Recommended Posts
Quote
I agree that nothing will completely prepare someone for being shot while wearing body armor except being shot while wearing body armor. That doesn't mean that a reasonable level of preparedness cannot be achieved through academic means.
very frequently we see how poorly academic means performs in reality. Like believing that bullet proof vests are wonder tools for killers. Their function is increasing survival, not allowing you to get shot without consequences.
The detractors here prefer to estimate the success of a moviegoer engaging the shooter at range. No surprise, this isn't realistic and it certainly increases the odds of cross fire. But the real situation is that the movie goer is cornered and has the choice of dying without action, or dying with action at close range. And at 5-10 feet in a chair versus a standing shooter that is well lit by muzzle flash, it's hardly a reach to get several shots on the torso.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>The NRA is an accomplice to this crime, and must be held to account.
Nonsense, no more so than the movie industry is an accomplice.
Both are PART of what happened but neither helped him do this, and both would have stopped him had the opportunity arisen.
Your logic is flawless, of course. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the nuances involved with this issue.
There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it from happening.
For fucks sake. Do you really think this way?
Yes, I do and there are many more of us.
Ah, but the last 12 years has proven that all of "you" don't amount to jack shit. Feinstein today says that this topic has no business in the 2012 election. When you can't even get a whack job like her to propose action in the aftermath of a terrible shooting like this, you're fucked.
We're fucked. But we're not giving up.
QuoteBTW, I read today that the 100 round drum magazine jammed, forcing the shooter to move on to his shotgun and glock. Doesn't state how far into the process this occurred, but it's no surprise.
It's a good thing it jammed. If those magazines and AR-15's we're MUCH harder to obtain, then it could have jammed his whole plan.
QuoteYou are clearly under the impression that the AR-15 was the reason for the carnage. You're quite wrong and your solution to ban assault rifles and "high capacity" magazines will provide no tangible benefit.
No I'm not. I just happen to think that this is a perfect time to bring up the need for stricter gun controls, especially on these type of weapons. I would be making the same arguments even if he failed to kill anyone. You're quite wrong and banning the assault rifles and "high capacity" magazines will make it more unlikely that they will be used again.
QuoteWith minimal training, I can exchange magazines in that glock in less than 2 seconds. In the smoke and chaos of that theater, the victims aren't going to be able to take use of that time...I'd be shooting again right as they register the brief silence. The shotgun is slower, but so long as you have the glock and control of the exit, it's manageable. End result - training and preparation + any useful weapons = bad result in a free society.
Good for you. You should have to work even harder to get hold of these kinds of weapons. I'm sure you could probably do it with shotguns and knives if you wanted to.
QuoteThe best improvement in prevention here is in identifying the people, not the tools they might use.
Identify the people AND make it far more difficult for them to obtain these kinds of weapons.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteName one thing that is illegal to own that you can't put your hands on.
That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them.
If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now.
Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. Laugh all you want. Your logic is flawed.
If my logic is flawed it's not anywhere near as flawed as yours.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteName one thing that is illegal to own that you can't put your hands on.
That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them.
If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now.
Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. Laugh all you want. Your logic is flawed.
If my logic is flawed it's not anywhere near as flawed as yours.
Gee. Well, I'm glad that's settled!
jcd11235 0
QuoteTheir function is increasing survival, not allowing you to get shot without consequences.
Agreed. But let's not kid ourselves into believing that those consequences are necessarily serious enough to arrest the shooter's actions. If he is expecting return fire, as he appears to have been, there's a good chance that being hit by a round from a handgun will result only in him redirecting fire towards the source of that shot. Remember, he has as much adrenaline pumping through his body as anyone else in the theater.
QuoteAnd at 5-10 feet in a chair versus a standing shooter that is well lit by muzzle flash, it's hardly a reach to get several shots on the torso.
Without a protective mask, that's a very big reach. Again, have you ever experienced tear gas? If you have, then you know that your top priority is to figure out how to breathe easily again. You certainly aren't going to be able to pinpoint muzzle flash.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
No I'm not. I just happen to think that this is a perfect time to bring up the need for stricter gun controls, especially on these type of weapons. I would be making the same arguments even if he failed to kill anyone. You're quite wrong and banning the assault rifles and "high capacity" magazines will make it more unlikely that they will be used again.
Is that the goal? I doubt the victims' families care if they were killed with the AR-15 or the shotgun.
The goal is to prevent killings, not killings with a specific device, no?
jinlee 0
You're a river of flippant comments and have said enough to completely discredit yourself but keep at it since it's enjoyable, and your opinion, have at it.
China has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice.
The laws and country it sounds like you want to live in is China.
A deranged person can concoct any deranged plan of attack against an unarmed group of men, women and children.
China has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice.
The laws and country it sounds like you want to live in is China.
A deranged person can concoct any deranged plan of attack against an unarmed group of men, women and children.
jcd11235 0
QuoteA deranged person can concoct any deranged plan of attack against an
unarmedun-expectant group of men, women and children.
It doesn't matter if they're armed or not if they're taken by surprise by a well-prepared deranged shooter.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
quade 4
QuoteChina has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice.
I've never heard of a person with a knife attacking and wounding 70 some odd people and killing more than a dozen with a short bladed knife in about a minute.
The guy was definitely nuts and determined, but if you choose to ignore the weapons he used were a calculated decision, you're fooling yourself. The weapons he picked and their ease of use and availability are a huge factor is what made the high body count possible.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
So, like the hated Politicians and the media, you're Politicising a tragic event for your own ideology, individual rights be damned.
Matt
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteThey were equally wise in seeing the second most important right is the right to defend those words, or to stand up against tyranny, or to protect ourselves and/or our neighbors against any threat.
That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else!
It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.)
According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia."
It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny.
I wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
I wonder if the Armed Forces would stand behind a government that starts operating outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority. Are they required to defend their lawless leaders or the Constitution? How far should the citizenry or the Armed Services allow a rogue government to go? I don't think you have to worry about an insurrection simply over unpopular laws. So far, the closest thing to a lawless "insurrection" that I can see is the Occupy movement. (I'm not old enough to have witnessed the shame brought upon my people by Sacco and Vanzetti and others.)
QuoteYou're a river of flippant comments and have said enough to completely discredit yourself but keep at it since it's enjoyable, and your opinion, have at it.
China has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice.
The laws and country it sounds like you want to live in is China.
A deranged person can concoct any deranged plan of attack against an unarmed group of men, women and children.
I'll take that as a personal attack by a deranged poster.
quade 4
QuoteI wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
Perhaps prior to the Civil War, but after the Secret Service was formed it would become harder and harder with each bit of foolishness by nut jobs and the subsequent ratcheting up of Presidential security. I seriously doubt it's been much of a concern of any President since the mid-60s. They'll always have to worry about "lone wolf" nut cases, but I give an armed insurrection of the US government exactly zero chance of being carried out today.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteQuoteI wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
Perhaps prior to the Civil War, but after the Secret Service was formed it would become harder and harder with each bit of foolishness by nut jobs and the subsequent watching up of Presidential security. I seriously doubt it's been much of a concern of any President since the mid-60s. They'll always have to worry about "lone wolf" nut cases, but I give an armed insurrection of the US government exactly zero chance of being carried out today.
I took his pondering to mean, did a POTUS not over reach his powers for fear of the masses being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
QuoteQuoteQuoteThey were equally wise in seeing the second most important right is the right to defend those words, or to stand up against tyranny, or to protect ourselves and/or our neighbors against any threat.
That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else!
It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.)
According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia."
It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny.
I wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
I wonder if the Armed Forces would stand behind a government that starts operating outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority. Are they required to defend their lawless leaders or the Constitution? How far should the citizenry or the Armed Services allow a rogue government to go? I don't think you have to worry about an insurrection simply over unpopular laws. So far, the closest thing to a lawless "insurrection" that I can see is the Occupy movement. (I'm not old enough to have witnessed the shame brought upon my people by Sacco and Vanzetti and others.)
It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops.
QuoteSo, like the hated Politicians and the media, you're Politicising a tragic event for your own ideology, individual rights be damned.
Matt
A personal attack. Does that strengthen your argument against gun control?
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteI wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
Perhaps prior to the Civil War, but after the Secret Service was formed it would become harder and harder with each bit of foolishness by nut jobs and the subsequent watching up of Presidential security. I seriously doubt it's been much of a concern of any President since the mid-60s. They'll always have to worry about "lone wolf" nut cases, but I give an armed insurrection of the US government exactly zero chance of being carried out today.
I took his pondering to mean, did a POTUS not over reach his powers for fear of the masses being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.
And you can take mine as, "maybe then, but certainly not now."
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
jcd11235 0
QuoteIt won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops.
The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power).
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteQuoteSo, like the hated Politicians and the media, you're Politicising a tragic event for your own ideology, individual rights be damned.
Matt
A personal attack. Does that strengthen your argument against gun control?
Touchy?
No PA, just clearing up your position.
Plus, I have never argued against reasonable gun control, I get bashed here for it often enough, you may even find a few of the posts.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
QuoteQuoteIt won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops.
The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power).
Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations?
muff528 3
Quote,,,,,,,
I took his pondering to mean, did a POTUS not over reach his powers for fear of the masses being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Matt
Yes, this.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional".
Perhaps prior to the Civil War, but after the Secret Service was formed it would become harder and harder with each bit of foolishness by nut jobs and the subsequent watching up of Presidential security. I seriously doubt it's been much of a concern of any President since the mid-60s. They'll always have to worry about "lone wolf" nut cases, but I give an armed insurrection of the US government exactly zero chance of being carried out today.
I took his pondering to mean, did a POTUS not over reach his powers for fear of the masses being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights.
And you can take mine as, "maybe then, but certainly not now."
And the "Why" of "not now", seems to scare a few, lending to the larger contingent of internet tough talk, radical rants, and the rise firearms ownership.
Reasonable measures are hard to argue against, some will, fearing it is the first step on the slippery slope to a completely disarmed society, then subjugated to the GOV.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
AR-15 - 1000? Price varies, so let's overestimate at 1500.
2 Glock 40s - 700 each is high price
Remington 870 - 400
vest - 600
drum magazine - 100?
6000 rounds - varies with ammo type - 100-250$/1000. will say 1200.
-----
5200...and this includes taxes, fees, and is probably 20% high. Anyone with a credit card can swing this. A person in med school won't have any trouble getting that sort of credit.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites