News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

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

Started by emay, July 20, 2012, 09:35:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

emay

Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 20, 2012, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on July 20, 2012, 10:34:36 AM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on July 20, 2012, 10:27:55 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on July 20, 2012, 10:09:44 AM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on July 20, 2012, 09:35:53 AM
Wow intense story,
QuoteGunman kills 12 in Denver shooting at Batman movie
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-shooting-denverbre86j0am-20120720,0,6584688.story

Cant even go see a midnight showing of a popular movie without being scared for your life now. Seems like these shootings happen almost once a year...scary stuff.

Yeah, fuck that shit. There are lunatics out there. Sad but true.

Hate to sound cynical, but this is one reason why, when I go to sit in a dark room packed with a couple hundred strangers, I have my gun on me. Imagine if someone in the front row was carrying, there might be fewer grieving families today.

/soapbox

(Yeah, sorry, I know... politiw00k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)

Dude had on a bullet-proof vest - you may not have stopped him before he stopped you.

Maybe not, but it would have been worth a try. Also, the standard idea is two shots to center mass, one to the head.

That and the canister of tear gas would probably deter my ability to make a straight head shot. It is almost like the dude was planning on someone having a gun and he took measures to ensure he would be successful in his attack. Straight up psycho shit. I cannot fathom the idea of running into a random public place and tryin to kill as many people as possible...maybe one of those kids was to grow up and be the modern Hitler and this guy took him out early. That argument goes the other way as well, maybe one could have been the next Einstein...but this stuff keeps occurring and its pretty scary shit.

Were on the brink of a zombie Apocalypse people, you should never leave your house with your keys wallet and concealed weapon, duh.
Zombie apocalypse was brought up earlier.

But back to the CO incident.
This dude was top of his class and was in grad school for neuroscience. His mom is a psychiatric nurse as well and when she was asked to comment on the situation she said "I think you have the right guy" :| that screams a big WTF to me. Since they are both very smart and very aware of behavior science and his mom even KNEW he was crazy, and nothing was done about it.

This right here is an example of pure ignorance. I guess.
His elaborate bomb rigged apartment is pretty crazy too. Like there was really no hope in stopping this guy to begin with.
But I would feel a lot safer if people like this guy couldnt purchase high powered rifles...or even a gun for that matter. How would the person selling it to him know? Thats something beyond me.

emay

Interesting article on gun control after Columbine and what they think will happen after this shooting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/gun-control-polls-aurora-shooting_n_1690169.html

emay

I always revisit the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" during situations like this.
Michael Moore interviews a Canadian political leader who says their main basis for creating a good society is proper daycare, proper healthcare, and proper assistance for their parents when they get elderly.

Superfreakie

Quote

Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

the number is changed new.

Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks." http://twitter.com/ijasonalexander/status/226879330377146369
Que te vaya bien, que te vaya bien, Te quiero más que las palabras pueden decir.

McGrupp

Just two whiskies, officer.

Quote from: kellerb on November 30, 2010, 10:40:51 PM
I'm not sure if I followed this thread correctly, but what guys are saying is that Dave Thomas sold crack in inner-city DC in the mid-80's, right?

phil

#140
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen.


Isn't the point of regulation to trace, watch, and oversee firearms transactions? I would imagine it's much more difficult to trace illegal sources of firearms..

That said, I agree with him that there's a big distinction between guns that are useful for civilian purposes and ARs
Quote from: guyforget on November 15, 2010, 11:10:47 PMsure we tend to ramble, but that was a 3 page off topic tangent on crack and doses for breakfast?

Superfreakie

Quote from: phil on July 22, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen.


Isn't the point of regulation to trace, watch, and oversee firearms transactions? I would imagine it's much more difficult to trace illegal sources of firearms..

That said, I agree with him that there's a big distinction between guns that are useful for civilian purposes and ARs

yeah, I caught that confusion too, pretty sure Eric Holder agrees as well (see: fast and furious).
Que te vaya bien, que te vaya bien, Te quiero más que las palabras pueden decir.

runawayjimbo

Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons
...

KOKO...KOKO...KOKO...


Also, LOL at the plea to look at "hard statistics" when the only one he mentions in the entire emotion filled rant he has to amend because he overstated it by a factor of 10.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

Superfreakie

Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 22, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons
...

KOKO...KOKO...KOKO...


Also, LOL at the plea to look at "hard statistics" when the only one he mentions in the entire emotion filled rant he has to amend because he overstated it by a factor of 10.


Not so sure if an actor's emotional plea that: ordinary citizens do not require access to assault weapons, tear gas, or military type hardware - must necessarily be qualified with "hard statistics". That's the beauty of common sense and rational thought.     
Que te vaya bien, que te vaya bien, Te quiero más que las palabras pueden decir.

runawayjimbo

Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 22, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons
...

KOKO...KOKO...KOKO...


Also, LOL at the plea to look at "hard statistics" when the only one he mentions in the entire emotion filled rant he has to amend because he overstated it by a factor of 10.


Not so sure if an actor's emotional plea that: ordinary citizens do not require access to assault weapons, tear gas, or military type hardware - must necessarily be qualified with "hard statistics". That's the beauty of common sense and rational thought.   

Yeah, but if it's not supported in the data it's no longer rational thought. Now it's irrational thought.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

Hicks

Le sigh, if we can't even agree that it makes no freaking sense to allow citizens to buy assault weapons then there really is no hope for us.

Enjoy your societal collapse.   :frustrated:
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.

Superfreakie

#146
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 22, 2012, 10:55:29 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on July 22, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Superfreakie on July 22, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
Quote

Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons
...

KOKO...KOKO...KOKO...


Also, LOL at the plea to look at "hard statistics" when the only one he mentions in the entire emotion filled rant he has to amend because he overstated it by a factor of 10.


Not so sure if an actor's emotional plea that: ordinary citizens do not require access to assault weapons, tear gas, or military type hardware - must necessarily be qualified with "hard statistics". That's the beauty of common sense and rational thought.   

Yeah, but if it's not supported in the data it's no longer rational thought. Now it's irrational thought.

A couple factoids then. Assault weapons are rarely used in the commission of crime. In fact, the statistic is so negligible that it is not measurable without a margin of error greater than the conclusion, according to the Justice Department.

According to wiki: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, it determined that since the law was enacted, "assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."

A slight reduction, yes, but would the crimes have been committed anyway with regular guns. And if so, of those crimes committed with assault weapons, would the fatalities have been less if they had been carried out with small magazine weapons. Again, these statistics become increasingly difficult to measure as they are extrapolated. As for the 1994 Clinton ban. A) it left those weapons sold prior to the ban be grandfathered and B) gun companies found ways around the law selling semi with easy DIY fixes to auto.       

Regrettably, one thing that is certain since expiration of the ban following the sunset clause, is that, at present, Mexico is flooded with these very American assault weapons, helping fuel violent cartels and responsible for a disconcertingly tragic amount of civilian casualties. And that is not to mention the destabilizing effect it is having on a state that neighbors you. This has been backed up by numerous studies....again, just ask Eric Holder (who I think is as useless as his predecessor, if that is even possible).       

However, regardless of the Mexican argument and the 1.8% drop out of 1.4 million gun crimes during the ban, you know what? I still don't think the citizenry of a modern society should have access to military style hardware. Last I checked, this is not Yemen or Afghanistan. Christ, even during the days of the wild west you had to check your weapons with the Sheriff before riding into town.         
Que te vaya bien, que te vaya bien, Te quiero más que las palabras pueden decir.

sls.stormyrider

#147
the right to bear arms does not = the right to a fucking arsenal.

I think Jason said it pretty well, data or no data.

common sense.
the gun lobby should get some.

eta- several years ago someone had the common sense to say that the right to free speech does not include the right to yellifire in a crowded theater.
the same logic, imo, should be extended to weapons.
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

runawayjimbo

Quote from: slslbs on July 22, 2012, 11:36:39 PM
the right to bear arms does not = the right to a fucking arsenal.

I think Jason said it pretty well, data or no data.

common sense.
the gun lobby should get some.

eta- several years ago someone had the common sense to say that the right to free speech does not include the right to yellifire in a crowded theater.
the same logic, imo, should be extended to weapons.

Look, I obviously understand where you all are coming from and I'm not disagreeing that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to legally own instruments of war. And believe me, this isn't a position I take easily; remember, I am a recently converted liberty nutjob. But, to echo your free speech point, sls, just as I feel compelled to defend the free speech rights of the despicable Westboro Baptist Church, I find myself defending the 2nd amendment more in recent years than I ever cared to in the past. An unfortunate side effect of liberty is you have to defend it even when it is hard.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

Hicks

Go to tell the victim's families that defending the right of mentally unstable people to buy assault weapons is analagous to defending unpopular/hate speech. 
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.