No discussion on the theater shooting?

Krgrecw said:
Than the theatre is in deep ****.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. In what insane world are they in deep ****. Sure they'll be brought in on the civil side, but they have no fault unless they told him to go back there and take care of it himself. Which they most likely didn't.
 
50PoundHead said:
Seriously though (and I read this in one of the new stories), a fellow movie attendee asked "Why would anyone bring a gun to a movie?" My sentiments exactly. I don't give two hoots about guns. Own as many as you want. But seriously, who feels a need to carry at the local movie theater?
Click to expand...

I do, but don't because I don't have something I can tuck in my pocket. My father carries in a movie theater though.
 
50PoundHead said:
Yeah, him and about ten other people most likely.

Again, I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. I think a lot of people on the left break out in hives when guns are brought up and I don't really know why. I think it's actually the aesthetic more than anything else.

Just a little anecdote. Most everyone here knows I'm a lobbyist working primarily with public schools. Last session, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there was a raft of anti-gun bills (all but one of which died) floating around the legislature. I was leaving one of the committees I was covering right before the multitude of gun-control opponents/proponents flooded the room. I was gathering up my stuff when the police chief from a small suburb that I do some work with sat down. I asked him what he thought about the proposal to let principals/teachers carry weapons. He didn't know me from Adam, but he gave me one of the best-reasoned responses to the issue I have heard and it stuck with me. Think of life as being a scale of zero-to-sixty with zero being calm and sixty being danger. Most people are at zero (or close to it) most of the time. Cops are at about 30 when they are on duty and 20 when they are off duty. To expect someone who is not trained (and I mean someone who is simply able to pass a test and carry a permit) to put themselves into a dangerous situation and succeed is an extremely dicey proposition. It would be like going from zero-to-sixty in no time flat. It is difficult enough for cops to go from thirty-to-sixty, but they are trained to detect and react to situations that may turn tense (and sometimes dangerous). To ask someone to go from saying "Hey, the Dark Knight is really cool" to assessing a situation in a dark theater as to where a shooter is and how to put one's self into a position to take down the shooter without recklessly endangering the lives of other movie-goers is a hard sell to me.

I don't think gun owners are necessarily arrogant. But I believe the notion that "if I--or someone else--had only had my--their--gun, things would have been different," as in the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to have a gun" is really an arrogant proposition. It simply suspends reality and as a result is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah... it's always a better idea to hide under chairs and call 991 - you know, people with guns - to stop the madness.
 
Hawk said:
I agree with you here, but it's painful, because I don't fully embrace the idea of a national mental health check/centralized government database in relation to guns. But at the same time I respect the necessity for both if any meaningful strides are to be made to stem the tide of gun violence in our country.

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.
Click to expand...

Which tide is that? The receding one?
 
goldfly said:
statements like this

is why i am a cynic when it comes to this country
Click to expand...

Right again. Because it's much better and safer to hide under chairs while someone is shooting point blank. Call the cops! They will bring their batons to stop these people!
 
The problem is we've distributed so many guns into circulation legally and illegally to the point where not only good guys have them but bad guys have had access to them as well.

And the only "solution" the right has is to bring more guns into the picture legally.

The entire point is to curb gun violence by lowering and discouraging the amount of guns in circulation, but everytime "liberals" try to make the argument, the right comes back with the 2nd Amendment crap and Obama is coming to take all your guns and put you in concentration camps cynicism. From there we can never make any actual progress on anything.
 
Hawk said:
Are you trying to say that even a nominal level of gun violence is acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to say that guns aren't the issue. Bad people are the issue. Most of the gun violence happens in major cities in (shockingly) gun-free zones. I saw an interesting stat the other day (though I haven't fact-checked it).

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
Romney: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
Romney: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2
Romney: 2.1
 
KeithLockhart said:
The problem is we've distributed so many guns into circulation legally and illegally to the point where not only good guys have them but bad guys have had access to them as well.

And the only "solution" the right has is to bring more guns into the picture legally.

The entire point is to curb gun violence by lowering and discouraging the amount of guns in circulation, but everytime "liberals" try to make the argument, the right comes back with the 2nd Amendment crap and Obama is coming to take all your guns and put you in concentration camps cynicism. From there we can never make any actual progress on anything.
Click to expand...

For their part the liberals blew it by going too far with their proposed legislation. Rather than concentrate on the real issue of gun violence, handguns in the hands of unscrupulous citizens and black on black crime, they tried to ban guns that are involved in a very very small percentage of homicides, homicides which very well would have occurred even if assault rifles were banned. The population was ready for more stringent gun regulation, but liberal politicians let emotions get the best of them.
 
weso1 said:
For their part the liberals blew it by going too far with their proposed legislation. Rather than concentrate on the real issue of gun violence, handguns in the hands of unscrupulous citizens and black on black crime, they tried to ban guns that are involved in a very very small percentage of homicides, homicides which very well would have occurred even if assault rifles were banned. The population was ready for more stringent gun regulation, but liberal politicians let emotions get the best of them.
Click to expand...

Yes and No.

Something as simple as the background checks debacle was just NRA cronies building it up as Obama building up a database so he could invade your home and relocate you to a concentration camp. HIDE YO KIDS HIDE YO WIFE. As if he couldn't already just use the NSA to find out where you live.
 
Had Obama strictly concentrated on more stringent background checks, it would have passed. The bigger issue here though is black on black crime. Maybe a good jobs bill is a better solution than gun control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top