required to take the government down, should it become tyrannical, which completely defeats the purpose of our 2nd Amendment.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAl230R8s9t
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Put more simply: If you ever have need to take up arms against the federal government, then you wouldn't care what the 2nd Amendment --or any amendment-- actually said. Until that time, you're pretty much just making excuses (because guns are fun, because they make you feel like more of a man than you are, because you want an object that guarantees you to have more power than someone else, etc).
You can't have an armed rebellion if there are no arms to be had. Firearm and ammunition manufacturing isn't something one does in his garage on a moment's notice.
Having an armed and informed citizenry is a deterrent to a would-be tyrant. This is not something that escaped the founders.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but I would add that an occasional nut going crazy and killing a dozen people is also part of the price we pay.
Gun control activists like to say, "But in [insert western democracy nation] guns are forbidden and they're just as free as we are."
That's true today, but it wasn't in 1780. It may not be true 50 years from now.
Oh, I see. The guy wearing a bullet proof vest and gas mask who tossed a tear gas grenade into the theatre before opening fire would have been stopped if he though, wait a minute, what if some of the people in theatre have guns? I'll bet he would just say "I could get hurt so I'd better not try and kill dozens of people today".
Are you really that naive?
There's another alternative: people returning fire.
Scenario #1: The gunman does not want to get hit, takes cover. Result: fewer victims.
Scenario #2: The gunman does not take cover, gets hit by a bullet. Result: fewer victims.
Yes, there's scenario #3 (people shoot randomly and hit each other) but the chance of it happening is greatly reduced by making mandatory yearly (at least) training a condition of getting and retaining a firearm license.
When I lived in a certain non-North-American country, I used to own a 9mm handgun. Had to go to the range every year and prove to the instructor on duty that I knew how to handle it, or my permit would be revoked. Mandatory conscription helped some as well.
Guns are pretty illegal here, but the gang-bangers seem to have no trouble getting them. I'm pretty sure no amount of gun control will keep criminals from getting guns unless you turn into a complete police state and search everyone regularly.
Because making it illegal to own is the same as not producing thousands upon thousands of guns in the first place. That's where the problem really lies. There are more guns than there are people on the planet, how do you not see that as a problem?
I appreciate your rational look at this issue, Deuce. As you mentioned, it's such a hot-button topic that it's often hard for folk to discuss it without anger and hysterics.
I have a friend who hunts and so am pretty sure he owns at least one gun. But he's the nicest guy I've ever met, and very responsible and respectful of others. As a result, I'm not worried about him owning a gun at all.
I think requiring training before sanctioning someone to carry a firearm is a good thing, but I wish there were some way to regulate this based on attitude as well as aptitude. But I don't know how that would be possible without going down that slippery slope to "thought police", which would be awful.
One thing I'd like to see more is for rational and responsible gun owners to publicly/openly denounce irrational and irresponsible ones. Irresponsible gun owners may ignore what gun-control advocates think because they're on the other side of the issue. But maybe they'll listen to other gun owners and, through peer pressure, become more responsible themselves.
OK, but how many psycho assholes are going to be able to work a bolt like Carlos Hathcock? You have to be trained and do a lot of practice to get a good rate of fire out of bolt actions. Even common infantry back in the day couldn't do that.
I have to agree with the other poster: with incidents like these, it's hard not to look upon civilian ownership of semi-autos with a jaundiced eye.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yes, now put him in the center of the park at ground level, where all those shots are ricocheting off where he's holed up or hitting people on the other side.
Two totally different scenarios.
Get a clue.
Why exactly would they do that? Are you an idiot?
That's exactly what they intended, and they never even *thought* of a "background check."
In 1791 (when the bill of rights were ratified), “arms” included all manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows I could go on for quite some time. All of these things were in common use in warfare and self-defense at the time. Yet, knowing all these things, all they put in the 2nd amendment was “arms.” So clearly, that’s what they meant. Arms of any kind. They didn’t say “muskets and pistols.” They said arms. And background checks? No.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Likelihood is of course a critical factor. Because the negatives - accidental shootings, children getting ahold of the guns, people using the gun when drunk or angry when if it wasn't so available at that instant they wouldn't have, mistaken identity, etc - are very real, so the likelyhood of that has to be weighed against any potential benefit.
I think you'll find that the likelihoods of such things are not nearly as high as you perceive them to be. And how about we attack the cultural problems that cause these issues, rather than the firearm for making it slightly easier for stupidity to have a bad outcome.
And yes, having 400 amateurs in a movie theater shooting in the dark, fog and chaos trying to hit some guy on the other side of the theater sounds a *lot* worse than the one guy shooting.
There's that lovely hyperbole again. Four HUNDRED armed people who have *no* experience with the firearm they are carrying ("amateurs"), all trying to shoot at someone "on the other side of the theater"? Wow. Now that *would* certainly be scary. Except there is no reality where such a bizarrely extreme situation would ever occur. In reality, in that crowded theater containing a couple hundred people or more, there might be something like 10 people who have a concealed carry permit and bothered to bring their firearm into the theater. Maybe 2 or 3 would be close enough to the shooter to feel like they could safely open fire and have a chance of hitting the guy. But what if it were only one? It would only take one bullet from that one person near the shooter hitting a critical spot to put that shooter down or at the very least slow him down enough to allow one or more people to escape who might not otherwise have escaped. Stopping the shooter could save a dozen lives, while a stray bullet is likely to only kill or injure one or two people, if it hits anyone at all.
The alternative, the automatic bloodbath of hundreds of people shooting at each other, where ANY additional firearm in the room will *unequivocally* make things *infinitely* worse, is a paranoid fantasy that has NO connection with reality whatsoever. It is utter nonsense. Are YOU crazy and irresponsible enough to start shooting wildly across a crowded theater in the dark if somebody hands you a gun? No? Then why on Earth would you assume that literally EVERYONE ELSE in the proximity of a firearm will suddenly turn into a total nut job? There is no evidence in the real world to back such a hyperbolic conclusion.
(You should sit in a quiet room and think about this very hard. The answer to why you hold this delusion is within you. The trick is seeing that it is a delusion.)
In cases of rape, I'm in favor of the assailant being castrated. If he's going to act like a savage animal, treat him like one! This way, he can't hurt you or anyone else ever again with a penis.
Life is not for the lazy.
BLACK BLOC OCCUPY WALL STREET
His videos are on youtube, posted by him, with him in them.
The liberal shitbags apparently didn't get enough with Gabby Giffords.
I hope this doesn't stay in the news for months. While unfortunate, it isn't all that newsworthy. Why are we, as a society, captivated by crazy individuals?
Above all: I realize we are all participating in a thought exercise in the comments today. My thoughts are with the people harmed in this incident and their families.
Now...
Can we please begin blaming the perpetrator and NOT the tool they used to commit their crimes?
Can we craft laws that give family members the ability to report troubling behavior to authorities, possibly forcing a doctors' consultation? How is it that in the U.S., you can be jailed and forced to take treatment for Tuberculosis, but persons who walk around month after month, year after year exhibiting a dozen classical red flags for behavioral illness are left to their own devices? - Maybe they'll never harm anyone. Maybe they'll shoot up a movie theater.
Please stop blaming guns. Where are all the guns in Western Europe, where Britain has a violent crime rate higher than the United States, or for that matter even South Africa?
SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
SOURCE: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/696036-britain-more-violent-than-us-and-europe
10 killed - 63 seriously injured - CLEARLY we need a background check and 30 day waiting period to buy AUTOMOBILES. What happens when a tragedy like this is intentional and not an accident? What could a sick person do with a Chevy Suburban in a crowded parking lot?
SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222924,00.html
SOURCE: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-05/justice/farmer.market.crash_1_movsha-hoffman-molok-ghoulian-brendon-esfahani?_s=PM:LAW
I'd rather gamble my life rushing a gunman to grapple their weapon away. The Tueller Drill / 21 Foot Rule says I'd probably win:
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
SOURCE: http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/
According to a number of sources, gunshot wounds - with access to medical treatment - are survivable nearly 95% of the time. Fate is cruel; survivability has everything to do with where you are shot and what is damaged internally.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1
This just in!
Another human being can pick a fight with you, or sucker punch you in the head, AND KILL YOU BARE HANDED.
SOURCE: http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Man__bleeding_in_brain__after_club_fracas-139265238.html
SOURCE: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/27/20120227california-girl-dies-after-fight.html
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9PoXH_-tUE
SOURCE: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2011/04/teen-killed-in-fistfight-near.html/
SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/fist-fight-left-miami-tourist-dead-caught-video/story?id=11445914#.UAnc_oa-zUY
SOURCE:
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Wanna know how I got these scars?
First, if someone opens fire around you or at you, your first reaction is not going to be to reach for your own gun, but to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Some people do, others don't. You raise the chance that somebody will return fire.
Second, a gun is most effective with proper training and practice.
I would go even further and claim that "proper training and practice" should be a condition of getting and retaining a firearm permit.
Not everybody wants to own a gun or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Not everybody has to, just enough people.
Third, the last thing we want in a shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing. That has a better chance of just adding to the body count rather than stopping the shooting.
See point #2 above.
Here's news for you: sometimes you can lie by only saying part of the truth.
I'm about 99.999% sure that Trayvon Martin would still be alive if he hadn't seen fit to get into a brawl in the middle of the night with someone who happened to be armed.
And??? I'm 100% sure he would be alive if he hadn't gone out to purchase a candy bar. In what way does either your statement or mine absolve Zimmerman?
Getting into a brawl, which was provoked by Z.'s actions is not a valid legal defense for shooting anyone.
Lastly you are trying to argue that because anyone can make mistakes, then everyone is equally likely to do so. This is is not the case. An off-duty policeman is less likely to make those mistakes than a random civilian who happens to be carrying a gun, even if said civilian is a good marksman (there is more to when and where fire at some one than merely having a good aim).
Prohibition banned alcohol, so no one drank.
Murder is outlawed, so no one kills another out of malice.
Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, so no one possesses or smokes it.
Theft is illegal, so no one steals another's property.
If guns are outlawed, then only the police will possess fire arms.
impose strict laws like the rest of the first-world-west (even CH, which is strict, in the must-have-a-gun-direction) but this do-whatever-you-want-with-gunownership has got to slop
There are laws against brandishing. There are laws against murder. There are laws against bodily injury. There are laws about where you can carry. There are laws about who can carry. This isn't a "do-whatever-you-want-with-gun-ownership" state. What this person did already has 62 levels of illegal all over it. This guy will probably get sentenced to something just short of "forever". WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT US TO DO?
In an illuminated non-smoke-filled space where everyone was sure where the armed intruders were, it didn't mean a single casualty; both of the robbers received non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.
So what you're saying is, in a dark smoke filled space his aim would have been better and he'd have managed to kill an innocent bystander.
And it is my understanding that this was someone without a felony record. So did he get his gun through private sale? If so, and if there were new laws mandating background checks and waiting periods on private sales, would he have just said no, or would he have made his plans farther in advance?
Regardless of the gun control laws, I have a friend in the area who was burglarized and lost two legally registered handguns. Would stronger background checks have prevented that?
Target practice and training on using lethal force are not the same thing.
For example training in the use of lethal force includes being taught when to unlock the holster, when to grip the gun, when to pull the gun but still keep it pointing at the ground, when to pull it up and issue a warning, when to shoot to a warning shot, when to shoot to maim/disable, and when to shoot to kill.
"there", perhaps. Not sure about the "I grew up" part.
I wouldn't trust most security guards with a banana much less a gun. If you are a private citizen with a concealed weapons permit. You had better be damn ready to pull it out to protect the live of you and your family, hell I'll even add the people around you. If you're not, then that concealed carry permit is a wasted piece of paper.
You could also include it into the high school curriculum like driver's ed.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
>You would be fairly unable to accurately identify your target
Still there is a chance that you would be able to do that under lucky circumstances. And that chance justifies permission to carry weapons.
If gunman knew that many people would be carrying concealed weapons, he probably would not even consider such an attack.
When one country is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it's a menace to the rest of the world. When more than one country is armed, it's a factor of stabilization.
Wait, wait, wait...
Lucky? What do you mean by lucky? That you're just going to fire blindly in the general direction of the commotion and hope that one round hits? How many innocents, in front, beside, and behind (walls too!) do you think you might hit in the process? 4 LAWS (yes, laws) of gun safety:
1. Guns are always loaded (even when you know it isn't, it's still loaded)
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you aren't willing to destroy (including innocents in front, beside and behind your target)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
and the one most pertinent to your asinine idea...
4. Know your target, and what's beyond.
Your kind of thinking is what gives gun owners a bad name. The name of the game is responsibility. If you cannot for sure make out the bad guy in your sights, DO NOT FIRE.
A movie theater in the thick of an action scene is probably one of the worst places to find yourself in a defensive shooting situation. I do agree that not knowing who is or isn't armed is a great deterrent, but blind firing is just stupid. Oh, and if you see me, and you're a crazy killer type person, it'd be best if you didn't open fire near me. Just a tip if you enjoy life. :)
12 with 50 injured would be a national catastrophe and on the front page of every major newspaper.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that this is news all across the country. Major news.
Regarding the gun laws, I find it fascinating that we in the US are so eager to hold on with a death grip to our guns while other countries have been steadily eliminating guns from the general population with, what seems to be, minimal complaint. It makes me wonder whether there would be that much complaining once it was done.
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
Yes, much like what was on your mind while the rapist's cock was violating your anus was, "what am I doing to do next time".
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
Here's a thought. Think of the last 10-15 years of (non-military) mass murders in the US and abroad. Do you know what most have in common? They occurred in places where guns were not allowed. Why do you think that is? Easy, the people who commit these murders might be crazy, but they aren't stupid. They go where they know they will meet the least resistance. And don't use Ft. Hood or McChord AFB as examples. Soldiers typically aren't allowed to carry weapons while on base except under certain circumstances. Typically the only people armed on military bases are the MPs, which work basically like a civilian police force.
Why do you think cities with the most strict gun laws typically have the highest violent crime rates?
One of my favorite things to say to people who point to mass murders as "proof" we need gun control: You'll never see a mass shooting at a gun show.
The difference between the circumstances here is huge. One is a crazy person trying to get as many kills as possible. The other are people trying to protect something from what they see as an unwanted invader imposing their will. You put anyone in a situation like that, and they'll fight no matter what the odds.
You have obviously not shot many weapons before. I've shot everything from single-action revolvers to fully automatic machine guns. The rate of fire of a weapon has nothing to with how deadly it is. The person pulling the trigger determines how deadly the weapon is.
sudo make me a sandwich
It was CLEARLY terrorism.
The Joker was a terrorist. True, he had no real agenda, other than terror. True terror HAS no agenda other than terror.
This guy was a Joker wanna-be.
You must be a government shill. If those people were armed the shooter would have been taken out after the first shot. Shit like this doesn't happen in Texas. And your government blaming false flags on Iran doesn't help the world situation either. How about you shut the fuck up (tm)?
Now you're giving me empty platitudes?
Here's one for you: suppressing fire. It's a whole lot easier to suppress with a higher rate of fire, such as those provided by a semi-auto with large quickly-replaceable magazines. If the shooter'd tried that with an SMLE: 1) fewer dead people because fewer rounds downrange, and 2) with more time between shots more people can escape and maybe someone will have time to tackle him.
Before you think to stereotype me, I'm a gun owner and have nearly had to shoot someone who was trying to invade my house - if he'd kicked that door down, he'd have been dead. That was with a bolt Mosin M44.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Body armour isn't perfect and it doesn't render one impervious to fire. Oh, sure, you'll survive if it hits the armour. But it's still going to feel like you've been slugged by a heavyweight boxer. You'd better hope that you have backup.
If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
'The people' can't morally block a person from exercising their fundamental right to self-defense. The right to defend your very own life against an attack is just about THE most 'fundamental' right of all. You can block it, but only by committing a human rights violation in doing so, and someone would be within their right to self-defense to attack you to attempt to restore their right to self-defense.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you?
On the contrary, I feel safer when around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun, than one who does not. And actually that's just logical if you really think about it for a few moments.
Attempted murder != massacre.
The Giffords shooting was NOT a massacre.
The armed Marine did not shoot because he did not feel that he, or anyone other than Giffords, was in severe enough danger to warrant it.
Yes, if only police had been sitting in the theater, they would have magically been able to fire only perfectly-aimed shots at the crazy dude's head. Not. What exactly is your point?
Treating other humans like animals is not the hallmark of civilization, nor the pinnacle of human excellence. It's rather the opposite. Am I the only one who sees innocent people being castrated under your policy? I noted that you didn't imply chemical castration, but rather physical castration, and along with the underlying tone of your sentences, this says to me that you posted this message with vengeance and ill will in your heart. Or you were trying to be funny - and I stand for your right to joke, even if I may find it tasteless.
If you treat another human as an animal, guess what that makes you? Some might say it makes you less than human. While I might find distaste for your ideology, I will still treat you as human because that is the fundamental privilege that you deserve. Do you see how that works now? Treating others as animals never ends well.
Do you also throw statutory rape into the mix? 17-year-olds getting castrated because they had sex with a willing 16-year-old (in states where that is illegal)? I assume so, or you would have made an exception. Do you support the uterus and ovaries being physically ripped out of a woman rapist? Or do you only have hangups with men?
I take it that you support the death penalty for rapists? Treat them like an animal and all that. Do you take them out back and put them down like a lame horse? Are you aware that castrating a human male carries risks of death? Don't tell me you don't have an emotional stake in the game. Emotions have no place in a court of law. Your statement reeks of vigilantism to me.
Do I support rapists? No. We have laws against it, and those laws carry punishment of stints in prison, but the punishment varies depending on the severity of the crime. Your solution attempts to cover a wide range of circumstances with a one-size-fits-all answer, and as history can tell you... solutions such as yours are barbaric and not fit to be found in a modern and equal society. I also do not approve of castrations for convicted pedophiles or others, perhaps not even if they ask for it - because it is too likely to be coercion from law enforcement or others. Or chopping the hands off of thieves. The state does not have the right to sever body parts. I also do not support the death penalty, even though I live in Texas.
Obviously, your three sentences struck an emotional chord in me, or I wouldn't have bothered to reply, and I'm not acting like your words didn't affect me. I just feel revulsion at the idea of innocent people subject to punishments that can not be reversed.
Yes, because your "simulation" completely disregards the fact that the gunman is (a) indiscriminately killing and (b) probably willing to die since he has little to lose. The guy who's just trying to protect himself (and others) with a concealed carry weapon is (a) only trying to end the threat from the gunman and (b) doesn't want to die.
The guy with the concealed weapon will be happy to set down his weapon and wait for the police to come, after shooting the gunman.
It's pretty unlikely to become a Mexican standoff.
New Rule: You can't say both "we as americans have a constitutional right to own firearms" and "this is a tragedy". You just can't. If you believe in gun rights, then you can't complain when this happens.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
What is it about Colorado that seems to breed and change people into loving guns and public shootings? First Columbine, then a church shooting earlier this year and now this?
A friend of mine recently moved to Colorado. Before moving there he was the nicest person. He recently posted on his facebook page pictures of him and some locals at an event with guns at an "open range"....
Damn right! Do that in Texas and he'd have had some serious return fire to deal with. I'm from Wisconsin btw :-P They just passed the concealed weapons permit and idiots now think everyone's going to go on shooting sprees or some dumb BS like that. This is a shining example of why just about everyone needs a gun on them at almost all times. I add those exceptions because at the average Packer game, there's about 20 fights leading to arrests. The would all be gunfights :-P Guns + alcohol and/or stupid people = bad idea. Other than that, well let's just say even before the law passed I was carrying significant less than lethal and semi-lethal weaponry pretty much everywhere for this exact reason.
Well, I'm at least grateful that someone else was willing to find the humour in it.
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
I've actually been in a position where I honestly wanted to sign myself into a hospital and ask to be castrated.
I think I would have done it if I had thought that they'd have done it. What stopped me was the full knowledge that they wouldn't. Rather, they'd have locked me up in the psych ward, I'd lose my job and livelihood, etc.
Yeah I agree with you. Somebody would have shot the guy, if a number of the patrons were packing. We don't need everyone packing, but maybe a well-trained five percent would be enough.
Yeah... I happen to presume that taking a hand gun to the theater is idiotic ... you are entitle to disagree. ... Can you provide examples to support your claim?
Well, I can think of a time when 12 people died by NOT taking a hand gun to a theatre.
Otherwise, when you spend long periods of time in public, there is no reason to have one on you.
Tell that to the 71-year-old man in Florida who stopped an armed robbery because he was carrying. Or the 57-year-old grandmother who fought back against two armed carjackers. Yep, no reason at all. Because it won't do any good.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Maybe slashdot is not so rotten as I expected. I was sure that here I would read lots of posts about "Darwin deaths" or insensible clods mocking of the dead people, like happened in the past. Or Maybe because this time the dead people are American? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe
Did you compare that list with the US equivalent in the same article? There are more US school shootings in some individual years than in Europe for the whole decade. The difference between the US and the rest of the world is stunning.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
If the shooter was spraying and praying in the movie theater, you would be 100% right.
But he was not. RTFA. He was shooting very slowly, witness accounts put it at 20-30 rounds every minute. He was shooting a M16-style rifle, so one 30 round magazine per minute. That rate of fire would be easily replicatable with single-action firearms, by anyone remotely familiar with them.
sudo make me a sandwich
those who rave about the need for firearms who are the most gung-ho in favor
No need for generalizations. I'm sure this is true in some cases, but certainly not all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I am deeply sorry that you hang out with imbeciles.
Cool. You do that. But if I'm stuck in a corner with the gunman between me and the exit, I'll thank you not to start dictating my response while fleeing for your life.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
The problem with this mindset is that rape is not about sex. It's about power . Take his penis away, and next time the rapist will use a baseball bat, or a gun, or kidnap and torture the victim. Castration will only make the problem worse.
When someone wearing armor is shot, they don't necessarily just shrug off the impact. The fact is, their body is still absorbing the energy of the bullet. The energy is just spread out a lot more widely. It's the difference between dead and cracked ribs or the difference between injured and serious bruising. He get's hit, chances are he's either falling over or taking a moment to recover. Either way, that gives the shooter and other bystanders the chance to generate a tactical advantage.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
The problem here is one you've already covered: polarization. You're either pro gun or anti gun. The pro gun folks aren't dealing with the people like you in the middle, they're dealing with people who would be perfectly happy to make the testing requirements so excessive that marine snipers couldn't pass, never mind joe blow who just wants to be able to protect himself.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
That's because he is referring to the Wikipedia page on school shootings that the GP quoted. The massacre in Norway that you are referring to is obviously not a school shooting.
While some right-wingers profess that, very few mean it in any kind of genuine way.
Don't believe me? Check which party opposed the Mosque in New York City and Murfreeboro TN.
I know, you want to claim you're a friend of liberty, and it's really the oppressive leftists who are out to spread tyranny, but you know what? Nobody buys that lame line.
Lots of people reload their own ammo. It's simple and cheap. Even compared to manufacturing something like the sten submachine gun
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
you mean mexico? First words in the linked wiki: "Gun politics in Mexico have resulted in some of the strictest gun laws in the world"
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Only if they want to. You're exempt since I assume you don't want to.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
..except Fred Willard.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
advertising is an attempt to persuade someone to buy a product. You may argue that persuasion does not necessarily involve reason but IMO that's more an indictment of the reasoning that the advertisement tries to peddle than a serious argument that persuasion can be accomplished without reason.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
IANAL and this isn't legal advice.
Federal buildings not withstanding, carrying concealed into a private building in Florida with a "guns not allowed" sign is not a felony. It's simple trespass if you refuse to leave.
And the law says you can't carry in a federal building without legal cause. Carrying in Florida with a license is legal cause.
An AR-15 is an excellent choice for a place with regular dry wall.
No, really.
So the 5.56x45mm round's power comes from velocity, not mass. They are very light, 40-77 grains normally (9x19mm is 115-147grain for reference) and travel very, very fast. They are extremely lethal at short ranges (meaning under about 100 meters) because the large amount of kinetic energy will cause them to fragment when they hit their target. This is also why they can lose their effectiveness at longer ranges, they don't reliably fragment and if they fail to tumble in the target, will do a through-and-through and do not a lot more damage than a .22LR, one complaint some of the armed forces has with the round.
Well, it turns out that this fragmentation and light mass translates to shitty barrier penetration (another complaint). When it hits a barrier, even dry wall, it fragments and loses a substantial amount of energy. After penetrating two layers of dry wall the round will be in pieces and have little energy. It still could potentially kill or wound someone depending on, but it is less likely to than pretty much any other round.
So it is a little counter-intuitive, but a 5.56 BTHP round is one of the best choices for less penetration through dry wall. The choice many people would think, a 12ga shotgun, is actually one of the worst. 00 buckshot penetrates many layers of drywall and still retains lethal force, as well as spreading out so as to be less predictable where it goes. Despite being "pre-fragmented" the mass of the individual pellets is sufficient that they go pretty well, and the initial could walls get hit by them in a big mass since they are so close (in a home setting) and thus punch through with ease.
There's no perfectly safe round, if it was perfectly safe it wouldn't do the job of stopping someone, but 5.56 is actually one of the better choices when you want less barrier penetration.
Not saying your Rambo friend made the choice for a good reason or is responsible, just saying that it actually isn't a bad choice for the intended role.
You have to disarm upon reasonable request for the owner of an establishment, and a sign counts as such a request (it is explicitly specified in the law). So you are in violation of the law to carry in a place with a "no guns" sign, or if the owner or an employee tells you no guns.
Of course, if you look, you can find examples of guns killing the wrong person, ranging from shooting some kid playing with a toy gun to a more recent example where a gun discharged into somebody who just gave the officer a hug.
Maybe the problem is just what makes it through your news filter.
Guns kill people. Maybe the risk is worth it to you, but there have been many incidents with firearms that ended up tragic. I can find four or five on google news with just a quick search.
Find the authority to do that in your state and the federal constitution first.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
You can want anything you want. If you can find the authority in the constitution to do so, you can even enforce your will on the rest of us.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Stand your ground has no relevance to the Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman isn't claiming the shooting was justified under stand your ground.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Sure, it depends on the caliber and the distance. No question about it. But even with your .32, he's gonna have bruised ribs from every bullet he takes or perhaps even broken ribs. It's not like he can just shrug it off like nothing happened. Besides, someone doing something as cowardly as what he did deserves to be shot in the nads, anyways.
Then there is another angle to that. I would trust (to a degree) a hunter, s/he may have a shotgun. But a guy with a history of violent crimes - definite no.
If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
Sounds sensible. Except that it's not. Crime has been trending downward in the US for the last 2 decades at the same time gun control laws have been getting more permissive. At the same time, you can track which areas of the US have the greatest gun control simply by looking at a map of the US showing crime statistics. Now if your suggestion had merit, you'd look at that map and conclude that the areas with high crime had permissive gun control laws. Except that you'd be wrong.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
I think that's kinda the point of his remark.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
At one time, the people supported slavery. At one time, the people thought negros and whites should not be allowed to intermarry or attend the same schools. Sometimes, the people are simply wrong.
If you had read the relevant documents from the time of the debates around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you'd know that the 2nd Amendment was intended to "draw the line" roughly before #4 in your list. If you want the line drawn elsewhere, there is a well-documented process for altering the Constitution.
Where on your list do axes belong? Hammers? Compound bows? Baseball bats? Lengths of metal pipe over 18 inches? Would you really be OK with the people deciding to draw the line at #5 on your list, i.e. banning knives, even all the way down to box knives (yay, no more hijackings) and steak knives (boo, only ground meats available)? Do you think that could possibly work? How much government power would be needed to enforce such a ban? We couldn't even ban alcohol and are failing miserably at banning various other drugs, and neither of those are deeply ingrained in our genetics the way violence is.
Idealism is like ice cream in that both are best enjoyed in small doses.
Oh, and you left out a bunch of things which would seem to belong between #3 and #4: tanks, mortars, artillery, shoulder-launched missiles, combat helicopters... Did you know that at the time of the Revolution, some of those early Americans owned their own cannons and contributed them to the Continental Army? Not that I'm advocating a howitzer on every block, but it's interesting to have an idea of what the actual environment was like at the time. Also, I think you misordered pepper spray and tazers - AIUI, tazers have a higher fatality rate in actual use.
- T
Petrol bomb the NRA. Burn the fuckers to the ground.
The Constitution is mainly a restraint on government actions. Private citizens do not need permission to do things not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Indeed, if I could enforce my will upon you, why would I have to follow the Constitution?
Advertising attempts to peddle products, not reasoning.
Are you saying that persuasion requires reasoning?
The Constitution of the US does not grant or enumerate rights to citizens; it limits the rights of the government. Huge difference from a European-style (and I mean that in a pejorative sense) "subject society".
And yet EU citizens are better protected from government abuse than you old american folks.
Even with all the guns you carry around for the purpose of protecting you from your government.
The Second Amendment is shit, it should have been trashed the moment the US created a professional army (not a citizen's militia). It happened oh yeah right after the 1812 war against the British Empire.
to get the fuck out of there. That's instinct. You run.
Tell that to the Syrian Mercenaries that decided to ambush us. One guy had more than 60 rounds put in him in the first 2 seconds. He decided to stand up and try some sucide shit , both of his arms had fallen off when we buried him.
most effective with proper training and practice.
Most police officers do not train to this proficecy , they are really good a handing out speeding tickets though.
shooting situation is six other people drawing guns and firing.
Tell that to the fuckers that tried ambushing us, they are all fucking dead and we took two mionr casualties.
So in the end , you are full of shit.
The gun isn't civilization anyway. The tube is civilization (from 2002).
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/10/30/
That's the European dream apparently
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Why indeed. If you need to ask, you're obviously past helping.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
That's an assertion that is both without facts in evidence, and patently wrong. Someone with decent self-awareness (probably almost any ranked martial artist, for instance, or ex-military) and a hand gun could have stopped that fucktard within a second or two of the first round leaving his weapon. And if we didn't have unauthorized, not to mentioned stupid, gun laws, that might have been a good possibility. As it was, the gun laws just about guaranteed he'd have a longer spree as opposed to a shorter one.
Well let's see, he walked in wearing armor and a gas mask, tossed some canister of gas and started shooting so.... In a mess of gas and screaming people, where it is dark because they're screening a movie, with a shooter who happens to be firing more or less randomly looking for a high body count you think more lax gun laws would have done what exactly? You think shooting blind in the direction you think maybe the shots are coming from is going to save lives?
How about that new batman movie: I hear people are just killing/dieing to see it.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
You can't legislate common sense
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
to be honest he failed and didn't do enough.
wtf dude has gas and weapons out the kazo in a dark setting with the element of surprise o and can only take out 12
FAIL
This writing tries to twist things and make it sound like guns are the only legitimate force, and because other weapons may kill, they're as good as lethal.
Why a gun and not a taser? Why not pepper spray? If it must be a gun, why lethal rounds instead of rubber bullets or beanbag rounds? These are all less than lethal (note I did not say nonlethal) options that require about as much manual dexterity as a gun full of lead and show a greater sincerity for an intent to self defense. You will still discourage or stop most attackers, and if your judgement was impaired somehow the innocent will survive your ignorance in such a matter. (i.e. missing and accidentally hitting a 12 year old, making assumptions when two people are fighting and shooting the creepier looking one)
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
Because it might be possible to punch somebody fatally that opens the floodgates to equate any aggression with an intent to kill? The less than lethal weapons mentioned all have a chance at killing their targets but the idea is that they are less likely to kill.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.
Semantics. It means you're too cowardly to trust reason to function in day to day life.
It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The really dangerous people who have less to lose, the people who don't give a fuck, the people with the excess courage and confidence that they'll be the one to survive a shootout-- those are the people who are going to who are going to try to be faster on the draw. Those are the people who are going to want more expensive and dangerous (or illegal) weapons than you have. Those are the people who are feeling lucky enough to make you draw your weapon because they're betting they're faster or that you're going to panic and hesitate or misfire. A sociopath brimming with confidence, a thug with experience in shootouts drawing a family man with kids he wants to come home to into a confrontation, a gangster with a much stronger gun than the law abiding civilians can afford or legally own... how does the personal firearm equalize anything on those grounds?
The real courage would be the quiet confidence to stop an aggressor from harming you or himself without being dragged down by fantasies about killing the bad guys.
Laws are made for reasonable people. There will always be idiots, but you can't mold the laws around them without punishing the reasonable people.
Restricting gun ownership is hardly 'punishment' for reasonable people. I've lived in a few countries that all had "gun control". All of them had lower crime rates than the US and all them were possible to own a gun if you were a reasonable person. I don't understand the US fascination with owning a gun, the rest of the civilised world gets by fine with sensible firearm restrictions, why can't the US?
Well, it's worth pointing out that Canada has a much lower gun violence rate than either of those places, and there ARE strict gun laws in place.
It's worth pointing out that every western country in the world has much lower gun violence than the US too, and they all also have stricter gun laws.
These shootings abroad --in both countries that do and don't have easy access to guns-- are becoming more common.
Really? I'm struggling to think of any other cases ever in Norway, so if by more common you mean going from zero to one, then technically you are correct. However I'd hazard a guess that these types of shootings happen more often in the US (where all the guns are) than all other western countries combined. Down in here in Australia, I can only think of one case of mass shooting ever and that was about 20 years ago. So for us they are becoming less common (going from one to zero).
Most average concealed carry permit holders are much better marksmen and practice far more often. With them you have people who have made a conscious choice to carry that gun and most who take the time out to get a permit and carry are fairly dedicated to the idea.
Your experience is skewed by the fact that you shoot competitively and therefore are exposed primarily to people who have a concealed carry permit because they are hobbyists. I can't count the number of people I know that bought handguns because they had too much money, saw too many movies, or because their friend got one. Next comes the carry permit. But these are people who shoot once a year on a camping trip; their guns are big-boy toys and they have no idea how to use them. (But I agree that badge != proficiency with firearms.)
Because the progressives believe that they can perfect their fellow man. Which is what makes them so dangerous. See: prohibition.
The Prohibition Movement was started and perpetuated by church groups. Laws like the one in NYC banning large sodas are ridiculous, but so are laws banning pot and gay marriage. Every interest group with an axe to grind pushes stupid laws to regulate behaviors they don't like--singling out progressives is willful ignorance.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
I said I know him. I never said I "hang out" with him.
In any case, the point of telling the tidbit of my life is that on average, amateurs do have less proficiency than professionals, because imbeciles are aplenty.
Dilbert RSS feed
Gun control only benefits wrongdoers, and only harm law abiding citizen.
You are conflating gun control with gun prohibition. If I go duck hunting with more than two shells in the magazine and one in the chamber, I will get a massive fine because semi-automatic shotguns with 15-shell magazines aren't fair to the ducks. Yet I'm free to remove the plug from my shotgun and walk around with it slung over my shoulder. The man that shot Gabrielle Giffords had a 30-round magazine in a semi-automatic pistol. He was subdued when he stopped to reload. The guy in TFA walked into a crowded movie theater with (last I read) an assault rifle, tear gas, a smoke bomb, a riot helmet and a bullet-proof vest. If he had been packing a flintlock or a single-action revolver, things would have gone differently. Gun prohibition, like drug prohibition, is silly and unenforceable; it drives the create of black markets. There is a middle ground; see alcohol laws.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
I live in a european country were you need a licence from the police to own any kind of gun. Personally i know only a couple of people who own guns and almost noone who has ever fired them. As such, my first thought was "this is what happens when everyone can buy a submachine gun". After reading some of the comments above, i understand what some proponents of gun ownership try to express: Indeed the weapons are just a tool.
But it's a very effective tool. And there lies the problem. A deranged mind without access to guns, would probably find some way to kill people, but the number of deaths/injuries would probably be far fewer. When your killer is hunting you with a hunting knife your chances of survival are mach greater than when he has a AK-47. When he's driving a truck towards you, you can hear it from a distance, maybe dodge out of the way at the last moment. But you can't dodge your way out from a bullet.
> When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
And when I carry a gun, I don't even have to reason with you. I can shoot you. I can do this anywhere, anytime, from 2,000 yards away or do it a behind you in a queue at the shops before you even knew what happened and there is not a damned thing you can do about it. Where is your force equalizer now?
"I'm getting really tired of this "no solution is perfect, so let's go with no solution" attitude"
Get as tired as you like. Because you haven't even framed the problem properly.
In fact, what YOU are saying, is that "Nobody has found a solution I like, so that's no solution."
Ehhhhhhh..... (sound of buzzer on stage) "Sorry, that's not quite it."
"And let's also be clear -- the 2nd Amendment gives well-regimented militias... "
Dude. You don't read the news. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, about a year and a half ago, maybe two years, that what you are saying is BULLSHIT.
They ruled that there is no question, but the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. They said it in so many words, in their decision that struck down the firearms licensing restrictions in D.C.
Get a clue, man. History says, and the Supreme Court RECENTLY said, right in your face, that you are wrong.
I wrote about school shootings.
Okay, I felt it wrong, but the basic rules of English still say that you strongly implied it. Don't blame me: I didn't make those rules.
Add to the fact that if you draw your weapon in a crowded theater with panic going on around you, you are automatically going to be assumed to the the gunman.
This is an important point, if you ever get the thing out and point it at someone in a public place, let alone discharge it, all your gun carrying comrades are likely thinking whether to shoot you to. They can't necessarily see what you can see, or have seen.
Everyone would be acting as judge,jury and executioner in a few seconds, and they could be all sorts of people getting shot.
Most likely all sorts of prejudices like skin colour and style/neatness of dress would form a decent fraction in the decision as to whether someone was terrorist/crazy/law enforcement or well meaning citizen.
So I think if you were any minority you would never get the gun out unless you were certain you would die otherwise, to avoid the risk of being shot by well meaning, but prejudiced citizens
Nice to visit - but I wouldn't want to live there.
I am SO tired of this argument.
... but even if those statistics WERE NOT questionable, it doesn't matter, because we have very solid and reliable statistics RIGHT HERE, for... where else? RIGHT HERE.
Dude, the U.S. has been experimenting with one or another form of gun control, in more or less extreme fashion, in various states and municipalities, for around 80 years.
And the statistics (as compiled by THE U.S. GOVERNMENT) over that time, are very clear: it doesn't work.
It might work in Australia (thought it actually didn't) and it might work in England (though it actually didn't)...
It's late, and I am quite literally tired of pointing people at actual factual information. Go to the Department of Justice website. If you know what statistics you are actually looking for, they should not be hard to find. If you can't find them, don't blame me. But I already know what they say.
PS the answer to your question, "how you reliably prevent the fuck-tards like the stupid 20-year-old kid I mentioned above from endangering themselves and others while still preserving the rights of those that have the maturity and gravitas to properly be trusted with a lethal weapon" is actually extremely simple: Training, training, training. a near-fanatical devotion to proper firearms safety and training is what's kept my gun-happy family accident free for over 100 years.
Absolutely, those victims in the movie theater should have had the same level of gun safety training as you and your one hundred years of accident free family, and they would be alive now. But no, they were lazy and just wanted to see a movie.
And yet the NRA who champion the second amendment don't say a word about laws that prevent me from carrying a knife with a 4 inch blade. A useful tool. But will throw a temper tantrum over laws restricting the capacity of a magazine that can be sold.
12 counts of murder, a shit load of attempted murder.
How far away do you have to go before guns are legal and readily accessible? If you could in your own vehicle legally obtain a gun and return home with it with an overnight trip then gun control has not been tried where you live.
Anyone who would have shot in the couple seconds between seeing a figure enter through the emergency exit and the smoke bombs obscuring things is probably the last person I'd want to be armed and anywhere near me.
How much are you going to notice in a dark crowded theater while a loud movie is playing? There was effectively no warning this was about to happen and once it started there was freaking smoke filling the room. Shooting back instead of running or taking cover would be criminally reckless.
If you think they can do anything responsibly then you don't know many cops.
Probably the gunman would have given warning, just like us navy warned Indian fishermen before killing them. If so, the gunman is innocent.
The Swiss Guard is a relict of the past guarding the pope at the vatican and isn't really related to the modern swiss army.
Nice, two examples in a country with a population of almost 300 million.
Btw, what's the police is for then?
If you read the post I replied to, you should realize that what I suggest is the following:
There is point in arguing about the effect of gun control laws in geographically small area surrounded by areas where one can get arms with ease.
I know this one!! You fire a warning shot after you have shot to kill.
Perhaps a letter to the NRA; or maybe you should just print "Rifle" on your knife and send them a photo. :)
More seriously, the NRA is a firearms lobbying operation, not a generalized government watchdog. They're simply sticking to their member's primary agenda, which while narrow-minded, is more or less understandable.
Your knife carrying, of course, cannot be legitimately restricted by legislation just as the carrying of any other arm cannot. Not that this stops the malfeasance of congress and the courts in that regard.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/elderly-man-saves-cafe-full-people-shooting-gun-wielding-robbers-nbc-cbs-skip
No they weren't. All of the M16s were locked inside cases. Nobody could get to them.
A lot of good being disarmed did them huh?
No, its not a good idea, and it failed in reality, over and over again. America is living proof.
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
You can ban all you want, but you won't be getting any of mine buddy, I guarantee you that.
You should pick up a history book and get up to date with the past 100 years wisty. You missed out.
The FBI set it up. It was a false flag.
No, it's not real life. It's a Hollywood fantasy that does, unfortunately, happen to a very, very tiny percentage of the population
Wait, which is it, a fantasy, or reality? PICK ONE.
How is passively disarming yourself "growing balls"? That's moronic and pathetic.
Damn you're stupid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
20-30 rpm is still a high rate of fire for a bolt rifle (for aimed fire, anyway), and you forget that an AR-15 is going to have basically no felt recoil, further increasing accuracy.
The simple fact is that it's easier for J. Random to rack up a high score during a mass shooting if he's got a semi-automatic versus anything that needs to be manually cycled. In trained hands, yes, a manually-cycled weapon can kill nearly as quickly, but there are a lot fewer people out there with such training.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Federally-insured banks
I've never heard that one, and I open carry into a couple banks at least once a month. I'm sure as much as some feds would like to make banks federal property, it's just not the case.
At any rate, I'm not sure how post offices and Washington DC (being a federal enclave) get away with their bans. If we hold that the bill of rights, along with the 2nd amendment, is a check first and only against federal power--which is something many constitutional scholars claim, as well as the supreme court upheld in Barron vs Baltimore, then bearing arms on federal territory is in fact expressly preemptively and expressly allowed.
Since the 2nd amendment has only recently been (partway) incorporated against the states in McDonald vs. Chicago, it really makes no sense that the only places in the country one can't keep and bear arms is on federal territory. It makes double nonsense that if you violate any other federal-level law at a private citizen, you'll surely be held accountable, even though you were not on "federal territory". It only makes sense to say that each and every square inch of land which constitutes this republic is part of the federation of states, and that all federal laws apply everywhere equally, and take precedence over any state and local laws. I'm just not sure what's so hard about it sometimes.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
But he did not plow into people with SUV. He did not build a homemade bomb. Yes, he might have done that if guns were not available but he took the easiest route this time, which was shooting people.
I have as much proof as you do, which is to say the physical evidence reported by the press and Zimmerman's own account that he got off the car to "investigate what Martin was up to" after following him to "look up the name of a street of the neighborhood he's been living in from 16 years".
Of course only Trayvon knows what really happened, but we can't ask him because he was shot dead by an armed man who was following him by foot, then on a car, and by foot again, while Trayvon was on his way back from having purchased a candy at the local convenience store.
One person was a law abiding citizen going about his own business purchasing a candy bar while posing no threat to anyone. The other was an armed vigilante doing things he was not trained to do, nosing around people who have given him no reason to (Trayvon was a kid eating candy talking on the cell to his girlfriend, not some thug casing houses up and down the street) when things went all wrong. In my book Zimmerman is responsible for things taking such a bad turn. His irresponsible actions lead to the death of Trayvon. In my personal, subjective opinion, even based on his testimony alone he's guilty at the very least of manslaughter 1, if not murder 3.
What? Does the Constitution trump physics?
Well, if someone wakes up one day and says "I want to kill 14 people... Hmmm... I'll get guns!", then you're right.
More likely scenario (in my imagination, anyway) is someone with mental problems starts collecting guns out of a sense of inadequacy and anger and fear, and then one day snaps and decides to use them. It's easy to kill with a gun. It's easy to kill a bunch of people with a car, I guess, but it's remarkable how rarely it's done. I can only think of one instance of that happening on purpose, at UC Santa Barbara. I'm sure there are more. But guns must be more viscerally satisfying. Easy access to guns means that more altercations end in death than if the participants had knives.
But, as the Onion says, remember all the wonderful things that guns bring us.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
The Washington Post said that he bought tickets, entered the theater, exited out of the emergency door; then 20 minutes into the film returned through that door which he had braced to reopen (propped open? tape? they didn't say how). Every single thing that I read says that there is no indication that he had accomplices.
Nice, two examples in a country with a population of almost 300 million.
Btw, what's the police is for then?
They were just the first two that came to mind. I could sit here all day and list them out.
As for the police, they try to deter crime, but generally they're just doing the investigation afterward and trying to catch the guy after the act. If you think that you will (a) be able to call them when someone decides to attack you and/or the place you are in, and (b) that they will be able to be there in seconds, you're fooling yourself. If the police aren't actually right there, then everything will likely be over by the time they arrive. Heck, it's going to take at least a minute or two just for the 911 call to be taken and for the call to go out.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
From what I read, the shooter came into the theater from outside through an emergency exit door. I don't know how he got it open, unless perhaps someone had propped it open to sneak their friends into the theater, that happens at my local theater all the time...
It's already been reported that the shooter had a movie ticket, left through the emergency exit which he propped open while he returned to his car and returned, this time with guns and armor. Screening in the lobby would have had zero effect on the outcome.
Aurora is where I grew up. In 1999 I moved to Highlands Ranch but lived close enough to see Columbine from our backyard; I watched it unfold from a hotel room in London. But it's the memories of another senseless shooting massacre in 1993 that still haunt many in my hometown. One of the victims killed in the Chuck. E. Cheese that night was the younger sister of a childhood friend, and I'm sure this has been difficult for them.
Most of the lessons that really matter here will get hopelessly lost as special interests co-opt this tragedy without any regard to what truly happened, why it happened, and most importantly, what this community (and nation) will need to recover. If you want to help out, please don't drag our tragedy into your cause; be constructive at a personal level: offer your friendship to those around you with opinions and beliefs that may differ from your own
Well, this anonymous coward thinks that maybe something good can come of this tragedy. All the talk of gun control by this disease that is Obama should now end. Had people been armed in that theatre on that night, there would have been two deaths. The first victim and then the shooter. Take a page from Canada's failed experiment with gun control. It does not work. Only the criminals are armed when you control guns. But Liberals have a hard time understanding that criminals don't follow rules. Believe me, America, do not give up your guns!
What kind of sane person who wants to kill people goes and tries his chances in a dark movie theater? All the sane killers apply to be in Blackwater/Xe/PR rename of the month...
As a grad student Holmes had a high risk for a little known mental break. Discovered when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. Engineers designed the office cubicle to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. --- When it happened to my wife she heard voices and had depressive crying episodes about impossible delusional situations she hallucinated.--- In nine years of writing emails and letters I found only one doctor, Dr. Daniel Carlat, Tuffs, who said he had seen the episodes from office exposure while in residency.
Schools do not provide Cubicle Level Protection where needed nor do they warn students about study areas and computer workstations at home.
Chronic exposure would have shaped his thinking with delusions or persecution and paranoia. He acted out those delusions by planning and executing the shooting. It doesn't have to make sense it's psychotic.
The problem is explained in first semester psychology. If the mental break is mentioned it is treated as something that happened once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design." ... It is so simple that the "special circumstances" to allow exposure for the mental break can be created almost anywhere full mental investment is used and there is repeating detectable movement nearby in peripheral vision. That movement is usually pets or family members, roommates. But because far peripheral vision has only movement and position information, the movement cannot be identified unless you complete the reflex, turn and look at it. The movement does not have to be human or alive. Any detectable movement will do. Blinking lights can substitute if they are swept through peripheral vision with a head turn while using your computer. VisionAndPsychosis_Net
Subliminal Distraction happens when you learn to successfully ignore distracting movement near you. The startle stops but your brain still subliminally detects threat-movement and still attempts to force the startle That action is a subliminal distraction, explained in first semester college psychology.
The Air Force has agreed to investigate my project and Subliminal Distraction as the cause of service member suicides. I have a letter from the Pentagon.
I posted it in reply to someone else. There is no case law on the matter. The author of the book on Florida gun laws thinks that it is safe to do so, as long as you leave immediately if asked. However, I believe that in a jury trial, the jury would find that the sign was clearly indicating that people concealing firearms are not welcome on the property, and are therefore trespassing. I would tend to agree, even though I do believe that people should be able to own firearms.
In any event, the author of the book recommends that you don't risk being the one that finds out how a judge would rule on the matter. It's just not worth it.
"Maybe it's a reflection on society and not access to inanimate objects?"
Exactly. Sure seems like these tragedies are happening w greater frequency and across a wider range of circumstances. I'd like to see the numbers on this.
Is there a lower joy factor overall? A lower hope factor? Violence is inherent to people and always has been. But within the context of a culture, where are the tipping points.
I'm in my forties. I have two kids. I think I pay attention and it seems obvious to me that there's a shift occurring in people's hope factor. Yeah there's always gotta be an a-hole in the bunch and there always will be.
But at some point does the collective consciousness/culture/social-direction begin to breed more aholes?
And by ahole I mean deeply disconnected, sociopathic, motherfucking, cock-sucking, cowardly prick.
The FBI says that the number of "mass murders (being defined as 4 or more people being killed at one venue) has not increased statistically at all since the 70's. The murder rate in America in 2010 was at a 40 year low. The murder rate in 1991 was 51% higher than in 2010. There were about 14,000 murders in 1969 and about the same number in 2010 (even though we had a hundred million more people in 2010).
So why does it seem that this is some trend? Because we have 24 hour news and the Internet now. When something happens today it is news around the world within an hour. Back in the day if something happened, you didn't hear about it unless it happened in your city (or state).
I am a Denver resident. I've seen my last three movies at that very theater. This act has chilled us all to the bone. It's like Columbine, but without any parents to blame. The suspect was a post-grad working on his doctorate; in fact, he was in the process of dropping out.
TP quotes one news article, but that news correspondent made an incorrect assumption. Those doors are steel construction with 1/4" thick bang-plates; you can't simply kick them in.
The gunman did not "sneak in"... he sneaked out after buying a ticket! His white car was parked strategically by those exit doors at the back of the building. He propped those doors open on his way out and geared-up for a few minutes before going back in through the same door. He basically used the same loophole that employees use to get high during a shift. (Plz... that's not a generalization; I'm sure most cinema-trons are hard working and honest.)
So, for anyone that's going to say that theater rules or municipal code would have prevented it, you're full of it. This may have been prevented with better building security at the exits, more attentive staff (or just more staff for an important midnight event) or even a person that notices this douchebag propping open a one-way exit and just closes the door behind him. At least then, the gunman would have had to walk around the building or drive his car fully-armed and quite obvious. The police response that night was so quick because they were already at the mall to help direct the increased traffic. If his route back into the theater was blocked, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to stun with gas or have his "fish in a barrel" target range. Sure, it wouldn't have stopped him from making trouble, but it very well could have prevented a massacre of this scale.
One thing has been made very clear; there is no legislation or body of intelligence that prevented James Holmes from owning, loading and carrying a devastating firearm into a crowded theater. Up until he started shooting people, James Holmes did everything by the book. That's the scariest part of all. How many states ban assault weapons? Care to guess? Just five. How many limit or regulate the sale of assault weapons? Three. What does that leave us, Mr. Wizard? That leaves us with forty-two states that don't do anything about the sale of assault weapons.
You guessed it. Colorado is one of those forty-two states.
A massacre has never happened simply because we were missing a specific law. An armed victim is still a victim. A massacre cannot be prevented by passive technological security measures or even active security screening, for those are simply patterns and obstacles to a persistent attacker.
A massacre happens because the attacker knows that people just don't give a damn.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
In 2011 German police fired 85 bullets in total. US police can do this at one traffic stop.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Of course, making it really hard or near-impossible for him to get hold of firearms and ammunition would have a similar effect, probably limiting the number of people he could kill even further. In fact, he might be restrained by those around without anyone ending up dead - wouldn't that be nice and humane?
He didn't kick the exit door in. He went into the cinema normally. He exited the emergency exit and propped it open. Got ready then went back in. What gets me is the exit doors are opened, normally alarms go off. (at least in cinemas in Australia). Gun ownership is fine in my book. What is not fine is the ability to purchase assault rifle with 100 round drum magazine and body armor. Asking for trouble.
Humans ARE animals. At our very core, we are still fucking monkeys! We just so happen to be more civilized depending on whom you ask. Not everyone can be reformed. Only controlled or eliminated (death or locked away from civilization).
Life is not for the lazy.
How many people do you think he could've killed had he burst into the theatre with a back-pack full of pop-bottles filled with gasoline with rags stuck in them? I'm betting a lot more. Lucky he used guns.
I think it's safe to say that violence has always been with humanity since the origin of our species, and will continue to be with our species for the indefinite future. That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Weapons technology doesn't make people kill, but it sure as heck makes them a lot more proficient at it.
Now, let's ban guns because it's the gun's fault.
The problem with any weapon, is that it is the first thing one takes when one is angry. When you arm the entire nation, then there is a large percentage of killings that were anger based. When weapons are not available, anger can be limited to yelling, cursing, etc, but not killing because of rage.
Look at world wide statistics about gun deaths. Please tell me what you discover.
...and one day when a handful of armed men from The Government show up to load you on to a cattle car, you'll think "Thank God they don't allow me to have grenades or machine guns"
The scenario of the government showing up to load you onto a vehicle isn't hypothetical. It's actually happened.
So here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose that some of those Japanese-American citizens who were rounded up in the early 1940s had been armed, and defended themselves from precisely this. Can you imagine the NRA of its day defending those peoples' right to defend themselves from the over-reaching, civil-rights-destroying government?
How about those whose fifth amendment rights are routinely trampled upon under the so-called War on Drugs?
How about if the students at Kent State or the Lattimer miners had shot back?
Of course they bloody wouldn't. No government will ever do this to you if you're popular. When The Government shows up to load "you" onto a cattle car, whoever "you" happens to be at the time, the NRA is going to cheer, and some of its members will be doing the herding, and if you attempt to defend yourself, history will remember you the same way that it remembers the Branch Davidians. And you'll be dead.
Ask Manuel Noriega how useful it was to have machine guns, grenades and a whole fracking army at his disposal when faced with the might of 27,000 grunts armed with the complete works of Def Leppard. Or perhaps ask the Ludlow miners how well it worked out for them.
Neither machine guns nor grenades will protect you from a hypothetical tyrannical US government, wrapped in the flag and waving a cross. That's because gun owners don't care about civil rights. They care about, typically at most, one civil right. The only time they would actually use guns against a tyrannical US government is if the government tried to take away their guns, which is completely circular.
Unless you have a job or hobby for which guns are part of the standard toolkit (e.g. you're a farmer or security guard), they are useless. They won't protect your civil rights. Only you and your fellow citizens working together can do that. Your civil rights are entirely contingent on the rest of the public respecting them. No magical talisman will help you with that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I don't think it's a coincidence at all. I've long maintained that guns aren't the problem, it's just that Americans can't be trusted with them.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Bad example with the Swiss. They've not been at war with anyone since the Napoleonic war, and certainly haven't had to deal with any invasion since 1815. In 1993 not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva (Halbrook). Could be something to do with the fact that the population are issued with automatic rifles on majority and trained in their use.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I wouldn't, unless you can tell me why a criminal would suddenly get a conscience and start obeying the Law in the middle of a firefight?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Thomas Hamilton got all his legally as well - notwithstanding the fact that he was a dirty fucking nonce with connections in the police (details are D-Noticed for the next 85 years). He ended up by walking into a school and shooting sixteen kids and a teacher dead, injuring 15 before taking his own face off.
Kneejerk reaction: All automatic rifles banned. Brocock cartridge air weapons banned. Most cartridge load handguns banned (.22 rimfire pistols banned in 1997). FAC limit taken down to 12fpe for air rifle, 6fpe for air pistol. Historic muzzle load and cartridge weapons limited to 5-shot magazines, shotguns to 3 cartridges.
Hamilton used 2 9mm Browning HP pistols and 2 Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers.
I smell a large rat here. What this looks like to me is a government using a situation that may or may not have been one of their own design and execution, to disarm the population.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I'd like to know WTF a 6 year old is doing at a movie like this?
you only know one non-cop with a gun and he is an idiot who fires in the air. and from that you are going to extrapolate an opinion of all citizens who own guns out of that?
there is an idiot here, and it is YOU.
Guns can be made once and last decades if not centuries. The stock of them increases over time.
Any thoughts on the above?
So limit ammunition instead. There's a Chris Rock skit about that, which is straight to the point and hilarious. But yeah, with proper care, guns last a long time. Ammo actually expires or gets old and useless.
That's only partially true though. As Dr Damage already replied, there is reloading to consider. Of course, the brass eventually would give out and you'd need new brass but all that would do is create a blackmarket for ammo (parts and whole). Also, as long as the ammo is kept dry it also can last decades or longer. For one of my oldest guns, itself nearly 70 years old and as good as new, I have ammo that is more than 40 years old. That ammo still works just fine. The only reason I'm not shooting even older stuff is that it was already used up.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Maybe you don't see many machine guns in crimes, but they exist. Look south of three border where you have been giving them away to gangs to see the risks of unrestricted access to weapons.
I suppose this could be considered slightly greater fail. First, as has been pointed out already, Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. They're working such wonders, no? Second, "we/you" have been giving them away to exactly no one. Unless you're referring to that oh so wonderful operation of Obama's Justice Department "Fast and Furious".
Further, you've either ignored or failed to realize that those gangs themselves are a result of the prohibition of a popular product. Banning guns in the US would do nothing more than give them another product to bring across the boarder.
Lastly we're talking about the US here and the US environment. There aren't many, if any, machine guns used in crime here primarily for the reasons I've listed. Neither the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 had any measurable impact on this.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You idiot, why would you ban guns and allow the sale of parts to build one. Are you bring deliberately obtuse?
I'm starting to wonder the same about you...
You clearly didn't read the part where I said all you really need are basic metal working skills and basic tools. I posted examples of using part kits and such as that is the current situation. In the event of a total ban you could simply make all the parts from scratch. They aren't that complicated and any machinist could fairly easily figure out how to make one from either a working example or readily available plans. Guys in prison have managed to figure out how to make working semi-auto hand guns with the crap they have available. You think someone with full access to a machine shop couldn't do it?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
It may seem that way, but mainly because I didn't go into great detail. :-)
Presuming:
A) A full scale confiscatory gun ban were passed into law in the United States
B) This didn't immediately lead to riots or worse (Many of those who say "From their cold dead hands" are not kidding)
C) The government actually got their collective self in gear and managed to pick up all the guns (never minding how for the moment) without starting a revolution
Then, the primary demand would come from criminals who unsurprisingly didn't just give up their 'trade'. Secondary demand would come from civilians not wanting to face the criminals unarmed. I.E. The situation we have now.
Primary demand might decrease slightly due to increases in cost. Secondary demand may decrease for the same reasons, but would likely be followed by an increase as crime increases. That's supposition but one supported by examples in other places.
With the demand in place, it's a matter of satisfying it. The primary method for that would be smuggling with a secondary of local manufacture. With the tools available practically anywhere these days making good quality guns would actually be pretty easy. Turning barrels is the hard part as for most designs that is absolutely critical. Of course, if you're making ones for self-defense then extreme range and accuracy (or even middle range and accuracy) isn't as much of a concern.
What it comes down to is that this isn't the 1930s where milling machines were something that only large companies could own. You could go out and buy a mill, modify it to be CnC if necessary. By day you're making farm machine parts or whatever. At night, AR-15s or even simpler designs.
As to why companies make new guns. The destruction rate isn't that high but clearly demand is. The ownership base expands over time and the current base tends to buy more over time. A friend of mine went from owning one little pistol to 10 pistols and 15 rifles over time. Why? No idea. That's even more than I have. But some people like to collect.
Last note, if a person ever wanted to know if a complete ban would work see here:
Plastic CNC AR-15 Lower
Bolt Together AR-15 Lower out of Aluminum
Just a couple of examples. I read once about a guy, can't find the link now, who made one out of sheetmetal. It was ugly, but it worked. The cat is permanently out of the bag and isn't going back in without a fight. :-)
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I'll tell you what, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell me why less guns mean more people getting shot, I'm sure the logical contortions will be Olympian and thoroughly entertaining.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Of course all we have is Zimmerman's story on what went down that night. He has an obvious self interest in presenting himself in the best light.
Laws are made for the common, reasonable case. There will always be crazies. You can't design the law around crazies without unduly punishing normal, reasonable people.
exactly like the American laws enabling security theatre at airports. Laws , completely made for the common , reasonable case. Only common man would carry aerosol on a flight , no crazy would ever dream of that. Got it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Jeeze, all these smart people posting all these smart answers, many of which included the expression "kicked in the door(s)"
HOWEVER, theater doors open OUTWARD. Maybe a sumo wrestler could kick a movie-theater door inward, with great effort, and multiple tries. If it was any kind of modern theater, with typical doors, I am sorry, kicking the door in strikes me as a near impossibility.
That's funny, because we have strict gun control in Canada and it's happened a few times here too.
And all you have is wild speculation. Thats so much better than what the first responders had to go on.
No, it was because 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state'. They opposed the idea of having a standing army, because standing armies had been used against citizens in the revolutionary war and in other countries. The idea was that everyone would have a weapon so that in the event of the 'security of (the) free state' being threatened, 'a well regulated militia' could quickly form to remove the threat.
IIRC, the USA has a reasonably well-equipped defence force to deal with threats to the security of the USA (opposition to the idea of standing armies notwithstanding) so, yes, the 2nd amendment is past its use-by-date.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
I'll tell you what, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell me why less guns mean more people getting shot, I'm sure the logical contortions will be Olympian and thoroughly entertaining.
Are you asking about Mexico here or what?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Take a glance at page 3.
The maniac was standing in ONE SPOT firing at moving targets. He would have been an easy target.
Free Martian Whores!
No, I'm not going to carry a gun; everyone has to die, but not everyone has to kill. However, you shouldn't be prohibited from carrying guns.
He who lives by the gun, dies by the gun. But it should be your choice.
Free Martian Whores!
Obtuse then.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Apparently he was fairly intelligent, and he planned out his attack over months. So yes, he could have just as easily built a bomb. In fact he supposedly did have a number of bombs in his apartment. You assume he chose guns because they were the easiest route, but we still don't know what his motivations were. He was also wearing body armor, and it has been speculated that he was intending to "do battle" with police.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
He planned out his attack months in advance. According to media reports, he actually did have a few bombs in his apartment. Apparently he was also wearing body armor, and it has been speculated that he was hoping to "do battle" with the police. We still don't know what this wacko's motivations were, so it is difficult to say that he chose guns simply because they were the easiest route.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
What's a sane response to this sort of thing? I like this one: http://cpontius.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/fear-of-the-dark/ .
There were probably quite a few guns in the audience, this being Colorado and all.
But consider the tactical situation and that he was reportedly wearing a ballistic vest and riot helmet.
How do we know that nobody tried to shoot him?
Just like the Joker, this guy came prepared.
I everybody in the theater was armed, maybe the shooter would have survived, but in my own personal opinion, the attack would have not happened. Shotting sitting ducks is a business, engage in a shooting whith 200 hundreds armed man on your own, it's a whole different history.
What you are suggesting is essentially another form of gun control, namely, * forcing* everybody to carry guns all the time. That's the only way you'll get 200 armed men sitting in a movie theater in a state like Colorado where anyone in that theater had the option to get guns, but didn't.
The idea that the people can't be trusted with types of personal property is fundementally at odds with the idea that they can govern themselves.
So....you're saying heroin and cocaine should be made legal along with guns in any democratic society? What about AK-47s? Tigers? Where do you draw the line?
This is like saying we shouldn't outlaw rape because no amount of laws will ever stop a madman from committing rape. Ten psychopaths want to get guns. The guns are legal. End result -- Ten psychopaths get guns. If guns are illegal, then maybe only 5 or 8 or even 9 psychopaths get guns, and they're ten times as expensive because they're illegal. I think that's a reasonable sacrifice.
England. That's a source.
Consider that at the time of the US revolution, England was their government. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to perpetuate that spirit. England was not a "foreign invader" any more than the north was a "foreign invader" to the south during the civil war.
The Liberal Media's HISTORY of Falsely Blaming Conservatives for Massacres http://bit.ly/MID5Wp I've noticed a similar liberal bias here on slashdot...
Not just "smoke-filled." That shit was tear gas. Good luck shooting when you can't keep your eyes open and you have foot-long trails of snot pouring from your nose.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
To our South is a country without a functioning government (with respect to internal security).
Seems to be the same problem we Canadians have with a neighbour too!
Do you live in the DC area? I do. I remember exactly what happened with Occupy. They camped out in a park for months, pissing off people who actually live here and being a general nuisance. Most of them had no idea what they were demonstrating for. Some did, but they were radicals who didn't exactly represent most of the DC area, much less the United States at large. They were left alone for months, until the stink got so bad (and they'd assaulted enough locals) that the police finally ran them off. They're still in DC, mind you, just not in the same parks. They were not totally peaceful, nor were they totally unarmed. They'd left their homes months prior, and many of them are what you'd call professional protesters. We don't want them here, but they won't leave.
I have my own opinions about guns, which I suspect differ from yours, but that's what I know about Occupy.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
I don't know, but if I see I guy coming in through the Exit door in body armor, and I'm an off-duty or plain clothes cop, and he hucks a canister, I'm gonna say something. And, yeah, if there's a guy shooting in a theater in a cloud of smoke, I'll shoot at the muzzle flare. It's better than the alternative, obviously.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
I replied to this with a more passionate post before, but it was removed because if you don't think like the mass (-> like the medias tell you to think) you surely are a TERRORIST that wants to harm the freedomz of the kind citizens of the United States of America and you have to be compelled to "treatment" by some psychiatrist that thinks he has the right to decide if your thoughts are right or wrong.
That's essentially what you're saying.
So let me get this straight. You're counting Europe as a whole. Okay. Europe then has around 738,199,000 people as of 2010 against America's 308,745,538 at the same period. We have more than twice your number. The Massacre in Russia I shall neatly discount as it was done by militiamen, because, you know, there was a war. Enforced restricted access to firearms is kind of moot when you're in Russia and in a militia...
I'll even throw in all the shootings that were done by random people and not actually anyone that has anything to do with that school, unlike your schools where the culprit is connected to it in the majority of cases.
Anyway, counting that, you see our short list even though we outnumber you? Now please go visit the American category and start scrolling. I rest my case.
Handguns are not legal or readily accessible anywhere in Canada.