The Colorado shootings

Off-Topic Chatter About Anything Non-Amityville
User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by Howard64 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:16 pm

the pictures that becks posted are the very reason I have a
home defense plan. Perhaps is it a bit paranoid, better prepared
than victimized.
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

User avatar
Simon
formerly Just Simon
Posts: 189

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by Simon » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:39 pm

In the first place your first claim -- that the average of firearm-related deaths between 1979--1997 -- is completely incorrect. The average for those years is 607+change.

The point was, despite this supposed reduction, the numbers still fluctuate by hundreds in a single year's time. And surely as an Australian, you must be aware that your view of the effects of this reduction are hotly contended in your country, and have been for *decades*.

Yet not once did you make any real mention of how diversely different groups look upon the topic:
Yep, apologies, you are correct, average from 1979 - 1997 is 607 per year, average from 1998 - 208 is 285, that is still a significant decrease, of course the numbers still fluctuate, but the point still stands. Effects of the reduction are debated in this country as they should be but I am not sure why I should be compelled to mention it. The numbers that you have quoted are firearm related deaths, not firearm related homicides.
Comparing the USA and AUS as candidates for firearm restriction/reduction is ludicrous for numerous reasons.

Secondly, Simon's claims are obviously subjective to political agendas in Australia. I was going to soften that aspect, but since he wishes to insult me directly, fine. I'll merely remove my gloves as well.
You are probably right comparing the USA and Aus as candidates for firearm restriction, I understand that they are totally different Countries with different sets of circumstances and I don't think that I ever said that the US should adopt Australia's policies but due to the firearm related murders rate I know where I would rather raise my children. (...and Beck, before you get all bent out of shape, that is not an insult, that is personal preference)

Okay, which claims of mine are subject to political agendas? Where have I insulted you directly ?... If you think I have insulted you directly then I apologiize, it was not my intention, either that or you need to harden up a little.
I'll merely remove my gloves as well
Remove your gloves??? :lol: this is an internet forum for discussing and debating topics ffs.

User avatar
radiomixer
Billy's Next Ex-Wife
Posts: 3542

Audacia pro Muro Habetur

Post by radiomixer » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:04 pm

Simon wrote:Yep, apologies, you are correct, average from 1979 - 1997 is 607 per year, average from 1998 - 208 is 285, that is still a significant decrease, of course the numbers still fluctuate, but the point still stands. Effects of the reduction are debated in this country as they should be but I am not sure why I should be compelled to mention it. The numbers that you have quoted are firearm related deaths, not firearm related homicides.

Last time I checked, suicide via gun is considered a "firearm related homicide." In fact you yourself stated earlier in the thread:
Simon wrote:Yep, I get that, but this discussion is about firearms....firearms that are designed to kill ....
And I raised concerns over your quoted source of data [which you summarily ignored]. Then when I use your exact same choice of data to show how differently the perception of the USA can be viewed (we're a huge, heavily populated country, yet we don't even rank in the top 37 countries as to 'murders per capita'), you suddenly try to label this as my going off-topic, rather than answer my carefully_spelled_out objections to your source of data. We call that the old "bait and switch" technique over here.

Secondly, this is Howard's thread, I don't recall him asking you to set the finer parameters of discussion into effect. My opinions are as valid as yours, as with anyone else who's added to the thread.
Simon wrote:Effects of the reduction are debated in this country as they should be but I am not sure why I should be compelled to mention it.
Because stating that AUS's efforts to stem violence and exert 'successful' gun control as you've described are misleading and incorrect. Not mentioning the other side of that coin looks deceitful.
Simon wrote:
Comparing the USA and AUS as candidates for firearm restriction/reduction is ludicrous for numerous reasons.

Secondly, Simon's claims are obviously subjective to political agendas in Australia. I was going to soften that aspect, but since he wishes to insult me directly, fine. I'll merely remove my gloves as well.
You are probably right comparing the USA and Aus as candidates for firearm restriction, I understand that they are totally different Countries with different sets of circumstances and I don't think that I ever said that the US should adopt Australia's policies but due to the firearm related murders rate I know where I would rather raise my children. (...and Beck, before you get all bent out of shape, that is not an insult, that is personal preference)
Why would I get "bent out of shape?" I happen to think the world of your country and have stated this to you privately on several occasions, as well as having defended Australia on this same board. That was quite unnecessary, Simon.
Simon wrote:and I don't think that I ever said that the US should adopt Australia's policies
Oh really? I'm sure you implied nothing of the sort earlier ...
Simon wrote:I am not talking about taking away gun rights, I am talking about modifying the laws to make it harder to obtain firearms without having a valid reason to do so.
Like in Australia?
Simon wrote:I just think that there needs to be some serious thought given to the gun control laws in the US.
Like in Australia?
Simon wrote:I understand that other weapons are used in homicides, but this thread is debating firearms and their control of lack thereof.
Wow, now the US suddenly went from having 'unsatisfactory' gun control to "lack thereof."
Simon wrote:Okay, which claims of mine are subject to political agendas?

Because stating that AUS's efforts to stem violence and exert 'successful' gun control as you've described are misleading and incorrect. Not mentioning the other side of that coin looks deceitful. Your statistical data wasn't even correct a decade ago, which is how old it is, and the source is likewise unreliable.

When I directly countered your claims with data showing the opposite of your claims, you said Nothing. You debated neither source nor data, and evidently still think your info is still correct on the main, whereas I've since found ample data to the contrary.

Furthermore you also ignored rather relevant comments as to why there are important amendments that allow Americans to defend themselves in the face of rogue militias and a government which may act against it's citizens in direct violation of constitutional rights.
Simon wrote:
Where have I insulted you directly ?
I am not sure why you are being so aggressive Beck, I have had a civil discussion and learned a lot while discussing and debating this with Howard, not sure that he needed you to jump in and fly the flag for him.
First of all when you suggest Howard return from 'Fantasyland' or whatever, that was offensive to me, as I'm sure Howard's taking into account many of my objections stated above in this post, both historically and in present day. But your "not sure that he needed you to jump in and fly the flag for him" comment was way outta line. Both Howard and I have responded to that matter, yet you keep bringing it up. Are you going to pretend to be oblivious to it in a future post as well?

Your circular arguments are both showing, and telling. Why can't we just discuss the data and its' veracity, as I've already suggested numerous times now?
Simon wrote:... If you think I have insulted you directly then I apologiize, it was not my intention,

Then why do you persist in doing it?
Simon wrote:either that or you need to harden up a little.
See what I mean?
Simon wrote:
I'll merely remove my gloves as well
Remove your gloves??? :lol: this is an internet forum for discussing and debating topics ffs.
Although I've a feeling you'll doubt this, last night a fellow member of ours asked me: "What does 'FFS' stand for?' I replied, "To the best of my knowledge it means 'For F*ck's Sake."

It reminds me of something one of my AOL superiors said during a debate many years ago: "What good is an apology when you resort to your old habits? :)" And no, I'm not suggesting you habitually insult people who post here -- that's not the Simon we know here at all, I want to make that crystal-clear. But in this case, yes, you've repeatedly insulted me, and I can't see sincerity in your apology if you merely plan to do so again [reference "harden up a little" and "ffs"].
"I'm gonna tell you straight up. I didn't care who they blamed as long as it wasn't me. I mean, that's the bottom line. I did not care. I didn't care then and I don't care now." - Ronald DeFeo Jr. interview for "First Person Killers"

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by Howard64 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:28 am

There seems to be a favored opinion on this thread to point out
how some other country has gun laws enacted to make firearms illegal,
namely England.

Well I was doing a bit of reading this morning while having my coffee,
I was browsing my monthly installment of "American Rifleman" when I came
across an article which I found very enlightening. Let me share some of this with
you...

"After WW1, England passed gun control laws that mostly disarmed it's
citizenry. The belief that there should be a rifle in every cottage as proposed
by England's prime minister, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, in 1900 was finished
"

American Rifleman. September 2012

At the the time this did not include the shotgun class of firearm. But as parliament
continued to debate the issue in 1933, shotguns would be included and stiffer fines
and penalties would be included for offenders. Seems the grip of government
closed even tighter. As predicted, this drastically reduced the number of firearms
that citizens had.

In 1940, the Battle of Dunkirk presented England with a rather nasty problem. During their
push into enemy territory, Germany forced the evacuation of British expeditionary forces
back across the English Channel. It seems in their haste the English abandoned. equipment,
ammunition, ie. most of their equipment. This presented a serious problem; since the civilian
populace was disarmed and the military in full retreat, England was unarmed.

"Luckily, they had gun-owning friends across the Atlantic. In 1940 a group of Americans, headed by
C. Suydam Cutting, moved quickly to help ream England's citizens.
"

American Rifleman, September 2012

A campaign was put together for citizens of the United States to help supply English
citizens with firearms to help stem the Nazi Regime during it's push towards England.
Several people responded and some 7000 arms were shipped to help our brothers
across the sea.

Interesting article:)

American Rifleman, September 2012, Volume 160, No. 9, pages 75-77
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:15 pm

Simon wrote:
tomspy77 wrote:I can understand your concerns Kevin, although I disagree about the first point you made. I think even with all that was going on that even a shot into the ceiling might have sufficed to scare this creepo into making mistakes.

A little more understandable is the point about law enforcement not knowing who is the perp and who is the citizen, but that is a risk I think we might have to take in this climate of violence if we want to protect ourselves, especially in the urban areas like Chicago, New York or Detroit.

I 100% agree about that "church", they deserve more then a wall of love, what they need is a wall of bricks dropped on their heads.
What mistakes would a shot to ceiling "scare" this guy into making? The guy was apparently wearing a gas mask, a ballistic helmet, vest, throat and groin protectors and bullet resistant leggings, he went in there meaning business. After initially firing a 12-guage shotgun a couple of times he started unloading with a semi- automatic with a 100 round magazine, luckily the semi-automatic apparently jammed. The gun jamming is what I think saved a lot of people.

If other armed people in the theatre decided to try and take this guy down, I think it could have been a lot worse with people being caught in cross fire etc, they were in a darkened theatre with a smoke grenade or tear gas already having been let off.
I hear ya on the armor, but I still think that after the way this guy just gave up without firing at police or committing suicide that he would have reacted to someone else being armed.

I also will always support conceal and carry, as it can deter or stop crime...
A 57-year-old grandfather filling out a grocery list for his wife on Monday ended up thwarting two armed robbers at a Florida general store. One of the robbers was killed in the melee.

The unidentified Jacksonville man was shopping at the Dollar General when two handgun-wielding thieves burst in at 9:20 p.m., demanding money, the Times-Union reports.

"One of them had the clerk and one of them was at the front cash register," Jacksonville Sheriff's Lt. Rob Schoonover told the paper.

But what the perps didn't know is that grandpa was packing heat and a concealed weapons permit, WOKV reports. He shot one of the robbers twice, killing him, Schoonover said. The other unidentified perp, wearing a blue bandana and gloves, fled in a small SUV.

"He’s always been a marksman," his wife told the Times-Union. "He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he’s ever killed anyone and I don’t know how he’ll handle that."

The grandfather won't be charged in the shooting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... _ref=crime

See, this is what happens when well trained people who go through proper channels can conceal and carry...bet the other guy won't ever try to rob a store again, what do you think? :D

Sorry for late reply I have popped in but have not really been on the forums much lately...

User avatar
tomspy77
Son of Davros
Posts: 885
Location: Haddonfield, IL.
Contact:

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by tomspy77 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:50 pm

Howard wrote:
They first took away their arms, then proceeded to murder them all. This
would become the Massacre of Wounded Knee.

Let us review something...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say police, it does not say only the military or professionals,
it says "THE PEOPLE". Cut and dried. If it had not been for "THE PEOPLE"
during the infancy of this country, rising up to defend their homes, farms,
families and their way of life, we would not be here.
This.

This country also has the right to bear arms in case we ever need to fight our way back to the original vision of this country, while wounded knee shows what can happen when those in charge take our weapons.


I will say that yes, a lot of other places in the world have less violent crime, but I think this is due to a lot of other issues we have here, not just gun laws.

All changing the gun laws to where we cannot arm ourselves for protection will just leave the bad guys with the guns and us in the cold if some conspiracy like rumors are true about what is happening in the world.

I was robbed twice at gunpoint and although I would not have pulled the weapon had I had one, it would have been nice if I would have gotten the inkling I could have been killed to be able top defend myself instead of dying.

The main thing here is training. I used to shoot 9 mm and 38's with Chicago cops my dad knew when I was about 8 and I also used to keep my targets on my wall (I was a kid, so no dumb remarks lol) I learned weapons were dangerous and had to be shot and handled properly.

My friends used to come over and one time I had to deter three fools from "lets play with your dads guns"...if I did not learn about them, I might have been dumb (doubt it but eh) and let them see them.

Education on weapons is key...hell, half the reason gang members kill kids and innocent mothers is that they have no idea about proper aiming, stance and know nothing of recoil.

I'm not saying we should educate the gangs as most of them are not proper card carrying gun owners anyway but the point is it is the lack of knowledge and training that can make it much worse.

User avatar
AutumnMaidenDove
Amityville Addict
Posts: 239
Location: Northern California, USA
Contact:

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by AutumnMaidenDove » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:47 pm

While I personally wouldn't ever own a gun, I do agree that if there were someone who was trained in that theater to handle a weapon responsibly would have been able to disabled that guy with no problem and I don't think as many people would have been hurt or lost their lives.

Those kinds of people definitely wouldn't go after someone who could defend themselves. They go for those who can't.
Life is a journey... make the MOST of it!

User avatar
Tim
The monkey supplied the glue.
Posts: 666

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by Tim » Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:11 pm

AutumnMaidenDove wrote:
Those kinds of people definitely wouldn't go after someone who could defend themselves. They go for those who can't.

Which begs the question, whatever happened to Arch and his rebuttal??
"Things of this nature happen quite frequently,and when they happen to families, they usually close the door and they don't talk about it; and unless these things are talked about, they'll never be understood." - Kathy Lutz

kathyM
Princess
Posts: 2701

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by kathyM » Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:56 pm

I am thinking the same thing AutumnMaidenDove, that if I had been in that theatre I would have been glad to have someone with a gun who knew how to handle it and could have taken the shooter down.

I am also thinking that if people were carrying guns that these mass shootings wouldnt happen because the shooter would know they wouldnt be able to carry out their plan.

You are right that they target the people and places where we cant defend ourselves.

User avatar
Howard64
ta-wo-di u-s-di
Posts: 4300
Location: Athens, Texas

Re: The Colorado shootings

Post by Howard64 » Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:22 pm

As much as I defend the right to own a firearm, I always pray
that I never have to use it against another person.

I have a dear friend, which I have not heard from in a while, who
is a Vietnam veteran. He told me once that killing another human
being changes you in ways I hope you never have to experience.

I could see that he was still hurting inside from the experience. It would
"haunt him forever" as he put it. Myself I hope and pray that I never
have to use my sidearm.

The same fellow told me that once you get into combat the VERY first time
you are scared s hi tless. You can never predict how you will act in a situation
where you have to use deadly force.

Only pray that you never have to take another persons life...
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Post Reply