Shooting at Dark Knight in CO. What is WRONG with some people?

[Rickster71]

It's not everyday crime that they're concerned about - it's terrorist attacks that they have to be prepared for. And, I think they have a legitimate fear.

The reason for the women being armed isn't at issue.
I was addressing your earlier concerns, of the possible outcome of situations where other Citizens were armed. (not just the assailant)

My point is, now we're able to see in actual practice, (not) 'Pie in the Sky' speculation, the results of an armed citizenry, including collateral damage.

There is an anecdote that comes to mind:
"When seconds count...the police are only minutes away"

I'm glad I don't live in a society where one has enough fear of attack that it justifies carrying a weapon around in public.

I think we all have hopes for what society should be. It just seems that sometimes reality gets in the way.

 

[Rickster71]

IMHO
What I find fascinating about all this, is that it's all a media diversion.
From what the media says; you'd think that the very high cause of death was at the hands of the evil gun.

When you get a chance, Google: "Swimming Pool Drowning Deaths"
Then, Google: "Percentage of car seats installed incorrectly"

It will show the news for the politically correct propaganda it truly is.

 

[GO-NAD!]

"Rule of Law" is only enforceable via an armed populace, G-N.

Regarding creeping tyranny...the current president is the closest thing we've had (with the possible exception of Franklyn D. Roosevelt) to a dictator. He uses "Executive Orders" to wield said powers. Here are a few examples you can google and consider:

New Obama Executive Order Seeks ‘Control’ Over Communications During ‘Crisis’
New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness
Obama Signed Executive Order Declaring War On Iran
Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order: ‘National Defense Resources Preparedness’
Obama’s Latest Executive Order: Martial Law, Confiscation of Private Property and Forced Labor
PDD 51 & New Executive Order Give Obama Dictator Power
Obama Executive Order Paves the Way for Nationalization of Economy
Obama Executive ‘Order’: US can seize any person, any resource, any time
Obama Seizes Control Over All Food Production Under Executive Order: Mike Adams Reports
Obama Expands Federal Power Over the States with Executive Order
Obama Executive Order Targets Fourth Amendment

PS: My typing sucks.

You don't provide any references for the items you listed. Each statement is meaningless by itself. If there was any truth to any of them, the aforementioned checks and balances are in place to counter them. I'm sure that if you looked for dirty tricks by any president, you'll find them.

You may not realize this, but amongst the leaders of all the western democracies, the office of POTUS is actually the weakest, as to control of a national government.

Under the parliamentary system, as practiced in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, if the governing party holds the majority of seats in parliament, the Prime Minister is a virtual dictator - in theory. But, he is restrained by the rule of law, of course.

For example, if the Prime Minister wants a piece of legislation passed, he can order all of his MPs to vote in favour. Or, against it, if he so desires. Failing to tow the party line would result in expulsion from the party's caucus. This has happened before - many times.

Of course, he is restricted by the constitution and the courts. Also, if it came down to the PM wanting to impose dictatorial control, or some other drastic legislation, his own party would rebel and vote against him. He would be a lame duck then and unable to exercise control of his party. Plus, each party can conduct a leadership review. If he is found "wanting" in his role as Prime Minister, the party can turf him and elect a new leader, who would become PM, by default.

As I understand it, the POTUS does not exercise the same level of control over his party. Indeed, is it not common to see congressmen/senators vote against their own partys' bills?

 

[Adam]

I'd just rather try to stop it from happening first.

We're working on it.

Seriously, though, there's a line that can be crossed in regards to prevention of crime. At what point do you begin to wholesale incarcerate people who might commit a crime or who are more prone to committing crime? There's certainly an opportunity to use mental health evaluations to detain people (even fake evaluations), saying that they represent a danger to society. I'm sure that happens already, however - steer society towards viewing that as an acceptable way to keep people safe, and it gives it more power...meaning corruption of that system has more impact. Every approach can be done well or done poorly, after all.

IMO, the fundamental belief that humans have freedom of will leads to the mentality of mitigating and reacting to crime rather than preventing it through wholesale human screening. After all, just because somebody might do something doesn't mean that they will. We try to put controls in place to make certain crimes more difficult (e.g. metal detectors), we try to improve reaction time (including tracking people who are believed to represent a more likely threat) and reaction effectiveness.

The weapon, no-weapon argument has existed for a very long time and probably will continue to do so. Guns are the hot topics because they require little training and little physical capability to employ in a highly (but very locally) destructive manner. Swords and bows don't get talked about much if at all any more these days, but they can do some serious damage when used by a trained individual. Knives are unquestionably deadly, but because they have other uses, they tend to not get bashed much.

Put me in a fight against an average man prone on killing me, neither of us with a weapon, and I'm effed. Put me in that same fight without a weapon, but he has one, and I'm effed. Put me in that same fight with a weapon, and at least I have a chance. If I'm familiar with the weapon, like I am with my guns, then I have a better chance.

 

[GO-NAD!]

We're working on it.

Seriously, though, there's a line that can be crossed in regards to prevention of crime. At what point do you begin to wholesale incarcerate people who might commit a crime or who are more prone to committing crime? There's certainly an opportunity to use mental health evaluations to detain people (even fake evaluations), saying that they represent a danger to society. I'm sure that happens already, however - steer society towards viewing that as an acceptable way to keep people safe, and it gives it more power...meaning corruption of that system has more impact. Every approach can be done well or done poorly, after all.

IMO, the fundamental belief that humans have freedom of will leads to the mentality of mitigating and reacting to crime rather than preventing it through wholesale human screening. After all, just because somebody might do something doesn't mean that they will. We try to put controls in place to make certain crimes more difficult (e.g. metal detectors), we try to improve reaction time (including tracking people who are believed to represent a more likely threat) and reaction effectiveness.

The weapon, no-weapon argument has existed for a very long time and probably will continue to do so. Guns are the hot topics because they require little training and little physical capability to employ in a highly (but very locally) destructive manner. Swords and bows don't get talked about much if at all any more these days, but they can do some serious damage when used by a trained individual. Knives are unquestionably deadly, but because they have other uses, they tend to not get bashed much.

Put me in a fight against an average man prone on killing me, neither of us with a weapon, and I'm effed. Put me in that same fight without a weapon, but he has one, and I'm effed. Put me in that same fight with a weapon, and at least I have a chance. If I'm familiar with the weapon, like I am with my guns, then I have a better chance.

I wasn't implying that we selectively screen people. What I meant was addressing the root causes of crime, i.e. poverty, drug addiction, mental illness.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the USA has such a high homicide rate compared to other developed countries?

 

[markw]

I wasn't implying that we selectively screen people. What I meant was addressing the root causes of crime, i.e. poverty, drug addiction, mental illness.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the USA has such a high homicide rate compared to other developed countries?

What workable suggestions do you have to make things better?

 

[GO-NAD!]

What workable suggestions do you have to make things better?

Hey, I'm not the expert! How about study other countries with lower rates to see what they do? Just to be clear, I'm not throwing rocks at you guys. We have our own crime problems up here too. Other than the murder rate, other crime rates are fairly even with you guys. I'm just not convinced that putting more firearms on the street really helps.

 

[Rickster71]

Current Worldwide Homicide/Murder Rate

Current Worldwide Homicide/Murder Rate

 

[Tomorrow]

You don't provide any references for the items you listed. Each statement is meaningless by itself. If there was any truth to any of them, the aforementioned checks and balances are in place to counter them. I'm sure that if you looked for dirty tricks by any president, you'll find them.

You may not realize this, but amongst the leaders of all the western democracies, the office of POTUS is actually the weakest, as to control of a national government.

Under the parliamentary system, as practiced in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, if the governing party holds the majority of seats in parliament, the Prime Minister is a virtual dictator - in theory. But, he is restrained by the rule of law, of course.

For example, if the Prime Minister wants a piece of legislation passed, he can order all of his MPs to vote in favour. Or, against it, if he so desires. Failing to tow the party line would result in expulsion from the party's caucus. This has happened before - many times.

Of course, he is restricted by the constitution and the courts. Also, if it came down to the PM wanting to impose dictatorial control, or some other drastic legislation, his own party would rebel and vote against him. He would be a lame duck then and unable to exercise control of his party. Plus, each party can conduct a leadership review. If he is found "wanting" in his role as Prime Minister, the party can turf him and elect a new leader, who would become PM, by default.

As I understand it, the POTUS does not exercise the same level of control over his party. Indeed, is it not common to see congressmen/senators vote against their own partys' bills?

I did suggest you do a little work. My bad...but here you go. All of the listed suggested reading is linked in this article. » Obama Now Controls All Communications Via Executive Order Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! There are many, many more indications of the erosion of personal liberties, but I don't want to burden this thread, as it is off topic and subject to a different debate.

I'm glad you enjoy your type of government. Our founders specifically warned future generations to be wary of the Tyranny of the Majority...where minority interests become irrelevant. Sounds like what you may have.

I have tried to provide information, quotes and links, too, and avoid being opinionated in my judgments. That's (being opinionated) the lazy man's way to fully understand issues and leaves one closed-minded. But I keep seeing "I think that..." or "I'm sure that..." from you Canadians. No data, no references, no statistics. Well, "I think" that is surely the way in which we will never find agreement...(as you said we would not).

What you think of as "weakness" of the POTUS is the STRENGTH of the American people. That POV is exactly what I was trying to ask you to understand. And per my last post, the more power the king/queen...er...president has, the weaker the citizens and the lessening of their freedoms. There are degrees of freedom and we all have our own limits to restrictions. But those born to shackles are accustomed to those shackles and it is their way of life. Accepted. Most Americans don't want a 'nanny state'. Yet that is what we see more and more. In NYC you can't get a 16 oz. soda because the Mayor ruled them to be "unhealthy". When do they ban hotdogs and hamburgers and .... ?

Lastly, please keep this discussion/debate about the issues. Phrases such as "You may not realize this..." is personal, demeaning, unnecessary, not to mention just plain wrong. After all, you could say "You may realize ...". Thanks and good cheer.

 

[Rickster71]

This whole this comes down to the loss of rights for all, because of the unlawful actions of a few.

My two guns have sat in my closet; one for forty years, and the other for thirty. I have a 100% clean record, my guns were never used for anything unlawful.
Can anyone explain why my rights or guns should be taken away for what happened in that Colorado movie theater or at Columbine?

 

[Tomorrow]

Let's say you great white north guys get your wish. Dreams of abundant safety come true and private North American citizens become completely disarmed. (Canadians will be very happy.) Further, conservationists and PETA are delighted because there will be no more hunting game. No reason for weapons of distruction to be owned in civilized society.

GO-NAD has suggested that the military will keep the peace (I presume there will be armed local peace officers, too.) I give you a couple of the administrations that had exactly this delightful, safe situation: Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's Communist China, Ortega's Nicaragua, Stalin's Soviet Union. I leave off situations that result in tens of millions of deaths, usually genecide, in places like Rwanda, Uganda, and Cambodia...because only certain types of people were disarmed.

 

[GO-NAD!]

This whole this comes down to the loss of rights for all, because of the unlawful actions of a few.

My two guns have sat in my closet; one for forty years, and the other for thirty. I have a 100% clean record, my guns were never used for anything unlawful.
Can anyone explain why my rights or guns should be taken away for what happened in that Colorado movie theater or at Columbine?

I keep saying that I have no problem with people having their guns! I'm certainly not saying that your rights to have them should be taken away. I just don't think they should be carried around in public.

 

[sholling]

I wasn't implying that we selectively screen people. What I meant was addressing the root causes of crime, i.e. poverty, drug addiction, mental illness.

I've been trying to stay out of this but this was too much to pass up . Just to be clear we addressed the root causes myth during the 60s and 70s and it was a colossal failure which is about what can be expected from a government run multi-trillion dollar snipe hunt. Today we have the richest "poor" people in the world because the definition of "poor" keeps moving up to support the size of the bureaucracy and now includes those with cable TV, air conditioning, cell phones, and $200 sneakers. Not to mention more living space in their homes than the middle classes of most of the developed world. Oh and lets not forget that we also have some of the fattest "poor" in the world. Nobody here goes hungry unless they're trying to get back into their "skinny jeans".

I'll go back to sleep-mode now before I get myself into trouble.

 

[Tomorrow]

I keep saying that I have no problem with people having their guns! I'm certainly not saying that your rights to have them should be taken away. I just don't think they should be carried around in public.

Perhaps the following quote made others think you do have a problem with private gun ownership.

Maybe they should ban the production of handguns (which, as far as I know, are the firearms most often involved in gun crime) for civilian use.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I did suggest you do a little work. My bad...but here you go. All of the listed suggested reading is linked in this article. » Obama Now Controls All Communications Via Executive Order Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! There are many, many more indications of the erosion of personal liberties, but I don't want to burden this thread, as it is off topic and subject to a different debate.

When I googled Alex Jones, one of the common adjectives I found was "Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorist". I'm not sure I can regard him as "impartial".

I'm glad you enjoy your type of government. Our founders specifically warned future generations to be wary of the Tyranny of the Majority...where minority interests become irrelevant. Sounds like what you may have.

I never said our kind of government was without faults. I never said it was better or worse than yours. They each have their pluses and minuses. In the end, I don't believe either will lead to tyranny.

I have tried to provide information, quotes and links, too, and avoid being opinionated in my judgments. That's (being opinionated) the lazy man's way to fully understand issues and leaves one closed-minded. But I keep seeing "I think that..." or "I'm sure that..." from you Canadians. No data, no references, no statistics. Well, "I think" that is surely the way in which we will never find agreement...(as you said we would not).

I really didn't want to go down the garden path of studies, statistics & references, because for each one that you bring up, I can dig up another (if I was inclined) to counter it and vice-versa. You said you wanted to "avoid being opinionated in my judgments", but then provided a link to somebody who is very opinionated in his judgements. If we're going to get into a "reference war", I would have to insist that they be impartial.

What you think of as "weakness" of the POTUS is the STRENGTH of the American people.

So, is he able to assume total power or not? What I was saying, is that in relative terms, our PM exercises more control over his caucus, than the POTUS does over his.

Lastly, please keep this discussion/debate about the issues. Phrases such as "You may not realize this..." is personal, demeaning, unnecessary, not to mention just plain wrong. After all, you could say "You may realize ...".

Really? It certainly wasn't meant to be insulting and I'm not clear on how it was. Neverthless, I apologize...

 

[GO-NAD!]

Let's say you great white north guys get your wish. Dreams of abundant safety come true and private North American citizens become completely disarmed. (Canadians will be very happy.) Further, conservationists and PETA are delighted because there will be no more hunting game. No reason for weapons of distruction to be owned in civilized society.

GO-NAD has suggested that the military will keep the peace (I presume there will be armed local peace officers, too.) I give you a couple of the administrations that had exactly this delightful, safe situation: Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's Communist China, Ortega's Nicaragua, Stalin's Soviet Union. I leave off situations that result in tens of millions of deaths, usually genecide, in places like Rwanda, Uganda, and Cambodia...because only certain types of people were disarmed.

Don't you trust your fellow citizens in law enforcement and the military? You don't think they value freedom as much as you. Do you think that if the government tried to implement a totalitarian regime that the military would back them. I think not...

The countries that you mentioned all had authoritarian societies, where people were less likely to question their leaders. I don't think the USA has that problem. It's that very sense of liberty common amongst the populace that will keep you free, not that .357 magnum in your nightstand drawer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Perhaps the following quote made others think you do have a problem with private gun ownership.

That was just a rhetorical statement, not my opinion. I thought that the context was clear, but I guess I was wrong.

 

[Tomorrow]

When I googled Alex Jones, one of the common adjectives I found was "Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorist". I'm not sure I can regard him as "impartial".

My point was not that you should read Jones, but that you become aware of the Executive Orders that diminish personal freedoms. You asked where did I see creeping tyranny. I see it in some of those Executive Orders, as one example. Note that I did not initially link to that page...because I wanted you to investigate those Orders and provide your own opinion. But you didn't want to google them. Thus, I linked to a page that had a few of the Orders listed so you didn't have to actually search. The data is there...you don't need to suck in his right-wingedness.

If you don't want to do any study, investigation, or data presentation regarding the accuracy and support of your or my statements or opinions, that's fine by me. But I'm just not into opinions without regard to evidence or increasing knowledge. "I think" doesn't change people's minds about issues. Opinions are like ... well, you know ... everyone has one. That's why simply sharing opinions will never result in persuasion or agreement. So we continue to disagree.

 

[sholling]

Don't you trust your fellow citizens in law enforcement and the military? You don't think they value freedom as much as you. Do you think that if the government tried to implement a totalitarian regime that the military would back them. I think not...

The countries that you mentioned all had authoritarian societies, where people were less likely to question their leaders. I don't think the USA has that problem. It's that very sense of liberty common amongst the populace that will keep you free, not that .357 magnum in your nightstand drawer.

Some situations are inevitable. For example the experiment shown below shows just how easy it is to turn good people into oppressors. Even in Canada you have the political correctness police and courts who's job is to suppress politically "incorrect" speech and punish those that would dare speak politically incorrect thoughts. As you can see that even in enlightened Canadians can ride down the slippery slope to oppression. You can also see the rapid rise of the thought-police state in the UK and in Australia.

 

[Tomorrow]

Don't you trust your fellow citizens in law enforcement and the military? You don't think they value freedom as much as you. Do you think that if the government tried to implement a totalitarian regime that the military would back them. I think not...

The countries that you mentioned all had authoritarian societies, where people were less likely to question their leaders. I don't think the USA has that problem. It's that very sense of liberty common amongst the populace that will keep you free, not that .357 magnum in your nightstand drawer.

"""I THINK""" you or I can speculate all we want. History teaches lessons. If one doesn't know it, one is bound to repeat it. (Have you heard that before?) Your understanding of history is not correct. Russia was a monarchy (just like your parent Britain) before an armed populace overthrew it. When guns were then taken away, a totalitarian regime replaced it. Germany was a freedom-loving Democracy before Hitler became dictator (as a result of a financial depression). And you certainly don't understand the Second Amendment to our Constitution, or don't want to accept that it is indeed that .357 in my drawer and millions of others that keeps us in liberty.

Also, you do remember that the POTUS is Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military (and all that power suggests), don't you?! And you should also be aware that the current POTUS, when he was campaigning, was calling for a citizen militia, as well armed and as large as the active military. What do you suppose that was all about? Does it make you even a little suspicious?

We (U.S. posters) have provided information that supports our contentions in this thread. I find you to be intelligent and articulate, G-N. But I really wish you would do more than speculate based upon your opinions (in this thread). Nothing wrong with opinions, mind you. They go pretty good in a sports bar over a cold brew.