Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?

[sls.stormyrider]

^^
I hear ya
when a coyote walked within a short distance of my wife in our back yard last year, the thought of buying a gun crossed my mind. Oddly enough, this morning, right after I came back from running, I looked out my window and a coyote was cutting through the yard. I wouldn't want to have to deal with one of those guys if he was pissed off.

eta - they say the bullets this guy bought (legally) were the kind that can go through 3 people. all his weapons were bought legally. so - even if you concede that it's OK to carry a concealed firearm into a movie theater, I'll argue that a)if someone would have tried to stop this dude, the "do gooder" would have bought the farm, and b) there is no reason that anyone would need piercing bullets or an assault weapon for, as VDB puts it, "peaceful" use of a firearm.

[aphineday]

I'm going to make a very short statement here, and it's one that illustrates my gun views perfectly:
"You don't need a fucking gun".
Period.
I don't care about the Constitution, I don't care about self defense, I don't care about hunting, and I don't care about sport shooting; I care about human life.

You don't need a fucking gun.

Curious to see how this fits my situation:


I own three guns.  None of them are really any good for self defense:  I keep the bullets, bolts/chambers, and the guns all in different areas of the house; the most important part (the bullets and the bolts/chambers) locked up.  They are for hunting and the occasional shooting sport.  The most powerful is a 30-06 cal bolt action, rifle, not exactly a fast or dexterous choice for self defense.  The only handgun I own is a .22 cal.  I've never carried it in public, and have no desire to do so.  I don't feel myself trained well enough to wield it in a tense situation; and lets face it- it's a .22.   


I have contemplated buying a more powerful handgun, one that has the stopping power to down a bear.  You don't spend the amount of time I do walking around alone in the woods of Montana and Idaho without having the thought cross your mind.  I've also spent a lot of time weighing the pros and cons of wielding a gun in the woods.  That is one of the reasons that my first line of defense in case of bear attack is pepper spray and lots of noise to let them know I'm coming.  But there are other threats too; wolves, mountain lions, moose.  The pepper spray would probably work with any of those animals as well, but it's hard to tell. 

My main concern is having the gun available as a back up.  Like I said, the pepper spray is the first line of defense; it has been shown to be pretty effective in situations where a single bear is acting aggressively in a defensive manner.  But what about situations where the bear may be compromised (such as a sick bear that is not thinking right), or situations where the use of pepper spray is compromised (the bear is upwind from you in a strong wind, you forgot to check and see if the nozzle is clogged, the spray doesn't work right [these things go for $40 a pop and only provide 7-10 seconds of spray, not something most people can afford to test all the time]), or situations where there are multiple aggressive bears (as happens near the wild-urban interface where bears have become habituated to people and act unnaturally, or a sow with yearling cubs)?  What about other animals, such as wolves that do hunt in packs?  Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but long stretches of time alone walking in unfamiliar wild places gives you a lot of time to think out scenarios. 

So, long story short, guns and self defense aren't always about people. 


In case you think I'm blowing smoke up your asses, here are two pictures of fresh tracks I have encountered on survey.  The first is a set of mountain lion tracks in my survey unit I encountered in 2010.  The second is a set of bear tracks I encountered at the end of last month.  Both of these tracks were fresh enough to tell me that the animal was most likely still in the immediate area when I encountered them. 

You know, you did actually do a decent bit to change my view here a little. I guess I wasn't really aware that there were handguns powerful enough to take down a bear. Although I lumped all guns together  earlier (as I tend to do when emotions are peaking), I was really more concerned with handguns and assault rifles. When I said "I don't care about hunting" I was out of line. I myself don't care about hunting, but I really have no problem with properly educated people hunting, target shooting, or anything you may need a gun for protection against (non-human of course).

So I apologize for some of those comments, they were off base.

All of That being said, I don't believe it's EVER okay to just carry a gun around in public, etc. I care about 0% what the Constitution has to say on this matter.

[VDB]

eta - they say the bullets this guy bought (legally) were the kind that can go through 3 people. all his weapons were bought legally. so - even if you concede that it's OK to carry a concealed firearm into a movie theater, I'll argue that a)if someone would have tried to stop this dude, the "do gooder" would have bought the farm, and b) there is no reason that anyone would need piercing bullets or an assault weapon for, as VDB puts it, "peaceful" use of a firearm.

Different calibers and bullet configurations have different penetrating powers than others, but certainly, having something that can penetrate three people sounds excessive to me and a recipe for bad news. That sounds more like an assault/military-type round  -- entirely inappropriate for private citizens -- rather than a defensive round, which would be a hollow point so that the round a) has maximum stopping power and b) is itself less likely to pass through the target and hit something on the other side. Part of firearms education 101 is that you are responsible for your shot during its entire flight, so if you hit an innocent bystander on the other side of the bad guy, you're in big trouble, even if you took out the bad guy first. (Trust me, these are the kind of things that the responsible gun owner is supposed to be intrinsically aware of, if that offers any comfort whatsoever.)

I live in a small, yet incredibly violent, city.  We're consistently on the top of the "most violent cities per capita" lists, and our murder rate per capita is always in the top 3 nationwide.  Armed robberies happen more often than you can count.  And if there's one thing I've learned about this topic from living in a place like this, it's that carrying a gun is only going to get you killed.  If you're sitting at a red light and some thug comes up to the window and sticks a gun in your face, give him what he wants.  If you go for your gun, odds are your day is gonna end with a sopranos-style cut to black.  If you just cooperate, odds are your day will end peacefully -- albeit, without your wallet or car. 

Random acts of horrendous violence like what happened in CO are so incredibly rare.  The overwhelming, vast majority of the time, when you're encountered by a gunman, all they want is your stuff.  Bringing another gun into that situation is just going to turn it into a "who can shoot first" contest that wasn't needed in the first place.

Just in case there was any confusion, let me point out that I firmly believe that simply carrying a gun is not license to draw it and use it at any or every possible opportunity. You have to be smart about things. If you're completely stuck in a situation and the only option is compliance, lest you escalate matters and make them worse for yourself or those around you, then yes, you comply and live to see another day, obviously. Again, the idea here I keep reminding y'all about is to help protect innocent life, not endanger it. Producing a gun, much less firing it (only 10% of episodes of defensive gun "use" involve having to ultimately fire it) is something to be done only at the utmost extent of necessity.

But here's some food for thought. Realize that the guy who's willing to pull a gun or knife on you for those $5 in your wallet doesn't give a shit about your life. He would kill you or your wife or your friend stone-cold over those $5 if he thought he could get away with it. And if he's willing to risk your life for a few bucks, do you think you're the only one? So let's say you are carrying, get stuck up, and have an opportunity to defend yourself with force to end this armed attack. Some may say, just give the guy your wallet and be done with it. On the other hand, something I often think about is, who's to say that the next robbery this fucker attempts will go so peacefully? Maybe the next person tries to run or resist, and gets killed by the bad guy. You as the prior victim may have been in the position to stop him before he could go victimize other people and potentially devastate other families. As someone who takes seriously not only the privilege but the responsibility my state's carry laws grant me, that's something never far from my mind as I think about these things. It's not vigilantism; it's caring for my fellow innocent man and wanting to be available, in whatever small way, as ballast against the vicious lunatics out there who don't give a flying fuck about him or his welfare.

APD, regarding disarming cops, you know that if that happened it'd be open season on them. Because there's no way we'd be able to disarm everyone else, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge. Like guns or not, they need that instrument of force available not only as a deterrent but also as a defensive option for their own safety and that of people who may need their protection from time to time.

[rowjimmy]

A few more like you and all those judges will be able to retire and jury duty will be a thing of the past. Good thing we've all elected folks like you to make those life and death decisions for others.


If you seriously have the arrogance to say that you have the right to determine that someone should die then I have a serious problem with you.

[runawayjimbo]

Wow, a lot to respond to; I'll try to keep it brief (uh-huh):

I have a hard time with those who are against banning assault rifles, armor piercing bullets, "military" type weapons (like the large clip used in AZ last year), and allowing people to buy weapons at gun shows without background checks - all based on the 2nd amendment. We clearly need some common sense regulation, something that the NRA doesn't get in their zealous ideology. They passed a law in FLA making it illegal for a pediatrician to ASK a parent if there were guns in the house (apparently gun ownership > free speech to them). Fortunately, it got overturned by the court.

On your first point, I guess the issue I might take is what/who defines what an assault rifle is? I don't know shit about guns, but I've heard the term "assault rifle" had been stretched rather aggressively to include anything loaded semi-automatically. It doesn't seem fair to me that the definition of the thing you're banning can change with each executive. I'm with you that there is absolutely no point in owning a military weapon, but I also don't see the point of owning a car with 870HP that can go 250mph (oh yeah, I don't know shit about cars either). I guess my point is that I don't think it is reasonable to start drawing arbitrary distinctions on what people can and can't have (see prohibition of weed vs. alcohol). Next thing you know they'll try to start banning the size of sodas I can drink. (What's that?) I also realize my free market solution to gun control probably won't go over well but hey, at least I'm consistent!!

But that's not to say I oppose all regulation. I agree the NRA makes this debate far more difficult than it needs to be (although I'd suggest gun control advocates also at least have a hand in the blame). In Philly a couple years ago, the city passed 5 laws to tighten gun control and the NRA opposed every one of them. One was to require gun owners to report a missing handgun within 48hrs (I think). Now that seems like a pretty reasonable regulation to me: it's easy to understand and comply for the gun owner and it would prevent straw purchases from turning legal guns into illegal ones. But the NRA couldn't have that because I mean, c'mon, who can keep track of all their handguns amiright?!? That FL case was equally as disingenuous on the part of the NRA. Unfortunately, like most debates, the more an issue is dominated by special interests the greater chance they will crowd out effective understanding and decision making.

Unless he's going out with the intention of killing someone, that most certainly is not the purpose. The purpose is to protect from others who intend to kill. Owning a gun and wanting peace are not mutually exclusive. I think most gun owners buy a gun sincerely hoping there will never be a need to use it.

Again, this argument is emotional not rational. You carry the gun because of how it makes you feel. The rational argument, as laid forth by one of the greatest rational minds of any era, goes like this:

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

It really is that simple.

I agree with you that it is an emotional decision to carry a gun, in this case providing the owner with a sense of safety (either real or inflated). But I disagree that it is an irrational decision. Some people would say it's irrational not to arm yourself because of your commitment to non-violence. I am not taking sides in that debate, just pointing out that a dismissing an argument as emotional vs. rational is in itself completely subjective.

I don't care about the Constitution

Ahh, the liberal credo. While it pains me to hear this (and even more to know that you mean it), I respect your honesty. Some people (certain presidents come to mind) pay lip service to the Constitution while trampling it's tenets. You just freely take a leak right on the muthafucka.

Wait, have you done the draft order yet? Nevermind, I agree with everything you said :wink:

I'm just alarmed at the extent to which it appears some people equate the peaceful carrying of a firearm for protection with the kind of violence in society that said carrying is in response to. I just don't get it guys, I'm sorry.

This'd. That sliver of daylight line cracked me up too.

There's been a lot of anecdotal evidence and personal appeals today, but nothing real concrete so here's something I found interesting:  in the last 2 decades there have been 16 shootings around the world that killed 289 people (not counting the shooters because fuck 'em). In 2009, there were 16,800 homicides, 11,500 of which were from firearms. So every psychotic rampage in the world in the last 20 yrs equals just 2.5% of the gun deaths in the US in a single year. And you might say "Well why the fuck would you need to carry a gun to a movie theater if it never happens?" But I see it the other way: to me, these shootings are still so exceedingly rare (although clearly on the uptick in the second decade), so I don't see why the default response to them always seems to be "guns are evil." Or worse, "people who LIKE guns are evil."

Oh yeah, am I seriously the only one who sees the irony in everyone telling me my economic views are naive when you guys are throwing around "world peace starts at home"? Yes, we know, we've all heard Imagine. :wink:

Lastly, everybody recognizes that it's fucked up that we live in a world where this shit can happen. It's only through communication and dialogue that people can learn and grow. I'm glad I have a place to discuss such fucked up shit with such thoughtful people of all viewpoints.

+ks all around



tl; dwrite

[VDB]

A few more like you and all those judges will be able to retire and jury duty will be a thing of the past. Good thing we've all elected folks like you to make those life and death decisions for others.


If you seriously have the arrogance to say that you have the right to determine that someone should die then I have a serious problem with you.

Yes, its "arrogance" for me to believe that I can exercise my legal right to defend myself from armed attackers who are prepared to take my own life... "Arrogance"? Jesus Christ man, it's self-preservation. I'm just honestly flabbergasted at the full extent to which this is apparently a controversial aim to uphold. And furthermore at the extent to which people are eager to impugn my motives when they are in fact nothing more or less than the desire to look out for my own safety, or my wife's, and not wishing to be made a victim of at the hands of someone who is willing to dispatch an innocent life without without a moment's thought, in pursuit of whatever criminal gains he has in mind.

[kellerb]

A few more like you and all those judges will be able to retire and jury duty will be a thing of the past. Good thing we've all elected folks like you to make those life and death decisions for others.


If you seriously have the arrogance to say that you have the right to determine that someone should die then I have a serious problem with you.

Yes, its "arrogance" for me to believe that I can exercise my legal right to defend myself from armed attackers who are prepared to take my own life... "Arrogance"? Jesus Christ man, it's self-preservation. I'm just honestly flabbergasted at the full extent to which this is apparently a controversial aim to uphold. And furthermore at the extent to which people are eager to impugn my motives when they are in fact nothing more or less than the desire to look out for my own safety, or my wife's, and not wishing to be made a victim of at the hands of someone who is willing to dispatch an innocent life without without a moment's thought, in pursuit of whatever criminal gains he has in mind.

I'm not jumping into this argument, but I think RJ is saying that you're making the judgement call about that person's motives. and then potentially shooting them.

[aphineday]

A few more like you and all those judges will be able to retire and jury duty will be a thing of the past. Good thing we've all elected folks like you to make those life and death decisions for others.


If you seriously have the arrogance to say that you have the right to determine that someone should die then I have a serious problem with you.

Yes, its "arrogance" for me to believe that I can exercise my legal right to defend myself from armed attackers who are prepared to take my own life... "Arrogance"? Jesus Christ man, it's self-preservation. I'm just honestly flabbergasted at the full extent to which this is apparently a controversial aim to uphold. And furthermore at the extent to which people are eager to impugn my motives when they are in fact nothing more or less than the desire to look out for my own safety, or my wife's, and not wishing to be made a victim of at the hands of someone who is willing to dispatch an innocent life without without a moment's thought, in pursuit of whatever criminal gains he has in mind.

I'm not jumping into this argument, but I think RJ is saying that you're making the judgement call about that person's motives. and then potentially shooting them.

As usual, Keller gets it.
It seems like you are getting really upset, VDB. I'm sorry you are upset, but this probably isn't going to help matters any...
In my book, as unfortunate as it is, you have no more of right to take the life of your would be attacker than he has to take your life.
It's why I don't believe in the death penalty either, but that's a completely different discussion.
I'm happy to be the liberal piece of shit you are cursing me for being right now btw

[nab]

Watching Americans discussing gun control is fucked.

Don't see why it is so surprising. 

You should know by now, in your studies of our strange tribe, that there is nothing that can't be solved in the U.S. without righteous indignation, gross speculation, self proclaimed moral certainty, and the right these uncertainties give us to stick to our guns when faced with the opportunity to lay new intellectual groundwork.

Why the hell would we want to leave firearms out of all that fun?   

[gah]

eta - they say the bullets this guy bought (legally) were the kind that can go through 3 people. all his weapons were bought legally. so - even if you concede that it's OK to carry a concealed firearm into a movie theater, I'll argue that a)if someone would have tried to stop this dude, the "do gooder" would have bought the farm, and b) there is no reason that anyone would need piercing bullets or an assault weapon for, as VDB puts it, "peaceful" use of a firearm.

Different calibers and bullet configurations have different penetrating powers than others, but certainly, having something that can penetrate three people sounds excessive to me and a recipe for bad news. That sounds more like an assault/military-type round  -- entirely inappropriate for private citizens -- rather than a defensive round, which would be a hollow point so that the round a) has maximum stopping power and b) is itself less likely to pass through the target and hit something on the other side. Part of firearms education 101 is that you are responsible for your shot during its entire flight, so if you hit an innocent bystander on the other side of the bad guy, you're in big trouble, even if you took out the bad guy first. (Trust me, these are the kind of things that the responsible gun owner is supposed to be intrinsically aware of, if that offers any comfort whatsoever.)

I live in a small, yet incredibly violent, city.  We're consistently on the top of the "most violent cities per capita" lists, and our murder rate per capita is always in the top 3 nationwide.  Armed robberies happen more often than you can count.  And if there's one thing I've learned about this topic from living in a place like this, it's that carrying a gun is only going to get you killed.  If you're sitting at a red light and some thug comes up to the window and sticks a gun in your face, give him what he wants.  If you go for your gun, odds are your day is gonna end with a sopranos-style cut to black.  If you just cooperate, odds are your day will end peacefully -- albeit, without your wallet or car. 

Random acts of horrendous violence like what happened in CO are so incredibly rare.  The overwhelming, vast majority of the time, when you're encountered by a gunman, all they want is your stuff.  Bringing another gun into that situation is just going to turn it into a "who can shoot first" contest that wasn't needed in the first place.

Just in case there was any confusion, let me point out that I firmly believe that simply carrying a gun is not license to draw it and use it at any or every possible opportunity. You have to be smart about things. If you're completely stuck in a situation and the only option is compliance, lest you escalate matters and make them worse for yourself or those around you, then yes, you comply and live to see another day, obviously. Again, the idea here I keep reminding y'all about is to help protect innocent life, not endanger it. Producing a gun, much less firing it (only 10% of episodes of defensive gun "use" involve having to ultimately fire it) is something to be done only at the utmost extent of necessity.

But here's some food for thought. Realize that the guy who's willing to pull a gun or knife on you for those $5 in your wallet doesn't give a shit about your life. He would kill you or your wife or your friend stone-cold over those $5 if he thought he could get away with it. And if he's willing to risk your life for a few bucks, do you think you're the only one? So let's say you are carrying, get stuck up, and have an opportunity to defend yourself with force to end this armed attack. Some may say, just give the guy your wallet and be done with it. On the other hand, something I often think about is, who's to say that the next robbery this fucker attempts will go so peacefully? Maybe the next person tries to run or resist, and gets killed by the bad guy. You as the prior victim may have been in the position to stop him before he could go victimize other people and potentially devastate other families. As someone who takes seriously not only the privilege but the responsibility my state's carry laws grant me, that's something never far from my mind as I think about these things. It's not vigilantism; it's caring for my fellow innocent man and wanting to be available, in whatever small way, as ballast against the vicious lunatics out there who don't give a flying fuck about him or his welfare.

APD, regarding disarming cops, you know that if that happened it'd be open season on them. Because there's no way we'd be able to disarm everyone else, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge. Like guns or not, they need that instrument of force available not only as a deterrent but also as a defensive option for their own safety and that of people who may need their protection from time to time.

It's not? Let me look that up for you:

Vigilante - a private individual who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority
- a self-appointed doer of justice
- One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

As a sidenote, I just left this 7-11, and this fucking bum asked me for change. I'm not particularly a fan of that as I'm sure others aren't either. So I grabbed a baseball bat out of my trunk beat him senseless and tossed him in a trash dump. I mean, come on, I don't want him bothering my neighbors with that kind of shit either. Besides, next time he might have pulled a knife on someone, I just felt like it was my civic responsibility to clean up that kind of filth from my immediate surrounding for the greater good.

[rowjimmy]

That desperate individual who is resorting to snatching purses at knifepoint may be the same guy who saves a life on a better day.  You can't know.

The cycle of senseless killing won't be ended with more killing.

Its like spanking your kid because he hit his brother. Only 10000x worse.

[sls.stormyrider]

Wow, a lot to respond to; I'll try to keep it brief (uh-huh):

I have a hard time with those who are against banning assault rifles, armor piercing bullets, "military" type weapons (like the large clip used in AZ last year), and allowing people to buy weapons at gun shows without background checks - all based on the 2nd amendment. We clearly need some common sense regulation, something that the NRA doesn't get in their zealous ideology. They passed a law in FLA making it illegal for a pediatrician to ASK a parent if there were guns in the house (apparently gun ownership > free speech to them). Fortunately, it got overturned by the court.

On your first point, I guess the issue I might take is what/who defines what an assault rifle is? I don't know shit about guns, but I've heard the term "assault rifle" had been stretched rather aggressively to include anything loaded semi-automatically. It doesn't seem fair to me that the definition of the thing you're banning can change with each executive. I'm with you that there is absolutely no point in owning a military weapon, but I also don't see the point of owning a car with 870HP that can go 250mph (oh yeah, I don't know shit about cars either). I guess my point is that I don't think it is reasonable to start drawing arbitrary distinctions on what people can and can't have (see prohibition of weed vs. alcohol). Next thing you know they'll try to start banning the size of sodas I can drink. (What's that?) I also realize my free market solution to gun control probably won't go over well but hey, at least I'm consistent!!

I like your car analogy - I use it myself.
certain cars are street legal. certain cars are not. arbitrary decision? probably. reasonable? yes.
even street cars are regulated for safety. again, no one would argue those.

I realize that the dude that did this is one crazy MF who went to great lengths to do what he did. But we shouldn't make it easier for him by having all this shit available. Would he have murdered a bunch of people anyway? maybe.

Another example is the Giffords shooting. The guy had a 30 round clip. Bought the gun and ammo that day, iirc - little planning involved.
Dallas Green, whose granddaughter died that day, said - I'm a hunter. I own a gun. I don't understand why anyone would need a 30 round clip (except for mass murder)

common sense legislation limiting ammo would not have prevented what happened that day. The guy could have bought a gun and multiple smaller clips. maybe the time it took to change would have been enough for someone to tackle him - who knows. Common sense (yes, call it arbitrary) regulation could have saved some lives that day.

[VDB]

  I'm running out of ways to state my case here, but let me try some more, because we clearly still are not talking about the same thing.

I thought I was being clear about what kind of hypothetical situations the right of self defense applies to, but maybe not.

Keller, if someone is coming at you with a knife, I believe it is quite reasonable at that instant to determine that his motives are to kill or maim you, and you are then authorized to exercise your legal right to defend your own life. If anyone truly still wants to debate that point with me, we are just not going to agree, and luckily for me and others who believe in self defense, the law does.

APD, I just flatly disagree, which is obviously the crux of the difference between our positions here -- I do believe that a person shouldn't be morally bound to just stand idle and let an attacker kill him, or someone around him. I believe the attacker, demonstrating his lack of respect for innocent life, can make no objection (nor should others attempt to make on his behalf, in my opinion) to a person using defensive force in order to prevent the brutality he is inflicting or is about to inflict.

GAH, I guess I was not thorough enough in that hypothetical because I was trying to make a separate point. I'm not talking about simply walking around, indiscriminately taking out sketchy-looking dudes because I think they may be up to no good down the line. (Seriously, is that what you think I'm into? Do you seriously think I'm that deranged? I mean, I used to like super hero comics as a kid, but... that was a long time ago.) In any situation in which the right of self defense applies, there must be a real threat of death or severe bodily harm, and that threat must be imminent or upon you. So, a person slashing at you with a knife counts. Or other such obvious examples. So, what I was trying to say was, in a situation in which justifiable self defense is employed, you are not only protecting your own self/your wife/whomever from that attacker at that instant, but as a convenient side effect (not primary objective) you may also be preventing said attacker from preying on other innocents down the line. My position is, when and only when safe and viable, I would rather respond to an imminent threat to my safety by taking steps to protect myself, rather than simply puckering my poo hole and hoping I get out of it alive.

Guys, here's a hypothetical: Let's say my wife and I are at the store. She walks out into the parking lot ahead of me. I come out and round the corner to find someone attacking her with a knife. I gather that many of you would claim that in that situation I shouldn't be allowed to use my firearm to end the attack and save her life. Well, the law clearly says I do have that right, and morally I have no compunction whatsoever with following through on that. In fact, I believe it would be a moral failing on my part not to take action to save her.

It's interesting, because for all the moral indignation being directed at me, I detect very little toward the attacker in the various scenarios we've outlined. Do you fellas believe there is any difference between the ill-motived aggressor in a senseless attack, and the person who believes he may take necessary steps to defend himself? I'm sensing that you think there's no difference, or perhaps that the latter (e.g. me) is actually worse. And that's just very strange and unfair.

[gah]

If you go into a movie theater, and you noticed someone with a gun on them, is your first thought, whoa, I'm glad there's someone with a gun here, you know, just in case someone else with a gun flips out and tries to kill me. Or WHOA, who the fuck brings a gun to the movies?!? Holy shit, someone call the cops because there's a fucking psychopath here with a fucking gun?!

[aphineday]

I'm running out of ways to state my case here...
APD, I just flatly disagree, which is obviously the crux of the difference between our positions here -- I do believe that a person shouldn't be morally bound to just stand idle and let an attacker kill him, or someone around him. I believe the attacker, demonstrating his lack of respect for innocent life, can make no objection (nor should others attempt to make on his behalf, in my opinion) to a person using defensive force in order to prevent the brutality he is inflicting or is about to inflict.

You're running out of ways to state your case because you're running into resistance with your argument. Most red-blooded flag waiving Americans are all to happy to arm themselves needlessly to the teeth and pull the trigger if a cat jumps the wrong way on their property.
As for your response to my statement, you basically just restated that you're superior because you "aren't the one who started it". Give me a break, that whole scenario stopped working for me in 6th grade.
What's far more concerning is that I'M in the minority on my stance here.
I wish it wasn't so hard to immigrate to Canada. Seriously. This country is absolutely fucked ideologically.