patrick.net

Fail.
People without a gun will not stop the crime. They will become the victim.

HRHMedia says

If you make the argument Gun's don't kill people, people kill people with guns then by the same logic......People stop crime, Gun's do not stop crime

Social Media Guru Since 1999

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

http://www.infowars.com/colorado-batman-shooting-shows-obvious-signs-of-being-staged/

AlexS says

http://www.infowars.com/colorado-batman-shooting-shows-obvious-signs-of-being-staged/

HRHMedia says

If you make the argument Gun's don't kill people, people kill people with guns then by the same logic......People stop crime, Gun's do not stop crime

Social Media Guru Since 1999

99% of crimes ARE solved without guns ???
We SHOULD use guns on fraudulent bankers instead of allowing them to settle with one tenth of what they burned us for. Now they know better and are already scheming their next assault.
Hypothetical : I am a burglar. I know you have a gun, and I also know the guy two doors down, don't ..... Let's wager who gets burgled or worse.
This latest Colorado incident was NOT about guns. He would have hurt people with marshmallows if he had nothing else. He wanted attention, now he got some.

(To bad the media won't allow us access to his intended messege.)

An associate once said "If someone wants you dead,your dead,whether your armed or not."

Damn! The truth not always pleasant.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Concealed carry is for assholes. Everyone should have a hunting rifle on them at all times, loaded and ready to rock and roll. Gun deaths would drop to zero.

"hunting rifle"? Pussy.

Bad example on the William Burroughs quote. He murdered his wife playing gun games.

kentm says

Bad example on the William Burroughs quote. He murdered his wife playing gun games.

If the psychopath had no guns and he blockaded the theater and lit it on fire or some other heinous scheme. How many would have died ?

All around America, You can still see remnants of outposts protecting our shores from potential foreign intruders.
Might they have anticipated an armed society ?
Stop listening to the emotion driven media. We are better off with the right to bear arms.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Hundreds of people are shot each week in urban cities. The shooting are super majority black on black crime.

Most murders are committed with a gun. In most murders, the race of victim and murderer are the same. When murders cross racial lines, black on white crime far exceeds white on black crime.

This country has a black problem, not a gun problem.

Other interesting points:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders

From 1980 through 2008—
84% of white victims were killed by whites.
93% of black victims were killed by blacks.

Vicente says

Clearly Colorado was RKBA-friendly as could be. There's not much policy-wise could have made it easier except maybe give people discounts for carrying a sidearm to encourage it. Not one armed citizen in the audience. And I can see why, it's HOT and it's a "safe" place.

That theater and many others have a blanket rule that prohibits firearms in the theater. The theater where this occurred even had a sign to that effect that I believe I read about somewhere. As a result, CCW holders wouldn't have wanted to risk their permits by carrying. Like all criminals, however, Holmes didn't care about "official policy" or laws.

And, BTW, I personally have never, EVER considered a very large group of people sitting in a darkened room with exits typically only in one direction as "safe." There have been numerous mall shootings and theaters are far more of a potential kill zone than malls. I'm surprised this sort of event hasn't happened before now.

If there had been? Say I'm in that audience, I'm a darn good shot, and I happen to be armed. After I get over my confusion thinking maybe this is 4D or some promotional thing, and manage not to have gotten shot already myself.... I draw and execute a reflexive double-tap to center of mass. Target doesn't go down because he's got body armor. Next I'm probably getting a shotgun blast in return in the second I've hesitated to assess the situation and decide next action. Would we be able to draw some grand conclusion from this? I think not.

I'm with you there. No saying what I would have done in that situation unless directly in his sights and next to be shot. A big potential boost for the utility of laser sights, though. Kneel using seat back for support, red dot on any unprotected area of shooter and fire. The movie was still rolling when he started shooting and, I assume, would have continued to roll while he continued to fire (since the projectors in modern theaters are automated) so there would easily have been enough light to see where he was wearing body armor before returning fire.

And on the topic of guns in America, the truth is this. There is NEVER, EVER going to be a ban on guns in this country or confiscation of them and there are already enough tactical semi-auto firearms and high capacity magazines in circulation to last for a very long time, so any complete ban is only going to result in those firearms gradually migrating to criminal elements _away from_ the law abiding via thefts. The best route is to make the criminals always fear that there's a civilian "cop" somewhere directly behind him no matter what direction he's facing. That uncertainty exists for them in any state with CCW _except_ in gun free zones like, for instance, the Aurora theater where this shooting took place.

Vicente says

Clearly Colorado was RKBA-friendly as could be. There's not much policy-wise could have made it easier except maybe give people discounts for carrying a sidearm to encourage it.

Colorado may be, but Aurora isn't - concealed carry is outlawed in the entire town; some states allow local gun laws, some don't; apparently Colorado does.

wbblair3 says

That theater and many others have a blanket rule that prohibits firearms in the theater. The theater where this occurred even had a sign to that effect that I believe I read about somewhere. As a result, CCW holders wouldn't have wanted to risk their permits by carrying.

Whether or not business can block legal concealed carry depends on the state - some allow it, some don't, and in some states the ability to block legal carry is more publicized than others. For example, both West Virginia and Ohio allow business to ban legal concealed carry, but it is unheard of to ban it in West Virginia and very common to ban it in Ohio.

wbblair3 says

And, BTW, I personally have never, EVER considered a very large group of people sitting in a darkened room with exits typically only in one direction as "safe."

I am with you there - whether it is a shooting, fire, or some thing else that induces panic, large groups in the dark can easily become deadly. I carry a flashlight with me when I am around large groups of people in the dark (concerts, church, fireworks, etc).

Along with the pension payment for retired police and military we should have the requirement that you carry and test until you can't shoot or think straight.

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

---------------------------------------
Say what you want about the safety of guns w/ kids in the same house. But here's a fact: More kids die when parents own a swimming pool WAAAY more than those parents that own a gun. Sooo, by your logic, do we ban all swimming pools? Facts can be found in Freakonomics; a fantastic, eye-opening read that deals w/ statistics, fact and truth.

AverageBear says

More kids die when parents own a swimming pool WAAAY more than those parents that own a gun.

I don't doubt it.

Yeah guns can accidentally kill. So can lawnmowers. And automobiles. Heck, an automobile is basically a 3000 pound guided-missle. Especially if you're texting while "guiding" it.

AverageBear says

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

---------------------------------------
Say what you want about the safety of guns w/ kids in the same house. But here's a fact: More kids die when parents own a swimming pool WAAAY more than those parents that own a gun. Sooo, by your logic, do we ban all swimming pools? Facts can be found in Freakonomics; a fantastic, eye-opening read that deals w/ statistics, fact and truth.

Yes, I've seen that. They are actually measuring:
( deaths by pool)/(number of pools) vs (deaths by gun)/(number of guns)

Since there are way more guns (200 million guns vs 11k pools) the number isn't close. I don't think that's really the right comparison. If you look at the absolute numbers of deaths you get a much different picture; for example in 2004 there were about 30k deaths by firearms vs 3.3k deaths by drowning (not all of them in pools; I don't know offhand the breakdown) in the US. And the number of firearms is growing much, much faster than the number of pools!

Anyway, like I've said elsewhere it doesn't really matter. A large plurality (if not a majority) of Americans think that unrestricted gun ownership is a basic human right. They are wrong. But politicians, not surprisingly, will probably continue to follow their constituents.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/obama-gun-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

President Obama has largely avoided the subject while in office
Gun control advocate: Obama "has shown a lack of leadership in standing up to the gun lobby"
White House spokespeople have been consistently vague when pressed on gun rights
Obama has been repeatedly attacked by the National Rifle Association, a gun rights group

Obama is a "Little" something for everybody.

A Little "TOO Little" if you ask me.

Rabble rabble rabble!!!

When seconds count, call 911, they'll be there in just a few minutes, or hours, the next day, or not at all. Good luck!

Libs can't stand personal responsibility...even if that responsibility is to protect themselves or their families. "The State" will protect me.

bdrasin says

They are wrong.

Are they?

Todays book recommendation: "Death by Gun Control" by Aaron Zelman.

For additional info about firearm ownership go to: jpfo.org
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

Century has a strict anti-gun business policy. It's a gun-free zone (I'll spare obvious puns here)

Disarming patrons and not providing security of their own – I wonder if it's sufficient cause for legal action in aftermath.

lenar says

Disarming patrons and not providing security of their own – I wonder if it's sufficient cause for legal action in aftermath.

I can tell you're a lawyer...;-)

Honest Abe says

When seconds count, call 911, they'll be there in just a few minutes, or hours, the next day, or not at all. Good luck!

Libs can't stand personal responsibility...even if that responsibility is to protect themselves or their families. "The State" will protect me.

So you are saying that law abiding conservative citizens should have protected themselves by breaking the law against concealed weapons in Aurora? Isn't the definition of anarchy when the citizens hold the state to be immoral and oppose the authority of the state. That makes sense, advocate anarchy to bring order. Sort of like 1984 "obedience is freedom", that kind of thing? I always have to admire your logic Abe.

Not a lawyer. I would've known the answer if I were.

They chose to implement gun-free policy - fine. But it should come with door checks and/or security; otherwise it's just selective disarmament of the law abiding.

bob2356 says

Isn't the definition of anarchy when the citizens hold the state to be immoral and oppose the authority of the state.

Not necessarily. I believe the US government is corrupt and immoral, but I do not want to overthrow it. I just want some of the corruption cleaned up.

Bob2356 - I must have hit a nerve! In case you didn't know, response times HAVE been hours, that same day, the next day, and some NEVER showed up. Thats got to give you a lot of comfort, right? In fact the police have NO legal obligation to "protect" you at all. [Warren v. District of Columbia]

I don't know what your rant about anarchy was about. Did you forget your medication today?

What about my right not to own a gun?

If there were no guns, we would all be much safer. Guns shoot 100,000 a year in the USA. So what would happen to those hundred thousand if there were no guns?

The only logical argument for legal guns is population control but if population is the problem there must be a better solution.

And people are basically animals and if one watches nature shows, it is pretty obvious that animals can be pretty darn brutal against their own kind, especially the male. It makes no sense to arm already brutal men with more means to maim and kill.

What about your right not to own a gun? There are about 1,100 accidental deaths per year and about 17,000 murders involving guns. However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

When a crazed, brutal man is breaking into your house RIGHT NOW, do you reach for your gun to protect yourself and your family, or do you frantiaclly dial 911 and pray the authority's get to your house in the next five to ten minutes?

Again, the police have NO legal obligation to protect you or your family.

Al Capone said "You can get a lot further with a smile and a gun then you can with just a smile".

StillLooking says

What about my right not to own a gun?

You confuse gun ownership with Obamacare.

Honest Abe says

What about your right not to own a gun? There are about 1,100 accidental deaths per year and about 17,000 murders involving guns. However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

Yeah, sure...I'll believe it when I read it from a source that doesn't use self-reporting from gun owners for its data. And...that's why the United States, with its uniquely high level of gun ownership compared to other developed countries, also has a uniquely low level of violent crime (not). All those guns sure are making us safe. As Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that workin' for you"?

Honest Abe says

I don't know what your rant about anarchy was about. Did you forget your medication today?

Pretty simple reading, I thought you could handle it. Sorry I overestimated.

So your solution is that every person have a weapon at all times? A gun at home maybe, I am a good shot, but I think I would just shag out rather than shoot someone in my house. I had a carry permit once for a job and had to take a course that included a lot on the Castle Doctrine to get it. Pretty eye opening. You have a duty to retreat in most states or you can end up sued or charged. Even stand your ground states you can get into trouble if you don't get everything right. Better course of action is to simply get out of harms way. The idea that common burglars are going to chase you down is just fiction. I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger. The rest were relatives and friends. I had never heard that before then, disturbing.

Honest Abe says

However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

That's odd. The FBI only reports 200 defensive gun uses that resulted in death per year. So 8% of 3 million is 24000 where a shot was fired. That means 23,800 people only got wounded? Pretty piss poor shooting. Once you wound someone they are highly motivated to kill you quickly as possible. I never did believe the defensive use of guns numbers.

Vicente says

Target doesn't go down because he's got body armor. Next I'm probably getting a shotgun blast in return in the second I've hesitated to assess the situation and decide next action.

I'm totally with you, but I can see now what some of the gun nuts would say (NB NB sarcasm alert NB NB)

The problem is that you were UNDERPOWERED, and if only you had brought your CONCEALED BAZOOKA, you would have gotten your man. Everyone should at least have an RPG launcher in the trunk of their car, so that one would not get caught in a situation like this without some serious FIREPOWER. There might be some "collateral damage", but hey, that is the price of freedom.

bob2356 says

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Without even going into accuracy of this statement, two observations.
1. Suicides lead homicides in US, and for suicides firearm is an obvious tool of choice. A suicide can't be prevented by denying access to a tool; yet they are counted. Want to make that stat work in your favor, not against? Just don't commit suicide.
2. I couldn't help but notice word "stranger". What about defense against those you know? In most violent crimes, victim knew the attacker. Guess what? Those are counted out.

Statistics don't lie. Interpretations do.

bob2356 says

I never did believe the defensive use of guns numbers.

Bob, its simple.
1) The NRA (or some other advocacy group) cold-calls a bunch of gun owners and asks them for stories where they used their guns in self defense
2) The get a bunch of stores like "a black guy looked at me funny, so I pulled back my shirt so he could see my gun and he left" (they count this as a assault/mugging deterred by the gun)
3) At least some of the people called make up some yarn about their own self-defense awesomeness (which of course they never have to verify)
4) The NRA extrapolates this data to some ridiculous figure

Rinse, lather, repeat. It doesn't matter; too many people are crazy about their guns and will do or say anything to protect their beloved hobby.

bob2356 says

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Those numbers (X times more likely to have a gun in a home hurt/kill a homeowner...) come from an old CDC study on gun violence. Years back I looked into the study and while the CDC never -- to my knowledge -- released all their data there are a couple of things that I remember from what I could find.

- A vast majority of the deaths were suicides
- A lot of the deaths were from homes where the police had previously been called to for domestic disturbances
- People in the homes had criminal records
- etc.

Anyway, when you filter down the demographics to account for only people who are "normal" households that practice responsible gun ownership the probability of a gun accident is very very low.

bob2356 says

You have a duty to retreat in most states or you can end up sued or charged. Even stand your ground states you can get into trouble if you don't get everything right. Better course of action is to simply get out of harms way.

Yes, the idea is to survive the situation. A gun is a tool that can help you survive but avoiding the confrontation all together is the best route.

I remember from my CCW class (ran by the NRA) they made if very clear that it was not our responsibility to clear our house and getting out was the best option.

Call it Crazy says

I think we will need to also outlaw red lights and cars, they have killed and injured many more...

This is a fatal flaw in the MADD argument against DUI. Many more people die due to speeding than alcohol. They do not call for increased penalties against speeders.

The super majority of MADD members have family members who were/are victims of DUI. They only call for more penalties against those who committed the same crime as those who affected their lives personally.

The right to self defense is such a fundamental right, that any animal denied this right is nothing more than livestock. If we deny people, even citizens this right, we have taken away the most elemental right of them all. Guns exist in all their various forms. We may wish that they didn't, or that we could remove them all from the country but that is NEVER going to happen. What will happen is that we will see more and more dangerous weapons come into being as history goes on. Given that criminals with guns are out there, the only measured defense against them are other guns, held by people. Take then away and you only make law abiding citizens into sheep.
Personally, I believe the sheepification of the citizenry is the Liberal agenda anyway. Because if none can object, then the power of the politicians and their handlers reigns supreme.

StillLooking says

And people are basically animals and if one watches nature shows, it is pretty obvious that animals can be pretty darn brutal against their own kind, especially the male. It makes no sense to arm already brutal men with more means to maim and kill.

You hang around with "Greatest I Am" much?