If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   NY Daily News editorial board outraged, I say OUTRAGED that Obama and Romney did NOT freak out and use the Aurora massacre for panicked petty political stumping   (nydailynews.com) divider line 327
    More: Asinine, NY Daily News, obama, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, morning, accident happened, anxiety disorders, body counts  
•       •       •

2829 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



327 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 06:08:38 PM  

The Name: I know not all gun-owners are gun nuts --many are quite reasonable and non-fanatical about their gun-ownership-- but I'm fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue. As far as I'm concerned, taking away even these peoples' guns is a small price to pay for a drop in gun crimes in this country.


So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society? That it's okay to simply abrogate the Constitution to make you feel better about a tragedy? How do you reconcile that with your otherwise liberal leanings, such as the right to privacy, free speech, choice, and a host of others?

BTW, your odds of being killed by a drunk driver are about twice those of being murdered by gun. Where is your outrage against the evil devices used to perpetrate these deaths? Where is your clarion call to outlaw cars so irresponsible drivers won't use them to kill thousands more innocent men, women and children every year?

Too easily sheeple like you are stampeded into surrendering their fundamental rights in the cynically manipulation of their fears. You should be ashamed to call yourself an adult.
 
2012-07-22 06:10:59 PM  

Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.

There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?




You were doing fine until this:

www.grammarics.com


THEN I knew you were an idiot.
 
2012-07-22 06:12:24 PM  

Hobodeluxe: hell he had to jump through less hoops than I have to to get my goddamned drivers license renewed this year. I have to have a birth certificate,social security card and 2 utility bills with my name and address on them. and I've had Ga license for almost 40 yrs now. goddamned GOP and their new voter ID laws making everything farking complicated. and don't even get me started on trying to buy primatene tablets for my asthma.


That's because you're a Democrat. If you were a Republican, which is to say white (in Georgia), you'd get all that shiat automatically waived.

/snark
 
2012-07-22 06:14:47 PM  

keithgabryelski: heypete: keithgabryelski: surely we don't. I don't consider the constitution some holy document that shouldn't be changed in the face of societal change.

And I do? I don't recall ever stating that or anything that could be construed that way.

yeah, those were different thoughts -- i didn't mean to impart the second on to you in any way -- that was poor juxtaposition of sentences on my part.

we have different needs now, as a country, than we did 200 years ago.

Certainly. No argument there. Fortunately, the Constitution includes mechanisms for amending it.

Do I wish that it were easier to amend the constitution? Sometimes -- there are certainly some changes that could be made to update it to reflect today's world, but I didn't write it and really don't have much say in the matter.

my reason for banning:

there is no need for a citizen to own a weapon that has firepower to assault a group of people. Much like automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted.

not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.


Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault weapons ban" and state-level restrictions have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Washington DC and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and they have significant amounts of violent crime.

but overall crime is not the issue -- it's the massive slaughter that an assault weapons ban would be intended to curtail.

What types of guns could be used to assault a group of people? Charles Whitman used a bolt-action Remington 700 rifle as the primary weapon in his 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas and killed a total of 16 people and wounded 32 others. Should bolt-action rifles, as are commonly used by hunters, be banned? What about revolvers? Revolvers can be used to assault groups of people. Should they be banned ...

I'm trying to find a position that allows for hunting of some type -- with the knowledge that a sharpened spoon can do a lot of damage if you are able to sneak up on a number of people.

Whitman is an interesting case -- my initial reaction would be the location of the weapon, ie, in a large community. He was in a fortified location (well, at least a protective location) with the advantage of height -- he had a great advantage because of his location and proximity to lots of people.

In any case, i'd be ok with a full ban on weapons in certain areas -- which includes both a bolt action and handgun.

I'd counter the ban with firing ranges inside city limits that could locker citizen's weapons for the time they wish and for use inside the range for training.


(Sorry for the wall of text. I'm on my mobile device and selective quoting isn't really easy.)

No problem. Just wanted to make sure it was clear that although we disagree I am (or at least try to be) a reasonable person.

I'm not sure I understand your reference to automatic weapons not being controlled enough: my understanding is that an automatic weapon was not used in this incident. Semi-auto guns are not "automatic".

I think the last time a crime was committed with a legally owned full auto gun was in the 80s, but I'm going off memory here.

Mass shootings are statistically very, very rare. Excluding this one, the major ones in the last 20 years or so: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson have all been committed with handguns. Such events are extremely high-profile and really get media attention, which serves to make people think they're more common.

Statistically, so-called "assault weapons" are used very rarely in crime, as are long guns of any type. It really doesn't make sense to place restrictions on such guns specifically. There already was a federal ban on "assault weapons" between 1994-2004 and there was essentially no effect on crime. Since mass shootings are so rare, it's not really possible to get good stats on the ban's effect on those events.

Also, recreational use of firearms (particularly AR-15s and similar modern guns) and the possession of firearms for defensive purposes outnumbers the use of firearms for hunting. The gun culture has changed quite a bit over the last few decades.

Your heart is in the right place, but the ideas you've proposed would serve to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding but not really have a meaningful effect on those who would use guns for crime.

Nobody wants violent crime (criminals excluded, perhaps) and mass shootings. It's just that we disagree on how to best go about effectively reducing such tragedies.

/It's late here in Europe, so please forgive me for leaving the discussion at this point. It's been nice to have a reasonable discussion, even though we disagree.
//Apologies again for the wall of text.
 
2012-07-22 06:15:41 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: /snark


FTFY.
 
2012-07-22 06:16:07 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society?


Said like someone who's never heard of Europe.
 
2012-07-22 06:20:27 PM  

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.


that may be true for automatics -- why not make it true for all weapons? that sounds like a good first step.
 
2012-07-22 06:21:28 PM  

dericwater: firefly212: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

lol, no... there's no such thing as a ccw zone in Colorado... there's like... federal buildings, post offices, and a couple other kinds of buildings you can't take guns into, but you couldn't possibly get a city ordinance to make a whole town be ccw-free. Liberal though I may be, we Coloradans do love guns. Aside from that, given the guy had an AR and a shotgun in addition to his two pistols, I don't really see how a ccw is relevant to him. In the theater, any well-trained person wouldn't have fired (even if they had their gun)... dark theater, hundreds of panicked patrons, tear gas f'n with your vision, and the shooter having body armor... odds are far higher that you'd end up killing an innocent person than killing the bad guy. Gohmert notwithstanding, reasonable gun owners would have done exactly what all the patrons of the theater did (given the numbers, I'd wager a couple had ccw permits and maybe even guns)... but you still do the right thing... get to a tactically better place, then evaluate the situation... given that police were on-site within two minutes, by the time any holders would have gotten to a reasonably safe place to engage, it was no longer their place to do so.

And any attempt to play cowboy after the police arrived would have marked that hotshot as an accomplice and be shot at by police officers. Not a wise position to get into.


Two young men who died had military backgrounds. One in the Navy, the other in the Air Force. Didn't seem to do any help for anyone. Two other young men died shielding their girlfriends and had no military background. Several others without military or police backgrounds and not carrying a gun dragged wounded loved ones and strangers to safety. Some others tried to help, but actually just put people into harm's way again because they didn't know what to do.

In a situation as chaotic as that one, how an individual reacts is something of a crap shoot. And the results of what these people did are unpredictable in terms of helping out or hurting. Some things people did helped protect others, and some things people did made things worse. And yet so many people, especially gun nuts, especially young gun nuts who think they're invincible, say with an almost creepy level of certainty that in that situation they would have, or the other people should have, done this or that, and I was/am a cop or a Marine or grew up with guns or hunted all my life so I know I would have done the exact right thing so that everything would have turned out alright. It's said with this tone that makes it sound like they salivate at the chance to prove how much of a superhero they are.

It bugs me, because honestly we don't know how we will react to an extreme situation that surprises us. And yet... It's easy to do this Monday Morning Quarterbacking thing from the safety of our home, on the computer and relatively anonymously. But it's equally disturbing that these same Monday morning quaterbacks never pull this kind of crap for disasters and tragedies that aren't caused by an armed psychotic. You don't see them saying how doctors or sick people should have reacted in the case of viral epidemics, or what they would do in those situations. You don't even see many doctors or nurses pulling that crap. It's just when it comes to situations involving weapons, a ton of people who have touched a weapon while touching themselves seems to have the absolute pinpoint perfect solution, and oh man if only they were there.
 
2012-07-22 06:27:49 PM  
In general, it's a bad idea to waste your time on a person who goes to the trouble of spelling Obama's name with a 0. It speaks of a mindset which is incredibly juvenile or incredibly divorced from reality.
 
2012-07-22 06:29:02 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.


Well, Obama did give us the first serious attempt at health care reform in decades, which Romney is now threatening to tear down (even though he implemented a similar program in Massachusetts). Also, Obama actually managed to get Bin Laden, when all we ever got from Bush was failure and apathy. So there's that.
 
2012-07-22 06:31:57 PM  

keithgabryelski: Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: not heavily restricted enough it seems. and it seems that there are a bunch of grandfather clauses for rapid fire weapons. these seem unreasonable. the idea that weapons should not be fully tracked seems unreasonable.

NFA automatic firearms are one of the most fully tracked items in the country. You need to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own one. You need to get approval to transfer one to anyone, who will also have to register, pay a lot of money and get permission to own it. You need to inform the ATF to transport one across any state line. The government probably knows where 99 percent of them are at any time. The only thing they could do to track them better is weld a GPS unit on all of them. You can't "grandfather" your way out of any of this.

that may be true for automatics -- why not make it true for all weapons? that sounds like a good first step.


Good luck getting 3/4s of the States to agree with you.
 
2012-07-22 06:45:20 PM  

The Name: StoneColdAtheist: So, you're just "fed up with all the pussyfooting on the issue" of private gun ownership, are you? It doesn't bother you that you just said that you don't give a flying fark about living in a democratic society?

Said like someone who's never heard of Europe.


Familiar enough to know that the United States does not operate under European law (ignoring the fact that I've been practically everywhere in western Europe and literally spent years of my life there).

But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. Or is the document "just a piece of paper" to you?
 
2012-07-22 06:47:02 PM  

heypete:
The use of rifles (regardless of type) are rarely used in violent crime: they tend to be larger, harder to conceal, and generally not well suited for most crime. Handguns are more common, but are also frequently used for defensive purposes -- the number of defensive uses of firearms (that is, where they are used to protect the user from death or serious bodily injury) exceeds the criminal use, so it can be argued that they have a net benefit.

it's not obvious to me that removing all rights to handguns isn't a reasonable solution -- maybe conceal and carry is a good first step with severe limitations on any carrying inside community limits should the community value such things.


Previous restrictions on firearms, such as the 1994-2004 federal "assault ...


i think you misunderstand my intentions. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to stop what happened last week.

I basically don't see a reason to have firearms in cities -- and marginal reasons outside of cities.

if that right was taken away (inside cities), i'd be fine with it -- and I bet most people would have a hard time coming up with a logical reason to allow them.

90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

let's get rid of this gun culture -- how did we get to a point where holding a gun sideways is cool? someone had to think holding a gun was cool first and one-up it.

let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.
 
2012-07-22 06:47:41 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.


As part of a well-regulated militia.
 
2012-07-22 06:53:44 PM  

keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.


Now you're blatantly trolling.
 
2012-07-22 06:56:07 PM  

keithgabryelski: let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.




Good God....you're either an idiot or a troll....perhaps both.
 
2012-07-22 07:06:09 PM  

Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.


Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.
 
2012-07-22 07:06:43 PM  

HeartBurnKid: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Well, Obama did give us the first serious attempt at health care reform in decades, which Romney is now threatening to tear down (even though he implemented a similar program in Massachusetts). Also, Obama actually managed to get Bin Laden, when all we ever got from Bush was failure and apathy. So there's that.


It is sad that smart people like the ones that post on this site are unwilling to see the forest for the trees. I weep for you and your kind. It will be your undoing.
 
2012-07-22 07:12:30 PM  

Farker Soze: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

Now you're blatantly trolling.


not sure where i got that number. it seems off now that i'm looking at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

but we seem to be closer to the top than I am comfortable with.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:02 PM  

The_Sponge: keithgabryelski: let's get rid of these guns -- where they are not essentially needed -- toss em.

collectors -- sorry, you can put them in a museum -- I'm ok with that.



Good God....you're either an idiot or a troll....perhaps both.


for what cause -- the collector comment? i don't see that as stupid or trolling.
 
2012-07-22 07:14:55 PM  

Kome: It bugs me, because honestly we don't know how we will react to an extreme situation that surprises us. And yet... It's easy to do this Monday Morning Quarterbacking thing from the safety of our home, on the computer and relatively anonymously. But it's equally disturbing that these same Monday morning quaterbacks never pull this kind of crap for disasters and tragedies that aren't caused by an armed psychotic. You don't see them saying how doctors or sick people should have reacted in the case of viral epidemics, or what they would do in those situations. You don't even see many doctors or nurses pulling that crap. It's just when it comes to situations involving weapons, a ton of people who have touched a weapon while touching themselves seems to have the absolute pinpoint perfect solution, and oh man if only they were there.


I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.
 
2012-07-22 07:15:06 PM  

LibertyHiller: Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.

Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.


That is something interpreted about our Constitution. And one that I'm fine with, to be honest. But explicit mention of a private right for individuals to keep and bear arms is not, technically, in the Constitution.
 
2012-07-22 07:15:06 PM  

heypete: keithgabryelski: Is there a reasonable reason to own an assault weapon or have the ability to purchase thousands of rounds of bullets?

Define "assault weapon". Be specific, please.

If you mean AR-15s, yes, there's plenty of reasons why they should be open for ownership: they're one of the most widely-used firearms in America for a reason. They're moderately priced, reasonably accurate, have tons of accessories/mods, fire a reasonably affordable cartridge, have good ergonomics, adjustable components for shooters of various sizes and builds, etc. They're extremely popular. Their only "sin" is that they look scary to some people.

They're functionally identical to other semi-auto rifles like the Mini-14: they fire the same cartridge at comparable velocities. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 banned AR-15s (among others) but not Mini-14s even though they're essentially the same. California's AWB still does. There's really no reason why they should be restricted and other semi-auto rifles not.

As for thousands of rounds of ammo, I don't really see the concern: I can easily go through 200 rounds of ammo during a range session. Many vendors offer discounts for bulk purchases because it saves them effort: rather than needing to unpack all the 20-round boxes from a 1,000 case, they can just put a shipping label on the case itself and send it. Same thing with even larger quantities. For example, ammoman.com offers a $20 discount if you buy 5,000 rounds of ammo at a time rather than the 1,000 case.

When military-surplus .30-06 Springfield ammo was available from South Korea at reasonable prices, I would routinely buy a few thousand rounds a week for a month or two -- it's military-surplus, so they're not making any new ammo, the price was right, and it ran great through my M1 Garand. Nothing nefarious about that.

.22 Long Rifle ammo is commonly available in 500-round "bricks". Considering the relative cost of shipping ammo, it's often cheaper to buy in bulk. ...


That's all wonderful - I just have one question.

Why?

I mean, besides "cause it's cool", because frankly Stinger missiles are cool as well, but for some reason the govt won't let me have those either.

Seriously. I have a couple of guns, left by my father. They're neat gadgets, and I can see the interest in collecting and firing them at targets. I can even see the interest in having one around the house for security purposes, even though I 1) doubt I'll be near the gun when the shyt hits the fan and 2) would probably do more harm than good if I had it.

Much like people with Big-Ass dogs, *their* dog is a harmless little mushball but *everyone elses* dog had been abused to the point they kill anything that moves.

Does your need for unfettered access to guns and ammo overshadow any responsibility that having that kind of access enables the nutbags of the world to do?

Because I am willing to stipulate gun training requirements, and special permits/interviews for unusual weapons *because* I don't believe being *careful* with dangerous toys is "stepping on my Gog given Rights".

YMMV
 
2012-07-22 07:16:04 PM  

keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.


How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?
 
2012-07-22 07:21:54 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?


yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.

hey -- sorry man... i was off by an order on gun related deaths (not murders).

you can focus on this error -- or engage me in the argument at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

firearms related deaths are way to high and comparable with third world nations.
 
2012-07-22 07:22:07 PM  
Gog?
 
2012-07-22 07:39:29 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.


I think a problem is that people, no matter their background, are so caught up in the fantasy that since we are all for the most part well-intentioned people, the outcomes of whatever we do will be good things. Many professionals and amateurs or expertly trained individuals who are just trying to help do screw up, and sometimes screw up badly. It's why you can sue your physician for medical malpractice. Sometimes a competent and genuinely good person fails to consider something that should have been considered. There are, without a doubt, numerous stories of people who failed to consider the potential bad outcomes and nothing bad did happen (or nothing worse occurred, at least). But there are likely many more stories out there of people who failed to think things through all the way and something worse did happen. You can never know in a particular situation, especially one you've never been in before, the precise cascade of effects that your actions will have, but that doesn't seem to stop some people from thinking the most brazen actions they could possibly make will be both (a) the ones that they do make and (b) the absolute right call to make.
 
2012-07-22 07:41:39 PM  

keithgabryelski: StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?

yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.

hey -- sorry man... i was off by an order on gun related deaths (not murders).

you can focus on this error -- or engage me in the argument at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

firearms related deaths are way to high and comparable with third world nations.


Looks like the number is around 35-36k / year from your source.
 
2012-07-22 07:41:48 PM  

Kome: LibertyHiller: Kome: StoneColdAtheist: But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution.

As part of a well-regulated militia.

Sounds like someone never read the Heller decision.

That is something interpreted about our Constitution. And one that I'm fine with, to be honest. But explicit mention of a private right for individuals to keep and bear arms is not, technically, in the Constitution.


Well, technically, it's in an amendment. But even if you don't consider amendments to be "in" the Constitution, at the time it was written, the overwhelming consensus (e.g. Blackstone, Mason, Story) was that individuals had a private right to keep and bear arms.
 
2012-07-22 07:47:34 PM  
I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.
 
2012-07-22 07:53:42 PM  

CheapEngineer: Gog?


Magog.
 
2012-07-22 08:06:54 PM  

keithgabryelski: StoneColdAtheist: keithgabryelski: 90,000 murders by guns each year in the united states.

How can you expect anyone to take your other points seriously when you spout such errant and easily disproved nonsense?

yet, you are willing to engage me after I corrected the mistake.


No, I type slowly and am active right now on other tabs and non-Fark forums... :)

But your adjusted number is also wrong. According the Centers for Disease Control, whose job it is to track such things, in 2009 (the latest year for which there are official stats) there were 11,493 homicides by firearm in the USA. That's high enough, but is still about one-eighth of the number you initially quoted.
 
2012-07-22 08:10:08 PM  

jso2897: I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.


Try to be better people and build a better world... how? If not by trying to influence people's behaviors through laws, or restrict their access to weapons through regulation, or help improve detection and intervention for the mentally unstable, then how?

The problem with saying "There will always be..." is that it sends the message that we can offload the responsibility of trying to come up with a solution. If you don't think this is the type of problem that warrants a lot of deep thought on your side, that's fine. We all have issues that we care deeply about and we all have issues we don't care so much about. But please don't come in with the whole "There will always be..." line. We may always have polio on this planet, but a lot of phenomenal minds who cared about the issue a lot managed to make it much less of the problem than it used to be. Maybe taking a good hard look at our laws, our regulations, and our mental health system might not do much, but they are the logical places to start even if they don't turn out to be the places we should end up. Just because psychotic people intent on doing harm will "always" find a way to do so doesn't necessarily mean the rest of society should make it easier for them by allowing them access to assault rifles more easily than someone can get an appointment with a counselor.

Complacency in the face of a problem is the surest fire way to keep the problem from ever being minimized. This is as true for deranged lunatics as it is any other problem.
 
2012-07-22 08:15:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I've been saying that since this went down, and nobody bothers to respond...which tells me I'm absolutely right, that these armchair warriors are just SO SURE they'd have done something different, they never bother to think of themselves ACTUALLY BEING in that situation. In their minds, they could have shot this guy right between the eyes in a dark, smoke-filled theater full of panicked people struggling for the exits--so of course the problem is people need moar gunz.


When I was bouncing, there were a LOT of folks who leaped up AFTER a situation boiled over. Plenty of folks who had sound advice for what we SHOULD have done, popping wise after the folks were down and being hauled off.

Most of them just stood around and watched. Or weren't even aware of what was happening until long after.

Even if you're trained, and ready, bad things can happen. I was stabbed three times by a guy who had a Swiss Army knife tucked away, and we missed it. I had one of his buddies and was locking his arm up, and this little guy stuck me. Never saw it coming. Luckily, he only had a itty bitty blade out, and the ribs took most of the force, which is their job, so Go Evolution! for them doing their job. My buddy tackled the little bastiche, and nearly 300lbs of pissed off Scottish bouncer fell on this poor 120lb Chollo wannabe, and no one in the crowd even realized what had happened. Heck, half of the muttering was the excessive force that was used on the little guy by the big bad mean bouncer. We handed the guy off to the cops, and I got my stitches, and most of the crowd didn't even register what had happened.

We got offered weapons fair often when I was bouncing. Pepper spray, stun guns, a whole raft of ideas were floated around. We refused, because the last thing you want in a crowd of folks who are in various stages of being drunk or high is pepper spray, and stun guns and tasers can be taken away and used on you. The one thing we kept were our mini-mag lights, which made excellent fulcrums for hand and wrist locks, and impromptu hand loads if things got messy on the floor. We did that, because we didn't want to hurt innocent folks. And that is really what you have to realize when you carry any weapon--can it be taken? Will it blow through a wall and injure a bystander? What happens if I miss? To use a weapon effectively, you have to understand all those principles, and in an enclosed area, with bystanders, you have to be aware of all those factors. Which is why I am a firm advocate for weapons licensing with training. Not just fill out a form, and roll on, but train folks not just how to fire, and basic safety, but when to use the sucker.

When were training for bouncing, we trained with a good number of cops. We trained for the near impossible disarms--defending against a knife in close quarters against someone who knows how to use one and you don't have a weapons is not just hard, it WILL generally get you sliced up. You have to accept that, and move on, and the one time I did have to do a knife disarm, I was lucky in that it was some idiot who just waved it around. We trained on weapons disarms of several sorts--guns, knives, sticks, and even hand loads. The one thing we were drilled, is that under 20 feet, pulling a gun is rarely effective against someone with knife or other hand weapon. In the time it takes to clear a weapon and bring it to bear, they're on you. Probably having stuck you a few times, by the time you can even think about bringing it up.

In a situation with a weapon already drawn, the best plan is to get under cover, draw, and then take a bead. Not try to play cowboy. That gets people shot every year. Because people watch movies and imagine that they can BE that guy. And the real world ain't like that. When to shoot is as important as how to shoot. And I'd rather see folks trained, and trained well, than just have guns floating around.
 
2012-07-22 08:19:59 PM  

Kome: jso2897: I can understand the impulse. You here about something this awful - this mindless and incomprehensible - and your mind just recoils. you want it not to be. And you want to DO something - something to somehow make it better, or stop it happening again. You really, really want to.
But sometimes, you can't. We live in a crowded, technologically capable and rather anonymous society. And as long as we do - things like this will happen. In a nation of 300 million people, there are always going to be a few really crazy ones up to something bad - and they will hurt some people.
Confiscatory gun laws won't prevent it.
Making all citizens arm themselves won't prevent it.
Making mental health care more available won't prevent it either - the truly, virulently mad rarely seek or accept help. It would be a good thing - but it won't stop this.
And there is a danger here - we have already seen how trying to prevent an unpreventable evil by force of law can lead to worse results (drugs) - and we have to resist the impulse to start randomly passing laws whenever something bad happens. Trying too hard to remedy that which cannot be entirely remedied can lead to cures that are worse than the disease.
Try to be better people. Try to build a better world. But accept that human life is not a pain free, tragedy free experience. No matter how evolved we become, tragedy and suffering will always be with us.

Try to be better people and build a better world... how? If not by trying to influence people's behaviors through laws, or restrict their access to weapons through regulation, or help improve detection and intervention for the mentally unstable, then how?

The problem with saying "There will always be..." is that it sends the message that we can offload the responsibility of trying to come up with a solution. If you don't think this is the type of problem that warrants a lot of deep thought on your side, that's fine. We all have issues that we care deeply about and we all have issues we don't care so much about. But please don't come in with the whole "There will always be..." line. We may always have polio on this planet, but a lot of phenomenal minds who cared about the issue a lot managed to make it much less of the problem than it used to be. Maybe taking a good hard look at our laws, our regulations, and our mental health system might not do much, but they are the logical places to start even if they don't turn out to be the places we should end up. Just because psychotic people intent on doing harm will "always" find a way to do so doesn't necessarily mean the rest of society should make it easier for them by allowing them access to assault rifles more easily than someone can get an appointment with a counselor.

Complacency in the face of a problem is the surest fire way to keep the problem from ever being minimized. This is as true for deranged lunatics as it is any other problem.


The thing about this tragedy, is that the knee jerk reactions on the part of the folks who fear "gun grabbers" unfortunately make things far more difficult.

There millions of responsible gun owners in this country. Folks who enjoy sport s...hooting, who carry legal concealed carries for various reasons. There are also millions of less than responsible gun owners, who treat their guns as a fetish to hold up against the gub'ment, the Illegals, the Gang Bangers or whatever myth that they have in their heads, but really, just want to have a hogleg at their side so they can feel like a cowboy.

And then we have criminals.

Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.

We need to have a frank discussion on reasonable gun control and licensing. Licensing is something not keeping folks from having arms, but it's nice to know who is qualified to use arms, and who has what, just in case.

There are folks who are carrying today who have no business near a weapon of any kind. There are criminals carrying weapons that have never seen a licensed dealer. We take the guns off the streets entirely, folks will find other ways to do each other in, because simply taking arms away won't change the reasons that people turn to violence, and THAT is the discussion that gets lost in these sorts of debates.

Mental health issues, poverty issues, job issues, economic mobility issues, drug and criminal issues, education and access issues. These are what we NEED to discuss when we talk about violent crime. Instead, folks are focusing on the tools used to commit the crimes. Just about any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right. As a chef, I carry to work enough carbon steel to flense down a deer or cow in fair time. More, I have access to the means to make someone disappear within days if I run a few specials, and few would be the wiser, and probably even compliment the results. I have the means, and the opportunity, I don't have a reason. Simply having access doesn't turn folks into killers. People turn to violence for reasons, and we continue to focus on the tools, as opposed to the reasons folks turn to violence. And that is what cripples any real debate on crime.

Gun control issues should be less about the tools, but rather focus on the real issue: crime. Peoples' fear of crime and the reasons people turn to crime. Sadly, as a nation, we're not ready for that discussion really, because that would entail a lot more work than we're really ready for, and that would mean actually solving problems that people profit from greatly...
 
2012-07-22 08:26:07 PM  
hubiestubert

I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I said the same thing, you were just more eloquent and colorful.
 
2012-07-22 08:41:12 PM  

Kome: hubiestubert

I have a sneaking suspicion that you and I said the same thing, you were just more eloquent and colorful.


lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-07-22 08:45:28 PM  
Scripture says he will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

Barrack Obama

circa 2 minutes ago in Aurora.
 
2012-07-22 08:47:54 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: bigsteve3OOO: Snatch Bandergrip: bigsteve3OOO: Another in the long list of "There is no difference between the two candidates" I mean seriously can anyone show me one difference between Bush 2 and 0bama and Romney? I cant think of one.

Ask Osama bin Laden.

Both tried.

[encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 230x219]



Operation Cannonball. Look it up.
 
2012-07-22 08:49:53 PM  
Cmon man ise the telkeprompter in speeches. This is embarassong.
 
2012-07-22 08:53:38 PM  
i1161.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-22 08:56:17 PM  

jmr61: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Mrtraveler01: Giltric: I thought Aurora was a gun free zone or something where CCW was not allowed.....due to the Columbine massacre 20 miles away.

Let me guess, you're one of those folks who think that this would've all been prevented if they allowed CCW in cinemas in Aurora.

Because anyone can accurately shoot a guy in a dark and smoky movie theater without harming someone else unintentionally.

*rolls eyes*

Not anyone....some people, sure.

Some groups do live fire training with living hostages sitting in front of paper targets.......

Are you saying it's impossible?

And the chances of someone that skilled being at a cinema in Aurora, CO at midnight are...?

I'm saying it's not realistic.

There were military personnel in the theatre at the time....some might even be victims, but none were armed, and I don;t have access to their dd214's to see if they attended any schools where they might be more proficient in violence of action then normal military personnel.

It could be more realistic then you think.

u skeered?



You were doing fine until this:

[www.grammarics.com image 444x300]


THEN I knew you were an idiot.


Are you an english lit major or something?

Cause I would kill for a large coffee right now.
 
2012-07-22 09:00:42 PM  

heypete: /dies a little every time he sees the prices for .30-06.


get a Mosin-Nagant, has the satisfying ***BOOM*** and only hits hard on your shoulder, not your wallet. $98-$160 for the rifle, 17-25 cents per round for the russian surplus it was meant to fire.

available in full length model 91/30 and carbine m-44

ammo typically comes in sealed 440 round spam cans, or wood crates with two spam cans. you will want to buy a crate at first usually, or find a supplier that can guarantee you a can opener (looks like the one on your pocketknife, just much larger) since the openers come in each crate, and so crates always have one, cans have them half the time usually, also you will usually be guaranteed one if you order 2 spam cans, but double check where you order from to make sure, or you might end up with well sealed ammo and nothing to open it with.

other spam cans look more like bricks ans open like sardine cans, these don't need the tool but also look a little flimsy
 
2012-07-22 09:05:45 PM  

Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]


:-)
 
2012-07-22 09:12:55 PM  
Dear scumbag daily news

Fark you and the jackass you rode in on. This was a horrfic shooting by a madman and is not something we need to bring politics into.

tittysprinkles, lanadapter

/open letter
//best you're going to get
///fark off
 
2012-07-22 09:16:02 PM  

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)


But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.
 
2012-07-22 09:18:48 PM  
Oh boy! Gun thread!

i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-22 09:28:54 PM  

Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.


it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.
 
2012-07-22 09:39:02 PM  

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.

it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


Since most gun deaths are gang related, the "fascination" with firearms have little to do with anything. It's mostly drugs and money. Some gangster with a shiatty Hi-Point isn't fascinated with guns so much as he's vying for money, drugs, or power.

The other most common gun death is suicide. Want to ban guns because of suicide? Well, just look at Japan.
 
2012-07-22 09:41:02 PM  

Frank N Stein: Since most gun deaths are gang related, the "fascination" with firearms have little to do with anything. It's mostly drugs and money. Some gangster with a shiatty Hi-Point isn't fascinated with guns so much as he's vying for money, drugs, or power.


that seems like a good enough reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 327 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report