After, the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, we have the usual left-wing chorus asking us to look at gun control again, including the squeaks from Mayor Bloomberg, but Obama’s White House has already stated they plan to fight guns with “existing laws,” i.e., no more gun control. Obama has to be pretty freaked that this issue is even being mentioned, as he knows gun control is nothing but a major loser politically. Yet, much of the left who don’t have to worry about elections don’t seem to be absorbing this and are right now talking about, “When will American finally wake up and enact more gun control?”
How’s “never” for the timeline on that.
That’s like asking, “When will America wake up and enforce segregation again?” We’re done with that dark era, and we’re not going back. After the Giffords shooting and there was no new gun legislation — in fact, the Democrat politician who was herself shot didn’t even ask for more gun control — the left should have realized that most Americans no longer think in the terms “Ew! Guns are scary!” in reaction to tragedy. We no longer freakout and turn on freedom because of isolated incidents. But the left don’t seem to get that, so they scream every so often and wonder why no one is hearing them. But they’re like some guy seeing a horrible crime committed by a black person and saying, “Isn’t it time we reconsidered reenact Jim Crow laws?” and then wondering why everyone got so angry.
So will the left ever give up on gun control? Only if we can put as much stigma on being anti-freedom as we do for racism. For now, it’s still considered okay to publicly talk about gun control — as long as you’re not a politician who might face an election.
Anyone with any sense looks at the carnage this freak left behind and wishes that someone in that audience had been carrying a weapon to take him out and save lives. We also realize that if this freak thought that some of the people in that theater might be armed he probably wouldn’t have attempted this nonsense in the first place.
@Son of Bob, Yeah, or more people could have gotten killed because of the ensuing firefight. That’s just what we need, is more amateurs with semis firing wildly into a dark room THAT WAS FULL OF SMOKE.
You know that if we had better and cheaper access to mental health services, maybe guys like the shooter could get the treatment they need? Oh but wait, that would be socialist.
How are your well-trained militias coming, gun nuts?
I have the final solution for this problem. Let’s just make it illegal to kill someone. That will fix everything!
Florida Concealed Carry- 70 year old man wounds two would be robbers. No one hurt
Colorado gun control (Aurora) – 24 year old lunatic kills 12 injures 50+
Which side is winning again? That would be the 2nd amendment folks. Guns don’t kill people, bad guys with guns kill people, good guys with guns stop bad guys from killing people. 2+2=4. All the time, everyday, for infinity and beyond.
@Ed And this guy would’ve checked himself into a mental health clinic of his own accord? With no real prior brushes with the law?
And in response to your question, our “well-trained militias” have been neutered by restrictive conceal-carry laws. Never mind deterrence (this guy obviously wasn’t thinking rationally). How about self-defense?
Ed, seriously? He tried to kill everyone in the theater and no one stopped him, so he shot at least 50 people…and you’re worried that “more people could have gotten killed”? Wow, do you realize how ridiculous that comes off?
And, you’re worried that private citizens are “amateurs”? So, in your world everyone waits for the “professionals” (I’m assuming you mean law enforcement) to show up? Well, exactly how did that work out at the theater, …or Columbine, …or at Virginia Tech? Oh, that’s right – they showed up when it was all done and didn’t prevent ANY the killings.
As for your “better and cheaper access to mental health services” (I’m assuming you mean socialist services with second-rate doctors working for peanuts on the backs of tax-payers) …do you honestly believe this guy would have sought out mental health treatment? Was there some report (perhaps by Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos) that this jackass was turned away from a mental health facility for lack of money? I didn’t think so.
Ed, if you’re ever in the middle of a situation like this, you’re going to be praying that someone like me is there to save your life…because the police probably won’t be.
@son of bob: you are missing Ed’s point. I work in the mental health sector and just yesterday a client of mine who suffers from severe mental health disorder was pretty angry about the dysfunctional and chaotic lifestyle he was suffering by his own poor choices. He was clearly feeling depressed and blamed the mental health clinician and the court ordered medication he was forced to have. Yesterday he said if he had his guns back he would go down to the mental health office and blast them all away and then shoot himself. And you know what I was thinking? After hearing about yet another massacre in the Land of the so-called Free, I was so glad my client and myself by accident, live in a county, Australia, where people like my client does not access to guns. Since a former Prime Minister was brave enough to put in place a gun buy-back system, over 15 years ago, Australia has not had to suffer one gun massacre. If one American politicians would be so brave!
@bruce, sorry, but the violent crime rate has increased in Australia since your super-brave politicians intervened.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. (emphasis added)
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-aussie-logic.html
Thanks for playing.
@rid
Heh heh. That was awesome!
Columbine High School shooting – 15 dead
Aurora theater shooting – 12 dead
When will America finally wake up and make being in Colorado illegal?
My gun got so frightened by all this that it hid under my jacket.
People like ed and bruce are why we still have victims. Maybe we should just let the criminals have all the victims, then they will go away.
If I don’t control my gun, I hit high and left.
Can’t be said often enough. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
The cops are not there to protect you, they are there to remove the body.
Where are the marxists calling for transportation control? The pos had to get there some way.
@SoB: Have you gone through “stressfire” marksmanship training or has your marksmanship been comprised of refining accuracy in putting rounds into centermass of a paper target?
My point being that, with the smokebombs/teargas cannisters in full flow, the THX theatre volume cranking, a flurry of rounds being loosed, screams, shouts, general chaos and panic enveloping all…only the most skilled marksman, civillian or professional, could have possibly gotten off a shot which would have dropped this psycho-who was, remember, clad in ballistic armor from head to shins.
Good on ya, SoB, if you, in the midst of such chaos, could make such a killshot. There wasn’t anyone with such a skillset, packing, in that theatre. Let’s pray that moreresponsible citizens, in possession of skills and training, are around to eliminate such deadly threats if-and-or-when it should happen again.
Bunker – I did some “stressfire” training once.
Let’s just say many broad sides of barns walked away unscathed that day.
I have been reading recently about gun laws in Switzerland. The Swiss have a long-standing tradition of a gun in every closet. They issue an assault rifle to every citizen and teach them how to use it. Switzerland does not have an army – the Swiss citizenry ARE the army. In Switzerland, defence of the nation is not a job for professional soldiers, it is the responsibility of every male citizen. They have a different cultural attitude toward gun ownership that the US could learn from.
Switzerland’s gun policies shaped our own 2nd Amendment. They have extremely low gun crime rates. One article I read suggested that the well-armed citizen militia in Switzerland is what deterred Hilter from invading that country, in spite of its incredible wealth.
In contrast, the areas in the United States which have the strictest gun-control laws also have the highest violent crime rates.
None of that is relevant to the left, however, because it’s not gun ownership or SUV ownership or sugary-drink-overpurchasing at the root of their arguement. At the root of every leftist point of view is the belief that American citizens are too stupid and irresponsible to do ANYthing – we can’t even be trusted to choose our own lightbulbs, or salt our own coconut-oil popped popcorn; we certainly cannot be trusted to own a weapon.
I am tired of being told how stupid and irresponsible and non-achieving I am; especially by the brain trust running this place.
I have a suggestion. Instead of more ‘gun control’ we should also have more ‘violent movie control’ especially movies base on violence prone comic books and or violence prone video games. Does not Hollywood bear responsibility for what happened in Colorado? How about holding the producers of violent movies just as responsible as anyone who sells, manufactures guns, or owns a gun?
It was Rham Emanuel who said “never waste a good crisis” expect them to exploit fear and paranoia to make some policitcal points or, even worse, ram through a bill.
Bunkerbilly,
Apparently, the smoke didn’t seem to stop a red-haired idiot from hitting his targets 50 times…so, I think I’d do okay.
SoB: brags are easy. Putting the pill in centermass or a head-shot while all Hell busts loose is another thing entirely.
Concerning the political after-effects, as I said three days ago: it is entirely possible that Obama will take to the airwaves to announce that since congress won’t act, HE will. Via Executive Order, he is mandating that private citizens will be given a month to willingly surrender their firearms. It could be given a noble-sounding name…say, The American Citizens’ Safety Act. All firearms to be turned over to their local police precinct, state police barracks or National Guard base. After that month, Homeland Security and the ATF will begin searching people’s homes.
All to be done for the sake of a greater sense of security for the people. Obama will, with the ususl imperiousness, lecture us proles on how it is best to only have first-responders possess firearms since they have the greater skill and training.
The media will twist themselves in knots praising his “boldness in action”…his base will cheer loudly, champion him, and gloat along with him about their triumph over “the bitter clingers”.
As Rahmbo stated…”never let a good crisis go to waste”.
He may well pass on this opportunity, but, in the desperate state that he is in, oblitieration of the Second Amendment is a distinct possibility.
If you don’t have your own pistol you may have to wait for the rest of your life for the police to bring theirs.
Not to diminish the tragedy in Colorado but 12 dead and 50+ wounded sounds about like an average weekend in NYC or LA or Chicago, all places that are hostile to guns in the hands of private citizens. So, where is all the outrage and panty wetting over all of those killings/injuries? Nowhere because those places are controlled by the Demoncrats whose media lapdogs look the other way. The media also ignore the daily use of guns by the law abiding to prevent crime and/or stop it from getting worse, like the Florida robbery mentioned in another post. The fact remains that when lots of people are hurt/killed by another person, that person is already breaking a whole bunch of laws that are already on the books. We don’t need more anti-gun laws. We need more guns. Then we will have less crime.
PS – – If you know how many guns you have you don’t have enough.
Bunker, what makes you think that particular POS would have engaged in a fire fight? He surrendered as soon as the cops showed up. He was decked out in body armor, and could have made a showing, but as soon as armed cops showed up, he folded like wet tissue paper. If one of the patrons had pegged that coward in center of mass, even if it didn’t penetrate his body armor and kill him, he would have probably stopped what he was doing and surrendered, that or crapped his pants and buggered out the emergency exit.
As for the “it was smoky, how could anyone have seen him to shoot at him” argument, he was silhouetted against the screen. Lots of the survivors saw him. If the unarmed survivors saw him, don’t you think an armed patron could also have seen him?
Ogrrre – Although having a concealed carry guy in the theater would’ve upped the odds for the innocents, I’ll save some benefit of the doubt for Bunker’s position in his first sentence.
You never know how you’ll play until you’re there. I’d like to think that when the chips are down, training = performance for a civilian, but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone who was armed & there who didn’t fire, other than in my status as a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Having had this debate exhaustively with the spouse, we’ve decided maybe he coulda been taken out by an armed theatergoer. The better odds would have to go to just tackling the a-hole. If he was shooting while walking up the aisle, there had to be people behind him that hadn’t been shot. Someone shoulda jumped him. That being said, it’s easy to pronounce judgment after the fact. Personally, I’d be thrilled if they forgot to lock his cell and he got to experience the whole “gen-pop” lifestyle for the last few hours of his life.
#22 – Denise,
Since 9/11 I haven’t heard of any successful airline high-jackings. I have heard of several instances where some guy tried, or just got too drunk and rowdy on a flight, or was off his meds, and the passengers in each case tackled and restrained him, remembering the lesson of 9/11 – that acting like a sheep won’t save you. But the lesson hasn’t seemed to have been learned when the violent threat happens on the ground. People still run, hide, or play dead while the bullets fly. Maybe being sealed in a long, aluminum tube at 35,000 feet with a violent person makes all the difference. They have fewer options, and so make the bold decision. There were acts of bravery in the theater; 3 men at least gave their lives to act as human shields to save their girlfriends from the gunman. If someone had shouted, “He’s got a gun! GET HIM!!” and charged the sumb*tch, that moment of leadership might have inspired a completely different outcome. A different headline perhaps, “Insane Gunman Opens Fire In Crowded Theater – Stomped To Death By Enraged Patrons – Theater Offers Refunds.” Just sayin’… (yeah, Monday morning quarterbacking. Sigh.)
@Ogrre: Yeah, the nutter surrendered after having shot his bolts…beforehand, however, let us remember, he was clad, apparently in full SWAT-grade ballistic gear inclusive of a full-face gas mask to shield him from the effects of the CS teargas cannister(s) he set off (not mere smokebombs.) And these weren’t the wee things found in your wife or girlfriend’s purse, this was high-capacity, wide-dispersal, law-enforcement-grade teargas.
The bet to call or raise amongst us keyboard commandos is the respective marksmanship skills which could be displayed while under the effects of capsaicium gas. Specifically: watering, stinging eyes, violent coughing and closing of the esophagus, spluttering and excessive saliva production along with excessive mucosa in the nostrils.
Now, if we want to type our brags about how we could pull off the most amazing shots while under the most challenging circumstances, that’s one thing. Break out your shovels and start spreading the brown and smelly. But, because none of us pistol-packing hardmen weren’t there, we should keep the speculation and whatiffery to a minimum.
As for my political hypothetical…it was worst-case game-theorizing. Because we are living in a time of selective respecting of legal absolutes and constructs, a move by Obama as hypothesized shouldn’t/wouldn’t surprise, now would it?