1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police: 13 dead; 58 injured in Colorado theater shooting

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,449
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Nice try. Once again you've gone to the extreme with your comparing apples with oranges. I have yet to hear of a incident where someone used their 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves from getting a traffic ticket. :sure: Get real. Where the line needs to be drawn as you put it is with the criminal. Gun control laws that have little effect in detouring or preventing crimes are like breasts on a nun and gonads on a priest, useless. And there are plenty of them on the books. Their only purpose is to detour and prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right. Why not try what I suggested in post #565? Too cruel and unusual for your liking?
     
  2. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,746
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A full quote of one of my posts followed by a "you" statement is dangerous. Not as dangerous as an AK-15, but watch the "you" statements. :)

    As far as the issue ... there are improvements that could be made in traffic laws and improvements that can be made in gun laws. It seems odd to me that if we were all to gather in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles to hash this out in person that we would be subject to more laws and restrictions to be able to make the trip than some people would want to place on gun owners.

    We live together in a society. Let us work together to create laws we all can live with.
     
  3. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,011
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The problem is the Second Amendment draws a line limiting government power, not a line limiting the right of the individual.

    I've always puzzled over the word "arms" as in "the right to keep and bear arms." And I've never found any of the Supreme Court rulings discussing the term very satisfying.

    The context when our "Founding Fathers" wrote the Second Amendment seems to mean the most effective weapons available at the time - at least, I've never heard anyone arguing about the right to keep and bear swords and crossbows.

    If you're a "as the Founding Fathers lived and understood it" strict constructionist did the meaning of the word "arms" stop evolving before 1800? If you believe in the "living" Constitution concept, is the word "arms" essentially the same word generally used when referring to "arms control."

    This is a dilemma. Anti-gun control folks - who tend to be conservative strict constructionists - should be carrying nothing more advanced than flintlocks. Pro-gun control folks - who tend to be liberal living Constitution advocates - should be carrying chemical and anti-tank weapons.

    Or maybe the Second Amendment language is the best example of why the Founding Fathers generally believed that we'd rewrite the Constitution every few decades - it's all about context.
     
  4. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Really, what additonal reisrictions are there for vehicle ownership?
    You are comparing laws that govern public behavior and usage with laws that govern private ownership.

    In order to purchase a car, I only need money. In order to keep that car in my driveway, operate in on my private property I need some gas, nothing else. In order to operate that car on public property I have to conform to the laws of the land. Obtain a license, obey traffic laws, etc.

    The last time I checked, there were plenty of laws governing usage of firearms in public.
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,746
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I'm just trying to find the line ... the "any gun any time" attitude seems to still be out there.

    I like the exchange between Edgar and the alien in Men In Black. Edgar stated the old "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" - the alien accepted the deal.

    Extreme? Yes. Which is why we need to get away from absolutes and find something less extreme than "any gun any time".


    Sorry, not good enough. If only known criminals committed crimes it might be a good line, but there are too many people where their first crime is a big one.


    No. Their purpose is as stated when writing the law. Generally keeping unnecessary weapons out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals.


    Post #365 is not yours. Can you be more specific? Use the "Link" link on the post to refer to it.
     
  6. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,449
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    My bad. I ment post #565.
     
  7. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    Wrong again... The number of cars owned is the same number as guns owned. Roughly 250 million of each are owned by Americans.

    The links I found are just a quick search so the years don't match up but I can't see the numbers changing that much in a handful of years.

    Number of guns owned in 2003 is between 238 and 276 million:

    http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/942388/posts

    Number of cars owned in 2008 is 250 million and in 2009 is 246 million:

    http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/04/report-number-of-cars-in-the-u-s-dropped-by-four-million-in-20/

    Yes, "most" gun related deaths are intentional but that's because most gun related deaths in the US are suicides. In 2007 for instance 55.6% of gunshot fatalities were suicides. Saying "Most gun related deaths are intentional" is like saying water is a liquid.
     
  8. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,449
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Let me give you a example of abuse of power and authority. As I posted earlier I'm originally from Connecticut. When I applied for my permit to carry locally (some forty plus years ago) the application had to be approved by the chief of police signing the application. In my city the chief of police did so. A friend of mine who lived in another city applied for his local permit to carry. His chief of police refused to sign his application stating "As long as I'm the chief of police no one will be given a permit to carry". A blatant abuse of power and authority. My friend had to hire a lawyer and have his case heard in court. He won but the blue wall quickly went up and that chief of police was allowed to remain in his position and was not reprimanded.
     
  9. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,746
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And plenty of laws governing usage of vehicles in public.

    Your examples seem to be of vehicle use in private (on private property) ... which if you want to draw as a line for regulation isn't a bad one. Keep your guns and usage on your own private property and never leave your own private property with them and you'll be fine. (The extreme of that is you cannot take your guns from your property to a gun range as that involves taking your guns into public. Just like the restrictions on most unregistered/unlicensed vehicles.)

    BTW: I have lived in cities where parking a vehicle on the front lawn was illegal. Unregistered vehicles were also regulated. You probably don't care about city codes or state laws since they are not national laws - but vehicle ownership is not as simple as just owning a vehicle.
     
  10. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,746
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3065599#post3065599

    It seems to include some harsh punishments for vehicle operation but I don't follow what it would do for gun control.

    But - the concept of life imprisonment for just any crime seems cruel and capital punishment on a floating schedule seems unusual.

    It is also expensive. One could consider life imprisonment a welfare program for criminals - where they get room and board for the rest of their lives. Sure, they could be given prison jobs to recoup the cost but that is just guaranteed employment. Meanwhile us non-criminals have to pay our own way in life and find jobs to support our expenses with minimal help from the government.
     
  11. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Why can't I take my guns to the range following the existing laws on public usage?
     
  12. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,449
    514
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Yes it's harsh. As I stated the countries with the harshest judicial system have the lowest crime rate. Obviously you're not familar with Devil's Island. It was designed for "repeat offenders", aka "career criminals". While some received life sentences others received set sentences. Upon completion of their sentence they lived in the colony outside the prison walls. It was not a free ride. They had to seek employment (mostly dock workers and laborers) and fend for themselves. They either rented what was available to them or built their own shanties. A befitting treatment for their "repeated" offenses against society.
     
  13. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,746
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I am not saying you can't ... but in the example you gave of car ownership allegedly requiring no license or registration you said:
    In order to purchase a car, I only need money. In order to keep that car in my driveway, operate in on my private property I need some gas, nothing else. In order to operate that car on public property I have to conform to the laws of the land. Obtain a license, obey traffic laws, etc.​
    Perhaps an unloaded gun locked in a trunk of a vehicle (outside of the passenger compartment) could be compared to an unregistered vehicle being trailered on public roadways. (Although as I noted, I have lived in places where one could not park an unregistered vehicle in their own driveway or front yard.)

    The concept of being able to do whatever you want on your own property ends when you leave your property. Be happy that you have laws that allow you to carry a weapon between your home and the range. If we were to follow the restrictions placed on car ownership you would not have the same freedoms.
     
  14. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,011
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Nothing is ever simple and reasons exist why individual police chiefs choose to establish their own preferences. You are correct that being too restrictive will not result open criticism from the police community.

    I once replaced a police chief who issued gun permits to anyone, regardless of where they lived in California, who was sober enough to walk through the door and who didn't have a felony record. That and a couple of other reasons was why he was terminated.

    The city council wanted me to not issue any permits. Technically I had that discretion.

    I chose to establish a stringent set of criteria based upon risks incurred because of unusual personal circumstances. For instance, the Chairman of the Board/President of Bank of America (it still was a California bank back then) was a "yes" because he received a few death threats every day and was considered a high kidnapping risk.

    Anyone could, however, go to the County Sheriff who had a less restrictive set of criteria, but also offered a required training course to prospective license holders. That's where I sent most people.
     
  15. Draconis

    Draconis New Member

    4,433
    4
    Mar 16, 2007
    Las Vegas, NV
    I’m pretty late to the party but felt I needed to get my 2 bits in.

    I’m with the group that is appalled that nobody shot back, I have a carry concealed weapons permit and I am usually packing (except at work, when I leave it in the car).

    I do not consider it morally superior to make myself a potential victim; I consider it the pinnacle of stupidity. Far too many people do not want to take personal responsibility for the health and welfare of themselves and their families.

    I can see where some people are saying that if other people were armed you would get a bunch of gun-toting lunatics firing into a crowd. Really? I practice with my firearms regularly and I am fully aware of my personal liability if I accidentally shot a bystander. The vast majority of CCW holders have gone through training that focuses on the consequences of our actions.

    Yes, the attacker was wearing body armor, this does not make it useless to fight back. Body armor is not absolute, you still get the blunt-force trauma and there are a number of civilian firearms that are known to pierce certain types of body armor.

    Yes, what happened was a tragedy. Yes, it’s even worse because nobody acted to stop it, and it’s absolutely reprehensible that a bunch of whining cowards who want everything given to them without taking responsibility for anything would use this as an excuse to turn everyone into a potential victim by removing everyone’s ability to fight back.

    Because that’s all gun control laws do, they remove the weapons from the law-abiding citizens (the people you want to have them). Criminals are, of course, criminals. As in someone who does not obey the law.

    Signed - A gun owner who prepares for the day he must defend himself, and prays that it is never necessary to do so. (I am 42 and have never drawn my weapon once, a fact I am very proud of).

    /rant-off
     
  16. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    +1 ^Like I said, only better.
     
  17. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,626
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    Where did I say that? I said there are more cars in use than there are guns in use.

    But we're getting away from my point -- you can't compare car deaths to gun deaths other than to say more people die in vehicles accidents. Until you can come up with a meaningful way to compare usage, you can't compare the two.

    Your 55.6% gun suicide number was interesting, but sad. I guess that relates back to the status of mental health in the US.
     
  18. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    311
    Jan 4, 2006
    That's the same thing.

    Again I post facts, again you ignore them. Just proves the anti-gun people aren't worried about facts and go out of their way to ignore them.

    I showed you a comparison, you threw it out like trash.

    I'm done...
     
  19. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,626
    275
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    Anti-gun? I guess that is why I own four handguns, two rifles, a shotgun and have a CCW permit in FL. I spent 23 years in the military defending the country; now I have every intention of defending my family and property as needed.
     
  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    You're missing the obvious... so obvious it is right there in front of you.

    The common denominator...

    PEOPLE!

    Irresponsible and inept people are responsible for the killings.... either by malice and choice OR by accident or negligence.

    Cars and guns do not kill people (usually) unless operated by a person to do so, either purposefully or accidentally.

    So... the thing ALL the killings have in common is people. That's it. No need to parse the data further.

    Saying cars are more dangerous than guns (or vice-versa) is a meaningless argument really.

    The problem is always people.

    Exactly... I wouldn't compare (as others have) the ownership of guns vs cars... but no doubt more cars in active daily operation than guns. Most gun owners aren't out shooting their gun for hours every single day... but most people are in a car or transportation vehicle of some kind on most days.
     

Share This Page