massive shooting at Batman projection...

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

I see no problem discussing ways to stop mass murderers. The problem is the way the gun grabbers want to do it would be like having your DUI check points taking cars away from people that don't drink.

The majority of the people throwing out comments like that seem to be in the pro-gun crowd. I haven't seen too many people truly advocating that in this thread.

Are you sure you have read this somewhere, or are you just having a knee-jerk reaction? Cause all these knee-jerk reactions make me think that many do have a problem having this dicussion.

The problem , as said above, is that no one ever talks of specifics. Then we have politicians that say stupid shit like "we need to pass this so you can see what's in it" (reference to the health care bill and that crazy ass Pelosi clown lady)

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

We can't prevent the unknown - who would have thought this shooting would have happened?

Maybe the psychiatrist. Don't really know at this point.

Quote

Say I'm feeling suicidal (damn that sounds weird!) - so I go talk to suicide prevention and a therapist.

I do believe they have some duty to report. Not necessarily to police, but there are other options. The same goes for telling your therapist you are going to commit a specific crime.

The question to me becomes, how specific and how sever is the crime. I don't hold the right to privacy to be an absolute.

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

The problem , as said above, is that no one ever talks of specifics.

I agree, but then both sides are guilty of that.

Haven't seen to many people stand up yet and say:

I don't want my right to guns to be altered or restricted at all.
I want a strong right of privacy.
Resulting deaths are a price I think is fair for the above rights to be upheld.

[normiss 733]

Good points.


It's really a tough line on choosing rights over safety?

I'll take my rights please, given the odds anyway.
This is the ONLY theater shooting I've heard of in my life so I would prefer those odds over giving up my rights and privacy. To me, that's a very steep and slippery cliff.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I find it dishartening that one would even question why one would want to discuss what could be done to prevent mass murderers from using a theatre as a shooting gallery.

Ever see a little child when faced with the possibility of losing a toy?

Wow. That strikes me as an incredibly juvenile response with no value to the conversation but to insult people with a different opinion from yours.

The first post: I don't think anyone is advocating doing nothing. Many, however, are fearful of the knee-jerk reaction that anti-gun nuts try to incite when something like this happens.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Quote

Many, however, are fearful of the knee-jerk reaction that anti-gun nuts try to incite when something like this happens.

Thus confirming my statement. Thank you.

It is exactly why the pro-gun people are fearful of even allowing a discussion to even take place.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

But history shows us it is not an unwarranted fear. Australia registered weapons and had them later taken away. Canada experienced the same thing. It is hard to find a reasonable solution when there are so many who insist on the unreasonable position that citizens should have no guns. (not that there aren't people on the other end of the spectrum). If everyone could first agree that there is a fundamental right for each citizen to keep and bear arms without equivocation, there might be sensible discussion on reasonable limitations. As long as limitations are perceived as a step toward absolute elimination, people who might be willing to compromise are forced to an extreme. History has shown that reasonable limitations are too often used as a means to an unjust end.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Be that as it may, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalala, I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" helps nothing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Ha! We reached a point of agreement. I'm taking the rest of the day off.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But history shows us it is not an unwarranted fear. Australia registered weapons and had them later taken away. Canada experienced the same thing.

It's odd how neither country devolved into totalitarianism.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[davjohns 1]

Your point is taken, but put it in context and be careful. I can have a successful jump without a reserve.

And I think you can find lots of arguments for trusting citizens with weapons other than keeping government from going totalitarian in the short run.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

Canada experienced the same thing.

Just to keep this honest. One can still own firearms in Canada. I know quite a few people who legally own them.

Handguns are significantly more restricted than rifles. And there is really no carrying them around, concealed or not, in most areas.

[davjohns 1]

Which is kind of the point. They didn't have those restrictions before.

It's kind of the old question of how you boil a frog. If you throw a frog into boiling water, he jumps out. If you put him in water and slowly increase the heat, he is dead before he knows what's wrong.

People the world over did not give up their freedoms and allow government intrusion into their lives all at once. I suspect the people who founded the US would be amazed at the paperwork needed to build a home these days.

How much easier would it be to boil the frog if you just removed it's legs (arms....get it? OK, not my best pun).

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,772]

> I can have a successful jump without a reserve.

Excellent point. And if you pack your main as if it's your only parachute, you'll likely have a long skydiving career.

However, if you pack your main carelessly, and don't maintain it well, and aren't careful about how you deploy it, then your reserve may not always be able to save you.

The corollary here is that we have some excellent tools we can use to maintain the kind of government we want. Not worrying about things like voting, running for office yourself if you want change, working with campaigns etc because "well we always have guns" is not a good long term strategy IMO. (Not saying you do this, just worrying about the meme "guns keep us free.")

> If you throw a frog into boiling water, he jumps out. If you put him in water
> and slowly increase the heat, he is dead before he knows what's wrong.

BTW that's a myth; frogs hop out of hot water just fine.

[davjohns 1]

LOL I always wondered if that was true. Never willing to boil a frog to find out. (Interesting look into YOUR passtimes, however. )

I wasn't just thinking about keeping government in check (although that's in there). I don't really think that would be necessary. I just think there's value to having that floating out there when ambitious politicians make plans in their heads.

Meanwhile, there is the whole self-defense argument that I am much more interested in. I've been a cop. I assure you the line between good men and women in uniform vice bad men and women in uniform is not what we would want it to be. If citizens start giving up the ability to defend themselves and their families in favor of government protection, we face some grim consequences.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Your point is taken, but put it in context and be careful.

I'm just pointing out that the pro-gun crowd is equally prone to knee-jerk reactions/responses.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[davjohns 1]

Could be. I see it as usually a response, but that might be what I want to see.

The gun owners and carry advocates I have known are typical people who just want to know they can protect themselves and those around them if made to. Kind of: Live and let live. And if you can't live with that, then you die first. But there are always extremists in any continuum.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

The problem , as said above, is that no one ever talks of specifics.

I agree, but then both sides are guilty of that.

Haven't seen to many people stand up yet and say:

I don't want my right to guns to be altered or restricted at all.
I want a strong right of privacy.
Resulting deaths are a price I think is fair for the above rights to be upheld.

I would stand by those points other than the wording of the last. I don't believe the deaths are a fair price to pay. I believe no matter what you choose to restrict they are inevitable. There will always be people set on doing evil and if you took all of the guns they would us other means. IEDs come to mind. How many mass killing have been done by car bombs? An evil mind will find a way.

[davjohns 1]

I can follow on the heels of the last two posts. I agree that the wording that sounds like 'acceptable loss' doesn't sit well with me. I think targeting guns is not the answer. But we should seek an answer.

I'm reminded of the black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. Cut off his arms (pun intended) and legs and he threatens to bite your ankles off.

Evil will find a way. Target the root of the problem...not the tools.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

I believe no matter what you choose to restrict they are inevitable. There will always be people set on doing evil and if you took all of the guns they would us other means. IEDs come to mind. How many mass killing have been done by car bombs? An evil mind will find a way.

And I don't believe in that equivalency.

If somebody takes a bag of money they find on teh street and keep it for themselves, they are a thief.

If that bag of money isn't on the street, I am not convinced that same person would not rob a bank.

I do agree that if somebody is hell bent on robbing somebody, they will find a way to do that.

Many believe that more guns is the answer. Many believe less guns is the answer. I tend to believe a combination is the answer.

But, my answer/proposal/solution would impose further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, which for many would make it a "non-starter" in the US.

[davjohns 1]

I agree with your conclusion. It's the dreaded 'slippery slope' theory.

Personally, I would love to see training classes in firearms proficiency before concealed carry permits were issued. Heck, I'd like to see firearms training in high-school. It might be more beneficial in the long run than the Alabama History courses I was forced to survive. But then, I was on the rifle team in HS, so that's understandable. On the other side of that fence are people who probably fear that teaching youth how to handle firearms will think it makes them more likely to own them and that's just not ok. The same people might think teaching safe sex is just fine. Funny how that works.

I have no problem with teaching safe sex or with teaching safe firearms ownership. People are going to have sex and likely to encounter firearms. Might as well know how to handle both.

I probably type faster than I make sense. Did that come out at all comprehensible?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

I believe no matter what you choose to restrict they are inevitable. There will always be people set on doing evil and if you took all of the guns they would us other means. IEDs come to mind. How many mass killing have been done by car bombs? An evil mind will find a way.

And I don't believe in that equivalency.

If somebody takes a bag of money they find on teh street and keep it for themselves, they are a thief.

If that bag of money isn't on the street, I am not convinced that same person would not rob a bank.

I do agree that if somebody is hell bent on robbing somebody, they will find a way to do that.

Many believe that more guns is the answer. Many believe less guns is the answer. I tend to believe a combination is the answer.

But, my answer/proposal/solution would impose further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, which for many would make it a "non-starter" in the US.

I don't see the point of your money bag scenario. It's no where near the same thing unless you are debating trying to entice someone into murder.

[davjohns 1]

I think he was saying that firearms availability is too great and that leads to some people committing crimes with them when they might otherwise have not committed crimes. I'm not sure, though. It wasn't a point clearly made or supported if I got it right.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,319]

Quote

I think he was saying that firearms availability is too great and that leads to some people committing crimes with them when they might otherwise have not committed crimes.

In a nutshell, that is correct.

[quade 4]

Quote

I think he was saying that firearms availability is too great and that leads to some people committing crimes with them when they might otherwise have not committed crimes. I'm not sure, though. It wasn't a point clearly made or supported if I got it right.

When I think about people on the cusp of criminality, I can't help but think there are calculations that go through their minds. I think a big one is, "How easy will it be to be able to do this and can I pull it off?"

Now, while it may be true that a determined nut job or criminal probably will do quite a bit to make it happen. I think there's a lot of people on the cusp who are incredibly lazy. They aren't going to devote a few years of their lives learning how to be a ninja so they can knock over a 7/11, if they can pick up a gun and do it today.

I think the amazing ease with which guns are available is a factor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver