Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by yosi
'The right to bear arms' is not as important, as how we decide to use them in everyday life. I have a cousin who is always irritating that will be coming by for Christmas, and also alcohol will be consumed. What is the odds that we will suffer a home invasion, vs my cousin will tick me off? How about a home invasion, vs children being in my home, who are curious and resourceful? What about my significant other and I getting into a fight, vs a home invasion?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591
I blame all those guns everyone carries!
A nicely done editorial by P.Z.Myers->
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ught-to-start/
Another school shooting today:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...0,524403.story
'It's crazy. I never thought something like this would happen at our theatre," ABC News quoted cinema employee Leny Vega as saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Presumably ok to happen in another cinema. And without guns, they'd have argued, maybe even come to blows, but no-one would have died. Oh well.....
I think the shooter may have been hit with popcorn, thrown at him. One of the un-popped seeds could have possibly hit him in the eye and blinded him. The popcorn may have contained butter, which could have made a slippery spot on the floor. Then when the shooter left the theater he could have slipped and fallen, potentially producing a serious injury. The man was clearly justified in using deadly force. After investigation, it was found that on the 'victim's' Facebook page, he was going to go "Orville Redenbacher" on somebody soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
:confused::yayo:
What kind of society thinks it's ok to go and see a movie with a gun?
And now a 12-year old has been involved in a school shooting. A 12-year old
Fucked up doesn't begin to describe it.
It's not guns at all, it's data rage! That's alright then
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/slimy-fox...e-and-machines
You can never be too careful. Other volumes available in this series: dogs, ferrets, hamsters and stick insects.
While I agree that is tragic and horrific that a 12 year old was involved in a school shooting... you dance past a larger issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
What kind of society thinks it's ok to go see a movie with a gun? The same society that thinks it ok and legal to engage in most of once life with a gun in a visible or concealed condition (ie most of the states (depending on permitting/licensing)).
We all know about the James Holmes attack on a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises... what I still find sad and at the same time hilarious... is that I was able to see an early showing of the movie thanks to my employer (before the shooting), a week later, I watched the film for a second time with a friend at a local theater (after the Aurora shooting), a week after that, I went to see it a third time with the wife... two of the three times armed, as I normally am.
During my second and third viewings, I happened to be carrying my normal concealed pistol... what was laughable, was on my third viewing (with my wife), her purse was inspected for weapons... not my ankle, not my hip, not the small of my back, nor any of my pockets... only one of which was carrying a legally carried and concealed pistol... which excluded most of the places she could be carrying a legally concealed pistol on her person as well then.
Shocked by her treatment, after the movie we hung out in eye shot of the ticket taker who was conducting the 'inspections' and witnessed the continued unevenness of the security theater he was engaging in. Checking bags, but not in coats or in pants, waistbands or pockets.
Like it or not, it is legal in most states to carry a concealed weapon on ones person (often requiring a permit) in most places, including movie theaters.
What sort of sick society is it where people get shot to death in movies theaters for texting during the commercials and previews? What sort of society is it where little boys with adult bodies have to take their toys with them where ever they go? In what sort of society is it hilarious to smuggle a firearm into a space where the host requests you not do so? But most of all, in what sort of society are there dim brained idiots who pay to see The Dark Night Rises on three separate occasions???
Like it or not, regardless of its legality, it is irresponsible, childish, paranoid and self-defeating to carry a concealed penis compensator on your person in a public place (including a movie theater). If they weren't a danger to themselves and those around them, the dim bulbs who do so would be hilarious.
I think the problem might be cultural as much as legal. There are just too many pussies like bobvela around, aware of their shortcomings as men, who think that having a device that could allow them to kill people makes them a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Bobvela with his ankle pistol at the movie theater. His wife, with the hand grenades in her purse. Quite a pair. Finding it hilarious that the security guard doesn't know where blowhards are most likely to hide their weapons. The place has a no-guns policy, making entry conditional upon not carrying a weapon, but Bobvela doesn't care because as a real American he has a right to carry a weapon in the presence of little kids at a theater. What a prick.
None of this is meant as an insult Bobvela;). I'm sure on some level you understand my arguments.
As if that isn't bad enough, Nigel Farage who leads the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which is tipped to do well in the elections this Spring and the general election next year, wants a relaxation of the gun control laws in the UK, as stated in this extract:
The Ukip leader criticised the "kneejerk" restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.
The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair's Labour government in 1997.
Asked about gun controls, Farage said: "I think proper gun licensing is something we've done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.
"If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It's really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...l-laws-relaxed
:D:D Hilarious. That is a good question. He was conducting an experiment to see how many times he could slip his firearms past that hapless security guard. Can you imagine such institutional incompetence. Not checking his wife for explosives, not checking him for a detonator, not doing a strip-search to look for injectable poisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This just occurred to me. Maybe Bobvela can confirm whether I'm right. He saw the movie just after the attack, fully strapped, to send a message. This movie had a symbolic significance to him given that a bunch of people were killed and he, ostensibly could have prevented the tragedy because he's always prepared for that sort of thing. By going three times, he was sending the message loud and clear that he was not afraid of James Holmes, who by that time was already in a jail cell. Fearlessness personified.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
What I don't understand is how he went to one of the showings without his gun. In my view the other theater-goers have a good argument that he committed reckless endangerment by creating the expectation that he was going to protect them, and then coming completely unprepared. That would be like Superman going to the movie theater, but forgetting his cape at the drycleaners.
I wonder if Bobvela had been at the screening where the killings took place would have started a gunfight... and how many more might have died in the crossfire. Just absurd that inadequates like him are allowed to carry weapons. and then boast about it.
and Stavros, thanks for your note re UKIP.
Bobvela, you're such a pussy. I went to Dark Knight Rising 5 times with 5 different girlfriends. I wore a fake cast/boot on my leg so no one would think twice about my noticeable limp. And I had an AK-47 down my pant leg, every time. Had a fire fight broke out in the theatre, the bad guys would have been dead in seconds while you and your wife would have been fumbling around with your pee shooters in the dark, wondering who to shoot.
Grow a pair, dude. Ammo up!
I wonder if people think the proposal in Missouri to execute condemned men by firing squad is relevant to this thread? The chemicals used in lethal injections have run out and some of the new 'cocktails' though they do kill are no as efficient. Other than doing away with capital punishment, there is talk of bringing back the electric chair and the gas chamber...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...cution-methods
Why not? It’s not like there’s any progress on the gun issue to discuss.Quote:
I wonder if people think the proposal in Missouri to execute condemned men by firing squad is relevant to this thread?
My own perspective on capital punishment is somewhat ambiguous. I’m against it: not in principle but in practice. It has always been applied asymmetrically to maintain the economic, social and cultural hegemony of those in position to abuse it.
But capital punishment is alive and flourishing here in the U.S. of A. One way to answer the question, “What device, poisons, procedure etc. should the State use to carry out a death sentence?” is to ask yourself, “If I were condemned by the State, how would I like to go?”
Death by bullet wound is unpredictably quick or slow. It all depends on the marksmanship of the executioners and their desire to practice that marksmanship on the condemned man or woman. Besides, a firing squad involves a whole squad of executioners in a practice of questionable morality.
Here’s how I’d like to go, if condemned. I lie down, place my head between an anvil like staging platform and the business end of a hydraulic, high-speed, industrial stamping press. When ready, I squeeze the trigger on the remote in my hand (or the executioner does) and BLAM! My brain is pressed flat in a fraction of a second and it’s all over. Over for me...not the clean up crew.
I am opposed to capital punishment as a matter of principle, and because in practical terms it assumes the condemned has received a fair trial and a sentence that merits the crime when in too many cases an examination of the process reveals flaws that do not merit a death sentence.
The principle of capital punishment can only exist as an exact reflection of the crime -in which case both parties -the state and the condemned- are engaged in an act of murder. If murder is wrong, then it must be wrong for the state to practice it. The methods chosen by the state to kill are interesting in themselves. When the guillotine was introduced in France it was hailed as a swift, efficient and even humane mode of execution. By contrast, the beheading by sword is less efficient, it has been known to take even an expert in Saudi Arabia two or three swipes to completely sever the head from the body. The correlation of beheading with contemporary practice in some parts of the world I assume means it is repugnant in the USA, yet I amazed that even after the revelations of the Nazi death camps, the gas chamber was continued until its last use in Colorado in 1967.
I think this another thread anyway; and I don't approve of your chosen method, Trish, as I can't imagine you ever being condemned of a crime. But there is still time...!!
NOBODY owns another person's life. Therefore it is my opinion that capital punishment can never be justified.
One of the most interesting murder cases we learn about in American law schools is a British case called Dudley v. Stephens. And if I remember the holding of the case, it is that the only necessity that allows someone to take a life is that which exists in self-defense. The case involved British sailors who killed their cabin boy because he was starving anyway, and afterall they needed to eat. So, they saved two lives by taking his. The court held it was murder because the boy was not an actual threat to them, so self-defense did not apply, even in the case of strict necessity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
But an act of homicide is not necessarily murder. I wonder if some argument could be made that if in a capital case the victim would have been able to take the defendant's life to save his own, the state can vindicate his interests post hoc. By killing the defendant after the fact, the state steps in for the victim and does what he failed to do in real time.
Of course, self-defense doesn't actually cover acts of revenge. But if a person can forfeit his right to live in the process of killing someone, it's not a huge stretch to say that he might forfeit it after the fact upon a careful judicial determination.
Anyhow, I believe the crown stepped in and pardoned the condemned men in Dudley v. Stephens. So, the state can and does occasionally violate individual liberties for what they view as the greater good of a community.
In Dudley, there was a utilitarian calculation that two living cannibals was better than three dead sailors. I wonder if there's a place for the state to make these kinds of utilitarian calculations in extreme cases. Does the public policy of deterring murder justify the killing of murderers?
I oppose the death penalty for the same reasons as Trish. But I don't have any moral qualms about someone being killed, if it could be determined that he/she killed someone with a culpable mental state and had no legal excuse.
I just want to add that I respect the position taken by Ananke and Stavros on the death penalty. That is more of a civil libertarian position I think...there are some things the state should not be able to take from a person regardless of how compelling the need.
One interesting place where courts have struggled with the issue of necessity is in the case of conjoined twins where only one is viable. The courts have tried to make very attenuated self-defense arguments to justify the killing of the "parasitic" twin in order to save the life of the "stronger" twin. If courts have so much trouble making the argument that a doctor should be able to kill one child in surgery out of necessity, I can understand the apprehension in the case of the death penalty where the state is never executing a person out of necessity.
There's also a third possible reason to object to the death penalty. That is that you think the state should be able to kill but you don't think it actually serves any public policy. Does the death penalty deter murder? Does the death penalty provide an extra order of punishment over life imprisonment?
Edit: Last paragraph misleading. What I mean to say is that you think the state should be able to make a utilitarian calculation and kill if it increases total utility, but you don't believe it ever does. In a sense, you don't think the killing of a criminal accomplishes much of anything and maybe it comes at a great cost.
Broncofan -I think this is moving away from the intentions of the thread, so it might be best to create a new one for issues like capital punishment, euthanasia and so on. Briefly, there is clearly no evidence that the presence of the death penalty has ever deterred murder.
True. Next post in this thread on gun laws or another thread at some point for this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
U.S. Judge Upholds State's Tough Assault Weapons Ban
Merely the latest in a series of decisions by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, that have upheld assault weapon bans.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to own an AR-15. This has been self-evident to many of us for some time, but it's nice to have courts affirm it.
Nobody outside the Armed Forces needs, or should be allowed to own, an AR-15. It's utterly mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
:loser:......:yayo:
Call me crazy... but I thought they were called the 'bill of rights'... not the 'bill of needs'.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
More so... you realize that the Armed Forces do not much use the AR-15... instead they use the M-16 (variants).
What's the difference? Semi-automatic vs burst fire/fully automatic. Or are you advocating to limiting the US armed forced to using only semi-automatic rifles in combat?
Lets ignore your error in definitions for a moment... we'll assume you meant an M-16...
That being said... are you aware of what it takes for a civilian (or private organization) to lawfully own an M-16 (which is legal, though difficult), thus subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was expanded in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Firearm Owners' Protection Act in 1986?
It has long requires a Class 3 tax stamp from the BATFE which costs $200, which these days tends to take ~9 months for the BATFE to come back on your paperwork... which for an individual requires finger printing and the OK of your local chief law enforcement officer (who don't always say ok).
Even if you go the trust or corporation route, you get to avoid the local LEO signoff & fingerprinting... but still get/have to pay the $200 for the tax stamp and wait the ~9 months.
BTW... because the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 put an end to the manufacturing of 'machine guns' which could be transferred to a private owner, the prices of the limited (and alas decreasing supply) of legal 'machine guns' for transfer has only gone up... and for an M-16 you are looking at spending on the order of $15 to $20k.
Are you really worried about private ownership of such things?
Exactly how many crimes have we seen committed with legally owned fully automatic M-16's (aka 'machine guns') in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?
Lots of knowledge about firearms - always worrying!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
It's weird that you would leave such an extensive reply when it's clear from the start that you have very little idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
The AR-15 is a 5.56mm/.223 caliber assault rifle platform introduced in the late 1950s. The M16 rifle is an AR-15. Currently, the standard issue service rifle for the U.S. Army is the M4 carbine, which is also an AR-15. I was active duty Army 1988-1994, and my unit was one of the first to be issued the M4. The Marines still issue an updated M16 variant, the M16A4, though some units have moved to the M4.
In 1994, all rifles based upon the AR-15 platform were banned from civilian ownership in the U.S. by the federal assault weapons ban. That legislation expired and was not renewed in 2004. However, six states (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia maintain bans on assault weapons including rifles based upon the AR-15 platform. These bans mostly apply to both semi- and fully automatic rifles.
AR-15 rifles are very popular amongst spree killers. John Muhammed, the DC sniper, used an AR-15 rifle. So did James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado. So did Jacob Tyler Roberts in Clackamas, Oregon. So did Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut.
So yes, many of us are very concerned about civilian ownership of military-grade weapons. Fortunately, it appears that the courts largely agree that civilians do not have a Constitutional right to own these rifles. All we need is some leadership at the national level to re-impose the federal assault weapons ban.
"if only everyone would understand and do what I tell them, life on earth would be perfect"
A serious collector of firearms is not the problem, it's felons and drunks and kids and Lee Harvey Oswalds and George Zimmermans.
Unfortunately you can't write one law for one guy, and the opposite law for another guy, Law trumps Freedom.
It makes sense to me that people who live out in the wide open spaces like guns, and people who live in crowded cities don't.
The Jails are full of people that love Freedom more than Law. They'll fight Wars over it. It's complicated.
Like most liberals... or as they prefer to be called these days... 'progressives' (but all are technically more correctly labeled 'mentally retarded' in some form) who call out for 'common sense gun control' or the like... almost universally fail to recognize the degree of 'gun control' which is already on the books... laws which lawful firearms owners must familiarize themselves with said laws... which are an unbelievable minefield with regards to what is legal where, and where it is legal to carry (and sometimes when).Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
I carry several state issued permits which lawfully allow me to carry in a multitude of states... so it's important not only to know which states make it unlawful for me to carry in a bar (or certain parts of one), 'outdoor music festivals', or what the actual punishment is for places that place a sign saying "no weapons permitted" (hint: it depends on the state)... and that just for carrying.
I own multiple firearms (and parts) which are illegal in some states but perfectly legal in most others... and spending a night in the wrong state with such a firearm (even if unloaded & locked) can mean serious criminal penalties.
It's more weird that you make such a claim without specifically citing where I am wrong... and then follow up your non sequitur with a narrative which contains only partial truths at best, and bold faced lies at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Here you start from a confusing point... the AR-15 as is known today... yes can often chamber a 5.57 NATO round, or a .223 Remington (note there is a difference other than just name)... did in fact start as something known as the AR-15 when built for the military long ago, whose military variant has long since has been known as the M-16.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
You make that claim, but again... without any specific citation.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Also, you realize don't you, that "AR-15" has been a registered trademark of Colt's Inc Corporation... since 1966... right? There by further leading to a clear separation between the two.
You seem to have missed a step... the modern M4, which is more commonly known as an M16 in civilian circles, did yes derive from the AR-15 of long ago... but if you are to say that a modern M4 is also an AR-15... surely then we can claim that a modern Ford F-series pickup is still the same as an original 1940 F-series.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
If you knew your law or history, you'd know that was provably false... allow me to demonstrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
While it is true that the AWB did ban the sale/transfer of weapons/parts manufactured after a certain date which were based on certain design types of weapons to civilians, existing weapons/parts were still legal for transfer.
What's that? A fully automatic M-16 (or semi-automatic AR-15 variant) was still legal for transfer even after the 1994 AWB? Not to mention the much hated standard capacity 30-round magazines which you would have used back in the Army? That's right!
More so, with a bit of an artistic flair, it was perfectly legal to manufacture & transfer a weapon that under the spirit of the AWB was prohibited, but per the letter of the law was legal (one such derivation is called the 'thumbhole stock' which per the federal AWB is not considered a 'pistol grip').
You keep throwing around the term 'assault weapon', yet fail to recognize that any weapon used in an assault can be classified as such... while most states still allow the lawful possession of such items that were purchased at any time... and those states (and district) you mentioned still generally allow the lawful possession of grandfathered items.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
More so, California has yet to outlaw the 'bullet buttons' (a novel workaround to existing ban on certain types of detachable magazines), while not allowing thumbhole stocks on certain classes of weapons.
AR-15 like rifles are also very popular amongst civilian shooters who enjoy plinking targets... what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Know what is funny about the examples you cherry picked? Only one of the shooters lawfully possessed their weapons.
John Allen Muhammed stole the Bushmaster XM-15 in question from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole the Bushmaster M4 from a friend, as Adam Lanza did from his mother after she killed her.
Of your list, only James Holmes lawfully purchased his.
Define 'military-grade weapons'... I own a couple of .45 ACP pistols... whose ammo was designed for greater 'stopping power' for the military. Depending on who you talk to, the US Navy Seals tend to prefer either the 9MM Beretta 92 or the SIG Sauer P226 (also chambering 9MM)... should all three (pistols & rounds) be on the national 'concerned' list?Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
I'd wager it's hard to find a round or weapon that has never been considered 'military-grade'?
Citation please... because in most states it remains perfectly legal, not only to own such an item, but even to build one.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Again, your understanding of the federal AWB is quite lacking as it only prohibited the manufacturing & transferring of NEW items... any such law today would either criminalize existing possession would be on shaky legal ground... and lucky for the country, the political will does not exist for such a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by thombergeron
Phew... the gun nuts are nitpicking when the over riding truth is that the possession of guns is just plum loco crazy. They should only be in the hands of law enforcement and other appropriate personnel. Not the public. So three of the cases you cite in your long reply got their guns by theft. They could not have obtained them this way is the original owners had been prevented from buying them. Yawn.... America, otherwise in most respects such a civilised place is hugely flawed over weaponry. You need a new constitutional amendment to cleanse your streets and populace of these weapons.
Just some facts
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" - Mark Twain
Martin, don't you know only the "mentally retarded" use charts and graphs. 'Normal people'; i.e. law abiding carriers of concealed firearms find them confusing and emasculating.
Bob, limiting the legislative role of Federal government in passing meaningful firearm regulation (which is the present day strategy of the NRA) puts the onus upon the individual States to pass their own gun regulations. So obviously 'normal people' who'd rather shoot first, whine second and read later find it confusing, bothersome and a bit emasculating to familiarize themselves with the laws of all fifty States. Here's to keeping it up. Happy reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Trish, you are right. So in the well-argued concise reply I would expect from "Normal People", why don't you "Go fuck yourself." :)
Fucking oneself could, in theory, be a pleasant activity were it possible. But in defence to the beliefs of gun owners why not say, instead, "go shoot yourself." They'd surely believe that accorded with your rights as a gun-owning citizen, would get right of another pesky left winger and show how valuable gun ownership is.