Log in

View Full Version : Gunman opens fire @ Batman preview in CO, killing 12!



Pages : 1 [2]

Almost Jaded
07-25-2012, 04:05 AM
I read the study. By the way - 38 pages? LMAO!! WTF - that's not even a SUMMARY of a real study. Oh look - it was funded and supported by 300 Mayors - ALL FROM HIGH GUN CONTROL STATES AND ALL WITH STRONG ANTI-GUN STANCES. I say again - you can make a study like that say whatever you want. Maybe they set out with an agenda, maybe they didn't; (although it SURE fucking looks like it in this case) but by focusing on certain statistics and eschewing others, or by phrasing a question a certain way, or by limiting one set or another... Point being, there are so many variables, it's easy to get it wrong either on purpose or by accident. Here - I'll help you with some examples.

Off the top of my head as I write, no extra effort...

Are the police shootings calculated as a percentage or actual number of shootings? If there are only 3 cops in town and one gets shot once, that town had 33% of it's cops shot that year. The next town over - let's say right across a state line to make it interesting - has say 80 cops. 4 are shot in that same year - woohoo! 5%! So the small town had a police shooting rate over 600% higher! Now we can find 10 other towns in that state that had ZERO police shootings, and thanks to that ONE COP GETTING SHOT IN ONE TOWN, the rate is still way higher for that ENTIRE STATE! See how this works? So what controls were put in place or how was the data collected? They don't say.

So let's keep going. Another set I touched on just then - geographic location. How many of these shootings occur in shared-border towns? If guns are available easily on say, the Nevada side of Wendover and hard to get on the Utah side of that same town - well, that's going to skew the stats FOR TWO WHOLE STATES. There are MANY, MANY cities that are either right across a state line or actually span one. Again - what controls were put in place to take this into account? WERE THERE ANY? They are going on a state-by-state comparison with no other geographical parameters given. Are we there yet? Oh hell no...

What were the cops in question doing when they were shot? What were the situations surrounding the homicides in question? Did the states in question have a higher % of meth addiction than the others? How do other crime stats compare? Were the police that were shot involved in busting higher-level crimes with a higher likelihood of armed resistance? THIS MATTERS A LOT. Especially when collated with population and demographic info. Which brings us to...

Interesting that the two states with the highest populations are two of the strictest on gun control. With a population that size, you could have many, MANY times more actual individual crimes but a far lower percentage than your neighboring state - you can hide a lot of data in there. A LOT. Interesting that they speak in averages in that study, too. So with 2 high-gun-control states accounting for almost 20% of the entire COUNTRY'S population, your averages are going to be skewed no matter what. Huh. No info on the control sets there, either.

Now for some data that would really make the case one way or the other.

What percentage of the gun crime and/or police shootings in ANY of these states was committed by law abiding citizens carrying legally owned weapons? Huh - doesn't say.

What are the non-gun related crime rates in these respective states, when adjusted for population and geography as previously mentioned?

What are the rates of crime committed against normal citizens in each state, further broken down by successful vs unsuccessful and whether or not the victim or intended victim was armed?

Same as above, narrowed specifically to violent crimes, and again organized to armed criminals, broken down the same way?

Huh. None of that info was given in that study.

You were saying?

Jessie_tinydancer
07-25-2012, 05:10 AM
This was so sad to hear. I'm pretty anti-gun myself, but I have to say I don't think gun control woulda stopped this guy. Mass murders are sick in the head like serial killers. He wanted to do something demented and he would found a way to do it with or without a gun. I don't believe this particular case is a good example for gun-control.

Smurfette
07-25-2012, 09:53 AM
I read the study. By the way - 38 pages? LMAO!! WTF - that's not even a SUMMARY of a real study. Oh look - it was funded and supported by 300 Mayors - ALL FROM HIGH GUN CONTROL STATES AND ALL WITH STRONG ANTI-GUN STANCES. I say again - you can make a study like that say whatever you want. Maybe they set out with an agenda, maybe they didn't; (although it SURE fucking looks like it in this case) but by focusing on certain statistics and eschewing others, or by phrasing a question a certain way, or by limiting one set or another... Point being, there are so many variables, it's easy to get it wrong either on purpose or by accident. Here - I'll help you with some examples.

Off the top of my head as I write, no extra effort...

Are the police shootings calculated as a percentage or actual number of shootings? If there are only 3 cops in town and one gets shot once, that town had 33% of it's cops shot that year. The next town over - let's say right across a state line to make it interesting - has say 80 cops. 4 are shot in that same year - woohoo! 5%! So the small town had a police shooting rate over 600% higher! Now we can find 10 other towns in that state that had ZERO police shootings, and thanks to that ONE COP GETTING SHOT IN ONE TOWN, the rate is still way higher for that ENTIRE STATE! See how this works? So what controls were put in place or how was the data collected? They don't say.

So let's keep going. Another set I touched on just then - geographic location. How many of these shootings occur in shared-border towns? If guns are available easily on say, the Nevada side of Wendover and hard to get on the Utah side of that same town - well, that's going to skew the stats FOR TWO WHOLE STATES. There are MANY, MANY cities that are either right across a state line or actually span one. Again - what controls were put in place to take this into account? WERE THERE ANY? They are going on a state-by-state comparison with no other geographical parameters given. Are we there yet? Oh hell no...

What were the cops in question doing when they were shot? What were the situations surrounding the homicides in question? Did the states in question have a higher % of meth addiction than the others? How do other crime stats compare? Were the police that were shot involved in busting higher-level crimes with a higher likelihood of armed resistance? THIS MATTERS A LOT. Especially when collated with population and demographic info. Which brings us to...

Interesting that the two states with the highest populations are two of the strictest on gun control. With a population that size, you could have many, MANY times more actual individual crimes but a far lower percentage than your neighboring state - you can hide a lot of data in there. A LOT. Interesting that they speak in averages in that study, too. So with 2 high-gun-control states accounting for almost 20% of the entire COUNTRY'S population, your averages are going to be skewed no matter what. Huh. No info on the control sets there, either.

Now for some data that would really make the case one way or the other.

What percentage of the gun crime and/or police shootings in ANY of these states was committed by law abiding citizens carrying legally owned weapons? Huh - doesn't say.

What are the non-gun related crime rates in these respective states, when adjusted for population and geography as previously mentioned?

What are the rates of crime committed against normal citizens in each state, further broken down by successful vs unsuccessful and whether or not the victim or intended victim was armed?

Same as above, narrowed specifically to violent crimes, and again organized to armed criminals, broken down the same way?

Huh. None of that info was given in that study.

You were saying?

The only way this discussion can continue in any meaningful way is if we both read through the entire study, analyze it and break it down point by point. I'm not invested enough in this debate to do so and I doubt you are either. But at least I brought SOMETHING to the table. So far, only Eagle and I have actually presented research supporting our positions. I haven't seen any of the gun advocates in this thread doing so. I wonder if that's because studies that show guns as positive for society... um.. don't exist? Maybe you can prove me wrong.

I highly doubt the study is biased. I suppose it could be, but it seems like an all too easy cop-out to just deem anything you don't agree with as RIGGED or BIASED or some sort of CONSPIRACY. It seems like gun advocates suffer from paranoid delusions. Their right to gun ownership is constantly being threatened, from liberals, Obama, the UN, or whatever else. In reality, there is pretty much zero chance that guns will be taken away, or even that the country will make any meaningful strides at all in gun control. The NRA and other gun control opponents outspend gun control supporters 25 to 1. The NRA is a hugely powerful lobbying group. Moreover, most gun control supporters don't actually want to take anyone's guns away... they simply want more reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

I highly doubt the government or the UN is concerned with taking guns away from American citizens -- what would be the point? If there was an actual armed uprising by US citizens, the military would squash it completely with hardly the blink of an eye. This is no longer the 1700s where an armed revolution by the citizens is actually possible or realistic. However I do agree that citizens should have protection against a tyrannical government, for more philosophical and ethical reasons than practical.

Personally, I have nothing against guns, but I do think they should be regulated more. I think most conservatives gloss over the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. I'm frankly a little concerned with America's apparent gun fetishism... I don't understand it. at all. My husband has been going on and on lately about how he wants to own guns and shoot things. I personally do not want a gun anywhere near my children. I'm not afraid of the government or criminals breaking into my house. Maybe bears considering I live in BC. lol. But I'm afraid of one of my kids, or my husband mishandling a gun and accidentally hurting someone. I think I have a valid concern, considering the results of this study that shows guns are more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense (http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/) (I know, I know, studies don't prove anything ::)).

ArmySGT.
07-25-2012, 05:47 PM
If any study you would like to quote was authored by a Dr. Kellerman. It has been found he has put Gang Members under 18 that were killed in the commission of a crime or in a violent encounter with a rival gang as "Child victims".

That was when the Center for Disease Control started authoring "Firearms Violence" studies during the Clinton Administration to support the ineffectual "Assault Weapons Ban".

ArmySGT.
07-25-2012, 05:51 PM
While the use of a gun does highten the likelihood that people will be severely injured or killed over say, a knife or baseball bat (simply because guns are more lethal, more quickly, from longer distances)

Knife attacks are often more fatal. There is a saying about a knife fight, one goes to the hospital, the other? The Morgue.

UrbanOzz
07-25-2012, 06:44 PM
Plus they are smaller countries and the USA is more of a melting pot than those countries and there is no one culture here.

being a smaller country has nothing to do with it when the stat is "per 100,000 people"

also, not sure how much more of a melting pot USA is than Canada.

Almost Jaded
07-25-2012, 07:41 PM
The only way this discussion can continue in any meaningful way is if we both read through the entire study, analyze it and break it down point by point. I'm not invested enough in this debate to do so and I doubt you are either. But at least I brought SOMETHING to the table. So far, only Eagle and I have actually presented research supporting our positions. I haven't seen any of the gun advocates in this thread doing so. I wonder if that's because studies that show guns as positive for society... um.. don't exist? Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Many of the studies you are looking for from us actually DON'T exist. Primarily because there's really no reason for them. The only people who insist on publishing these "studies" are trying to make a case against something for the most part. Ever see an article after a tragedy like the one that started this thread that says "over 250 million guns - some estimates say as many as 300 million - in America didn't kill anyone today"? No. Most of the studies are by the anti-gun lobby, and most of them are slanted as hell. Kellerman is a classic example. You should see some of his other work. The guy missed his calling in life faking research for Big Tobacco or Big Pharma. And he's STILL one of the most quoted and referenced sources on the subject. No, I won't go through and pick apart the study bit by bit and try to find the raw data somewhere. I don't need too. I can already see who wrote it, who funded it, and how the research was presented - when you know how these things work, that's more than enough to declare something BS or not. That study is complete BS. COMPLETE. The kind of study that wasn't a study at all, but a contrived manipulation of data to reach a predetermined result. There are a LOT of those out there in EVERYTHING, not just this area.


I highly doubt the study is biased. I suppose it could be, but it seems like an all too easy cop-out to just deem anything you don't agree with as RIGGED or BIASED or some sort of CONSPIRACY. It seems like gun advocates suffer from paranoid delusions. Their right to gun ownership is constantly being threatened, from liberals, Obama, the UN, or whatever else. In reality, there is pretty much zero chance that guns will be taken away, or even that the country will make any meaningful strides at all in gun control. The NRA and other gun control opponents outspend gun control supporters 25 to 1. The NRA is a hugely powerful lobbying group. Moreover, most gun control supporters don't actually want to take anyone's guns away... they simply want more reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

See above for the first part. As for the rest - no, priobably be one helluva problem to take them ALL away. You know, like Britain - oh, wait. Huh. What is a reasonable restriction? Because ANY restriction affects ONLY those who obey the law. I've stated that over and over and over and over. The bad guys don't give a fucking fuckity fuck about restrictions. People are saying "OMG how did this guy buy all those guns how did the FBI not look into him blah blah" - until now, he had no record of note, nothing to worry anyone. He would have passed all the requirements to purchase those guns under and law we've ever had. When someone goes crazy, they go crazy. "well see? He shouldn't have had access then! Without teh guns he couldn't have done it!!" Wrong again. It's been HOW many days and they're STILL disarming teh bombs in his apartment?! Do you have ANY CLUE how easy it is to make a horrifically effective bomb or chemical weapon with houshold shit? Folks, let me say something that might make the anti-gun people squirm a little. Whenever a VA Tech or a Colorado Movie Theater event happens, how about instead of saying OMG GUNS A BAD MKAY you remember Oklahoma City and go - DAMN I"M GLAD HE ONLY USED A GUN CUZ GUNS KILL PEOPLE ONE AT A FUCKING TIME!!! Look - there is no other way to put this - GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. Again and again - it limits poeple who aren't out there being bad and nobody else. It makes people who would have used a gun use a knife or a bomb - both of which ARE WORSE.


I highly doubt the government or the UN is concerned with taking guns away from American citizens -- what would be the point? If there was an actual armed uprising by US citizens, the military would squash it completely with hardly the blink of an eye. This is no longer the 1700s where an armed revolution by the citizens is actually possible or realistic. However I do agree that citizens should have protection against a tyrannical government, for more philosophical and ethical reasons than practical.

How to put this nicely, hmm. Aw fuck it - you're joking, right? Like, you can't POSSIBLY be serious? Okay good. For a minute there I thought you actually didn't know anything about the last 30 years of Russia and America's experiences with Afghanistan and Iraq and what the armed resistances there have done and are doing against the full might of the worlds 2 strongest militaries, lol. Glad to know you were only joking!


Personally, I have nothing against guns, but I do think they should be regulated more. I think most conservatives gloss over the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment. I'm frankly a little concerned with America's apparent gun fetishism... I don't understand it. at all. My husband has been going on and on lately about how he wants to own guns and shoot things. I personally do not want a gun anywhere near my children. I'm not afraid of the government or criminals breaking into my house. Maybe bears considering I live in BC. lol. But I'm afraid of one of my kids, or my husband mishandling a gun and accidentally hurting someone. I think I have a valid concern, considering the results of this study that shows guns are more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense (I know, I know, studies don't prove anything ).

Regulated HOW? This is the sticking point. Always. R E G U L A T E D H O W ??? You are only regulting the law abiding!! As for your hubby and your kids - that's up to you as a family. But you're making a decision based on pointless fear. Have you ever learned how to handle a firearm? You do know that when unloaded it's a useless pile of parts good only for making a clicking sound, right? My cousins in Idaho started hunting when they were FOUR YEARS OLD. Trent could outshoot half the cops in town when he was EIGHT. At 12 he was an avid gun collector. so were his brothers, just not as into it as he was. No gun accidents in that house, even with DOZENS of weapons of all kinds in easy reach and a family with 6 kids. Because education. Accidents with guns only happen when people are dumb. Period. No exceptions. Again - there are something like THREE HUNDRED MILLION guns in the U.S. How many accidents? So what you're telling me is that you will under no circumstances own a car, right? Because if mishandled, they kill people. FAR more people than guns do. Easier to mishandle, too. Cars dont' have a safety switch that renders them incapable of inflicting harm.

So in closing - guns are more than 10x safer to own than cars, the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY forbids gun control laws AT ALL if you want to get technical, gun control laws will never stop tragic events like this one and in fact may lead to worse ones, and gun control laws do nothing to inhibit criminals, only law abiding citizens. Why is this even argued anymore? Oh yeah - the media. I forgot.

eagle2
07-25-2012, 08:11 PM
Knife attacks are often more fatal. There is a saying about a knife fight, one goes to the hospital, the other? The Morgue.

There are still a lot more murders committed with firearms than with knives in the U.S..

http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=cd8296da

tuesdaymarie
07-25-2012, 08:14 PM
^How does the Second Amendment forbid gun control laws? That seems like an extreme and inaccurate interpretation.

Almost Jaded
07-25-2012, 08:28 PM
There are still a lot more murders committed with firearms than with knives in the U.S..

Thank God or whomever you prefer. Ask any trauma surgeon which type they'd rather see.


How does the Second Amendment forbid gun control laws? That seems like an extreme and inaccurate interpretation.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See - it depends on which part of the sentence you focus on. Gun control advocates focus on "well regulated" and interpret this to mean the government shall do the regulating - and for some reason, this means regulating the weapons, not the formation of a militia.

Alternatively, you can focus on what is pretty damn clear text at the end "shall not be infringed". How, exactly, is telling me what weapons I can and cannot own based on some arbitrary conclusion reached by who knows how, anything BUT an infringement? Where does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms of less than a certain caliber and/or barrel length and capable of carrying no more than a specific number of rounds in magazine and of firing no more than x number of rounds in a continuous burst with no less than x number of lbs of trigger pull resistance shall not be infringed if and only if they pass a detailed background check and agree not to carry said weapon in certain places"? Can you show me that, please?

The text is NOT unclear. It is gun-control advocates who have inserted ambiguity where there is none. "SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED." That is as clear as it gets, folks. The government doesn't get to say jack shit about the right of the people to "keep and bare arms". It doesn't limit the type of arms - they could have, you know. It doesn't limit the scope of the arms. It doesn't limit which citizens. All things that they COULD have added - and DIDN'T. In fact, they used a very specific word there - "infringed". Look it up. The assertion there is that the government shall not even tread lightly about the edges of the issue. They shall not INFRINGE upon this right - the one that was so important it was the second one written up. The "extreme and inaccurate" interpretations are on the other side of this argument, sorry.

tuesdaymarie
07-25-2012, 08:38 PM
Nope, can't show you that, but again, I think you're basing your opinions off a very extreme interpretation.

I've always wondered why people rely so heavily on guns as their theoretical "protection" against the government. Realistically, weapons technology is so far advanced that if the government really wanted to "take over," I don't think it would be on foot with guns. I'm not anti-gun or whatever, I just don't see why people think that having a CCW or a collection of 50 guns and thousands of rounds is going to protect them if the force of the US government or an equally powerful/advanced one were to be applied. Perhaps we'll see another interpretation of the Second Amendment soon in which "arms" includes biological weapons. I have a right bestowed upon me by my forefathers to possess anthrax AND the Ebola virus!

eagle2
07-25-2012, 09:21 PM
Thank God or whomever you prefer. Ask any trauma surgeon which type they'd rather see.


The statistics were for the number of murders, not the number of stabbings or shootings. The trauma surgeon wasn't able to save any of these victims.

Almost Jaded
07-25-2012, 10:08 PM
@eagle2 - A gunshot wound is much more likely to kill you immediately, but total mortality rate for GSW's is still under 20% and if you live long enough to get to the hospital it's down to almost 5%. Stab wounds are far less likely to kill you on site but have the same mortality rates once you get o the hospital - and a FAR higher occurrences of infection and secondary damage resulting in additional surgeries and.or post-treatment mortality. In other words - if you survive the initial injury, you'd much rather be shot than stabbed. Interesting also is that mortality from gunshots to the extremities (arms, legs, etc) are almost statistically irrelevant; nearly zero, but injuries to these areas from an assault with a blade is almost as likely to kill you as anywhere else, only 2% less so in fact. Of course, there are LOTS of studies with varying sample sizes and other factors, but this is the overall picture that an ER doc would give you. Over 40% of GSW victims are released from the hospital the same day BTW. Anyway - the point is, if it's an accident, you wanna get cut not shot. If someone's trying to kill you, you'd much rather be shot than stabbed or cut.

@tuesdaymarie - regardless of if it's protection from government, criminals, or zombies the fact is that it's a right under our constitution. Yes, there is debate to be had about what was intended and their ability to forsee the future; especially since to my interpretation citizens absolutely COULD have biological or chemical or even nuclear weapons. And we can all agree that that is probably a bad idea. So why all the attacks on gun ownership? I could whip up a small WMD with ease. Anyone with basic chemistry skills could. If we're really concerned about the guys like Timothy McVeigh and the dickheads from Columbine and VA Tech and this movie theater, I say again - you're better off with them using guns. Take that away and you think they won't do shit?! McVeigh opted against the gun route. He used fertilizer and diesel fuel. There is no way you can regulate the REALLY dangerous stuff. No possible way. You'd be left with almost no household cleaning supplies, gardening chemicals, or fucking gas. No matches, no batteries. You see how this works? SO WHY THE LIMITS ON GUNS? BTW - lost the link but I WAS able to find something on crime committed against armed vs unarmed citizens. something like 80% lower victim rate if you're armed. I'll take that all day.

As for resisting teh government... Well, let's hope it never somes to that, but when teh government starts "infringing" on the right of the populace to arm themselves it is historically a BIG red flag. VERY big. Regarding the likelihood of an armed resistance movement mattering against the almighty government; um... Did you miss the part about Afghanistan and Iraq? Unless the government was willing to nuke us, the general population deciding to revolt would be nearly impossible to put down. The resistance in the middle east is a very small percentage of the population vs the full might of the U.S. and other military presences. How's THAT going?

tuesdaymarie
07-25-2012, 10:53 PM
^Again, I'm not anti-gun. I don't have a lot of gun hate or think that private gun ownership should be banned. I think that people incorrectly rally behind gun control laws in instances like this, actually. More specifically, I think that it is an "incorrect" move because this massacre represents what we would call an "outlier." It is beyond the average and, IMO, should not be used to govern the average. Just as we shouldn't score an average student's test against the work of a genius, we shouldn't govern the average citizen the same as we would like to govern a depraved killer. I'm sure someone will take issue with that comparison, but I don't feel like crafting a better one. I'm not saying that I think that this sort of incident should be met with a non-reaction. I just think that people cling to this sort of reaction in vain because they want to feel like the government can protect us from such an event happening in the movie theater we're in next weekend.

Side note: while I do not think that gun control laws would help with such "outlier" events, I do think that stricter laws would help with more commonplace issues like domestic violence. Gang-related violence? Not really. People with "criminal minds" will find a way to beat the laws. I've no doubt about that, and I do think that law-abiding citizens should have the ability to protect themselves from such threats.

Anyway, since I don't think that this sort of event should make people turn to gun law debate, that leads to the question of what we should focus on instead. Should we just accept that some people are fucked and going to do things like this? The killer in the Austin tower shootings didn't think so. He thought that the response should be greater research in mental health. From the note he left the day of his killings: "I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job...If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts...donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type." He had seen doctors and told them he was experiencing increasingly violent and uncontrollable urges. Many of them dismissed him. I don't think that a bad childhood or a tumor or whatever can alleviate the blame assigned to whoever ultimately decides to pull the trigger, but I do think that there are many complex factors at work behind these sorts of incidents that go far beyond gun control.

Melonie
07-26-2012, 12:19 AM
I would argue that if increased 'research' is called for in these cases of so-called 'lone wolf nut job' shootings, it might begin by exploring the serious possibility of a 'Manchurian' connection ...

from

(snip)"We continue to find out more about James Holmes and it seems that he knew something was going on in himself that he could not control. With the sending of the notebook to the University of Colorado Anschutz medical campus in Aurora to a psychiatrist (relationship unknown at this time), where it was laying in the mail room since July 12th, James Holmes must have been reaching out for help that he could have received had the mail room been functioning properly.

According to various news stories, of which we don't actually know who to trust or who is trying to over dramatize what is in the notebook, there were drawings that supposedly showed exactly what he was going to do during the massacre. Other sources say there were stick figures (plural) shooting at other people. And still other sources say that there were actual details. Since there is a gag order, we may not find out for some time and I don't know how any of these sources could have the information that they seem to have regarding the notebook.

That's all for now, except, the call out for help could still be within the range of a Manchurian Candidate who is seeing things that he does not understand and wants to know what is going on. I could definitely be wrong and he is still guilty of the crimes he has committed, but he is definitely the profile of a Manchurian Candidate."(snip)


Interesting 'conspiracy theory' interview with former US Secret Service agent and State Trooper Dr. Greg Evensen at

Smurfette
07-26-2012, 08:22 AM
^^ I really don't understand people's need to spin elaborate conspiracy theories when there is absolutely no basis for them. There is no evidence for any of those assertions. It's some paranoid guy trying desperately to link the shooting to Obama, the UN, Occupy Wall Street, etc. in order to manufacture fear and hysteria. Because Obama wants to take our guns away, I guess? (PS: he doesn't).

Sophia_Starina
07-26-2012, 08:51 AM
^^ I really don't understand people's need to spin elaborate conspiracy theories when there is absolutely no basis for them. There is no evidence for any of those assertions. It's some paranoid guy trying desperately to link the shooting to Obama, the UN, Occupy Wall Street, etc. in order to manufacture fear and hysteria. Because Obama wants to take our guns away, I guess? (PS: he doesn't).

There sure are some nutty-kooky-wackadoo conspiracy theories floating about: http://gawker.com/5928451/here-are-the-most-insane-aurora-shooting-conspiracy-theories

My personal mind-fuck moment occurred when Lil' Wayne was tossed into the mix: http://hiphopmorning.com/News/lil-wayne-my-homies-still-illuminati-conspiracy-theory-has-12-skeletons-movie-theater

WTF Seriously? Lil' Wayne???? :faint: People are very creative... now if they could only put that creativity to good use.

eagle2
07-30-2012, 09:47 AM
So in closing - guns are more than 10x safer to own than cars, the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY forbids gun control laws AT ALL if you want to get technical, gun control laws will never stop tragic events like this one and in fact may lead to worse ones, and gun control laws do nothing to inhibit criminals, only law abiding citizens. Why is this even argued anymore? Oh yeah - the media. I forgot.

How do you know that gun control laws won't prevent tragic events like this one? The terrorist in this article would strongly disagree with you.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/flm/press/2012/jan/20120109_Osmakac.html

Thank god you can't just walk into a pawn shop and buy explosives and fully automatic rifles.

ArmySGT.
07-30-2012, 08:37 PM
Another Gun Control was not going to prevent this tragedy.

What would have prevented this tragedy? The same thing that would have prevented the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

It is time to rethink the "Doctor - Patient Confidentiality" regarding those with mental illness. Both shooters expressed thoughts of murderous impulses. They should have been flagged at the State Level, if not in the National Crime Information Computer with a hold on any purchase.

Hell it is on your Honor to declare yourself as a person "adjudicated as mentally defective" on the BATF form 4473. There is nothing most States can do to prove your lying if you have been and state NO on the form.

Let us reform the Mental Health care system. That was the break down in the system.

Almost Jaded
07-31-2012, 03:08 AM
How do you know that gun control laws won't prevent tragic events like this one?

In addition to the point Sarge already made for me, I said before - you can regulate guns all you want, but someone intending to do harm is going to find a way to do it by either A. - obtaining a gun illegally in teh face of stricter regulations, or B. - by using another method to attain their end, such as a bomb, chemical weapon, etc. It would be unbearably difficult to regulate everything that can be used to create something capable of inflicting mass harm; household cleaning agents, gardening chemicals, the plethora of fuel products necessary to modern life, matches, fireworks, batteries, etc. We can deduce rather easily from what was found in his apartment that the inability of this individual to obtain a gun would have resulted in his using something else - he clearly figured out how to make those somethings.

So I say again - THANK GOD HE GOT GUNS, 'cuz they kill people one at a time. Columbine, VA Tech, this one - dozens killed, dozens injured. Timothy McVeigh didn't use guns. He used fertilizer and diesel fuel. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns, they used airplanes. Hundreds/thousands killed, hundreds/thousands injured. Sure wish they'd stuck to guns, eh?

sunny,*
07-31-2012, 07:12 AM
I didn't actually read the entire thread, so I don't know if someone has said this yet or not but... I'm not really comfortable with the government having guns and the civilians being banned from having guns. No government is without corruption. What if shit starts to hit the fan and we need to protect ourselves? From other civilians or the government or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to put all your trust in the police or military, you have to take care of yourself sometimes.

Trem
07-31-2012, 09:12 AM
I didn't actually read the entire thread, so I don't know if someone has said this yet or not but... I'm not really comfortable with the government having guns and the civilians being banned from having guns. No government is without corruption. What if shit starts to hit the fan and we need to protect ourselves? From other civilians or the government or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to put all your trust in the police or military, you have to take care of yourself sometimes.

We are FAR past the time were we can protect ourselves from the government with guns. That might have been feasible in the 1700s but it most certainly is not the case anymore.

ArmySGT.
07-31-2012, 09:24 AM
We are FAR past the time were we can protect ourselves from the government with guns. That might have been feasible in the 1700s but it most certainly is not the case anymore.

Bullshit.

Ten years of Insurgencies taught us Asymetrical warfare can be effective. That is with people we don't like and have little in common with, now make it an American Second Civil War where in the Armed Forces are tasked with suppressing a rebellion by Americans your going to see it is not that easy.

Soldiers swear an Oath to the Constitution. Not to the Government, The President, or even the United States, as such are obligated NOT to follow Orders given by any Authority contravening the Constitution.

Sure a 18 year old Private can be fooled, but they don't lead.

There are checks and balances written into the Constitution to level the Powers of the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislature.

The Second Amendment is a Right specifically name to the People as a Check against a government operating in collusion to oppress the People.

I wouldn't give long odds on the full might of the US Armed forces at 4 million against 80 million gun owners. Especially when their Sons, Daughters, Nephews, Nieces, etc of the Citizen Soldiery.

Trem
07-31-2012, 09:59 AM
There's a big difference between "soldiers are not going to want to shoot their families" and "you can fight tanks aircraft carriers stealth bombers and nuclear weapons with handguns and hunting rifles".

ArmySGT.
07-31-2012, 10:04 AM
There's a big difference between "soldiers are not going to want to shoot their families" and "you can fight tanks aircraft carriers stealth bombers and nuclear weapons with handguns and hunting rifles".

Not really. They need people to operate them, People to bring them food, fuel, new batteries, etc. An Abrams tank is a formidable machine but the crew can't live in it, or operate it 24/7 indefinitely.

I did this for a living for 15 years. It is all equipment with as many vulnerabilities, as their are strengths. The primary weakness is people.

whirlerz
07-31-2012, 12:46 PM
*is glad Sargey weighed in here, & was waiting for him to do so..

Sophia_Starina
07-31-2012, 12:55 PM
I didn't actually read the entire thread, so I don't know if someone has said this yet or not but... I'm not really comfortable with the government having guns and the civilians being banned from having guns. No government is without corruption. What if shit starts to hit the fan and we need to protect ourselves? From other civilians or the government or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to put all your trust in the police or military, you have to take care of yourself sometimes.

Uhh Oh! Time for me to fortify the bomb-shelter and and procure more tinfoil for my hat!

Almost Jaded
07-31-2012, 09:23 PM
We are FAR past the time were we can protect ourselves from the government with guns. That might have been feasible in the 1700s but it most certainly is not the case anymore.

Sarge makes excellent points. May I point out that TWICE now I have mentioned Afghanistan holding off the full might of teh Russian military for HOW long? And Afghanistan and Iraq STILL making headaches for the strongest American military in history - and it's a TINY fraction of the total population there actually fighting.

So HOW is this true again? In the case of armed resistance of our own government - heaven forbid - you'd have FAR more people FAR better equipped resisting a military that doesn't want to be fighting them. It would take nukes to end it - which would kind of defeat the purpose, giving as it would kill all the people you're trying to subjugate and render most of teh territory you're fighting over useless for several generations.

No friends, the war they're already waging, whomever you believe "they" to be - by limiting education and distracting people from real issues, is FAR more effective.

sunny,*
07-31-2012, 09:29 PM
you'd have FAR more people FAR better equipped resisting a military that doesn't want to be fighting them. It would take nukes to end it - which would kind of defeat the purpose, giving as it would kill all the people you're trying to subjugate and render most of teh territory you're fighting over useless for several generations.

this.


the war they're already waging, whomever you believe "they" to be - by limiting education and distracting people from real issues, is FAR more effective.

this.

Kellydancer
07-31-2012, 09:34 PM
Sarge makes excellent points. May I point out that TWICE now I have mentioned Afghanistan holding off the full might of teh Russian military for HOW long? And Afghanistan and Iraq STILL making headaches for the strongest American military in history - and it's a TINY fraction of the total population there actually fighting.

So HOW is this true again? In the case of armed resistance of our own government - heaven forbid - you'd have FAR more people FAR better equipped resisting a military that doesn't want to be fighting them. It would take nukes to end it - which would kind of defeat the purpose, giving as it would kill all the people you're trying to subjugate and render most of teh territory you're fighting over useless for several generations.

No friends, the war they're already waging, whomever you believe "they" to be - by limiting education and distracting people from real issues, is FAR more effective.

On the mark, especially about education. The government is intentionally making people stupid so they aren't aware of what is happening.

eagle2
07-31-2012, 10:14 PM
I wouldn't give long odds on the full might of the US Armed forces at 4 million against 80 million gun owners. Especially when their Sons, Daughters, Nephews, Nieces, etc of the Citizen Soldiery.

You're assuming that all 80 million gun owners would be on the same side. Given our government is democratically elected, it's far more likely that the majority of Americans would be on the side of the government. The one time there was a major armed rebellion against the U.S. government, the reason was that a minority of Americans in the South didn't like the way the majority of Americans voted in the Presidential election, and the majority of Americans sided with the government.

eagle2
07-31-2012, 10:26 PM
Sarge makes excellent points. May I point out that TWICE now I have mentioned Afghanistan holding off the full might of teh Russian military for HOW long? And Afghanistan and Iraq STILL making headaches for the strongest American military in history - and it's a TINY fraction of the total population there actually fighting.

The Soviet Union would have crushed the Afghan resistance if the U.S. had not been sending the rebels some of our most advanced weapons. The rebels were on the verge of being defeated when our government started arming them with Stingers, which turned things around for them. They were also armed with advanced wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and mines. The average American gun-owner doesn't have access to such weapons.

The rebels in Iraq were for the most part defeated by the Americans while we were still there. American troops are no longer in Iraq.



So HOW is this true again? In the case of armed resistance of our own government - heaven forbid - you'd have FAR more people FAR better equipped resisting a military that doesn't want to be fighting them. It would take nukes to end it - which would kind of defeat the purpose, giving as it would kill all the people you're trying to subjugate and render most of teh territory you're fighting over useless for several generations.

Most American gun-owners are not equipped to resist a modern military. How do you know the military doesn't want to be fighting them? In the Civil War, there were plenty of soldiers in the government forces that were highly motivated to put down the rebellion.

eagle2
07-31-2012, 10:40 PM
Not really. They need people to operate them, People to bring them food, fuel, new batteries, etc. An Abrams tank is a formidable machine but the crew can't live in it, or operate it 24/7 indefinitely.

I did this for a living for 15 years. It is all equipment with as many vulnerabilities, as their are strengths. The primary weakness is people.

It's true tanks need to be based in the proximity of where they're fighting, but it's not true with military aircraft. The military can launch aircraft from bases that are hundreds of miles away from any rebellion. Soviet military aircraft, especially helicopter gunships, were decimating Afghan rebels before we started arming them with Stingers. I doubt there are many gun-owners that have weapons capable of bringing down Apache helicopters or A-10 close support aircraft.

Almost Jaded
08-01-2012, 03:47 AM
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch and his Mother Mary - this could go on forever.

FINE - in the highly unlikely event that we are ever fighting our own government and that the even more unlikely happens in that the military personnel go along with this, and the even MORE unlikely event that the majority of Americans support the government and military position and FURTHER that the "rebels" are staging a direct confrontation with said military rather than using guerrilla tactics and are therefor prone to attack from gunships and large-bore weapons - ALL THAT BEING TRUE - you're right. I concede.

In any other scenario - like, assuming a somewhat organized resistance composed of people with brains - I don't think it would go down that way. But I guess that's hard for most liberals to fathom, seeing as they'd rather the government run everything anyway and don't WANT guns because the government would never hurt them.

Regardless - none of this changes the fact that we are allowed to own guns, and that when held to the dame standard as the other Amendments, the 2nd has had liberties taken with it in interpretation.

One could even FURTHER say that none of this matters, because the wonderful, loving, benevolent government that would never hard us has been chipping away at our rights for decades now, continues to back corporations over the people regardless of WHO'S in office, and thanks to the Patriot Act - you know, the one Obama promised to repeal and hasn't yet? - they can pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want, by claiming any little thing is a "national security" issue.

Fact - 99.99999 or more of the time, we don't need either the police or the government up in our shit to take care of our lives. Fact - the vast majority of the events that DO benefit from intervention by authorities are fine with local police. Fact - there aren't 2 or 3 events a YEAR, NATIONWIDE, that would have benefited from further government intrusion. Fact - the VERY, VERY few events that DO occur, probably wouldn't have benefited from it, either. Fact - we are kept so aware and afraid of these few events - Columbine, VA Tech, 9/11, Oklahoma City, Batman whatever we're going to call it - that we have been duped - over time - into giving up more and more of our rights and liberties to protect us from these "threats".

FACT - THAT'S FUCKING PATHETIC.

Trem
08-01-2012, 05:56 AM
You have a funny idea of what constitutes fact.

ArmySGT.
08-01-2012, 08:31 AM
You're assuming that all 80 million gun owners would be on the same side. Given our government is democratically elected, it's far more likely that the majority of Americans would be on the side of the government. The one time there was a major armed rebellion against the U.S. government, the reason was that a minority of Americans in the South didn't like the way the majority of Americans voted in the Presidential election, and the majority of Americans sided with the government.

Assuming it is only half. 40 million versus 4 million. It is not really 4 million though because that would pull every pilot, sailor, and mechanic of their job to use them as Infantry. 10% of a modern military fights, the other 90% is the logistical tail.

Though our government is a Republic, and hence is a representative government based upon democratic principles this is really an issue by issue choice. There are many, many differences between the North and the South in the American Civil War. The most striking would be the population differences between the industrialized Northern States and how they absorbed immigrants versus the Southern states and their agrarian economy. To say it was a majority opinion does a disservice to the People of the time. It is odd how the States have reversed their roles nearly 2 centuries later with Vermont having secession come up on the ballot now and again.

When it comes to Civil War no assumption is valid.

ArmySGT.
08-01-2012, 08:45 AM
It's true tanks need to be based in the proximity of where they're fighting, but it's not true with military aircraft. The military can launch aircraft from bases that are hundreds of miles away from any rebellion. Soviet military aircraft, especially helicopter gunships, were decimating Afghan rebels before we started arming them with Stingers. I doubt there are many gun-owners that have weapons capable of bringing down Apache helicopters or A-10 close support aircraft.

Aircraft still need a man on the ground to tell them where to drop that bomb. They need accurate and current updates on friendly locations to prevent fratricide. You do what the Viet Cong did, and the Iraqi Insurgents learned to do. Stay close to your enemy, when close support aircraft are up, keep yourself in contact with government forces. They won't drop and burn fuel fast.

Still better to destroy those aircraft and kill the pilots on the ground. The pilots and their families are here. Not like Iraq where the War is thousands of miles away. The factory that makes the repair parts is here, the trucks that bring them from the factory to the air force base are here, the ammunition plant that builds the bombs is here. All with other Americans who have their own ideas on which side to support.

Each aircraft needs hours and hours of maintenance for each hour of flight time.

ArmySGT.
08-01-2012, 08:51 AM
I doubt there are many gun-owners that have weapons capable of bringing down Apache helicopters or A-10 close support aircraft. You should really look into what is in the private collections and museums around the country.

ashleybasher
08-01-2012, 10:17 AM
they got them .50 cal riffles that can bring down a chopper.

CupCake
08-02-2012, 10:33 AM
I didn't really read through any of the replies, but wanted to make everyone aware of the fact that a ton of crazy little girls are now sending this crazy young man letters, and a ton of ppl are coming out of their ass backwards wooded areas to participate in the support of this sick f*ck...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/james-holmes-tumblr-holmies-shock-internet/story?id=16901096

Sophia_Starina
08-02-2012, 11:21 AM
I didn't really read through any of the replies, but wanted to make everyone aware of the fact that a ton of crazy little girls are now sending this crazy young man letters, and a ton of ppl are coming out of their ass backwards wooded areas to participate in the support of this sick f*ck...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/james-holmes-tumblr-holmies-shock-internet/story?id=16901096

Yeah I heard about this too. Truly shocking. I remember a former(?) SW member named Pamela had some sort of wacky pen-pal thing going on with some notable serial killers. I believe that one of them even proposed to her. Eeeek! It's very spooky.

For older women/men who are into gnarly criminals, I think they have some sort of "I'm the only one that gets him" or "I can change him" mentality which is a bit delusional but we all know nutty people do seem to attract other nuts, so maybe that is partially correct.

As for the young girls crushing on James Holmes....
I mean... I can guess that teenagers often feel misunderstood and project those feelings of alienation onto the criminal guy, thereby identifying with him, because they feel that society has rejected them and they subconsciously wish that someone would reach out to them or support them like they are supporting criminal dude.

I don't think it is necessarily about being turned on or attracted to violent people who commit horrible crimes. I think its a clear case of teenagers being as dumb-as-doorknobs and having a tangled mess of hormones, emotions, and social pressures fucking up their not-even-half-baked little teenage minds.

In a few years the vast, vast majority of those girls will be like: "WTF was I thinking?!?!?!"

Kellydancer
08-02-2012, 12:38 PM
I've known women like that and I think it goes back to the idea that some women like bad boys. I've never understood that logic because who would want a guy like this? Actually this reminds me of a local story that's making national news. There's this former cop who is accused of killing two of his wives and is in court for one of them (the other is missing). Anyway this guy is creepy as can be and is getting a lot of mail. If he is found not guilty (unfortunately I think he will be though I think he's guilty)he'll get out of jail and he'll have women swarming him.

Melonie
08-02-2012, 12:48 PM
these are increasingly popular for 'home defense' down here way south of the border. And the only 'legal' requirement to owning one is having LEGAL TENDER !