| Author | Message | ||
     Nillaice |
}i think Kyrocket brought up an interesting point there; location, and timeframe. this was 'prime' target selection. ... better learn 'em young, and learn 'em good and i don't know why no one fought back. passengers fought back airplane hijackers ... i guess they had more time. from what i've read; i understand that this wohle aurora thing went down very quickly. it's terrible that (intentional lowercased) he who shall remain nameless did this. but it's something more sickening that he chose to do it in such a personal way. he could have done it with a bomb on a truck, but instead he wanted to be in the room and hear the screams. i'm sure there is a special place in hell just for him. i'm hearing alot of talk about people expressing a desire to get a permit to carry. this may not be requierd in your state. http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html it is a shame if such a permit is required in your state, for it is only in place to inconveinence the law-abiding citizen. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"and i don't know why no one fought back. passengers fought back airplane hijackers ... i guess they had more time. from what i've read; i understand that this wohle aurora thing went down very quickly. it's terrible that (intentional lowercased) he who shall remain nameless did this. " a) its likely much easier to bum rush some dudes with box openers VS a man with four guns on him b) why "he who shall remain nameless"? We know who did this, its all over the news and papers. Thats being silly. | ||
| Kyrocket |
"for it is only in place to inconveinence the law-abiding citizen." You've hit the nail on the head there. But I guess it's that way with any law. A stop sign/light won't MAKE you stop, a sign won't MAKE you do the speed limit. A sign can't MAKE me leave my pistol in the glove box when an establishment I'm entering forbids CC but I do because I am that law abiding citizen. A marine friend of mine and I were talking about this just this past weekend. Usually an establishment that doesn't allow it will just ask you to leave the premises, if they know. Otherwise it's plausible deniability, something bad happens one way or the other and they're like, "hey, we don't even allow that in here to begin with, they're breaking the law". I have to admit I have broken the law a time or two simply because I was away from the vehicle and wasn't walking all the way back to lock it up when I was in a store all of five minutes. If on the off chance they found out and asked me to leave I would have done so quietly. Nillaice, again in your scenario about the plane, it's the age factor again. I'd assume most of the airplane passengers are adult, probably half or a majority male. In a movie theatre at that time and that genre movie it's younger but again probably mostly male. I try to remember back when I was at the midnight viewing age; I most likely would have screamed like a girl and tried to find the closest exit like my hair was on fire. Oh, and about the CCDW permit. I don't think I'd ever try and open carry in public. It just causes an alarm everywhere you go. It's a good way to get the police called on you and get hassled alot. Our former police chief told me of being in Long John Silver's once wearing his sidearm and some woman shouted out, "Is that a gun"? I mean really? The man has a chief's badge, a police issue pistol in a police issue holster and you want to make a stink? I guess stupidity can't be legislated. | ||
| Cowboy |
Theater sshootings has been going on for a long time. Remember Lincoln? | ||
| Chauly |
"b) why "he who shall remain nameless"? We know who did this, its all over the news and papers. Thats being silly." If more people refused to utter the name of these "people", then the less likely any money would be made off of the sensationalism and death of the victims. I would much rather remember the name of Professor Liviu Librescu than Seung-Hui Cho, for example. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
The left wants to spin and tie this to the health care debate because many of the victims and survivors do not have insurance... Red Herring Alert ! This is an act of crime, terror, violence - typically named policy exclusions for the plethora of modern employer health care. Go Read your policies. - read that exclusion dec page carefully. NONE of the policies of Health Care would have covered this. NOR should they. It is not a HEALTH care evolution. There are crime victims and advocate benefits, and of course the lawsuit lawyers .... but your standard insurance policy - don't cover this. An Accidental Death and Dismemberment policy would be closer - provided it did not only have a work place limitation. More appropriately there should be an over arching umbrella rider policy for health the way there is for auto. You purchase an umbrella policy for the risks that are not included in the standard health and wellness policies - further if you carve out the high dollar expenditures with named policy lines (like you do for classic cars with named value assignment surplus lines supplemental underwriting) then you could LOWER the over all cost of general health insurance. ie - your regular plan covers illness, vacinations, chiro, rx's etc but the big instances of heart disease, cancer, maternity are all line item additional policy riders - and for those that don't need them - viola ; more cost effective policies. This tragedy should never have been attached to the rhetoric about National Health Care - but since they are want to do it - they should at least know how a f'n policy works..... never mind - that is obviously too much for them - as proven many times. | ||
| Ted |
ok, so you're 'carrying' in some public venue and someone starts waving a gun around. when do you draw & blast him? do you wait until he shoots or do you blast him pro-actively? how are you going to feel if its found it was a toy or unloaded? there are so many senarios where a cowboy would make it worse. If everyone is packin heat, you really think there'd be less incidents?eg road rage ? in this case , i could see a dozen guys start blasting away maybe at the loon, maybe at each other ,and others. i think thats a crazy idea. hey just sayn ! | ||
| Hootowl |
Ted, your thoughts on this have been proven wrong countless times. Where law abiding citizens are armed, violent crime plummets. Where they are disarmed, criminals rule. There's a reason these things always take place where guns are banned. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If they can't afford health insurance, then they can't afford to be going to see first run movies. So their spin would fail on multiple levels... I kinda hope they do it because it will fail and bring up an important point of debate on health care that I want to see discussed. Ted, go take a CCW class (you don't have to get the CCW, the classes are just that, classes). They cover this clearly. You shoot when you believe your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger. In some states, there is a "retreat" clause in that you first have to try to escape. In other states (stand your ground or castle doctrine type laws) you have no such obligation. The common denominator though is that you must believe your life is at risk, or observe someone in a situation where, if you were in their shoes, you would believe your life is at risk. If you it was a good and reasonable decision that happened to be wrong, then you will (after being crucified by a biased liberal media to further their own ignorant agenda) walk free (if you consider being financially devestated to defend yourself "free"). It turns out, pretending to go on a shooting spree is a dangerous thing to do, and if you get shot doing it, well that was your fault. If your actions weren't reasonable, you will be charged and prosecuted for something like negligent homicide. (Message edited by reepicheep on July 26, 2012) | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Congrats to the democrats on another horrible tragedy they will capitalize on. Norway, Sanford fl. and now Colorado. They have had a cornucopia of tragedies to further their political goals and take focus away from the shape we find ourselves in. No outrage over Brian Terry and 300 some odd Mexicans though. | ||
| Sifo |
ok, so you're 'carrying' in some public venue and someone starts waving a gun around. when do you draw & blast him? do you wait until he shoots or do you blast him pro-actively? how are you going to feel if its found it was a toy or unloaded? there are so many senarios where a cowboy would make it worse. If everyone is packin heat, you really think there'd be less incidents?eg road rage ? in this case , i could see a dozen guys start blasting away maybe at the loon, maybe at each other ,and others. I've heard countless stories of people who lawfully defend themselves with a gun. I've not heard of a single case where lawful gun owners get into a gun battle as you describe however. I'd be curious if you can come up with one. I did know someone who was killed in a gun battle between two groups of people. He was unarmed having lunch in a tavern at the time. Two groups of gang bangers got into a shooting match and only hit innocent bystanders. This happened in Cook County, IL. where they have the most stringent gun laws in the only state in the union that has no provision for carrying a gun. The Chicago gun violence is completely out of control and has been making national headlines. How do you account for that? Guns aren't even allowed! | ||
| Kyrocket |
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/ 12990393-ted-nugent-dark-knight-audience-should-ha ve-been-armed?lite | ||
| Nillaice |
i'm on board with Aesquire His fame should forever be fleeting and forgotten. People who kill people to be famous should be buried in secret, and their mention a taboo. i don't want to know his name. in conversations with others i am making an effort to refer to him as the 'aurora movie theatre shooter' i don't think that this guy should get fame for comitting a crime, so that he can write a book about it and make $, but only so much can be done about teh press and }his notoriety. my personal opinion is to at least make him nameless and expedite his execution. yeah, my plane assimilation was poor; they are very different circumstances. i still think that those who had front row seats could/should have done something. - i was not there, so i can only monday morning quarter back it from the saftey of a desk - and Ted, were you ever in the armed forces? do you have a CHP? have you had any formal fire-arm training? do you carry a firearm? do you even own a firearm? it sounds like you don't ... | ||
| Nillaice |
hey just sayn ! so is that supposed to make me ignore your comment? or did you not really mean it? ... i mean 'Hey, i'm just sayn!' | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-25.html# read_more As far as "they shoulda..." It's not a sane move to charge a guy with a rifle. Or a Sword. The heroes that covered their loved ones bodies with their own did as much as they ever could or will ever do. I often comment that the entire "dead teenager" movie genre would average 15 minutes long if one of the "kids" had a concealed .45 when the hockey masked killer appears. That is true, on average, but just as it has been determined in a court of law that the police are not obligated to save your sorry butt, you can't count on not being the Kitty Genovese of your day. ( look her up ) Consider this. http://killology.com/sheep_dog.htm The ratio of sheep to sheepdogs is very high. The percentage of people who are capable of violence in defense of others is very small. In America, in the PC & conformist culture pushed by some, Sheepdogs are shunned, feared and suppressed by both the sheep who fear them as being wolves, AND the wolves who prey on the sheep. Especially when those predators are politicians. ( who arguably steal and kill far more than street thugs or gang members ) Good men sleep because rough men stand ready.... There's never a cop when you need one... Gun control only works on law abiding, criminals already break the law, what's one more? Criminals LOVE gun control, it means the sheepdogs are disarmed. That is a FACT, verified with years of Prison interviews. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Patrick thank you for the article. Explains so much about my mindset. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312322/colo rado-consensus-gun-laws-dave-kopel At this point in the reporting, it is safe to say that most of what the news guys and pundit guys ( harder and harder to tell apart ) told us the first days was false. Bozo the killer, ( alleged my A$$ ) did not have a bulletproof vest, Bozo's high cap magazine ( a MAJOR issue in gun hater's minds ) jammed, leaving him with a slower loading shotgun, and, of course, Bozo picked a "gun free" zone. Because no one picks a fight at the Gun Club. In fact, the Gifford shooting and now Aurora, make the best possible case for high cap magazines. Without the extra leverage the long magazine provided, Gifford's shooter would have shot more people, ( the gun was taken away by a brave man who discovered his inner Sheepdog ) and Bozo would have had a better chance at killing more if he's loaded 18 rds in the ( now older, smaller ) 20 rd magazines. My father informs me that the Marines back in his day ( Korean War ) wouldn't allow the big drum magazines for the Thompson Submachine guns. They Jammed. Perhaps high cap magazines should be mandatory. They save lives. Maybe not as many as Mayor Bloomberg's proposed ban on Grande Lattes, but that's another argument.....  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
the drum on the Thommy jams at full auto, you have to camber the trigger, what that gun needed was a three round burst like the M-16 that barrel gets hot ! Gramps had a few of them - got to rock and roll on one for my 12th Birthday. The best bet was the 50rd drum the 100rd really heavy and made it a bit cumbersome .... but with a pindle bipod.... well all things mo betta | ||
| Torquehd |
"ok, so you're 'carrying' in some public venue and someone starts waving a gun around. when do you draw & blast him? do you wait until he shoots or do you blast him pro-actively?" as soon as he displays an immediate threat to yourself or anyone else, (assuming you are not in a location where weapons are prohibited, and you have a valid concealed weapons license) you are generally in the clear to defend yourself and others. If he points the gun at others, or threatens others with his words or body language, then make sure you have a clear shot (no non-combatants in front of, or behind him), start at the chest, and "stitch" your way up to his face. Take smooth, calculated shots, until the target goes down. Then stop shooting. That will probably be one or two bullets. | ||
| Kyrocket |
I really suggest taking a class, even if you are going to carry or not it answers alot of questions about legality. You can help someone in need but you really need to have FIRST HAND information. The scenario given to us in the class was, you hear someone yelling for help and go around the corner to see what's up. There you find two men, one on the ground, the other standing over him with a drawn gun. Out of fear, adrenaline, and every thing else you pull a weapon and shoot the man with the gun. Congratulations, you just successfully shot an undercover, plain clothes officer arresting a perpetrator. Granted most if not all of us will live our entire lives without that happening it just goes to prove the point that things aren't always what they seem. The person yelling help is not always the victim. I carry for self/family protection. I'd have huge reservations getting into an already heated altercation for someone else. But like I've said before, I don't go places where that's likely to happen and I don't do things that would likely draw attention. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"If they can't afford health insurance, then they can't afford to be going to see first run movies." Please tell me more about your reasoning behind this comment. Health insurance is very expensive,VS a movie costing between 4-10 bucks. (I paid 4.75 to see this same movie the Friday it came out) Its much easier to pay five bucks once or twice a month plus some gas money over buying health insurance at a couple hundred dollars a month (truly I dont know how much it is for a private person to get it now, but last I checked it was about 350 a month for a mid-20s non-smoker). I am a full time student working a parttime job. The job doesnt offer health insurance and doesnt pay enough to afford full insurance. Instead I've resorted to an AFLAC accident policy at 25 a month. That way if I break my leg or something I'll be ok. But again, I dont see your comparison of a "first run movie" and a months worth of health insurance | ||
| Reepicheep |
I stand by my statement. If doesn't pay for their health care, *I* have to pay for their health care. Out of my pocket. So the $5 they spent last week for a movie was $5 they should have paid towards having health care (even if it didn't cover all of it). What kind of person would decide that because they can't pay all of their health care, that they then don't have to pay any of it? And that as a result they are entitled to see movies, have a cell phone, own a car, have cable, have home internet access, etc? I regularly decide NOT to see movies I would enjoy seeing because of the cost. Yet I am forced to subsidize peoples health care, while they spend your money to go see the very movie I am saving my money by not seeing. How can that not offend you (whichever side of the dole you are on)? Don't people have pride and integrity anymore? (Message edited by reepicheep on August 01, 2012) | ||
| Kyrocket |
"Don't people have pride and integrity anymore?" In a word, no. At least not the ones I have to work amongst. I see both sides of the argument but tend to come down on Reep's side more often than not. People's priorities are so skewed today it's sad. It's what I call the "microwave generation" instant gratification, they can't wait 30 min. for the meal to cook, they want it now. Sometime, and I hope it's sooner than later, but someone will have to make the decision, albeit a hard one, to cut the line and say, "sink or swim". It's going to come down to the minority supporting the majority and that as we know just won't work. Hybrid, I feel you on the health ins. When I left a job in 2004 I was bringing home $1350 a month and when you leave a job they have to offer you COBRA ins. which was, for a family of four at the time, going to run me $1200 a month. What a racket. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I come off a bit harsh there, and I don't mean to kick people when they are down. I have plenty of respect for somebody who, for whatever reason (even if they brought it on themselves), can't afford two dimes to rub together and is fighting for every penny and making huge sacrifices in a consumer driven instant gratification society. I really do, I admire them and the battle they win every day. And if they need medical care and simply don't have resources to pay for it, then I want to do what I can to help them get the care they need. And I have no ill will towards someone who is very successful and buys any and every toy under the sun. More power to them! Even if they inherited every dime or won the lotto and never worked a day in their life. Enjoy! It's the ones in between that concern me. Discretionary / luxury spending (and I would define luxury as anything above not very nice food, not very nice clothing, and not very nice shelter), but still expecting others to subsidize their needs (like healthcare) or wants (like cell phones). My biggest beef with the health care "reform" is not that I will pay for it... I am already paying for it. It is that it compounds the problem by adding more layers between the payee and the payer, and that always makes things worse. And that if I have to pay for your health care, I should also be able to dictate your lifestyle, as that has a HUGE effect on what I have to pay. And I never want to tell any other man how to live their life, as slavery is abhorrent to me. I want all to be free, and they can't be, so long as they are dependent on me directly, or indirectly through the government. | ||
| Court |
Well put. Folks in need? . . . I'm there for them. Folks with genuine disabilities . . . ditto. I'll help carry their load. Lazy folks living on the public tit? . . . give up the cell phone, air conditioning and cable TV and get your ass in gear. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
reep - I have those things (cell, car, multiple bikes etc), and no health insurance, and YOU (or anyone else) arent paying any of my health insurance, Im not going to the doctor or anything. Thats likely many people, dont be quick to assume. I agree with Court on his last post, 100%. I have a friend who works in SSA and tells me stories all of the time about people cheating on social security so they dont have to work, yeah, its garbage. People who arent trying disgust me. I do not view myself in that same light, as I stated, I am employeed, I am a full time student. But I still aint got insurance. | ||
| Court |
>>>>and no health insurance You do realize . . under the auspices of the new dictator . . that lest you correct that and get your young ass into compliance . . that you'll be guilt of a crime, the crime of not buying something the government REQUIRES you to buy . . .by 2014. There are 16,000 new IRS enforcement personnel who will be insuring compliance. Me? No big deal . . . I, like most union members, am exempt. Thanks for the full coverage. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If someone has catastrophic care coverage, then they *are* insured. Just like the people in the Colorado shooting would be covered if they bought it, which is what brought up this topic originally. If someone does not have at least catastrophic care coverage, then they should be saving their pennies to buy it. Not going to movies, owning a cell phone, owning a vehicle, having cable or internet at home, having air conditioning, etc. If someone does not have catastrophic care coverage, and something happens (like they wreck their motorcycle and end up in ICU), it most certainly is coming out of my pocket. They will show up at the ER of a trauma center, who is obligated by law to care for them regardless if they can pay or not. The hospital has to eat that loss, and they make it back by making people who can pay, pay more. Or they stick it to my insurance company when they bill them. So my co-pays go up, or the amount my company has to pay for my health insurance plan goes up, and when it does my company takes that out of my pay. I will soften my stance a bit and say that if somebody bought a reasonable catastrophic coverage policy, and exhausted it, then that's in the "awful things happen to good people sometimes" category and I'm happy to help carry the load to help them out. The new health reform is going to be a disaster. The way it is now, I get care from a doctor. He or she gets paid by the hospital, who doesn't actually care much about me. They get paid by my insurance company, who doesn't much care about the hospital. The insurance company is hired by my employer, who really doesn't care about the hospital. So if I am getting crappy service, do I push back on my employer, who will push back on their insurance company, who will push back on the hospital, who will push back on the doctor? What could go wrong?  So the solution to this decopuling of the person providing the service and the person getting the service is going to be fixed by adding another layer of bureaucracy? Lord help us. | ||
| Aesquire |
Now a di..head has gone and shot up a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. Initial, ( and probably wrong ) reports say he's a white supremacist. What a tool. Let's just bypass the whole "it's not moral to go randomly shoot people" argument. ( because if you want to argue for random political murder, you belong somewhere far away from me. ) No amount of rationalizing can justify the actions in Colorado or Wisconsin. I have to make a conclusion that ( if the news is correct about the skinhead thing... not a proven fact ) "supremacists" if this guy is one, are morons. ( like that wasn't obvious enough! ) The Sikh's are a peaceful, warrior tradition people, with a fine work ethic and high moral code. ( no, peaceful warrior tradition is NOT an oxymoron. ) You may find some of their customs odd. The steel comb, ( which males are required to carry ) for example, is not a western tradition, but makes just as much sense in context as the ban on eating pork does to 3rd century middle easterners. You want a neighbor who gives you no crap and will stand by you in a crisis, a Sikh is a pretty damn fine choice. Sikh's are not islamist terrorists. That's a different culture. This is like burning a Norwegian Stavkirke because the Dutch serve hash brownies. There may be a hair color connection ( and family ties... the Norse went everywhere! ) but there isn't a rational connection. Frankly, looking for rational reasoning in cases like this is pretty futile. In what seems obviously an Admin inspired ( planned? ) connection, Sikh's in India are protesting our second amendment. I'm pretty sure that's bogus. Could this be a Reichstag fire? Seriously, I know that sounds paranoid, but we have armed drones overhead, today, and a Prez who claims the power to decide your fate, without law. That's real. What's this? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Major Medical Catastrophic plans will become 'illegal' 1.1.2014; as they are not compliant with the mandated coverage levels, deductibles, and lines of benefits. enjoy. |
