Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

mikepegg44

comebackgirl wrote:

Except that cars serve another purpose other than to kill. Guns only exist to inflict injury, unless I'm missing something. So while guns don't exist to inherently limit speech, they do exist to wound and kill. I might be able to outrun a man with a knife, bat (both of which serve purposes other than to kill), but I'm pretty sure I can't outrun a bullet, so yeah, I'd be more in fear of the person with a gun. You'd have to get a lot closer to me with a bat or a knife. How many people would that shooter in this attack have killed or injured with a knife or bat? At most a handful.

I don't think drugs and guns are analogous either - just responding to your argument of them only being a tool.

guns serve purposes other than to kill. They open locked doors, they can be used to crack walnuts, I am obviously kidding there...but I will say that guns do serve other purposes. While they can be used to efficiently kill, they can also be used to protect. Guns are amoral not immoral, it is the user that attaches the morality of the action. Target shooting is an absolute blast and relieves a ton of stress, and it isn't about killing anything but a small clay pigeon or circle on a piece of paper...

How many would he have killed with a can of gasoline and a fire at all the exits? Or the explosives he had in his apartment...This is going down a different road than my main intention and since I love to argue I have played along, but my point is that with constitutional rights comes good and bad. Every right has consequences on both sides of the coin. While not all of them end up in death, I am sure they can be causally linked. The 4th and 5th amendments have probably gotten very guilty people off who probably went on to do terrible things, that doesn't mean we should get rid of them or place limits on them. I have a firm belief that when we allow a little infringement we open our selves up to a lot.

To say that a regular citizen doesn't need this or doesn't need that is a losing battle...technically we don't need anything but food, water, and shelter. Gun deaths are prevalent in the country, I am more worried about why people kill others than I am worried about the tools with which they chose to do it with...

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brandshing a gun alters the conversation and effectively silences one side of the debate. let's face it, who is going to speak up to someone who is holding a gun???

i guarantee you that those tea partiers that showed up at health care town halls with loaded, open, and brandished rifles silenced one side of the debate, and that side was the side that did not agree with them.

that is infringing on free speech right there... strictly by intimidation.

did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok, but what purpose does a gun play?

Now what about a car, is it only to kill people?
Now, these nickels you mention, they are used to buy goods and services no? Not manufactured to kill.

And so on, and so on, etc, etc, etc.

the purpose of a gun varies from person to person I don't use mine to kill things anymore. I use mine to relieve stress at the range, I suppose you could say I would use it to defend my family if someone broke into my house, but who knows if I actually would when the time came. A gang member has a very different use for it than I do, just like someone who uses a car as a weapon has a very different use for it than I do. But again, this part of the conversation is different than where I intended to go...you will not convince me that we wouldn't have thousands of murders without guns, I won't convince you that the person holding the gun is responsible for the actions, not the gun itself...For people who are totally against guns, not like yourself, they treat them as though they are human. This anthropomorphism is not useful in a conversation. I don't want the 4th infringed on or the 5th or the 8th any more than I want that done to the 2nd...if you could prove to me that the majority of the guns owned in this country pose a clear and present danger to everyone I would say limit it as you can limit the first...but as discussed earlier, you will never convince me of that. Are they dangerous, yes, is it constantly clear and present...no...and where it could be guns are limited as in gun free zones...many municipalities do not allow loaded weapons out of the house without a special permit.
I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

JonnyPistachio

Byrnzie wrote:

It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

****

Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e -->
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com

Thank you for that Byrnzie.

On a separate note - This is an emotional topic. I, for one, am against the death penalty. But today I saw a story about a baby who was born yesterday to a mother who was in the theater at the Batman premier during the shooting. She was unhurt and her baby is fine. Her husband, 23 years old is in the same hospital in a coma after being shot in the face at the theater. His eye is gone forever and he has brain damage, but his baby is in the same building as he is, alive and well. They showed a picture of this man with a bandage over his eye and head, and tubes coming out of his mouth, in a coma...This man, a few days ago was excited about starting a family I'll bet...now, he's in a coma. At the same time, in the top of the screen there was a photo of the shooter, Holmes, in court with his red hair. My anger almost made me want to reach through the screen and wring his little prick neck. I have zero empathy for this Holmes character. Of course he's crazy. He might be the one exception to me for the Death Penalty. He planned this for months - a massacre of epic proportions.

dimitrispearljam

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

****

Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e -->
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com

Thank you for that Byrnzie.

On a separate note - This is an emotional topic. I, for one, am against the death penalty. But today I saw a story about a baby who was born yesterday to a mother who was in the theater at the Batman premier during the shooting. She was unhurt and her baby is fine. Her husband, 23 years old is in the same hospital in a coma after being shot in the face at the theater. His eye is gone forever and he has brain damage, but his baby is in the same building as he is, alive and well. They showed a picture of this man with a bandage over his eye and head, and tubes coming out of his mouth, in a coma...This man, a few days ago was excited about starting a family I'll bet...now, he's in a coma. At the same time, in the top of the screen there was a photo of the shooter, Holmes, in court with his red hair. My anger almost made me want to reach through the screen and wring his little prick neck. I have zero empathy for this Holmes character. Of course he's crazy. He might be the one exception to me for the Death Penalty. He planned this for months - a massacre of epic proportions.

ufff..very sad...

and you are right..im against death penalty as well
..but this type od monsters really makes you wonder...

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

unsung

Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.

Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

brandshing a gun alters the conversation and effectively silences one side of the debate. let's face it, who is going to speak up to someone who is holding a gun???

i guarantee you that those tea partiers that showed up at health care town halls with loaded, open, and brandished rifles silenced one side of the debate, and that side was the side that did not agree with them.

that is infringing on free speech right there... strictly by intimidation.

did the gun walk there on it's own? Or was a person choosing to use intimidation to quiet others? the use of intimidation is not a new technique and you certainly don't need guns to do it.

ComeToTX

unsung wrote:

Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.

Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.

when my wife and i first saw the shooting on the news we both wondered how he got into the emergency exit from the outside. interesting...

JonnyPistachio

ComeToTX wrote:

unsung wrote:

Numerous witness reports state that there was more than one person involved, yet the police insist it was only one. Numerous people state that a person sat in the front row, received a phone call, went to the exit and was seen waving at someone. We aren't being told the truth, IMO.

Some people have questioned me directly, apologies I've been working a lot the last few days and with the log-in problems that this app has I can't respond as easy until I get to my computer.

when my wife and i first saw the shooting on the news we both wondered how he got into the emergency exit from the outside. interesting...

I hadnt heard this report about a second person. They were saying that the shooter bought a ticket to the show and he went to a seat near the front until the movie started. Then he went out the back door and propped it open and proceeded to get dressed and retrieved his 4 weapons. Then he re-entered through the propped open door and began the massacre.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pandora wrote:

We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.

Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.

Pandora quote:
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.

Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.

And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.[/quote]



Then don't stretch the truth to make your really weak case stronger. If this was actually true, this would actually be news- some grieving mother or father crying... and then adding: "It's just so senseless. My child was only 10. And... and... this poor, poor man who committed this act... I'm so relieved that this poor man surrendered really quickly once faced with a gun himself so that there wasn't one more death to the mix!"

If anyone can post anything that even remotely supports what you have said, of course, I'll eat my words.

And there you go again- using veiled methodology to hoist yourself up over other people as the champion with the great, big heart, while at the same time leaving it to inference that most of us are unenlightened buffoons... simply incapable of such noble depths of understanding and compassion when we really should.

We have compassion for mental illness. We have none for a sick, murderous, rampaging bastard who, at this point in time, doesn't even appear to be mentally ill: advanced university studies/ premeditation/ the crime site chosen to be the opening night of one of his favourite movie series/ the wherewithall to quickly surrender as soon as he's in any danger at all.

It's not like this Batman fan was shit out of luck getting his tickets and, being mentally ill, went back to his apartment to get whatever he had there to vent his frustration- incapable of dealing it. Nope, just a cool, calculating, sick freak. MmmmHmmmm.

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that there's something to be said for timing. Speaking of Michael Moore, his B for C highlighted the NRA having displayed brutal timing in the past- holding rallies in the wake of senseless gun slaughters and deaths. I can't imagine these had been effective in swaying people to the notion that guns are cool. Likewise, it's probably not great timing to start trumpeting the cause for mentall illness. As I said before, let the wounds heal a bit and maybe people might have more of a stomach for material.

And, for that matter... let's make sure that were even talking about mental illness- you might be hurting the cause.

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.

You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.

We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.

There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.

You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.

We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.

There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.

Wow, I guess im not surprised though. I know you think we shouldnt have restrictions. and yeah, those are some good points, but I still dont see the need or reason for a person having an AR-15. and if it was not readily available, its possible that this kid would've come to this shootout with a shotgun and 2 handguns. less death is the possible outcome. But yes, people will say, he'd just find another way to get the AR-15 illegally...Thank god that Loughner kid in AZ didnt buy an AR-15. I just can't imagine there's nothing that can be done to deter SOME violence by limiting it a bit. btw, I hear the AR-15 jammed on him. I don't know how many rounds he got off, but it couldve been a lot worse apparently.

Godfather.

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.

You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.

We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.

There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.

remember that tank that was taken from an armory in kearny mesa ca. back in 200-2004 ? that was right in my neighborhood and that guy went nuts, he was a local tweeker (meth) anyway just thought I'd throw that in sense you brought up tanks


Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

Godfather. wrote:

remember that tank that was taken from an armory in kearny mesa ca. back in 200-2004 ? that was right in my neighborhood and that guy went nuts, he was a local tweeker (meth) anyway just thought I'd throw that in sense you brought up tanks


Godfather.

Yeeeeahhh, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I think there should be some restrictions on TANK purchases. :nono:

blueandwhite

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would certainly be for more thorough background checks, and maybe even more disqualifiers...but if I have not done anything wrong, have no mental health issues, I shouldn't be limited as to what and where I purchase it. haven't you seen RED DAWN

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.

You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.

We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.

There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.

I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?

Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

So I'm just curious then...If you shouldnt be limited to what you can buy...
you think people should be allowed to buy an AK-47, an UZI, or an M-16? or one of those Metal Storm weapons that fires something like a million rounds per minute?

to answer your question, yes. Do I think a person should buy them, no.

You guys do know that Assault rifles are easily purchased and used in the vast minority of gun crimes, let alone murders. Again, it isn't the tools that are the problem, it is the people. figure out the people and you have got something.

We can go to silly extremes all we want, but private sale of the metal storm 36 barrel weapon doesn't automatically mean they will be used in the commission of a crime, and most likely will violate the contract with which it was developed in the first place.

There are privately owned tanks and canons and all kinds of shit that can do major damage, but when was the last time you saw a tank being used for a getaway?
It is all about hype and fear on both sides...some people are afraid of others owning guns, some people are afraid of others so they own guns...either way, it is fear based. I am not any more afraid of an assault rifle ending my life today as I was 3 weeks ago.

Wow, I guess im not surprised though. I know you think we shouldnt have restrictions. and yeah, those are some good points, but I still dont see the need or reason for a person having an AR-15. and if it was not readily available, its possible that this kid would've come to this shootout with a shotgun and 2 handguns. less death is the possible outcome. But yes, people will say, he'd just find another way to get the AR-15 illegally...Thank god that Loughner kid in AZ didnt buy an AR-15. I just can't imagine there's nothing that can be done to deter SOME violence by limiting it a bit. btw, I hear the AR-15 jammed on him. I don't know how many rounds he got off, but it couldve been a lot worse apparently.

There are points to be made on all sides of this argument there is no doubt about that...some are willing to listen some aren't...I just think that if we do change the 2nd, we need to do it properly with a constitutional amendment.

And I don't see the need for it either, like I said, we only need water food and shelter. The bigger question is why would someone want one? I do wonder how TL could have gotten to a political figure's speaking engagement with an AR-15 however.

mikepegg44

blueandwhite wrote:

I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?

Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?

The absurdity of the argument is the one you have reached going all the way to Nuclear weapons. The clear and present danger test used for the 1st amendment is something I have said repeatedly would apply to the 2nd and most others in the bill of rights. If you can prove that selling nuclear weapons to private citizens presents a clear and present danger to society as a whole then they would be limited(shouldn't be too hard to do that)...that goes with all weapons...Jesus christ, I am not here to argue the specifics on what weapons should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold...my point through all of it is that the 2nd amendment, like all others, is something that should not be limited because of some fictional notion that guns are somehow inherently evil and will cause people to commit crimes using them...Like the 4th and the 1st both, a clear and present danger or probable cause can be an overriding factor allowing the Gov't to limit those rights...if you cannot show that you are not going to get a lot of sympathy from me...If you start limiting based on an idea that something bad might happen it can lead to a lot of shit that people hate...namely things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, violations of the 8th etc
I don't think the US gov't should stop NK or Iran from getting nuclear energy programs either. But I don't think the level of danger is the real reason behind not wanting them to have the weapons but that is a whole other ball game...

peacefrompaul

mikepegg44 wrote:

There are points to be made on all sides of this argument there is no doubt about that...some are willing to listen some aren't...I just think that if we do change the 2nd, we need to do it properly with a constitutional amendment.

Yes +1

pandora

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.

Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.

Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.

Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.

And for those who have no compassion for those with mental :wtf:
I would never be so rude...
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy :wtf:
I would never be so rude ...

unsung

There are also pictures floating with an AR that was dropped outside the back door, but the gun has a 30 rd magazine in it. Witnesses said he dropped the gun in the theatre after it jammed. So then he picked it back up on his way out and changed the mag out from the 100 rd that jammed just to drop it again?

This crap isn't lining up. I'm calling this guy Oswald.

unsung