AggieDave 6 #76 July 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy is it so difficult for people to admit that laws against guns wouldn't have likely made a difference? Because, if the laws were absolute, this absolutely wouldn't have gone down the way it did. If there was an absolute zero tolerance 100 percent gun ban and the weapons and other tools used weren't easily purchasable via the Internet, this wouldn't have happened the way it did. That's unquestionable. And that is why no one is able to purchase and use cocaine or heroine... Oh, wait they can? But total bans are supposed to work.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #77 July 24, 2012 Last time I checked, nobody has burst into a theater and committed mass murder by giving them coke or heroine. I'm not in favor of a total ban, but FFS let's make it just a little more difficult than buying an extra large soda in New York. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #78 July 24, 2012 QuoteLast time I checked, nobody has burst into a theater and committed mass murder by giving them coke or heroine. I will tell you that both of those kill more people every year than what was killed in Colorado. I will also tell you that both of them drive a significant amount of crime in the US. From violent crime against persons to property crimes. Try as you might Paul, history has well shown that total bans simply do not work as intended.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #79 July 24, 2012 I'm not suggesting a total ban...never have...but let's make it just a little less easy to commit mass murder. It should be at least a bit more difficult than getting an extra large soda in New York.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #80 July 24, 2012 Or shampoo on a plane? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #81 July 24, 2012 QuoteI'm not suggesting a total ban...never have...but let's make it just a little less easy to commit mass murder. It should be at least a bit more difficult than getting an extra large soda in New York. In New York, it is. They don't support the 2nd amendment there, in fact, they want to control your life since people can't do it themselves, hence the soda ban.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 July 24, 2012 Quote I disagree that the majority of individuals claiming they could hit a small moving target in a dark, crowded theater filled with tear gas could actually do it. Why is the target small? There's a world of difference between a defensive stand and trying to play sniper with a handgun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #83 July 24, 2012 Quote Last time I checked, nobody has burst into a theater and committed mass murder by giving them coke or heroine. I'm not in favor of a total ban, but FFS let's make it just a little more difficult than buying an extra large soda in New York. funny example you pick, given that until Heller, your ability to legally purchase a handgun in NYC was zero. While there's a convenience store on every corner. And yet people seem to get shot in NYC all the time. Same with Chicago. If your alternate scenario relies on a caveat that can't be hold up anywhere in the world, nevermind in a country with a flourishing drug trade and over 300 million guns in circulation. Enough shooters have been stopped by civilians with guns to know that this probability is in fact non zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #84 July 25, 2012 I'm not concerned about a reasonable person carrying a weapon for personal protection. Why aren't you concerned about nut cases with access to weapons that can kill a dozen people and wound 50 more in about a minute? See how there might be a middle ground in there somewhere?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #85 July 25, 2012 Quote... if you had a paintball gun that you could shoot another individual in the face while they move around shooting their paintball gun into a dark, crowded theater filled with tear gas without hitting anyone else in the crowd? it's a marker, not a gun, and yeah, it's easy. Gimme my old automag and I'll hose the guy down. Upper end markers can throw out some serious paint in short order with plenty of accuracy. Now, change it to an old, singleshot pump, and things get interesting ;)You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #86 July 25, 2012 How do we identify the loonies. (besides the approach used in this forum anyway) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #87 July 25, 2012 Quote How do we identify the loonies. (besides the approach used in this forum anyway) Can we use a sliding scale based on the Tom Cruise Crazy Index? --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #88 July 25, 2012 Ah, the couch test. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 July 25, 2012 QuoteI'm not concerned about a reasonable person carrying a weapon for personal protection. Why aren't you concerned about nut cases with access to weapons that can kill a dozen people and wound 50 more in about a minute? See how there might be a middle ground in there somewhere? What are the end points? You presented two fantasy points - one where there are no guns available, and another where guns are available, but they are ineffective against crowds. In between is reality? How many times must it be said that a pistol with two spare magazines and a shotgun are more than capable of serious carnage? I'm concerned about nut cases period. And my inability due to CA law to have any effective defense against them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #90 July 25, 2012 QuoteAnd my inability due to CA law to have any effective defense against them. I think the first step would be an admission you have NO effective defense against them. That the theoretical pistol with two mags is about as effective against a determined looney as a packed parachute in the cabin of an airliner. Why let the nuts have access to the controls?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd my inability due to CA law to have any effective defense against them. I think the first step would be an admission you have NO effective defense against them. That the theoretical pistol with two mags is about as effective against a determined looney as a packed parachute in the cabin of an airliner. Quote provably false. Quote Why let the nuts have access to the controls? because you don't have a choice there. Proven world wide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #92 July 25, 2012 QuoteWhy let the nuts have access to the controls? because you don't have a choice there. Proven world wide. Nonsense. The question is how stringent to make the regulations to prevent it. You're advocating none. I'm saying, let's at least look at some.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy let the nuts have access to the controls? because you don't have a choice there. Proven world wide. Nonsense. The question is how stringent to make the regulations to prevent it. You're advocating none. I'm saying, let's at least look at some. Some what? Get specific, for a change. I don't see how you're going to identify people who are now mentally ill and present a danger to society. And I certainly don't see how you can prevent them from finding ways to hurt others. We ask Kallend all the time - he has no fucking idea either. We're in a free society. We don't have Stassi or informers watching over our every move. That would be great for identifying off behavior, though in that regime, they didn't wait to find out if it was a real problem or not, they just hauled your ass away. Not really a solution for America - the cure is far worse than the disease. If you want to make a change, you need to propose one that is 1) actually effective and 2) doesn't do more damage/cost than it helps. When you look at the Colorado shooter - he may be a nut, but he was a finely functional nut and in his case, I don't see a way in the world to have prevented him from killing people. He was highly intelligent and motivated, and could have stooped to age old fire if he had to. Prevention of the illness - ie, improved mental health care - may actually pay out. But the rest - just gun grabbers dancing on the graves again, long before we even hear all the details of the incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #92 July 25, 2012 QuoteWhy let the nuts have access to the controls? because you don't have a choice there. Proven world wide. Nonsense. The question is how stringent to make the regulations to prevent it. You're advocating none. I'm saying, let's at least look at some.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy let the nuts have access to the controls? because you don't have a choice there. Proven world wide. Nonsense. The question is how stringent to make the regulations to prevent it. You're advocating none. I'm saying, let's at least look at some. Some what? Get specific, for a change. I don't see how you're going to identify people who are now mentally ill and present a danger to society. And I certainly don't see how you can prevent them from finding ways to hurt others. We ask Kallend all the time - he has no fucking idea either. We're in a free society. We don't have Stassi or informers watching over our every move. That would be great for identifying off behavior, though in that regime, they didn't wait to find out if it was a real problem or not, they just hauled your ass away. Not really a solution for America - the cure is far worse than the disease. If you want to make a change, you need to propose one that is 1) actually effective and 2) doesn't do more damage/cost than it helps. When you look at the Colorado shooter - he may be a nut, but he was a finely functional nut and in his case, I don't see a way in the world to have prevented him from killing people. He was highly intelligent and motivated, and could have stooped to age old fire if he had to. Prevention of the illness - ie, improved mental health care - may actually pay out. But the rest - just gun grabbers dancing on the graves again, long before we even hear all the details of the incident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #94 July 25, 2012 QuoteSome what? Get specific, for a change. I don't see how you're going to identify people who are now mentally ill and present a danger to society. And I certainly don't see how you can prevent them from finding ways to hurt others. Well, good. That's probably something better left to experts. I'm not one, so I'm not going to propose something not properly researched, but you and people like you don't even want to have the conversation take place. To me, that's stupid.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteSome what? Get specific, for a change. I don't see how you're going to identify people who are now mentally ill and present a danger to society. And I certainly don't see how you can prevent them from finding ways to hurt others. Well, good. That's probably something better left to experts. I'm not one, so I'm not going to propose something not properly researched, but you and people like you don't even want to have the conversation take place. To me, that's stupid. now you remind me of Ross Perot. 'They got plans you see, just sitting away! Can solve all our problems!' This isn't the first time a crazy person has killed anyone. Lawrocket and the doc have already talked about the limitations on what they can do. And if there was any consensus, or even half decent ideas among the national leadership in the field, wouldn't we have heard it by now? The silence is quite telling here- the conversation has happened repeatedly and there is no magic answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #96 July 25, 2012 QuoteAnd if there was any consensus, or even half decent ideas among the national leadership in the field, wouldn't we have heard it by now? Not at all sure we would considering the grip the NRA has on the leadership of this country.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #97 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuote I disagree that the majority of individuals claiming they could hit a small moving target in a dark, crowded theater filled with tear gas could actually do it. Why is the target small? There's a world of difference between a defensive stand and trying to play sniper with a handgun. Did you not read the first post of the thread?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #98 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuote... if you had a paintball gun that you could shoot another individual in the face while they move around shooting their paintball gun into a dark, crowded theater filled with tear gas without hitting anyone else in the crowd? it's a marker, not a gun, and yeah, it's easy. Gimme my old automag and I'll hose the guy down. Upper end markers can throw out some serious paint in short order with plenty of accuracy. Now, change it to an old, singleshot pump, and things get interesting ;) When I used to play in the NPPL it was a paintball gun. You can have whatever marker you want but you only get a limited number of paintballs and I doubt given the situation any of those paintballs are going to hit the target. PS: Why do the pro-gun expect the anti-gun to be realistic in regards to criminals being able to get guns regardless of a ban but the pro-gun won't be realistic in situations like this?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #99 July 25, 2012 Just came back to this thread. Went to see Dark Knight Rising yesterday. I always sit in the back. The emergency exits are always in the front. CS is nothing new to me. I was an NBC MOS formerly. I've sucked more of it than most. It still would have taken a while to get to me from the front. By the way, it's a dust; not a gas. I use meprolight sights on all of my carry weapons. Allows me to see the sights. If I can identify a target, I can hit it. I have no doubt I could easily hit a man-sized target at the emergency exit yesterday despite CS and panicked crowds. It might take more than one shot, but I could hit him in the head as well. There was always plenty of light to ID a target. Also, I assume the head shot was required in the OP because the perp wore armor. I haven't read all of the details of the incident. Unless he had a blunt trauma plate, a .45 might have still killed him. Body armor doesn't work like the movies. It might keep the bullet from penetrating and you can still die. You are almost always out of the fight when hit. If the defender was properly trained (like me) he'd put two to the chest and one to the head. As I understand it, the guy killed 12 and wounded 50 or so unarmed people. I think it reasonable that someone firing back at him would have improved the numbers in favor of the living / uninjured. Getting shot at tends to take the fight out of cowards like this guy. If nothing else, it's distracting. And then, there's always that chance that the person shooting back could hit him. And personally, I would rather get hit by the good guy trying to protect people than by the bad guy. Small consolation, but it beats dying in a theater at the hands of a coward.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #100 July 25, 2012 Quote Quote Some what? Get specific, for a change. I don't see how you're going to identify people who are now mentally ill and present a danger to society. And I certainly don't see how you can prevent them from finding ways to hurt others. Well, good. That's probably something better left to experts. I'm not one, so I'm not going to propose something not properly researched, but you and people like you don't even want to have the conversation take place. To me, that's stupid. There are some things that I believe are off limits. Among those is the forced internment of those people who have committed no crime but are thought to be a threat because of a disease of the body. Picture giving that authority to Dick Cheney and say, "That's a good idea. We'll trust him not to abuse it." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
