The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control

Jump to Last Post 51-79 of 79 discussions (857 posts)

66
krsharp05posted 12 years ago
It's dismissive to say that what this man did was "insane" when in fact, he was not. He is a psychopath. (not to be confused with psychosis - very different).

If he has boarded a bus and plowed down 71 people would everyone be arguing for stricter traffic laws? I seriously doubt it.

What happened in Colorado is about behavior, not guns.
reply report
1. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The UK's response to a similar incident was more civilized than ours here in the US.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/sport … eikie.html
  
  "LONDON — Sixteen years ago, it was Britain that was trying to make sense of a mass shooting, with the nightly news filled with grieving relatives and old family photographs....
  
  "But the reaction here (UK) could scarcely have been more different from the one in the United States to the mass shooting in Colorado. With outrage still white hot, gun opponents in Britain organized a successful campaign for a gun ban, and by the end of 1997 Parliament had outlawed the private ownership of nearly all handguns..."
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Always the most rational, reasonable and civilized condition in which to make a decision.
  
  The Colorado shooter was in clear violation of the law:
  
  1)he carried a concealed long arm
  2)he brought firearms into a place where firearms were clearly prohibited by visible notice
  3)he constructed explosive and incendiary divices
  4) he booby trapped his apartment witht he clear intent of killing and/or maiming who ever entered
  
  Liberals simply cannot deal with the idea that criminals do not care about laws. Though mocked by simpler minds, it is axiomatic that "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Gun laws do little more than inconvenience those who obey laws. He made bombs using petroleum should petroleum be banned? Jet fuel/gasoline and ANFO were the weapons used in the greatest mass killings in American history - no firearms were involved.
  
  9/11 - Jet Fuel
  Happy Land Club Fire - gasol;ine
  Oklahoma Ciy Bombing - ANFO - (petroleum and fertilizer)
  
  clearly it makes sense to ban petroleum
  reply report
  87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How sad. Personally I don't give a crap about how "inconvenienced" gun junkies are. I hope gun advocates are inconvenienced fully, to the point were some of them give up trying to own a gun. Maybe then there would be fewer headlines like
  "Ohio man kills wife and daughter in shooting rampage at Cracker Barrel restaurant"
  "Houston man shoots family before killing himself"
  "Man Shoots Three While Visiting Family"
  "Massachusetts father shoots children before killing himself".
  And if you don't have time to read these, that last story starts with: "A man who had recently separated from his wife shot his two children, killing his seven-year-old daughter, before turning the gun on himself." I really think a little inconvenience is a small price to pay even if it only prevented just one of these incidents from happening.
  
  I'm sick of this silly argument. Is petroleum designed to injure and kill? Are passenger planes? Course not. Just because something is used as a weapon, doesn't make it the same as a gun. The gun was designed specifically to inflict lethal damage to living things. No other purpose. It was not designed for sport, nor for collecting, it was designed for killing. There was a time and a place when they had a legitimate use. If it was 1620 and I'd just landed at Cape Cod and needed some food, fine bring on the guns and let's go hunt. But you know it's not 1620, I don't need to hunt for food or anything else, and I am statistically more likely to be robbed by a corporate bank than be the victim of a violent crime. Once such weapons were useful for survival, now they are detestable and there is no place for them in civil society. But I know the majority don't feel that way, so by way of compromise, at the very least the damned things should be regulated to the hilt.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah but those people were all Conservatives. Liberal criminals obey the law!!
  reply report
2. 61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not an either/or—it's about behavior WITH guns that is the problem in this country.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ban gasoline and all other petroleum distillates.
  reply report
66
krsharp05posted 12 years ago
Don W - So you believe that if the four cases you sighted didn't have guns in their possession at the time of the incidents, they would be living normal healthy lives today?....I seriously doubt it.

It would have been a matter of time before they found an alternative method of killing.

Have you researched any murders that had other means of death besides guns? Such as murder by stabbing or by asphyxiation? It would be interesting to see statistically how many people are killed by each type of violent crime.
reply report
1. 59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually evidence doesn't support that... Waiting periods DO reduce " heat of the moment" killings and suicides. They also reduce domestic homicides. I agree that the true plotters who plan for years would have likely found another way but those who just "snap" grab up a gun and go on a rampage generally calm down and/or seek help before wigging out if no immediate destructive tool is available... after all your average person who just snaps doesn't have the resources to know a black market gun dealer and certainly doesn't have the patience to learn how to build explosives before going on a killing spree...
  reply report
  66
  krsharp05posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If those people killed so violently, they are not living in Beaver Clever's house. There are problems existing already. You don't just "snap" from a perfect lifestyle one day and grab a shotgun to kill your whole family.
  
  The point is, regardless of the mechanism used - it's the behavior behind the weapon.
  reply report
2. 59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And to be a little realistic... if someone is going to try to kill me I'd damn sure rather they try chasing me down with a pillow to smother me than to come after me with a gun. I am exceedingly certain that the end result would change drastically. The same holds true with a knife to a lesser extent.
  reply report
  66
  krsharp05posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see your point however, if someone is dead set on killing you, they're going try no matter what. I'd prefer to die fast as opposed to strangulation....hopefully they have good aim. ha ha ha.
  
  Again though, we are still talking about behavior - they would kill you with a pillow or with their hands - it's about mens rea
  reply report
3. 87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gun control alone isn't the answer and I'm not suggesting it is. It's one of a number of things that can be done. E.g. more work could be done around identification and treatment of mental health issues, society's attitude to mental health issues in general, behaviour etc. It all needs to be part of a package.
  
  Of course it won't solve the problem entirely, there will be people who are determined to kill for whatever reason, but if gun control helped prevent just one single death wouldn't it be worth the additional inconvenience? Isn't that a small price to pay?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mental illness is the new evil and Psychiatry/Psychology the new exorcists.
  
  for your consideration
  http://www.szasz.com/lies.html
  reply report
57
georgepjrposted 12 years ago
Oh don't forget cars lets ban them too!! You are 3 times more likely to die by car than by a crazy with a gun its real statistics. Don't forget about fast food, you are 8 times more likely to die of heart problems if you eat fast food 3 times a week like most of us Americans do. The only difference is that the media doesn't bring that up but when someone gets shot it's all over the news for months. They know nobody will do the research because we think the media is the best and only tell the truth. Look at the facts before you react. Also there is still a need for weapons if there was a man in the most recent shooting that had been armed he could have taken down that murderer. But we are stuck in our own little world that we are perfectly safe from all harm and that the Government will protect us and that is 100% not true. If I lived somewhere else I most likely would not support owning a weapon but alas I live here in the U.S. where there are more gangs and thugs and more of a reason to own a weapon to protect myself from some thug. Yes we have police but their response time can be up to 20 minutes for a shooting...I would most likely be dead by that time.
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look at the banning of all kinds of products and activities that we were previously FREE to enjoy. I don't drink 32 oz fast food drinks , nor do I eat french fries(though they are delicious) But I would do both in Bloomburg's New York Nanny State.
  
  http://www.nannystate.com/
  
  as for crime and response times - if someone breaks in my front door while I am sitting with my wife watching "Burn Notice" they would eat 9 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition from the revolver in the couch cushions.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! I had you pegged for a Glock with a big clip. Instead you have a little pea shooter.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A .22 is a man killer. I keep a .357 mag and loaded 12 gauge at varous locations around the house. Besides, a semi-automatic pistol may be reliable but is less reliable than a revolver. Being an old guy I must have seen too many westerns.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  .22 can kill someone, but is a very poor choice if that is your goal. Only very specific ammo will penetrate to FBI standards, and/or create damaging cavities.
  
  http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/9x19mm.htm
  http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/22Magnum.htm
  
  Compare the effects of .22 magnum(if you're using LR, it's much worse) to 9mm.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  at the range of the typical gun fight(less than 7 yards) it is a killer -especially 9 in a row - is it prefered? No but it is controllable, inexpensive and less likely to over penetrate than a .357 magnum
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not to encourage the conversation but you're over-penetration point is valid... however I would strongly suggest avoiding head-shots because a .22 isn't going to reliably penetrate the skull... Chest shots have a pretty good chance of having the bullet deflected of the sternum too... so basically you are aiming at soft tissue which is unreliable as hell and likely to cause much suffering. So yeah... if you want to be sadistic as hell and inflict wounds that will kill slowly and with much pain choose a .22. Of course it also means that you are likely going to give an armed intruder time to fire at least on shot of his own... likely 9 millimeter... gun off. So if he is armed you are screwed and if he isn't you likely could have solved it all with a good punch to the throat.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A high enough velocity at a close range will penetrate teh skull but point taken. Experienced shooter go for center mass not the head because an actual gun fight is more unnerving than anyone who has never been in one can imagine. i don't mind causing a little suffering before death to someone who has decided to place my family in danger.
  
  Your gun wisdom has convinced me - I need a submachine gun on my coffee table.
  
  The based way to treat an intruder in your home is to remove his ability to ever invade anyone's home ever again. That is unlikely to acomplished by putting myself in his reach by punching at him.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Because I thought the purpose of a gun was to protect your home and family...Preventing future crimes is the job of the police and justice system not yours. Shooting someone to make society in general safer is kinda a slippery slope. You simply do not have that right.
  
  AND... If you have to shoot someone who is unarmed to defend yourself then you are using excessive force... IMO. If you KNOW he is unarmed then shooting him is kinda... err... not particularly brave.
  
  And at the range you would have to be to reliably penetrate a human skull with a .22 you might as well punch him. I don't advocate random animal killings but I used to be a hell of a shot and killing a rat with a .22 was a two-shot job most times.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even at that range it doesn't reliably penetrate to FBI standards, and the round doesn't cause internal damage the way larger rounds do.
  
  The real damage comes from the temporary cavity, and the width of the wound channel. .22 does a poor job in all respects.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/g … ruger-1022
  
  http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthr … amp;page=2
  
  http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive … 66207.html
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but there is a huge difference between opinion, and experiment-based data.
  
  First, a .22LR from a pistol is not the same as a .22LR from a rifle.
  
  Second, most .22LR, and even the majority of .22 Magnum rounds won't penetrate to FBI or IWBA standards. You need a certain amount of penetration in ballistics gel to be able to reliable reach vital organs or the nervous system.
  
  Lower-weight bullets are also more easily deflected, especially when dealing with bone.
  
  Yes, you CAN stop someone with a .22. But when picking ammo for self defense, it's about finding something that WILL reliably stop somebody.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just checking... but are we agreeing on something?
  
  Cause I'm not sure that's allowed...
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  NO!
  
  I change everything I said that agreed with Melissa!
  
  I don't disagree with you as much as I thought I did originally. I guess your passion about the subject, driven by personal experience, just has people who are passionate about guns thinking that you want to take them all away
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  At less than 7 yards from a 6 inch barrel?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the energy in the bullet immediately after leaving the barrel is different in a pistol and in a rifle.
  
  Even at less than 7 yards, .22LR won't reliably penetrate to FBI or IWBA standards. It won't leave a large wound channel. It won't cuase a large temporary cavity. It won't cause hydrostatic shock.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You must live in a very bad neighborhood.
  reply report
  87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  . . . at which point you realise he was trying to get you out the house because the upstairs was on fire. Good luck explaining to his wife and kids.
  reply report
2. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Has anyone proposed banning guns? Sensible regulations don't require banning all guns.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't even have to say "ban" most of the time... generally saying "I don't like guns" will automatically trigger the "You'll take my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead hands" reaction...
  
  I don't understand it either... It's like there is a disconnect between what is SAID and what a lot of them HEAR.
  
  I always wondered what would happen if I said something like "I believe that private ownership of M1 Abrams tanks should be regulated." I honestly am curious if they would come back with "Water should be banned because of drowning accidents."
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The problem with that is there are already a lot of regulations that the Government has a hard time controlling, they really need to just get rid of the high powered stuff or make it like the automatic weapons where you have to have a dealers license to own them. If is really hard to get your hands on them as is it took me two years to just get approved for mine. If they did that it would get a lot of the more senseless weapons off the streets. If you said that you would get the real crazy gun nuts on here right now you just have the mild ones
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It didn't take Holmes long to get his arsenal together.
  reply report
3. 87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Said it before and I'll say it again. Cars were not specifically designed to kill living things. Neither was fast food. Guns were. To suggest a car can cause harm, therefore it's the same as a gun, is very silly.
  
  And stop buying into the "be afraid" crap the mainstream media churns out. Studies show that even when crime rates fall, perception of crime increases. Why? The rate of violent crime has continually fallen from 47.7 per 1,000 population in 1974 to 16.9 in 2009. In the same period, media coverage of violent crime has increased 600%.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For soemthing not designed to kill people they do an incredible job, way to Daimler/Benz.
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even though cars were not designed to kill undermyhat is right they do a great job. There are 150,000 deaths each year due to cars, 75% of those are caused by someone being drunk. There are only 55,000 deaths caused by gun violence. You are charged with murder either way so the only difference is one is safer to to be around. I use to live in a bad area, where someone broke into my home at least twice a week, owning a weapon kept my life out of someone else reach and once I bought one people stopped breaking in. I have had to use my handgun more than once to defend myself they get a warning and a warning shot before I act. So for my self I don't fall for that "Mass Media" B.S. I lived it for most of my life.
  reply report
  87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your use of raw numbers without normalization is misleading. The total number of hours the average person spends driving a vehicle far exceeds the total number of hours the average person spends shooting a gun. Per hours of usage, I'd imagine the death rate for guns to be much higher than the death rate for vehicles.
  
  Also the majority of deaths caused by cars are the result of accidents, i.e. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. The majority of deaths caused by guns are the result of homicides, i.e. the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another. Again if you normalize the data, the rate of gun homicides per hours of gun usage would be higher than car homicides per hours of car usage.
  
  Another difference is that it's in the interests of manufacturers to make vehicles safer. No one wants to buy a dangerous family car. So new ways are constantly being developed to improve vehicle and road safety. However it's in the interests of gun manufacturers to ensure their guns can cause as much harm as quickly as possible. As weapons, being dangerous is their purpose. They can't be safe. A safe weapon is a contradiction in terms. Do you not see the difference between an object manufacturers are continually trying to make safer, and an object that, by definition, can't ever be safe?
  
  As much as I sympathise with your personal experiences of violent crime, you are (thankfully) in the minority. Most people have not suffered violent crime at all. I'm sorry but a 600% increase in coverage of violent crime on the news, compared to a continual fall of the actual crime rate since 1974, tells me that what I see on the T.V. news is in fact b.s
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am glad you at least see that the news is full of it, but in the aspect of raw numbers that's all you really can use. It would take at least 24 hours of number crunching to pull everything together. As far as me being the minority is true and I am glad no one should have to live that like but I am still thankful that I was able to have a weapon by my side just in case. As far as cars are concerned yes they are trying their best to pull together everything to make it 100% safe but it will never happen. Just like weapons though they are designed to kill a living thing they need to be safe for the user, same concept cars do not have airbags on the outside to protect other people from the driver. It just protects the people in car. They have things you can buy to protect yourself from a weapon too. I see the point you are making but as far as banning weapons altogether would be a dumb move because there are still people out there that would just make their own. Not only that you would also put well over 200,000 people out of work that includes gun smiths, line workers, store owners etc. All my numbers come from the Ohio State Troopers and the Department of Jobs and family services. As far as I am concerned I feel that the right to bare arms is a little outdated I'm not walking down the street with a weapon in hand. That's just someone being a fool but we have that right and getting rid of that would be just as bad as getting rid of the first amendment. As long as our Government is walking on us and trying to stick their noes in other countries we need to be able to defend ourselves.
  reply report
  87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You say cars are "designed to kill a living thing". No they are not. A car can cause harm, but it's not designed for that purpose. Any harm is incidental to its primary function: to transport things and people. Those secondary risks can (and are) being mitigated by various measures. So I'm quite optimistic about car safety. Perhaps it won't ever be 100%, but I'd settle for 99.99% which I think is achievable given the pace of technological development and innovation.
  
  Now look at guns. Harm done by guns is not incidental to their main function. It is their main function. If you make a gun safe, then by definition it is no longer a gun. It's a paperweight. Harm is a gun's reason d'etre. A gun can't be a gun without the ability to cause harm. It is an instrument of harm.
  
  In comparison, you can make cars safer and safer without affecting their primary function. A car with ABS brakes will transport you from A to B just as well as a car without. So manufacturers can (and do) develop innovative new ways to reduce risks related to cars, and it's in their interests to do so.
  
  Gun manufacturers can't do that. Their business depends on creating a product than can inflict the most damage in the shortest period of time. If they made guns safe, they wouldn't have a product. As you rightly say, 200,000 people would be out of work. For car manufacturers, making a product that kills will cost them business. For gun manufacturers, making a product that kills is there business. So there is no comparison between cars and guns.
  
  Incidentally, the arms trade is a worldwide issue. Guns are big business, and the U.S. is the biggest exporter. It would be incredibly difficult to dismantle an entire industry. Solution? Not sure. But it probably involves corporate social responsibility.
  
  There is a brilliant interactive graphic here that shows the arms trade around the world (takes some time to load).
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If i had to guess, you must have read my comments wrong I never said that cars were made to kill, I enjoyed the graph while yes we are the largest exporter of firearms that just means more employment.
  
  I understand that cars are made for travel, but they are still a leader in deaths each year. I still say the best solution to this problem of gun violence is make it harder to purchase a firearm. Right now it's pretty quick and simple. F.B.I. check and a waiting period for your first purchase and I stand by that at least because whilst I am a gun owner I find it pleasurable to go down to the range and shooting at targets and hunting. But for the scum that misuse them make "anti-gun advocates" like your self go mad and gives the other gun owners a bad name.
  
  The arms trade issue is being resolved, the U.K. is wanting to control it, which is fine by me as long as it don't affect my right to own. I look at the 2nd like people look at the 1st. Taking away that right would be like taking away the right to speak my word.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  'I enjoyed the graph while yes we are the largest exporter of firearms that just means more employment.'
  
  Perhaps the US should get into the mass manufacture and sale of Heroin and other recreational drugs. Probably, kill less people.
  
  Small arms account for half a million deaths a year, worldwide.
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We don't force people to kill each other. We sell them to their governments it's their will to do as they want with them. England wants their hand in it too because it is a profitable business, It's not just the U.S. I am happy that we make at least one thing in this country, our unemployment rates are so high right now I don't think anyone would really care if Heroin was produced here it's about the jobs, it's up to the purchaser to do what ever they want to do with it.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I am impressed that you are entirely honest about your lack of moral compass.
  
  You share that with the US arms industry.
  
  I wonder, though, if Mexico were to become a failed state, destabilized by the huge quantities of small arms flowing in their direction, would you still be happy?
  
  Or would that mean even more jobs in the arms industry? There would be more drones needed, for example, to target terrorists, local warlords and rogue militias just as these weapons are increasingly used in other parts of the world where governments have been swept aside.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder if he feels the same way about meth and heroin?
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No of course not I would beat my children stupid if ever caught them near it the point is that you don't think about the repercussions of banning firearms altogether. There is a lot of good yes but there is a lot of bad and the good does not out weight the bad. Go ahead and put this country into more debt and take away from a handful of families. We don't go and hand guns out and say here shoot some people, no it is an open market. Think about the drugs though what happened when those were banned? They went underground what happened with coke it went underground. Back in the 20's prohibition what happened it went underground. Banning weapons will affect one person. The law abiding citizen.
  
  As far as being moral it is very high. I care about my family, my country and all the people in it I don't care black white gay I don't care I would never sell drugs, I would never go and kill someone because It's the "right " thing to do. You both put words in my mouth and that drives me up a wall with you anti-gun nuts. You think that taking away guns will solve the worlds problems when in fact more people would die because they can't defend themselves from the idiots who want to cause harm.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually we often sell them to dictators and genial maniacs and even to countries like Iran and the Taliban back in the day it's blatantly immoral.
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those countries, back in the day was to get Russia out to "compress" them. It was a stupid move I did my share of fight over there. So yeah that irritates me a little bit I've lost a few of my close friends to that mistake but I'm not even talking about that. That's just the Government being...well the Government I would be totally content with them just selling to the citizens of America. I am talking about them trading with Egypt and Germany. I'm not talking about those damn (pardon my french) extremists. Again you all would've known that if you would've not jumped to conclusions, and I should have specified.
  reply report
  87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think we actually agree. Personally I am vehemently opposed to gun ownership of any kind, and if I had my way would make the manufacturer and sale of firearms to individuals a crime against humanity. BUT I recognise the genuine concerns and views of gun owners like yourself, especially with regard to the constitution. So I think making it harder to get a gun (especially certain types of weapons such as assault rifles) would be the way to go. It's not my ideal solution, but if people only seek solutions that meet only their needs and nobody else's, no improvement will happen. Some improvement has got to be better than no improvement. Now all we have to do is persuade the NRA.
  
  But I do have a dream though georgepjr, that one day the world will be a place with no guns, and no need for them. Don't ask me how to get there. I have no clue. Naive optimism is more my area of expertise. Perhaps just having that dream is some kind of start. Only time will tell.
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm right there with you, I have fought I have killed but I hated every second of it. Once we live in a world where words will win wars and people don't judge on differences we will have no need for firearms. But until that grand day happens guess we just have to sit around and debate about it . We all have that dream anti guns and pro guns. I do have to say the N.R.A. can bite it, most of them guys cause the problems we have with weapons they are just as bad as the extremist terrorist. I had fun debating it was the good mental exercise I needed!
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don W. Sorry that was my writing mistake, It looks like I was talking about cars. My most humble apologies.
  reply report
74
lone77starposted 12 years ago
Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns.

A tyrannical government like that in the Gulag States of Amerika fears citizens with guns. Once they have foreign (UN) troops come in to take guns from citizens, then they can impose martial law without much fuss.

I didn't use to believe this "conspiracy" stuff, but hey! If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Obama's "kill list," the unPatriot Act (how does loss of liberty equate to "patriotism?"), the NDAA with all its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens (without due process), and the repeated attempts to restrict the internet (SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, etc). This is the new Hitler 2.0. No specific leader... just a rotating series of puppets (Romney, Obama, BushJr, Clinton, BushSr). Maybe Reagan tried to break free and got shot. Kennedy may have been the last real president who wouldn't play along with the plans of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

All you need do is look at Operation Northwoods to see what the American government can think up for its people -- murdering innocent people, killing your own troops, hijacking airplanes and crashing them. Sound familiar? Does it sound like Operation 9/11?

Personally, I don't like guns. But I'm all for the 2nd Amendment. When American troops confiscated guns from the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina, one group of troops refused. Why? Because it's unconstitutional, for one thing. For another, the people needed to be able to defend themselves from marauding gangs of thieves.

The Movie Theater Massacre sounds staged. Find a volunteer to a government program, do an MKULTRA on his head, drug him, place him at a theater and let him go. What better way to stir up public sentiment against guns.

Wake up, people!

They're using Problem-Reaction-Solution on you, just like Hitler and his gang of thugs did in 1933. Just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice did in 2001.

Operation 9/11 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the government to allow them greater power and the ability to take away our liberties. And to have us think we're "patriots" for going along with it all. That's why they called that tyranny the "Patriot Act."

And look what happened to Nazi Germany. It's happening in Korporate Amerika -- big bailouts, skyrocketing national debt, shredding the Constitution, and funding the military with juicy overseas contracts, even when there really are no WMDs. Oh, yes. Cheney's big paycheck with Halliburton and all those KBR contracts in Iraq.
reply report
72
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

Anyone know which guy is the shooter?

Both, are they the same guy?

What really happened in Aurora?
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A better question is what happened at Boulder.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  At the College? Good question?
  
  His father is in the middle of the LIBOR banking scandal in the UK, things do not make sense.
  
  *Breaking* ‘Batman’ Shooter’s Father Was Scheduled to Testify As Whistle-Blower to Senate Over LIBOR Scandal
  
  http://www.silverdoctors.com/breaking-b … r-scandal/
  
  I have heard but have not verified, a College was running drills on....yep, shootings in theaters?
  
  Eerie Coincidence: Colorado University Had Identical Drill On Same Day As ‘Batman’ Massacre
  
  http://www.prisonplanet.com/eerie-coinc … sacre.html
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In one picture he is smiling which crinkles the skin under the eyes, narrows the eyes and broadens the nose...
  
  geez... why do you think they don't let you smile in passport photos?
  
  *edit... I meant to reply to RB's post.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not saying he isn't the same person I am saying he was in college in Boulder before he snapped. What stressors did he experience in Boulder? Or did he just brush up the moral relativism of the university sillies and not being able to fully understand thought himself some kind of moral superman?
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I edited after I posted... I didn't mean to reply to your post but RB's.
  
  However I always found moral relativism to actually be MORE likely to cause caring non-violent behavior in individuals. There's a whole philosophy thing involved that I think would be a huge hi-jack but if you want to start a new thread about it I'd be more than interested in debating it with you.
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Weight loss and a different facial expression explain the difference just fine. Why is that nothing can happen anymore without the loons calling it a conspiracy. About an hour ago someone was claiming he was drugged with a mind control substance and forced to shoot people.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The real difference is the "my butt is now in jail" that is obvious in the picture.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Eyes do not change from birth to death!
  
  I know, questioning authority, how horrible!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  His eyes did not change.
  
  It's not questioning authority it's lunacy. You are obviously a shill hired by the Illuminati to hide secret messages in your forum posts that brainwash people into joining them in their quest for world domination.
  
  See how stupid it is?
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why was the mugshot taken 3 hours before Court instead of after the apprehension, was the shooter unconscious? Was he found unconscious in his vehicle?
  reply report
3. 61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Two things: 1.) photo color varies widely with different cameras, also among computer screens and 2.) when you raise your eyebrows, it changes the shape of your nose—it narrows and elongates in appearance. Try it in a mirror.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is this some kind of crazy conspiracy thing that it isn't the same person?? wow crazy times.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=32135
reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021025002
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Makes you wonder.
  reply report
80
Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago
Intent becomes secondary...the fact of the matter is that cars do kill or at least the wreckless use of cars by human beings kill and kill very effectively. On that basis and the hunch that there could be a lot of cars in the hands of people who are not thinking clearly, then we can save a lot of lives getting rid of cars. The Obama Administration has made it very clear that they are convinced that fast food kills thus let's get that too. Intent has no bearing in terms of outcome. Guns were invented as an instrument of protection and a more effective instrument in terms of supplying food on the table in early time. Coincidentally they eventually reached a level of effectiveness that allowed man to toss away his clubs and wage war with guns. That was not the intent but it certainly is a reality of the outcome. So, in that sense, the gun, as an instrument for killing people, is just as misused as the automobile when either plays into the scenario of killing and death. Remove every gun from the face of the earth and the problem of an unstable person committing tragic acts will continue utilizing some other instrument that was not originally intended for that purpose. WB
reply report
1. 87
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No it absolutely doesn't become secondary. Not in any way, shape or form. When a car is used for what it was designed, it transports people safely from A to B. Only when it is not used as designed, or by sheer misfortune will it cause harm. When guns are used for what they are designed, they will be causing lethal harm. Not because of recklessness, or misfortune, but because they were designed to do that. If you fire a gun without the intention to injure or kill a living thing, then you are not using it to do what it was designed for.
  
  Both those purposes are fulfilled by the guns primary function: killing living things. You can call it "protection" or "supplying food" if you like, that doesn't change the fact it means killing something. In my opinion the need to protect yourself from wild animals in the wilderness and the need to hunt for food and skins to keep warm are the only legitimate reasons to own a gun. If you don't need to do any of those things, then you don't need a gun.
  
  But that's my point, the gun was originally intended to kill, and in an historical context that was a legitimate purpose, but times change. There is no longer a legitimate purpose for guns in modern civil society. There's only a desire to cling on to the days of the new frontier.
  
  If we ever get to the point where every gun is removed from the face of the earth, then I'm guessing we will have developed ways to prevent unstable people committing tragic acts. That's a long way off. In the meantime we are in the midst of a mass gun fetish fuelled by the entertainment industry and mainstream news media. Some people are scared, uncertain and paranoid. Don't know about you but I can't think of anything more inappropriate that putting a gun in their hands.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
http://govtslaves.info/batman-connectio … r-scandal/
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
There is always something so idealized and niave about the anti's and gun control issues . It becomes so obvious in reading the moronic 'black or white " remarks that people make . "Kill all gun owners " how about that ?....No ok lets kill all criminals that use guns in a crime !......No ? How about this then .......We could all demand that the thousands of gun control laws that are "on the books " be enforced ! Or we could demand that prosecution" -experts " Stop pleaing down felonies for the benifit of a trials' costs . Or ! , because the jails are so full that they "early out" some of the scumiest criminals regularly . But NOOooo! These answers would make too much sense ! Ahh hell ! Lets just keep up the same infantile rhetoric .
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Stop that - it makes sense.
  
  BUT- liberalism is not about an issue. Ultimately, liberalism is about establishing a perfect world because the flaw is in society not in ourselves. To make the world perfect requires order. Order requires power. Power requires the reduction of the individual's authority and independence. Freedom is messy. To attain the perfect world that prevents bad things Order must replace freedom. Authority must rest in the hands of those dedicated to order who are smart enough to maintain the perfect society. Those people populate a powerful government and are liberals.
  
  Ultimately liberalism is about establishing an elitist, totalitarian state - for your own good.
  
  That is why we need more gun laws.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Ultimately thievery is about establishing an elitist, totalitarian state - for your own good so they can never be even indicted. So the bankers are all liberals?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
The most flagrant liberals in our culture today { America } would have us all believe that we are just babies of different diapers , That we are on the same track towards similar conclusions , to the same end ! Wrong ! Libs are simply more about having a government that is bigger , about a society that is just more humanistic in nature , "Let uncle sam just take care of me !, because I'm too little , let Me have some of your lunch I forgot mine ! More laws will cure all our ills ! .........Whaannnnna!.......... Truth is we are not the same kind of Americans . Liberalism rides upon the coattails of any and every society ever known . When the going gets tough in any nation the Libs are the first to jump ship ! And then start the same dialog from a newer more free society . Never the ones to sacrifice for the better of all but merely the ones who want more for themselves.......Period
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  On the contrary, I am not a liberal but liberalism is precisely about sacrifice for the good of others, did you know that on average liberals are 6% wealthier than conservatives, which means that those taxes they are calling for, those measures they want passed are going to hit them harder that they will hit conservatives, they are taking the biggest part of the load but they are happy to do so because they want whats best for the people who can't afford it yet.
  
  Because they want to improve the quality of life of Americans. It's not take care of me, it's I want to help take care of others, what a horrible sentiment.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"After 45 years of hard work and grassroots struggle, the organic community has built up a $30-billion organic food and farming industry and community." All liberals I presume.
reply report
80
Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago
Please Josak....you really don't believe a man with the poor credibilty of Warren Buffet claiming that he so wants to pay more taxes if the government will only decree it carries any real water around here? Buffet has more lawyers than we have representatives in our state working on taxes he is disputing at the moment. it is ever so easy to run off at the mouth when the press is not charting your actions in real life. Buffet is hiding behind the persona of a liberal while he does everything in his power to hang on to his money...don't come around here selling that gibberish. WB
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know about warren buffet though he is calling for higher taxes that would affect him but it certainly applies to me and many liberals I know, on average liberals will be affected more by the taxes they want implemented and helped by them less, but they want to pay them, that doesn't seem self serving to me at all.
  
  It's just facts, no gibberish.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one is stopping those great self sacrificial liberal billionaires from paying more taxes. They are lying about their intentions regarding taxes. It isn't their higher taxes they are concerned with, it is compelling others to pay higher taxes. Liberal millionaires and billionaires complaining about not paying enough in taxes is the height of hypocrisy!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well it will mean higher taxes for them obviously they want that others pay the same but it is not a selfish desire to volunteer to pay more taxes along with other wealthy individuals to help others with things like healthcare, indeed that is the precise opposite of selfish.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When one seeks to compel all others to do what you want them to do, even if you are voluntarily doing the same, how is that not selfish. If that hypocrite jerk Warren Buffett wanted to pay higher taxes, for the good of the nation, then he should file a 1040-EZ, as should all liberals who believe that they should have to pay more. Stop talking and pay more.
  
  You see that is the difference than a conservative and a liberal. If the conservative actually believes that he should pay more taxes then he simply pays more taxes. If the liberal actually believes he should pay more taxes he insists that everyone be made to pay more taxes.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Buffet has said he will pay more taxes voluntarily as have several other people like Stephen King and Will Smith but that is not the point, the case they are making is we are not being taxed enough (incidentally I agree, I am not being taxed enough) meaning people who earn this much money, it doesn't affect their lives to be taxed more, not just them but for everyone in that earning bracket. Now volunteering to pay more taxes along with other people in your earning class is not selfish because it doesn't hep you at all, in fact it reduces your income and almost certainly will give you no benefits.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  That is precisely the point - they should pay more taxes voluntarily and set the example, convince others that this it best for everyone. Instead, they wish to compel everyone to do what they think is best before doing it themselves.
  
  Have you filed you taxes on a 1040EZ or simply sent the Federal, state and local taxing authorities a big check for what you should have paid in the past? If you haven't than why should anyone listen. It is like a sloppy drunk telling people not to drink too much. If your wealth is such a burden on yourself and society than strip yourself of it.
  
  All I have to say to silly celebrities who are not paying the higher taxes that they recommend for everyone else
  
  "And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
  
  AND
  
  Liberals tend to exempt themselves from the system that they would force upon others. One need only observe the conduct of the liberal millionaires in Congress, the Press, Entertainment and Hollywood and the liberal Billionaires like Buffet, Oprah, Gates, Soros, etc.... Rather than establishing a very public way to donate their excess to the public coffers, they choose to complain that they aren't forced to surrender more, involuntarily to the public coffers. Hipocracy
  reply report
2. 71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "poor credibilty of Warren Buffet " You gotta be kidding. Buffett is a brilliant investor and the second richest man in America last time I checked. He does happen to be a Democrat who is leaving nearly all of his money to charity. He has no Grand Cayman, Bermuda or Swiss accounts. I guess in your book that's, by definition, poor credibility. He should leave a billion or so to NRA. Romney is the one with abysmal credibility.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  He has no credibilty with me because he is a dissembler.
  
  1) he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary - because he chooses how to report his income - he chooses by his own free will to pay the lower capital gains tax
  
  2) he says his taxes aren't high enough - because he takes total advantage of the tax code rather than choosing to file a 1040 EZ
  
  3) he is a tax cheat - Birkshire Hathaway owes over a billion in taxes and penalties but he is fighting that tax assesment in court - hardly the actions of a man who believes he should be taxed more
  
  NOTHING prevents him from paying more taxes but he has decided he will not paymore until everyone else is forced to pay more. That is why I find him untrustworthy.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Given your logic, then I expect you will be hounding Republican legislators to reject their government-provided health care, pension benefits, and Social Security.
  
  Have you started yet?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you haven't noticed that many state legislatures, 28, I think, have rejected Obamacare altogether.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obamacare? Or their government-provided federal heath care?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Approximately 28 state legislatures/governors have rejected Obamacare.
  
  As for any federal health care provided to politicians, it should be stripped from them all and they should be made to live by the same laws they impose on us. That would, of course, include members of both parties.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I just realized you said legislatures not legislators. I was talking about U.S. Senators and Representatives who received government-funded health care and pension benefits. Should those Republican legislators who oppose government-funded health care reject it for themselves?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I believe all members of Congress as well as the president should have to live under the same laws they impose on us. If they had to, I firmly believe ridiculous laws like Obamacare would not have been passed.
  
  I think they should all reject government-funded health care.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  These things are matters of employment and not a matter of simply choosing which tax form to use. Buffett is a phony. I do not draw Soc. Sec., do not have a federal pension nor insurance. And I wonder how much is really understood when we use the word logic.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, they are a matter of employment, but the health care and pension benefits can also be rejected. Just like Buffet can choose not to take deductions and pay a full tax rate. I'm not sure about Social Security.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  So you are saying that Buffett is a hypocrite. Glad we can agree.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have a problem with calling Buffet a hypocrite. Do you have a problem with calling certain Republican legislators hypocrites?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If I may stick my nose in, it doesn't matter if they have a D or R beside their name, they're all hypocrites.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They are all hypocrites in some way, I'm sure. However, with regard to the subject at hand, it is not generally the Ds who want to deny health care benefits to public employees while enjoying their own government-provided health care.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is not a good idea to travel down the liberal road. There is nothing less free than a liberal paradise and that is what Democrats seek.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pure BS, ucv. Still spouting the same old misinformed opinion of liberals, I see.
  
  My point in bringing it up was to point out that all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, view the hypocrites with whom we disagree much more harshly than the hypocrites with whom we agree.
  
  I think that makes us all hypocrites.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  as you wish
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have used less polite lanuguage. How about all the millionaire liberals in entertainment, hollywood, government who spout off about the 1%? They get interesting verbal treatment from me.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do have the same issue with Democrats?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, did I not make that clear?
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Legislators I mean. I mean normally they aren't called out for anything.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Warren Buffet is not a legislator. Warren Buffet is a 1%er businessman who says one thing and does something else altogether.
  
  Once again....the proof is in the pudding.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't legislators who advocate for taking away benefits from public employees while continuing to receive federally funded health care and pension benefits also hypocrites?
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Income tax and taxes on corporations are entirely separate issues. Income tax is purely for individuals obviously and that is where Buffet has made his stand.
  
  You are right though. Berkshire Hathaway,are dragging their feet with tax payments. And so are most other corps.
  
  In fact, the US gives astonishingly deferential treatment to corporations when it comes to tax issues. Apple for instance uses a small office in Nevada for tax purposes even though its HQ is in California thus avoiding state taxes.
  
  Apple also has at least 60 billion stashed away abroad which will only be taxed if it is ever repatriated. The IRS has no issue with this, They have decided that large US corporations need cash mountains so that they quickly acquire any assets that they may desire.
  
  No other country is so generous- corporations are expected to pay promptly.
  
  How much lobbying did that take?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Though not familiar with the particulars of the Apple case, the biggest reason American corporations keep profits offer seas is to avoid double taxation. American corporations are expected to pay taxes in teh country where they earned the profit and to pay American corporate taxes on the importation of those funds.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My understanding is that corporations' repatriated overseas profits subject to US taxation are are net after tax profits. Total profits are not subject to U.S. tax. Another issue is that profits are shifted in order to avoid taxes by way of arbitrary or phony transfer prices. That is in order to avoid taxes parts produced, for example in China, and assembled in the US are charged to the US operation at inflated prices, thus increasing profits in China or other low wage countries and reducing profits in the US. I don't believe the claim of double taxation is any more of an issue than the phony claim that taxes on dividends are unfair double taxation.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  please forgive the miserable typing and spelling on the quoted entry - hard to watch for the boss and type with work gloves and keep an eye on the machinery - I need to stop multitasking.
  
  There is an apparent disincentive to repatriate(much better word) profits or it would not be such an issue. There are some estimates of funds off shore to be repatriate that run into trillions. Forcing that repatriation is likely to do more harm than good. Democrats resist an "amnesty" and the GOP doesn't seem to be able to make a compelling case for it.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The disincentive is that if the funds are repatriated the amounts will be subject to US corporate income tax.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
Look, this is the goal. This is what you want your bullet to do, or to come as close to doing as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7pAXj89 … ature=plcp

This is what a .22 does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEDo_PbAvJc
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One shoots what one can afford. Besides a 50 BMG does not come in an easily concealed or retrievable off handgun. One round of .22 ammunition is, under some circumstances, is enough to kill a bear. Under others will kill a man, easily. 9 rounds at close range is more than enough.
  
  Muzzle energy is the energy at the muzzle - regardless of barrel length - so long as the chamber is properly sealed. Range, energy at range, velocity at range and drop are all affected by barrel length. Muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are not.
  
  At 21 feet or less it is doubtful that muzzle energy/ velocity would be appreciably different between a rifle and a pistol with a barrel of 6".
  
  http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
  
  and penetrates 10% gelatin up to 9.8" as much as a 40 S&W Corbon 135 grain JHP
  
  poor lowly .22 - 9 shots is a lot to face when there is no time to determine when the pistol starts to roar and the "excitement" starts.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not saying everyone should use .50. I'm saying that the closer you can get to that, the better.
  
  9mm, 10mm, .40S&W, 45ACP are all great options. .380 is good too. .22 isn't a good option, unless it's all you can manage.
  
  Muzzle energy is dependent on bullet velocity. A bullet in a rifle is accelerated for a longer period of time than a bullet in a pistol, so it achieves more velocity = more energy.
  
  It seems that the drop in FPS is usually around 300 for any round. This poster claims to see a drop of 375 FPS from rifle to pistol.
  
  http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=63162
  
  Last post.
  
  9 shots is a lot to face. Especially if you hit with all of them. But .22 simply isn't as effective as larger rounds. Look at chuckhawks' chart. You need at least 12 inches penetration, according to the FBI and IWBA, to have a reliable penetration.
  
  Then you need to look at the size of the wound channel. Look at the size of the temporary cavity. Look at the amount of hydrostatic shock.
  
  The FBI shootout of 1986, the FBI had to shoot the two bad guys 18 times total to stop them with .357 .38 and 9mm pistols. Just go look at the data, .22 just doesn't do that much damage.
  
  YES, you can kill someone with a 22. NO, you can't reliable stop somebody as easily with a .22 as with a larger round. Not even close.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If the right circumstances happen to include a blind deaf 30 year old bear sleeping beside a well-seasoned barrel of gun powder you might be right...
  
  Otherwise your best bet is to turn the gun around... grab it by the barrel... and try to beat the bear to death with it.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  
  Melissa, our initial confrontation over gun rights/control aside...
  
  I really enjoy a lot of your posts
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Jaxson...
  
  I argue the guns thing on a regular basis with no hard feelings...
  
  Would it surprise you to know that my family is full or redneck cops and military men and that I'm the only girl and the only liberal? That my mother is a card-carrying member of the NRA and that my husband is not only a member but used to work for them? He's a conservative too.
  
  Funny story... and one that will show how big of a geek I am... My hubby and I got into an argument about whether we were going to have a gun in the house for protection... I told him no way in hell and that I was quite capable of defending myself adequately without one. I do this thing with medieval stuff and old fashion weapons training is part of it (hence the geek thing... I don't want to go too far into it)... Anyway he kept pestering me about defending myself if someone was breaking in until I reached on top of the cabinet... grabbed a dagger.. threw it...and buried it up to the hilt in the wall beside the door.
  
  He felt that was sufficient.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol.
  
  Wimps use this to defend their family:
  
  Melissa uses this:
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope... that's WAY less geeky then reality.
  
  Think pvc pipe duct tape and insulating foam.
  
  It really is quite dungeons and dragony.
  
  My daggers are real though.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh...
  
  Uh...
  
  Seriously? I've never spoken to someone who did that, or if I have, they didn't tell me...
  
  Is it a lot of fun?
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually it's a ridiculous amount of fun. I happen to have an interest in the time period though and the weapons thing is a small part of it. "Certification" in a time-period "weapon" is highly encouraged as part of the overall experience. I am more interested in the music (barding) and the crafting and tend to focus most of my energies there. They try to stay as historically accurate as possible and it's great research for time-period fiction writing... which under no circumstances do I do under a pen-name
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  maybe it's a koala bear? That seems rather unnecessary though....
  
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I had a job offer while I was attending college to control the population of rock chucks at an apple orchard. It was good pay, albeit part time work...
  
  I just couldn't do it though. I needed the money, but no way I could bring myself to do it.
  
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe it was breaking into his house?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well in that case castle doctrine dictates one should defend himself with absolute prejudice
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely!
  
  That damn koala won't be terrorizing anyone else ever again. I mean it lived through the the first 8 shots but the ninth one accidentally grazed the danglies and he bleed to death. Those groin wounds can be nasty.
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
This is the ugliest discussion that I have ever seen in these forums.
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  cool
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  out of curiosity how so?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am certain he is referring to the pistol discussion
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well. if I wanted an insight into the inner world of Holmes, JaxonRaine's posts would probably be a good place to start. When he warms to his theme, I imagine we will be getting pics of entry and exit wounds for the various kinds of ordinance.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That would be grim.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I would never use gruesome imagery like that. There is a reason why ballistics gel is the gold standard for ammunition testing.
  
  And I fail to see how my posts are an 'insight into the inner world of Holmes'.
  
  Nor should your ammunition cause exit wounds. Exit wounds are dangerous and mean your ammunition isn't doing its job properly.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It seems to me that knowing what your round does is pretty essential to knowing what weapon to get for self defense.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or essential to flesh out your fantasy life.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Will, if seeing a bullet pass through ballistics gel bothers you so much, I apologize.
  
  No need to act that way.
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
One thing clear to me is that almost all gun nuts have compelling fantasies that they obsess over.

Usually they have fantasies of killing the bad guys. These might be burglars, drug dealers, the government. zombies, black people, the neighborhood dogs. aliens from another world.

It doesn't really matter much.

The real payoff of the fantasy is the opportunity to express feelings of hatred, failure and powerlessness.

Holmes was a little bit crazier than the average gun nut but would probably enjoy your ordinance discussion as much you do.
reply report
1. 59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Honestly... even as a gun control advocate I'd rather see someone know what a gun is capable of than have someone wandering around thinking you can kill a bear with a .22.
  
  Although I suppose if we rounded up all those who believe that and sent them hunting bear then we would have a lot less gun rights advocates... and a lot of pissed off but well-fed bears.
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Every day I pray that I'll never have the need to shoot somebody, but thank you for assuming so much about me. Broad strokes always go outside the lines Will.
  
  I care tremendously about my family, and I happen to live in a country with high crime rates. I'm an Eagle Scout, be prepared and all that jazz.
  
  I hit a rabbit once with my car, and I was sick from it. I value all life Will.
  
  If you have nothing other than insult to add to the discussion, why don't you just leave?
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everyday you pray that you will never need to shoot someone?
  
  Honestly, if it truly is everyday that is downright worrying.
  
  Have you ever thought of the alternative? Something like: I would like to live in a more civilized country where I don't need to live in fear?
  
  Well, at least I was glad to hear that the rabbits are safe from deliberate harm.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I carry a gun every day. I pray every day. I pray about a lot of things, and not running into a situation where my life or my families will be in danger is one of those things. Forgive me.
  
  Yes, I would like to have less crime, but that doesn't change the fact that I live in a country with lots of crime.
  
  Seriously Will, why don't you just take your attitude somewhere else?
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Seriously, it seems to me that you would rather have the gun than a place where you felt secure.
  
  And you don't realize that that is one of the main reasons you are obliged to live in fear?
  
  The more people withdraw into their own little ghetto and pray only to be left alone, the worse things will get.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would rather have a place where the gun isn't needed. But what I want doesn't change reality.
  
  I would rather live somewhere where I didn't need to lock my doors. But what I want doesn't change reality.
  
  I don't live in fear.
  
  1 - Who's withdrawing?
  2 - Ghetto?
  3 - Yeah, wanting not to be robbed or attacked is a horrible thing... Because according to you, I yearn to get attacked so I can shoot somebody, and I live in fear of being attacked, and I want to be left alone... right.
  reply report
3. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That seems... well a little judgmental and stereotypical, I am sure there are people like that... unfortunately, I am sure there are many people who live or work in rough areas who want something to protect themselves with and like it or not knowing what your weapon can do is essential not only to your self defense but to making sure you don't hurt anyone you don't want to.
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
Well at least you have stopped discussing which shells are most effective for killing and maiming people...

For a while, at least.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, because if someone wants a gun for self defense, knowing which ammo is most effective at stopping someone is a really stupid idea, right?
  
  Again Will, if you don't like a discussion about ammo, you don't have to read it.
  reply report
57
georgepjrposted 12 years ago
If they ban guns I'm going to learn to be B.A.M.F. by Melissa's way!
reply report
74
Stacie Lposted 12 years ago
I don't know if anyone else mentioned this..but we can't control what people own.
Having metal detectors seems to be a logical solution,albeit pricey.
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And brutally invasive. Where would they be placed? At every public facility of every kind? Movie theatres beef up their security the next stop is the local butcher, baker, candle stick maker.... There is no way to remove the fundamental flaw from humanity only to educate, treat, convert, encourage, punish it into irrelevance. All efforts to perfect society will fail.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And the "nutcases" will still get through if they have a mind to make it happen. It'll all be for nothing except making libs happy and who wants that?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, history shows that if sufficient effort is made to perfect society the nut cases usually end up running the government and slaughtering people in an effort to make things better. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castor, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung all sought the perfect society and the little cogs in that mperfect social machine were interchangeable with any other.
  
  There is nothing more dehumanizing than the futile efforts in search of perfection.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  reply report
  57
  georgepjrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But it has happened time and time again, society will always turn to what they think is best then we all end up suffering, then the people who caused it turn around and ask for help.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Guns or rocks
wimps or jocks
Some Sissy Mary's having a fit
but if he don't shoot you
with a gun
He'll kill you
with a brick
Grow up people !
"Can't we just get along "
reply report
1. 61
  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope!
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Bottom line ! No one does anything except jump into the reactionary "get rid of guns" mentality ! I am a gun owner , target shooter , black powder enthusiest , hunter . I cannot imagine how high the crime rates would go if guns were harder to own.

Here's the challenge ! Call your congress-person , Tell them to stop dumping ex cons onto the street! Tell them to provide more $ for mental hospitals and Tell them to stop making major crimes into misdemeaners by down- pleaing everything they can into a misdemeaner charge ! Tell them to actually punish major crimes . The legal system in the united states is at it's all time worst for protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty!

And another challenge......stop thinking black and white and seek out the grey areas of true problem solving . Call on your president to stop trading arms for drugs with mexico . Take back the power of the American voter from the military industrial complex .which gives away more arms to other political entities than are ever sold to hunters and gun enthusiests .............Yes I know , for the anti gunners I'm asking way too much !
reply report
1. 0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I hate to introduce facts into this debate..
  
  In fact, reading your comment, I won't even try.
  
  Lol.
  
  I'm sure you are a delight to your neighbors, though. I bet they never know what you will say next.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Introducing facts to the debate would be a blessing , I would love to hear facts ,facts are so incredibly distorted by both sides of these issues . Including our government reps and agencies ! , My neighbors like me ! Or they know I have guns and respect me ! Either way , I like it that you may not know what I will say next ! I don't like the usual cool aid solutions that those of little though use !
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The fact is the "solutions" to crime you posted statistically make crime worse, what works and has worked in several countries is the exact opposite.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
One thing about facts is that England and Canadian "fact" and record keeping of crime statistics for the last forty years is at best unreliable , and at worse exremely distorted. Again your use of Facts and your use of links buttons is about as reliable truthful as U tube posts. The best record keeping of crime statistics is in America ! Like it or not, our open media is our own worst enemy here . People who don't study all sources of statistics are only dumbing down themselves. . Guns DO deter crime in most areas of America .
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry d you have ANY evidence whatsoever that crime records in the US are better than elsewhere? Given the fact that the UK has a smaller population and FAR less gun crime it seems completely irrational so please back it up.
  reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
When will they ever learn?

Shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin leaves at least 7 dead, including gunman

Published August 05, 2012

FoxNews.com

Seven people, including a gunman, were killed in a shooting at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee Sunday in what police say is being treated as an act of domestic terrorism.

Police were called to respond to the shooting at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in the suburb of Oak Creek on Sunday morning, when witnesses said several dozen people were gathering for a service.

Sunny Singh, 21, of Milwaukee, said a friend pulled into the temple's parking lot, heard shots and saw two people fall down. The friend then saw the shooter reload his weapons and head to the temple's entrance, Singh said.

Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said the shooting suspect ambushed and opened fire on an 20-year veteran officer who was attending to a victim at the scene. Another officer then shot and killed the suspect.

Greenfield Police Chief Bradley Wentlandt said the officer who was ambushed was shot multiple times and he is being treated in surgery, but is expected to recover.

Wentlandt said four people were found dead inside the temple, while three, including the suspected shooter, were found dead outside. Tactical units went through the temple, and authorities do not believe a second shooter was involved, Wentlandt said. All people have been cleared out of the temple.

At a news conference late Sunday afternoon, Edwards released no information about the suspect, including his identity or a possible motive. But beginning at 5:25pm ET, the FBI, the ATF, the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department and Cudahy police began searching a house in Cudahy, Wis., believed to be linked to the suspect, WITI's Brandon Cruz reports.

Prior to starting the search at the 3700 block of Holmes Ave., police asked two blocks of residents to leave the area or remain indoors.

Edwards said the FBI will lead the investigation because the shootings are being treated as an act of domestic terrorism.

Three other shooting victims, all men, were taken in critical condition to Froederdt Hospital in Milwaukee, the main trauma center for the area, Chief Medical Officer Lee Biblo said. He added that they were all being treated for bullet wounds: one to the chest, one to the extremities and the face and one to the neck.

Police released few details about other victims, but family members talked about discussions with some of those inside.

Sukhwindar Nagra, of Racine, said he called his brother-in-law's phone and a priest at the temple answered and told him that his brother-in-law had been shot, along with three priests.

Gurpreet Kaur, 24, of Oak Creek, said her mother and a group of about 14 other women were preparing a meal in the temple kitchen when the gunman entered and started firing. Kaur said her mother felt two bullets fly by her as the group fled to the pantry. Her mother suffered what Kaur thought was shrapnel wound in her foot.

A White House official said President Obama was notified of the shooting and is continuing to receive updates.

"At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded," Obama said in a statement.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also canceled a Monday event in Green Bay after hearing about the shooting.

"Our hearts go out to the victims and their families, as we all struggle to comprehend the evil that begets this terrible violence," he said in a statement. "At the same time, we are filled with gratitude for our first responders, who show bravery and selflessness as they put aside their own safety to protect our neighbors and friends."

County Alderman Dan Jakupczyk told Fox News that the people at the temple have been "good citizens."

“Since I’ve been alderman, for about three years, there has never been any trouble, or any problems,” he said.

One of the temple's committee members, Ven Boba Ri, told the Journal Sentinel that the shooting was very sad, and he has been fielding calls all morning from around the world, including India.

"Sikhism is such a peaceful religion. We have suffered for generations, in India and even here."

The NYPD also announced, out of caution, a heightened police presence at Sikh temples in New York City.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith that was founded in South Asia more than 500 years ago. It has roughly 27 million followers worldwide. Observant Sikhs do not cut their hair; male followers often cover their heads with turbans -- which are considered sacred -- and refrain from shaving their beards. There are roughly 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S., according to estimates. The majority worldwide live in India.

Oak Creek is south of Milwaukee along Lake Michigan.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/05/po … z22iaHbtAH
reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Here's what happens when a gun nut loses her temper:

A woman who was on the Detroit Princess riverboat went to her car after returning to shore, retrieved a gun and opened fire early Monday, hitting four of her relatives and friends, officials say.

Another family member who wasn't on the boat returned fire, critically injuring the shooter's boyfriend as they were driving away.

Officials with the Detroit Princess say the shooting occurred about 1:15 a.m. on the shore near the boarding area behind Joe Louis Arena. A Detroit Princess employee was shot in the foot and required two stitches, said Chris Clarke, general manager of the Detroit Princess.

The incident apparently began with an argument aboard the boat, Detroit Police Sgt. Alan Quinn said. Those involved were separated by security, Clarke said.

Police said there were seven victims in all, six of whom had minor injuries. "It's unfortunate for the 99% that were just there to have a great time ... for this group to spoil it," Clarke said.

Radio One Detroit's WGPR-FM (107.5), which plays hip-hop and rap, was hosting the On Deck Sunday Moonlight Cruise. The event is touted on the boat's Facebook page as a nightclub atmosphere on a 10:30 p.m.-12:30 a.m. cruise. The Detroit Princess also provides a DJ for the cruise, playing softer music on the boat's top deck.

Detroit Princess owner and Capt. John Chamberlain said everyone who boards the boat -- about 500 for Sunday's cruise -- is checked for weapons. He has operated riverboats for 35 years and said it was the first time a shooting has occurred near one of his boats.

Keith Gillespie, the assistant promotions director with Radio One Detroit, was just getting off the boat when the shooting happened. He said he ran back onto the riverboat and shut the door until the gunfire stopped.

"As I was walking out the door, I heard some commotion with some women and gunshots rang out," Gillespie said.

Gllespie called a Detroit police officer who is a friend and was patrolling nearby.

"It was real scary because people started running in every direction," he said.

Gillespie opened the door when one of the victims started knocking loudly, yelling he had been hit, he said.

When the shooting ended, Gillespie and others discovered three women lying in the grass with wounds to their legs. They used tablecloths from the boat to hold pressure on the wounds.

No arrests have been made in connection with the shooting, police said.

Anyone with information can call Detroit police investigators at 313-596-5240 or Crime Stoppers anonymously at 800-SPEAKUP (800-773-2587).

RASHAUN RUCKER/Detroit Free Press
By Tammy Stables Battaglia and Elisha Anderson

Joe Louis Arena
reply report
1. 0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like what you're classifying as "gun nuts" were actually common, low-life street thugs. However, I get the impression you'd also like to disarm even those of us who carry legally.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just curious, why do you carry?
  
  The article didn't say whether the woman and other family members were "carrying legally" or not. They probably were because Michigan's gun control laws are inadequate. Many crimes are committed by people who are carrying legally. Not long ago a grandmother went out and bought a Glock pistol and shot her teenage grandson who was living with her. She shot him once and again two or three times while he was dialing 911 for help. She bought the gun legally. Sorting out the nutcases from people like you is difficult or impossible.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Buying the gun legally and carrying legally are two different things, at least where I live.
  
  Here in Tennessee, a person of 21 can purchase a handgun but they can not legally carry it unless they've gone through the permit process and been issued a permit to do so.
  
  As for why I carry, I'll just say I've had some death threats in the past. When they found out I now carry a weapon legally, they backed off. I felt it prudent to continue carrying, just in case.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Reagan had death threats as well but was shot, along with his press secretary, by an mentally ill would-be assassin, while being protected by several armed and trained Secret Service men. If someone really wants to kill you I suspect they could figure out some way of doing it despite the weapon you carry. However, I can sympathize and understand your motive for carrying. I don't support a law that would prohibit carrying by people who have good reason to do so. My state permits just about anyone to carry just about anywhere, including our local public library.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, Ralph. If these people wanted me dead bad enough, I would already be dead. Fortunately, these people were not crazy, just mad and stupid. Luckily, they were easily discouraged with the knowledge I now carry and would kill them in self-defense.
  
  Our handgun carry laws here in Tennessee are pretty strict. Libraries, for example, are run by the city, county, or state. As such, they're government buildings and it's illegal for anyone, including permit holders, to carry in them with the exception of LEOs. These laws don't necessarily stop the criminals from doing so but I, as a permit holder, do not carry in a place the laws state I can not.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You mean that low lifes with guns are dangerous? Who would have guessed that. lol.
  
  In other countries they might have been reduced to raising their voices.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In other countries, they would have been reduced to baseball bats, knives, and rocks. Are we going to outlaw them as well?
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not aware of anyone in this forum who has proposed "outlawing" guns. How many more massacres will it take to convince you and others that reasonable restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment interpretations by the Supreme Court and more effective enforcement efforts and procedures are needed? The majority of Americans support restrictions on large magazines and clips, and the manufacture and sale of military type assault weapons and other weapons designed for military use.
  
  BTW, you didn't answer my query as to why you feel it necessary to carry a weapon.???.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, I answered your question about why I carry above.
  
  What number would you consider is the right one for a mag limit?
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For a couple of hundred years or so we did quite well with six shooter revolvers.
  What would you consider a reasonable maximum?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Until the person threatening me is no longer a threat.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My question was intended to be what you would consider a reasonable capacity magazine for a handgun or long gun.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like the number 10, personally.
  
  The ironic thing is, in the case of an AR platform, 30 is what the gun was designed for. Both smaller capacity magazines, and larger capacity magazines, are less reliable than the standard(with large capacity magazines being much more unreliable).
  
  It's hard to pick a number, and justify it. If 10 is ok, why not 11? Why not only 9? What's the measure we should use to determine what is 'reasonable'?
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Six is plenty, IMHO. It was enough for Dirty Harry Callahan, if my memory is correct.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  16 is a good number. It's what my Springfield XD 9 holds.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are aware that guns are more potent weapons than knifes, rocks and baseball bats? They increase even the most stupid low life's capacity to kill. That is why so many low life's buy them.
  
  Having said that I can't think of many public settings where you would be welcome with a knife, rock or baseball bat. Except for the few places they had a legitimate use.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Will, Have you ever looked down the barrel of gun held by someone who expressed their desire to have you dead?
  reply report
71
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Wade Michael Page--Another legal gun buyer. From today's Wall Street Journal re the Sikh Temple shooting--
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … ESixthNews

"OAK CREEK, Wis.—The man who gunned down six people at a Sikh temple here Sunday morning before being killed by police was a 40-year-old said to have lost his job, his trailer home and his girlfriend in the run-up to the second public massacre in the U.S. in a little more than two weeks.

"Wade Michael Page shot nine people who were preparing for morning prayers, killing five men and one woman ranging in age from 39 to 84, law-enforcement officials said. After shooting a police officer who was trying to save one victim, he was shot to death by a second officer.

"Federal Bureau of Investigation officials are calling the incident a case of "domestic terrorism," but they have yet to determine a motive. They said they are looking into hate groups in connection with the crime. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, said it had been tracking Mr. Page for more than a decade and that he had been in a number of hate-themed rock bands....

""We don't know where this crime came from," said Laura Page, Mr. Page's 67-year-old stepmother. She said Mr. Page as a young man alternated living with his father, Jesse, and his mother, who died when Mr. Page was a teenager....

"In 1994, Mr. Page pleaded guilty after kicking holes in the wall of a bar in El Paso, Texas, and in 1997 he wrote a bad check in North Carolina, according to law-enforcement officials there. In 1998, he was disciplined for being drunk on duty, and his rank was reduced to specialist from sergeant, according to military officials. Citing a "pattern of misconduct," officials that year deemed him ineligible to re-enlist....

"Mr. Page returned to Colorado. Then, in 2000, he sold everything he owned except for his motorcycle and a few things he could fit into his backpack and began a trip that took him to several skinhead music festivals across the country, according to a interview posted on Label56.com. That interview, said to have taken place in 2010, was removed from the site by late Monday, and its veracity couldn't be confirmed.

"In 2005, according to the online interview, Mr. Page began composing his own music and eventually formed a group called End Apathy, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate band.

"Mr. Page bought a trailer in Fayetteville, N.C., a year after he took a job as a truck driver. Two years later, he applied for five permits to purchase pistols, according to officials....
"Mr. Page was fired from his job in 2010, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Then in September of last year, Wells Fargo began the process of foreclosing on his trailer home, according to Cumberland County, N.C., records.

"By January, he was in South Milwaukee in an apartment, where he lived with his girlfriend and her young son, according to David Brown, a maintenance man for the apartment complex who also lives there.
India Real Time

Obama: Violence Warrants Soul-Searching
Sikhs in Delhi Grieve After U.S. Shooting
India, U.S. React to Gurudwara Shooting
Timeline: Hate Crimes Against Sikhs in the U.S.

"Mr. Page lifted weights in the basement and took a job as a delivery driver, Mr. Brown said. At night, Mr. Page and his girlfriend played alternative rock until she broke up with him in June. ..."
reply report
0
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
I probably wouldn't survive. My contempt for anyone who carries firearms is total. I can't hide it.
reply report
1. 0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "My contempt for anyone who carries firearms is total."
  
  Even those of that do so legally?
  
  There's a lot of very personal reasons why people take on the responsibility of legally carrying a firearm, Will. I just suggest you look at those before judging those of us that carry.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In his case, the judging trumps everything. I wonder if he holds the same contempt for police officers.
  reply report
  0
  Will Apseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, armed police too. It is a problem at airports.
  
  Guns are for killing people. They are a cowards weapon. Low lifes love them.The worse kinds of criminals love them. People whose lifes are dominated by fear love them. Men with limited intelligence and morality love them. Idiots who think guns solve problems love them.Closet sadists with psychopathic fantasies love them. Wannabe Dirty Harry's love them.
  
  How can I not feel contempt?
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And just how would you like to classify me, Will?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And people who realize that bad guys have them, and will have too much power to do what they want if good people don't have them too.
  
  I realize you want a utopian society where we don't need guns, but as long as guns exist and people who want to do bad things have access to them, it's kind of irresponsible to criticize good people for balancing things out.
  
  Would you prefer that police and citizens voluntarily give up all their guns?
  reply report
49
gaby12posted 12 years ago
Holle
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies