ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

The danger of a "gun-free zone"

The Denver Batman shootings once more demonstrates that cardboard signs are an inadequate means of disarming mass killers:
Gun advocates say the movie theater where a Colorado gunman opened fire Friday, killing 12 and wounded 58, has a strict policy against firearms on its premises – even for patrons with concealed handgun permits.

Cinemark Holdings Inc. owns 459 theaters and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America – including the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., scene of the mass shooting. The company does not appear to post its firearms policy on its website. WND’s after-hours calls and emails to Cinemark had not been returned at the time of this report.

Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told ABC News the Aurora Century 16 movie theater’s policy prohibits firearm carry.
That helps explain why no one shot back. It's kind of hard to do so when your gun is locked in the trunk. Now, I tend to doubt Holmes targeted the movie theater because he knew of the policy - although he was certainly smart enough to have been aware of it and taken it into account - but this intentional disarming of the theater crowd should give gun advocates the ability to punch back twice as hard when the gun control activists do their usual song-and-dance in the post-mortem of a shooting.

Labels:

218 Comments:

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Idle Spectator July 21, 2012 3:16 AM  

Couldn't he have just asked for a ticket refund instead of shooting up the place?

Anonymous TheExpat July 21, 2012 3:32 AM  

I can't count how many hypocrites I have seen decrying the above argument as a blatant attempt to use a tragedy to further a political aim (fight against gun restrictions), while at the same time using the very same tragedy to further their own political aim of restricting/banning gun ownership.

Yes, they really are that stupid...
http://liberallogic101.com/

Anonymous Shild July 21, 2012 3:48 AM  

This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about yesterday. People who carry have to be aware of these policies for every place they go.

Anonymous Idle Comic Book Spectator July 21, 2012 3:57 AM  

Apparently James Holmes dyed his hair red, and screamed "I am the Joker, enemy of Batman" before he started shooting.

Everyone knows the Joker in the previous movie The Dark Knight uses a knife on his victims because guns are too quick and quote "you can't savior all the little emotions."

The man is not even following the movie universe properly!
He's an embarassment!
He should be ashamed of himself!

Worst. Massacre. Ever.

Anonymous Idle Comic Book Spectator July 21, 2012 4:12 AM  

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some Star Trek: Generations to watch before my meeting this evening. I am chairman of my local Intergalactic Senate. It's going to be a real hoot. We are serving some nachos and playing Klingon Boggle.

Or as they say in Klingon: Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!

Blogger Spacebunny July 21, 2012 4:13 AM  

People who carry have to be aware of these policies for every place they go.

Why? After some research it seems that the most they can do is ask you to leave if you are caught carrying where there is a sign posted, it isn't illegal to carry into those places, by and large. Interestingly one of the places I was reading was specifically talking about Aurora, but the discussion was begun over a year ago and the last entry was a couple of weeks ago.

Anonymous clay July 21, 2012 4:19 AM  

Stupid.

I just got a FN-57. I think I could have taken the freak down.

Blogger Aviator4 July 21, 2012 4:40 AM  

As mentioned in a previous blog entry yesterday, Georgia Tech in Atlanta is a gun free zone, which just happens to border on a very bad area of Atlanta. Not surprisingly, crimes against GT students, from campus muggings to dorm invasions, are widespread and students have been desperately pleading GT brass to allow them to carry firearms in self-defense. Of course their pleas have been ignored, as the GT officials feel this will only escalate the violence. Even captured criminals have
readily admitted that they are targeting the GT campus as they can be assured their victims are unarmed. Ducks on the pond, if you will.

One proposed solution by GT administrators is to start a public campaign, informing the local public that GT indeed is a gun free zone campus in which weapons won't be tolerated. What they don't realize is this will only serve as a giant billboard for additional criminals to get in on the action, which in turn will further escalate crimes against students.

It would be akin to living in a high crime area and placing a large sign in your front yard, informing everyone that you're unarmed and your home is a gun free zone, in which weapons of any kind won't be tolerated on your property.

Anonymous Clay July 21, 2012 5:11 AM  

Iknow this is a bit OT.....but did you see where the US is going back to thr Browning 1911 45 maybe customized)

The pistol is supposed to be able to shoot 500,000 rounds in their lifetime.

My Taurus PT 1i911, is one of the most beutiful mqcinesss I.

Anonymous Rantor July 21, 2012 6:35 AM  

Yes in many staters it is a crime... but my friend who carries ignores just about any sign not backed up by a metal detector. It is important enough to him that he'll risk it (as a gun rights lobbyist he knows all the right lawyers too).

I am too law and order to walk past such signs... growing up in AZ I sometimes open carried, and some stores had "Check your guns," policies. I always did.

A friend who worked at a movie theater with a similar policy told me that some nights the patrons would forget to collect their pistols after the show. They would lock them in the safe overnight and let the forgetful pick them up the next day.

This incident clearly demonstrates the need to allow law abiding citizens to carry or pay for armed guards at your theater.

It would be great to learn that some people with CC permits were in the movie and their pistols were in their cars. They should sue the theater for putting their lives at risk with their 'no guns" policy.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick July 21, 2012 8:07 AM  

I really want someone to sue the theater for their gun free zone and it's damage that it allowed.

Anonymous Godfrey July 21, 2012 8:20 AM  

I bet psychiatric drugs were involved. that seems to be a common link between these type of murders.

Oh... I also bet the the MSM will not talk about this possibility. All hail big Pharma!

Anonymous Anonymous July 21, 2012 8:27 AM  

Rumor has it 6 police officers were in the theater that night. On or off duty, armed or not, it did not say. Nor did it say they were in that showing or viewing another film. Responding to the just the sound of loud gun fire would be problematic as it indeed may just be part of the show.

The problem is not one of gun control either way. At its core, it is the breakdown in the moral fiber of our society.

Blogger Johnjet July 21, 2012 8:30 AM  

Anonymous is me. I'm new to this. I'm figuring quick.

Anonymous MikeH July 21, 2012 8:36 AM  

Stupid.

I just got a FN-57. I think I could have taken the freak down.


That is a wee big for concealed carry don't ya think??

Unless you go the old guy route and use a fanny pack with 2 1/2 in straps. When you see one of those they are either packing heat or a colostomy bag.

Anonymous Wendy July 21, 2012 8:50 AM  

Obviously we don't need more gun control. We need larval academic control.

Anonymous TLM July 21, 2012 9:00 AM  

When I first started carrying i would honor those stupid signs some businesses would put up. After a while i just started ignoring them altogether. SB is correct. As private property, they have a right to ask you to leave, but their policies can't trump state law. And a movie theatre, with all the assholes that go there, is one of the first places i started ignoring those signs. Of course in those days it was due to the home boyz shooting up the screen for flicks like New Jack City, not some loser beta on his grandiose "I'm a somebody noW' power trip.

Blogger Joshua_D July 21, 2012 9:20 AM  

Clay July 21, 2012 5:11 AM
My Taurus PT 1i911, is one of the most beutiful mqcinesss I.


Aside from having no idea what mqcinesss I mean, guns are never OT. My SA 1911 Loaded is my most favoritest handgun ever. So shiny, so smooth, and like I always say, if I run out of ammo, I can beat someone with it. ;)

Anonymous The Great Martini July 21, 2012 9:45 AM  

"The problem is not one of gun control either way. At its core, it is the breakdown in the moral fiber of our society."

This is kind of what I think. If you can't muster what it takes to tackle a gunman in a darkened theater, a gun isn't going to help you. Your hand won't be steady enough to even make the shot. I wouldn't call it "moral fiber." I call it more like backbone.

Blogger Unknown July 21, 2012 9:48 AM  

Does this strike anyone as a little convenient? We have massive numbers of black pack attacks encouraging everyone to arm up. Now we get a white guy who commits what is certainly a velvet gloved case for the gun controllers right before a major election. What better excuse to demand draconian controls and protect all those people who look like they could be Obama's son while also making it crystal clear that obeying same would be the death of anyone who is less melanin enabled. What do you bet they pull a carefully worded 32,000 page gun control document, which just happens to be prepared and sitting on the shelf of the DOJ, which specifically mentions this incident with everything but the dates filled in. If someone really wanted an ugly race war here's your Reichstag fire. Yeah I know it's paranoid...

Anonymous FrankBrady July 21, 2012 9:54 AM  

Maybe my perspective is generational (I AM an old dude), but it is impossible to spend any time reading the overwhelmingly idiotic posts on CNN's web site (among others) and not conclude that far too many of today's American males are wussified, urbanized, psychologically-castrated wimps for whom even the notion of self-defense of ANY type (let alone ARMED self-defense) is just too horrible to contemplate.

We are absolutely doomed.

Anonymous Clay July 21, 2012 9:54 AM  

Sorry for my typing, I couldn't find my reading glasses. I think I was trying to say....uniquness.....or, maybe it was "mqiness I."

It is a swweet gun, however.

Anonymous Clay July 21, 2012 10:00 AM  

Posess, maybe?

Anonymous GmBH July 21, 2012 10:12 AM  

The shooter was a neuroscience PhD candidate... which guarantees he's an atheist evo science fetishist who snapped at the world not working like his brilliance decided it should be.

Blogger John Cunningham July 21, 2012 10:16 AM  

But wait, Cinemark banned guns in their theaters, so Holmes could not have brought his guns in. thus the murders are just a mass hallucination.
Also, wouldn't it be a good idea to pass a law which outlaws murder, with penalties of execution or life imprisonment? that should solve the problem.

Anonymous Faust July 21, 2012 10:18 AM  

An unemployed loser is what he sounds like. Also had a small dick, is what I'm hearing.

Who wants to lay odds that he was a virgin?
I'd put down a good 20$.

Blogger Baloo July 21, 2012 10:18 AM  

Yes, I'm sure he was aware on some level that because of the Gun-Free policy, the theater would be a much better place to do what he wanted to do than, say, a police station or a redneck bar. I've linked to this and commented on the whole thing here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/07/this-theater-is-gun-free-zone-feel.html

Anonymous III July 21, 2012 10:24 AM  

The "moral fiber of society" says just as much about us to. Sure, you may carry. You may even have the balls to use it on a thug. But you will never ever use it against any of the various ABC government thugs. We didn't get here in a vacuum, the wussified fear nature of today's American man has been carefully crafted by years of government and NGO controlled indoctrination.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:27 AM  

Hurry on over to Baloo's posting, print up the sign and plaster it on the walls of places that have gun-free policies, or just in a place where there is lots of traffic.

It will serve to inform people just how stupid the gun-free policies are.

Perhaps similar signs should be put up on our southern border.

Anonymous Orville July 21, 2012 10:49 AM  

Gunpowder snowflake. The PT1911 was my first gun purchase. The workmanship was nice, but after buying a Ciener .22 kit for it, I found out why 1911 milspec models are better. The slide design is different enough to not work with the conversion kit. My cc is a Glock 22 .40, but I shoot better with my Rock Island 1911.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:52 AM  

In CA and NY the signs should read: "The government has disarmed you to make life easier for criminals."

Anonymous jerry July 21, 2012 10:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:57 AM  

I have heard that the gaming community fears the blow-back from the Colorado shooting as well.

Anonymous III July 21, 2012 11:01 AM  

In CA and NY the signs should read: "The government has disarmed you to make life easier for criminals."

Actually, it is pretty easy to get a conceal permit in San Bernardino County. Anyhow, this happened in Colorado, not CA or NY.

Anonymous paradox July 21, 2012 11:32 AM  

(flippant and made way too soon comment)
I seen The Dark Knight Rises and wished someone had shot me. Didn't like the boring movie at all. Now for giving a bad review, I'm sure the Batman fan boys will send me death threats. Glad I'm armed.

Oh... and my favorite sidearm is my new Colt 1911 Rail Gun. All though this wackjob had a vest so a hot 9mm, 357, 357 sig or 40 might have been the better option.

Anonymous jerry July 21, 2012 11:35 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Clay July 21, 2012 11:37 AM  

Orville July 21, 2012 10:49 AM Gunpowder snowflake. The PT1911 was my first gun purchase. The workmanship was nice, but after buying a Ciener .22 kit for it, I found out why 1911 milspec models are better. The slide design is different enough to not work with the conversion kit. My cc is a Glock 22 .40, but I shoot better with my Rock Island 1911.

My PT1911 has always gone "bang", nary a misfire. I've switched parts with my brother, who is a Springfield Armory nut, and it still went bang, every time. He even reluctantly had to say, "that's a nice damn gun". Why would you use a .45 as a .22? Unless you're cheap, unfamiliar with your weapon, or just scared?

I like the factory straight-eight sights, too.

Be nice, Orville. I let the "snowflake" pass.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 21, 2012 11:39 AM  

Shild observes: This is exactly the type of thing I was talking about yesterday. People who carry have to be aware of these policies for every place they go.

Although it depends on the state to an extent, corporate policies such as these rarely have the force of law. Usually, the most they can do under state law is to demand that you leave the premises - which in this shooter's case would have been nearly as effective as the cardboard sign. It's worth noting that such policies work much the same way that gun laws do with respect to behavior of psychotics and criminals versus the law-abiding in that those who tend to obey laws will politely respect the signs while those who ignore them will ignore the signs also.

Anonymous joe doakes July 21, 2012 11:40 AM  

There's a rumor the guy might have had mental health issues and his family knew it but in modern ACLU society, can't do anything about it until he's proven to be a danger to himself or others. So since we never know who's about to snap and actually inquiring would be racisss and sexist and homophobic and mental-healthist profiling, obviously we must pre-emptively disarm everybody.

Anonymous realmatt July 21, 2012 11:41 AM  

Paradox, you couldn't tell from the first 2 movies that it was going to be horrible and boring?

At least Heath Ledger was somewhat amusing to watch in the second one.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 11:48 AM  

how does the gunman know who in the theater is a threat?

He doesn't. Notice that he clearly wasn't even aiming at people much. At 17.1 percent, 12 killed out of 70 hit is a remarkably low kill/wounded ratio; the Marines in WWII were at 26.4 percent and the Army was at 36 percent. At Columbine the ratio was 38.2 percent and Seung-Hui Cho was much more lethal at 65.3 percent. Also, an AR-15 round is less dangerous than most because it is small and high velocity.

Anonymous Carls Jr. July 21, 2012 11:49 AM  

I'm a gun owner, have a CC permit, but in the interest of full disclosure, I do believe some regulation is necessary and often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things.

With that said, I would have felt much, much better with my walther with me in the theater (even better with my 1911 in my briefcase, but I wouldn't likely have my breif case in a theater), but to play devils advocate, I can imagine that it's very possible that having multiple armed individuals in that dark, smoke filled theater could have resulted in a whole lot more casualties than actually did occur.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 12:00 PM  

I can imagine that it's very possible that having multiple armed individuals in that dark, smoke filled theater could have resulted in a whole lot more casualties than actually did occur.

That's insane. Nothing like that has ever happened in all of the historical incidents when those carrying firearms have stopped a gunman or gunmen. Three or four CC carriers aren't going to mistakenly shoot 70 people. Even the police, bumbling as they often are, seldom shoot more than one or two people by mistake.

Anonymous kittycarryall July 21, 2012 12:04 PM  

I'm a gun owner, have a CC permit, but in the interest of full disclosure, I do believe some regulation is necessary and often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things.

Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do you need explained to you?

And just FYI, in Ohio ignoring the don't carry signs can get you charged w/trespassing (class 4 misdemeanor). Carrying in gov't places (court, cop shop, schools w/pick up your kid exemption) is a class 5 felony.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 12:12 PM  

What the US needs is LESS guns and not more. The gun deaths per country emphatically confirms this.

No, it most certainly does not. You have no idea what you're talking about. Most gun deaths are suicide, people in countries with less access to guns simply do it other ways, and in most cases, they do it more often. Of the remainder, once blacks - specifically, young black males - are taken out of the equation, US gun murders are no higher than any other European country.

Anonymous Cat McClusky July 21, 2012 12:15 PM  

"What the US needs is LESS guns and not more."

Holy hunting rifle Batman, the law abiding citizens are turning their guns in while those dastardly criminal fiends are keeping theirs!

Anonymous Carls Jr. July 21, 2012 12:25 PM  

Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do you need explained to you?

Kitty; there are good constitutional arguments to be made on both sides, but since this post is exploring a practical argument for/against gun free zones, please try to focus on the meat of my comment.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 21, 2012 12:25 PM  

I want to know where he got the tear gas grenades. Is it easy to buy those legally?

A .45 might not have penetrated the vest, but it is likely to knock him down or at least slow him down enough to make a difference. Head shots in a dark theater at a moving target are probably difficult even for ubber ninjas, but a big chunk of lead through the legs would probably reduce the shooters effectiveness.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 21, 2012 12:28 PM  

I accuse Mr. Burger of being a meme-brigade troll.

"I do believe some regulation is necessary and often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things."

So, am I understanding correctly that you think there are absolutely no regulations in effect now, at all? Just want to be sure before testing your flame retarded underwear.

And which stance in particular by the NRA can you site word for words so we can examing just how "far" it really goes?

Welcome to the jungle.

Anonymous jerry July 21, 2012 12:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 12:30 PM  

I'm thinking about getting a Glock 36. A good friend of mine loves his for CC. I don't like the idea of only 6 rounds, but if 6 well placed .45 rounds aren't enough for me to eliminate the immediate threat, are more rounds really going to help. Anybody here have first hand knowledge/experience with these?

Blogger Ryan Anderson July 21, 2012 12:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Crazy Canuck July 21, 2012 12:38 PM  

Sorry about the anonymous comment before.

Vox, in this link from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

You see the homicide rate in the US to be 7-100 times the rate of other European countries. I didn't specifically look at the suicide rate but on quick glance some countries are close, Finland being slightly greater. Point is, you don't need a gazillion guns with people having access to them. You need to disarm the population that is the most violent (blacks). In this day of PC, since you can't do that, you have to limit them everywhere.

Anonymous paradox July 21, 2012 12:51 PM  

Vox July 21, 2012 11:48 AM

Also, an AR-15 round is less dangerous than most because it is small and high velocity.


I'm really shocked he had a shotgun and a 40 cal pistol. A lot larger caliber than what is normally used the shootings, 9mm or 22lr.

patrick kelly July 21, 2012 12:25 PM

I want to know where he got the tear gas grenades. Is it easy to buy those legally?

A .45 might not have penetrated the vest, but it is likely to knock him down or at least slow him down enough to make a difference


Tear gas shotgun rounds??? Yea more reason to carry two pistols and two different calibers. Back up... 357 sig.

Anonymous Noah B. July 21, 2012 12:52 PM  

IMO, places that prohibit concealed carry but provide no meaningful security are the places where you are most likely to need a gun.

Blogger Spacebunny July 21, 2012 12:52 PM  

jerry - you are more than welcome to comment here just as soon as you deal with the assertion you made on a previous thread that you were called out on. If you are unfamiliar with the rules of the blog there is a link on the left hand side of the blog - pay particular attention to #2.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 21, 2012 12:57 PM  

In this case apparently the only additional security that would have made a difference would have been outside at the exits. I have read more than one report suggesting at least one armed, undercover security guard or cop was in the theater, but was unable to do more than help get others out of there safely.

That said, anyone as close as Corbin and ?? (witnesses who saw him come in through the door) with a concealed handgun would have had some kind of opportunity to stop him.

Anonymous Noah B. July 21, 2012 1:03 PM  

"You see the homicide rate in the US to be 7-100 times the rate of other European countries. I didn't specifically look at the suicide rate but on quick glance some countries are close, Finland being slightly greater. Point is, you don't need a gazillion guns with people having access to them. You need to disarm the population that is the most violent (blacks). In this day of PC, since you can't do that, you have to limit them everywhere."

You're overlooking the fact that when populations are disarmed, governments tend to murder their own people.

Also, even excluding all of the murders committed with guns, the remaining homicide rate in the US is still higher than the total homicide rate in Europe. The US is either more violent or just more vigilant about keeping good records.

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 1:09 PM  

You need to disarm the population that is the most violent (blacks). In this day of PC, since you can't do that, you have to limit them everywhere.

It is a logically incongruous conclusion that even the most aggressive legislative attempts to disarm the population will be successful. Disarming the criminals who are inclined toward obtaining and using guns in the course of their criminal activities will never be disarmed.

The only people who would actually be disarmed would be those who are extremely unlikely to participate in any criminal activities involving guns. This would leave the criminal element with a clear advantage and motive to proceed.

Anonymous Scintan July 21, 2012 1:13 PM  

Kitty; there are good constitutional arguments to be made on both sides

No, there aren't.

Anonymous steve g July 21, 2012 1:13 PM  

Unless the theater goers were
carrying armor piercing rounds
or collapsible .308 weapons his
body armor would have stopped
just about all the popular 9
or .45 cal ammo out there. Even
had neck protection. He was
ready for all possibilites.

Anonymous Scintan July 21, 2012 1:15 PM  

Why? After some research it seems that the most they can do is ask you to leave if you are caught carrying where there is a sign posted, it isn't illegal to carry into those places, by and large.

Because private property defenders should be following the requests of the property owners. If you don't like someone's gun policy, and the issue is important enough to you, don't patronize their establishment.

Anonymous Shawn July 21, 2012 1:24 PM  

"Most gun deaths are suicide, people in countries with less access to guns simply do it other ways..."

From the penitentiary...tightly wrap a sheet around your neck and around the bars, sit and face away from the bars, then lean forward...Prisons are a strictly controlled environment and there is still violence and death.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 1:26 PM  

You need to disarm the population that is the most violent (blacks). In this day of PC, since you can't do that, you have to limit them everywhere.

If you want to see the death rate absolutely skyrocket, just try to limit those guns. I would kill anyone who attempted to take mine, as would millions of other gun owners. The US was founded on violent resistance to gun control. It will never, ever, give up its guns without full totalitarianism.

I believe one is as justified in shooting dead a gun control advocate as an individual in the process of shooting up a school or a movie theater. The difference is that the gun control advocates are more dangerous because they are actively attempting to render the people helpless on a grand scale.

At this point, gun control is pointless anyhow. If you want to control something, you'd do better to worry about designer viruses and control scientists.

Anonymous TLM July 21, 2012 1:27 PM  

Not to be a dick, but the only movies I recall people going to see @ midnight were The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Wall, and on some rare occasions The Who's Quadrophenia. I would have thought the advent of the the HD big screen cheap TVs and Surround Sound would have put the movie theaters out of business a long time ago. Especially having to deal with cell phone users.

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 1:28 PM  

Steve g, a .45 caliber round from close range would have knocked him on his ass and allowed time for an advancing defender to more accurately place further damaging, possibly bone breaking, rounds even with body armor. But, maybe, everyone throwing their keys and shoes on the count of 3 would be more effective.

Anonymous BattleFrog July 21, 2012 1:31 PM  

It seems unlikely this is the reason no one fought back. At a university or place of employment, I can understand the fear of being expelled or losing your job. But going to the movie theater? I sort of doubt anyone left their guns in their trunk. Either no one was carrying, or they were just too scared to do anything about it.

Anonymous Canuck July 21, 2012 2:01 PM  

I believe one is as justified in shooting dead a gun control advocate as an individual in the process of shooting up a school or a movie theater. The difference is that the gun control advocates are more dangerous because they are actively attempting to render the people helpless on a grand scale.

Geez man, that's a bit extreme. Btw, I'm not a gun control advocate per se as I think nations and peoples should be able to decide the society they live in. I'm just stating an opinion on what would be the best way to reduce violence in the US. It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US. That isn't happening in Canada, but as you said, the US was founded on violent resistance to gun control(amongst other things).

Anonymous paradox July 21, 2012 2:01 PM  

steve g July 21, 2012 1:13 PM

Unless the theater goers were
carrying armor piercing rounds
or collapsible .308 weapons his
body armor would have stopped
just about all the popular 9
or .45 cal ammo out there. Even
had neck protection. He was
ready for all possibilites.



It depends on the level of vest.

Anonymous paradox July 21, 2012 2:15 PM  

The ironic thing is that the Batman character is pretty much anti-gun.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 2:31 PM  

Geez man, that's a bit extreme.

It is one of the few issues concerning which I am absolutely extreme and totally inflexible. If the gun control advocates want to disarm something, let them disarm the government and the police. As long as they're going after the people, they fully deserve the people going after them.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis July 21, 2012 2:37 PM  

It should often be noted that many experts say thatmass murderes are not mentally ill. Which means that preventing these kinds of attacks (the lone wolf type) are extremely difficult. If a reasonable, but evil individual, wants to do harm then they will find a way to do harm. I cannot tell you how many times I have carried and wandered into a 'no gun zone' without realizing it, and I have never been caught, nor has anyone ever suspected. Gun Control is based on the moon is cheese logic and not any empirical data.

Anonymous Carls Jr. July 21, 2012 2:51 PM  

VD said "That's insane. Nothing like that has ever happened in all of the historical incidents when those carrying firearms have stopped a gunman or gunmen.

As far as I know, there's not been any historical incidents where those carrying firearms have stopped a gunman or gunmen inside a dark, smoke filled theater.

Otherwise, you are right, and I would revise "a whole lot more" and replace it with "more".

Anonymous tungsten July 21, 2012 2:52 PM  

How is it that cops gun down normal people during routine encounters (that poor guy at the Las Vegas Costco comes to mind) yet this guy who had just shot up an entire movie theater, and was dressed in full battle gear and armed to the teeth was subdued peacefully?

Anonymous patrick kelly July 21, 2012 3:03 PM  

"his body armor would have stopped
just about all the popular 9
or .45 cal ammo out there."

It would have stopped them from penetrating and causing the usual wound channel. Much of the energy still has an effect, like getting punched by multiple Mike Tysons at the same time.

Here's what the lowly .32 does through a vest: 32 vs vest

With 9mm: 9mm vs vest Actually penetrates a bit.

Another one with 9mm: 9mm vs vest Notice he makes great effort to suck it up, and does not show his bruise.

Without knowing exactly which "body armor" he was wearing we can't know how applicable these examples are, but I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that multiple hits from even a .32 might distract him or even slow him down, .45 etc. maybe knock him down and stop him for a few seconds, and also notice how vulnerable legs and the side of the chest are in these cases.


"It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US."

If it were to magically happen there might be worse things to worry about.

" That isn't happening in Canada"

When did Canada magically get rid of all guns?

Blogger Professor Hale July 21, 2012 3:03 PM  

I don't understand. How could this happen? It was a STRICT policy.

Anonymous Orville July 21, 2012 3:14 PM  

Clay sez,"Why would you use a .45 as a .22? Unless you're cheap, unfamiliar with your weapon, or just scared?"

Cheap? to a point. I shoot both .45 and .22 rounds in the 1911. The point is frequency of practice and proficiency. If you only go to the range several times a year because you don't want to lay down a hundred bucks just for the ammo, then you might as well get rid of the gun.

Don't get your knickers in a twist because I made fun of your favorite toy. The PT1911 is a pretty gun, and I never had mis-feeds with it except when using the Ceiner kit. Doesn't matter to me if you can swap parts with a Springfield. Ceiner, anti-social twat that he is, designed it to work with mil-spec models, and there are enough differences in Taurus' design to make the kit not fire reliably.

My son has a Kel Tec sub 2000 (9mm) with a 30 round mag. Very easy to shoot 9's at the far end of the range. Plus it folds so you could carry in on a sling under a coat for concealment.

Anonymous Suomynona July 21, 2012 3:18 PM  

A lasso would take down this dude, regardless of how much body armor he's wearing.

I've always thought a contraption that would throw a net would be handy. It would be a small box or tube that you could carry on your person. There's one button that when pushed would fire a net out the hole and ensnare the gun/knife-wielding SOB.

Anonymous Knarf July 21, 2012 3:23 PM  

@ Noah B.
> Also, even excluding all of the murders committed with guns, the remaining homicide rate in the US is still higher than the total homicide rate in Europe. The US is either more violent or just more vigilant about keeping good records.

Look at the dates on the data. I'm sure if you were comparing current U.S. homicide rates to European rates from this century, you'd come up with a different impression.

Anonymous Suomynona July 21, 2012 3:23 PM  

Better than a net, a blag plastic bag that would cover him and blind him.

Anonymous Stilicho July 21, 2012 3:28 PM  

there are good constitutional arguments to be made on both sides

No there are not. There is merely bullshit dissembling posing as jurisprudence promulgated by statists who want disarm the people. Like Kitty asked you, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? You are clearly too short for this ride.

On a related note, having just returned from the range, I have to say that sub MOA accuracy is simply awesome on a .308

Anonymous kittycarryall July 21, 2012 3:45 PM  

On a related note, having just returned from the range, I have to say that sub MOA accuracy is simply awesome on a .308

And with what might we be achieving this sub-MOA accuracy?

I have a Savage 110 that will pull it off, and I havn't tried my new POF 308 yet, but rumor has it...

And CJ - You're a piss-poor troll.

Anonymous Wendy July 21, 2012 3:50 PM  

That isn't happening in Canada...

Mmm, Toronto recently?

Anonymous kittycarryall July 21, 2012 3:52 PM  

Carla Jr. - often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things.

And here we agree Carla. I shake my head too about the NRA because they're a milqetoast group of sell-out pussies that roll-over with little to no provocation. GOA and SAF get my money.

Anonymous kittycarryall July 21, 2012 3:56 PM  

And please forgive my improper use of milquetoast.

Anonymous FrankBrady July 21, 2012 3:56 PM  

"Geez man, that's a bit extreme!"

Really? Why? Why should a gun control advocate be treated differently than a mad dog on a playground filled with children or a cobra in the nursery with a sleeping infant? Both pose a direct an imminent threat to innocents, particularly to my children and grandchildren.

Anonymous FrankBrady July 21, 2012 4:00 PM  

Also, even excluding all of the murders committed with guns, the remaining homicide rate in the US is still higher than the total homicide rate in Europe.

If the data are normalized to account for the disproportionate murder rate among young black males between the ages of 15 and 29 (who commit murders at 10 times the rate of their non-black peers), the differences in U.S. homicide rates and those in the rest of the industrialized world disappear.

Anonymous Suomynona July 21, 2012 4:07 PM  

Isn't everyone armed to the teeth in Israel? I don't imagine anyone there is stupid enough to get trigger happy in public. That's probably why bombs are the lethal force of choice in that area.


BTW, that was supposed to be "black", not "blag" in my previous comment. I should not post so soon after waking.

Anonymous 11B July 21, 2012 4:08 PM  

Canuck July 21, 2012 2:01 PM

Geez man, that's a bit extreme. Btw, I'm not a gun control advocate per se as I think nations and peoples should be able to decide the society they live in. I'm just stating an opinion on what would be the best way to reduce violence in the US. It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US. That isn't happening in Canada, but as you said, the US was founded on violent resistance to gun control(amongst other things).


Canuck, though this is an inopportune time to point this out, given the shooter in Colorado is white, but the reason the USA has so much more (gun) crime than Canada is because we have so many more non Asian minorities, aka NAMs, than you do. Although it appears your nation has some silly death wish to emulate America in this area. I would hope you come to your senses soon. I think the recent BBQ shootings in Toronto are a fair warning of what's awaiting Canada.

The Colorado shooting will suck up the news cycle for weeks, while the endless stream of of victims of black crime will go virtually unnoticed in the national media. Just check out the local Chicago media in the summer and its not uncommon to read about 5 to 10 people being shot to death each weekend.

Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech and other mass shootings will get major news coverage. But the reason the USA has such staggering crime figures compared to Canada and other civilized places is because of the day-in-day-out violence of NAMs that goes virtually unnoticed by the media, but accounts for the overwhelming majority of gun crime. If the media chose to focus on these crimes, they'd have no time to cover anything else such as elections, world news, etc.

Canada is a great place. You should work hard to make sure your diversity loving leaders don't try to change it too much. You might not like the results.

Anonymous Noah B. July 21, 2012 4:16 PM  

"Look at the dates on the data. I'm sure if you were comparing current U.S. homicide rates to European rates from this century, you'd come up with a different impression."

The latest comparison I've read was about 10 years ago. Since then, homicide rates in the US have continued to trend downward. I don't have up-to-date European statistics for comparison. If you know of a good source, I'd appreciate a link.

"If the data are normalized to account for the disproportionate murder rate among young black males between the ages of 15 and 29 (who commit murders at 10 times the rate of their non-black peers), the differences in U.S. homicide rates and those in the rest of the industrialized world disappear."

I didn't mention that, but that's my understanding as well.

Anonymous Noah B. July 21, 2012 4:26 PM  

"Canuck, though this is an inopportune time to point this out, given the shooter in Colorado is white..."

More widespread use of antidepressants among whites could go a long way toward explaining the "lone, white male" stereotype of the mass murder.

This study and this one would seem to indicate that blacks and hispanics are significantly less likely to be diagnosed with depression and prescribed antidepressants than whites.

Better access to "health care" is not always a good thing.

Anonymous Canuck July 21, 2012 4:32 PM  

Wendy July 21, 2012 3:50 PM

Mmm, Toronto recently?


Black on black and gang related as all(nearly all) are in Toronto. Jamaican, specifically. Out of 4.5 million people in Toronto, 30 to 50 murders a year that are black gang related. Even that is too much for us, but it is a far cry from what happens south of us.

FrankBrady July 21, 2012 3:56 PM

Really? Why? Why should a gun control advocate be treated differently


Do I really need to explain it to you, Frank?

11B July 21, 2012 4:08 PM

11B, agreed and thank you.

Anonymous salt July 21, 2012 4:35 PM  

Here's data to 2008 from US Census.

Anonymous FrankBrady July 21, 2012 4:50 PM  

Do I really need to explain it to you, Frank?

Yes, Canuck, you do.

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 4:53 PM  

Canuck:
It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US.

What the hell are you talking about? No one even came close to suggesting that actually being rid of all the guns in the US would cause "violence to skyrocket".

Anonymous Noah B. July 21, 2012 5:10 PM  

"It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US."

No, it's not. Guns level the playing field and allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong to a greater degree than any weapon invented previously. Without guns, the largest and strongest individuals and the biggest gangs have near-total dominance.

See "More Guns, Less Crime" and "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" for a thorough evisceration of your anti-gun beliefs.

Anonymous Canuck July 21, 2012 5:11 PM  

Frank,

the murderer is just that, a murderer. The gun control advocate (we'll assume the ultra extreme one) is simply attempting to better society, in his mind. Now, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is no different. Regardless, it is based in good intentions.


IM2L844,

Well, what do you think we're talking about? Getting rid of 20% of the guns? Only law abiding citizen's guns? No, all of them. And if you are able to come close to that, sure there will be some who will get their hands on illegal guns, but the numbers will be miniscule and the gun deaths will precipitously drop.

I'm just talking here, so people don't need to get all bent out of shape. But to me, this makes logical sense.

Anonymous buzzcut July 21, 2012 5:13 PM  

United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects 30 June 2006
Statement by Herman Suter PROTELL (Switzerland)

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/arms060630protell-eng.pdf

Hurray for Switzerland

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 5:23 PM  

Well, what do you think we're talking about? Getting rid of 20% of the guns?

In the relevant post, we were talking about the process of disarming the public.

...and the gun deaths will precipitously drop.

And the increase of deaths by knives and blunt instruments will be inversely proportional to the decrease of deaths by guns just as it has been in good old Canada

Anonymous Canuck July 21, 2012 5:39 PM  

I agree, the process would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

We don't have a rash of knife killings or bludgeonings despite the lack of guns available. But with that said, the usual suspects are the ones doing the few that we do have. Another knock against diversity one would presume.

Blogger Vox July 21, 2012 6:12 PM  

No, all of them. And if you are able to come close to that, sure there will be some who will get their hands on illegal guns, but the numbers will be miniscule and the gun deaths will precipitously drop.

No. Look up the history of gun control in China. About 10 years ago, I was watching a news report on a big crackdown on illegal gun factories in China. After 50 years of totalitarian government and total gun control, police still seized 120,000 illegal guns in a single month.

Everyone who wants one will still get their hands on the guns, the difference is that the gun dealers will be engaging in the same sort of violence that drug dealers do now. It will fail for the same reason Prohibition failed.

Blogger IM2L844 July 21, 2012 6:13 PM  

We don't have a rash of knife killings or bludgeonings despite the lack of guns available.

I never insinuated any such thing. Stop misrepresenting what people actually say. It's getting old, wasting time and it's disingenuous.

Anonymous FrankBrady July 21, 2012 6:50 PM  

the murderer is just that, a murderer. The gun control advocate (we'll assume the ultra extreme one) is simply attempting to better society, in his mind. Now, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is no different. Regardless, it is based in good intentions.

My analogy was a bit flawed, I'll admit. The person who advocates gun control is not the logical equivalent of a mad dog on the playground or a cobra in the nursery. He much more resembles the fool who opens the cages, allowing the mad dogs and cobras access to their victims.

Anonymous kca July 21, 2012 6:52 PM  

The gun control advocate (we'll assume the ultra extreme one) is simply attempting to better society, in his mind. Now, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is no different. Regardless, it is based in good intentions.

So gun control advocates are like Hitler and the KKK? Interesting defense.

Anonymous TheExpat July 21, 2012 7:05 PM  

It is a logical fallacy to think violence would skyrocket if we magically were able to get rid of all the guns in the US.

Aside from the La-La Land thinking that all or even most of the guns in the US could be removed form the hands of the people without engendering even more violence than the guns themselves cause, violent crimes have increased significantly in every place that has banned guns in recent memory (Britain, Australia, US municipalities that have banned guns, etc.).

What really happens when the citizenry is armed

What happens when the citizenry is disarmed

Also:

The Not so Wild, Wild West

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth vs. Reality.

The Wild West so full of blazing guns and bandits is a Hollywood construct. The frontier was actually a quite peaceful and civil society, and violent criminals like Jesse James and Billy the Kid were infamous precisely for the reason that they were so rare. And they also didn't last long - they died young. Why? Because most everyone else had guns, too.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 7:07 PM  

Vox, July 21, 2012 1:26 PM


I believe one is as justified in shooting dead a gun control advocate as an individual in the process of shooting up a school or a movie theater.

That is harsh, but understandable based on your perspective.

My pastor is against any members of the Body of Christ using guns or any kind of weapon designed to kill or destroy human life citing 2 Corinthinans 10:3-5. That's how I live. But based on your perspective do you believe my pastor or any other pastor preaching that message are justified in being shot also?

Anonymous Carlos H. White Feather July 21, 2012 7:12 PM  

Roger Sherman in 1754 said it first in his A Caveat Against Injustice. Later, a man by the surname of Saussy, paraphrased it distinctly:

[When one reads the following to oneself, please emphasize VOLUME in one's voice, upon the upper-cased words. In fact, it may do well to repeat this exercise at least three times, to ingrain this in one's mind.]

"To the extent that we PARTICIPATE in an ECONOMIC SYSTEM the CONSTITUTION was FRAMED to PREVENT, we are NOT a LAW-ABIDING nation. This in itself sufficiently explains why LAW ENFORCEMENT has become so UNRELIABLE, and will only WORSEN until the lessons of [Sherman] are taken to heart by a new generation of Americans."

Now, the "economic system the Constitution was framed to prevent," is that system that has failed to measure a U.S. Dollar in 371.25 grains of silver. To fully comprehend this, without reading a 1700 page treatise, read this. Then view this.

We can talk all day about gun rights, and arguments against gun control. When one [a society] openly violates, universal principles on or concerning divers weights, then one must expect, eventually and ultimately consequences. Including consequences of a very grave nature to one's society.

Any other measures applied, less than the aforementioned stated, is only treating symptoms. You may prolong the life of an organism for a time, but without treating the source of the παθητικός, that organism will surely perish.

The organism [sovereign entity] is probably beyond regenerative measures, in its present state. The following ~160 days will give one indication, as to the true state of the matter at hand. Remedy WILL come via means of three probable avenues.

A) Foreign intervention with extreme prejudice.
B) Internal martial measures as last resort.
C) Individual State's initiative, per prescriptions described above.

Which do you choose? There is no choice D, or E. (Except that one believes he can become an -- island [for a time].)

Blogger ajw308 July 21, 2012 7:16 PM  

Everyone who wants one will still get their hands on the guns, the difference is that the gun dealers will be engaging in the same sort of violence that drug dealers do now. It will fail for the same reason Prohibition failed.
Given that the easiest gun to make is a slam firing, blowback operating full auto 9mm machine pistol, that'll be the most common black market gun.

All one has to do is look at the banning of bayonete lugs and you'll realize the gun control people don't really know what they are doing or what the consequences of their laws will be.

Blogger ajw308 July 21, 2012 7:18 PM  

Carlos, I'm a bit surprised you didn't spell White Feather in Vietnamese.

Anonymous TheExpat July 21, 2012 7:20 PM  

@Cliftonb: Is your pastor a gun control advocate that wants to ban other people's right to self defense, or does he just state that "members of the Body of Christ [should not use] guns or any kind of weapon designed to kill or destroy human life"?

There is a difference between the two.

Blogger JohnG July 21, 2012 7:25 PM  

Bah, don't get a Glock if you're a noob, and especially a noob to concealed carry!

I've got a P308, it'll shoot less than 1 MOA easily. I've not got it to shoot 1" or less groups at 200 yards yet (but that's me) even though you're supposed to be able to do so... I'm still trying to decide whether I like 168gr or 175gr bullets better.

I don't think this is a good case for a gun control argument anyway - that thing with the EOD taking two days to clear the bombs out of his apartment indicate a level of determination that probably wouldn't have been deterred by limited access to retail firearms.

I was dissapointed with Savage railing against the gov't and the NRA yesterday, he was saying nobody should be able to buy a drum magazine. Said he owned a Mini-14...like it takes a long time to reload a magazine. Worse, he said "I don't want to hear that about guns used to defend against the gov't..."

Anonymous TheExpat July 21, 2012 7:29 PM  

@Cliftonb: Also, see Luke 22:35-38:

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

See? Scripture is fun and easy when you only quote the passages that support your own viewpoint. /s

Anonymous Idle Comic Book Spectator July 21, 2012 7:30 PM  

Why has no one picked up the knife story!? I demand an investigation. That is NOT the real Joker! He's a fake. An imposter. A con man. A hustler. A charlatan. A mountebank. A swindler.

Vox you should have come to the meeting.

We ended up playing some Star Wars Monopoly. We had room for one more with the metallic Han Solo play piece. Sadly, we were reduced to using a cardboard cut-out of that charming rogue Lando Calrissian from Cloud City in place a player. I love Cloud City. That's where they mine the tibanna gas for use in hyperdrive cooling on the gas planet Bespin.

Next time it's going to be virgin margaritas and Spiderman Trivial Pursuit.

Anonymous The Great Martini July 21, 2012 7:31 PM  


It is one of the few issues concerning which I am absolutely extreme and totally inflexible. If the gun control advocates want to disarm something, let them disarm the government and the police. As long as they're going after the people, they fully deserve the people going after them.


It does't have to be an all or nothing proposition. People obsessed with their own protection lose sight of the fact that other people also have the right to go to a theater and not get gunned down in their seats. Tighter regulation, tighter background checking, etc., might have prevented this and other episodes. Another aspect of having backbone is not just thinking about the limited radius around you, but also others in society as well. This is always been the failure of those on the right. While focusing on personal security, accountability and responsibility, they lose sight of the big picture, which probably vaguely strikes them as commi anyway. Gun advocates who might know better are apathetic and default to letting NRA dictate their public opinion, which may well be a more radical stance than they themselves actually have, but because they generally think NRA is "on their side," they give them free rein to lobby at will. Personally, I think the NRA will ultimately do more by consequence to limit gun ownership than a rational consideration of the topic would do. By being radical and uncompromising, the NRA virtually assures that eventually the masses are going to react against their vision of an omni-armed society.

Blogger Michael Egan July 21, 2012 7:44 PM  

"VD said "That's insane. Nothing like that has ever happened in all of the historical incidents when those carrying firearms have stopped a gunman or gunmen."

Well, see this from the CCW forum. I did check and the Reno Gazette story is no longer on line.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/4401-ccw-holder-stops-mass-killing-winnemucca-nv.html

CCW does work.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 7:45 PM  

TheExpat, July 21, 2012 7:20 PM

@Cliftonb: Is your pastor a gun control advocate that wants to ban other people's right to self defense, or does he just state that "members of the Body of Christ [should not use] guns or any kind of weapon designed to kill or destroy human life"?


Like I said, he's specifically referencing the Church when he preaches that it's against God's will to carry or use guns against others. People outside the Church will do what they do and I frankly don't care.

Vox says that gun control advocates are dangerous because they're attempting to render the people helpless on a grand scale. My question is whether pastors telling Church members to disarm are just as dangerous and worthy of being shot.

Anonymous VD July 21, 2012 8:09 PM  

My pastor is against any members of the Body of Christ using guns or any kind of weapon designed to kill or destroy human life citing 2 Corinthinans 10:3-5. That's how I live. But based on your perspective do you believe my pastor or any other pastor preaching that message are justified in being shot also?

No, He's simply theologically incorrect and failing to understand that the verse says nothing about human life, merely that Christianity is not a religion of the sword. He's not attempting to pervert law to disarm the people and render them helpless against their government. That is pure evil and I would strongly recommend leaving any church where the pastor preaches it.

Anonymous III July 21, 2012 8:10 PM  

...do you believe my pastor or any other pastor preaching that message are justified in being shot also?

Well, they'll probably just bust their doors down and shoot them on the spot... or, take them to the camps, force them one their knee's, piss in their mouths... then shoot them.

Do you think they deserve to be shot because they think they do not... including everyone, have a right to defend themselves? Does the police have a right to defend themselves? Government at large?

I say that any man who refuses to not be shot by someone who is going to shoot them... deserves to be shot by their own lack of defending themselves against their own inevitability.

Anonymous Hildebrandt July 21, 2012 8:15 PM  

PEOPLE ARE STUPID ON THIS PRO/AGAINST GUN SHIT.


WHY?

HE HAD HIS WHOLE APARTMENT FILLED WITH BOMBS AND BOOBY TRAPS.

EVEN IF HE HADN'T BUY THE GUNS HE COULD BLOW UP THE ENTIRE FREAKING MOVIE THEATER WITH I-L-L-E-G-A-L OBTAINED/MADE EXPLOSIVES.


Why is no pro-gun association refering to this obvious fact???

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 8:16 PM  

Vox,

Thank you for your response. I don't agree, obviously, but I appreciate the clarification.

Anonymous III July 21, 2012 8:16 PM  

...often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things.

And here I though the NRA was for pussies. I bet you would burn at the stake members of the GOA.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 8:33 PM  

III, July 21, 2012 8:10 PM

I guess I'll have to trust God to protect me. I'm fine with that.

Anonymous Cat McClusky July 21, 2012 8:44 PM  

"My pastor is against any members of the Body of Christ using guns or any kind of weapon designed to to kill or destroy human life..."

So we can assume that your pastor is against any member of the Body of Christ going to war or being a member of the police force or any kind of armed security agency?

Anonymous nick digger July 21, 2012 8:49 PM  

What happened in that theater was a small-scale version of what happened in the movie: 12 million disarmed inhabitants were trapped in NYC for several months, powerless to defend themselves against a thousand armed, just-released prisoners.

Blogger JohnG July 21, 2012 9:04 PM  

"I guess I'll have to trust God to protect me. I'm fine with that." Cliftonb

I might propose that there would be an expectation of due dilligence on your part. You don't leave the front door unlocked too?

Blogger JohnG July 21, 2012 9:06 PM  

For my own edification, (not entirely on topic) but who in current times is pushing that Christianity is supposed to be a religion of p*ssies?

Anonymous TheExpat July 21, 2012 9:19 PM  

Cliftonb: "Vox says that gun control advocates are dangerous because they're attempting to render the people helpless on a grand scale. My question is whether pastors telling Church members to disarm are just as dangerous and worthy of being shot."

Let me put this as simply as possible:

Self defense is a Natural Right on a par with life, liberty and property. In fact, self defense could be considered the most primal right of all, since without it the other rights really cannot be enforced. If you or your pastor wish to waive your right to self defense, that is your prerogative. However, the instant anyone tries to take away or otherwise infringe upon others' right to self defense, they become an aggressor.

Again, if the pastor is simply advising his followers to disarm, then that is his choice and the choice of the followers that choose to believe in his interpretation. Important note: Choice. The problem comes when these erstwhile do-gooders try to force their choices onto others who believe differently. Important note: Force.


"I guess I'll have to trust God to protect me. I'm fine with that."

God helps those who help themselves.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 9:20 PM  

Cat McClusky, July 21, 2012 8:44 PM

So we can assume that your pastor is against any member of the Body of Christ going to war or being a member of the police force or any kind of armed security agency?

Yes.


JohnG, July 21, 2012 9:04 PM

I might propose that there would be an expectation of due dilligence on your part. You don't leave the front door unlocked too?

I keep my doors locked and take every reasonable precaution that would ensure health and safety in my daily life, but I place my ultimate trust in God for everything especially regarding those things I have no real control over.

Anonymous Cat McClusky July 21, 2012 9:20 PM  

The enemies of God.

Anonymous Cat McClusky July 21, 2012 9:27 PM  

The Old Testament depicts a God who doesn't exactly chafe at His chosen people using deadly force to protect themselves.

The Old Testament is probably bloodier and more violent than all of the Batman movies put together.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 9:29 PM  

Cat McClusky, July 21, 2012 8:44 PM

So we can assume that your pastor is against any member of the Body of Christ going to war or being a member of the police force or any kind of armed security agency?

Yes.


JohnG, July 21, 2012 9:04 PM

I might propose that there would be an expectation of due dilligence on your part. You don't leave the front door unlocked too?

I keep my doors locked and take every reasonable precaution that would ensure health and safety in my daily life, but I place my ultimate trust in God for everything especially regarding those things I have no real control over.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 9:30 PM  

^^ Don't know how that happened.

Anonymous Outlaw X July 21, 2012 9:38 PM  

Looks like AJ is going to be right again, someone let the SOB in the emergency exit door. UN small arms treaty coming up in about a week or so. Here is the news story.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252995/396/Witness-Someone-let-gunman-inside-Colorado-movie-theater-

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:16 PM  

African American witrness says someone let gunman in and African Americans must always be believed,

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:19 PM  

Someone else thinks gun free zones are bad

Anonymous The other skeptic July 21, 2012 10:24 PM  

UN small arms treaty coming up in about a week or so.

Yes, this seems designed to give cover for signing the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Anonymous III July 21, 2012 10:47 PM  

III, July 21, 2012 8:10 PM

I guess I'll have to trust God to protect me. I'm fine with that.


Yes. Because every mans wife who was raped and murdered in the presence of their pussy husband did not have the protection of your god.

Anonymous Lông Trắng du Kich July 21, 2012 10:57 PM  

CORRECTION: (to July 21, 2012 7:12 PM)

To fully comprehend this, without reading a 1700 page treatise, read this.

ADDENDUM:

Supplemental and further required support for point B), see this [1] (in fact the entire website is instrumental in one's comprehension of the present matter at hand.)

BONUS:

Fellow "baby killer" with Lông Trắng..


-----------
[1] One of the far better implementations of Powerpoint.

Anonymous Clay July 21, 2012 11:08 PM  

Hey, Outlaw!

Orville, I wasn't trying to criticize you.

I just was trying to say a .45 230 gr bullet will knock you down, no matter what brand of weapon, or body armor.(OK. Maybe there are some) That's like getting hit with a small, directed, sledge hammer. Slow, and HARD.

That's why the US Miltary just renewed a contract with Colt, to produce a minimum of 10,000 guns.

Anonymous oregon mouse July 21, 2012 11:11 PM  

You can argue facts and examples and statistics all day with a gun prohibition advocate and after all of your mountain of evidence is laid out on the table it still all comes down to "guns should be banned because they're only purpose is too kill people and that makes them evil".
I would like the Rosie O'donnel's of the US to explain this truism to the people of Rawanda. Civilian disarmament was thoroughly implemented by 1994. Most of the 900000 dead were killed by machete. Perhaps its pertinent to point out that the Hutu militia was armed by Boutros Boutros Gali (is that spelled right?) the UN secretary, just before the massacre. But, golly, at least the gun violence was kept to a safe minimum.

Anonymous oregon mouse July 21, 2012 11:23 PM  

The US having a high rate of "gun violence" (whatever that means) does not necessarily translate into a high rate of violence generally. This is cliche is very misleading. South Africa has very tight gun laws and yet it also has one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the world. I'm just beyond frustrated after spending a significant part of my afternoon debunking emotional, pro-gun prohibition BS put out there by an FB acquintence. Its amazing to me that there are people who don't see a store clerk shooting a robber in the act of robing him as morally excusable, if not commendable. In their view the store clerk is just continuing the cycle of violence. God help us. Its a blessing progressives and queers don't breed prolifically.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 21, 2012 11:33 PM  

III, July 21, 2012 10:47 PM

Yes. Because every mans wife who was raped and murdered in the presence of their pussy husband did not have the protection of your god.

Think what you will. I don't care if you or anyone else carries. But I don't. And I'm well aware of what that means.

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 12:03 AM  

Think what you will. I don't care if you or anyone else carries. But I don't. And I'm well aware of what that means.

Then why did you post the strawman question to Vox, trying to conflate gun control advocates with a pastor (and yourself) who simply advocates voluntary disarmament and non-violence in any situation? If that is the case then IMO that was a rather dishonest thing to do.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 12:19 AM  

TheExpat, July 22, 2012 12:03 AM

Believe it or not it was an honest question of whether people like my pastor who preach that gun ownership (outside of hunting) is not sanctioned by God are in any way as dangerous as gun control advocates. Vox responded. I thanked him for the response and noted that I appreciated the clarification his position.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 12:21 AM  

clarification "of" his position

Anonymous Zippy July 22, 2012 12:26 AM  

Believe it or not it was an honest question of whether people like my pastor who preach that gun ownership (outside of hunting) is not sanctioned by God are in any way as dangerous as gun control advocates.

So am I to understand that gun ownership that IS for hunting is sanctioned by God?

And it would appear, you and your pastor and folk just rely on OTHER people to use weapons (that maim and kill and are sucky and scary) for you.

Nice. Parasite much?

Or do you openly and actively reject the services of anyone that is armed with...well, anything?

Anonymous Outlaw X July 22, 2012 12:31 AM  

Think what you will. I don't care if you or anyone else carries. But I don't. And I'm well aware of what that means.

Pre-trib rapture theology causes this kind of thinking. Christians spared! I think there are some Apostles that would disagree.

I am not saying you are a pre-triber, I am just expressing some of the very dangerous theology that has entered the churches over the last two centuries.

But just out of curiosity are you a pre-triber, Cliftonb?

Anonymous JohnS July 22, 2012 12:42 AM  

Martini- "By being radical and uncompromising, the NRA virtually assures that eventually the masses are going to react against their vision of an omni-armed society."

You demonstrate conclusively with this sentence that you have no clue what you're talking about. NRA "radical" and "uncompromising"? You're just parroting talking points you overheard at the bathhouse, it sounds like.

Anonymous Canuck July 22, 2012 12:55 AM  

My apologies as I was not trying to be disingenuous or anything of the sort. I was simply responding to this statement of yours...

And the increase of deaths by knives and blunt instruments will be inversely proportional to the decrease of deaths by guns just as it has been in good old Canada

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 1:20 AM  

Never let a crisis go to waste and now Mexico can lecture the US on gun laws.

Kind of convenient after the DoJ let lots of guns in to Mexico.

Blogger Spacebunny July 22, 2012 1:32 AM  

The gun control advocate (we'll assume the ultra extreme one) is simply attempting to better society, in his mind.

The biggest, most extreme gun control advocate out there is the govt and attempting to better society is not their aim. If you believe so, you are simply to naive and gullible to be having this conversation.

Anonymous PM July 22, 2012 1:36 AM  

Clifton, some are more human than others. I'd say a man high on bath salts/angel dust attempting to eat your face off could safely be considered an animal. And since you are arbitrarily okay with shooting innocent lil animals you should have no qualms repelling such an attack.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 1:56 AM  

Zippy, July 22, 2012 12:26 AM

So am I to understand that gun ownership that IS for hunting is sanctioned by God?

That is correct.

And it would appear, you and your pastor and folk just rely on OTHER people to use weapons (that maim and kill and are sucky and scary) for you.

Not sure how you can say that. Peril can manifest itself in thousands of ways- auto accidents, burning buildings, natural disasters, medical emergencies, and the like. Even in a situation where a gun could theoretically be useful, what's to be done if no one is around who has one (such as this theatre shooting case)? Like I said, I trust in God alone.


Outlaw X, July 22, 2012 12:31 AM

But just out of curiosity are you a pre-triber, Cliftonb?

No, I am not.

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 2:00 AM  

Looks like they're now saying that the shooter is the one who propped open the exit door.

link here

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 2:05 AM  

Clifton, Zippy's point was that you rely on others - the police, your neighbors, etc - for protection. You seem to have taken exception to his question, but the fact that you rely on others for your protection could not be more obvious. If you and your family were being attacked, are you claiming that you wouldn't fight back or call anyone for help?

And if killing in self-defense or even merely possessing a weapon is somehow immoral, are you, through your pacifism, manipulating someone else into committing an immoral act?

Blogger IM2L844 July 22, 2012 2:25 AM  

My apologies as I was not trying to be disingenuous or anything of the sort. I was simply responding to this statement of yours...

And the increase of deaths by knives and blunt instruments will be inversely proportional to the decrease of deaths by guns just as it has been in good old Canada.


No need to apologize but your response wasn't a real response. It was a straw man that was totally irrelevant to my post.

Don't worry. I'm just a curmudgeonly old man who is easily irritated. Now, excuse me while I go yell at the neighbor kids to get off my lawn.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 2:29 AM  

PM July 22, 2012 1:36 AM


Let's just say that I have ways of dealing with face-eating enthusiasts.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 22, 2012 2:33 AM  

Foxnews finally admits or 'false flags' a story that was circulating for weeks: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/20/un-arms-treaty-aims-at-terror-but-puts-second-amendment-in-crosshairs/

As for the tragic shooting, the 24 y.o. is a mind control subject with strange eyes, strange manner of apprehension by police after the shooting, strange denotation of his apartment, strange financial means to all this gear he owned.

Forget Bloomberg and Chicagoland, the Pres of Mexico is asking the USA to review its gun policies.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 22, 2012 2:43 AM  

Drudge is reporting the nut is spitting at everything - inmates want to kill him.

Why didn't the police, who we are told protect us, not shoot the suspect?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-jailed-solitary-inmates-talking-killing-article-1.1119173

When will pple understand that the police are not there to protect anyone and don't protect pple until after the fact?

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 3:03 AM  

Noah B., July 22, 2012 2:05 AM

...the fact that you rely on others for your protection could not be more obvious.

You and zippy are missing my point.

Say I were inclined to entrusted my safety to the police or armed neighbors. What would I do if I were in a dangerous situation where there were no police around? And whose to say that the police would put themselves in harm's way on my behalf considering, as Vox pointed out, that it is not their job to neither protect or serve me? What if my hypothetical gun-owning neighbors are away? I those cases I can't be a parasite if there's no host. I say this has someone who was brought up in a bad neighborhood where violence was common.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews July 22, 2012 3:18 AM  

Locking your own door shows you have limits on how much you act on your claim to trust God to protect you. A wide range of things can be used to kill people, including cars. Though many pastors are quite far from the Word, even while using one or more Scriptures to justify inconsistent theology.

So is the idea here that the NRA is a waste, but GoA is worth it?

And Outlaw, idiocy is completely independent of one's eschatoliogical views.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 22, 2012 3:21 AM  

The stricter the gun laws, the worse the shootings and the easier criminals get weps. How did a 24 y.o. kid have the money, training and access to all this? All from the web? I don't think so.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 22, 2012 3:25 AM  

Carla Jr. - often find myself shaking my head in disbelief at how far the NRA takes some things.

The NRA is just as absurd as the tea parties, OWS and whatever else false opposition. As for the sincere NRA types, they are wasting their time and affiliation.

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 3:54 AM  

So you say gun prohibition would stop murder incidents...?

Anonymous The Great Martini July 22, 2012 6:01 AM  


Martini- "By being radical and uncompromising, the NRA virtually assures that eventually the masses are going to react against their vision of an omni-armed society."

You demonstrate conclusively with this sentence that you have no clue what you're talking about. NRA "radical" and "uncompromising"? You're just parroting talking points you overheard at the bathhouse, it sounds like.


NRA is a lobby organization that funds itself from dues, individual and corporate donation. In my opinion the best way to view its raison d'etre is to ensure a free market to sell guns and ammo. All the bluster about 2nd Amendment rights and government jackboots, gun safety promotion and classes, etc. is secondary to its prime function. It would be as if the cigarette lobby held classes in how to look cool while sucking a cigarette. It would all be a front for selling more cancer sticks, as is all NRA's extraneous activity. To this end, NRA is amoral. It's merely a business lobby group. From that point, you can continue to form an opinion of those who choose to involve themselves with it. Personally, I think the people involved in gun lobbying have blood on their hand, just as I think cigarette executives do. They've deliberately blocked legislation that could have saved lives.

Anonymous Freddy July 22, 2012 6:13 AM  

The stricter the gun laws, the worse the shootings and the easier criminals get weeps.

Not sure how you can justify this comment. Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings. People get shot but mainly as a result of gangs who fight their vendettas out between themselves. It is rare for people to shot in domestic violence or random attacks. Most people don't carry or own guns. Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.

Blogger JDC July 22, 2012 7:25 AM  

Quote: My pastor is against any members of the Body of Christ using guns or any kind of weapon designed to kill or destroy human life citing 2 Corinthinans 10:3-5. That's how I live. But based on your perspective do you believe my pastor or any other pastor preaching that message are justified in being shot also?

Was asked to attend a small group Bible Study yesterday where I was asked what scripture I thought was relevant in light of this terrible incident.

IMO, 2 Corinthians is addressing, in part, the separation of the Church's and the State's authority - and the very real fact that we (the church) are at war...and our weapons are not of the flesh, and our enemy is a spiritual one.

I don't see how Paul's comments condemn gun possession...in fact, I would consider it a contradiction to teach that Paul (speaking about spiritual warfare and it's weapons) is addressing fleshly weapons at all.

When pressed this weekend, I was reminded of Luke 13: 1-5. As I ponder God's Word, and my heart goes out to the 12 dead and 59 injured and their families - I am reminded of how this world works. In the pericope from Luke 13, 2 terrible incidents are cited where death visits the innocent...Jesus then uses these tragedies as an occasion for an admonition towards self-examination on our sinful frailties, and warn us of our need to repent.

As I reflect further on this incident I can only pray for personal humility before the mysteries of this world - and remind myself of the pending judgment of Christ...bringing me to repentance.

I am still however keeping my .306, my Maverick 12 ga, my old .22 rifle, my .50 cal CVA Wolf muzzleloader, my newly acquired, now favorite hunting rifle the Savage 220 F with a 3 slug clip - deadly accurate to within 200 yards (in lower MI we can only hunt deer with shotguns).

I'm currently in the market for a 9mm - I'm looking into a simple Beretta for family protection. Any recommendations on a pistol that is easy to conceal and clean??

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 7:32 AM  

Not sure how you can justify this comment. Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings.

Yes, and violent crime in Australia (and Britain, and everywhere else that has tried to control guns) increased significantly following the passage of those very strict gun laws.

But don't let reality get in the way of your politics there.

Blogger Vox July 22, 2012 7:36 AM  

Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.

Who gives a damn what idiot non-Americans think? They're the ones have come crying to Americans for over 100 years to defend them because they can't defend themselves against their governments or foreign invaders.

The fact that Australians were dumb enough to fall for a false flag operation and let their guns be taken away doesn't mean Americans should follow suit.

Anonymous SouthTX July 22, 2012 7:36 AM  

The S&W .380 Bodyguard with a built in unobtrusive laser is a damn good little handgun. If you carry on the down low it' slips in a pocket and easy as hell to hide. With premium ammo it will kick a bit. I use Hornady critical defense and the sucker shoots well with it. With a small gun a factory laser helps compensate for a short site plane. Plus everytime I have ever pulled the trigger, it goes boom.

Blogger JDC July 22, 2012 7:42 AM  

Plus everytime I have ever pulled the trigger, it goes boom.

Thank you for explaining it in terms I can understand. Me likey boom.

Anonymous SouthTX July 22, 2012 7:53 AM  

JDC, You might want to consider switching Church's. At least where I live, the Preacher still preaches that wive's gracefully submit to their husbands. And tells husbands to lead like Christ. Just saying. But the old school Southern Baptists have always been an outlier. Maybe its the part of the world we live in.

Anonymous The Great Martini July 22, 2012 7:58 AM  


Yes, and violent crime in Australia (and Britain, and everywhere else that has tried to control guns) increased significantly following the passage of those very strict gun laws.

That seems to be a highly contentious claim that was fueled by...wait for it...the NRA. Australia was never a heavily armed nation to begin with, so gun control and gun buy-back was not going to cause a precipitous change in gun violence to begin with.

Anonymous SouthTX July 22, 2012 8:03 AM  

I couldn't imagine in a million years our Preacher telling us not to defend ourselves or family. After much discussion with friends and co-workers. We speculated just how far that idiot would have gotten where I live. I guy I know is senior in the Texas DPS and he told me around a campfire that DPS policy is that they always have to pack. Seeing him off the job as I did, it was always an interesting mental exercise to see if I could tell where he was hiding it. T-shirt and jeans means he knew how to do it.

Anonymous Ugh July 22, 2012 8:16 AM  

Man, it was so hard to decide whether The Expat or The Great Martini was the bigger douchebag. Are they the same guy? That would solve it!

Anonymous Luke July 22, 2012 8:36 AM  

Apt brief description of the killer's mind, and the culture he's from:

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2012/07/youre-welcome.html

"Colorado killer, James Holmes, ties to academia

A young man who recently dropped out of the University of Colorado is the deranged killer of a dozen people in a movie theater in Colorado early this morning.

It is unclear at this point if he was motivated by President Obama's campaign rhetoric to hit back twice as hard, the poisonous atmosphere of ideological Leftism that influences university students, was a member of the Occupy movement or if he simply didn't like another Batman movie. One thing we know for sure, despite the desire of George Stephanopolis and Brain Ross of ABC News to blame the Tea Party, the killer, James Holmes, was not a member of that broad middle class movement. Instead, he seems to have been a perpetual student and part of ABC's audience."

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 9:32 AM  

Me: violent crime in Australia (and Britain, and everywhere else that has tried to control guns) increased significantly following the passage of those very strict gun laws.

TGM: That seems to be a highly contentious claim that was fueled by...wait for it...the NRA. Australia was never a heavily armed nation to begin with, so gun control and gun buy-back was not going to cause a precipitous change in gun violence to begin with.

Not all violent crime is gun crime, idiot. However, guns are used by citizens to defend against non-gun violent crimes, and the threat of guns in the hands of the citizenry has been shown to deter said criminals.

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 9:33 AM  

Ugh: Man, it was so hard to decide whether The Expat or The Great Martini was the bigger douchebag.

Um, why? Or are you just calling names for names' sake?

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 9:35 AM  


It does't have to be an all or nothing proposition. People obsessed with their own protection lose sight of the fact that other people also have the right to go to a theater and not get gunned down in their seats. Tighter regulation, tighter background checking, etc., might have prevented this and other episodes. Another aspect of having backbone is not just thinking about the limited radius around you, but also others in society as well. This is always been the failure of those on the right. While focusing on personal security, accountability and responsibility, they lose sight of the big picture, which probably vaguely strikes them as commi anyway. Gun advocates who might know better are apathetic and default to letting NRA dictate their public opinion, which may well be a more radical stance than they themselves actually have, but because they generally think NRA is "on their side," they give them free rein to lobby at will. Personally, I think the NRA will ultimately do more by consequence to limit gun ownership than a rational consideration of the topic would do. By being radical and uncompromising, the NRA virtually assures that eventually the masses are going to react against their vision of an omni-armed society.


I am always cheered up when I see that the enemies of a free society are as blind and stupid as this fool. Made my day.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 10:29 AM  


Yes, and violent crime in Australia (and Britain, and everywhere else that has tried to control guns) increased significantly following the passage of those very strict gun laws.


Actually, I think the increase in violent crime in the UK and Australia seems more related to their importation of violent criminals from the Middle East and Africa.

Anonymous 11B July 22, 2012 12:04 PM  

Actually, I think the increase in violent crime in the UK and Australia seems more related to their importation of violent criminals from the Middle East and Africa.

That's the 800 pound gorilla that many don't want to discuss. The USA has more NAMs than other Western nations, and thus more violent crime. Now that those other nations have opened themselves up to third world immigration, their crime rates are going up too.

The sad thing about this Aurora shooting is that it allows those who deny the violence of NAMs to point to the dangerous, white gunman as the biggest threat to peace in our society. The media will oblige by giving this event nonstop coverage. I have seen trolls on news sites and blogs like iSteve who are jumping onto the fact the shooter was white as a way to water down future discussions on NAM violence.

Yet the daily toll of murders around the nation that continue unabated will go unreported, except for a small blurb in the local news. But there will be no linkages of these isolated events to present a bigger picture or explanation that these murders tie into an overall level of violence that exists in the NAM communities.

So people will keep being told that we need to ban guns to curb crime, and anyone questioning the demographic component of crime will be drowned out with a chorus of 'diversity is our strength.'

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 12:17 PM  

"You and zippy are missing my point."

No, we're not. I asked you a direct question, and you evaded. Would you call for help if you and your family were attacked?

Anonymous jerry July 22, 2012 12:43 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 1:16 PM  

Carlos, I'm a bit surprised you didn't spell White Feather in Vietnamese.

One comment, one..

Blogger Spacebunny July 22, 2012 1:37 PM  

jerry - did you not read the rules? Cross posting is not allowed - if you want deal with the why do it on the appropriate thread.

Anonymous Kickass July 22, 2012 4:14 PM  

Have you or your Pastor ever read the OT? Can you or your Pastor point out where in the Bible Gods people are forbidden to defend themselves, the innocent or to go to War? A listing of what weapons are forbidden also. Thanks, Ill check back.

Anonymous Kickass July 22, 2012 4:19 PM  

When people announce this to others it just convinces me it is a lack of intelligece rather than an abundence of conviction.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 22, 2012 7:46 PM  

Noah B., July 22, 2012 12:17 PM

No, we're not. I asked you a direct question, and you evaded. Would you call for help if you and your family were attacked?

OK, fine. If I or my family were being attacked, I would call the police, the National Guard, The Super Friends, Master Chief, Fulgore, and whoever else. They would all swoop in majestic-like and despatch the enemy with flair and vigor. Then we would all jump in the and and high-five. There - is that what you wanted to hear?

I have to ask though - since were dealing in hypothetical situations - what if assailants swarm me or my family so quickly and out of nowhere that I don't have time to call anyone? What If I call the police and things take a turn for the worst before they report to the scene? What If I had a gun, but it jams, or my vision is compromised (much like a tear gas filled movie theatre), or I become somehow incapacitated? These and thousands of other factors are at play in any given life-or-death situation. Now, would it be my fault if I and my family died? Did I deserve it? Or was it just our time to go?

Anonymous kh123 July 22, 2012 10:10 PM  

I take it you're going to pass on commenting on the newer post, the one with crime statistics reflecting anything but a safer environment once guns laws are stepped up.

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 10:37 PM  

would it be my fault if I and my family died? Did I deserve it?
Yes and yes.

Anonymous kh123 July 22, 2012 10:45 PM  

"I keep my doors locked and take every reasonable precaution that would ensure health and safety in my daily life, but I place my ultimate trust in God for everything especially regarding those things I have no real control over."

So, in cases of electrical fires or crossing the street - common sense prevails. Having means of safeguarding you and yours in the world - then it falls by the wayside. Might as well be talking about food, clothes, or finance instead of firearms.

Just wondering if you lived in an environment like modern day Afghanistan or the ancient Levant, for instance; if this method of having no practical means to survive would fly.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 23, 2012 1:44 AM  

kh123, July 22, 2012 10:10 PM

I take it you're going to pass on commenting on the newer post, the one with crime statistics reflecting anything but a safer environment once guns laws are stepped up.

Yes, I am. And I never said anything either way about the relationship between gun laws and crime.


Stilicho, July 22, 2012 10:37 PM

would it be my fault if I and my family died? Did I deserve it?

Yes and yes.

So even if I had a gun, as proposed in my hypothetical scenario - mechanical failure, tactical obstructions, and/or having one or more senses compromised are legitimate grounds for you to believe my family and I deserve death. I'm not sure how to respond to that.


kh123, July 22, 2012 10:45 PM

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. But to elaborate on the above quote - I go through great pains to enact measures that would ensure the all around well-being of myself and loved ones. This would include owning and maintaining a firearm if I were so inclined. But I'm just a finite being, limited to three dimensions, five senses, and a single direction time-continuum. Because of this I have to put my ultimate trust in an Infinite God that isn't limited limited like I am.

Anonymous kh123 July 23, 2012 2:43 AM  

"This would include owning and maintaining a firearm if I were so inclined. But I'm just a finite being, limited to three dimensions, five senses, and a single direction time-continuum."

Reinforces the point I was trying to get at earlier. Don't know if this a more recent phenomena, or if it's restricted to the last few generations on the West Coast, but I've run into quite a few Christians who have a fairly fatalistic version of providence which bleeds over into various areas or responsibilities. Finance is a regularly reoccurring one. Self defense another.

Upshot being that in my experience, it seems like irresponsibility masked by piety, that one doesn't have to do, much less think, about what ought to be done. Markku brought up the other day that, in the case of finance, monies are temporary and fleeting, that the Bible states one should expect the world to grab one's savings at any juncture without cause. Short of doe-eyed California divinity students, I don't think most Christians will stop attempting to make a living once they've been ripped off, or throw their hands up after being robbed and say "Well, another sparrow am I! No more work for me!", sitting around waiting for the fish and loaves to multiply.*

Just because one can't place one's eternal soul on it doesn't mean that one is free from being responsible in that respect.

Now, translate the above over to civil liberties and the right to bear arms.

--
*In fact - and this may be overstepping the bounds - when the crowds thronged to Jesus after they'd gotten their fill of multiplied loaves and fish, he responded by hiding himself away from them. Interpret that as you will.

Blogger Duke of Earl July 23, 2012 3:18 AM  

Pick the right weapon and maintain it correctly and it will not jam. The classic Colt 1911 is a good gun, although more modern versions are more reliable under the pressures of modern ammunition.

Me I'm annoyed by living in New Zealand, and reading the gun regulations if you want to carry for self defence it's probably impossible to actually get a license. Some blather about self defence being proportionate to the level of threat and killing someone being a disproportionate response to a thug armed with a knife or baseball bat.

Stupid bloody government.

Anonymous Stilicho July 23, 2012 6:00 AM  

would it be my fault if I and my family died? Did I deserve it?

Yes and yes.

So even if I had a gun, as proposed in my hypothetical scenario - mechanical failure, tactical obstructions, and/or having one or more senses compromised are legitimate grounds for you to believe my family and I deserve death. I'm not sure how to respond to that.


Of course you don't since you are incapable of reading and understanding what you yourself wrote. Perhaps if I type slowly...you are responsible for your family's safety. If you are not properly prepared, if you do not maintain your weapons, if you do not properly deploy your weapons, etc. to protect your family it would certainly be your fault and you would deserve to die for your abject failure. Your family would be innocent of everything but the bad luck to have you as their nominal protector.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 23, 2012 10:12 AM  

Stilicho, July 23, 2012 6:00 AM


I understand perfectly well. If I were in the movie theater that night with a well-maintained gun, but I couldn't see because of the tear gas and couldn't get a clear shot because of all the innocent people running around. Not to mention that whatever window I might have had to take a shot most likely wouldn't be very effective considering the gunman was in full body armor. According to you my loved ones and I deserve death.

Blogger Spacebunny July 23, 2012 10:20 AM  

I those cases I can't be a parasite if there's no host. I say this has someone who was brought up in a bad neighborhood where violence was common.

Yes, in those cases and every other one you absolutely are a parasite. You are relying on people with guns (police and others who carry) to deter potential violent criminal activity. To claim otherwise is a lie.

Anonymous Cliftonb July 23, 2012 11:17 AM  

kh123, July 23, 2012 2:43 AM

Upshot being that in my experience, it seems like irresponsibility masked by piety, that one doesn't have to do, much less think, about what ought to be done.

I think we're sorta talking in circles. In the to quotes you cited I said, rather unambiguously, that I do everything humanly possible to ensure the well-being of myself and my loved ones. But I've got a limited mental, physical, and emotional capacity. Who do I turn to when I'm at my wits end; when my body's a wreck and I feel I can't take another step; when it seems my heart's been broken beyond repair? God is everywhere so all I can do is pick a direction and keep walking.

I'm not familiar with California's brand of Christian theology. I'm from the Southeast and my religion is Holiness so I have to take your word for it.

Blogger Spacebunny July 23, 2012 11:31 AM  

that I do everything humanly possible to ensure the well-being of myself and my loved ones.

Except that this is a lie. You demonstrably do not "do everything humanly possible to ensure the well-being of" yourself and your loved ones.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 23, 2012 11:41 AM  

Luke 22:35-36
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.


Show that to your pastor the next time you meet him, Cliftonb.

1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts