Another Movie Theatre Shooting

[Jenksismyhero]

Because over 30,000 Americans die every year from guns, we should implement policies to reduce those numbers.

 

And most reasonable people in this country don't have a problem implementing certain policies. But we also have people seeking full on bans.

 

 

 

What is the threat of someone breaking into your home in rural middle-of-nowhere country versus suburban or urban areas? I think the odds are directly the opposite here.

 

Not in terms of available assistance. I'm just saying a dude in the Rockies 45 minutes from town is going to have a different viewpoint on the need to have a gun available over a person living in Lincoln Park, 5 min from the closest cop at any given time of day.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

3000 out of 320,760,000 people (as of 4-15-15) is .0000935%. HUGE problem we have there. I am sure it is huge for the 3000 families effected, but as an overall 'epidemic' it is peanuts. You could probably find more than 3000 people who were saved by guns each year to balance that out.

This argument proves far too much. Childhood leukemia claims less than 2000 people a year. Barely even an issue, who cares?

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

You are all over the place. Last time I checked eating McDonalds couldnt accidentally kill my neighbor. There is a huge difference between laws that are designed to "protect me from me" and laws that are designed to "protect me from you."

 

If we're passing gun bans to protect people from committing suicide how is that not a law to protect me from me?

 

(edit)

 

What is a gun good for besides for the above purposes?

 

And before you answer to quick, hunting is "hurting or killing" something.

 

Unless you are going to reference the Simpsons episode where Homer uses his gun to change the channel, because as we all know, guns make great remote controls.

 

Sport? Target practice? You don't have to hurt or kill something to enjoy a gun.

[StrangeSox]

And most reasonable people in this country don't have a problem implementing certain policies. But we also have people seeking full on bans.

 

Some. But again, something as simple as a universal background check couldn't even pass after Sandy Hook. Gun rights absolutionists will oppose any measure at all. More states have actually loosened their gun laws in the last few years.

 

Not in terms of available assistance. I'm just saying a dude in the Rockies 45 minutes from town is going to have a different viewpoint on the need to have a gun available over a person living in Lincoln Park, 5 min from the closest cop at any given time of day.

 

But the person living in the Rockies has very little chance of someone breaking into their home, necessitating a gun for self-defense. I think you get farther with the hunter/nuisance animal control than saying they need them in case of a break-in, imo.

[Jenksismyhero]

When was anyone talking about the Colorado shooting? This is a thread that started with the more recent mass shooting in a Louisiana theater. Two women were killed and the shooter killed himself.

 

 

I dunno why I was thinking about the Colorado shooting.

 

 

Guns are taboo because they are designed and used to intentionally kill people. That is their purpose. As far as who has the most exposure to gun homicide and violence, it's more urban. Suicides are actually more rural.

 

If this were true they'd have been taboo for centuries. But they haven't been in our country until recently.

 

edit: and it's probably 100% political because gun rights get people riled up.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Some. But again, something as simple as a universal background check couldn't even pass after Sandy Hook. Gun rights absolutionists will oppose any measure at all. More states have actually loosened their gun laws in the last few years.

 

If you give an inch, they take a mile. We all know a background check would be just the start. Then it's on to the next thing. That's why they oppose any new restrictions.

[Soxbadger]

If we're passing gun bans to protect people from committing suicide how is that not a law to protect me from me?

 

 

 

Sport? Target practice? You don't have to hurt or kill something to enjoy a gun.

 

 

1) Suicide isnt my argument.

 

2) I have no problem with people having guns that are stored at a gun range and only allowed to be used on the premises.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

1) Suicide isnt my argument.

 

2) I have no problem with people having guns that are stored at a gun range and only allowed to be used on the premises.

 

Well, then don't inject yourself into the argument that's being had.

 

And great, I'm glad you concede your original point that guns have no other purpose than hurting or killing people is wrong.

[StrangeSox]

If you give an inch, they take a mile. We all know a background check would be just the start. Then it's on to the next thing. That's why they oppose any new restrictions.

So you oppose any new gun regulations whatsoever because of a slippery slope argument, but you keep insisting that "most people" have no problem with additional gun regulations.

[StrangeSox]

Well, then don't inject yourself into the argument that's being had.

 

And great, I'm glad you concede your original point that guns have no other purpose than hurting or killing people is wrong.

I can use my car to store my groceries, but that's not the intended and designed purpose. Almost all guns are intended and designed to hurt or kill something.

[Balta1701]

3000 out of 320,760,000 people (as of 4-15-15) is .0000935%. HUGE problem we have there. I am sure it is huge for the 3000 families effected, but as an overall 'epidemic' it is peanuts. You could probably find more than 3000 people who were saved by guns each year to balance that out.

One of my personal favorite anecdotes about this whole discussion is that after Sandy Hook, the NY Times or the Post or someone like that started compiling a list of kids killed in accidental shootings to see if they were being undercounted (note - they were by a factor of 2). They got complaints about how they weren't keeping a list of when guns were used in self defense. Turned out they were, there were just that few, and a majority of those were things like arguments in the home where guns were pulled from both sides or people pulling guns on someone else as a threat and then declaring that they were doing it in self defense.

[Soxbadger]

Well, then don't inject yourself into the argument that's being had.

 

And great, I'm glad you concede your original point that guns have no other purpose than hurting or killing people is wrong.

 

Guns at home are, which is what you are arguing for. I may have missed a word in the original statement, but Im pretty confident everyone knew I was talking about guns at home.

 

[EvilMonkey]

One of my personal favorite anecdotes about this whole discussion is that after Sandy Hook, the NY Times or the Post or someone like that started compiling a list of kids killed in accidental shootings to see if they were being undercounted (note - they were by a factor of 2). They got complaints about how they weren't keeping a list of when guns were used in self defense. Turned out they were, there were just that few, and a majority of those were things like arguments in the home where guns were pulled from both sides or people pulling guns on someone else as a threat and then declaring that they were doing it in self defense.

If I recall, they also got busted for counting kids twice, by making the 'kids' category 24 and under, but the adult category 18+. And I trust the NYT to accurately report good gun usage as much as ss trusts any link from breitbart. Which means I don't. Jenks posted a link, go check it out. And those are just the ones that get sent into them.

[Jenksismyhero]

So you oppose any new gun regulations whatsoever because of a slippery slope argument, but you keep insisting that "most people" have no problem with additional gun regulations.

 

I don't think most people do. A vocal, powerful minority is different.

 

If you were to somehow give an assurance to the NRA that all you wanted were back ground checks and other administrative requirements, and nothing further, I bet they'd happily agree. But they know, correctly, that then in 1 year there would be calls for back ground checks, for gun registries, for purchase limits, for size limits, for ammo limits, those autodetecting things that lock guns if in the hands of the wrong person and on and on. It's not an unreasonable slippery slope argument, it's a very real one given the types of legislation that has been proposed and/or passed.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can use my car to store my groceries, but that's not the intended and designed purpose. Almost all guns are intended and designed to hurt or kill something.

 

Who gives a crap about the intention/design. How do people use the item? If it's no longer JUST the intended purpose, it has additional uses. I'm not arguing that guns are never used for hurting/killing. That would be dumb. That's obviously the vast majority of the use. But it's also equally dumb to keep saying guns are evil bad things because they have no other use than to kill things. That's just not true. I know several people who own handguns strictly for the purpose of shooting cans in a field and/or going to a range. It's a hobby. It has nothing to do with death.

[Balta1701]

3000 out of 320,760,000 people (as of 4-15-15) is .0000935%. HUGE problem we have there. I am sure it is huge for the 3000 families effected, but as an overall 'epidemic' it is peanuts. You could probably find more than 3000 people who were saved by guns each year to balance that out.

 

 

If I recall, they also got busted for counting kids twice, by making the 'kids' category 24 and under, but the adult category 18+. And I trust the NYT to accurately report good gun usage as much as ss trusts any link from breitbart. Which means I don't. Jenks posted a link, go check it out. And those are just the ones that get sent into them.

I'm sure that for the 1362 cases recorded on that page it's a huge deal, but you could find 90,000 people killed by guns over the 3 year period counted by that website to balance that out.

 

Or are we only supposed to minimize things when its people dying?

[StrangeSox]

I don't think most people do. A vocal, powerful minority is different.

 

If you were to somehow give an assurance to the NRA that all you wanted were back ground checks and other administrative requirements, and nothing further, I bet they'd happily agree. But they know, correctly, that then in 1 year there would be calls for back ground checks, for gun registries, for purchase limits, for size limits, for ammo limits, those autodetecting things that lock guns if in the hands of the wrong person and on and on. It's not an unreasonable slippery slope argument, it's a very real one given the types of legislation that has been proposed and/or passed.

You said above most people support reasonable gun laws but now you say the nra is correct in opposing literally any new law because of a fear of different laws in the future.

[Jenksismyhero]

Guns at home are, which is what you are arguing for. I may have missed a word in the original statement, but Im pretty confident everyone knew I was talking about guns at home.

 

You're wrong. I had a 410 shotgun at home that was never once used to kill or hurt anything. I had a clay disc shooter and I shot discs in the air. People keep handguns at home for the same reason.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

You said above most people support reasonable gun laws but now you say the nra is correct in opposing literally any new law because of a fear of different laws in the future.

 

I'm saying I can understand the reason they act they way they do. Doesn't mean I personally agree with it in every situation.

[Texsox]

I'd imagine it would be quite the disorienting situation with people running everywhere and many not even being able to quickly and accurately realize 1) what's going on and 2) where the shots are actually coming from. As Balta pointed out, at some point, the shooter in this case walked out with the crowd and was attempting to blend in before he spotted the police. That's a whole theater full of people who didn't recognize the man who was just trying to kill them.

 

People get really bad tunnel vision in situations like that. Police and military (and private security forces) train in these high-stress, active shooter scenarios and they can still fail. I don't think you can expect the person who took a 6 hour class on a saturday and goes to the range to shoot at paper occasionally to perform in a situation as crowded and disorienting as an active shooter in a movie theater.

OK, I agree with you now. In your world, people should not have guns, they are way too stupid. Where I've been from people duck from danger. It's an instinct. I am laughing out loud at people running around arms raised bumping into each other, bumping into the guy with the gun.

 

They didn't recognize him? You are comparing recognizing someone shooting a gun with someone just walking and no sign of the gun? Well, you got me. If those two scenes are equivalent, I can't argue with you. In my world people can recognize that someone is shooting a gun and that he is dangerous and you should avoid him. You may wish to teach that to the people around you. You are right, later, when he isn't shooting a gun, they might not. What exactly then is your point? Hey I don't recognize the guy shooting at me so I'll just randomly walk over to him? As a gun owner if I see someone kill two people in front of me, and I'm his next victim, is it ok if I shoot even though I might not recognize him later? I'm probably looking at the gun, his chest, the backdrop, where his eyes are. I'm not trying to memorize his face so we can get together later at Starbucks for a coffee. But no, if he's across the room I'm too busy ducking and getting out of there to memorize what he looks like.

 

Wow. You believe that people will just start running around not knowing where the danger is coming from? Are they running in circles like carnival targets I'll tell you what, you run in circles or directly at a person shooting, I'll duck down and hide with the intelligent people.

 

Again with the strawman. I don't think you realize that I wouldn't try to do the job of a cop. Criminals randomly fire into crowds, normal people do not. You keep making these worst case scenarios that a normal gun owner with a license to carry would not do. Maybe you would suddenly start acting like a criminal but normal people do not. A motherf***ing killer is standing over you with a gun, you shoot. You don't shoot across a theater with idiots running towards the shooter.

 

You call it being a vigilante. If someone is about to kill one of my kids, I'm shooting. That's personal protection, not being a vigilant.

 

[StrangeSox]

Those sure are words

[Balta1701]

If your number 1 priority is to keep your family safe, and strong evidence consistently shows that your children have a significantly higher chance of dying with a gun in the house...you don't keep one there. No matter how much your gut tells you otherwise, you don't let whatever desire you have, whatever situation you're picturing...to overwhelm that reality.

[caulfield12]

Who can explain exactly when after the War of 1812 and the Native American wars in the 1870's and 1880's it happened that firearm ownership got unhinged from service in a well-maintained militia/defensive purposes to individual ownership?

 

Surely it wasn't spelled out until the Heller S.C. decision, but how can modern gun owners honestly read the lines of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and think the Framers intended the current interpretation?

 

There's no doubt the NRA and individual states have succeeded in defeating the national government on this issue, but what were the first cases where the government tried to take gun rights away and limit them to military/militia/national guards?

 

Because, other than Pearl Harbor and 9/11, I'm having a hard time seeing the national/regional/local defense side of this, and owning guns wouldn't have helped much on 9/11 unless you were on United 93, and that, as we know...is probably not another place where we want to guarantee gun rights, on crowded airliners 37,000 feet above the ground.

 

Was it simply part of the antibellum South's and eventually the West's distaste for any rules coming from Washington? Hunters?

 

Who has actually studied the entire history of gun control and can comment in an academic/factual/non-partisan fashion?

Edited July 27, 2015 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

You're wrong. I had a 410 shotgun at home that was never once used to kill or hurt anything. I had a clay disc shooter and I shot discs in the air. People keep handguns at home for the same reason.

 

After thinking about it, if a city/county/whatever wants to allow people to have a gun range on their property, thats okay. Honestly, I never even considered that as possibly being legal, but that is probably because Im from north suburbs/chicago so Ill concede that a rural area may allow something like that. And that is just like a pool, its a risk, but if your neighbor doesnt like it he can 1) move or 2) petition the city (whoever) to change the laws.

[greg775]

Maybe dead, but at least you have a fighting chance instead of hoping he doesn't see you in the dark or decides that you should live instead of die that day.

Thing is, folks, we Americans have a right to do what Tex has suggested. I mean, he's not going to shoot in the theatre unless he has a good shot at the son of a b**** killer. The killer happens to be in the row right ahead of Tex, bam, Tex ends the problem and is a hero. I mean don't we Americans have the right to protect ourselves? If Tex starts shooting indescriminately and kills somebody, then Tex goes to jail for involuntary manslaughter as well.