OCinBuffalo Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Dane Cook. Wow!! http://dailycaller.c...eater-shooting/ Dane Cook, comedian = another modern day version of The Emporer's New Clothes. People were more concerned with looking cool on MySpace...rather than actually determining if Cook was any good first. Then, when they all showed up at the show....because it was the cool thing to do....and realized just how bad he sucked...they had to laugh and stay anyway, because...he's their "friend".
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Dane Cook should leave that to The Onion. They've earned the right, he hasn't.
Joe Miner Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 So unless I read a police report somewhere of exactly what he was wearing, I don't believe your statement is true. Wassup !@#$wads. Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates : "ballistic helmet, a tactical ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat and a groin protector, black tactical gloves, and a gas mask" youtube.com/watch?v=2toZkIXh9VY Thanks for the police report I mentioned !@#$wad. I'm wondering if that was what you were initially talking about or the CBS report that I'm pretty sure was referring to the non-bulletproof vest he had. But I think it's petty impossible to say what would have happened had someone returned fire. Would the vest have helped? Certainly. But who knows what he would have done had he taken a shot to his body armor, which from my understanding isn't that pleasant of a feeling.
3rdnlng Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the police report I mentioned !@#$wad. I'm wondering if that was what you were initially talking about or the CBS report that I'm pretty sure was referring to the non-bulletproof vest he had. But I think it's petty impossible to say what would have happened had someone returned fire. Would the vest have helped? Certainly. But who knows what he would have done had he taken a shot to his body armor, which from my understanding isn't that pleasant of a feeling. Naw, that vest wouldn't have helped him at all. It just would have left a few more fabrics in his chest cavity. I have one pretty similiar to that---I use it when I'm fishing a stream. Conner and lyrbob have disappeared again. Actually they have "slinked away". JTSP hasn't said anything yet but I expect the Howard Dean scream any moment. Edited July 29, 2012 by 3rdnlng
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Naw, that vest wouldn't have helped him at all. It just would have left a few more fabrics in his chest cavity. I have one pretty similiar to that---I use it when I'm fishing a stream. Conner and lyrbob have disappeared again. Actually they have "slinked away". JTSP hasn't said anything yet but I expect the Howard Dean scream any moment. Okay... So you are saying the situation would have been better if somebody was armed in that theater? What's the odds a civilian gets off a head or torso shot in that situation? I can't imagine a worse possible case in an already bad clusterphuck. Did you hear the stories coming out of Colorado? The woman who he first pointed a weapon at? Then the people running? I am not saying that people did the wrong thing... They did an instinctive thing, that may havd not been the best. There were a lot of mistakes no doubt. Working for the DoD, I gotta take anti-terrorism training yearly... I just took it recently... One area that was of interest was the active shooter part of the course. Hard situation for those people to be in... But many who ran were not helping themselves... Yet, the sad part is, maybe they were helping the others who took cover. Again, not passing judgement... The first lady he came to just froze, ducked and then many behind her ran... He was then on "the hunt." He then opened fire on the runners... :-O :-( :-(
3rdnlng Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Okay... So you are saying the situation would have been better if somebody was armed in that theater? What's the odds a civilian gets off a head or torso shot in that situation? I can't imagine a worse possible case in an already bad clusterphuck. Did you hear the stories coming out of Colorado? The woman who he first pointed a weapon at? Then the people running? I am not saying that people did the wrong thing... They did an instinctive thing, that may havd not been the best. There were a lot of mistakes no doubt. Working for the DoD, I gotta take anti-terrorism training yearly... I just took it recently... One area that was of interest was the active shooter part of the course. Hard situation for those people to be in... But many who ran were not helping themselves... Yet, the sad part is, maybe they were helping the others who took cover. Again, not passing judgement... The first lady he came to just froze, ducked and then many behind her ran... He was then on "the hunt." He then opened fire on the runners... :-O :-( :-( WTF? As soon as a person that was carrying realized what was going on, they were free to open up on a shooter whose torso and head was not protected. Why argue this point? Maybe instead of 12 people being killed and 58 injured, it could have been 4 + 7?
truth on hold Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 WTF? As soon as a person that was carrying realized what was going on, they were free to open up on a shooter whose torso and head was not protected. Why argue this point? Maybe instead of 12 people being killed and 58 injured, it could have been 4 + 7? Or it could have been worse in the darkened chaos. Friendly fire kills plenty in battle. Pat tillman?. But even using your example where the fatality rate was cut by 2/3rds to 4, makes it acceptable now?
3rdnlng Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Or it could have been worse in the darkened chaos. Friendly fire kills plenty in battle. Pat tillman?. But even using your example where the fatality rate was cut by 2/3rds to 4, makes it acceptable now? Yes, much better. I'm not thinking Jimmy was going to be killed by "friendly fire". I think it would be unfriendly fire. Why even bring up Pat Tillman? There's no connection, other than your twisted bs.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 What gets me is they say he propped the emergency exit open... Why the heck wasn't there an alarm on the door? Isn't that law? Where were the ushers when he stepped outside and suited up... That had to take a little bit of time?
3rdnlng Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 What gets me is they say he propped the emergency exit open... Why the heck wasn't there an alarm on the door? Isn't that law? Where were the ushers when he stepped outside and suited up... That had to take a little bit of time? Yes, the mininum wagers screwed up. Those ushers should of saved the day. 16 year olds vs. AR15's.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Yes, the mininum wagers screwed up. Those ushers should of saved the day. 16 year olds vs. AR15's. No. No, I am sorry, I did not want what I said to come off that way. I just find it strange that no alarm went off when he opened the door... Heck, If I was sitting there and seen the street lights, I would have locked his ass out. One person did say they seen the street lights... How does that not annoy the whole audience. The idea is to be vigilant, even as we go about our daily lives... Sure, **** would have still hit the fan... But make it as tough as possible. Early this year we went to a movie in BFLO... Some idiot in the concession stand caused something to burn... The fire alarm went off and people left through the emergency door... Another alarm went off when that door was opened.
dayman Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) Plain and smiple facts about American guns: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/ Edited July 29, 2012 by TheNewBills
Joe Miner Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Plain and smiple facts about American guns: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/ What were the facts in that article that you feel are relevant? America owns a lot of guns...and?
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) What were the facts in that article that you feel are relevant? America owns a lot of guns...and? Simply that denying those facts the obvious correlations in any discussion is nonsencial. I don't care what peoples poisition is honestly I am always reminded how far apart certain people are from each other on this issue each time it hits the news again...gun homocides havne't gotten any better w/ the policy we've had since 2000 and nonfatal gun crimes have gotten 20% worse. We do have 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. We are heavily armed and have heavy gun incidents. Simple facts. Does this mean you must be in favor of gun regulation? No, but it does mean you must acknowledge these facts when debating others on the merits of dealing with gun violence in America. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills
Joe Miner Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 What in the world does the number of guns owned have to do with anything? Instead of gun crimes per capita should we start counting gun crimes per gun? I bet the US would look pretty good in that comparison. We own a lot of guns, but a very small % are used in crimes. How is gun ownership even counted anyway? How many guns are Mexican drug cartels on the books for?
3rdnlng Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Simply that denying those facts the obvious correlations in any discussion is nonsencial. I don't care what peoples poisition is honestly I am always reminded how far apart certain people are from each other on this issue each time it hits the news again...gun homocides havne't gotten any better w/ the policy we've had since 2000 and nonfatal gun crimes have gotten 20% worse. We do have 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. We are heavily armed and have heavy gun incidents. Simple facts. Does this mean you must be in favor of gun regulation? No, but it does mean you must acknowledge these facts when debating others on the merits of dealing with gun violence in America. Per the Emperor of Japan, the amount of private gun ownership in the U.S. kept them from even considering invading us during WWII. See, guns save lives.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Simply that denying those facts the obvious correlations in any discussion is nonsencial. I don't care what peoples poisition is honestly I am always reminded how far apart certain people are from each other on this issue each time it hits the news again...gun homocides havne't gotten any better w/ the policy we've had since 2000 and nonfatal gun crimes have gotten 20% worse. We do have 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. We are heavily armed and have heavy gun incidents. Simple facts. Does this mean you must be in favor of gun regulation? No, but it does mean you must acknowledge these facts when debating others on the merits of dealing with gun violence in America. And what do you purpose? If we stopped selling guns tomorrow there are still all these guns out there. Confiscation?
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 It is not just the guns... It is the growth of the whole industry... Especially what fuels the weapons: Ammo. Amazing how much the ammo industry has grown in the last 12 years (in passing, I happened to check the recent Time article on it... Haven't verified that stats on all the upstart ammo distributors). I am not sure what can be done anymore, the genie is out of the bottle... We will return to the Wild West days one way or another...
Adam Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 It is pretty safe to say that this lunatic would have done something terrible, whether he had a gun or not. Would people with guns in the theater have made a difference? I can envision a scenerio, where a guy jumps up, shoots him and ends it. I can also see him missing the lunatic, due to how dark it was and killing something else. I have a problem with both sides trying to use this in their arguements for/against gun control, because we can't see into alternate realities as to how any changes would affect what happened. I see two dillemas 1. Civilians should be allowed tools to defend themselves 2. There has to be a limit to what those tools can be What should those limits be? Heck, I don't have a clue- I couldn't define the difference between an automatic and non-automatic firearm, aside from saying one shoots faster than the other. I think people can be reasonable on this, if they are listened to. Bring both sides together and hammer something out- I think the NRA would be more than willing to be a part of that and I think some of the people on the left would be shocked in finding out that the NRA doesn't want no limits.
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) And what do you purpose? If we stopped selling guns tomorrow there are still all these guns out there. Confiscation? My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills
Recommended Posts