backtop


Print 138 comment(s) - last by softbatch.. on Mar 19 at 4:05 PM

Curtis Reeves' son arrived at the theater and heard the shooting; he tried to save the man his father shot

In January, Chad Oulson was texting his daughter during the previews of a matinee screening of the movie Lone Survivor when Curtis Reeves, a former Tampa police officer, appeared to take umbrage to his typing.  The pair got into an argument.  Mr. Reeves pulled out a handgun, which he used to shoot and kill Mr. Oulsen.  Mr. Oulsen's wife's hand was also injured in the shooting.

This week a bit of irony emerged in court.  It appears that Mr. Reeves himself had been texting his son, Matthew Reeves, right before the argument occurred to indicate where he was seated. When his son arrived several minutes later, he heard the gunfire.

He arrived to find his father had shot a stranger.  He tried to save his life by pressing his shirt to stop the bleeding, but sadly Mr. Oulsen died.  Pasco County Sheriff's detective Aaron Smith recounted this scene in court this week, commenting, "Matthew said he did not see the shot directly, but the noise and light drew his attention to the top row of seats."

Curtis Reeves
Curtis Reeves, a former cop, shot and killed a father for texting, but he was also texting.
[Image Source: AP]

Curtis Reeves is being charged in Florida court with second degree murder and aggravated battery, charges that could earn him up to 25 years in prison.

Source: Associated Press



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So it turns out...
By SublimeSimplicity on 3/14/2014 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 5
He's not the vigilante of manors, fighting against the rise of social decay, but rather just a crazy old man... shocker.




RE: So it turns out...
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2014 2:59:53 PM , Rating: 3
Is there anyone out there who shoots innocent people who isn't crazy?

The answer. No.


RE: So it turns out...
By Flunk on 3/14/2014 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 1
A good argument as for why we need background checks when people purchase guns.


RE: So it turns out...
By Argon18 on 3/14/2014 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 1
Right. We also need background checks at Bed Bath and Beyond for all those sharp kitchen knives. And at Sports Authority, can't have criminals buying Baseball Bats after all. And lets not forget the liquor store too. You wouldn't want a convicted DUI offender buying booze.

Actually, scrap all that, lets just go full Minority Report and arrest people before they've even thought of committing a crime.


RE: So it turns out...
By Cstefan on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: So it turns out...
By blueaurora on 3/14/2014 4:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
I got you back voted again. Would do so 100 times over.


RE: So it turns out...
By FlyBri on 3/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2014 9:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
What's the intended purpose of a knife? To cut. Which can kill.

And it doesn't run out of ammo. Up close, it's just as deadly.


RE: So it turns out...
By Manch on 3/17/2014 12:59:01 PM , Rating: 1
Just because somethings intended purpose isnt to kill doesnt mean it's less deadly, so your cherry picked argument on intent/pupose is invalid.

2012 Muders by weapon:

#1 6371 - Hand Guns
#2 1859 - Firearms (Unkown type)
#3 1643 - Other Weapons (Blunt objects ie bats, liquor bottles, Laptop in the hands of a raging DT reader)
#4 1589 - Knives
#5 678 - Hands, Fists, Feet
#6 322 - Rifles
#7 303 - Shotguns

While handguns are the #1 weapon of choice in murder, you are more likely to be stabbed to death, clubbed, or beat to death, than shot with a rifle (These are those evil military looking weapons!) or a shotgun.

So I dont understand why they want to make me get checked to buy an AR15 to shoot coyotes. YOu with your Bed bath and Beyond ceramic knife set meant for "cutting tomatoes"....right...Ill be keeping my eye on you.....


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 1:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Epic logical failure. Guns like all the other objects you listed are inanimate objects. They are the only ones treated in a schizophrenic manner by clueless people because they base their reaction on purely emotional response. In virtually every other circumstance the object used to harm others is not even considered. Case in point: just recently a drunk scumbag plowed through a crowded area of SXSW festival goers. He drove a Honda Civic. Killed 2 people and injured 23 more. No one started screaming cars must be banned because, you know, that would be idiotic ... Well it's just as idiotic to blame guns for acts of the (few) people misusing them.

First and foremost guns are designed for defense, to defeat an assailant or a group of assailants. That's their primary purpose. Can they be used for other purposes? Sure. Just about any object can be misused. That's the decision of the person acting though.


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/14/2014 7:33:20 PM , Rating: 1
I know i am going to get voted down because i come with inconvenient facts that are different from popular beliefs in the US, and because i am critical of US gun laws.

As a country that has more people in jail then any other country except North Korea, as the hole country is one big jail.
And as a country where the gun related murder rate is only surpassed by country's where there is ethnic cleansing.

I think better background checks is not really a bad thing, also a law against caring a fire weapon on you would not be bad.

I have a gun licenses, and am not allowed to carry a gun in a holster on me other then on the gun range, or during hunting, not even at home am i allowed to do it, as i would get a penalty, and lose my license.

And even off-duty cops are not allowed to carry guns, just only at work.

The saying that ''guns dont kill people'' but ''people kill people'', that is just BS, as people without guns have a hell of lot harder time to kill one other, even with a knife you still have to come up and get personal, what is a hell off a lot harder then pulling a trigger.

So yeah ''guns dont kill people'' they just make it a hell of a lot easier to do it, as they ware primerely made to do so.

So i dont mind having to have a sociological check every 5 years, and every 2y after i am 65, and be not allowed to carry other then the gun range is not so bad if i am a lot saver.


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: So it turns out...
By Schrag4 on 3/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/15/2014 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
Lets just put it simple, murder rate:

US 4.8 per 100,000
UK 1.2 per 100,000.

UK among the most strict gun law in the world, and a total ban on privet owned fire arms.
US among the most slack gun law in the world.

Also the law system and demographic build-up is about the same, the biggest difference i know of between UK and the US is the total ban on guns in the UK, even most police officers dont carry guns, and you only have special officers who are suited to use weapons, and with more training, that use fire weapons, and even they dont carry weapons, but have them in a gun safe, eider in the office or in there car.

Also penalties on fire arms related crime are real high, so criminals also prefer not use them.

quote:
Look, I don't think I will ever need a gun to defend my family. However, there's a slight chance I might.

You know that the change someone gets killed by a family member with that weapon is about 40x(*) higher then that you actually can use it, to defend your home.

Also if there is a home invasion, the chance that some one gets killed rises a lot if firearms are involved.

But sure you can believe all the spin and FUD from the gun lobby, as even Obama there best friend in the last 25 years, gets a bad rap, just because he a democrat, and every time the spit out FUD, gun sales rises.

As a gun owner i have noting against fire arms, but i am also happy with the strict enforcement of the rules we have here, tho last year i needed to upgrade my gun-safe to a type with a 15m time delayed lock, to stop shootings in anger.

And yes about every 2y i get police over to do a unscheduled inspection, and the police is very strict on the rules.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By inighthawki on 3/15/2014 3:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets just put it simple, murder rate:

US 4.8 per 100,000
UK 1.2 per 100,000.

UK among the most strict gun law in the world, and a total ban on privet owned fire arms. US among the most slack gun law in the world.

You don't have any evidence suggesting that the homicide rate and gun ownership are related at all. This is a prime example of "correlation does not prove causation." Please do not provide statistics with a conclusion based on conjecture.


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/15/2014 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 4
Think this graph says it all.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum...

From this article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...

quote:
In the U.S. in 2011, 67 percent of homicide victims were killed by a firearm: 66 percent of single-victim homicides and 79 percent of multiple-victim homicides


One on one or more, guns are the most efficient way to kill people, and they are still getting more efficient, with these new disinter grading bullets that leave horrific wounds.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIY31a7zxytP...

Guns are made to kill people and other living things, piriot, and they are extremely good at it, and people dont really need extended knowledge to use them, its just point and shoot.
Its as hard as taking a picture.

That we use them on shooting ranges for fun, dose not make the less power full, or the power that it gives people, and some times even gets some of them sorta intoxicated with it.

.
But what i really dont understand is why people like you fight my point of view, i am not against guns, i am just against having them in the hands of people that are not mentally fit to have them!

Stricter gun control is not anti guns, its anti gun violence, and stricter handling of them to prevent gun accidents.

Or do you think preventing dead's is not a good thing!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/childr...

Stop being a soundboard of the gun lobby that just wants to sell you more guns, and stop and really think about it!


RE: So it turns out...
By inighthawki on 3/15/2014 7:06:36 PM , Rating: 3
I wasn't against you, I simply pointed out that you made a blanket statement with no evidence. I'd appreciate not being labelled as "pro-guns" or "anti-guns." My stance is somewhat in the middle, but I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter.


RE: So it turns out...
By ppardee on 3/17/2014 8:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
What you really need is a graph with one line that shows what percentage of people who murder people with guns are criminals and another line that shows the number of criminals who obey laws.

If you're going to murder someone, I think the least of your concerns would be violating gun control laws. Chicago and DC have the most strict gun control laws in the country and they also have the highest gun murder rate in the country.

The 9/11 hijackers held an entire plane hostage with a 2-inch razor blade. China has fairly frequent mass stabbings. Sure, a gun would be more convenient, but ask the parents of the murdered children if they are grateful it was a knife instead of a gun that took their baby from them.

Attacking gun ownership is not only ineffective at reducing violent crime (all major non-biased studies show there is absolutely no connection between gun control laws and violent crime) but it reduces the citizens' ability to protect themselves against a tyrannical government while completely ignoring the real cause of the violence. Guns are a tool, nothing more.


RE: So it turns out...
By Spoelie on 3/18/2014 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
Coming back full circle, wouldn't it have been far more likely for the perp to not have carried a gun to something as mundane as going to the movies, if he was not allowed to? And thus not escalated so needlessly/badly?

You can say what you want about criminals *intending* to victimize someone - but I can't see how that justifies the massive damage caused every day by easy access to guns for unsupervised children, short-fused ex-cops out of touch with reality, ... .


RE: So it turns out...
By ammaross on 3/19/2014 9:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because no one is ever likely to need their gun to protect themselves from mass shootings at a theater...


RE: So it turns out...
By Spoelie on 3/18/2014 11:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Coming back full circle, wouldn't it have been far more likely for the perp to not have carried a gun to something as mundane as going to the movies, if he was not allowed to? And thus not escalated so needlessly/badly?

You can say what you want about criminals *intending* to victimize someone - but I can't see how that justifies the massive damage caused every day by easy access to guns for unsupervised children, short-fused ex-cops out of touch with reality, ... .


RE: So it turns out...
By Schrag4 on 3/16/2014 10:48:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You know that the change someone gets killed by a family member with that weapon is about 40x(*) higher then that you actually can use it, to defend your home.


So you must really rail against those people who put a pool in their backyard. According to your precious stats, a child in the US is more than twice as likely to die from accidental drowning in a pool or spa than they are from accidentally being shot in the home.


RE: So it turns out...
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2014 9:02:59 AM , Rating: 3
Yes and where is the most violent crime in America? In places that try to ban guns or otherwise restrict people's ability to have them.

Guns are not the problem. People are.


RE: So it turns out...
By Spoelie on 3/18/2014 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong (I don't see any references), but aren't you confusing cause and effect?

Could it actually be that they're trying to restrict guns in those regions *because* it has the most violent crimes?

If not, can you demonstrate how a restriction on guns actually increases the crime-rate, as you're implying?

Was there an actual shooting somewhere directly caused by someone who was angry he/she was not allowed to buy/carry a gun?


RE: So it turns out...
By ammaross on 3/19/2014 9:39:28 AM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, criminals don't worry about obeying laws; gun control laws or otherwise.

If they want to shoot someone (or simply have a gun to intimidate or prevent getting shot themselves), they'll get a gun (illegally obviously, but that's the point, right?). More gun control laws will simply make it harder/longer for decent people to get a gun. The usual criminal will still buy their firearms from the same source as always (which, contrary to your apparent belief, is NOT the local sporting goods store).


RE: So it turns out...
By softbatch on 3/18/2014 5:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
How about blanket murder rate increases post gun control ...

"...the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/18/2014 6:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
And still they are light years behind the US in murder rate.

Sure there is a increase in murders as the UK has become a much harder country to live in, with unemployment rise, and conflicts between ethnic groups.

And how dose the US stand in comparison to the UK?
Was are a higher or lower increase then in the UK?

This is just cherry picking facts, and then look at The Netherlands, they have no ban, but just very strict control over who is allowed to have firearms at home.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2014 7:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Important to note, in the UK it's statistically not a "murder" until there's a conviction. So unsolved cases of murdered people are magically not murders officially.

In the US a murder is a murder as soon as it happens. We generally don't fudge our numbers.

"The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1] The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.[2]

Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.["


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


RE: So it turns out...
By softbatch on 3/19/2014 4:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's all cherry picking facts.

Russia's murder rate 11.2 in 2009 and semi/full auto firearms are banned. You have to go through a psych check, among other things, to get a pump shotgun.

There is no causal relationship between murder rates and firearm types or ownership.


RE: So it turns out...
By M'n'M on 3/19/2014 12:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets just put it simple, murder rate: US 4.8 per 100,000 UK 1.2 per 100,000.

You should look at your own sources, also from wikipedia, murder rate by gun by state.

MA - 1.8/100K (strictest laws in the nation)
NH - 0.4/100K (loose gun laws)
VT - 0.3/100k (almost no gun laws)

All 3 states are neighbors, enjoy about the same levels of education and income/person (MA having the lead). So there's much more to the story than strict laws, which tend to discourage ownership more than anything else. How about ownership/availability ?

MA - 12.6% (strictest laws in the nation)
NH - 30.0% (loose gun laws)
VT - 42.0% (almost no gun laws)

And CA, tying w/MA for repression of guns ...
CA - 3.4/100K and 21.3% Hmmmm ... maybe it's too much sun ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_U...


RE: So it turns out...
By Jeffk464 on 3/15/2014 4:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a good thing, as now wife who is much smaller than me is much more evenly matched against some thug. I suspect you'll dismiss this since you likely live in a society that frowns on good people fighting for their own lives.


Statistically the biggest threat of violent death to women is the very gun in the house you are talking about. If women are murdered it is overwhelmingly by the dude they are married to or dating.


RE: So it turns out...
By Jeffk464 on 3/15/2014 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
There has been way to much pro gun marketing in the US to ever change people's minds here. The fact is that most Americans really do believe having everybody running around with guns does actually make you safer.


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you just love foreigners that get on this website and a myriad of others every time news about shooting triggers their reflexes (salivating like Pavlov's dogs). They love to make it their business to tell the US how to better run our country. Especially when it comes to firearm ownership which most of them know nothing about except what they learned from movies.

How adorable that you guys (UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, wherever) think your opinion on this issue matters. Rest assured it does not. This is an internal issue to the US. Might as well save some time, quit typing, and get some fresh air or exercise or something. We'll keep our 2nd Amendment thankyouverymuch.


RE: So it turns out...
By Spoelie on 3/18/2014 11:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Especially when it comes to firearm ownership which most of them know nothing about except what they learned from movies.
At least we're not getting shot while watching them.

quote:
Might as well save some time, quit typing, and get some fresh air or exercise or something.
Like going to the movies? And not getting shot?

;)


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/14/2014 8:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe how many of you pat yourselves on the back for bringing up this lame argument.

It is FAR easier to kill with a gun than a knife or a baseball bat. A potential victim only needs to take a step back to get out of deadly range for the latter, and a bystander or two have a good chance of disarming the attacker. A temperamental kid went after my brother with a bat when I was a young teen, and I was able to grab it after a swing without being armed myself. If he had a gun? We'd both be dead.

There's just no comparison.

In this case, the old man would have to wait for the argument to be over, still be mad, pull out the knife, and slice the kid's throat when he wasn't looking. If he instead pulled out the knife in the heat of the argument, the kid would have easily gotten away.

What's more is that an attacker with a knife/bat/fist knows this, and is much less likely to attack. They're high risk weapons.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
Mint according to the FBI, most gun shootings take place at a range of 3 to 6 feet.

From that range, trust me, I can kill you just as easily with a knife. Especially this guy. He was an ex-cop, not some joe blow off the street.

You guys are saying he could have just grabbed the knife and struggled away, well ummm, from that range he could have done the same with the gun. So why didn't he just grab the gun and struggle with the ex-cop?

Because most people aren't trained marshal artists ready to jump into action at a moments notice.

I know you people think if you just took all the guns away crime would vanish. Well...go tell that to the 30 something kids a single knife-wielding guy in China killed when he walked into their school.


RE: So it turns out...
By jtemplin on 3/15/2014 11:54:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
From that range, trust me, I can kill you just as easily with a knife.


So wait...why are you the one doing the killing in your example?


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
It was the royal "I", the hypothetical, not literal....

What was your point?


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/15/2014 2:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that the killer is not you, and not just any ex cop. It's a 70 year old man. If I'm facing him, there's no way in hell that this crazy old man grabs a knife and gives me fatal blow from 3 feet before I take a step back.

If it was a premeditated murder where he slashed my throat while I was watching the movie and didn't see it coming? Sure.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 3:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
In this situation you aren't able to even take a step back, and you probably won't even see it coming.

A dark theater, you're already at your seat, so there's really no way to "step back". And you're in a heated argument so you aren't really thinking about running.

I know you think you're a badass with the reflexes of a cat, but chances are you would just stand there in shock and get stabbed or shot.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/16/2014 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
If we're in the same row, there's no seat in the way to step back, and if we're in different rows, he can't reach me with a knife to begin with. And lighting is plentiful during movie previews.

I don't know what kind of an unathletic slob you are, but I certainly don't need even half my reflexes to see an overweight 70 year old (see the picture) fish for a knife and then avoid his sorry attempts to stab me. This isn't Chuck Norris.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 5:11:09 PM , Rating: 1
Have you seen the statistics on stabbings? If you were even halfway right, hardly ANYONE would fall prey to a knife. They could all just run away, right? Or struggle their way out of it.

The UK banned all guns, great. Now stabbings are so rampant they are seriously trying to ban the kitchen knife!! What's next Mint?


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/17/2014 1:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah lets ban knifes to, as drive by knifing is suds a big problem!

Most people dont have a problem with gun ownership, but the lack of good regulation.

Good regulation would mean for me.

- Al weapons must be registered.
- Anyone that wants a gun permit needs to have a real psych evaluation test.
- Guns need always be in a gun cabinet, with time delay lock.
- All private owned assault weapons should banned.

Sure the gun lobby, they will scream that people have the constitutional "Right to keep and bear arms", but come on that is from a time of militia, and the wild west.

Are people really clamming that its still the wild west and/or there is a need for a militia?

Gun ownership fine, but only for people that are 100% stable, and that will use only use them on the range and for hunting.

Sure there will still be abuse and people killed by them, but with good regulation it could be a hell of a lot less!


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2014 2:07:49 AM , Rating: 1
I'm honestly not interested in what you think about our gun ownership. I don't tell Europe how to regulate it's citizens, don't come here and tell us.

Militia? Nice try. The Supreme Court already ruled long ago that the Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with a militia. It's a guaranteed right for all citizens.

quote:
- Guns need always be in a gun cabinet, with time delay lock.


Yeah I'll be sure to tell the guy breaking in my house to just wait until this "time delay lock" finishes, so I can actually defend myself.

Forget concealed carry, your idea would even make guns useless for home defense!

I don't think your "good" regulation ideas are all that good. Half are unenforceable, and the rest are offensive and prejudiced and would be ruled illegal.


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/17/2014 4:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Forget concealed carry, your idea would even make guns useless for home defense!

Your making the same argument that people made against seat belts, "what if i land in the water", like in most car accidents people land in the water, end even if they do, they are still more likely to survive then without them.

There are at least 40x(*) more family members killed by guns then that the gun was useful for home defense.

So yeah if the cure is worse then the disease, then yeah any logical thinking person would put in laws to protect there citizens from one other and them self.

But what the heck who cares, as laws made based on feelings and fear are always the good ones, instead of ones based on facts.

But hey just keep on spouting the rhetoric and FUD from the gun lobby, because they have no (financial?) interest in keeping gun laws slack.

You just keep making the Taliban happy by killing one and other more.

(*)That was the lowest estimate from a researcher, but no good numbers exist, as there have bin no major independent study on gun ownership and consequences and effects of it bin done for the last 25 years.


RE: So it turns out...
By Manch on 3/17/2014 2:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Because that's how all murders by guns happen! Drive by's

Stop watching gang movies

No, weapons should not be registered. Registration leads to confiscation. See New York, UK, Australia as examples

As a law abiding citizen, no my rights should not be subject to the whim of stat sponsored psychologist. It's all too easy for the state to implement guidelines to gradually strip people of their rights.

Guns should be secured. Time delayed lock? nope. That's just stupid. I've owned guns all my life. never have i went to go get one in anger. If I need my pistol or rifle or shotgun Ill go get it. Not wait 15min for it to unlock.

Here we go with the assault weapons again. Are you referring to the like of an AR15? Do you know what an assault rifle is?

The gun lobby may scream that, but it's the Constitution that guarantees my right, not the NRA or whoever. Last time i checked, boars, snake, mountain lions are just as nasty as they were back then. What does the Militia and the Wild West have anything to do with it?

Here's where the fallacy of good regulation comes into play. Law Abiding citizens that own guns arent the problem. Criminals with illegal firearms, mainly hand guns,not "assault rifles" are the problem.

For the range and for hunting? So not for self defense? Well with your 15min lock I suppose you cant.


RE: So it turns out...
By michael67 on 3/16/2014 1:01:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
From that range, trust me, you can kill just as easily with a knife.

Do you have any idea even how to use a knife, and that a knife is a very up close and personal weapon.

Ware a gun is a very detached weapon, thats for me at least much easier to use.

You must for once really picture your self in your mind, the difference between sticking a knife in someones chest, or shooting a bullet in it with a handgun.

I have learned to kill whit a knife in the army, and during my army survival training, i have killed animals with a knife, and its really a messier way to kill.

Two years ago or so, one of the sheep we have on the family land got hurt, and it needed to put down, and even do i had different types of knives and axes in the tools shed close by, is still went up to the house to get a rifle.

Why, because i really dont like sticking a knife in a living breading animal (let alone a person), it just makes my stomach twist a bit, even recovering corpses from fires or car wrecks gave me a lot less problems (17y volunteer firefighter), ware with the riffle i could kill the animal in a detached manner, something i just can't do with a knife.

Anyone that says guns and knifes are the same, really dont know what they talking about.

Just like a Corvette invites speeding more then a Pinto?, so dose firearms compared to knifes.

quote:
I know you people think if you just took all the guns away crime would vanish. Well...go tell that to the 30 something kids a single knife-wielding guy in China killed when he walked into their school.

You know why he used a knife opposed to a gun, because just like in the UK, the country has a total ban on privet owned fire weapons.

Even vets cant use own riffles or pistols for putting down animals but have to use a special "shooting mask?".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SY-XyFSoSo

quote:
You guys are saying he could have just grabbed the knife and struggled away, well ummm, from that range he could have done the same with the gun.

No what they say is that they can step out of range of a attack, ware with a hand gun, you can never step out of range.

And again, i am not anti fire arms, i just prefer strict rules, to keep them out of the hands of people that should not have them, and also have strict rules how people handle there guns at home, to prevent fire arms accidents and that they cant be used as a weapon of opportunity during domestic fights, by using gun safes with a 15min time delay to open.


RE: So it turns out...
By Manch on 3/17/2014 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
So do you actually go hunting? What happens when you shoot a deer? Do ya shoot him again or do you pull out the knife? Doesnt matter how you kill that animal. Dressing it is going to be messy.

There is a big difference between shooting or stabbing a person and an animal. But for the latter whether I kill it with a rifle,or a bow, its just food.

With regards to your corvette/pinto point. I have a mustang, highly modified that will be the doors off of a lot of cars. I havent had one speeding ticket since I got my first license over 20 years ago. I know plenty of people with prius's or whatever with tickets.

Yall can splt hairs all day long arguing for this or that. It boils down to morals and personal responsibility. Just because you can doesnt mean you should.

I have enough rifles and handguns to go rambo on a small town but i dont nor do i want to. Aside the fact that it's illegal, it's morally reprehensible. My cars fast enough to reduce a 3hr drive to just under and hour and a half but i dont. I go to the track to race. I wont endanger other people on the road just to drive fast. I dont like my boss and I have enough knowledge that i could end him more ways than Bill Murray in Ground Hog Day but I dont.

My point is, over-regulating law abiding citizens does nothing to curb the problem when it's the criminals with their illegal weapons. Concentrate on them and get the F off my back!


RE: So it turns out...
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 11:36:12 AM , Rating: 1
"If he had a gun? We'd both be dead."
Hmmm probably only one of you would be dead....you.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 3:23:37 PM , Rating: 5
He was a cop for crying out loud. From what it looks like, he was discharged or left the force on good standing. What good would a background check have done him?

None.


RE: So it turns out...
By DT_Reader on 3/14/2014 3:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't need a background check. As a former police officer, under Federal law (thus no state law can prevent it) he's allowed to conceal carry anywhere he wants, with the possible exception of on an airplane, for the rest of his life. That's right - 98 year old former cops are allowed to conceal carry anywhere they want, under Federal law. Better be nice to that grumpy guy in the nursing home when you go visit Grandma - he may be packing for all you know.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 4:23:51 PM , Rating: 1
"Crazy people are crazy"

Yup, and you cant legislate it away. If it isnt a gun, its a blade, poison, pipe bomb, hell, even a pressure cooker. Crazy is crazy and it will find a way to be crazy.


RE: So it turns out...
By kmmatney on 3/14/2014 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
This guy probably wasn't crazy - it was just a situation that got out of hand, and he happened to have a gun. That Florida guy who shot the kid for playing loud music probably wouldn't have said anything (to start that situation) if he didn't have a gun on him either. It's not about being crazy, this was just a situation that escalated, and when someone has a gun this is what happens.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 3
No, it is NOT what happens. Carrying a weapon is a huge responsibility, as most who do will tell you. It is a selfless act of volunteering yourself to protect others.

I know PLENTY of owners who carry that have been in tense situations that did not escalate to shooting. Please refrain from using a blanket statement here. Things like this do not have to happen if the one carrying the weapon has a level head--and most of them do.


RE: So it turns out...
By sgw2n5 on 3/14/2014 5:54:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Carrying a weapon is a huge responsibility, as most who do will tell you. It is a selfless act of volunteering yourself to protect others.


I'd be willing to bet people would be very uncomfortable around you if they knew that you saw yourself as some selfless protector of society... and were packing.

You sound a little unhinged to me.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 10:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You sound a little unhinged to me.


I'm sorry you feel that way. Honestly I don't care how people feel around me. And frankly, living in the South, most people appreciate it--those who I talk to and know.

I have a wife and daughter to care for. I'd rather have the tool in an emergency than not have one.


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/15/2014 8:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
I am not afraid. I would hang.

Some people just shouldn't leave the house, because they might get hit by a car, or blown up by a terrorist at the mall, or shot by an angry man in a theater. By all means people if fear rules your lives, just stay home. Life is dangerous. You think it's bad now, try 500 years ago where someone might put a sword through your gut for looking at his wife, or the church might torture you for believing differently than they do. Try 20,000 years ago where you might get eaten at any given moment.


RE: So it turns out...
By Jeffk464 on 3/15/2014 4:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd be willing to bet people would be very uncomfortable around you if they knew that you saw yourself as some selfless protector of society... and were packing.


Yup, I'm not at all comfortable with a bunch of people running around with concealed carry permits. The cops are bad enough at shooting unarmed people under questionable situations, why should we trust Joe Blow.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 10:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yup, I'm not at all comfortable with a bunch of people running around with concealed carry permits.


Then move out of the country.


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
It is fortunate then that civil rights are not subject to your comfort level.


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
Says the guy anonymosly insulting people on an internet forum...

I guess it depends on your definition of "unhinged". My definition includes people who wish to deny Constitutionally protected civil rights based on their *feelings*.


RE: So it turns out...
By FaaR on 3/14/2014 6:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a selfless act of volunteering yourself to protect others.

Lol wut!

A person with a gun is (far) more likely to kill either himself or deliberately or by acceident, a member of his own family, than ever acting in defense of himself or others.

I understand you love your cold, dead hunks of iron, but no matter how much you jump to their defense they won't ever love you back. Sorry.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 10:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but no matter how much you jump to their defense they won't ever love you back. Sorry.


That is the selfless part.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 8:02:04 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A person with a gun is (far) more likely to kill either himself or deliberately or by acceident, a member of his own family, than ever acting in defense of himself or others.


That is a purely ignorant statement, in fact, it's an outright lie.

There's a handful of accidental shootings a year, compared to the total number of gun owners, a statistical anomaly.

quote:
I understand you love your cold, dead hunks of iron, but no matter how much you jump to their defense they won't ever love you back. Sorry.


Oh how catchy your trolling is. You must proud.


RE: So it turns out...
By Solandri on 3/15/2014 4:49:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A person with a gun is (far) more likely to kill either himself or deliberately or by acceident, a member of his own family, than ever acting in defense of himself or others.

The exact stat is that a gun in the home is more likely to kill or injure a family member than an intruder. Unfortunately as a comparison statistic, it has two flaws which leave enough uncertainty that you can't draw a conclusion.

1) It ignores intruders who fled who were shot at but weren't hit, or who fled at the mere sight of an armed homeowner (assuming they wouldn't have fled if there had been no gun - a somewhat dubious supposition). Deaths and injuries are tracked because there's an associated hospital visit and frequently a police report. Nobody records stats on intruders driven off.

2) It attributes the domestic violence to the gun, when in fact it's the other way around and the gun was used due to domestic violence. To correctly incorporate gun-related domestic violence stats in the comparison, you need to compare to how many extra injuries and deaths were caused by there being a gun in the home. That is, you first figure out how many domestic violence injuries and deaths there would be if there were no guns, and subtract those from the stats when there is a gun. That gives you the number of domestic violence injuries and deaths which happened only because a gun was available. Then compare only those extra domestic violence injuries/deaths to number of intruders killed/injured/driven away. i.e. It's unfair to attribute domestic violence injuries/deaths to a gun if they would've happened anyway without the gun.

Regardless, before you go nuts crunching the numbers like this, understand the most dangerous thing in your house is your car. Improved road and vehicle safety is a much higher priority than gun control. Or at least it should be.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/14/2014 6:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt he's implying that everyone with a gun will use it in tense situations.

The problem is not when people with a level head are allowed to conceal and carry. It's when everyone is allowed, even if they have to go through some token process.

There's simply no way to tell if that person is of the few percent with a bad temper who will do something stupid if something sets him off. These people can be perfectly normal 99.99% of the time, but one bad minute out of 10,000,000 and we'll regret that he had a gun on him.

Prior to the shooting, do you think this man unjustifiably escalated to shooting in the previous 50 years of his life? How many hundreds of people would vouch for him just like you are doing for the plenty of people you know?


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2014 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 1
Anti gun ownership, from the guy who thinks he's not a Liberal, big surprise Mint.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/15/2014 2:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
When did I say I'm not a liberal?

It's hilarious how utterly incapable your brain is of grasping the notion that not everything is black and white.

You want to know what my take is on guns in the US? It's beyond repair. Guns are so ubiquitous that the prevailing mentality from citizens and criminals alike is shoot or be shot. There is no path to any sort of gun control legislation that will change this, so I just don't see the point. I'm not a fan of conceal and carry, but eliminating it wouldn't have much impact, IMO.

Put another way, I'd vote for a pro-nuclear, pro-gun politician than one against both, all else being equal (which it isn't, unfortunately, as there isn't much choice).

The only thing I really want to change is the standard of evidence for self-defense laws. I think it's disgusting that there can be hard proof you killed someone, and all you need is a story and a superficial bruise to get away with murder.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 3:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did I say I'm not a liberal?


You spend an awful lot of time trying to convince me you're not.

Inside of every Liberal, is a Totalitarian screaming to get out. I'm proud of my Ideology and don't hide it. You should just be honest.

You hate America as it was intended by the Founders, and view the Constitution as a hurtle that must be climbed or bypasses in order to get your way.

quote:
I think it's disgusting that there can be hard proof you killed someone, and all you need is a story and a superficial bruise to get away with murder.


Typically Liberal. Yeah Zimmerman should have waited until he was knocked unconscious and had his gun taken from him. THAT would have worked out much better.

That trial was a slam dunk, the only people who didn't comprehend that it was clearly a justified shooting was idiotic race-baiting Liberals like yourself.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/16/2014 3:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've never spend a minute convincing anyone I'm not a liberal.

I reply to your countless lies and point out your BS. You think I'm an extreme environmentalist when I've consistently been against large scale solar and wind, against action on AGW, pro-nuclear, pro-Keystone, etc. I challenge you to prove any of this wrong.

I hate the America that YOU want, not the democratically flexible nation that its founders envisioned and implemented.

quote:
Typically Liberal. Yeah Zimmerman should have waited until he was knocked unconscious and had his gun taken from him.
Where's the proof that his testimony was nothing more than a story? This isn't about him. It's about the precedent.

Someone could shoot me, scratch his face to claim a conflict, and even when the police have indisputable proof that he killed me, he walks and gets called a hero by people like you.

This is the opposite of the philosophy behind "an armed society is a polite society" mentioned by the pro-gun crowd, or mutually assured destruction. Instead of discouraging people from firing the first shot, it outright encourages it.

quote:
Yeah Zimmerman should have waited until he was knocked unconscious and had his gun taken from him.
Hilarious. In this same thread we have pro-gun people lamenting a Minority Report future where gun owners are convicted before committing a crime.

Yet you have no issue sentencing a teen to death for knocking a man unconscious and taking his gun before even coming close to doing it.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 5:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Everything you know about the Zimmerman trial was a lie told by MSNBC and ABC who race baited and stirrup up civil unrest for media ratings.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15...

Zimmerman suffered significant injuries in a struggle for his life. He felt his life was threatened, and he defended himself. The law is the law, and you're all about laws aren't you Mr. Leftist?

quote:
Someone could shoot me, scratch his face to claim a conflict, and even when the police have indisputable proof that he killed me, he walks and gets called a hero by people like you.


You're such a complete idiot. You think the police can't do the basic forensic work and see the wounds were self-inflicted. Yeah, scratch yourself lol. Brilliant!

I supposed Zimmerman bruised Treyvon's knuckles himself, right? Bruising that was completely consistent with someone punching another person.

quote:
Yet you have no issue sentencing a teen to death for knocking a man unconscious and taking his gun before even coming close to doing it.


So wait, let me get this straight here. You believe if you own a gun, you no longer have the right to defend yourself?

You Liberals live on another plane of reality, you really do. This is the completely backwards way of looking at the issue, hell you're backwards on EVERY issue.

You have NO right in this country to assault another person. This is amazing. You honestly think it's perfectly fine that someone be physically assaulted and NOT able to defend themselves. Nay, it's actually some travesty when they do!

quote:
Where's the proof that his testimony was nothing more than a story?


I guess since we're being "democratically flexible", you're willing to throw out our most sacred legal doctrine as well. Innocent until proven guilty; ring a bell?

Don't shed a tear for Treyvon, I'm sure he's in a better place. He would probably be in jail by now anyway, with the rest of his ilk.

(hehe that aught to burn your Liberal sensibilities)


RE: So it turns out...
By M'n'M on 3/19/2014 2:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's simply no way to tell if that person is of the few percent with a bad temper who will do something stupid if something sets him off. These people can be perfectly normal 99.99% of the time, but one bad minute out of 10,000,000 and we'll regret that he had a gun on him.

And I could say the same thing about people, driving and road rage. Except I've never had someone shoot at me and there are 3 times that I can recall where, had I not taken drastic action, the raging idiot would have hit me. That's not counting the numerous times of petty road rage. Should people have some pysch eval before getting their driver's license ? How long would you, in real life not TV life, have to be under observation in order for a doctor to sign off (and risk being sued if he's ever wrong) ? Are you presently under "care" of such a doctor ? Would you even know who to call should such a requirement become law ?

Now ask yourself what's more likely to kill or injure you;
- some loose nut w/a gun
- some road-rager
- some drunk driver
- someone texting/eating/reading/etc while driving

Where should the real focus be for the average (non-gangmember) Joe ? The reality is you can't be perfectly safe from other people. It's a waste of time trying to be.

To be safe from drunk drivers should you campaign for a return to Prohibition ? (nope, 'cuz you likely like your martinis) Hey how about this ... since most drunk drivers kill themselves, perhaps you should run down, spend a few hundred $$s and have an ignition interlock put on your own car ? It's the commonsense, responsible thing to do to save both you and I from the possibility of you being DUI. I'm not banning alcohol so it's a fair compromise. Yes ???

People are all for animal sacrifice to appease the volcano god ... until it's their goat.


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 6:26:35 PM , Rating: 1
"This guy probably wasn't crazy - It's not about being crazy, this was just a situation that escalated, and when someone has a gun this is what happens."

OK, "crazy" may not be the right word. The guy has a history of temper issues on the force, as well as after retiring. Clearly he has "anger management" issues. You don't shoot people over texting, even if they get all up in your face. No, I take that back, he's crazy.

What if you and I got into it and I had a gun. I asked you to stop texting during my movie, you are harshing my movie buzz and you got pissed off at my claim and got in my face, so I shoot you and you die... Is it really "just because I had a gun on me" ? No, as a gun owner I need to be extra aware of myself and NOT allow myself to get angry and NOT to let my temper get the best of me. This guy has issues and deserves what is coming to him - jail.


RE: So it turns out...
By sgw2n5 on 3/14/2014 5:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
What is it like to live in so much fear that you feel the need to carry a handgun around with you? Is it tiring?

I'm not anti-gun... I own several firearms myself (avid hunter), but I just don't get why some people feel like they need to be armed at all times.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 7:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is it like to live in so much fear that you feel the need to carry a handgun around with you? Is it tiring?


Tell that to the women who were raped. The man who was beat up by a gang. The young couple who live in a bad neighborhood etc etc.

You're being stupidly myopic if you think there's no reasons for concealed carry in a country with crime like ours.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/15/2014 2:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
Atlanta is a nasty city. We have good areas and really bad areas. I'd rather have it than not. I don't carry it everywhere but I have the option, should I decide I want to exercise it.

Living in fear is screaming for more police everywhere--something like a police state. Taking care of yourself is living proud, free and strong.


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
So, it's not for you then. You still don't get to deny it for those who want to exercise their right to bear arms. Yes you are anti-gun, don't kid yourself. Just because you own guns (if you even really do) it does not mean you are not anti-gun, especially since you argue against concealed carry. No one is fooled by your non-logic.


RE: So it turns out...
By M'n'M on 3/19/2014 2:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not anti-gun... I own several firearms myself (avid hunter), but I just don't get why some people feel like they need to be armed at all times.


People have different risks vs other people, and evaluate those risks differently. For some it's just a safe habit, like putting on your seat belts. You do that, don't you ? How many accidents have been in ? Likely not one where belted vs unbelted made any difference. And yet you still buckle up ? Why ?


RE: So it turns out...
By FaaR on 3/14/2014 6:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
An armed society is a society where you're (more) likely to get shot for the smallest slight. This reflects in US murder rate statistics.

Also, murricans are no more polite than people of any other nation I've met or been (arguably less so in certain cases.)

If that old geezer had pulled a knife, chances are the father would have been able to overpower him before sustaining life-threatening injury. Knives are, after all, a lot less deadly than handguns, and tasers are extremely rarely fatal. Barring freak occurrences of heart problems, basically you'd have to fall and strike your head to die from getting tased, but how you'd manage that when sitting in a movie theatre chair I don't understand.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 7:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that old geezer had pulled a knife, chances are the father would have been able to overpower him before sustaining life-threatening injury. Knives are, after all, a lot less deadly than handguns


AHAHAHA!!

You watch WAY too many movies. That isn't how it works in real life.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_Chi...

A knife can be every bit as deadly as a handgun.


RE: So it turns out...
By FlyBri on 3/14/2014 6:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There usually is great truth to this proverb: "An armed society is a polite society."
Really? Well there are facts and statistics to show bans and other tougher gun controls actually produce a polite society - no proverb needed there. The U.S. already has 300 million guns, and in many areas it's far from "polite"

And seriously, what is with this insanely weak argument that keeps popping up:
quote:
If that cop didn't have a gun, he might have gotten in a physical altercation, pulled out a taser or even a knife. Crazy people are crazy, no matter what kind of weapon they do or don't have.
Yes, if he didn't have a gun, he might have had a Taser or a knife. EXACTLY. I'd take that ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over a crazy person with a gun. Because with a knife or a Taser you have a MUCH GREATER CHANCE OF NOT DYING. Also, you do know you can train to learn how to disarm someone with a knife, right? I don't care how good you are at disarming people, if a crazy person with a gun is at any kind of distance, they can shoot you dead. Period.

Seriously, how the hell do people like you not see the HUGE DIFFERENCE between a knife and a gun? Can it not be any more obvious? This country is really starting to scare me with all the ignorance I've been seeing, hearing, and reading the last few years.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/15/2014 2:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? Well there are facts and statistics to show bans and other tougher gun controls actually produce a polite society - no proverb needed there. The U.S. already has 300 million guns, and in many areas it's far from "polite"


Uh, well, in those not so "polite" areas it is usually the criminals and thugs with all the weapons. So you trust them? You think they'll keep you safe? You think the police will protect you? No.

Also, there is strong statistical proof that communities who require residents to own guns have significantly lower crime rates.

This isn't something that can be disputed. It is fact. Criminals go the path of least resistance. If they know a town has guns everywhere, they'll move on and find easier prey.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

quote:

ignorance


Ignorance is pretending you'll be safe with a frying pan and when you call 911, the cops will show up immediately. Truth is you won't... and they won't.

The shooter in this article deserves to go to jail. He was deranged. Taking a gun away from a deranged person doesn't make them less deranged.

How about instead, you spend all your venom on fighting our absurd criminal justice system and lack of mental health care. I'd say a good 30-50% of inmates could use mental health services. Of that number, many of them would probably be better served in a mental health institution.

America is a sick country. Too many people are doped up on antidepressants, amphetamines and narcotics to overcome this problem or that. The true solution is helping to teach them how to cope and that can only be done through proper therapy and treatment--not drugs.

You also can't throw them all in jail, either. Jail just hardens people instead of rehabilitating them.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/16/2014 3:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about instead, you spend all your venom on fighting our absurd criminal justice system and lack of mental health care.
...
You also can't throw them all in jail, either. Jail just hardens people instead of rehabilitating them.

Just out of curiousity, how much of the pro-gun crowd agree with this sentiment in your opinion?

It definitely won't be cheap, and thus quite far from the anti-spending, gov't minimizing mantra of conservatives.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 5:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe America has some disproportionately larger number of mentally ill people compared to any other relative nation.

When someone snaps in America, the world hears about it. When someone snaps anywhere else, it goes unreported. How many people even know Norway was the stage for the most bloody mass shooting in decades? 77 dead! But let someone pull a gun in America, the WORLD talks about it.

Come on, we're supposed to believe America has more problems than anywhere else in every single category? It's just not rationally believable. Yet that's how we're portrayed. I'm honestly getting sick of it.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/16/2014 6:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to leave out that he was sentenced to only 21 years in prison, too! :)


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 6:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wtf really? I didn't know that. Wow. Great justice system there!


RE: So it turns out...
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2014 3:29:12 PM , Rating: 3
I think the others have already proven how dumb this argument was.

Those who show themselves to be crazy, already can't buy guns. Those who want to hurt people with a gun, are going to get one one way or another.


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Those who want to hurt people with a gun, are going to get one one way or another "

Yup, and that is the point all these anti gun people never seem to get. It's not the gun that kills people, its the intent to kill that kills people. Anyone with some cash can get a gun under the radar, and if the intent is to harm someone or commit a crime, they arent going to use thier legally bought traceable gun. Even if there were no gun, a knife, crossbow o many other things can be used. Hell, poison for that matter. Outlawing guns wont do a damn thing. Finding "crazies" before they commit a crazy act is next to impossible as well.


RE: So it turns out...
By FlyBri on 3/14/2014 6:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outlawing guns wont do a damn thing
Really? How about what happened in Australia then? Just based off of that example alone your argument falls apart. Also, how about London? Take a look at their homicide rates compared to cities in the U.S. (especially the statistic on gun-related homicides).

And also, since your argument is that just because someone MAY be able to illegally get a gun, that that means we shouldn't enforce stricter background checks? How ridiculous is that. If you make it that much more difficult to illegally get a gun, trust me, not everyone can or will be able to get one.

Lastly, you said:
quote:
Even if there were no gun, a knife, crossbow o many other things can be used
Right, because a knife and a crossbow can inflict the same damage as a 9mm, shotgun, or rifle. GIVE ME A BREAK. You know what -- If I'm going to be attacked by a person with a weapon, I would MUCH rather they have a knife or a crossbow then a firearm -- I would have a MUCH better chance at surviving and defending myself... if that's not already glaringly obvious. (Oh wait, it wasn't that obvious to you, given your quote).


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 9:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
"How about what happened in Australia then? Just based off of that example alone your argument falls apart. Also, how about London?"

Different countries and different situations. Now, in the USA, there are already guns everywhere. If none were here and they were basically outlawed it may be different, but outlawing it now would be pointless.

"If I'm going to be attacked by a person with a weapon, I would MUCH rather they have a knife or a crossbow then a firearm -- I would have a MUCH better chance at surviving and defending myself..."

Gteat point. You should stay inside your house. ;)


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By Schrag4 on 3/15/2014 11:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
You advocate for the banning of guns and in the very same post you use sarcasm to point out that guns are vastly superior for defending one's self or one's family from an attack. Wow.


RE: So it turns out...
By phatboye on 3/14/2014 11:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the thing pro-Gun people don't get. No one wants to outlaw guns. Plain and simple, we wants common sense things like background checks (you can't even get a drivers license without proving that you can pass a simple vision test), and to outlaw conceal carry and some people wants to outlaw "high powered" riffles (automatics, large magazines, maybe even silencers) but I have not heard of anyone wanting to outright ban guns so please stop saying that.


RE: So it turns out...
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 11:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
Outlawing concealed carry is stupid and likewise rifles as well.

Think about this: Concealed carry prevents people from using their weapon as a means of intimidation. They keep the gun under their clothes, it is not in plain view so they can't "abuse" it. People are actually safer with concealed carry than they are open carry.


RE: So it turns out...
By phatboye on 3/15/2014 7:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I think you misunderstand, most people who want to repeal conceal carry, probably don't want open carry either.


RE: So it turns out...
By rountad on 3/15/2014 1:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2n...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."


RE: So it turns out...
By phatboye on 3/15/2014 7:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
OK, that is the first I've ever heard of that. Still the big thing is more toward regulation that an outright ban.


RE: So it turns out...
By rountad on 3/16/2014 12:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the left is coy about their intentions.

If they didn't pretend to be much more centrist than they are, they would be decimated.

An example off the top of my head is Mondale in the 1984 election. He was upfront about his desire to raise taxes and only won his home state of Minnesota. Even states like NY and California went for Reagan.


RE: So it turns out...
RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by phatboye on March 14, 2014 at 11:12 PM: Here is the thing pro-Gun people don't get. No one wants to outlaw guns. Plain and simple, we wants common sense things like background checks (you can't even get a drivers license without proving that you can pass a simple vision test), and to outlaw conceal carry and some people wants to outlaw "high powered" riffles (automatics, large magazines, maybe even silencers) but I have not heard of anyone wanting to outright ban guns so please stop saying that.

This is the big lie. Either you are naive to the extreme and actually believe this (which makes you clueless) or you knowingly propagate the lie (which makes you a stooge). The movement against legal gun ownership is absolutely about complete disarmament as has been demonstarted time and time again. In the US however they cannot get there in one step so the preferred approach is incremental "salami tactic" to chip away little-by-little. It doesn't matter what the law abiding gun-owning public would accept as a common sense step because there are always new demands. There are already thousands of draconian laws in place that violate the 2nd Amendment but the anti-gun people (as evidenced here) cannot stop talking about more restrictions. It's only common sense you see!


RE: So it turns out...
By Flunk on 3/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: So it turns out...
By Flunk on 3/14/2014 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
That is unless you're claiming that the incidence of mental illness is higher in the USA than in Canada and Europe.

That of course is not true.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 12:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
America has 100 times the population of Canada.

I'm sure we DO have more theater shootings.

Europe? If you're interested in the facts, Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws.

The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.


RE: So it turns out...
By Mint on 3/15/2014 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America has 100 times the population of Canada.

LOL another one of Reclaimer's "facts"...


RE: So it turns out...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/15/2014 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, he's right.


RE: So it turns out...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/15/2014 8:00:36 PM , Rating: 1
Nevermind. Brainfart. It's about 10 times. Fucking reclaimer -_-


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2014 9:28:54 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah cause I was clearly being literal...

Grandiose exaggeration is a powerful debate tool :)


RE: So it turns out...
By just4U on 3/16/2014 1:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
As a Canadian I am not against gun ownership but I do feel that there are far to many of them in the United States and not enough laws regulating them. Things like this shouldn't happen but they do far to often in your country. In mine.. I can think of 3 separate occasions if a gun had been introduced into the mix people would have died. Since none of us had one there was only bruises to show for it.

Owning a gun (for most..) comes with a huge responsibility in my opinion and yet it's so easy to get one in America. Can't really say I agree with that even though I understand most of the reasons why people have them.


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2014 3:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not against gun ownership but I do feel that there are far to many of them in the United States


Contradiction.

quote:
and not enough laws regulating them.


Ignorance. This shooting violated so many laws it would make your head spin. When are you going to learn: laws don't prevent things from happening.

quote:
Things like this shouldn't happen


Yes in an ideal world crimes of passion wouldn't exist. Uhh your point?

quote:
I can think of 3 separate occasions if a gun had been introduced into the mix people would have died.


Speculation. You can't know the future or credibly state what "would" have happened.

quote:
Owning a gun (for most..) comes with a huge responsibility in my opinion and yet it's so easy to get one in America.


This guy was a veteran ex-police officer, not some random guy who "got a gun"...

quote:
Can't really say I agree with that even though I understand most of the reasons why people have them.


It's called the Second Amendment, look it up. It's kind of a big deal.


RE: So it turns out...
By sgw2n5 on 3/14/2014 6:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
So making a firearm more difficult to get via background checks (even though with effort you can get one on the black market) is a waste of time?

Because if something doesn't solve 100% of the problem it isn't worth doing...


RE: So it turns out...
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/14/2014 3:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to his defense,the guy was a police captain in his life. But I still think he is off his rocker to believe he had to shoot an innocent person.


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 3:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
No man, this guy had a history of similar issues and even had temper problems while on the force, several incidents there. He was a ticking time bomb of crazy.


RE: So it turns out...
By pandemonium on 3/15/2014 12:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and no. What we need is less guns. Period.

Example of how that works? Japan. Go educate yourself.


RE: So it turns out...
By Piiman on 3/15/2014 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
why? Do you think this ex cop wouldn't have been able to buy a gun? Fat chance of that!


RE: So it turns out...
By KFZ on 3/15/2014 12:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
There are background checks when you buy a weapon. Even Utah, where they have no need for permits, requires a background check when you buy a weapon.

But even mandatory BGCs on all purchases would solve nothing. It would be like enforcing them for people who legally buy marijuana -- because you know illegal drug trade isn't a thing.

When people cry for BGCs they really mean a national registry. We all know when Windows Genuine Advantage rolled out everyone jumped to make sure their machines were properly licensed and that was the end of piracy.


RE: So it turns out...
By domboy on 3/17/2014 9:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A good argument as for why we need background checks when people purchase guns.


And background checks when people purchase mobile phones with texting capabilites...


RE: So it turns out...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2014 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand what these people think background checks are going to accomplish. This guy was a cop with no record or hint of mental issues.

I don't know any State that doesn't do a criminal record check when purchasing a firearm anyway.

Curious how the Left is so against profiling, yet are here advocating for profiling gun owners. A psych evaluation? That is pure profiling and prejudicial.

You can just imagine how that would play out

Q: Are you angry about our current President?
A: Yes.
Result: Subject displays radical "right wing" extremism, unfit for owning a firearm.


RE: So it turns out...
By MZperX on 3/17/2014 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A good argument as for why we need background checks when people purchase guns.

We already have background checks for gun purchases. Why would you need an arguement for them? You seem confused...


RE: So it turns out...
By BZDTemp on 3/14/2014 7:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Here is a link to an article about the many innocent people killed by US drone strikes: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/09/Inno...

If the practice continues then sometime this year that number will surpass the number of US people killed in the 9/11 attacks.


RE: So it turns out...
By Da W on 3/14/2014 10:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
We should just shoot him. The poor guy's daughter should be given the opportiny if she wishes. Nought said.


RE: So it turns out...
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 3:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
"He's not the vigilante of manors, fighting against the rise of social decay, but rather just a crazy old man... shocker"

That info came out when it happened, or at least a few days later... This guy had been cited on duty for several questionable events, and has had a long history of similar behavior. The only difference this time is the crazy old coot actually fired the gun.


RE: So it turns out...
By purerice on 3/14/2014 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
Not the vigilante of manners, either.


Texting Before Movie
By ViRGE on 3/14/2014 2:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
Not to defend killing someone over texting, but there's a huge difference between texting before the movie, and texting during the movie. When the lights go down, the phones need to go too.




RE: Texting Before Movie
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2014 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: Texting Before Movie
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 3:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. Same holds for talking.

The guy obviously had some chemical imbalances in his brain or other mental/psychological problems. Now he gets to see what it was like for all the "criminals" he put behind bars.

Another cop with a superiority complex. At least this time he's been caught and facing the rest of his life in jail. Too bad it took the life of an innocent to make it happen. Who knows how many people were unjustly incarcerated or worse by this madman.


RE: Texting Before Movie
By retrospooty on 3/14/2014 3:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
There may also be alot to be said for aiming for the foot, as opposed to the Torso ;)


Movie night at home
By ProZach on 3/14/2014 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
As if there wasn't enough reasons to rent films (i.e. a planned intermission via "pause" button), now the guy who gets his panties in a knot to the point of manslaughter/murder actually has no basis of premise-- he himself was also fingering his pocket wocket to a family member in the seating area of the theater. (<powder flash> "Oh, there's dad, he's right over there!")

I actually had followed up this case since the original article and the summary was the ex-cop was unstable.

rant/ As for my comment in the first DT article on this story: some people don't have a sense of humor when it comes to revealing button-men in blue. /rant/




RE: Movie night at home
By purerice on 3/14/2014 4:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe this is humor, too? If so, a little subtle.

True, renting films is safer. I suppose eating frozen CPK is safer than going to CPK, too. If you hole yourself up you'll never get shot until somebody breaks into your house to steal your TV after smelling microwaved CPK.


RE: Movie night at home
By ProZach on 3/14/2014 5:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, there is not much use staying indoors out of fear of angry gun toting losers. Recently a good acquaintance of mine was shot to death in his own residence. A family crisis made him cancel his travel plans, so the grisly irony is he may still be alive if he was out of town when the armed burglar struck.

I actually think going to theaters on a pay-per-view basis is becoming outmoded. If I go visit friends out of town and they suggest going to a theater I will talk them out of it so we can somewhere else, like a park or a pub. At least then we aren't sitting in the dark isolated from interacting during the relatively short time that I'm visiting them.


By Arsynic on 3/14/2014 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Both men were fathers. This reeks of spin to garner sympathy for one side of this gun rights proxy war (another one).




By MrBlastman on 3/14/2014 3:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't a gun rights argument to be made here for or against. The real issue here is America's lack of proper mental health treatment--and our complete ignorance/disdain/acceptance that there is a problem.


By Arsynic on 3/14/2014 3:42:56 PM , Rating: 1
You're such an idealist. I agree with you that this SHOULD be the argument. But it's just another <liberal vs. conservative social cause here> proxy war.


Well
By room200 on 3/14/2014 5:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
Try this on for size:

Man wakes up to see 17 year old boy in his daughter's bedroom. The daughter says that she doesn't know the boy. Turns out later the daughter lied and she had snuck the boy into her bedroom. The dad says that he "saw the boy reach for something". Of course, the kid had no weapon. So now a 17 year old boy is dead and the only one alive to tell the story has no charges filed? Nobody is responsible for this kid's death?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlik...




By Nekrik on 3/14/2014 5:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of why (in his own mind) he did this, the legal/judicial system needs to study the variables that put him in the position to perform this action. Is there not a documented history with the shooter having incidents while on the job? The ability for him to hide behind a wall of blue and not be reprimanded for prior offenses has failed the people he was once there to protect. This is symptomatic of many problems civilians have with LEOs, they know full well they will not be accountable for their actions and operate in a haphazard and careless manner while abusing the powers granted to them. This professional courtesy that protects their own is a very real danger for those on the other side who are unfortunate enough to be in their line-of-site.




He's an Only One...
By mmatis on 3/17/2014 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
so he'll walk just like that murdering swill Officer Manny Ramos in Fullerton, and Lake County Deputy Richard Sylvester and Deland Officer James Harris and thousands of others across this country. The Blue Wall sticks together. The REAL surprise is that they even arrested him in the first place.

And for the jacka$$ pushing background checks, do you REALLY think the Brothers in Blue DOING those checks would not have cleared him? Suck on!




old pr-ick
By SPOOOK on 3/17/2014 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
you dirty old p-rick




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki