Printable View
There you go again, dishonestly twisting my meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I was supporting the right of the property owner to discriminate, quite explicitly, for that is what it is, and I have no problem with it in the context mentioned. It was me answering Creaker's question, not the NRA. My answer didn't expose any sort of secret NRA agenda - as you may note from my actual words, I disagree with them on this point.
Both my sister and I own AR-15's - mine for hobby nowadays, and hers for her job (security officer for a defense contractor). They really are nothing more than a standard .22 rifle with a military twist. In Calif (which has some of the toughest gun and ammo control laws in the nation) it is illegal to have a clip (...er.. excuse me - a magazine. Guess, it's true Bae, you can't teach an old blonde new tricks :-)!) that holds more then 10 rounds and they are semi-automatics not full autos. Pretty much like a smallish caliber standard pistol but with greater range. Nothing at all like military or law enforcement full auto assualt weapons as many people seem to believe (not talking about you Rogar). I had a full auto M-16 in the service (as well as Colt .45 pistol, .12 guage riot shotgun, and .50 and .60 caliber machine guns) and there is a big difference between legal civilian firearms and military or law enforcement weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I have used, owned and carried various firearms both professionally and personally for over 30 years now and, outside of work, have never had cause to fire any weapon for defensive or offensive purposes - and probably never will. I believe my experience is the same for 99 % of gun owners who have guns for legal purposes. And while the Colorado shooting was tragic - just as any unwarranted shooting is - owning a gun is not what lead to his behavior.
Glocks are also the premier law enforcement weapon. Besides an AR-15 rifle, my sister also carries a Glock 9mm for her job. They are used by many military and law enforcement people thru out the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenh
Noted, I would take Spartana to movies also. I trust that Spartana can handle such things far better than I can.
I finally read an article today that asserted that Holmes surrendered to police behind the theater.
That's interesting. I mean, it is really, really rare. My understanding in general is that these things usually go two ways: 1. the individual gets subdued in some way; or 2. the individual commits suicide.
This case is really curious. I wonder what his particular brand of crazy is.
creaker:
Yes, i think that property owners can discern for themselves whether or not guns are allowed on the premises (or other weapons). I have no problem with that.
The difficulties lie in "places where a person is otherwise allowed to be."
It's a bit of a reach in comparison, but what strikes me is the law protecting breastfeeding. In the US, the law clearly states that a woman is allowed to breastfeed openly (without a cover, etc) in any place where she would 'otherwise be allowed to be.' If she were just there with her baby and a bottle, and that would be a normal circumstance and perfectly legal, then she is likewise allowed to breastfeed there.
A lot of people assert that a restaurant, shop, etc are all "private property or premises" and as such should be able to determine whether or not a woman will be allowed to breastfeed in that location. But, the law is clear that this property right doesn't extend to infringe the right of the woman and baby dyad to breastfeed.
It might likewise be argued that the right to carry -- under the laws as it is written -- cannot be infringed upon simply because the property owner would have a preference.
But, the difference is in relative risk. Obviously, a weapon is riskier than a nursing baby. So it's moot, really (i said it was a reach). I was just exercising the underlying theory of where one's rights end and begin (in this case, the property owners vs the woman/baby or the gun carrier).
I watched the 2.14 minutes of his courtroom appearance. He did a good job at playing crazy. The orange hair helped that impression, smart of him. Let's see, he is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
1) crazy enough to identify vendors who carry the weapons he wants
2) crazy enough to order, receive, and assemble same, undetected
3) crazy enough to focus on protecting himself in all kinds of armor gear
4) crazy enough to meticulously plan booby traps in his apartment
5) crazy enough to plan and carry out the shooting event
6) crazy enough to give himself up before he gets shot
and now
7) crazy enough to act disoriented and, well, crazy, in court
Yeah he's crazy all right, crazy like a fox.
You have to understand that sociopathy (or "crazy") doesn't mean that the person lacks the intelligence or ability to do whatever it is that he did. Most of the sociopaths that have been studied all demonstrate these capacities.
Statistically, sociopaths (and many people with mental illness) demonstrate average intelligence -- that which most of us have. But they use this intelligence in sociopathic ways.
For individuals with mental illness, the same is true. Though, there are some exceptions of people who have above-average intelligence in these instances.
His ability to do these things does not mean that he is not crazy. His ability to get into a school and earn a PhD does not mean that he is less crazy. His ability to plan his attack does not mean that he is not crazy.
Simply, it will be interesting to know what sort of crazy he turns out to be.
Likewise, in a quick google search, I learned that most mass murders have a great deal of planning involved in their processes, but likewise most of them are either shot down (killed) or commit suicide.
This guy protected himself from the first, and didn't do the latter. This is different.
We might say he's not crazy -- but what he does goes against anything that we understand to be "normal human behavior" which leaves us into the real of "abnormal human behavior" which equals crazy.
Here's a collection of relevant articles from Psychology Today about mass murderers.
And here's an article about their profiles (from that collection) which asserts: "Mass killers seem to share distinctive profiles (see here) - socially isolated, probably schizophrenic, mildly delusional and paranoid."
Also possibly relevant in this instance is this further quote from the article: "On his MSNBC early morning program, Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough confidently identified Cho and Loughner as suffering from Asperger's (which he identified was true for his own son)."
Aspergers is understood to be a form of extremely high-functioning autism -- 80% who have aspergers have above-average intelligence. (source)
What is interesting about each article in the collection is that they call not to somehow "monitor" all people with mental illness -- because the majority of the people with mental illness (or aspergers, etc), are not violent. But instead, they call for "Assisting such individuals to appropriately express feelings and discontents is the preferred therapeutic course to avoid both acting-out and acting-in dysfunctions."
This means providing better mental health coverage across the board -- for all of them -- in the hopes that those few who *would* turn to this sort of violence would be able to develop mental health skills and techniques to prevent "acting out" and "acting in" negative/harmful behaviors.
Just pointing out, though, that it is pretty much (as far as I can tell) considered common opinion (among experts) that this sort of situation (Holmes) is a mark of and/or comes out of mental illness.
Mrs-M, it puzzles me why you choose the Americans to give your views about "gun toting" in their country.
As a proud Canadian myself, surely you realize that Canada isn't exactly lily white about gun use here.
There have been many instances of gangs declaring war on each other (the infamous Bacon brothers come to mind) to protect their drug dealing turf, just like street gangs in the US doing the same thing.
I once owned a condo next to a rental apartment full of South American drug dealers where there were drive-by shootings on a regular basis. They had police cars coming and going night and day, called by neighbours who were kept up during the evenings by gunshots. Needless to say, I no longer live there. I now live in a different area that is very safe and peaceful. We have our own police and fire protection who patrol our streets night and day, and I feel much safer and protected here.
The guns and ammunition were probably smuggled across the border, easier then than now when there are body searches going back and forth across the border.
I was brought up in a home with guns...my father had a rifle and a shotgun he used for hunting birds as well as moose and deer, but the guns were locked up safely when he was home.
I have never shot a gun myself, in fact they scare the h*ll out of me.
If it wasn't predictable, our news is already talking about making military assault style weapons like the AR-15 or the AK-47 (semi-auto citizen style) illegal or harder to get. I think that is the low hanging fruit for those wanting more gun control. It makes sense to me, though I don't know how effective it can be. They seem to be a weapon of choice for mass murders and I read a few reports where police are saying they are becoming so common among gangs and drug dealers that the criminals have better fire power than the police.
Bae mentioned that they are becoming popular hunting guns, but most of my friends who do deer and elk hunting use larger caliber bolt action rifles and would probably consider the AR-15 too small a bullet for big game. They probably have some function to plink at varmints. So limited use as a hunting weapon and plenty of alternatives.
I can not visualize a practical other than Limited hunting. There are better choices for home defense and they are not especially portable as a concealed weapon for personal defense out side the home. Maybe they could be used for defending a food source when the hordes attack after nuclear winter or an attack of zombies.
I see it as a "monkey see- monkey do" sort of mentality. No real reason behind it (related to most people), but because the US Government is extravagant in allowing a profusion of latitude related to affording "about" anyone the freedom to own/buy/carry (and use), suddenly, gun-ownership becomes "the right thing to do". Everyone hopping aboard the bandwagon/welcome-wagon.Quote:
Originally posted by San Onofre Guy.
People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what?
Remember the old 80's Quaker Oats commercials with Wilford Brimley? "It's the right thing to do". Wilford Brimley says so, so it must be true. Same goes for guns. Because the US Government allows it (and encourages it), then it must be the right thing to do, "sign me up"!
Here in Canada, at least our government has taken a proactive approach to curb and tighten gun-ownership/use. There is no "perfect" system, but allowing a free-for-all system with unlimited flexibility, definitely isn't the answer.Quote:
Originally posted by Lizii.
Mrs-M, it puzzles me why you choose the Americans to give your views about "gun toting" in their country.
As a proud Canadian myself, surely you realize that Canada isn't exactly lily white about gun use here.
Maybe you simply don't understand the ethos of the United States. We are a free nation and the US Government was not designed to "allow us a profusion of latitude", as that is something we have in spite of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
In other words, the government cannot be "extravagant" in allowing us anything as it is not our master.
I heard something, and it just made too much sense for me not to ask. For those concerned about personal protection, either with or from guns, does anyone purchase/wear like bullet proof vests, body armor, whatever as passive protection?
It is something that would have probably saved lives in the Aurora shooting.
Bae probably has a bunch of them and he'll show us his collection. :~)
What a sad world if bullet-proof vests were part of everyone's daily attire.
But then all the ammo would be invented that could penetrate it.
So I'm confused peggy. Are you saying a business owner should not have the right to implement a no gun policy on their property? I thought bae was pretty clear that he supports the rights of the owners to decide on their own whether they would allow guns in or not (a position I support as well). Your comment and the attached post, while sarcastic, also seems to indicate that you also feel that this is not a discrimination issue, but an issue of the right to decide by the property owner. Do I have that wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
It's an important point in the larger debate. Think about homeowners. Should I have the right to tell everyone entering my home that I do not allow guns, please leave them in the car? What if a police officer comes to my home? Do I have the right to ask them to check their gun at the door? Forget the officer's reaction, I'm just curious to know how far my right to have a gun free house goes if that is what I so choose. For the sake of debate lets assume that officer is there performing a civil duty of some kind, not to arrest me as a murder suspect or for any other reason that would indicate I may pose a threat of violence to anyone.
Spartana said: "And while the Colorado shooting was tragic - just as any unwarranted shooting is - owning a gun is not what lead to his behavior. "
Amen. +1000
If people would have had body armor on, they would have been packing too. Just sayin.
Maybe not - passive protection is a very different thing. And you don't have to be a good shot for armor to be effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpler at Fifty
The problem I think is that while carrying a gun is "acceptable", wearing armor, vests, etc. is considered on par with wearing tin foil caps.
Chalk one up to the Declaration of Independence!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
You know gregg, my post wasn't really all that long. You could have read the whole thing. What was it, 5, 6 sentences? Sheesh!:doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
I think you know my position on people toting guns around well enough to know that I of course want people to have complete control over someone carrying guns into their bar, or store or whatever. Why are you trying to twist my words?
And no, I didn't misread bae, or twist his words. Whatever he thinks of the policy, he very casually called the theater owners policy of no guns 'discrimination'. It's not discrimination. It's no more 'discrimination' than me saying I don't allow you to come into my shoe store, drop your pants and piss on the purse rack. Discrimination isn't the other side of the 'do anything you want, wherever, whenever, however you want' coin. Life isn't a free for all, yet!
And I called him on it because it IS the agenda of the NRA to label such policies as discrimination. They want to get that meme out there and start the drum beat of their political toadies calling it, and referring to it as discrimination. Because, of course, it's pretty easy to find people against discrimination, once everyone agrees it is discrimination. And the NRA trying to make gun owners victims somehow, would be laughable if it wasn't really scary in their intent. I know exactly what they are doing, and anyone who is paying attention knows what they are doing.
Although bae loves to say one thing while protesting he really didn't mean it, I'm pretty sure he intended to use the words discrimination when referring to the theater owners policy, considering how invested he is in the NRA and it's culture. He is paying attention to this detail, and probably betting no one else is.
Why do people want to carry guns? To protect themselves from other people carrying guns, right? So, maybe I should carry a gun to protect myself from the others carrying guns who are carrying guns to protect themselves from the others who carry....etc...until we are all armed to the teeth, and of course we can't be expected to disarm ourselves when in a place of business cause that's discrimination......
You want to call that sarcastic, fine. Did you catch the casual reference to this policy as 'discrimination'? Probably not. And that is the point.
Yeah, cause you all in Canada aren't free, or England or Germany or really most other modern progressive countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Just though I'd let you know in case you didn't.
Kind of a public service.
:)
Peggy - I used the word "discrimination" not because secret satellite rays from NRA headquarters are controlling my thoughts, but because "discrimination" is a word with useful meanings along the lines of "taste, discernment, perception, acumen, distinguishing" - I did not intend to push your PC hot buttons and send you off all a-frothing.
As to body armor -
It is heavy, hot, expensive, cumbersome, and slows your movements. And the typical body armor doesn't stop rifle rounds. I would not recommend wearing body armor unless you have a truly pressing need.
I have several sets, including some rifle armor, and I only use them when teaching or running a firing range.
trueQuote:
Maybe not - passive protection is a very different thing.
good point, maybe has to do something with machismo :). You can't just "hide" from the bad guys (ie protect yourself with body armor), you must take them out! I don't think it's desirable socially for everyone to be packing everywhere, no it is not the world I would prefer to live in (and honestly I'm not sure it's legal in California). But I don't much favor federal restrictions either. It's really that. And I think the gun control debate is a dead end for the left (to the point of alienating potential supporters even - lots of working class people with guns ....).Quote:
And you don't have to be a good shot for armor to be effective.
The problem I think is that while carrying a gun is "acceptable", wearing armor, vests, etc. is considered on par with wearing tin foil caps.
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
Then basically noone is (though maybe Holland is the model back in the dope everywhere days?). Anyway the U.S. is obviously partially totalitarian, more than many many other countries (though of course there are worse), the fate of all empires perhaps. Canada is better, but unfortunately moving in the same direction (they keep getting people like Harper ...).Quote:
It seems to me that if you live in an environment where the government routinely "allows" you to do things, you can't really say that you're free, modern or progressive.
That's exactly the environment we live in - ask the Syrians. There's no big hand that drops out of sky and stops the government if they overstep their bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.
Clap, clap, clap!Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I can think of many an issue in the US that would not equate to being "free, modern or progressive"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And why is the government free to do whatever it wants? Isn't it a servant of the people, or have we advanced beyond that?Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Good - Someone I can hide behind :-)!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
But seriously, I know that several other's have mentioned that even a professionally trained marksman wouldn't have been able to shoot this guy because of the smoke, darkness and people running and josutling each other. And I totally agree. However, with the exception of a "Lone Gunman in the Bell Tower" kind of thing, these kinds of shootings almost always follow a certain pattern. After people run away or hide and things calm down a bit, the gunman usually will walk thru whatever area he/she is in indiscriminatly shooting those people in hiding. This happened in Columbine, in VA Tech, in Toronto, in pretty much every mass shooting ever - often times killing more people during that time then in the chaotic beginning. That is the time when someone who is armed can "probably" attempt to stop the shooting. Why this man stopped is a mystery to me. Even with one weapon jammed he still had 3 more and could have inflicted even greater harm and death. Maybe at some level the reality of what he had done caught up with him. As other's have pointed out Hollywood glamourizes these things but the reality is much much different.
Liizi - When I was in the US Coast Guard I was stationed on a patrol boat in Maine and we did patrols up to the Canadian border. During that time we picked up many vessels illegally running guns and weapons of all kinds up to Canada. Almost all were from South or Central America and the various caribeen island nations. I'm sure that the ones we caught were only a tiny fraction of the weapons that made it thru to Canada (along with drugs, illegal aliens, and pretty much any kind of contrband you can think of). Heard it's even worse on the West coast where they have to deal with smugglers from Mexico, China, and the Far East.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizii
In the summer of 1981 I saw one of the boats that got by the blockade put up by Spartana's patrol boat. I was sleeping on a sailboat at anchor in a cove on the outside (open ocean side) of Swan's Island at the mouth of Blue Hill Bay which is between Deer Isle and Mt. Desert. I awoke in the middle of the night to see a large trawler and a normal sized lobster boat enter the cove and tie up stern to stern. The spent about 20 minutes transferring stuff from the larger vessel to the smaller. From the distance I couldn't tell if it was bales of pot, kilos of cocaine or weapons. I doubt if the cargo was legal because legal cargo is unloaded at the dock.
He He - that's what mine is for :-)! I agree with everything you said and I think most people have them just for plinking at stuff, target practice, etc... They aren't very practicle unless, like my sister, you work in a security or law enforcement field. Even them it's limited IF one adheres to the laws (i.e. no extended magazines, etc...). Of course criminals at al don't always adhere to the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I agree with the government part creaker and I do think that is a problem, but I find the first part of your statement more compelling. Freedom, to me, does not imply that we can simply walk around and do anything we want without limit or consideration of anything except ourselves. It comes with responsibility and must be exercised with conscience. No one should try to stop you from pursuing life, liberty or happiness as long as you are not disrupting the same pursuit of someone else. The Aurora shooter obviously did that in about the most extreme way imaginable. Even in our (supposedly) free society he had no right to do what he did. Different societies establish moral and ethical norms over time and they will vary depending on a host of factors. But even though there is no absolute set of rules, I can't think of any society in which James Holmes' actions would be justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Yes but unless we line our tin foil hats with kevlar then body armour is useless :-)! In Calif you can not carry a loaded firearm (concealed or in the open) unless you have a permit (I do). You can, I believe, carry an unloaded gun holstered but they may have changed that. So if you are transporting a firearm - say going to the range, having it in your car or on your person - it has to be in a locked case, unloaded and seperated from any ammo. I personally like gun control laws - especially ones that have waiting periods, age requirements, mental health and prior conviction checks, training, qualifing and re-qualifing on a annual basis, and licensing of both the firearm and the owner, restrictions on types of firearms, restrictions on the amount of ammo a person can buy, maybe some way to track large ammo purchases over time, etc.. While it is all very Big Brotherish to me, I also recognize that, like driving and owning a car with all it's requirements and restrictions, you often have to make concessions to personal freedoms for the sake of safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Ah yes, the one that got away :-)! Small world! I think we were down in the caribeen doing patrols there at that time. Lets see - winter patrols in Maine and summer patrols in the Caribbeean? What's wrong with that picture :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by San Onofre Guy
really interpreted this as just an existential statement, the way things are. I don't think many are going to defend the actions of the Aurora shooter. I mean really anyone want to argue for random senseless mass murder? But neither are governments having vast firepower and using it as they see fit some big cause for celebration. And governments (cough the U.S. government) don't always use this power morally (as that wasn't obvious). Governments having firepower is just the inevitability so long as well governments are instituted among men I guess. Wanna try anarchy now? Although of course we have gone along (even cheered?) with this inevitability progressing way too far, far beyond what is reasonable (biggest military on the planet, militerized police etc.) - crazy. How many guns do they need anyway?Quote:
We're free to do whatever we want - just ask the Aurora shooter. But so is the government - and they have much more firepower to back them up.