There’s an old adage that states “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” I am a “member” of Moveon.org because I like to see what kind of rank insanity comes from their absent minds.
Today, I received an email that frankly I expected to receive – just not as soon.
We all woke up to the tragic news of the killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of many more at a late-night screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado.
Reports indicate that the disturbed individual who committed this horrifying act had a bulletproof vest, used some kind of gas canister, and had multiple guns when he opened fire in the crowded theater. A three-month-old is among the injured.
We are immeasurably sad for those who lost their lives, those wounded, and their families—and for all those who experienced the horror of those terrible moments. Let our thoughts and prayers go out to them today.
We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Sadly, it often takes moments like these to bring politicians to their senses about guns. And while signing a petition seems so inadequate in the face of what happened last night, it’s important to do what we can. Today that means taking a small step toward preventing this kind of tragedy from happening again.
The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.
And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.
It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.
It’s difficult to decide where to start on this nonsense, but I’ll give it the old online college try.
We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.
We’re all angry. We should be angry every time someone breaks the law and illegally discharges a firearm at an innocent person. However, there is no surefire way to prevent gun violence. Before guns, there were swords, axes, spears, and arrows. Before those, there were clubs and rocks.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
You can create all the “commonsense measures” you can think up and it won’t stop dangerous people from being violent. Sure, if some psycho goes to the local Cabela’s to purchase a gun legally the mental state of an applicant MIGHT be discovered IF that person had previous diagnosis. As much as Morons.org would like to think to live in a Minority Report nation, it simply isn’t possible to see into the future what every single gunowner will do. What we do know from past data is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners do NOT commit crimes.
The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.
What Morons.org won’t tell you is that the particular theater where this tragic shooting took place already bans firearms from entering its theaters. That didn’t seem to do anything but make victims out of the 12 unarmed deaths and 71 unarmed injuries. The city of Aurora doesn’t allow its citizens to carry weapons without jumping through a million and one loopholes and paying an exorbitant fee first. Then, they must wait long months for their license if it’s even approved. So, gun control only served to make matters worse in this case. Those 19,000 murders weren’t all committed with legally purchased firearms as Morons.org would have you believe, but I’ll save these comments for the next quote.
And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.
Of course it isn’t about statistics. If Morons.org followed statistics, they wouldn’t have a good, coherent argument. So, I’ll tell you what Morons.org won’t. It is estimated that nearly 50% of household possess some sort of firearm (between 250 – 280 million firearms in the US). That number has grown exponentially since 2008. Yet, according to the CDC, violent crimes committed with firearms has dropped.
Provided by CDC. Latest information available.
One effort to quantify the benefit of firearm ownership estimates that guns are used for self-defense in the United States as many as 2.5 million times each year. (Kleck G, Bates D. Chapter 7. In: Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.) Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. How does that happen where guns are banned. Thankfully, the Supreme Court fixed that issue with the Heller decision. D.C. citizens are safer today than ever before now that they are able to legally purchase and possess firearms for self defense.
It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.
Another bold-faced lie. The Huffington Post poll that Morons.org used rates over 60% of respondents as favoring current laws or less restrictive laws. Keep in mind that of the slightly less than 1500 people polled, over 1000 of them did NOT own firearms. Only 30% of gunowners faulted “lax gun laws” as the culprit of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. The poll also noted that 79% of all respondents (and 90% of gunowners) indicated that the 2nd amendment applies to ALL Americans, not just state militias. Yeah, statistics are a dangerous sport when trying to encourage more gun control.
Morons.org wastes millions of its contributors’ money on such senselessness. They are finding it harder and harder to raise funds to cover their operations and are scaling back as a result. However, they are still trying to convince their followers with false and faulty information and continue to use every tragedy as a platform to spread their gun grabbing agenda.
I just thought I’d put out some facts before the idiots take control of the airwaves using James Holmes and the Batman shooting as a springboard for more gun control.
False and/or misleading information and outright lies are the cornerstone of the the lefts’ assault on Second Amendment rights. It is, in some cases, effective especially after an atrocity such as the theater massacre because the sheeple have been effectively brainwashed into believing that everyone that owns a firearm is on the verge of being a mindless murderer.
The current administration in Washington is, by their own admission, the most anti-Second Amendment administration in the history of this nation and they are bolstered in their efforts to disarm We The People by their willing accomplices in the dominant, liberal, mass media.
Although we will never know for sure whether one or several concealed carry individuals could have either stopped or at least minimized the carnage that this miscreant wrought, one thing is certain, that so called “gun free zones” are nothing more than an invitation to those who would carry out an atrocity such as this one and effectively turning them into shooting galleries.
Let us pray for the victims and their families. And let us also pray that common sense and reality are introduced into the next round of gun control “discussions” giving everyone access to the ability to defend themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/ARMS/guncontrol.jpg
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/ARMS/GFZ.jpg
And here is the pResident in his own words:
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/ARMS/obamaquotes-a.jpg
Chicago is the perfect example of how and why gun bans fail to accomplish their stated purpose.
A criminal is a criminal, no matter what form of weapon they choose. In Chicago, the criminals all carry guns, even when the “law” says that they cannot. Why would someone who deals drugs or robs people, homes, businesses, be concerned with some law saying they cannot have guns in the city? The answer is, they aren’t. If they are willing to break the law by dealing drugs, they are certainly willing to break the law by carrying a firearm.
Then we have the gangs. Gangs are already a spot where young people who feel the need to belong get introduced to criminality as a way of life over being an honest, hard-working citizen. The graduation to carrying firearms is a logical step in their “education” in the ways of criminality.
Put two rival gangs together within the same basic geographical area, and fights will break out as one gang attempts to prove domination over the other. The young people within these gangs have been subjected to all manner of violence, so killing someone with a firearm doesn’t even phase them. Not one little bit.
But, gangs, and their population of people, make up a relatively small percentage of people living in a neighborhood. The honest people, the hard-working, or even the innocent downtrodden, make up the majority of any area’s population. By instituting a gun ban, these people are left with virtually no way to protect themselves from the criminal elements that make up the gangs.
The police are already undermanned within Chicago, and many times outnumbered within certain neighborhoods by the sheer number of gang members there. There is no possible way that the police can “protect and serve” the city’s residents at the level they need to. As such, there is no deterrent to the gangs and other criminals from carrying firearms.
Amongst other various reasons, such as intimidation, the reason these gangsters and criminals carry firearms is for protection. Protection for themselves against rival gang members, and even the police. The city of Chicago has left the majority of the citizenry without the protection enjoyed by the police and the gangs, leaving them virtually helpless against crimes.
Since the police, and their meager numbers(comparatively) cannot be the deterrent to criminals carrying and using firearms, and an unarmed majority is not a deterrent, gun crime, including homicides committed by armed assailants, has been the highest in the nation by a large percentage.
How safe can a citizen feel when left without proper means of protection?
100% of the people who ate pickles in 1870 are dead; therefore we should ban pickles according to the statistics.
So the answer is to let everyone bring guns into dark and crowded movie theaters? This would have reduced the death toll? Someone starts shooting, there’s a panicked stampede in the dark, and you think ten, twenty, thirty more people whipping out guns and discharging them is going to help matters? And these aren’t necessarily well-trained people, vets or police officers, it’s the shifty kid down the street, someone’s nearsighted grandmother, your neighbor who you suspect has a drinking problem – and they’re all in the dark, scared out of their wits, fumbling for their guns as people trample each other for the exits. This is your idea to make going to the movies safer? Talk about injecting politics into a tragedy.
Tom,
Some of the victims in the shooting were military, if they were armed with a perosnal side arm and able to respond this nutjob would have been stopped much sooner.
Of course you fail to understand that the shooter that did this assault is mentally mad and illegally got the weapons, so even with such stringent gun controls on legal citizens this would have still happened due to the man’s intent to be like The Joker (his words and notes.)
@Mr. Irons:
Maybe, maybe, maybe not. This guy was real smart and highly prepared. If as intended he had indeed lured the police into the trap set for them in his apartment and then slain dozens with explosives he might have had an even longer run of terror on the loose. This genius was smart and dedicated and determine and persevering enough to accrue to himself SUBSTANTIAL advantage. He didn’t just get the drop on his victims.
Look guns are the “shinny object” here, the deceptive lure, the distraction. If this genius could not get guns he could have constructed nail bombs with TATP: triacetone triperoxide: Mother of Satan., or something else. He appears to have had an accomplice working on the inside he could have thrown satchels of nail bombs into the theater and killed many more.
Don’t focus on the means of death. Don’t focus on the instruments of death. Focus on the instinct of the killer. This guy seems likely to have been driven by a powerful Nietzschean instinct to achieve personal transcendence through homicide.
If there is a will there will be a way.
Triumph des Willens
Tom #4 ” near sighted grandmother,your neighbor who you suspect has a drinking problem.” Priceless
@Mike O’Malley:
I don’t know about transcendece being his goal, since he is dubbing himself as a real life counterpart to The Joker. We do not know why he went from esteemed student to sheer madness and we’ll never figure that one out. But it’s a Joker staple to kill and destroy as much as possible in as short a time as possible in any DC comics materials, and this guy tried to live up to the mayhem.
Instictively most trained to fight or serve in law enforcement or military will react and try to stop something, since the staff seeing the film were not armed it’s clear this went further than it should have if anyone in that room was armed with intent to defend themselves or others. If the Criminal is the only one using the weapons while the legal citizen is stripped from legal access to them this situation will only repeat and repeat with death tolls hitting higher numbers.
I may be the only one in this group who has defended himself with a weapon, a pistol, once in Chicago and once in Delaware. Both times I had pistol without a permit and both times I told the cops later on (It was in the 70’s and it was a different era, I don’t recommend this behavior to anyone else). One perp was breaking into my hotel room and one was breaking into an apartment, without a weapon i would have had no choice but to engage with my fists and feet. I have used them on more occasions than I can remember, I don’t go down easy, but you can get into trouble for beating a perp half to death. Both of these perps lost their nerve when I opened the door and cocked the revolver at close range. They stuck their toes in the dirt, spit the bit, and never quit apologizing while making a hasty withdrawal. Would I have shot them if my weapon was legal? Not necessarily, they were just B &E perps without a weapon. Would I have shot them if they had a weapon? AbsoF’inglutely, they would have been dead. Personally, if I do a little time for defending myself, then that is the way it will go down, but I refuse to be a victim of some Marxist Nut or Crack Smoker.
However, there is no SUREFIRE way to prevent gun violence.
If you were trying to be ironic, that’s just cruel. Otherwise, you might want to use a word other than “surefire.”
@Mr. Irons:
I am all for people owning guns for hunting or home protection, or whatever gets your rocks off, as long as it isn’t for accidentily shooting me in the head while trying to play hero (cause god forbid maybe you’re a lousy shot) in a chaotic dark movie theatre. I understand you’re programmed to equate having a gun as a right and not a privledge but for the sake of those of us you might unwittingly use as target practice, you might reconsider deploying lethal force during Toy Story 3. Don’t we have the right not to be the victims of your overzelous incompetence? If not, where does it end? Let’s bring knives to the movies, and swords to the movies, and grenades to the movies. The thing is, i won’t bitch about someone killing their kid by accident because of the robber who wasnt really there and daddy had too much to drink – that’s a domestic tragedy. If that’s what the NRA wants, they can have it. But if you talk about bringing firearms into public places and using them and endangering my family because you think you’re such a good shot, such a hero, better than law enforcement, that i got a serious problem with it.
So Tom your solution is exactly the Aurora event for future mass murderers? Not a single person able to defend themselves by legal restrictions while a criminal who tosses the law OUT the window racks up kills? You are an idiot.
I’m an idiot because I think allowing millions of people to bring guns into movie theatres is a poor way to deter violence? Like that wouldn’t result in any deaths, accidental or otherwise ? Wow. I guess just so you can feel safe, the rest of us should just quietly accept the additional danger that your paranoia will saddle us with. Or we can leave law enforcement to the professionals and try to make it harder for psychopaths to get guns.
There were no guns in the Theater at all by legal citizens, Mr. Holmes aka wannabe The Joker did the violence anyway. He was packing an AR-15 along with a shotgun and two smaller arms with over 6,000 rounds of ammo and he damn well could have killed damn near the entire theater out before police arrived. So yes, you are an idiot. As long as there are those craving to commit mass murder and chaos (which there are such people) you do not understand that removing the right to defend one’s self from such people is going to lead to further Aurora events.
And yes, let’s just leave it all to the Police who took about 4 minutes to get there. In that amount of time 12 people dead and about 50 plus wounded and he could have kept going. You have a right to your logic and way of thinking but I’ll rather be able to defend myself from such nutjobs and report myself to the police after the event.
re: Before guns, there were swords, axes, spears, and arrows. Before those, there were clubs and rocks.
You forgot fire. Does anyone remember this incident? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
The Happy Land fire killed 87 people.
“Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested shortly after and ultimately convicted of arson and murder.”
I’m surprised the left hasn’t tried to ban fire. My guess is that more people would rather face a gunman than someone throwing Molotov Cocktails. Burns can be far worse for survivors than a gunshot wound. Someone that is intelligent and crazy will be able to find some creative way to kill if they so wish to do so.
One, just one, armed man or woman could have stopped this maniac. But what if you had a couple dozen good Samaritans packing heat? It takes a long time for police to arrive on any crime scene. That leaves the citizens to fend for themselves. If you want to try that with a small pocket knife of a sling shot, vote for the obamanation in November and kiss your guns goodbye.
And where did this piece of shit get all the swat gear and money for the weapons and ammo? eric the holder?
Or how about this? A list of Nations who have had Gun Control where things devolve into extreme abuses by the Government on the Citizens:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5D929F4D85DA1BF1A476BE8901E30F2C
World History is not postive to Gun Control’s outcomes unless you’re the ruling political power…
@Tom: “Or we can leave law enforcement to the professionals and try to make it harder for psychopaths to get guns”….Yeah, how’s that working out?…..The bottom line is that more government involvement results in one thing, more restrictions for law abiders…The liberal mantra of wanting to have further gun control has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe and never has…Ironic how the places with the strictest gun control laws have an abismal crime record…Liberals believe that just because someone wants and has the right to carry a firearm they are nothing more than vigilantes looking to shoot someone, then again, there aren’t to many if any liberals I know that I would trust with a potato gun let alone a firearm…Weak wrists and all…
@Mr. Irons:
Yes, and he bought that arsenal all legally, yet you’re under the impression that gun laws are somehow allowing massacres because they’re too lax? Massacres perpetrated by the insane happen in all civilized countries, but only in America have we become conditioned to consider them routine. And only here is it taboo to question why we make it easy for a person to carry out a massacre, to buy an AR-15 and thousands of rounds of ammo. Doesn’t sound like a hunter to me, and if he’s a member of a ‘well-regulated militia’ that’s news. You’re solution is in a country where it’s relatively easy to purchase and carry weapons, let’s just make it easier. You want to fight a forest fire with gasoline. It’s utter speculation that one or two-dozen people with guns in a crowded panicked theater would have helped matters rather than made them worse . Do you think so little of the training and abilities of professionals that you believe a bunch of untrained people carrying firearms would have know how to react in that situation without making it worse? Can you tell me for a fact that more people might not have been killed by friendly fire? All you have is speculation to combat the hard fact of the matter that this person’s ability to plan and easily amass these weapons is a direct contributing factor to these deaths, and therefore we have every right to ask why it was so easy time and time again.
@Sua Sponte:
Here we go. The classic NRA stooge tactic of dumbing down the argument. You’re either for or against guns, for or against the Constitution, no middle ground. God forbid a citizen believes something like a gun deserves the same measured consideration as a car, or an airplane. After all, I’m all for flying, but I don’t think an untrained 12 year old should be allowed to get in the cockpit. I’m all for the purchase of airplanes by qualified persons, but I don’t think private citizens should have access to buying F-16 fighter jets. But reasonableness has no place in this argument. People of this mind state are incapable of having this conversation. They are constitutionally (and “Constitutionally”) unable to understand an argument al0ng the lines of : “I believe in responsible gun ownership, but think that laws should reflect reality, for example, that it should be harder to purchase an AR-15 (a gun that’s sole purpose is to kill many as efficiently as possible) than a handgun”. All they hear is “I want to take away your guns”. It’s like the little kid putting his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes.
@Tom:
And that sir is a shoddy vacuous analysis;
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177156/James-Holmes-Dark-Knight-shooting-Bomb-disposal-crews-explode-chemicals-Arapahoe-County.html#ixzz21Mz0ZY9n
Now read that last paragraph slowly and let it sink in: “Holmes’ apartment appears to have three types of explosives – jars filled with accelerants, chemicals that would explode when mixed together and more than 30 ‘improvised grenades,’ the official said.”
They are talking about IED’s
Tell us Tom, what is the annual lobbying budget of National IED Association?
.
This BTW Tom is the preferred explosive used by American born multi-murders of late:
It’s common everyday name is “Mother of Satan”.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33025395/ns/world_news-terrorism/t/fbi-investigating-seattleite-suicide-bombing/#.UAwyt4GpdUo
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/8494153-418/somali-american-a-suicide-bomber-in-mogadishu-attack-militants.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/123011378.html?refer=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/world/africa/truck-bomb-kills-dozens-in-somalias-capital.html?_r=1
A Thought From The Past (Over 2,000 Years Ago)
“Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.”
“A sword never kills anybody; it’s a tool in the killer’s hand.” – Lucius Annaeus Seneca.
@Skookum:
We focus on the sword because we will not focus on the man and see our true peril, our own human nature. Sophocles knew. Augustine knew far more …
The fact is that a person who believes that killing another human being is the answer to their problems, or their purpose in life, will do so and do so with whatever weapon they have at their disposal.
The same goes for the gang members in our inner cities and large populated areas. Even if we assume that gun control laws would affect the gangs, which is a wild assumption given the facts, these gang members would resort to blunt force and bladed weapons to commit their crimes. People will still be killed.
What the liberal/progressives do not link together is that while firearms may be the ‘easy’ choice of criminals to conduct their crimes, it is also an easy, effective way for people to personally protect themselves.
Gun control laws are ONLY observed by the people who wouldn’t commit these crimes anyways, because they are honest, law-abiding citizens. What does that leave? The criminals, who then become much more heavily armed, even if only with a handgun, than their targets for their crimes.
What’s truly disingenuous is the hand-wringing by those who claim that there is a credible threat to easy access to guns, or things like tear gas grenades. This, again, is just NRA propaganda with no meaningful basis in reality. If the NRA doesn’t outright own both sides of the isle, it at least has the opposition suitably cowed, and that includes the President who won’t utter a peep about guns in an election year:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/why-the-aurora-shooting-wont-affect-gun-laws/260134/
So there you have it. You paid for the laws, but you don’t want to own the consequences. This is the morally bankrupt hypocrisy that leads to statements blaming the left for this tragedy because specious logic dictates allowing guns in movie theaters would have prevented it; basic common sense now “make(s) victims out of the 12 unarmed deaths and 71 unarmed injuries”.
There are two sides to this issue, but only one side is willing to talk about it earnestly. Gun advocates have made it clear they don’t want to have a reasonable dialogue on this issue.They’d rather stick to simplistic mantras, demonize anyone who questions their agenda, and ply congress with money. You would think at a time when gun advocates have bought and paid for their agenda to the degree where no national Democratic leader will even mention gun control publicly, they’d have the class at least to remain silent in the wake of another mass shooting, instead of seeking to further their agenda. You thought wrong.
@johngalt:
What the liberal/progressives do not do is admit the Abyss. Nietzsche had far greater insight that they. As did Heidegger. Few Progressive intellectuals have a handle on either man from my vantage.
As Anders Behring Breivik moved form victim to victim he was “heard screaming boisterously – “Oh, wow! Oh! wow! as he murdered teenagers”, as they died. Transcendence through will to power and homicide. Anders Behring Breivik is one of Nietzsce’s children. Be unsurprised if James Holmes is found to be among Breivik’s brethren. Fear, for there will be more.
Triumph des Willens, how we forget …
@Tom:
I didn’t ask you that. I asked you “Tom, what is the annual lobbying budget of National IED Association?”
Show us Tom that you are up to a question that is unaddressed by Hoff-post or Think Progress et al.
.
BTW Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot and murdered 13, not 12 as Holmes appears to have done. I paid Major Hasan’s salary with my tax dollars! Say Tom. why the silence about Major Nidal Malik Hasan?
@Mike O’Malley:
I didn’t answer your question because I wasn’t responding to you. I frankly don’t even understand your point, but I’m willing to keep an open mind if you’d like to share it.
@Tom:
Work at it then. You are focused on a distraction. Look guns are the “shinny object” here, the deceptive lure, the distraction. If this genius could not get guns he could have constructed nail bombs with TATP: triacetone triperoxide: Mother of Satan., or something else. He appears to have had an accomplice working on the inside he could have thrown satchels of nail bombs into the theater and killed many more.
That is what the list I gave you of American born mass murders in Somalia is about. In the absence of guns such killers will find another tool and kill far more people. As Holmes appears to have attempted. Timothy McVeigh took 168 lives, including those of 19 children under the age of 6.
Don’t focus on the means of death. Don’t focus on the instruments of death. Focus on the instinct of the killer. This guy seems likely to have been driven by a powerful Nietzschean instinct to achieve personal transcendence through homicide.
If there is a will there will be a way.
Triumph des Willens
@Mike O’Malley:
It’s interesting that you’d bring up Norway. Do you want to read some statistics?
As point of comparison:
So in 2009, an American citizen was 15.68 times more likely to be the victim of a firearm homicide than a citizen of Norway. You’re a smart man, Mike. You seem to have all the answers on this topic. Please explain for us the most likely explanation for that discrepancy, if you will?
@Tom:
An important point here too. If you explore the Nazi Freikorps and Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) I expect you will find new few dedicaded Nazis leader and thugs who would fit in with the accused killer James Holmes here today:
Is This Aurora Theater Shooter James Holmes’ AdultFriendFinder Account?
@Mike O’Malley:
That is the point. Gun control laws in Israel are highly restrictive, yet, there are still mass killings there.
Gun control laws in Chicago were amongst the most restrictive in the nation, yet, the people who were most likely to commit violent crimes still found a way to do so, despite the laws on the books. As it happened, only the honest, law-abiding citizens were disarmed, and, I might add, unprotected.
@Mike O’Malley:
So you believe that regulations and access to materials, including guns, have no bearing on the success or failure of a person looking to harm others?
@Mike O’Malley:
That seems like a foolish public policy. Just because someone can kill without a gun doesn’t logically mean it’s pointless to try to take guns out of the hands of killers. Guns are pretty good at killing people, Mike. They’re actually much much more versatile, being mobile, much easier to conceal, than homemade bombs. That’s why the US Marines don’t run around in Afghanistan with bags of nails instead of guns.
@Tom:
Population of Norway in 2010: 4,858,200. In 2010 between 140 and 150 people were murdered in Norway.
http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/NO/crime.html
As of 2012, the United States has a total resident population of 313,961,000, making it the third most populous country in the world. It is a very urbanized population, with 82% residing in cities and suburbs as of 2008 (the worldwide urban rate is 50.5%
The demographics of Norway are incomparable to USA as a whole. They are however comparable to that of Minnesota with an population of 5,303,925. In 2010 only 96 people were murdered in Minnesota.
Thanks
The American crime rates are distorted by the existence of a large Black Urban underclass in the USA and by the disproportionately young single young male population of Hispanic illegal immigrants.
Societies with an imbalance of young single males tend towards violence. I’d say you need to spend more time working on such demographics. You could start here Losing Ground, by Charles Murray.
@Tom:
You realize that your only way out of the dilemma you have placed yourself in is to call for the establishment of a police state. In my experience, police states don’t work out very well in regard to violence.
Say Tom why not actual read my substantive answers to you rather that just come back with a quick feel-good retort.
@Mike O’@Mike O’Malley: @Mike O’Malley: @Mike O’Malley: @Mike O’Malley: @Mike O’Malley: Malley:
@johngalt:
That’s because Chicago maintains a disproportionately large Urban Black Underclass. The fact that Chicago’s local government is notoriously corrupt helps as much as it did in Detroit too.
Tom, you seem to be of the belief that if guns were more strictly regulated, there would be fewer murders. That this a false premise. Professor John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) has done extensive studies into the the gun related crime rates between those cities, like Chicago and Washington, D.C., that had super restrictive gun laws and the crime rate in areas that did not. What he found, which is interesting, is when the SCOTUS overturned the highly restrictive gun laws of Washington, D.C., violent crime rates dropped by 25%, compared to the national average of 6%. And what he also learned was that every incident of a mass murder such as Aurora involved a gun free zone, from Columbine, to Virginia Tech to Fort Hood (Clinton issued an EO that military were not allowed to carry side arms while on base).
In 2009, the FBI reported the stats on murder in the U.S. Of those, 67.38% were done with firearms, and 80% of those fire arms were obtained by the murderer illegally (theft, black market, etc.). But what is notable is the number of murders committed by “personal weapons” listed by the FBI as “fists, hands, feet.” Almost 2,000 people were beaten to death in 2009. How do you propose that we end the number of murders committed by the use of fists, hands and feet, or the other almost 14% of murders that were facilitated by other means such as shovels, axes, etc or the 13.2% that were facilitated by the use of a knife?
Do you want stricter regulations on the purchase of a knife or a shovel? Do you really think that will put a stop to those who want to kill someone?
We are in shock over the Aurora killings, but for only one reason; that is was done in the same area by one person. Chicago saw 47 murders in the month of June, an average of almost 12 a weekend, yet the public outrage over those killings is minimal compared to Aurora. But let’s take it even further: over 9,000 Americans are murdered each year by illegal aliens, 13 per day by drunk driving illegals, 12 per day by other means. Yet, there is no demand from the left that we remove the very thing causing those deaths; the illegal alien. Instead, the left wants to hand out Welcome Wagon baskets to all of them. On September 11, 2001, 2,996 people lost their lives and not by the use of a gun but rather the use of planes. Do we now outlaw all planes? How about traffic fatalities? 2009 saw 33,808 dead in traffic fatalities. Do we now outlaw vehicles or create more stringent regulations for being able to hold a drivers’ licence?
And where are the FBI stats on how gun ownership, and the ability to use that weapon, has actually saved lives as it probably did at the Palms Internet Cafe when a 71 year old veteran decided to not be a victim to two thugs wielding baseball bat and pistols?
What you don’t want to admit is that those legal gun owners, who are willing to go through the FBI background checks, who take gun safety classes and who purchase those weapons for no other reason that personal safety are not the ones who will commit murders such as Aurora. Had the Aurora shooter wanted to kill all those people, and did not have access to a legal weapon, he would have a) purchased one, two or three from a street source or b) found another means to kill 12 people and wound 59.
@Mike O’Malley:
@Mike O’Malley:
Mike, feel free to blame racial demographics. I think most rational people would at least admit the possibility of a correlation between the nation with the by-far largest civilian per capita gun ownership in the world, and a staggering number of gun deaths. And for the record, Norway has a relatively robust per capita gun ownership, but they also have some of those (what I’d label) sensible gun polices in place that the US gun lobby will never consider. This is why the NRA will never enter into a discussion on gun policy. They can’t win the argument that certain policies won’t decrease violence, so they simply tell you it’s all about taking your guns away. What these policies will decrease in the profit margins of gun manufactures and dealers, which is what this is of course all about, the bottom line. I can at least respect those who who are willing to admit and own the costs associated with their beliefs, but so far, Mike, you haven’t gotten there.
@Mike O’Malley:
Ah, et tu, Mike? You can’t maintain a discussion based on facts and persuasion so you go the lazy cliche avenue of calling me, what, a Marxist who wants to take your precious guns away? What a waste of time you turned out to be.
@retire05:
Outrageous and dishonest. Show me where I’ve written anything like that? What does not believing guns should be allowed in movie theaters have to do with anything you’ve written? What does disagreeing with certain gun policies have to do with anything you’ve written? So please, back up that statement. I would call you a liar, but perhaps you’re just stupid. Based on past experience, I’d vote both.
@Tom:
You can call me all the names you want (dumb/stupid) but it doesn’t eliminate this one fact: there is evil in this world that is unexplainable and there is no way that any government rule, regulation or restriction on any inamimate object can abolish that.
Now, you said:
“What does believing that guns should not be allowed in movie theaters have to do with anything you have written?”
Guess what, Tom, guns were not allowed in that Aurora movie theater. The theater chain itself has a “no gun” rule, and this theater took it even beyond that not allowing their own security, which were off-duty police officers, to carry their service revolvers. “Gun free” was gun free for every law abiding movie goer, along with the theaters’ own security detail. It was not for the shooter. So just exactly how exactly did making that theater a gun free zone deter the shooter? The answer, for anyone with two grey cells bumpging together is, it didn’t. It simply made the theater a target rich environment for the shooter.
@retire05:
You didn’t asnwer my question in 41. Please back up your dishonest statement in post 38, if you can.
(head slapping forehead). You don’t say? Try going back and reading the other entries in the thread before jumping in and making a fool of yourself. My first post was stating I agree with the existing policy in response to someone who does not.
This is my last communication with you until you back up your statement in post 38, or retract it. If you do neither, we will all know you are a liar or a fool. We’re waiting.
@Tom:
Do you think the name calling makes you superior in intellect or rational than others? News flash, it does not.
Why don’t you address the points I made instead of lobbing perjoratives? Or is that above your pay grade?
@Tom: “I believe in responsible gun ownership, but think that laws should reflect reality, for example, that it should be harder to purchase an AR-15 (a gun that’s sole purpose is to kill many as efficiently as possible) than a handgun”…..15 rounds in an AR, 15 rounds in Glock…But the AR’s sole purpose is to kill as many as efficiently as possible?….What’s the saying, there is nothing more dangerous than a Marine and his rifle?….It’s not the rifle, it’s the training of the individual or their will, in this case, a crazy person with people coraled….What about automatic pistols?….Not even going to go into the rest of your statement as it’s purely chafe….
It’s not realistic to attempt to outlaw or restrict access to anything and everything that could ever conceivably be used as a weapon.
Once the firearms are gone, then you have to outlaw knives. Once the knives are gone, then you have to outlaw icepicks and screwdrivers. Once those things are gone then you have to outlaw pieces of pipe.
And so on and so on…
Eventually everything is outlawed and all that is left is we humans ourselves and, as we discovered with cannibal down in Florida, human jaws can be destructive if the owner of those jaws decides to use them that way.
There is much to be learned from this shooting, also in Aurora, CO:
And from this one at Appalachian School of Law in 2002.
It would be my personal preference that I, and those that I love and care about, are never placed in a situation where they are helpless fish swimming round in a barrel and have no ready means of self-defense at their disposal.
@Tom:
Tom feel free to morally posture and to preen in righteous indignation. You may also freely ignore racial demographics in America and you might get YOURSELF killed in inner-city urban America (or for that matter rural West Virginia). However if you have the intellectual integrity to discuss these matters with me and to treat me with the respect due to any American, you might learn something and become a better citizen for it.
@Tom:
I didn’t call you a Marxist Tom. I don’t own a gun, don’t misrepresent what I say and don’t waste my time with straw men arguments.
.
.
Logical fallacy:
A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.