Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 08:21 AM
Cricket's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs down Gun Control And The Aurora Colorado Tragedy

As expected, the call for stronger gun control is once again in the news.

The following is my personal OPINION, nothing more, nothing less.

If this idiot (I refuse to use his name.) was intent on carrying out a mass assault on innocent victims, he would have done so with or without the help of guns. Clearly he had knowledge of explosives as evidenced by his booby trapped apartment.

HOWEVER (again my humble opinion) if just ONE person in that theater would have been carrying when that disgusting piece of slime was calmly walking up the aisle picking off people, perhaps things would have ended differently before so much devastation....
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 08:39 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Cricket, I agree with you that it's really stupid to turn this horrible tragedy into a call for more gun control.

That said, I continue to object whenever I hear anyone put forth the "if just ONE person in that theater had been carrying..." argument. I've carried before. I'm an expert shot, myself, with M-16A1 and A2, with 9 mil, with M60, and even with the glorious Ma Deuce. I've fired through smoke, and I've fired through tear gas.

I'd like to think that a trained person would have known better than to open up in a dark, smoky environment. An untrained person would've quite likely have just increased the injured and dead count.

On top of that, what a person carrying wouldn't have known that they now do is that the guy was wrapped in level 3 body armor. A pistol would have done no good against him except for a perfect shot. Which, as I've already said, is way, way, way less likely in a crowded, stressful, dark, and hazy environment.

"Friendly fire" isn't. I've lost a few colleagues to it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 08:50 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
First all the prayers go to the families victims.

A murderer is a murderer whatever tool he/she used and there not much we can do about it.

The irony of the gun control advocates is that the same people are supporting unjustified wars, selling guns for conflicts overseas, so they are not as innocent as they want to appear to the public.

This is more political than anything else with the mainstream media going nuts on these issues. They ignored the incredible armed citizen story from Utah for example: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...n-story?page=3

If they want to be credible they must be impartial.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:00 AM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Colorado allows concealed carry. The theater chain owners prohibit CCW holders from being armed in their theaters.

While I agree with you, Stephen, that an untrained shooter could possibly have increased the number of casualties, I think that it's just as likely that someone shooting back could have prevented some of them. (Even wearing body armor, the assailant would have had been instinctively ducking to avoid any shots being fired at him. That could give additional people time to escape.)

<added>
Stephen, Thank you for your service. I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your comrades to "friendly fire".
__________________
South SF Bay Area Carpet Cleaning Cleanway USA Inc.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:13 AM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
First all the prayers go to the families victims.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote:
This is more political than anything else with the mainstream media going nuts on these issues. They ignored the incredible armed citizen story from Utah for example: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...n-story?page=3

If they want to be credible they must be impartial.
As often as I agree with Wayne LaPierre, I have to disagree with his characterization of "How the Media Missed a Self-Defense Gun Story".

The media didn't miss the story; they ignored the story because it didn't fit their agenda. The media doesn't worry about being credible. They've got an agenda and have enough people watching only them that that have maintained their sham credibility for a very long time.
__________________
South SF Bay Area Carpet Cleaning Cleanway USA Inc.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:24 AM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
People that carry firearms into a so-called "gun free zone" are not warriors, with or without body armor. They're power trippers that think they've got a chance to exercise their violent fantasy unimpeded.

There have been multiple examples where people doing so acted all big and bad until a firearm was produced in opposition...at which point they surrendered or retreated like their tail was on fire. Those stories NEVER get a week or two of news saturation... They are relegated at best to quick funny human interest clips called "Senior citizen thwarts gunmen", and live mostly on you-tube because they dont fit the anti-gun narrative of most national media.

Conversely, in the absence of any possible armed response, a shooter/bully may kill at leisure, and we get stories like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora. The guy at Aurora shot 71 people. He had no opposition to stop him. He of course didnt give a rats rear that the theater banned firearms. That may even have been a factor in his choice of venues.

"Gun-free zones" are an illusion that make some "feel better" pretending it works. Pure fantasy. It's an announcement to would-be mass murderers that here lies a target rich environment, a non-hostile workplace for thugs. If the concept worked, we'd have solved the insurgency in Iraq by posting signs disarming the opposition. In reality, it wouldnt work there any more than it does here.

Bottom line, looney toons like the guy in Aurora are attracted to, not repelled from, gun free zones. Not hard to understand why... unless of course doing so challenges one's core principles.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --

Last edited by robjones; 07-21-2012 at 09:46 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:57 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
I think that it's just as likely that someone shooting back could have prevented some of them. (Even wearing body armor, the assailant would have had been instinctively ducking to avoid any shots being fired at him. That could give additional people time to escape.
Yeah, I don't know. One of the biggest training issues we faced in the military is that you never really know what somebody's going to do when shot at. I remember reading a memoir of an infantry officer in Vietnam whose platoon was pinned down. He stood up and charged, knowing that soldiers who aren't very well trained usually fire too high. He bet his life, and he won the bet. A friend of mine in Afghanistan? Not so lucky.

Is it more instinctive to duck for cover, or to turn and answer fire with fire? The former, for me. But for someone who's grown up playing Counterstrike et al, where the correct action is to turn and fire back? And keep in mind that the guy a) thought he was darn near bulletproof (because he was) and b) has already stated that he planned to die that night, which makes him a lot less likely to duck and shimmy when shot at.

Pistols don't typically shoot tracers, so the gunman wouldn't have known something was shot at him without feeling it or seeing the flame. I used to pack a .357 that I loved firing at night because of the HUGE ball of flame it issued. Me shooting that in a dark, smoky theater would've been a way of saying "Hey, guy with the semi-automatic rifle--shoot here!"

Pistols are notoriously inaccurate due to the physics involved with short barrels. That said, a large enough round lucky enough to catch the gunman center of mass would've likely knocked him down for a second before he stood back up and shot at the ball of flame. But those pretty little 9 mils people like to tote wouldn't have had enough physics mojo behind them to knock him down.

Keep in mind that everybody BUT the gunman was also affected by what most people are reporting as tear gas. Tear gas sucks bad in an enclosed environment, even at low concentrations, and its effect upon your eyes makes accurate aiming nearly impossible. That's why the Army uses it....

There's no way of knowing for sure what would have happened. I just take my stance to caution people from getting all John Wayney on us--if you're ever in that situation, think before you spray bullets.

That, and I get tired of hearing the "if anybody'd been packing" sabre-rattling.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:05 AM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
That, and I get tired of hearing the "if anybody'd been packing" sabre-rattling.
Notwithstanding the fact it has proven to be true on multiple occasions. It may not fit into your theory, but poisoning the well by dismissing it with the pejorative term "saber-rattling" doesn't eliminate the instances where it stopped or entirely eliminated the shedding of innocent blood. And on that point i speak from personal experience too.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:09 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
Notwithstanding the fact it has proven to be true on multiple occasions. It may not fit into your theory, but poisoning the well by dismissing it with the pejorative term "saber-rattling" doesn't eliminate the instances where it stopped or entirely eliminated the shedding of innocent blood. And on that point i speak from personal experience too.
My "theory"? "poisoning the well"? Now who's getting pejorative?

Lookit, I totally agree that there are times when shooting is the right thing to do. I'm only trying to suggest that that is a situational judgment call, not the response to every situation. Is that okay with your "theory"?
 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:10 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
"Gun-free zones" are an illusion that make some "feel better" pretending it works. Pure fantasy. It's an announcement to would-be mass murderers that here lies a target rich environment, a non-hostile workplace for thugs. If the concept worked, we'd have solved the insurgency in Iraq by posting signs disarming the opposition. In reality, it wouldnt work there any more than it does here.

Bottom line, looney toons like the guy in Aurora are attracted to, not repelled from, gun free zones. Not hard to understand why... unless of course doing so challenges one's core principles.
I completly agree with you "Gun-free zones" are the sign that indicated that the murderers can go rampage with absolutely no resistance, the anti-guns didn't get it, and never will.

I don't want to say that it will be fully efficient, but perhaps 2 or 4 guys shooting could distracted him the time people get out of the theater.

Unfortunately, it is speculation to stop a murderer highly motivated in his rampage without regard for people lifes.
__________________
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant."

Robespierre
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:11 AM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Stephen - "Poisoning the well" is a well established term describing an oft employed logical fallacy, but i suspect you know that.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:15 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
Stephen - "Poisoning the well" is a well established term describing an oft employed logical fallacy, but i suspect you know that.
"pejorative: expressing contempt or disapproval" - which your use of the term did, yes? But I suspect you already knew the definition of the word you used.
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:17 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
Stephen - "Poisoning the well" is a well established term describing an oft employed logical fallacy, but i suspect you know that.
The funniest part of this is that for once I'd actually taken a stance on the same side of the primary issue as you, with the (justified, in my opinion) reservation that shooting back probably wouldn't have been the right thing to do, and yet you still attacked me over the term I chose.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:27 AM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I didnt attack you, i just called a spade a spade. The dismissal of those that hold the position as being "sabre-rattlers" is an example of the technique called "poisoning the well". If not, please feel free to correct me.

And yes, "sabre-rattler" IS a term used in the pejorative. Are you aware of any uses of the term "sabre-rattler" as a compliment?
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --

Last edited by robjones; 07-21-2012 at 10:31 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:33 AM
Cricket's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It was illegal to carry a gun into the theater. Of course that did not stop this idiot. What it did stop was the ability for hundreds of people in that theater to protect themselves and others. One low life had full control of who lived or died and was able to terrorize everyone in his path. Gun free zones mean that only the "bad guys" will be carrying....
 
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:33 AM
Cricket's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Let's play nice and truly discuss this topic.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 12:11 PM
Breeze Wood's Avatar
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 04-06-11
Location: USA
Posts: 958
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Gun free zones mean that only the "bad guys" will be carrying....
without enforcement yes ... 2 riffles and 2 pistols, you would think would have drawn a little attention -

I wonder if the origins of the Colorado "Gun free zone" stems back to the Wild West during the heyday of guns as most do that are based on the sound judgement derived from that time ....


Quote:
sk: I used to pack a .357
semi automatic ??? - for patience wouldn't a revolver be better.


gun control will someday be enacted in the US by a matured society.

one sensible law would be to outlaw all automatic and semiautomatic firearms (non-leaver action) ... and still uphold the intent of the Constitution.

speed limits on highways is an expl. for the kinds of meaningful gun control legislation that a mature society someday will enact -

the Hotrodder hasn't a right to risk other peoples lives to satisfy a juvenile craving to exceed justifiable limits to an automobile - the same criteria should be applied to gun enthusiasts who everyday threaten other peoples lives by their uncontrolled use of a deadly weapon.
__________________
.

All's Well that Ends Well

.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 12:16 PM
robjones's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thanks for sharing the expert insight there, Breeze. A .357 IS a revolver.
__________________
-- CAUTION: Not Politically Correct --
 
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 01:34 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Moderator
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
It was illegal to carry a gun into the theater. Of course that did not stop this idiot. What it did stop was the ability for hundreds of people in that theater to protect themselves and others. One low life had full control of who lived or died and was able to terrorize everyone in his path. Gun free zones mean that only the "bad guys" will be carrying....
A minor distinction on one point, Cricket - Colorado law permitted legal concealed carry in the theater. The theater's chain, however, had established a policy barring CCW holders from being armed in all of their facilities. The theater, not the law, was what disarmed those people.
__________________
South SF Bay Area Carpet Cleaning Cleanway USA Inc.
 
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2012, 01:54 PM
Cricket's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post
A minor distinction on one point, Cricket - Colorado law permitted legal concealed carry in the theater. The theater's chain, however, had established a policy barring CCW holders from being armed in all of their facilities. The theater, not the law, was what disarmed those people.
Thank you for the clarification.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clicking in from Colorado LottoMagicZ4941 New Member Introductions 8 10-03-2010 07:24 PM
Good Reason For Population Control (Birth Control) Allen Farlow Controversial Social Issues 11 02-19-2010 08:27 AM
Aurora TriggeredbulleT Digital Photography Forum 2 12-20-2008 05:30 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC


Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.