This Must Be Read

Seriously, every word.

Jason Alexander on Colorado shooting

As an aside, why is it a comedy actor can say this on a web page but not one elected rep can mange to say it? I am seriously considering the possibility that the nation should be ruled by comedians…

  1. #1 by Becky Stauffer on July 22, 2012 - 9:38 pm

    Thanks for sharing his post, Shane. I couldn’t agree more.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on July 23, 2012 - 11:42 am

    Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners:

    “Two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. That’s the average male in Colorado.”

  3. #3 by Bob S. on July 23, 2012 - 11:57 am

    And in other news Millions and millions of gun owners didn’t shot anyone at a theater

    Millions of men didn’t rape a woman — what restrictions are you willing to put up with because of the actions of one that did?

    Millions of men didn’t abuse a child — what restrictions are you willing to put up with because of one that did?

    Millions of websites didn’t falsely claim something, didn’t libel anyone, didn’t break the law in any way — what restrictions are you willing to put up with because one did?

    Millions of people didn’t beat someone to death with their bare hands — what restrictions are you willing to put up with because one person did?

    • #4 by Glenden Brown on July 23, 2012 - 3:22 pm

      @Bob S – that’s entirely too glib and I suspect you know it.

      Making guns readily available is a key ingredient in all kinds of violence. Why is it Seattle and Vancouver are nearly identical in terms of population and demographics and yet Seattle has a far higher homicide rate? (Before you say it, Vancouver has a high crime rate but low homicide rate.) Guns make impulsive crimes easier to commit and they make the results of those crimes far more serious. Take any example of a mass killing in the US in the last 15 years, and give the killer one gun instead of multiple guns and you can vastly reduce the death toll. Gun control is just one aspect of broader changes.

      In the US we also have a widespread cultural belief in the redemptive power of violence – the idea that an act of violence against others is transformative in a positive way, that violence saves. In that myth, the dead are tragic but unavoidable casualties.

      The Myth of Redemptive Violence is the simplest, laziest, most exciting, uncomplicated, irrational, and primitive depiction of evil the world has even known. Furthermore, its orientation toward evil is one into which virtually all modern children (boys especially) are socialised in the process of maturation. Children select this mythic structure because they have already been led, by culturally reinforced cues and role models, to resonate with its simplistic view of reality. Its presence everywhere is not the result of a conspiracy of Babylonian priests secretly buying up the mass media with Iraqi oil money, but a function of values endlessly reinforced by the Domination System. By making violence pleasurable, fascinating, and entertaining, the Powers are able to delude people into compliance with a system that is cheating them of their very lives.

      I don’t believe Americans are innately more violent than other people, but I believe we saturate ourselves with a cultural myth about violence in which violence is about doing good and making order. Violence becomes the avenue by which we right wrongs and make ourselves into good people.

  4. #5 by Richard Warnick on July 24, 2012 - 9:44 am

    Start with banning private ownership of assault rifles, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Those are for warfare only.

  5. #6 by Knife on July 24, 2012 - 10:05 am

    That is the whole point and what the 2nd is all about, warfare against tyrannical government or anyone or thing that would disturb your pursuit of happiness and seek to restrict your liberty.

    The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Ban clips, someone will make them, it is just like drugs, someone fills the vacuum.

    If you want some cultural change concerning guns it might be prudent to stop killing people indiscriminately and setting up goon fortresses all over the world. See, the American populace understands what a menace their society is, and how willing it is to kill. It has all rubbed off quite nicely on the general population.

    US government, like Ghandi said, “be the change you want to see in the world” you murderous bastard government, who kills and we pay.

    You who are in this story and gun obsessed culture are seeing the modus operandi of our culture as it impresses itself onto the rest of the world. Who has the guns? We do. Who sells the guns? We do. Who takes the guns away if they aren’t played with correctly? We do.

    Fuck off the lot of you gun grabbers, assess the violence which is done in your name, and happily leave the rest of us who have to live among the animals our culture has created to defend ourselves as we please.

    In short, the bulk of the public here will happily tell those who wish to disarm fuck off.

  6. #7 by Richard Warnick on July 24, 2012 - 10:40 am

    Any private gun owner who imagines that he/she is going to take on the U.S. Army in battle is guilty of magical thinking, or possibly they believe nothing has changed since the 18th Century when the 2d Amendment was written.

  7. #8 by Richard Warnick on July 24, 2012 - 4:58 pm

    Colorado gun sales skyrocket after theater massacre

    Colorado Bureau of Investigation data show that between Thursday’s shooting and Sunday, background checks for people wanting to buy firearms were up 43 percent over the same period a week earlier, The Denver Post reported on Monday.

    On Friday alone, 1,216 people applied to purchase a gun. But because buyers are allowed to purchase more than one firearm, the actual number of guns sold could be even higher.

    “It’s been insane,” Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo employee Jake Meyers told the paper. “A lot of it is people saying, ‘I didn’t think I needed a gun, but now I do.’”

    “When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing — ‘Hey, I go to the movies.’”

    Only two days after the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed six and critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), handgun sales in Arizona surged by 60 percent. As a whole, the nation saw a 5 percent spike in gun sales at the time.

    Following President Barack Obama’s election, the nation sold a record 9 million guns in 2009.

    And as the president’s possible re-election nears, sales are reportedly skyrocketing again.

  8. #9 by Bob S. on July 24, 2012 - 5:52 pm

    On Friday alone, 1,216 people applied to purchase a gun. But because buyers are allowed to purchase more than one firearm, the actual number of guns sold could be even higher

    And yet we didn’t have anyone close to 1,216 additional murders. Could it be that there are other factors in homicide then just firearms?

    • #10 by Glenden Brown on July 25, 2012 - 9:54 am

      And there weren’t 1216 fewer murders either, were there?

  9. #11 by Richard Warnick on July 25, 2012 - 9:48 am

    The climate of fear does wonders for gun sales. I saw a police car guarding a movie theater in Utah the day after the Colorado massacre.

    Too bad guns are practically worthless for self-defense. Better to go to the movies wearing a helmet and body armor, but then the police would ask questions.

  10. #12 by Knife on July 25, 2012 - 10:04 am

    If government worked as reliably as guns, we’d have a whole lot less problems. Guns work very well for self defense, as long as no one knows you have one on your person, and you are of the mettle of person to use it adroitly when necessity demands.

    Richard they don’t work huh? Well after living in property crime hell in Canada, just the mention that I am American and have a shotgun in the house kept the junkies out of my yard. Good neighborhood too, since no junkies or thieves go to jail in Canada, they hang out in all neighborhoods…ceptin’ my front lawn..

  11. #13 by Richard Warnick on July 25, 2012 - 10:52 am

    Michael Moore answers Bob’s question. We have the most firearms per capita of any country.

    [H]ere’s the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have two Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn’t count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.

    That means the United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?

    In answer to the above, killing someone for trespassing would not be self defense, it’s just mean.

  12. #14 by Bob S. on July 25, 2012 - 2:35 pm


    No there weren’t but there weren’t 1,216 more murder attempts for them to stop either.

    The claim is and always has been “more guns, more death/crime”. That is demonstrably false by this recent surge.


    Why don’t you talk about the per capita firearm related homicide rates, eh?

    Annual homicides from firearms

    According to the U.N. figures, the U.S. had 9,146 homicides by firearm in 2009. That year, Colombia and Venezuela both exceeded the U.S. total, with 12,808 and 11,115 firearm deaths, respectively. Three other nations topped the U.S. amount in the most recent year for which data is available: Brazil (34,678 in 2008), Mexico (11,309 in 2010) and Thailand (20,032 in 2000).

    So the U.S. ranks high in this category, but not first. Even using the higher U.S. homicide figure of 11,493 in 2010 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cited here), the U.S. still doesn’t rank first internationally.

    Annual homicide rate for firearms

    Because the U.S. is so big, it’s better to compare the frequency of firearm homicides per capita, usually expressed as firearm homicides per 100,000 in national population.

    According to the U.N., the U.S. had 3.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 in population in 2009. But there were 14 other nations that had higher rates in 2009, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean: Honduras (57.6), Jamaica (47.2), St. Kitts and Nevis (44.4), Venezuela (39.0), Guatemala (38.5), Colombia (28.1), Trinidad & Tobago (27.3), Panama (19.3), Dominican Republic (16.9), Bahamas (15.4), Belize (15.4), Mexico (7.9), Paraguay (7.3) and Nicaragua (5.9). Three other nations had higher rates in 2008: El Salvador (39.9), Brazil (18.1) and Ecuador (12.7).

    So the U.S. doesn’t rank no. 1 when firearm homicides are adjusted for population.

    And let’s look at Michael Moore’s point — if the people in those ‘rich’ country are no better or worse then any of us — are you claiming the people in those countries with higher homicide rates are worse then us?

    Let’s not mention those countries like Finland and Switzerland with high firearm ownership rates and low homicide rates, eh?

    Or you want to talk about daily body counts, why don’t you talk about firearm restrictive Mexico?

    We may have the most firearms per capita but we don’t have the most homicides or even firearm related homicides per capita.

  13. #15 by Noname on July 25, 2012 - 3:36 pm

    Good point Bob, we should compare countries in the middle of major drug war territories with huge gang problems to America because it is per capita better.

    Question, how many guns will we need to be safe? We already have all the guns, and yet look at all the gun deaths. Just how many guns do weneed to make things like the latest shooting stop? We already have ore guns than people. What is the magic number? 11 guns for ever man woman and child? 40? 4000? What is it?

  14. #16 by Bob S. on July 25, 2012 - 5:47 pm


    Like we aren’t in the middle of a drug war? We don’t have huge gang problems?

    Have you been living in cave for the last 30 years or just under a rock?

    Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation. Typical gang-related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder, and weapons trafficking.
    Gang members are the primary retail-level distributors of most illicit drugs. They also are increasingly distributing wholesale-level quantities of marijuana and cocaine in most urban and suburban communities.
    Some gangs are trafficking illicit drugs at the regional and national levels; several are capable of competing with U.S.-based Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

    It isn’t the guns…repeat after me — guns don’t get up and fire themselves at patrons in a movie theater. Guns don’t drive themselves to rival gun territories and shoot other guns and innocent bystanders.

    Instead of focusing on the firearms; why don’t you focus in the failed drug policy which has encouraged violence not discouraged it?
    Why don’t you focus on education, poverty, single parent families with absentee fathers?

    Why not focus on the cause of crime, not the tool?

  15. #17 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 25, 2012 - 6:35 pm

    “Why not focus on the cause of crime, not the tool?”


    “Why don’t you focus on education, poverty, single parent families with absentee fathers?”

    So your for social welfare programs now?

    “It isn’t the guns…repeat after me —”

    Guns are a force magnifier, Their is a ton of difference between a loony with a pair of brass knuckles and a loony with 100 round clip on a AR-15 assault rifle!

    No one is arguing that force magnifiers kill people, They are arguing that their should be reasonable limits to the extend at which force magnifiers are made available.

  16. #18 by Bob S. on July 25, 2012 - 6:47 pm


    Poverty isn’t the sole cause of crime. Plenty of people are poor and they don’t rape, rob or murder.

    I’ve always been for social welfare programs – voluntary ones – not ones that take my money at the threat of armed agents showing up on my door step.

    Your argument about force multiplier also works for people owning and carrying firearms. That multiplier allows the teen woman or elderly woman to meet her attacker on more even grounds.

    It allows the single male walking down the street to effectively defend himself against 2 or more attackers.

    The problem with what you call reasonable is simple – it has no common ground with what is actually reasonable.

    Look at the argument Attorney General Holder is making against Voter ID law here in Texas. HE claims (no evidence presented) that it will prevent minorities and the poor from exercising their rights.

    The State of Texas makes Photo Id cards available for the indigent at a cost of $6.

    On the other hand, the State of Texas creates a much larger barrier for those wishing to carry one of those force multipliers in public.

    Normal cost for the state Concealed Handgun License – $140, for the indigent – $70. Plus there is a $5 fee for the range test, $10 for finger prints, a mandatory 8 to 10 hour class that costs from $35 to $200.

    Now — which is a reasonable limit on availability of our rights?

  17. #19 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 25, 2012 - 7:13 pm

    “The State of Texas makes Photo Id cards available for the indigent at a cost of $6.”

    Poll tax.

    “HE claims (no evidence presented) that it will prevent minorities and the poor from exercising their rights.”

    22% of blacks don’t have state issued ID’s, the number is higher with other groups. Only 8% of whites don’t have the right ID. The Texas law allows gun permits to be used as ID’s, but not student ID’s.

    “That multiplier allows the teen woman or elderly woman to meet her attacker on more even grounds.”

    I just imagined my Grandma wielding a AR-15 assault rifle, this argument is silly. Mind you due to her vision she would need the 100 round clip and kill half her neighborhood before she hit the assailant.

    “On the other hand, the State of Texas creates a much larger barrier for those wishing to carry one of those force multipliers in public.”

    I know this might come as a shock to you, but Texas has relatively good gun laws compared to a few other much nuttier States. Namely, Arizona, Florida, And Pennsylvania.

    In Arizona where they have had much gross gun trafficking problems the law enforcement is so tied down on what they can do about it.

    If a person walks into a gun store who is on foodstamps and medicaid and buys $50,000 worth of assault rifles can’t even be stopped and questioned. The State doesn’t even allow enough investigation to take away the State services they enjoy.

    In Pennsylvania know felons can’t be stopped for gun possession on the Street as a primary offense, It is perfectly *legal* for a know felon to open carry an assault rifle. Is it any wonder why this State has the highest murder rate square mile in the Nation.

    “The problem with what you call reasonable is simple – it has no common ground with what is actually reasonable.”

    Hardly, We are start with agreeing that Nuclear weapons should not be on the civilian purchase list and move down from their.

  18. #20 by Bob S. on July 26, 2012 - 4:15 am


    If the photo id is a poll tax — unconstitutional; then what is the cost of the Concealed Handgun License?

    Care to provide evidence, citations for your numbers and how people choosing not to obtain a photo id is anything other then a personal choice they can change?

    What is keeping them from getting it?

    Great straw man argument there with your grandmother; let’s pick one person (who we can’t verify has a problem) and use that as a model for everyone. Also disregard other conventional firearms such as shotguns or pistols as possible means of self defense. Lump all senior citizens into the same (unverifiable) category and dismiss their right to self defense.

    Again care to provide some evidence to your claim that a person can’t be questioned about their purchase because frankly you are wrong.
    FFL’s have the ability & responsibility to deny any sale they find suspicious.

    And I would like to see a citation on that Pennsylvannia law because frankly I think you are wrong again.
    Oh wait, I know you are wrong

    18 U.S.C. 922(g) — it is illegal for the following people to be in possession of a firearm
    is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
    of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
    (2) is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
    substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
    Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

    See one of the problems we have is what is called “reasonable” and you blow it off with a sarcastic response.

    So how about this – why don’t you tell me why you believe something as simple as a felon who has served his or her time, made proper restitution if required should be forever deprived of their right to keep and bear arms?

  19. #21 by Shane on July 26, 2012 - 7:44 am

    The problem with the force multiplier return argument, Bob, is that MAD never works. The gun allows grandma to defend herself… But not as well as it allows a determined attacker to attack. Now grandma needs a bigger multiplier, then the attacker gets one too, next thing you know RPGs are legal for self defense. The problem is that no one is safer.

    The original argument for gun ownership is a well trained militia being able to defend against tyranny. Today we have untrained dirty Harry wannabes like you who will shoot themselves in the foot and then take two attacker rounds to the head. No tyranny is being stopped. None. Zero. And the crimes being stopped are almost as low in number. But we are killing each other off by the truck load.

    What is reasonable about that?

    Back to the question presented by someone else, “at what point do we have enough guns to magically start being safe?”. So far we are getting less safe all the time despite massive gun ownership. When will we be safe? Once every man woman and child is armed? How will that be better?

    Honestly now, are you so deluded that you feel that if only 4-5 people in that theater had been armed and firing in a dark, smoke filled, crowded theater, at a man in armor, that things would be better? Forget reasonable, how about reality….

  20. #22 by Bob S. on July 26, 2012 - 8:29 am


    Nice assumption or opinion. Care to back it up with facts?

    n a survey of criminals (FELONS IN PRISON), Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts conducted a study in 1982 and 1983 paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice. (Professor Rossi was a former President of the American Sociological Association.) The researchers interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons in ten states.

    88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.” (these felons are not obeying the gun laws and the anti gun politicians cannot figure this out!)
    81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
    74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
    57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
    40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
    57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
    34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen

    I have seen no research indicating that criminals are increasingly going armed.

    In fact firearm related crime has been decreasing while ownership has stayed the same or increased and definitely the number of people carrying has increased

    The original argument for gun ownership is a well trained militia being able to defend against tyranny.

    That was ONE of the original argument but not the only one. Question for you is this:
    If the American government, a foreign army or a criminal thug can attack a citizen before they can muster for militia duty BECAUSE they know they are unarmed; why have a militia?

    It doesn’t make much sense to say “you can defend yourself and your country against tyranny but only in a group of people” now does it?

    Today we have untrained dirty Harry wannabes like you who will shoot themselves in the foot and then take two attacker rounds to the head.

    And yet the numbers just don’t seem to back up your argument. It is almost as if you are either lying or making stuff up. Imagine that.

    On the basis of National Crime
    Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one
    would conclude that defensive uses
    are rare indeed, about 108,000 per

    Applying those restrictions leaves 19
    NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of
    the sample), representing 1.5 million
    defensive users. This estimate is directly
    comparable to the well-known
    estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in
    the last column of exhibit 7. While the
    NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically
    plausible that the difference is
    due to sampling error. Inclusion of
    multiple DGUs reported by half of the
    19 NSPOF respondents increases the
    estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

    So as few as 108,000 defensive gun uses and up to 1.5 Million — so much for your claim that crimes aren’t being stopped.

    What is reasonable about depriving people of their rights based on the criminal actions of others?

    People have lied on websites; are you willing to put up with licensing, background checks, training classes, renewal of permits, limits on number of posts you can make because others have lied?

    Back to the question presented by someone else, “at what point do we have enough guns to magically start being safe?”.

    I originally ignored that straw man argument because no inanimate object will make us safe. It will give people the chance, if they want to, to present a defense to crime.

    Let’s turn it around…assuming that you can magically make all firearms disappear tomorrow, does that mean we will all suddenly be safe from crime?

    NOT a chance!! and you know it.

    Lastly, time and time again people have stopped crimes with firearms. People have taken difficult shots and stopped crime.

    Am I saying that 1 to 5 people could have stopped that crime? No.

    Is it possible, yes. The murderer also had severe limitations — the gas mask limited his visibility, the darkness effected him as much as anyone else – as did the gas affect his visibility.

    Even if people had been armed, had not been able to take a shot — how could it have been worse?

    If they hadn’t been able to shoot nothing would have changed.
    Had they been able to take a shot the murderer could have been distracted, could have focused on them, etc.

    So..all we know at this point is NOT having someone carrying concealed allowed the murderer to work unimpeded.

  21. #23 by Richard Warnick on July 26, 2012 - 10:12 am

    Bob S. likes to cherry-pick his stats. If you compare all gun deaths instead of gun homicides, the U.S, beats Mexico and Brazil.

    More info: Firearm Injury in the U.S. (PDF), Firearm & Injury Center at Penn.

  22. #24 by Knife on July 26, 2012 - 10:22 am

    RW, there is nothing mesn about using any method to keep thieving addled Canadian junkies out of your yard and stop them from stealing your things. The lower mainland of BC has the highest property crime in North America, but for Miami.

    The simple thought that a person may have a weapon, and appears to be perfectly willing to use it to defend property and treasure was enough to keep the addled addicts in someone else’s yard, stealing their stuff. Trespass is the precursor to a host of other crimes, and as the yard was posted, there was no reason but for illiteracy that they would not understand, maybe in Utah, but not in BC.

    The facts remain that America is an uncivilized country as far as crime and violence are concerned and the government cannot make anyone safe, nor can it compel behavior.If you wish to be disarmed, the right is yours and is voluntary.

    guns are not the issue, the guy could have just blown himself up and killed many like in Israel. It is important to note that in nations like Venezuela, murder rates are 10 times what they are here, and personal guns are absolutely illegal to possess.

    I would hazard that in CO. you see the result of gun free zones, as no better place to perpetrate a massacre. As well I would say that without guns as a means to defend themselves the crime and murder rate would be far higher. Law abiding armed people deter crime, period, which is why the personal right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    A good case is the cops much abuse or assault are many people willing to make on an armed cop? Same goes for an armed person.

  23. #25 by Richard Warnick on July 26, 2012 - 10:56 am

    The Venezuela Violence Observatory cites a high level of gun ownership as a factor in the rise of violent crime there.

    A movie theater in Colorado isn’t a “gun-free zone,” because Colorado is an open carry state. The Aurora shooter didn’t break the law until he shot people. The problem to be addressed is how to prevent anyone who goes nuts from quickly obtaining guns and ammunition, especially assault rifles and large capacity magazines.

  24. #26 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 26, 2012 - 11:29 am

    The written word of the law, and the political room in which the ATF are able to execute their job within it are completely different things. Pa suffers similar problems, we just don’t have a fantastic news story filled with political drama on it yet. Other then the trail of blood and bodies, but you and the political system seem happy to sweep that under the rug.

    “Hardly, We are start with agreeing that Nuclear weapons should not be on the civilian purchase list and move down from their.”

    I am dead serious.

  25. #27 by Shane on July 26, 2012 - 3:44 pm

    Bob, you successfully failed to understand anything i said. Good work. Disciple of brewski’s?

    I did not state that criminals are increasingly going armed. I stated that MAD always fails. Those criminals that insist on being armed have the oppertunity here in America to “up the ante” by using such wonderful things as fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, etc, etc, etc. That is the essense of MAD, both sides increasing the force multiplier. That is what I refered to. You ability to read an assumption into what i said does not make it that I have that assumption.

    No, a militia was not one of the original arguments, it is THE argument. Try reading the actual amedment. No other argument is given. Your ability to magically divine extra intent and assumption into the founders words is no more valid than doing the same to mine.

    For someone who so clearly (as many have pointed out in several threads) pulls numbers form his ass, it takes a lot of balls to accus me of the same. You must carry those around in a wheel barrow. Congrats.

    Lets do turn the question around, if we made all guns disappear magically would we be safe? No. Would we be safer? I see every indication that we would. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. We can stop selling military style assalt rifles and mutli-round clips and we would save lives. And that in no way infringes on self defense, hunting, target practice, or general ownership. We can stop selling to criminals, which seems perfectly sensable, and should in no way be an issue, and which even the majority of NRA members agree to. Both of these things are simple, effective, and reasonable. Instead, we listen to people like you ask questions about the latest tragedy like “how could it have been worse if they were all armed and fired back?”

    Seriously? Are you so blindly wedded to a single amendment that you don’t even understand that you can’t see how multiple people, armed, and firering into smoke filled darkness could make this worse?

    All we know at this point (despite your claim) is that someone disturbed enough to open fire on random strangers had no problem at all purchasing the weapons he wanted to do so, even though there is literally no other use or reason for these weapons to be available. And despite being the most heavily armed nation on earth, and despite the constant reassurance that having guns, and then more guns, and then concealed guns, and then smaller guns and then automatic guns and so on and so forth ad infinitum, not one single person was able to do anything to stop him after the bullets started flying.

    Again, why sell weapons with literally no other legitimate use than killing people, and then act shocked when someone uses them to kill people?

    Ronald made a serious opening position statement. So far all you have done in return is cherry pick data, build strawmen, and then accuse everyone else of cherry picking data and making strawman arguments.

    Try this instead: Admit that some things should not be legal for the general populace. Ronald made a starting suggestion. Now trying be reasonable and seeing where that line of logic goes.

  26. #28 by Bob S. on July 26, 2012 - 4:05 pm


    I haven’t misunderstood what you said. I’ve presented evidence showing your theory doesn’t hold water.

    Decades now people have been increasingly going armed and criminals aren’t upping the ante.

    Yes, Militia was one of the Arguments. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Yes, the debate around the 2nd Amendment centered around the Militia — but it was not the only argument for insuring people were armed.

    For someone who so clearly (as many have pointed out in several threads) pulls numbers form his ass, it takes a lot of balls to accus me of the same.

    Accusations are one thing — proving I’m wrong is another. How about you prove that my numbers are wrong, eh?

    Are you saying that people aren’t increasingly carrying in public?

    That firearm related crime isn’t going down?

    What numbers exactly do you accuse me of making up?

    Lets do turn the question around, if we made all guns disappear magically would we be safe? No. Would we be safer? I see every indication that we would.

    And you base this on what evidence?

    You don’t even bother to make up numbers. Guess we are supposed to believe you simply because you say it is true. There is a name for that -

    Try again.

    Seriously? Are you so blindly wedded to a single amendment that you don’t even understand that you can’t see how multiple people, armed, and firering into smoke filled darkness could make this worse?

    Seriously are you so incapable of comprehension that you can not understand what I wrote?

    At the Arizona shooting a person with a CHL arrived on the scene moments after the shooting — did he make it worse?


    What I don’t understand is why you don’t trust your fellow citizens with firearms. You trust them with cars, with chemicals to make poisons and pipe bombs, with propane tanks big enough to blow up buildings — but you don’t trust their common sense and judgment.

    All we know at this point (despite your claim) is that someone disturbed enough to open fire on random strangers had no problem at all purchasing the weapons he wanted to do so, even though there is literally no other use or reason for these weapons to be available.

    Help me out here? What claim are you referring to?

    He had no criminal background history, he had no mental health history. Nothing in his background check, nothing in his school record indicated he would do something like this.

    So tell me master of the unknowable — just what level of scrutiny would prevent this from happening again under the same conditions?

    Again, why sell weapons with literally no other legitimate use than killing people, and then act shocked when someone uses them to kill people?

    Right like target shooting isn’t a sport that millions of people enjoy. See proof by assertion and a complete denial of reality.

    I’ll start with nuclear weapons. Tell me why one should be illegal to own.

    If a person stores it safely, maintains it, how is it any difference from the poisons and chemical people already own and store in their house?

    Apparently your argument seems to be it is okay to kill people one or two at a time but it shouldn’t be okay to kill them in larger numbers.

    Am I understanding your argument?

  27. #29 by ironic on July 26, 2012 - 6:38 pm

    “MAD always fails” Well it did get us through the cold war with the Soviets, any argument?

    Shane well trained people can disarm or disable attackers with any type of weapons, inferior to a gun, happens everyday. To be able to pursue those skills and get the gear to defend yourself is a constitutional right, that works.

    AR-15 is no different than a .223 semi auto of a variety of makes. The stainless Ruger mini 14 is probably a better gun, it’s what that guy in Norway supposedly used.

    A Remington shotgun, about as ubiquitous a weapon the west ever saw.

    .40 semi-automatic pistol, what the bulk of American police use.

    The only weapon there without a real practical use beyond shooting people, is the .40, what the police have. any questions? The other 2 are straight up hunting weapons.

  28. #30 by ironic on July 26, 2012 - 6:59 pm

    Here’s the latest from the man of action, the scion of change.

  29. #31 by ironic on July 26, 2012 - 7:49 pm

    RW; Guns a factor in the rise of violent crime? The murder rate in Venezuela has been 8-10 times that of the US for decades.

  30. #32 by Shane on July 27, 2012 - 12:14 am

    Bob, you have shown evidence that a theory you proposed wouldnt hold water if we ignored reality. Start over again.

    To answer your last question first, it seems that you have not yet understood anything from the original article, Ronald, Richard, Glen, or myself. Which really makes answering your other questions rather pointless, doesn’t it.

    One more time, as simply as it can be explained: there are reasonable limits to gun ownership that even most NRA supporters can agree to. Why are we not pursuing those limits? What possible use does ignoring those limits serve? This article specifically points out some of them. Why can we not discuss those?

    Even with someone so irrational he apparently needs to have it explained that personal nuclear weapons should be off limits, it should be possible to consider an argument without neccisarily accepting it.

  31. #33 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 4:08 am


    The purpose in ignoring those limits is to start over and come up with some common sense restrictions.

    Too many people assume the current laws are ‘extreme’ and we need to add more restrictions to those.

    I disagree.

    Convince me that I shouldn’t own nuclear weapons. Tell me how a nuclear weapon that I properly store, maintain and DON’T use is any different from the kitchen knife that everyone has.

    As long as that knife is properly maintained, stored and NOT used for crime; no one objects to it right?

    So, start over. Throw out all your assumptions on why our current laws make sense and convince me to work to your solution.

  32. #34 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 8:58 am

    An AR-15 is a “straight up hunting weapon”? Look at the pictures and tell me which of these two assault rifles is an AR-15 and which is a military M-4 carbine.

  33. #35 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 9:14 am


    What difference does appearance makes or not?

    Unless you are claiming we should ban something based on looks?

    Does that apply to anything other than firearms? Should we ban cars that look fast? People that look like criminals?

  34. #36 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 10:52 am

    These assault weapons fire the same ammo at the same muzzle velocity, so you know it’s not just similarity of appearance that’s the issue here.

    The answer to the question of which is which is easy, BTW.

  35. #38 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 11:17 am


    So any weapon that fires the same ammunition as a ‘military’ weapon at approximate the same velocity should be banned?

    What is your argument here?

  36. #39 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 11:27 am

    Bring back the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, only without the loopholes this time.

    I’m interested if the commenter who said an AR-15 is a “straight up hunting weapon” can tell it apart from an M-4.

  37. #40 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 11:42 am


    The Assault Weapon Ban was a complete failure. Nice to know that you want to repeat another failure.

    It banned firearms based on cosmetic features — a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor.

    It banned the manufacture of new greater than 10 round capacity magazines but didn’t do a darn thing about the millions of PRE-BAN magazines.

    So what good will come of that? Will it prevent another mass murder, NO.

  38. #41 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 12:28 pm

    I said, without the loopholes the NRA insisted on (so they could later declare the ban a failure).

    A summary of the problems with the assault weapons ban:

    The AWB specifically listed several weapons that it considered to be assault weapons including the popular AR-15. It then defined several characteristics of assault weapons for rifles, pistols, and shotguns that classified them as assault weapons. These included pistol grips, bayonet attachments, and threaded barrels. A weapon was illegal if it included two or more of these listed characteristics. The reasoning was that these attachments had no use for civilian purposes. Additionally, the law banned Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs) defined as a magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds.

    The first problem with the law was that manufacturers found that they could produce the exact same weapon as long as they removed the listed characteristics. Colt produced the HBAR to replace the AR-15 – essentially the same weapon with only cosmetic differences. Thus, the AWB’s definition of an assault weapon clearly missed some crucial factors such as rate of fire or muzzle velocity.

    The crux of the AWB was the large capacity magazine provision. The authors of the ban felt that the main characteristic of an assault weapon was its ability to fire a large number of rounds before needing to reload. The AWB prohibited the manufacture of new LCMs; however, it did nothing to address the large supply of pre-ban LCMs. In fact it was possible to purchase an HBAR and then outfit it with pre-ban LCMs effectively having a weapon with the same capabilities of the weapons banned under the AWB.

  39. #42 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 12:40 pm

    So Richard,

    What “loopholes” would you like to eliminate?

    The semi-automatic capability? The magazine capacity.

    Just what limitations do you insist on putting on people’s right to keep and bear arms.

    And how are you going to enforce it?

  40. #43 by cav on July 27, 2012 - 1:35 pm

    Let the ‘free market’ decide. If more of the one percent like what this looney fuck did, then the rest of us should just shut the f*ck up.

    Some stocker put those bullets on the shelf – others do the fabricating, so there’s at least a couple of jobs that would be eliminated if this thing goes sour.

  41. #44 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 2:01 pm

    Aurora, Colorado was named one of the safest cities in the U.S. by Forbes Magazine last year. But one guy with military weaponry changed everything. We need laws to help prevent massacres, that’s the bottom line.

    The toothless assault weapon ban wasn’t tough enough. It’s absurd that suspected terrorists and madmen are allowed to buy guns. Americans want to regulate guns, the only consumer product designed to kill people.

    Recent poll by Time Magazine:

    “Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?”

    Allowed to ban 62%
    Protect rights of gun owners 35%
    Unsure/ Refused 3%

    We can work out the details. But first we need courageous politicians willing to stand up to the NRA.

    Can anybody answer my question? Truthfully, it’s easy.

  42. #45 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 2:44 pm

    Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

    The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman’s 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

  43. #46 by Richard Warnick on July 27, 2012 - 2:54 pm

    Misses the point entirely. A wannabe mass murderer can easily obtain assault weapons and ammunition. Explosives and firebombs are harder to come by, or to make. Not to mention dangerous to work with.

    “Of the 25 deadliest mass murders…” Once again, a carefully cherry-picked statistic. I can tell without even looking that the vast majority of mass murders involved firearms. Also that guns claimed more victims.

  44. #47 by Bob S. on July 27, 2012 - 3:00 pm


    Explosives and firebombs are not harder to come by then ‘assault weapons’ – which are fully automatic.

    You keep misusing that term in hopes of confusing people.

    The murderer in Aurora did not use an ‘assault weapon’ he used a common semi-automatic rifle.

  45. #48 by cav on July 27, 2012 - 3:11 pm

    I wanna know: Are the a**holes who cheered the Libyan intervention and flooded Libya with weaponry the same a**holes who are calling for gun control after Aurora?

    Are these dumb-shits so self-absorbed that they can’t see what they’ve done? They have flooded west Africa with weapons – all in your rush for a feel-good moment!

    Hint: Mali just had a major coup and an extremist group has control of an area bigger than Texas – using the weaponry that flooded Libya.

    And advancing both issues with not even a modicum of self-awareness as they rush again to support just what the Media Promoters dish up today. Look at us! We are so good – as we call for limiting automatic weapons (here anyway)! Somewhere, someone is preparing to vote!

    Puppets on parade. Almost makes me take the side of catastrophic climate change.

    Disclaimer: All strawman arguments imbued in this comment are absolutely unintentional.

  46. #49 by Ronald D. Hunt on July 27, 2012 - 8:39 pm


    Their is little point in arguing with someone who would use reducto ad adsurdium(reduce to absurdity) for the basis of an argument to declare that nuclear weapons should be legal for civilian purchase.

    I started that question with nuclear weapons hoping to make such a logically flawed argument impossible to make and to give Bob S. a very wide birth around which to make his argument, Clearly Bob S. is simply that far separated from any reasonable sense of reason.

    I question was intended to be probing and hopefully lead to further understanding of his position. Clearly we are not going to have an intelligent debate.

  47. #50 by cav on July 27, 2012 - 11:20 pm

    I do not care just who has Nukes, nor why – but I insist it be either my or BobS’s finger on the button and not some fool politician.

    And ‘Intelligent debate’? Perhaps you’ve forgotten you’re living in Bozoland. Snap out of it Ronald.

    Can’t we get back to Mitts critique of the London Olympics?

  48. #51 by Shane on July 27, 2012 - 11:42 pm

    Ronald, while I agree, honestly that isn’t my biggest problem with his argument. Still, as you say, why bother when you know that intelligent discussion is off the table anyway.

    It is a damn shame too, we need the discussion. Personally I see a great deal of attraction in target shooting, especially pistol, if only they where quieter. Instead I guess I will stick with the bow and the sword. The point being that unlike several people I know I have no objection to guns or gun ownership, but everything the topic comes up I have to fight the urge to stake out the most extreme anti-gun position simply because the pro-gun crowd is so unbelievably asinine.

    Combine that with simple ignorance, like Mitt (and who knows how many others) assuming these where illegal weapons, and you a great argument on your hands. The real problem is that we have a tool that is good for two things only, and we are doing everything in our power to see to it that it excels at the one we dont need, killing people. Then having designed things good only to destroy, we pass them around with the excuse that they keep us safe, which despite the manufactured numbers people like to cherry pick from groups like the NRA they most certainly do not do.

    Look at the mentality at work here: “tell me how a nuclear weapon that I store and maintain and don’t use is different from the kitchen knife everyone has.”. You just can’t argue with that. You might as well have a conversation about ethics with some who asks you to “tell me how mass murder and wood chopping could possibly be different, they are both just actions!”

    At some point you just can’t parody people who literally have no sense of the real world. I pointed that out whe. I wrote about the simulation and confusing the symbols for reality, but naturally it isn’t possible for the people who need it most to understand it…

  49. #52 by ironic on July 28, 2012 - 11:44 am

    The very reality of the situation and people lining up to buy more guns, gives the absolute nonsense to your train of desire not thought Shane.

    An armed world is not an accident, it became a necessity.

    Ever think of how many people you can kill with sword Shane if you had any skill? It is written that in the battles with other armed men in any number of wars, there were men who killed over 200 by themselves by the sword in a day and lived.

    In that instance Shane if you were hack the unarmed, the only limitation to your slaughter would be your own skill and physical endurance…quite a clip.

    RW..I referred to the mini 14 which the Norway shooter used, he killed over 70 people, and the mini 14 is a hunting weapon. As or even more effective than the dolled up pieces you showed us used by the Movie shooter. The mock up is irrelevant, it’s the round that kills you. Both .223.

  50. #53 by ironic on July 28, 2012 - 11:48 am

    Here is the latest statistic on psycho shooters in the US of A.

    You are 8 times more likely to be shot by the police than a psycho killer in the US of A. ANY QUESTIONS?

    Wake up. You need your guns to be as bad as they can be.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: