or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting - Page 3

post #81 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Terror!

 

Besides you're really looking for logical motivation here from crazy people? If in reference to James Holmes we're talking about a guy who wired up his apartment to take out the entire building. Just think what a nut job could do with a real bomb. However it would be more likely for a terrorist group I'll give you that. But everytime you think something like that can't happen I wouldn't be so sure.

 

Well, I agree, it is terrible that governments of the world have developed this kind of weaponry.

Yey! We agree on something!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #82 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Are we talking at cross-purposes here? I thought this concern was about governments oppressing their own citizens, not about actions committed agains others during times of war.


Why does this difference matter? Just because it is someone else?


It matters, I think, because this discussion appeared to be about the inalienable rights of the citizens of the US to own weapons in order to defend themselves against oppression. You then commented that we should be concerned about states that had nuclear weapons, especially the state that had actually used them. But that was not oppression - that was an act of war. The US has shown no inclination that I am aware of to use nuclear weapons, or any other weapons for that matter, against its own citizens. In fact relatively few stable democratic states have suffered from serious government oppression - that's mostly the preserve of dictatorships and fake democracies. So why should we be scared exactly?
Quote:
It matters, I think, because this discussion appeared to be about the inalienable rights of the citizens of the US to own weapons in order to defend themselves against oppression
But as you know that's not exactly the only reason people own weapons ( think about any mass murder type shooting you've every heard about ). When you're dealing with humans and they're crazy it doesn't matter if they're a government or an individual. They're unpredictable by ordinary standards. That's why we should at least be wary. Ever see the movie " The Dead Zone"? I know I'm agreeing with MJ here ( ahhhhhhhh! ) but presidents can be crazy also. I think Nuclear weapons should be banned pure and simple ( I'm really not sure where MJ stands on this ).

Well obviously there are many reasons (good and bad) to own weapons, but the 2nd Amendment only talks about defense - so that was the issue under discussion.

Private ownership of nuclear weapons is illegal domestically, not to mention the numerous ways that it would breach international treaties. I think anyone with any common sense would agree that this is how it should be, even though the 2nd Amendment didn't list nuclear weapons as an exception. We can cut the founders some slack on that, I think, but that observation clearly implies that there must be gray areas with other classes of weapons that did not exist back then.

One could also invoke a cost/benefit analysis. For example, when the amendment was written, there really were no weapons available that an individual might go on the rampage with and reasonably expect to kill many people without being neutralized. Obviously that has changed, which means that the potential cost of private ownership or availability has gone up. Should we change or clarify the law because of that? Maybe, maybe not, but it is a discussion that is worth having.
post #83 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Well I see your concern, but I would point out that we have multiple examples over the years, of which the CO event was just the latest, of disturbed (I assume disturbed) individuals committing mass murder of US citizens.

 

Yes, multiple examples. But in the larger scheme of things, I'd argue this is not like an epidemic.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In contrast, we have no examples, that I can bring to mind, of US Government agents committing mass murder of US citizens. So my conclusion would be the opposite of yours, i.e. we should worry more about the events that actually do occur.

 

I notice you make the distinction about US citizens. It seems that's important to your reasoning and your peace of mind.

 

Di you know that three days after he was sworn into office the current president, with the stroke of a pen, ordered an attack that killed more innocent men, women and children than this one lone nut did in his crime. I suspect you'll dismiss Obama's action as a mere "act of war" and, well, since it wasn't US citizens...and since he didn't deliberately target civilians...well, all is ok.

 

I mean there's something like 50 people (US citizens) a year killed by police tasers alone. It's not done in a rampage, sure. But, my goodness, I'll bet your chances of dying in a shooting rampage are far lower than many other events including run-ins with the police.

 

Maybe you're right. I guess I see it differently.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Well I see your concern, but I would point out that we have multiple examples over the years, of which the CO event was just the latest, of disturbed (I assume disturbed) individuals committing mass murder of US citizens.

Yes, multiple examples. But in the larger scheme of things, I'd argue this is not like an epidemic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In contrast, we have no examples, that I can bring to mind, of US Government agents committing mass murder of US citizens. So my conclusion would be the opposite of yours, i.e. we should worry more about the events that actually do occur.

I notice you make the distinction about US citizens. It seems that's important to your reasoning and your peace of mind.

Di you know that three days after he was sworn into office the current president, with the stroke of a pen, ordered an attack that killed more innocent men, women and children than this one lone nut did in his crime. I suspect you'll dismiss Obama's action as a mere "act of war" and, well, since it wasn't US citizens...and since he didn't deliberately target civilians...well, all is ok.

I mean there's something like 50 people (US citizens) a year killed by police tasers alone. It's not done in a rampage, sure. But, my goodness, I'll bet your chances of dying in a shooting rampage are far lower than many other events including run-ins with the police.

Maybe you're right. I guess I see it differently.

I only make the distinction because if you are invoking the 2nd Amendment for the right to own weapons, it only applies to US citizens.

I'm not dismissing or condoning any particular acts of violence, but really - domestic oppression and foreign military action, whether one approves of it or not, are quite different beasts. If you believe that the military actions of this government abroad imply that they might do the same thing to you at home, I think you are over-worrying the issue. Actually that sounds quite paranoid, especially since there are no historical precedents to support it.

I realize that police tasers have resulted in fatalities, but I assume that you don't believe that they were deliberate killings. They have guns for that kind of action, and on most occasions, though not all, such actions are found to be justified. Your chances of dying in an automobile accident are higher than either of your examples by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, but that's not part of this issue either.
post #85 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I only make the distinction because if you are invoking the 2nd Amendment for the right to own weapons, it only applies to US citizens.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not dismissing or condoning any particular acts of violence, but really - domestic oppression and foreign military action, whether one approves of it or not, are quite different beasts.

 

Perhaps.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you believe that the military actions of this government abroad imply that they might do the same thing to you at home, I think you are over-worrying the issue. Actually that sounds quite paranoid, especially since there are no historical precedents to support it.

 

Don't get the impression that I'm staying up nights worrying about this, I'm merely pointing out that there are much bigger concerns here than this.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I realize that police tasers have resulted in fatalities, but I assume that you don't believe that they were deliberate killings. They have guns for that kind of action, and on most occasions, though not all, such actions are found to be justified. Your chances of dying in an automobile accident are higher than either of your examples by at least a couple of orders of magnitude, but that's not part of this issue either.

 

And the chance of dying in a car accident are even higher than dying in a shooting spree by a mad man.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


And the chance of dying in a car accident are even higher than dying in a shooting spree by a mad man.

Absolutely agree, but lots of money, resources and law-making goes into trying to minimize vehicle accident death and injury - why would we not also try to figure out how to reduce shooting incidents? I'm not convinced that we actually disagree on the fundamental issue here.
post #87 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Absolutely agree, but lots of money, resources and law-making goes into trying to minimize vehicle accident death and injury - why would we not also try to figure out how to reduce shooting incidents? I'm not convinced that we actually disagree on the fundamental issue here.

 

I have no problem with attempting to reduce such shootings. I suspect we simply disagree on means and methods. We probably also agree on what we consider to be the appropriate and acceptable trade-offs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Absolutely agree, but lots of money, resources and law-making goes into trying to minimize vehicle accident death and injury - why would we not also try to figure out how to reduce shooting incidents? I'm not convinced that we actually disagree on the fundamental issue here.

I have no problem with attempting to reduce such shootings. I suspect we simply disagree on means and methods. We probably also agree on what we consider to be the appropriate and acceptable trade-offs.

Maybe. I guess I'm unconvinced that the right for citizens to be sufficiently well armed to have a chance of resisting government military action is worthwhile. Firstly, I think the notion of success is futile and secondly, I think the risk is so remote that the benefits of trying to achieve it are significantly outweighed by the downside of the proliferation of the necessary weapons.

On the other hand, I believe that private ownership of guns, both for activities such as hunting and for personal defense, should not be infringed for those citizens who can responsibly exercise that right. But, while automatic weapons, for example, are a lot of fun to use, I really can't justify why I should be allowed to own them.
post #89 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

On the other hand, I believe that private ownership of guns, both for activities such as hunting and for personal defense, should not be infringed for those citizens who can responsibly exercise that right. But, while automatic weapons, for example, are a lot of fun to use, I really can't justify why I should be allowed to own them.

 

I have never owned, nor have I ever had a desire to own, a gun. I personally think that the government is more spectacularly inept than most people recognize, and that an organization that cannot properly run things like a transit company or a do-not-call registry has no chance in keeping weapons out of the hands of people who really want them.

 

But gun control (which is really only an issue in a society that has lost its way morally) is about to enter a new phase.

 

Is the government really going to start locking up 3D printers? If not, won't everyone now be "allowed to own them" without restriction?


Edited by Frank777 - 7/29/12 at 5:39pm
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #90 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

On the other hand, I believe that private ownership of guns, both for activities such as hunting and for personal defense, should not be infringed for those citizens who can responsibly exercise that right. But, while automatic weapons, for example, are a lot of fun to use, I really can't justify why I should be allowed to own them.

I have never owned, nor have I ever had a desire to own, a gun. I personally think that the government is more spectacularly inept than most people recognize, and that an organization that cannot properly run things like a transit company or a do-not-call registry has no chance in keeping weapons out of the hands of people who really want them.

But gun control (which is really only an issue in a society that has lost its way morally) is about to enter a new phase.

Is the government really going to start locking up 3D printers? If not, won't everyone now be "allowed to own them" without restriction?

Agree that they will be hard to keep from those determined to get them, but I think ready availability encourages more use than if they were harder to get.

I don' t think gun control is just an issue for flawed societies. Consider the USA - its history dictates that the culture is more gun oriented than some other societies (although now I'm curious about the history of gun ownership in Canada), and at this stage it would not be fair (IMO) to deprive responsible citizens of the right to own weapons for personal protection, given their relative availability for criminal use. While gun crime is certainly more common in the US than one would wish, I wonder how much is deterred by the knowledge that the criminal is quite likely to face an armed opponent.

I think we are some way from printers being able to fabricate entire guns, but I wouldn't bet against it in the future. However, right now a gun is much cheaper than a 3d printer anyway.
post #91 of 184
Thread Starter 

You know the reality here is that any individual's chance of dying or being injured in a rampage shooting like this is vanishingly small. Even the probability of dying by a firearm is incredibly small.

 

There were about 2,437,163 deaths in the US in 2009. Of these, about 31,224 are from firearms (about 1.3%). A little over half these were suicides. Of the remaining, about 13,000 (0.5% of all deaths) were deliberate homicides (approximately 600 were accidental) and of these homicides, about 80% are drug and gang related.

 

 

And for everyone concerned with the "assault style semi-automatic rifles"...most (75-80%) of the murders committed with a firearm were done with a hand gun.

 

This event is a plane crash.

 

Bottom line? There are much bigger fish to fry. 

 

P.S. And it seems there are deeper root causes that could be addressed that would likely significantly deflate even those numbers without banning or restricting gun ownership. Namely...legalize drugs. Take the wind out of the sales of the black market in drugs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


And for everyone concerned with the "assault style semi-automatic rifles"...most (75-80%) of the murders committed with a firearm were done with a hand gun.



That is a very pertinent point, and it does weaken the argument for focussing on controlling ownership of those types of weapons.
post #93 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Perfect for the patriotic suburban man. He won't let the tyrants get their way, even if the low on ammo and less than 0.50 calibre crowd do. Sissies!

 

No one should be without these either to defeat tyrants. Highly portable. What do you say SDW and MJ?-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv7sBh5aMv0&feature=related

 

So random citizens are going to acquire suitcase nuclear weapons?  Come on.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I'm not sure that is strictly correct. Many munitions that are counted as WMDs (or WMEs) have great tactical or strategic value other than mass killing.
I'm still not getting past the disconnect that you want the populace, either in the form of a militia or as individuals, to be able to resist a government militarily, but you want to limit what kind of weapons they can own. And that limit seems to be quite arbitrary, and not, in any way, derived from the 2nd Amendment.

 

First, I notice you've been engaging with jimmac.  You'll learn that doing so might be amusing, but you'll get nowhere with actual discussion.  :)  

 

Now, as for WMD:  They have but one purpose.  There is no "tactical" or "strategic" value to an individual.  Secondly, I don't see the disconnect, because I'm not suggesting anything be restricted further.  I'm simply saying that possession of a nuclear device or other WMD would already result in charges.  It's universally agreed that--in the hands of nonmilitary personnel-- these weapons have no other purpose than mass murder.  The same cannot be said of any other type of weapon.   If there is a line to be drawn, this seems like a reasonable place to draw it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's universally agreed that--in the hands of nonmilitary personnel-- these weapons have no other purpose than mass murder.

 

And why should we trust ANY government with such weapons?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #95 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Figures like these are staggering. Why is it they can't stop this? 

 

• 106,000 Americans killed from drug side effects
• 115,000 Americans killed from bedsores
• 98,000 Americans killed from medical error
• 88,000 Americans killed from infections
• 32,000 Americans killed from surgery
• 37,000 Americans killed from unnecessary procedures

I wouldn't argue though that it negates sensible gun laws. 

 

Do you think people should be allowed to keep their own grenades and rocket launchers? Just how far are you willing to go to preserve your brand of liberty?

 

It's the Law of Large Numbers in my opinion. You have a massive number of interactions and want perfection. Perfection doesn't exist and when showing the numbers for almost anything involving 312 million people, you get what appear to be large results but what are actually more like rounding errors. Trying to draw conclusions from these errors or exceptions is always bad reasoning because an exception never proves a rule.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

When the First Amendment to the Constitution was written, this was the most effective method of communication:

 

1000

 

Hand-setting the type for a single page took hours, to say nothing of the actual printing, binding and distribution process itself.

 

Using your reasoning, since the founding fathers could not conceive of 640,000 Gb of information being transmitted around the world in a single minute, the First Amendment does not apply to our modern methods of communication.

 

Much more interesting would be watching the stuttering and stammering playing out if this reasoning were applied to their causes du jour. Do we really think that when the founders wrote the Constitution that what they envisioned was protecting abortion? Could they imagine a federal government that could tax almost every transaction with computers automatically recording the results? Did they ever imagine air waves, programs across them and the government regulating and controlling that speech? Did they imagine CGI movies where billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars of death and destruction could be artfully rendered and watched for $10 a pop?

 

Clearly none of those were meant to be protected....and you'd watch their little heads explode. Then add EITC, Social Security Disability, EBT, free cell phones, universal health care, etc.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's the Law of Large Numbers in my opinion. You have a massive number of interactions and want perfection. Perfection doesn't exist and when showing the numbers for almost anything involving 312 million people, you get what appear to be large results but what are actually more like rounding errors. Trying to draw conclusions from these errors or exceptions is always bad reasoning because an exception never proves a rule.

 

 

Much more interesting would be watching the stuttering and stammering playing out if this reasoning were applied to their causes du jour. Do we really think that when the founders wrote the Constitution that what they envisioned was protecting abortion? Could they imagine a federal government that could tax almost every transaction with computers automatically recording the results? Did they ever imagine air waves, programs across them and the government regulating and controlling that speech? Did they imagine CGI movies where billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars of death and destruction could be artfully rendered and watched for $10 a pop?

 

Clearly none of those were meant to be protected....and you'd watch their little heads explode. Then add EITC, Social Security Disability, EBT, free cell phones, universal health care, etc.

 

But there's yet another angle.

 

Typically those that have a very narrow view of what the 2nd amendment allows, have an extremely broad view of what the 1st amendment allows. These folks will defend the right of any amount of filth to be produced under the protection of the 1st amendment that, while not necessary physically damaging or life-threatening, can certainly be argued to be very emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, relationally and culturally damaging. And they won't even recognize the irony in all of this.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/30/12 at 11:27am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Perfect for the patriotic suburban man. He won't let the tyrants get their way, even if the low on ammo and less than 0.50 calibre crowd do. Sissies!

 

No one should be without these either to defeat tyrants. Highly portable. What do you say SDW and MJ?-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv7sBh5aMv0&feature=related

 

So random citizens are going to acquire suitcase nuclear weapons?  Come on.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I'm not sure that is strictly correct. Many munitions that are counted as WMDs (or WMEs) have great tactical or strategic value other than mass killing.
I'm still not getting past the disconnect that you want the populace, either in the form of a militia or as individuals, to be able to resist a government militarily, but you want to limit what kind of weapons they can own. And that limit seems to be quite arbitrary, and not, in any way, derived from the 2nd Amendment.

 

First, I notice you've been engaging with jimmac.  You'll learn that doing so might be amusing, but you'll get nowhere with actual discussion.  :)  

 

Now, as for WMD:  They have but one purpose.  There is no "tactical" or "strategic" value to an individual.  Secondly, I don't see the disconnect, because I'm not suggesting anything be restricted further.  I'm simply saying that possession of a nuclear device or other WMD would already result in charges.  It's universally agreed that--in the hands of nonmilitary personnel-- these weapons have no other purpose than mass murder.  The same cannot be said of any other type of weapon.   If there is a line to be drawn, this seems like a reasonable place to draw it.  

 

Quote:

First, I notice you've been engaging with jimmac. You'll learn that doing so might be amusing, but you'll get nowhere with actual discussion

Did I hear my name? It may surprise you but I agree with MJ more often than I agree with you. ( wink if I could )

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #98 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Did I hear my name? It may surprise you but I agree with MJ more often than I agree with you. ( wink if I could )

 

It's amusing that, for someone who was once complaining about other people's posts being all about you, you post a lot about yourself. It seems your ratio of posts about yourself and others compared to posts relevant to the actual topic must be like 5:1 or 10:1. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #99 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

Did I hear my name? It may surprise you but I agree with MJ more often than I agree with you. ( wink if I could )

 

It's amusing that, for someone who was once complaining about other people's posts being all about you, you post a lot about yourself. It seems your ratio of posts about yourself and others compared to posts relevant to the actual topic must be like 5:1 or 10:1. lol.gif

I only find myself in this position when someone else has been talking about me first. Guess who it was this time?lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #100 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

And why should we trust ANY government with such weapons?

 

Oh boy.  Here we go.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I only find myself in this position when someone else has been talking about me first. Guess who it was this time?lol.gif

 

Uh huh.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Anyway...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I only find myself in this position when someone else has been talking about me first. Guess who it was this time?lol.gif

 

Uh huh.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Anyway...

Nice fact filled reply!lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Nice fact filled reply!lol.gif

 

How is this relevant to the Aurora shooting?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #104 of 184
Thread Starter 

Well, here's something relevant:

 

Quote:
A 48-year-old man who was arrested Sunday night at a Thornton movie theater where he wore a holstered weapon said he was simply exercising his right to bear arms.
 
James G. Mapes was arrested at about 10:15 p.m. Sunday at the Cinebarre Movie Theater, 1001 N. Grant St., after he openly carried a handgun into the theater, Thornton police said in a media release.
 
"The subject's possession of the firearm caused alarm to the theater staff and fellow movie patrons," police said in the release.
Quote:
He was booked on suspicion of "possession of a dangerous weapon," in violation of municipal ordinance 38-237, police said.
 
Mapes was issued a summons and released.
 
Investigators confiscated the gun as evidence in the case.

 

However, according to Thornton municipal code section 38-237, a "dangerous weapon" is defined as:

Quote:
Dangerous weapon means any artificial knuckles, bow, crossbow, machine gun, short rifle, or shotgun, knife, nunchaku, spikes, throwing star, as defined in this subsection, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is used, is intended to produce bodily injury.

 

Note that a firearm is defined separately and more precisely which suggests that the rules pertaining to "dangerous weapon" referring to the specific definition above:

Quote:
Firearm means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable of or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges or other explosive charges, excluding gas guns, as defined in Section 38-239(a).

 

Granted, the line "or other weapon, device, instrument...which, in the manner it is used, is intended to produce bodily injury." looks like it creates some overlap. But that won't matter in a moment...

 

Now, 38-237 (b) (1) says:

Quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess on or about the person or within such person's immediate reach any dangerous weapon.

 

And 38-237 (b) (5) says:

Quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to display or flourish a dangerous weapon, firearm, air gun, bludgeon, chemical agent or slingshot in a manner calculated to alarm another person.

 

Granted, this statement could be very tightly interpreted...and I suspect an attempt will be made to do so.

 

However, the exceptions under 38-237 (d) (4) says:

Quote:
A person issued a written permit to carry a concealed handgun issued by any sheriff authorized to issue such permits within the state and the carrying of such weapon is within the terms of such permit.

 

P.S. For those who don't know, Thornton, CO is about 30 minutes from Aurora, CO.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #105 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Nice fact filled reply!lol.gif

 

How is this relevant to the Aurora shooting?

How was his previous post before mine?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #106 of 184
Thread Starter 

We're getting back on topic here. If you don't want to, go somewhere else.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #107 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We're getting back on topic here. If you don't want to, go somewhere else.

Who are you addressing jazzy or me?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #108 of 184
Thread Starter 

We're getting back on topic here. If you don't want to, go somewhere else.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #109 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We're getting back on topic here. If you don't want to, go somewhere else.

Yes now that you want to. Uh huh.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 184

How will a ban on guns be any more effective than a ban on pot?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #111 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

How will a ban on guns be any more effective than a ban on pot?

It won't But it might slow the violence. I'll extend to you the same question I asked SDW. How would you handle this growing problem?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #112 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It won't But it might slow the violence.

 

This is highly doubtful when you realize where more of the gun violence in the US is centered.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #113 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It won't But it might slow the violence.

 

This is highly doubtful when you realize where more of the gun violence in the US is centered.

So how would you attempt to solve it?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So how would you attempt to solve it?

 

Legalize drugs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So how would you attempt to solve it?

 

Legalize drugs.

So that would solve the problem more than a ban would?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So that would solve the problem more than a ban would?

 

In which thread do you want to have this discussion?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It won't But it might slow the violence. I'll extend to you the same question I asked SDW. How would you handle this growing problem?

 

Has making drugs illegal slowed their consumption?

 

Here's what I would do:

 

Encourage responsible gun ownership. Encourage firearm safety training. Help people understand that they cannot realistically expect another person to immediately intervene and defend them in a life-threatening situation every time.

 

It won't completely eliminate the possibility of a lunatic doing something horrific like in Aurora, but it will definitely cause would be criminals to think twice before assaulting an individual or group if there's a possibility they will be met with deadly force.

 

There are numerous, recent stories - most of them buried by the corporate-government controlled media - of armed, responsible individuals preventing crimes or halting crimes in progress. Had the potential or actual victims waited until police arrived, it would have been too late.

 

I repeat, there are 100,000,000 responsible gun owners in this country. And you want to treat them all like potential mass murderers and deprive them of rights they have exercised responsibly. No. That is not the right approach.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 184

Ending the war on drugs would allow the cops to come down from their paramilitary stance, increase civil rights, all but eliminate no-knock warrants, defund over armed swat teams, reduce the ability of the cops to illegally confiscate property without warrant, allow the cops to focus on other crimes, make rec' drugs safer, defund the criminal gangs ... It would be a revolution in our society.

post #119 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Ending the war on drugs would allow the cops to come down from their paramilitary stance, increase civil rights, all but eliminate no-knock warrants, defund over armed swat teams, reduce the ability of the cops to illegally confiscate property without warrant, allow the cops to focus on other crimes, make rec' drugs safer, defund the criminal gangs ... It would be a revolution in our society.

Like I've said I'm totally on board with this but is there evidence to show it would be more effective than banning guns?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It won't But it might slow the violence. I'll extend to you the same question I asked SDW. How would you handle this growing problem?

 

Has making drugs illegal slowed their consumption?

 

Here's what I would do:

 

Encourage responsible gun ownership. Encourage firearm safety training. Help people understand that they cannot realistically expect another person to immediately intervene and defend them in a life-threatening situation every time.

 

It won't completely eliminate the possibility of a lunatic doing something horrific like in Aurora, but it will definitely cause would be criminals to think twice before assaulting an individual or group if there's a possibility they will be met with deadly force.

 

There are numerous, recent stories - most of them buried by the corporate-government controlled media - of armed, responsible individuals preventing crimes or halting crimes in progress. Had the potential or actual victims waited until police arrived, it would have been too late.

 

I repeat, there are 100,000,000 responsible gun owners in this country. And you want to treat them all like potential mass murderers and deprive them of rights they have exercised responsibly. No. That is not the right approach.

So you believe education would be more effective. Do you have statistics on this and links? Not argumentative just a question.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting