Aurora Shooting: Does Tighter Gun Control Change the Outcome?

[truth on hold]

As a progressive I think the government should buy everyone bullet proof amour and helmets that every man women and child must wear when they leave the comfort of their homes- in case of a bullet strike the amour would automatically call 911 with GPS coordinates- OK problem solved next.

Outstanding use of emerging technology to safeguard our society. As added protection the helmets could detect and provide early alerts to blacks, Latinos, illegal guns and liberals in the vicinity.... never mind none of them were part of this latest attack, we all know they're bad and if we could just get them off the streets all public safety issues stemming from violence disappear.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

Wait, so you're a Libertarian now?

 

If you can do that, I want to be the boards new Progressive

 

You're a Racist

Winning!

 

I'm a free man it's my right. Actually it may be my states right IDK but either way go **** yourself crying lib

[/dev/null]

I'm a free man it's my right. Actually it may be my states right IDK but either way go **** yourself crying lib

No it's not your right or the states. The Federal Government has not bestowed that upon you or your state

 

Have you stopped to think how your differing views affect society? People like you who hold differing views from our benevolent leaders in Washington should have to pay a penalty tax

 

Go move to Somalia

[truth on hold]

Wow, I haven't seen this side of you. The irony is you don't really get the argument you're denigrating others for making. The truth is that there is nothing about guns or ammo that makes them terribly difficult for an amateur to construct with relatively inexpensive materials. You can't make them go away.

You know Rob, you've been hounding me around the board for some time now. Using the same "step 1: apply convenient label, step 2: attack and name call with worn out and rehearsed slanders" routine (without regard to how misapplied the label is) and all of course as a substitute for actual thinking. And that's why I barely (if ever?) bother with you.

 

I know I stated earlier I was done with this thread, but after seeing some more balanced voices chime in, I decided to come back. And now that I'm here I might as well deal with you too.

 

In addition to "label and attack" you've added "blind illiteracy" to your arsenal with this latest post. So far off, I won't bother trying to point out why as, being metaphorically blind, you still won't see.

 

You B word about partisanship constantly, yet you're incapable of challenging anything from the faux-news faux-right. Instance 1: earlier in this thread one of your buds referenced the tragedy in Norway last year as an example of a country that recently experienced gun-related mass murder where they have tighter gun control than we do. (Notable perhaps the perpetrator in that case was a zenophobic, paranoid, extreme right wing, nutball). To which I replied with a simple stat showing our gun murder rate is more than 7x theirs. You then asked me something like how much of the Norway violence is gang related. As my one-line stat was obviously never meant to be comprehensive, but intended to spur further discussion about the components that contribute to murder rates with the ultimate objective of isolating the effects of guns, I thought your point was a fair one. But just like the broken clock that's right 2x/day, given your posting legacy you obviously got lucky. Instance 2: subsequent to that. one of the righty kook balls posted some top level stats on murder rates and gun laws, in attempt to show there is no effect. Yet this time you remained silent on what other factors or further nuance may have been involved.

 

So now that I've finally addressed you, I dont expect wasting any more time replying to your paranoid , myopic , stupid , redundant , partisan , extreme right wing nuttiness posts.

 

I have a pretty good idea that when the door is answered at "Rob's House", it looks something like THIS.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Bronc24]

Oh so close. But then you had to whip out the For the Children! argument, then you fell so far behind

 

With rights come responsibilities

 

This statement assumes a responsible society. Unfortunately I think we are far from that.

[Rob's House]

You know Rob, you've been hounding me around the board for some time now. Using the same "step 1: apply convenient label, step 2: attack and name call with worn out and rehearsed slanders" routine (without regard to how misapplied the label is) and all of course as a substitute for actual thinking. And that's why I barely (if ever?) bother with you.

 

I know I stated earlier I was done with this thread, but after seeing some more balanced voices chime in, I decided to come back. And now that I'm here I might as well deal with you too.

 

In addition to "label and attack" you've added "blind illiteracy" to your arsenal with this latest post. So far off, I won't bother trying to point out why as, being metaphorically blind, you still won't see.

 

You B word about partisanship constantly, yet you're incapable of challenging anything from the faux-news faux-right. Instance 1: earlier in this thread one of your buds referenced the tragedy in Norway last year as an example of a country that recently experienced gun-related mass murder where they have tighter gun control than we do. (Notable perhaps the perpetrator in that case was a zenophobic, paranoid, extreme right wing, nutball). To which I replied with a simple stat showing our gun murder rate is more than 7x theirs. You then asked me something like how much of the Norway violence is gang related. As my one-line stat was obviously never meant to be comprehensive, but intended to spur further discussion about the components that contribute to murder rates with the ultimate objective of isolating the effects of guns, I thought your point was a fair one. But just like the broken clock that's right 2x/day, given your posting legacy you obviously got lucky. Instance 2: subsequent to that. one of the righty kook balls posted some top level stats on murder rates and gun laws, in attempt to show there is no effect. Yet this time you remained silent on what other factors or further nuance may have been involved.

 

So now that I've finally addressed you, I dont expect wasting any more time replying to your paranoid , myopic , stupid , redundant , partisan , extreme right wing nuttiness posts.

 

I have a pretty good idea that when the door is answered at "Rob's House", it looks something like THIS.

Uh... did someone have a Prozac moment here?

 

This is the most uncalled for and bizarre post I think I've ever seen. Not sure when I've been hounding you. Honestly, I never gave you much thought. I had some vague recollection of you being a lib who (I think) supports Romney, but beyond that I only know of you as some guy who lives in the shoutbox and listens to Joe. But it's flattering to know I've been living rent free in your head for so long.

 

The rest of your post is great unintentional humor with biting irony. You mischaracterize me while complaining about mischaracterization (not sure where I mischaracterized you), label me while complaining about labels (not sure where I labeled you), and you slander me while complaining about slander (actually it would be libel, but whatever). I'm really not sure what was so offensive about throwing out some food for thought, but if you have a problem with it, maybe you should try to explain with logic, facts, and reason what your disagreement is. But instead of taking a swing at it, you stepped up to the plate, got scared off by the first pitch, and threw a little temper tantrum and walked off pouting. Probably best, anyway. No offense, but you're not even in my league.

[/dev/null]

This statement assumes a responsible society. Unfortunately I think we are far from that.

Half a century of entitlements and everybody gets a trophy will do that to a society

[DC Tom]

Uh... did someone have a Prozac moment here?

 

This is the most uncalled for and bizarre post I think I've ever seen. Not sure when I've been hounding you. Honestly, I never gave you much thought. I had some vague recollection of you being a lib who (I think) supports Romney, but beyond that I only know of you as some guy who lives in the shoutbox and listens to Joe. But it's flattering to know I've been living rent free in your head for so long.

 

The rest of your post is great unintentional humor with biting irony. You mischaracterize me while complaining about mischaracterization (not sure where I mischaracterized you), label me while complaining about labels (not sure where I labeled you), and you slander me while complaining about slander (actually it would be libel, but whatever). I'm really not sure what was so offensive about throwing out some food for thought, but if you have a problem with it, maybe you should try to explain with logic, facts, and reason what your disagreement is. But instead of taking a swing at it, you stepped up to the plate, got scared off by the first pitch, and threw a little temper tantrum and walked off pouting. Probably best, anyway. No offense, but you're not even in my league.

 

Oooh...careful. If you suggest you never gave him much thought, he's going to step on you just like he did me.

 

 

JtSP clearly doesn't handle adversity very well.

[Rob's House]

Oooh...careful. If you suggest you never gave him much thought, he's going to step on you just like he did me.

 

 

JtSP clearly doesn't handle adversity very well.

I'll say. I hope you're recovering well. It must have been brutal.

[meazza]

I'll say. I hope you're recovering well. It must have been brutal.

 

Be careful, he has his series 7.

[DC Tom]

Be careful, he has his series 7.

 

And his 63. That's, like, eight times worse.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oooh...careful. If you suggest you never gave him much thought, he's going to step on you just like he did me.

 

 

JtSP clearly doesn't handle adversity very well.

Or think rationally, or write coherently, or argue reasonably. He does, however, feel passionately. Which, of course, is how he "solves"* problems.

 

* makes things worse while making himself feel better

Edited July 22, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[PastaJoe]

We know that doing nothing wouldn't change the outcome. If he couldn't legally buy an assault weapon and large clips it would at least make it harder to carry out the same assault, and perhaps less people would have been shot. We'll never be able to stop every nut, just like we'll never be able to stop every terrorist. But to do nothing and just say, 'Oh well, that's the price we pay for having a 2nd amendment' is ludicrous. The argument that then only criminals will have assault weapons is bogus. How many people walk around with an assault weapon to protect themselves from a crime? But the NRA will say the gov't wants to take away all guns, and the nuts who think the government is going to put them in FEMA camps will scream, and keep scaring enough politicians into resisting bans on assault weapons. You can keep your pistols and rifles, but there's no justification for private ownership of off-the-shelf assault weapons. The harm outweighs any 'recreational sport' benefit.

[Rob's House]

We know that doing nothing wouldn't change the outcome. If he couldn't legally buy an assault weapon and large clips it would at least make it harder to carry out the same assault, and perhaps less people would have been shot. We'll never be able to stop every nut, just like we'll never be able to stop every terrorist. But to do nothing and just say, 'Oh well, that's the price we pay for having a 2nd amendment' is ludicrous. The argument that then only criminals will have assault weapons is bogus. How many people walk around with an assault weapon to protect themselves from a crime? But the NRA will say the gov't wants to take away all guns, and the nuts who think the government is going to put them in FEMA camps will scream, and keep scaring enough politicians into resisting bans on assault weapons. You can keep your pistols and rifles, but there's no justification for private ownership of off-the-shelf assault weapons. The harm outweighs any 'recreational sport' benefit.

What is an assault weapon and what makes it more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifles?

[B-Man]

Why didn't this mass-shooting in Aurora back in April make big news? Because someone else with a gun stopped it quick:

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

Futher illogical and downright creepy speculation from the big gun loving, small-knob compensation crowd.

 

It's been established Holmes was an intelligent and organized individual, albeit downright evil and demented (the latter items, something he shares with you to some degree, fortunately not the former.) Intent on causing the greatest amount of death to the innocents as possible, given the constraints he was subjected to. And what was his primary weapon of choice to achieve this? Well the gun of course, 4 LEGAL ones to be exact. .

 

Think clearly for a moment (I know how agonizingly difficult that is for you), but just try for a moment to ponder the outright, unparalleled stupidity for you and orhers to suggest that providing villians with access to these proven highly lethal common weapons of choice, that somehow makes us all safer on the rationale that eliminating access to them would to lead to their acquisition of even more destructive ones. That simple algorithm would argue for giving villains access to ever increasing destructive weapons stopping only at the 2nd most worst known to man, because removing it would drive them to worst of them all, nukes. So what's 2nd worst (overall best per your "logic") weapon to give the bad guys? chemical, biological? You know, SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE F#CKING TOWN WITH!

 

God lord, the creeps like you and your buds who dominate this thread have really opened my eyes to a deeply disturbing combination of bizarre ignorance and morality vacuum thats out there. No wonder you're afraid and paranoid of the dark side, it stares at you in the mirror every morning. Where is this from, the impotent little man with the small pecker complex? Whatever the source, it's wrong, literally DEAD WRONG (RIP to yesterday's innocent victims.)

 

After seeing this I don't know how any even marginally sane and responsible person could ever support any form of legal firearms. NONE, ZERO for you ... not even BB guns. You belong in solitary confinement in a padded cell in a mental institution for the criminally insane. Down the hall from the likes of James Holmes.

I don't own a gun...so there is no object for my "love", moron. I do know how to fire them quite well, and I have a lot of respect for them. Only a fool doesn't.

 

What I do love, is logic and common sense, and you don't know either. Nothing has been established about Holmes. That's what we have trials for, you fascist(padded cell? ). Recognizing evil is a process, not a snap judgement. The fact that you have already pronounced this guy evil....when it's quite possible that he is extremely mentally ill, proves once again that the liberal experience with evil, and true morality in general, is severely lacking.

 

But mostly, I hate an obnoxious, self-righteous, humorless douche...who can't tell when I'm kidding, even when I throw in a Catherine the Great reference. Jesus. Facepalm. Time for you to get a life. I am sure there are plenty of things you can do in your community to make it better, rather than spending time spouting and supporting naive idiocy.

 

Also, I have news: given the above, I now know you aren't even close to me, in anything. This bothers you doesn't it....so much that you want to put me, somebody you don't know, in a padded cell? What are my crimes...other than being a lot better at life than you? Your eternal problem: you will never have the power to put me in a cell...ever, no amount of wishing will make it so. Angers you...doesn't it...you friggin lunatic. That's a problem you will never solve, isn't it?

 

I can tell this is true, because I've heard the above from people like you, since high school. You are never going to be as big as you think you should be, and never have the power you think you were "supposed" to have. You refuse to accept that this is because of YOU, not anyone else. So you blame everyone else...you support changing the rules for everyone else, so that YOU won't suck so much. Well, tough schit, it ain't gonna happen.

 

As I suggested: Let's turn your lunacy into a positive, and have you volunteer in your community instead. What do you say? Why not try something that isn't about you and what you don't have, and what you have no chance of controlling, for a nice change? That's 100% certain to make you feel better about yourself...rather than obsessing about what other people have/do, or trying to control them with your idiot laws.

[DC Tom]

I don't own a gun...so there is no object for my "love", moron. I do know how to fire them quite well, and I have a lot of respect for them. Only a fool doesn't.

 

What I do love, is logic and common sense, and you don't know either. Nothing has been established about Holmes. That's what we have trials for, you fascist(padded cell? ). Recognizing evil is a process, not a snap judgement. The fact that you have already pronounced this guy evil....when it's quite possible that he is extremely mentally ill, proves once again that the liberal experience with evil, and true morality in general, is severely lacking.

 

But mostly, I hate an obnoxious, self-righteous, humorless douche...who can't tell when I'm kidding, even when I throw in a Catherine the Great reference. Jesus. Facepalm. Time for you to get a life. I am sure there are plenty of things you can do in your community to make it better, rather than spending time spouting and supporting naive idiocy.

 

Also, I have news: given the above, I now know you aren't even close to me, in anything. This bothers you doesn't it....so much that you want to put me, somebody you don't know, in a padded cell? What are my crimes...other than being a lot better at life than you? Your eternal problem: you will never have the power to put me in a cell...ever, no amount of wishing will make it so. Angers you...doesn't it...you friggin lunatic. That's a problem you will never solve, isn't it?

 

I can tell this is true, because I've heard the above from people like you, since high school. You are never going to be as big as you think you should be, and never have the power you think you were "supposed" to have. You refuse to accept that this is because of YOU, not anyone else. So you blame everyone else...you support changing the rules for everyone else, so that YOU won't suck so much. Well, tough schit, it ain't gonna happen.

 

As I suggested: Let's turn your lunacy into a positive, and have you volunteer in your community instead. What do you say? Why not try something that isn't about you and what you don't have, and what you have no chance of controlling, for a nice change? That's 100% certain to make you feel better about yourself...rather than obsessing about what other people have/do, or trying to control them with your idiot laws.

 

Joe's got a lotta stompin' to do...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just hearing that the shooter was denied a gun range application. I guess the argument can be made on both side. Accept and he becomes a better shot. Deny and he takes his frustractions out elsewhere. I don't know what to make of all this.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't know about you but I'd prefer to take my chances with someone with an axe or a chainsaw rather than multiple firearms. I think I'd have a far better chance of getting away from someone armed with something that he needs to get up close and personal to use rather than something that can drop me from a distance.

You miss the point. The right way of saying it: who want's to take their chances with crazy?

 

Crazy is the problem here. And I think we can both agree that neither of us wants to take our chances with Crazy.

 

Tactics(guns, bombs, axes, forcing people to listen to Sean Penn)...are irrelevant if Crazy is at the wheel. We can't ban things that sane people use properly, because they can also be used by Crazy.

 

That is illogical, it's just plain stupid and un-American. Crazy is what creates the problem. Take the Crazy out of the equation, and there is no problem. So why should we concern ourselves with anything other than Crazy? No. The root cause of the problem is Crazy, and the job is to find and fix Crazy, before Crazy puts itself in position to do harm.

 

You could replace Crazy with Drug, and arrive at the same conclusion. Should we ban guns....because Drug has gotten their hands on one? No. We need to find Drug, never turn our back on them, never take our chances with them, and fix them....so that we can turn them back into functioning person again.

 

Consider: every liberal you will meet demands that we treat Drug, rather than putting them in prison. Why? Because they see that treatment of Drug is the only solution to the problem of Drug being Drug. Yet, when we point out that Crazy must be seen the same way....they FAIL...and want to start blaming guns.

 

But really...is it any surprise that Liberal can't recognize and support it's own logic when applied properly elsewhere? After all, isn't that Liberal being Liberal? The solution to Liberal is the same for Crazy and Drug. Treatment.

[Adam]

You miss the point. The right way of saying it: who want's to take their chances with crazy?

 

Crazy is the problem here. And I think we can both agree that neither of us wants to take our chances with Crazy.

 

Tactics(guns, bombs, axes, forcing people to listen to Sean Penn)...are irrelevant if Crazy is at the wheel. We can't ban things that sane people use properly, because they can also be used by Crazy.

 

That is illogical, it's just plain stupid and un-American. Crazy is what creates the problem. Take the Crazy out of the equation, and there is no problem. So why should we concern ourselves with anything other than Crazy? No. The root cause of the problem is Crazy, and the job is to find and fix Crazy, before Crazy puts itself in position to do harm.

 

You could replace Crazy with Drug, and arrive at the same conclusion. Should we ban guns....because Drug has gotten their hands on one? No. We need to find Drug, never turn our back on them, never take our chances with them, and fix them....so that we can turn them back into functioning person again.

 

Consider: every liberal you will meet demands that we treat Drug, rather than putting them in prison. Why? Because they see that treatment of Drug is the only solution to the problem of Drug being Drug. Yet, when we point out that Crazy must be seen the same way....they FAIL...and want to start blaming guns.

 

But really...is it any surprise that Liberal can't recognize and support it's own logic when applied properly elsewhere? After all, isn't that Liberal being Liberal? The solution to Liberal is the same for Crazy and Drug. Treatment.

What a disappointing end. You started that so well,, with the point that crazy is the problem.