The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Cornbread » Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:54 pm

jjoyce wrote:Am I the only one who finds that kind of chatter on a day like today incredibly insensitive and disrespectful

Nope. I do.
But unfortunately I have been the subject of.....let's just say a group of polticians....to quickly pounce upon anything "gun" related to further their political agenda. And they are at it again, w/in 24 hours of an incident.

Been there, done that, and even took a knife to a gunfight once because of leftist democrats. Don't like them much....they are responsible for too many rapes, assaults, murders, enslavement, etc.
Last edited by Cornbread on Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:56 pm

pjbogart wrote:I don't really see the point in arguing with Dangerousman about gun laws. I mean, he's essentially an NRA spokesman, whether he's paid to be so or not. It really doesn't matter what horrific incident arises, Dangerousman will always side with his guns. Six dead? Twelve dead? Seventy-seven dead? Doesn't matter... he'll be on here tomorrow telling you how great it is to own guns.
I have to agree.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:29 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:You haven't named a single restriction of an instrument of speech, perhaps because there are none.

You have not cited a single death directly attributed to an instrument of speech (whatever that means). You want to compare apples to oranges.



If death was the only bad thing people faced in this world you might have a point. Otherwise, no. Keep your blinders on Henry, they serve you well.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3511
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:49 pm

Dangerousman wrote:But do you want to know what I think about private ownership of of nukes? I think legal prohibitions of it are just fine and completely constitutional.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! We can finally agree that there are reasonable limits to the types of arms protected by the 2nd.

Next up, where do we draw that line? Obviously, prohibition of possession of nukes could be justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals resulting from the possession of nukes (similar to the justification for free speech limits on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists). There must be some sort of weighing exercise that measures the right to bear the arm against the increased "harm" (or the potential thereof) caused by the bearing of the arm.

Following this logic, limitations on other types of arms could be deemed perfectly constitutional if weighed against the same or similar criteria, right?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:37 am

jman111 wrote:Next up, where do we draw that line? Obviously, prohibition of possession of nukes could be justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals resulting from the possession of nukes (similar to the justification for free speech limits on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists). There must be some sort of weighing exercise that measures the right to bear the arm against the increased "harm" (or the potential thereof) caused by the bearing of the arm.

Following this logic, limitations on other types of arms could be deemed perfectly constitutional if weighed against the same or similar criteria, right?


Yes, but that's not the logic I followed when I said nukes aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. If we followed your logic, i.e. "justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals" one might go down the slippery slope and say that there are no arms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, because any form of arms represents a greater danger to somebody. And logically that can't be the case because the 2nd Amendment clearly is intended to protect at least some arms. Logic dictates you cannot have both a constitutional amendment protecting the keeping and bearing of arms AND yet have no actual arms that are protected. That's clearly a self-defeating line of reasoning.

And I reject your line of reasoning because I believe the concept behind the 2nd Amendment fully accepts that there may be an "increased risk" (of some sort) to society and a "greater danger to other individuals." Better still, it is founded on the belief that a greater risk to other individuals is both desirable and necessary. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment wants to ensure that there is at all times a greater danger to (certain) other individuals! And the reason it wants to ensure that there is a danger to others is to prevent some other, presumably worse, danger from occurring. A tyrannical despotism for example. And I'm sure that the Framers had fresh in their minds a tyrannical despotism of the sort they had recently fought off by use of arms and of the sort they saw in other countries as well-- and the desire to prevent such a despotism from ever being established in their newly formed country.

By the way, I don't believe the justification you espouse is in any manner "similar to the justification for free speech limits on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists)." If you want say, a gun law, that is truly similar you only need to look at the laws prohibiting shooting into a crowd when there is no actual danger from the crowd. That is a reasonable restriction and one that is similar to the free speech example you give.

Similarity works in both directions. If you took a typical gun control law proposal and wanted to come up with a free speech restriction that is actually similar then you'd have a speech restriction of the following type: "Because of the great risk created when someone yells "fire" in a theater when no actual fire exists, people entering theaters will have their vocal cords cut" or "cannot speak above 60 decibels inside a theater" or "must be tested for their ability to recognize an actual fire before being allowed inside a theater" or "must pass a psychological test showing not propensity for creating a panic before being allowed inside a theater. Take your pick. But those are clearly unreasonable restrictions on speech, yet analogous to proposed gun laws.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21381
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:00 pm

A copycat massacre narrowly averted.

21 charges filed in Ohio Batman theater incident

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:44 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:A copycat massacre narrowly averted.


Do you always jump to conclusions in such reckless way? Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21381
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:50 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:A copycat massacre narrowly averted.


Do you always jump to conclusions in such reckless way? Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.

I jumped to the same conclusions as law enforcement, the DAs office and the judge that arraigned him.

Why do you always defend the person with the gun?

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3046
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: The gun thread

Postby ilikebeans » Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:39 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Why do you always defend the person with the gun?

Rhetorical question.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:05 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:A copycat massacre narrowly averted.


Do you always jump to conclusions in such reckless way? Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.

I jumped to the same conclusions as law enforcement, the DAs office and the judge that arraigned him.

Why do you always defend the person with the gun?


I haven't defended him. But there's nothing in that story or any other one regarding it that I've seen that says the police suspect he went to the theater with the intention of killing the other patrons.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21381
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:19 pm

Dangerousman wrote: But there's nothing in that story or any other one regarding it that I've seen that says the police suspect he went to the theater with the intention of killing the other patrons.

Really? From the news article I cited:
Westlake police Lt. Ray Arcuri said police believe Smith's position in the movie theater was "tactical:" not only was he protected from the back, but he could have fired to his right, left and center on anyone in the theater in front of him.

Why do you think he carried that weaponry and ammunition into the theater?

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5986
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:22 pm

And seriously, who immediately goes to the back row 30 minutes before the movie. If if was just shear paranoia, then you probably shouldn't be leaving your house. How can you possibly enjoy a movie that way.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12793
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 pm

How do you know what anybody's intent is when he shows up armed that way, unless they leave a note somewhere? Nobody knows for sure what Page had in mind when he went to the Sikh parking lot, either. He was just some random guy riding around with his totally legal gun, right?

Until he started shooting, he could have argued he had second thoughts about his white power beliefs and had come to the belief the Sikhs needed to be protected, same as the theater guy might have thought the theater patrons needed to be protected.

We don't know what people will do until they get in some particular situation or place and they do it. What if the theater guy suffered from PTSD and believed he needed to be armed to feel safe, then suddenly had a flashback during the movie? That's not far-fetched at all.

To claim we know what someone else is thinking or planning, especially if they are a perfect stranger, is pretty iffy.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: But there's nothing in that story or any other one regarding it that I've seen that says the police suspect he went to the theater with the intention of killing the other patrons.

Really? From the news article I cited:
Westlake police Lt. Ray Arcuri said police believe Smith's position in the movie theater was "tactical:" not only was he protected from the back, but he could have fired to his right, left and center on anyone in the theater in front of him.

Why do you think he carried that weaponry and ammunition into the theater?


I can't get inside his head, nor can the police. So unless he honestly states his motives they're unknown to everyone. Maybe you can explain how you can get inside his mind.

But based on the "circumstantial evidence" there is absolutely nothing about that so-called "tactical position" that indicates an intent to take offensive action. It could equally be viewed as a defensive position-- something that would be consistent with the guy's lawyer's statement that he was afraid of an attack during the show. In light of the information about the other equipment and weapons he had at home it seems likely that if he intended an offensive action he would have equipped himself in a different fashion and had the ability to do so. Just my opinion.

If I was for some reason afraid of an attack during a movie, I would have chosen a similar position myself, although closer to an aisle to preserve mobility. Better yet, if I truly thought there was a higher than normal chance of an attack during a movie, I wouldn't go to the movie-- problem solved. He may have made reasonable choice of a tactical position, but he made a different tactical error: carrying the bag into the theater and thereby inviting more scrutiny than he anticipated.

I'm willing to consider that either the guy overestimated the odds of an attack occurring during the showing he attended and consequently more fearful than warranted, or maybe he has some sort of hero fantasy, or maybe he's just into thinking like a bodyguard--- that last one not being a bad habit in my opinion. But objectively, there's been no information that I've seen that suggests that there is a better reason to interpret his intentions as primarily offensive rather than defensive in nature. It's likely he overreacted to the Colorado shooting, but one might say the police or prosecutor have now overreacted to this individual. One overreaction lead to another.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12793
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:32 pm

Following the Oak Creek mass murder, here are some thoughts from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett on America's gun violence problem and a few baby steps we might be able to take to slow it down.:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/si ... 88416.html

He makes some thought-provoking arguments, including this one:

It's not just a question of protecting individual gun owners' constitutional rights any more, not even a question of protecting other people's rights to assemble in safety. It's also a fiscal question. This stuff is expensive:

A survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit police research group, found that the cost to taxpayers for gun crimes committed in six cities during the week of April 4 to April 10, 2011, was more than $38 million in medical care, social services, criminal justice costs and other expenses.


Do you suppose that'll get the right wing's attention, if loss of life doesn't? And they only added up six cities for one week. What does this cost the whole country over a year?

Who will be surprised if now the gun lobby and gun manufacturers start complaining we shouldn't prosecute gun crimes or enforce gun laws because it's too costly?

That's one line of support for not prosecuting gun violence at the DA level, isn't it? How long until someone runs for DA on such a platform?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests