Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Couldn't disagree more.  Shooter was in complete control because nobody was shooting at him.  Even with his body armor, the entire scenario would've gone down totally different had he not been the only one with a gun in that place and I'd wager a good sum that less people would've been killed & injured.  If you get shot in the torso while wearing a Kevlar vest, you're still going down.  Shot in the face?  Game over.  Countless lives saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It undoubtedly would have been a great thing if someone had been in that theater with a weapon and sufficient skill to neutralize the shooter.  But universalizing that into a prescription for public order is pretty iffy.  Would the average person have had sufficient skill and judgement to adequately deal with someone armed with an assault rifle in a dark, very crowded theater?  How many of those people have to exist, armed at all times, in order to have more than a passing chance to have been in that theater on that night at that time? And in the process of allowing more guns into the hands of those qualified people, how many are we also allowing into the hands of jackasses and hotheads?  How many people will die as a result of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Couldn't disagree more.  Shooter was in complete control because nobody was shooting at him.  Even with his body armor, the entire scenario would've gone down totally different had he not been the only one with a gun in that place and I'd wager a good sum that less people would've been killed & injured.  If you get shot in the torso while wearing a Kevlar vest, you're still going down.  Shot in the face?  Game over.  Countless lives saved.

 

Fantasy.  We're talking about civilians being attacked when they least suspect it, not Seal Team 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy?  Maybe there's an off duty cop in the theater who has his gun on him?  You know how many CCW permits have been issued in Ohio?  I guess you haven't been to the gun range lately but you don't have to be Seal Team 6 to pick off this fool with a headshot from 20 yds away in the theater...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ He threw what has been reported as tear gas. I'm sure people were running around, it was dark, there was smoke, and he is unloading rounds into the seats with heavy weapons. Who is going to stand up and fire at a smokey room and hope to hit the guy? It is unrealistic to expect an average joe to just pick this guy off without serious training and balls of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy?  Maybe there's an off duty cop in the theater who has his gun on him?  You know how many CCW permits have been issued in Ohio?  I guess you haven't been to the gun range lately but you don't have to be Seal Team 6 to pick off this fool with a headshot from 20 yds away in the theater...

 

Shooting at the range is a very different proposition from shooting in a dark room with panicked people running in all directions and a heavily armed madman shooting at you.  Even a trained marksman's accuracy will dip significantly, a random civilian will most likely be firing almost randomly.  So yes, fantasy.  A little time at the range helps fuel that fantasy more than it makes someone competent to handle that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cowboy's bullet ricochets off the body armor and fatally wounds the six year old girl curled up in the fetal position in an aisle...... that would be a prosecutorial dilemma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, just so it's clear - the Admins understand the desire for threads like this to exist, so people with similar interests can discuss current events. That said - there's no obligation on the Admins part to offer space on the forum for threads like this - it's offered as a courtesy, please treat it as such and if you disagree with someone - do it with respect. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if he is not schitzophrenic.  Often times, symptoms do not present until your early 20's.  Happened to a buddy of mine..... perfectly normal and then I come home from college one time and poof, he's gone.  I will note that being schitzo does not automatically equate to being criminally insane.  "Insane" is a legal term not really used in the medical field outside of testimony to meet certain legal standards.  Seems to me that, regardless of his condition, Holmes knew what he was doing was wrong and understood the consequences of his actions.... therefore, he will not get off on an insanity defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot while you wait: Alabama GOP plans election night party at gun range

 

Alabama Republicans plan to hold their election night party at a gun range, where participants will be able to shoot a few rounds as returns come in. The state Republican Party is inviting supporters to the 52,000-square-foot Hoover Tactical Firearms for a "victory party" Tuesday night.

 

- A party announcement says the shooting ranges will be available for two hours during the election event. There will also be a band and an appearance by Miss Alabama. Loaded guns will be allowed only on the firing range and a party spokeswoman says drinking won't be allowed while people are shooting. Republicans are expecting GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to easily carry Alabama.

 

More below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/05/shoot-while-wait-alabama-gop-plans-election-night-party-at-gun-range/?test=latestnews


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Eve of Election, Pro-Gunners Suggest Building IEDs for War With U.S. Government

 

Hofmann, a former member of the Army's 319th Field Artillery Regiment, was disabled after a serious automobile accident in 2002 and is now confined to a wheelchair. Since January 2009, he has been blogging as the "St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner" with Examiner.com. In his tweet, Hofmann directed us to a blog he published there in March entitled, "Perhaps There's Something to the Claim that Guns Alone Cannot Rein in Government."

 

- In the piece, Hofmann pushes back against pundits who mock modern-day insurrectionists by pointing out that "against a military superpower such as the U.S. ...citizens with their private small arms would not stand a chance." For example, Hofmann quotes Jenna Myers Karvunidis, who opines, "If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank." Responding to these criticisms, Hofmann makes it clear that firearms are not the only weapon at the disposal of Americans who hate their government. "It cannot be denied that for some Constitutional militia applications, weapons heavier than those found in most gun safes would be very useful," he writes.

 

- Hofmann obviously forgot to read the Constitution, which states that the Militia's purpose is to "suppress Insurrections," not foment them. It would be tempting to dismiss Hofmann as an aberration -- an isolated extremist with little ability to inspire actual acts of violence -- except for two important factors. The first is that Hofmann's disturbing call to use IEDs against American service members has been defended by a broad swath of the pro-gun movement. This includes statements of support from "The War on Guns" blogger David Codrea, "No Lawyers -- Only Guns and Money" blogger John Richardson, the pro-gun Calumet Foundation, "Gun Free Zone" blogger Miguel Gonzalez, "Guns Save Life" blogger John Boch, "Days of Our Trailers" blogger Roy Kubicek (AKA "Thirdpower"), "Shall Not Be Questioned" blogger/NRA election volunteer coordinator Keith Milligan (AKA "Sebastian") and "Of Arms & the Law" blogger David Hardy, among others.

 

Full article below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/on-eve-of-election-pro-gu_b_2075429.html


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahomans Prepare for New Law That Will Make Guns a Common Sight

 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Bryan Hull will soon strap his Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver to his hip and meet his armed friends at Beverly’s Pancake House here. They have no interest in the cash register. They just want a late-night breakfast.

 

Businesses like First Fidelity Bank, in Norman, Okla., must decide how to handle those openly carrying guns.

 

A new law takes effect on Thursday in Oklahoma — anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm can choose to carry a weapon out in the open, in a belt or shoulder holster, loaded or unloaded.

 

More below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/oklahoma-prepares-for-open-carry-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are as useful to me as a drug like heroin/crack/PCP/LSD etc. I have no use for any of these things. Nor do I  understand the attraction of having such destructive things. I don't see that humans have shown the ability to use them responsibly. And as such if guns were made illegal tomorrow, I would not miss them one bit.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- Hofmann obviously forgot to read the Constitution, which states that the Militia's purpose is to "suppress Insurrections," not foment them.

 

Keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution had recently won an insurrection.  They likely did not see the issue as so cut and dry.  Jefferson in particular saw the militia as a check on the powers of the government. 

 

Then there’s the issue of who is defending the rule of legitimate law.  There has been a successful insurrection in favor of the actual law in the US as recently as 1946 (Athens, TN).

 

In the foreseeable future, there’s only one issue that might trigger an insurrection:  a serious attempt to disarm the population of the United States.  Indeed, it probably would trigger a very serious one as gun owners take the approach of “use them or lose them”. 

 

IMO, they are jumping the gun (pun intended).  While Obama, like the rest of the Chicago Machine, would certainly love to disarm the population, enough of his people seem to realize that it’s a losing issue at the ballot box and the risk of an uprising is real.

 

It also could be highly effective.  Consider the case of Northern Ireland.  The IRA and its allies and adversaries are very small and face civil liberties obstacles not seen here.  How long have they survived, and occasionally thrived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are as useful to me as a drug like heroin/crack/PCP/LSD etc. I have no use for any of these things. Nor do I  understand the attraction of having such destructive things. I don't see that humans have shown the ability to use them responsibly. And as such if guns were made illegal tomorrow, I would not miss them one bit.

 

Sorry, but that list reads like "dynamite/grenade/rocket launcher/unicorn" to anyone who knows a little about pharmacology.

 

Assuming unicorns could possibly hurt you, but don't have a tendency toward violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You totally lost me.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Considering Costas's personal and professional association with O. J. Simpson, his claim that not having a gun would have stopped Jovan Belcher from committing murder was somewhat ludicrous.  Indeed, what if Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman had been carrying one?  Wrong message, wrong moment, and very much the wrong messenger.  That['s why the stir fizzled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns make it easier to kill more people in less time. What's the murder rate in nations where guns are tougher to get?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LSD is not like the others. It is not very dangerous, all things considered.

 

drugtablefullve4.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125633.100-drugdanger-league-table-revealed.html

 

I was trying to make a joke by having LSD be a totally out of place unicorn. Because, well, it's LSD.

 

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds - The Beatles

 

Just don't go around talking about X drug being "very dangerous" unless you know the effects of the drug and they are very dangerous. It does a disservice to rationalizing our approach to the drug war, which IMO is an important issue to get right since we spend a lot of money on it and it results in a sh!tton of American citizens being in jail.

 

I'm sorry for going off topic, I will stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Considering Costas's personal and professional association with O. J. Simpson, his claim that not having a gun would have stopped Jovan Belcher from committing murder was somewhat ludicrous.  Indeed, what if Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman had been carrying one?  Wrong message, wrong moment, and very much the wrong messenger.  That['s why the stir fizzled out.

 

Given your choice for point of reference, I don't think you understood the commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, CNN updated the fatalities to 20, with ten being kids.

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

 

Children and adults gunned down in Connecticut school massacre

•There's been a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

•We're told "close to 20" people are dead, including at least 10 children

•Below are the latest updates as they come to us

 

 

The Post is saying the numbers are higher:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/state-police-respond-to-report-of-school-shooting-in-newtown-conn-lockdown-in-place/2012/12/14/df59a9aa-4602-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html?tid=socialss

 

Official with knowledge of Conn. school shooting: 27 dead, including 18 children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please get rid of guns now? This is sickening beyond words. These are children. Children!

 

EDIT: I just don't think that humans are responsible enough to have guns so freely. Maybe we were once upon a time, but not anymore.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if we just got rid of all the people, too, this would also never happen. :roll:

 

How many different studies are going to have to show that disarming law-abiding citizens increases violent crime rates (or at least is correlated with such increases) before the argument that law-abiding citizens need to be disarmed goes away?

 

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

 

At the very worst, one can show conflicting and inconclusive studies on the issue, and that's giving gun control advocates far more benefit of the doubt than is warranted, and far more than they give the Second Amendment's defenders:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if we just got rid of all the people, too, this would also never happen. :roll:

 

 

At the rate we're going, that might just happen. Sorry, but we haven't earned the right to keep guns. If Americans show the world the way, then we're showing the rest of the world they made the right choice to restrict gun ownership. They have safer societies than ours.

 

They're guns. They have few redeeming or valuable qualities. Get rid of them. They cause more pain and suffering than they're worth. Guns are a disease.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was reportedly 20, so in the next couple hours there will be talk of a video game ban, and they'll drag out stock video of Grand Theft Auto and Modern Warfare. This must be like what true believer NRA folks feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someday when a bunch of anti-gun terrorists get some automatic weapons, walk into the NRA offices and kill everyone there, maybe this country will join the rest of the world in being a more civil place? Or maybe they'll have to move on next to multiple gun stores or gun shows and mow everyone down just to make a point? I can see it coming.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no time to be defensive.  We need a really serious discussion about the type of guns which are made available to the public.  Early indications are that there were at least 100 rounds fired.  I suspect we will find that the gunman used some type of weapon which goes far beyond what would be considered reasonable for sport or self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is circulating on twitter

 

AP: Suspect used .223 caliber rifle. This is a picture of a .223 rifle. This is legal. A-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg:large

 

Even as someone who favors certain degrees of tighter gun control it's annoying. The caliber is irrelevant (until you get a lot larger obviously), and is making the argument ridiculous. This particular gun chosen because it's military looks when the scope, stock, grip, etc. just don't matter to the argument they should be making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we let children play with matches, near a boiling pot of water, play with uncovered electrical outlets, etc etc?

 

Because they don't know any better and don't know how to be responsible around such dangerous things.

 

Ditto for adults with guns.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if we just got rid of all the people, too, this would also never happen. :roll:

 

 

At the rate we're going, that might just happen. Sorry, but we haven't earned the right to keep guns.

 

That makes about as much sense as saying we haven't "earned" the right to free speech, to speedy and public trials, to equal protection, or to due process.

 

Rights, particularly constitutional rights, are not "earned."  You don't "earn" the right to practice your religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A man in China today went on a stabbing spree at a primary school there.  Care to guess how many lost their lives?

 

None.

 

How many Americans die from violent crime vs other industrialized nations?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rights, particularly constitutional rights, are not "earned."  You don't "earn" the right to practice your religion.

 

Do I not have to earn my right to a Howitzer?  An M1 tank?  A nuclear submarine?  Point being, there has to be a line.  There are certain things you can't say.  There are certain religions you can't "practice."  We need to re-evaluate which guns, and how many, you can rightfully own.  Let's not kid ourselves, no one owns a gun "for the purposes of a well-regulated militia"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for opening myself up to being accused of being "unpatriotic," "against freedom", or whatever else may come my way for saying this, but not all "rights" are equal and perhaps the Founding Fathers made a mistake with the Second Amendment, or at the very least in the ambiguity in the way it was written.  Sometimes we act like the Founders were infallible gods and I just don't buy it.  We have the power to govern ourselves and make decisions about freedoms and laws that are more realistic for the time period in which we live.  It's not the late 18th century anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes about as much sense as saying we haven't "earned" the right to free speech, to speedy and public trials, to equal protection, or to due process.

 

Rights, particularly constitutional rights, are not "earned."  You don't "earn" the right to practice your religion.

 

It most certainly does. All rights come with limitations. Anyone who abuses their rights gets them taken away, at varying degrees, ranging from fines to imprisonment to death.

 

And not all rights are absolute. Over the centuries these vary with societal experiences. Sooner or later, people decide they have had enough with the status quo and seek to change it. Many times we go too far. Many times we don't go far enough. But the right to have guns was a right created and preserved by human decision, not by some act of God. And thus we as humans can decide to also take those rights away if we decide we cannot no longer responsibly accept such rights.

 

BTW, with each shooting spree, I become less proud to be an American. I feel like I'm some ultra-patriotic, fundamentalist, militia man's wet dream. And I didn't sign up for this.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes about as much sense as saying we haven't "earned" the right to free speech, to speedy and public trials, to equal protection, or to due process.

 

Rights, particularly constitutional rights, are not "earned."  You don't "earn" the right to practice your religion.

 

It most certainly does. All rights come with limitations. Anyone who abuses their rights gets them taken away, at varying degrees, ranging from fines to imprisonment to death.

 

And not all rights are absolute. Over the centuries these vary with societal experiences. Sooner or later, people decide they have had enough with the status quo and seek to change it. Many times we go too far. Many times we don't go far enough. But the right to have guns was a right created and preserved by human decision, not by some act of God. And thus we as humans can decide to also take those rights away if we decide we cannot no longer responsibly accept such rights.

 

BTW, with each shooting spree, I become less proud to be an American. I feel like I'm some ultra-patriotic, fundamentalist, militia man's wet dream. And I didn't sign up for this.

 

Forgive me for opening myself up to being accused of being "unpatriotic," "against freedom", or whatever else may come my way for saying this, but not all "rights" are equal and perhaps the Founding Fathers made a mistake with the Second Amendment, or at the very least in the ambiguity in the way it was written.  Sometimes we act like the Founders were infallible gods and I just don't buy it.  We have the power to govern ourselves and make decisions about freedoms and laws that are more realistic for the time period in which we live.  It's not the late 18th century anymore.

 

Agreed on both counts. We were just stunned here at work.

 

Nine facts about guns and gun control in the US:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

 

This does not advocate either way for or against gun ownership, but it paints a portrait of just how violent as a nation we really are - and what policies may be politically supportive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

 

One of the first articles that Google pulled up on the .223 caliber ammunition.

 

So caliber doesn't really matter that much. This article gives a good explanation of what goes into a "man stopping round".

 

I am not a big gun fan, but these shootings are generally turning out to be more a health insurance/mental health services issue going back to the Gifford shooting. However readily available guns to the mentally ill still remains an issue. Also what is scary is the trend of these shooters wearing bullet proof vest to make sure they can maximize the carnage.

 

What kind of sick f*ck kills a room full of kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder, as emotional as this issue is for many of us (especially me), please refrain from the full spelling of profanity as it results in UrbanOhio being blocked at many workplaces. A strategically placed asterisk or other symbol is usually all that's needed to defeat such blocks.

 

Proof that many rights, including free speech, are not absolute.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These debates always come up when there is a mass shooting at a school or mall. It isn't a gun issue. It is a perp issue.

Who is the perp? do they have mental illness, male, young, yes, etc. Why don't perps attack the Police HQ?

At this school the door is supposed to be locked and you have to be buzzed in? So what happened.

 

God help us all if a massive solar flare knocks out the power grid, we are going to wish we had

100 Rifles with ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me for opening myself up to being accused of being "unpatriotic," "against freedom", or whatever else may come my way for saying this, but not all "rights" are equal and perhaps the Founding Fathers made a mistake with the Second Amendment, or at the very least in the ambiguity in the way it was written.  Sometimes we act like the Founders were infallible gods and I just don't buy it.  We have the power to govern ourselves and make decisions about freedoms and laws that are more realistic for the time period in which we live.  It's not the late 18th century anymore.

 

Then try to change the Constitution, but don't just ignore it as a meaningless inconvenience that you wish people would stop mentioning.

 

I'm well aware that the Founders made mistakes.  (Heck, we fought the Civil War over their biggest one.)  But I don't think constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms was one of those mistakes, and no, the events of today don't change my mind about that.  Plane crashes are dramatic and heartbreaking and the television cameras eat it up, but working to minimize such tragedies does not equate to a case for banning air travel entirely.  The same applies to high-visibility abuses of the right to keep and bear arms (and that's assuming that this shooter obtained his weapons lawfully, which may or may not be the case but is also not particularly relevant).  In fact, the heat of the moment generated by a rare, high-visibility event is exactly the wrong state of mind in which to suddenly start tearing away at our constitutional architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...