Aurora Shooting: Does Tighter Gun Control Change the Outcome?

[Rob's House]

Yeah more like it alright. More like you that is, predisposing your "analysis" in an attempt to skew the data to suppOrt your desired conclusion. Guessing this construct came from an "independent" research group sponsored by the big moniedNRA. So let's examine the points, one by one:

 

Gang activity: what if the gangs didn't have guns?

Homicide substitution rates: sounds extremely vague and unquantifiable but hey maybe throw it as a curve ball anyway, see what happens;

Violence averted by guns: from what I've seen a very insignificant number. And unreliable too because as Kellerman pointed out in previous analysis Posted here you don't know if the gun was the primary averting factor or better preparedness on the part of the target (a security conscioous gun owner for example may also have better alarms), eliminating the perpetrators element of surprise;

State by state comparisons: probably the poorest of all measures. Guns being highly portable and state lines being undefended make it simple transport them from one state to another. Furthermore many illegal guns were originally legally purchased, then made illegal via theft from individuals and stores. Stolen caches of almost anyhing are often moved out of the areas from where they're taken..

 

And of course quite revealing that not a single factor you sight has the potential to move the analysis in the other direction. For example the fuzzy homicide substitution claim that some of the murders would occur without guns. What about the phenoma of induced homicide by having a gun in the home? Referencing Kellerman again partly for his use of actual figures:

 

Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!

 

Let's also revisit the "gang" element you keep stressing. How are you factoring in the very real possibility of gang-induced activity from gun possession? One would imagine murders from "drive by" shootings would be sharply curtailed if the available weapon was a knife.

Dude, did you eat paint chips as a child? I threw out some factors that need to be considered to have meaningful data. Only an unmitigated moron could look at that as a definitive conclusion. And you have to be pretty simple to throw out one stat line and just assume all other variables are held constant. But I understand if considering multiple variables makes your brain hurt. You're a simple man with simple thoughts.

 

And the gang angle is relevant because a significant portion of gun deaths are the result of gang violence (I've seen estimates as high as 50% but I can't vouch for the reliability of that figure), which is largely unique to the U.S., and those guns are usually illegal in the first place. And to answer your question about if gangs didn't have guns, how successful are we at keeping drugs out of their hands?

 

Carry your pistol or whatever. Gangs will always be able to get their hands on those. And there are a ton of other weapons out there (I wonder why there are so many?) that they will have as well. In any event nobody is going to walk around carrying an assault rifle for protection to out arm a potential maniac. Stop selling them. And in my communist mentality, make them illegal. They can be used for only 1 thing and that's shooting up a ton of people and creating a **** storm. Let's start the process of making them impossible to buy, and as hard to get as possible. They're too dangerous. I haven't been reading the entire back and forth but if Joe is advocating gun bans all together he's hurting the cause just as much as nut balls who say arm away with anything. It's about reasonable people coming together and saying too much is too much. Protect yourself and hunt. The vast majority of Americans do not own, and do not have a problem preventing other people from owning...assault weapons. Bring back the federal assault weapon ban and empower the ATF to wage a war on overly dangerous guns. A gun that can shoot 100 people in a minute is no less dangerous than a huge bomb. The majority of Americans can agree on these points when the discussion isn't warped into an all or nothing "guns or no guns" pitch. The "guns or no guns" pitch is exactly what the gun lobby wants. The fact of the matter is their profits will go down. People buy less guns. They can't compensate buy pushing more dangerous guns to expand the product line and selling more guns to fewer people. It is the only reasonable approach.

I've posed the question many times without a response, but I'll try again. What is an assault rifle and why is it more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle?

[meazza]

I've posed the question many times without a response, but I'll try again. What is an assault rifle and why is it more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle?

 

The one that makes you want to yell out, "say hello to my little friend."

 

[dayman]

Dude, did you eat paint chips as a child? I threw out some factors that need to be considered to have meaningful data. Only an unmitigated moron could look at that as a definitive conclusion. And you have to be pretty simple to throw out one stat line and just assume all other variables are held constant. But I understand if considering multiple variables makes your brain hurt. You're a simple man with simple thoughts.

 

And the gang angle is relevant because a significant portion of gun deaths are the result of gang violence (I've seen estimates as high as 50% but I can't vouch for the reliability of that figure), which is largely unique to the U.S., and those guns are usually illegal in the first place. And to answer your question about if gangs didn't have guns, how successful are we at keeping drugs out of their hands?

 

 

I've posed the question many times without a response, but I'll try again. What is an assault rifle and why is it more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle?

 

It's a debate and I'm open to it. I pistol on your belt fine. 'shotgun in house fine. Automatic weapons not fine. Semiauto not fine. Hunting...protection...that's what guns do in our society.

[Joe Miner]

It's a debate and I'm open to it. I pistol on your belt fine. 'shotgun in house fine. Automatic weapons not fine. Semiauto not fine. Hunting...protection...that's what guns do in our society.

 

Semiauto is apparently a big word. You should learn what it means before you use it.

 

Because your use of that word makes no sense in conjunction with your pistol and shotgun comments.

[Rob's House]

It's a debate and I'm open to it. I pistol on your belt fine. 'shotgun in house fine. Automatic weapons not fine. Semiauto not fine. Hunting...protection...that's what guns do in our society.

The reason I ask is the previous assault weapon ban that expired last decade banned scary looking guns but while still allowing rifles that were functionally the same. But if you're for banning semi-auto rifles across the board, I may not agree with it, but at least you're consistent.

[dayman]

The reason I ask is the previous assault weapon ban that expired last decade banned scary looking guns but while still allowing rifles that were functionally the same. But if you're for banning semi-auto rifles across the board, I may not agree with it, but at least you're consistent.

 

 

I'm on sleeping pills falling asleep so hard to type. Just saying bad for sale and ownership the ridiculous guns.Best approach imo

[truth on hold]

@ TNB your goal of finding a solution to the unacceptable tragedy in Colorado, resolving seemingly wide differences among others in the process, is certainly unimpeachable. But given what you've seen here from the likes of Rob, DC, Meazza, Dev, Tasker, 3rdinning, Joe miner, tomato can, OCinBuffalo, b-man, swede316 and others (God willing its one poster with pseudonyms and not realy a dozen crazies), do you honestly believe they have any legitimate interest in finding a solution that may very well require giving up their guns? The only instrument to directly cause death to 12 innocent people, including a 6 year old girl the mother of whom lies in critical condition in a hospital bed with a bullet lodged in her neck that may very well paralyze her. So sad.

 

I will once again post a brief video of the victims, since preventing more of the same is what everyone should use as the vastly superior objective, subordinating all others. I also repost in the hope that at least some others will review it since it garnered no attention the first time.

 

So let's all pause for a moment and watch ........

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkizach0VvU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... thank you and welcome back.

 

Now can we possibly see open, caring minds from the aforementioned crew, committed to finding a better way? Or more of the same vague unsupported philosophical statements about "individual freedom", absurd claims that weapon capacity has no bearing on attack severity, that regulation has no place in crime prevention, and the alleged cast in stone tablet permanence of constitutional rights. Well the constitution can and has been amended, a total of 27 times. Amazingly overlooked is the "Right to Bear Arms" istelf was an Amendment!!!

 

And of course to a man, all of them are quick draw on name calling, typically followed by ganging up to collectively deliver further slander and meaningless, worn out sarcasm.

 

So I apologize if at times I allow myself to seemingly stoop to their level. On one hand it's a matter of trying to bring some levity to the unbearable contrast of those 12 innocent victims, the dozens of other wounded and all of their families, versus the callous disregard shown here for their suffering and the safety of the remaining civilian population, somehow justified by this most disturbing gun ownership obsession.. On the other hand it's another, albeit cruder, attempt at drawing them into a more serious, open and constructive discussion. For when all civil means of discourse are rejected, even after humanizing the victims with real names, faces and life stories, what else can one do but attempt to reach them at their level?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

It's a debate and I'm open to it. I pistol on your belt fine. 'shotgun in house fine. Automatic weapons not fine. Semiauto not fine. Hunting...protection...that's what guns do in our society.

 

Which brings me to ask two questions:

1) "Not fine"...is better defined. As a statement of personal opinion, I can accept it. If you want to convince me to put limits on the Second Amendment, I need a lot more.

2) Semi-auto not fine? That's curious to me. Auto, I can accept (perhaps even agree with...though for a variety of reasons I'm conflicted.) Semi-auto is a significantly greyer area, though, as you're basically saying "Guns that fire as fast as you can pull the trigger" are verboten.

 

@ TNB your objective of finding a solution to the unacceptable tragedy in Colorado, in part by resolving differences among those with different points of view, is certainly unimpeachable. But given what you've seen here from the likes of Rob, DC, Meazza, Dev, Tasker, 3rdinning, OCinBuffalo and others, do you honestly believe they have any legitimate interest in finding a solution that would require giving up their guns? The only instrument to directly cause death to 12 innocent people, including a 6 year old girl the mother of whom lies in critical condition in a hospital bed with a bullet lodged in her neck that may very well paralyze her. So sad.

 

I will once again post a brief video of the victims, since preventing more of the same is what everyone should be hold as a vastly superior objective, subordinating all others.

 

I also post again in the hope that at least some others will review it since it garnered no attention the first time.

 

So let's all pause for a moment and watch ........

 

 

youtube.com/watch?v=jkizach0VvU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... thank you and welcome back.

 

Now can possibly we see open, caring minds from the aforementioned crew, committed to finding a better way? Or more of the same vague unsupported philosophical statements about "individual freedom", absurd claims that weapon capacity has no bearing on crime severity and the iron-clad protection of constitutional rights. Well the constitution can and has been amended, a total of 27 times. Amazingly overlooked is the "Right to Bear Arms" istelf was an Amendment!!!

 

And of course to a man, all of them are quick draw on name calling, typically followed by ganging up to collectively deliver further slander and meaningless, worn out sarcasm.

 

So I apologize if at times I allow myself to seemingly stoop to their level. On one hand it's a matter of trying to bring some levity to the unbearable contrast of those 12 innocent victims, the dozens of other wounded and all of their families, versus the callous disregard for their suffering and the safety of the remaining civilian population expressed here so often. On the other hand it's another, albeit cruder, attempt at drawing them into a more serious, open and constructive discussion. For when all civil means of discussion are rejected, what else can one do but attempt to reach them at their level?

 

"Waaaah! I'm too big a numbskull to discuss things with people who think I'm a numbskull! Waaaaah!" Are we being stomped? Is this stomping? 'Cause I don't feel stomped.

 

You really are an idiot. Sometimes, it's not just a meme.

[B-Man]

@ TNB your goal of finding a solution to the unacceptable tragedy in Colorado, resolving differences among those with different points of view along the way, is certainly unimpeachable. But given what you've seen here from the likes of Rob, DC, Meazza, Dev, Tasker, 3rdinning, OCinBuffalo and others, do you honestly believe they have any legitimate interest in finding a solution that would require giving up their guns? The only instrument to directly cause death to 12 innocent people, including a 6 year old girl the mother of whom lies in critical condition in a hospital bed with a bullet lodged in her neck that may very well paralyze her. So sad.

 

 

Re-read your statement and tell me where your incredulity comes from ?

 

You feign surprise that the other posters won't agree with a "solution" that takes away their guns, when apparently that is the only "interest' that you offer.

 

Law abiding people should give up their defense and their guns , so that these tragedies won't re-occur, says anyone with an "open, caring mind"like yourself.

 

Self-righteousness like that doesn't help convince anyone...............sorry.

 

.

[Chef Jim]

He's losing his mind.

 

Kind of reminding me of Booster when he'd go off his meds.

[meazza]

My link Edited July 24, 2012 by meazza

[/dev/null]

Where did Holmes get the money to buy all this artillery?

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/

[OCinBuffalo]

LOL. Stop going on retarded rants. Patrol cops in most jurisdictions don't carry them. That's just a fact. Obviously the department has them, and issues them to certain officers for use in certain situations. I'm glad you think of yourself as a semi-auto owning man under attack just trying to out arm the criminal syndicate who get limitless weapons direct from Russia (and there's nothing we can do about it lol). And I'm glad you would get into a knife fight with a retarded bum for $8. Congrats on your manhood. We'll just have disagree that there's nothing America can do to keep unreasonably deadly weapons off the streets. It's pretty obvious to me that we don't need ridiculous guns for sale at your neighborhood yahoo factory. I suppose I can understand why you feel the way you do...if I look at it from the premise that you think there are mobs of criminals ready to attack your home with automatic weapons...I don't think there are for me...and everyone I know that carries a gun isn't walking around with a semi-auto ready to get in an arms race with the Russians anyway so it won't help anyone in public. Either way I could care less about your opinion so stop posting like such a maniac. I get it. You want everyone to have the most firepower possible. It's a retarded position. But you can take it if you want.

I don't own any weapons. Last time I'm saying it. However, I have actually gained proficiency in them. So, unlike you, my position is based on truth, and not assumption.

 

The only reason the bum thinks he can get anything from anybody with a knife...is people like you who allow it. That's they way it is, own it. Whenever you get done talking, this truth will remain, unaffected.

 

I don't "feel" anything. That is the primary difference here: what I say is based on what I know(and have lived), not opine, or wish. Liberals do the "feeling". It's not always bad. But, when we are talking about something as important as weapons...there is no place for feelings.

 

Perhaps you should go find out a few things...rather than feeling your way through them, or ignoring the experience of others for no other reason than you can't conceive of it. Perhaps you should go live in a place like Texas, where there is no doubt that people are armed to the teeth because they have to be, because there are very real people with very real automatic weapons who conduct business 100 yards away(easily within rifle range).

 

But that's the fundamental problem here, isn't it? You want to base everyone's life...on what you feel, or what works for you. Re-read what you wrote above...it's there in black and white. If you have never personally experienced it, it doesn't exist for you, and you think it's OK to map your experience onto everybody else. Your use of the word "me" in the above tells us all we need to know.

 

I have news: That's not how we do things in this country. Wise up. You live a ridiculous, naive existence. And yeah, other people are responsible for allowing it to exist. If you can't grow up, and realize that your cozy little life is not the only form of existence in this country, then at least...shut up. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Jim in Anchorage]

O'Reilly get's facts all wrong.

Apparently I can buy bazooka's and machine gun's with no Fed involvment. If you where make a statement to millions of viewers would you not do a little research?

[DC Tom]

Where did Holmes get the money to buy all this artillery?

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/

 

A neurosciences student getting a neurosciences grant? That's news?

 

I mean, yeah, I guess it's bigger news than "Shooter has the same name as someone who's a Tea Party member," but still...

[truth on hold]

Where did Holmes get the money to buy all this artillery?

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/

So whats the takeaway here with this new information? That there's no connection to guns, but there is to education grants? You've established this as fact, or because your philosophy leads you to conclude guns can't be the problem because its an individuals right, whereas grants must be a factor because its government funding?

 

And Dingleberry Tom you have a lot of nerve busting on him for this idiotic bias error. you defend corrupt corporate practise across the board because its "private sector." You're only intervening here because you probably had some grant benefits too. Same motivation for carving out budget exceptions for defense, appears as though you benefit there too.

 

You have idiocy in common with dev while adding self serving hypocrisy.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

And Dingleberry Tom you have a lot of nerve busting on him for this idiotic bias error. you defend corrupt corporate practise across the board because its "private sector." You're only intervening here because you probably had some grant benefits too. Same motivation for carving out budget exceptions for defense, appears as though you benefit there too.

 

 

Is this the "Type random **** and hope something sticks" method of internet debate? This makes no sense whatsoever, and as a characterization of my beliefs as expressed in my posting is almost exactly unlike everything I've ever said.

 

Really, if you're going to "stomp" me, then stomp ME, not some fictitious caricature of me you have half-formed in your deranged little mind that has absolutely no basis in reality.

[B-Man]

So is anything they reported about the shooting accurate ?

 

TacticalGear.com filled an order received on July 2 from Holmes, who allegedly opened fire inside an Aurora, Colo., theater on Friday, killing 12 people. Holmes paid $306.79 for an urban assault vest, two magazine pouches and a tactical knife.

 

Chief Executive Officer Chad Weinman said despite its name, the urban assault vest is not bulletproof, but is simply a vest made for carrying accessories.

 

S.F. Chronicle

 

.

[truth on hold]

 

Is this the "Type random **** and hope something sticks" method of internet debate? This makes no sense whatsoever, and as a characterization of my beliefs as expressed in my posting is almost exactly unlike everything I've ever said.

 

Really, if you're going to "stomp" me, then stomp ME, not some fictitious caricature of me you have half-formed in your deranged little mind that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Right, like this ditty from the currently active righty Obama beat-down thread:

 

Rob, on 17 July 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

You didn't take that ****. Someone else made it happen.

 

DC Tom, reply:

 

Probably the corn farmers. Which is why our tax dollars go to their subsidies.

 

--------

 

So here you are defending education grants cuz you drank at that trough, while at the time same bitching about farm subsidies.

 

 

Some further musings from Tom and other members of the TBD Alamo (with helpful imagery):

 

ROB'S GUN HOUSE: "That emotionally weak liberal JFK got it wrong trying to lecture us about freedom and responsibility. Instead of telling people to ask themselves what they should be doing for their country, should have been telling them to ask what they can do for their country with their guns."

 

DEV/BRAIN/NULL&VOID: "If guns don't kill people, but people kill people, that means we can all have nukes too. Works for me, so long as they ain't buying nukes with food stamps."

 

DINGLEBERRY TOM IN HIS OFFICE: "If they didn't want to run the risk of being shot in a theatre, why did they go to a theatre in the first place? Idiots "

Edited July 25, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[meazza]

Hey Joe, seriously you need help.