PDA

View Full Version : 70 ex-police Captain successfully defends himself.


Checkboard
15th Jan 2014, 11:14
... from the annoyance of a man texting in a cinema. :hmm:

Florida Cinema Shooting Follows Phone Dispute (http://news.sky.com/story/1194588/florida-cinema-shooting-follows-phone-dispute)

Ancient Mariner
15th Jan 2014, 11:17
Mr. Oulsen should have had a gun to defend himself................and his wife.
Per

rh200
15th Jan 2014, 11:59
Indicative of a wider problem in what our society has become. People are getting more and more pissed off, and full of rage, easy to see on the news. Road rage, this rage, that rage, one wonders where its going.

The bloke was obviously confronted by a fwit that couldn't give a sh!t about anybody else, and it escalated. Pity about the wife though.

angels
15th Jan 2014, 12:04
You are a master of irony, sir.....:ok:

bcgallacher
15th Jan 2014, 12:12
A.M. - That would have really made a difference - two people having a gun battle in a cinema.With a bit of luck one day there will be a similar occurrence and maybe 20 or so armed men will start shooting in self defence!

chuks
15th Jan 2014, 12:15
Mr Oulsen should not have been "texting" in the first place. If he was going to do that, though, yes, I suppose he should have armed himself first.

It's not mentioned in the article whether or not he was wearing a "hoody" while he was "texting" but if so then I think that shooting him might be "justifiable homicide." His wife: "collateral damage."

Someone has to draw the line somewhere about this anti-social behavior, and I think that retired police captain just did!

Americans have been shooting each other ever since we can remember, first the Indians with bows and arrows and then the invading Europeans with modern fire-arms, so that nowadays it's just everyone shooting everyone else pretty much at random: toddlers finding Daddy's gun in the night table and shooting a playmate, or Mommy, or Daddy, or just Mr Puddles the family dog; lunatics buying or stealing pistols and rifles and thousands of rounds to wipe out a school or a movie audience; "gangstas" shooting each other and the odd bystander too ... shooting and being shot is part of our national heritage, just something we have learned to live with. Well, die with. Whatever.

It's tolerable, though, all this gunplay. It's even enshrined in our Constitution's 2nd Amendment: "The right of people to keep and bear Arms [so as to plug any deserving s.o.b. whenever the mood takes them] shall not be infringed."

There is nothing in the Constitution about having the right to "text" while wearing a "hoody," so that I expect the shooter in this latest case is on fairly safe grounds, just constitutionally speaking. In practical terms, if he can prove that he had been eating Twinkies, having trouble finding a parking place close to the cinema, or just having sort of a bad day in general, well, that can also help. Cf. "The Twinkies Defense" and "I hate Mondays."

onetrack
15th Jan 2014, 12:18
Well, it's pretty obvious, ain't it? - it pays to pack heat - not a cellphone and popcorn, if you want to watch a movie in peace, in a movie theatre, in the U.S. :hmm:

I wonder how many unarmed "crims" this guy shot as a police officer? - and just marked them down as "shot whilst trying to escape". :rolleyes:

What is more amazing to me why this guy gets charged with 2nd degree murder, and not 1st degree murder??
You pull out a firearm, intentionally aim at a person who has offended you, and plug him - yet this is only regarded as "reckless conduct"??
I don't know how much planning you have to do, to get hit with a 1st degree murder charge. :confused:

Of course, all this nastiness could have been avoided, if the movie theatre had a strict policy of all moviegoers leaving all their cellphones and firearms in the cloakroom, under strict security and conditions of non-use, whilst in the building. They could always settle all their arguments outside, in the finest tradition of the Wild West. := :D

racedo
15th Jan 2014, 12:27
If you want to watch a movie in peace then take one of those mobile phone blockers.........then annoy the Fwits by turning on and off when it suits.

chuks
15th Jan 2014, 12:45
It varies by state, but usually First Degree Murder or "aggravated murder" in a case such as this one should involve premeditation.

One assumes that the shooter, albeit armed, did not go to the movies intending to shoot anyone. Then he seems to have shot in the heat of an argument, rather than, say, tracking his victim down outside the cinema and then shooting him, what might attract a charge of "aggravated murder."

It pays to avoid stupid arguments. If someone is ranting about your texting, stop doing that and move away, humiliating as that might seem. You are not supposed to text in the cinema, not even to your daughter, and the dead guy probably knew that on some level, but then having some old fart get right up in his grill about that in front of his wife ... it's easy to see how this one might have played out, with the younger guy figuring that he was going to make the old guy shut up and sit down, defeated with something like, "So what are you going to do about it?"

This reads like just another case of two people being stupid and unreasonable, when one of them was also armed.

I worked in Miami for a year, once. I was told, reliably, I think, that 3 out of four drivers there are armed. Guess who put up with a lot of crappy driving without doing much about that? Yeah, me!

BillHicksRules
15th Jan 2014, 13:09
Another two lives ruined by the likes of Charlton Heston.

1 guy dead and another looking forward to dying in prison.

Well done Chuck.

Ancient Mariner
15th Jan 2014, 13:27
bcgallacher, irony attempt.
Per

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 14:13
But everybody has the right to carry guns! And if more people had more guns, perhaps this 'incident', (not a tragedy...please!) could've been avoided. It's crazy that there is only 300+ million guns in the US. Surely they realise this isn't enough? Surely!


Really, I'm with the NRA in this one. The dead guy is brainless for not carrying his own firearm. If he had've, this one way argument could've been settled like civilised human beings as set out in the constitution.


I really don't understand Americans. How hard is it to make a law that EVERY person in a public place NEEDS a firearm? You go shopping, take a firearm. You go to the movies, take a firearm. You drop your 4 year old off at 'kindy, you TAKE A BLOODY FIREARM!


Strange country.

:ugh:

421dog
15th Jan 2014, 16:54
The shooter is a former police officer. Almost uniformly, these guys have a post-hoc "right" to carry, and I don't see the demise of rank and file CCW changing that. Lots of stats indicate that LEOs are substantially more likely to commit felonies with guns than are legal private citizens.

brickhistory
15th Jan 2014, 17:11
I'm sure bringing up the two sides to every story rationale might be unappreciated here.

Are all the facts in? Reported accurately?

Nah, let's just go with immediate approbation.

Especially since it's in the U.S. and involves a gun.

And may I recommend the Springfield XDs as a 21st century CCW? Size of a PPK, but in .45acp.

Matari
15th Jan 2014, 17:33
Europeans are so much more civilized. I remember sitting in my Volvo at a small, out-of-the-way roundabout in a village in the Netherlands. No traffic, no one around except me and my thoughts, waiting for my kids who were goofing around up at the beach.

My thoughts were interrupted by a tapping on the window. A fine Dutch lady and her husband had noticed that my front wheel had climbed up on the tiny curb by about an inch, if that. She was bringing it to my attention that in the Netherlands, that was completely unacceptable, and that I needed to reposition my car so that the front wheel was off the tiny curb.

I declined the invitation to become as civilized as she was attempting to make me. I rolled up the window very nearly on her wagging finger, and went back to my thoughts.

Except in my case, my thoughts drifted to the beauty of chaos, and the oddity of this woman who sees the world so clearly.

goudie
15th Jan 2014, 17:37
Being an ex-copper, shooting someone, for whatever reason, was probably second nature to him. Whatever the aggravation, caused by the deceased, he didn't deserve to die FFS!

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 17:39
And if that had've happened in the States, she would been shot dead. :rolleyes:

Along with its 'make my day' law, wow, truly 'civilised'.

BillHicksRules
15th Jan 2014, 17:58
Oh good Brick is here to stand up for the right of gun owners to shoot anyone they like.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 17:58
Well, it might surprise some but even I think this is well OTT
if all the facts are as stated.

Shooting someone because of an argument over texting,
it's not like they are druggies where you might expect
and argument to be settled by guns, a retired cop who
should know better.

I still believe in CCW or CW, the right to bear arms and
everything else but this guy needs the book thrown at him.

brickhistory
15th Jan 2014, 18:04
And I get to vote.

While you can only carp from the sidelines.

Again.

But to be fair to the Euros trying to, once again, explain what's best for America, I do carry in summer weather a very nice Walther.

True, it's German and not British, but then that's true of so many things nowadays...

BillHicksRules
15th Jan 2014, 18:14
BH,

I get to vote too.

And in a far safer land too.

You keep carrying, it appears your need is growing day by day.

I will sit here on the maturer side of the pond and shake my head.

You can continue to defend your rights. Hopefully none of your countrymen will exercise theirs to your detriment.

Might want to leave your mobile at home.

brickhistory
15th Jan 2014, 18:24
Did you vote to have guns taken away from legal owners? I missed seeing the subjects being given that opportunity in any media.

I don't, despite your insinuation, defend this guy. I also don't condemn him. Merely say that there are two sides to every story and we don't know them yet. Just the sensationalism of the story.

Which, of course, matters not to anti-gun proponents. Facts are inconvenient things, just ask that ol' white Hispanic George Zimmermann. Guilty until proven not. In this instance we don't know all of the facts.

And I am polite with my fellow travelers when using my cell, and don't use it during a movie.

An armed society is a polite society.

goudie
15th Jan 2014, 18:26
Carrying a gun, when going about one's daily business in the community, just because one can, suggests a deep psychological flaw IMHO. I shall never understand the reasoning for the need to do so.:confused:

An armed society is a polite society. ''Excuse me sir would you mind awfully if I shoot you'

Tell that to the families of the victims of the mass shootings!

500N
15th Jan 2014, 18:33
"Carrying a gun, when going about one's daily business in the community, just because one can, suggests a deep psychological flaw IMHO."

They don't carry it "just because they can".

And in most cases, the "deep psychological flaw" is that unlike the fluffy huggies,
they don't wan to become another statistic of the druggies et al.

I've said my piece on this shooting in a post above.

twb3
15th Jan 2014, 20:24
If reports are to be believed, the single shot fired was from a .380 which passed through a hand and then inflicted a lethal chest wound. Some of my CCW friends use a .380 as thier carry piece, but I've always said it would be .45 ACP for me if I decided to carry. Maybe have to rethink that.

Tankertrashnav
15th Jan 2014, 20:28
Keeping off the touchy subject of guns, it is years since I watched a film in a commercial cinema. We are lucky enough to have a small arts centre nearby which shows intelligent films which moronic young texting popcorn eaters wouldnt watch anyway, so I'm pretty safe there.

Other than that there is Love Film and similar services which allow me to watch whatever films I like at home without having to put up with popcorn or texting....






... or getting shot ;)

brickhistory
15th Jan 2014, 20:59
twb,

I read somewhere (FBI stats?) that most deaths attributed to guns in the U.S. were by the .22LR.

I wouldn't want to be shot by anything, let alone the 'lowly' .380.

But all things considered, if you need to employ a pistol for self-defense or defense of others, the large mass of the .45acp sure seems better than a .380 to make the event end quickly in one's favor. That's my logic anyway. May you and I never experience such...

I will carry either one depending on a lot of factors - my dress, the weather - thick winter clothing = less penetration by a smaller round, etc.

All the experts - LE, reputable instructors, etc - say it's all about shot placement, not just the caliber.

But you can't argue with the results in this case. A .380 center mass did what it was designed to do.

Whether it was illegal or not remains to be determined in this case.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 21:13
" All the experts - LE, reputable instructors, etc - say it's all about shot placement, not just the caliber."

+ 1

Hitting them in the foot with a 45 might hurt a lot but might not stop them.

IMHO, far better to carry and be more accurate with a slightly smaller calibre
than a dirty great big gun that is harder to shoot well, fast and accurately.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jan 2014, 21:16
Being a retired cop, I think that gent knows good and well when deadly force is and isn't suitable. Cops also are trained how to handle situations.

Sorry, he didn't handle that well and it came to gun play.

He's gonna go to jail, and I think he's gonna deserve every minute of regret that he can't spend the rest of his retirement with his wife, grandkids, dog, etc.

As for you knee jerk morons from overseas commenting on this in your usual ignorant fashion: you really are a tiresome load of knuts.

Give it a rest.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 21:20
Lonewolf

Europeans will never understand or agree with the US gun culture.

They much prefer being ruled by Bureaucrats in some far away
city that spend the time thinking up stupid rules that they think
will "protect" the European citizens from any cut, graze or things
more sinister.

John Hill
15th Jan 2014, 21:23
Obviously I do not have an opinion on Americans having guns but I am glad we do not have the same culture here.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 21:27
John

NZ has a huge gun market for the size of the population and unlike the US,
you can own fully automatic weapons.

You just might not see it.

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 21:40
It's not guns that are the problem.


Americans are a violent, dangerous race. Sad but true. (Comments above confirm it) Then let them near firearms.....and what do you get? 30-40,000 people dying from gun related deaths each year. Dear oh dear.

2 solutions.

1. Do what most civilised countries do. Restrict guns.

2. (Everybody's preferred). Build a giant fence around the States. Let them go at it until nobody is left. Then let the world rejoice when we can own and enjoy the land without americans and without getting shot and killed because you texted somebody.



Strange strange people.

John Hill
15th Jan 2014, 21:48
500N, I know there are a lot of guns in NZ but what we do not have is the gun culture that America appears to have.

I dont own any guns now but I have in the past and I carried one every day for a year but it did not make my dick any bigger and it was bloody heavy, perhaps that's why I dont carry one anymore.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:02
" 1. Do what most civilised countries do. Restrict guns."

Classic lefty clap trap that only restricts guns to Law abiding firearm owners.
Crims and others will still have guns as they don't follow the law.

John Hill
15th Jan 2014, 22:07
Where do criminals get their guns from? Do they buy them or steal them from law abiding gun owners?

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 22:07
Dunno what that whole 'lefty' 'righty' stuff means. Don't vote. Pointless.

Yes indeed. The crims will always get guns. Remove every single firearm in the country and a day later they'd reappear.


But if restricting them makes it harder for the 'looneys' to get one, and walk into a movie theatre or a school and kill people, I ask you, all of you, what is wrong with that?

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:13
"Remove every single firearm in the country and a day later they'd reappear.


But if restricting them makes it harder for the 'looneys' to get one, and walk into a movie theatre or a school and kill people, I ask you, all of you, what is wrong with that?"

Contradictory statements.

All "restricting them" does is drive up the price of illegal firearms.

A pistol that sells legally here for sub $500 here in Aus is worth $3000 - 4000 on the black market yet they re still available to those who want them.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jan 2014, 22:14
It's not guns that are the problem.
Americans are a violent, dangerous race.
Wrong. Many races here. American is not a race.

If you wish to assert that American culture is a violent dangerous culture, or moreso than some other culture ... OK ... have away with your assertion, and that myopic view of American culture.

But if you are going to be plain stupid, as per your statement above, it is probably better not to post.

Here is a nice checklist for you:


Engage brain
Form coherent thought
Draft post
Read for accuracy and coherence
Clean out all stupid stuff
Post

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:21
ruddman

"Americans are a violent, dangerous race."

Ever seen Aboriginals ?

Violent people. Even today they are still killing each other,
even with spears :rolleyes:

Only a few years ago an argumeent escalated where I go and
an Abo threw a shovelnose spear through the door of a 4WD
driven by the man he was arguing with.

A woman I delivered some meet so, very slim, slightly built lady
and quiet. I asked my mate what her story was and was promtly
told she had just got out of jail for killing her husband :rolleyes:

Read any book on Australias history, plenty of Black on Black,
white on white, black on white killings. Hell, it was only last
century that white man stopped going on organised "hunts"
for Blacks like the English did fox hunting. I think even the
US had stopped fighting Indians by them.

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 22:22
Um....no. I'm correct. Sorry. Truth hurts. Facts don't lie. It's just how it is.

But, you know, you could always move if you feel threatened by other violent individuals in your country? I'm in Mexico presently. Its close to you. Far, far safer to be here then the US. And most other Aussies I've met here feel the same.

It's cheaper. Food is better. People are nicer. Less violence.

Tankertrashnav
15th Jan 2014, 22:22
I notice on JB there are several hamsterwheel threads, mainly to do with politics (US, UK, Australia etc)

I really think it's about time we had a new hamsterwheel. This could be devoted entirely to the perennial arguments about gun ownership which will never ever be resolved, and it would serve to keep all relevant posts together. Those like myself who find the arguments pointless could just stay away. Anyone raising the subject on another thread could have their post redirected by the mods to Gun Control Hamsterwheel, which I am sure would run and run.

I for one would certainly find the JB experience the better for it, as I could ignore it, just as I currently mainly ignore the politics threads.

parabellum
15th Jan 2014, 22:24
The more modern guns are smuggled in, HMCC stop some but due to the size of the problem, miss some too. Other are simply non-registered from a previous era. Had a gang round these parts who had access to a copy of the gun register, they would then plan and carry out armed robberies where they knew guns were legally kept, hold the owner at gun point until he produced the safe keys.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:26
Tanker

Good idea.

Keep it all in one thread.

brickhistory
15th Jan 2014, 22:27
Build a giant fence around the States.


From your lips (keyboard) to God's ears.

Curious as to who is going to be the next world leader and how you will like them.

Certainly won't be one of the balcony seat nations that seem to like telling us 'savage' Americans how we should be.

Meanwhile, I bought 300 x 9mm, 140 x .30-30 (for the new Marlin 336 lever action), and 100 x .30 for the M1 just last night.

'Murica! :ok:

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 22:32
Which guy would be more dangerous? The crazy guy throwing a spear? Or the crazy guy with an AR-15?



Brickhistory? I bought a taco last night. But I don't live in a dangerous country where I need a gun to defend myself. :ok:

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:32
brick

"for the new Marlin 336 lever action"

Which one did you get ?

The stainless one or blued ?

They are very popular over here a Pig hunting guns.

perthsaint
15th Jan 2014, 22:33
A gun-loon calling others "knee-jerk morons", "ignorant" and "knuts".

The irony-meter has exploded.

N210KD
15th Jan 2014, 22:34
I truly have to laugh at those who don't live here view the US. It isn't the "Wild West" you portray it. Sure, we have bad guys, but they're usually busy shooting at each other. There are time when a good guy needs a means of self defense. Some of the supposed statistics stated here are highly distorted.

I will say it's nice to be able to carry when I must go into a bad neighborhood. Haven't had to use it yet and hope I never do.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 22:35
In the bush, the Abo with the spear, as many Aussies and Aussie police have found out in the past.

In any open area / urban environment, the AR-15.


I can't understand how you say that Mexico is safer than the US when Mexico has multiple killings every day, week, month including group killings and mass firefights with automatic weapons.

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 22:43
There's nobody here going into cinemas killing people because they texted here. There's nobody here going into schools and public places killing people by the dozens here.

Its American propaganda that every American living here will also tell you that it's hugely violent. Hence the slightly disturbing comment about the 'facts' being incorrect about gun related violence in the US. :rolleyes:


Guns don't kill. It's the crazed loonies that can easily buy the guns that kill. Which is why I avoid the US because they're many crazed loonies with easy attainable guns there.

Now....where was that bottle of tequila....

Richo77
15th Jan 2014, 22:52
And in other news a FCKING 12 year old gets their hands on a weapon takes it to school and shoots a couple of fellow students. Song remains the same huh?

A child has a problem and decides shooting a few people will make it all better, If not from his 'Murican culture then where does he get the idea?

The weapon a sawn off 12 gauge - are modified weapons legal in the US? So, doubtful that his parents were these so called 'law abiding citizens'.

Barely a month after the Arapahoe shootings, where will it end ffs??

Keef
15th Jan 2014, 22:53
It's a culture and history thing.

I once asked on here why a passport control officer in the US needed to pack a gun and to be able to shoot me. I didn't understand the answer, and understood even less the scorn that had to be heaped upon me for daring to ask.

Most of the civilised world prohibits carrying firearms other than for specific purposes, and then controls who is allowed to own firearms. Gun deaths are, on the whole, low.

Other parts of the civilised world allow citizens to carry firearms and to shoot each other. Gun deaths are, on the whole, high.

"Low" and "high" above are relative, but I think statistics will bear out the principle.

Americans cannot comprehend a world where gun ownership isn't an automatic right. Europeans can't comprehend a world where it is.

And never the twain shall meet.

The perfect definition of a hamsterwheel!

Richo77
15th Jan 2014, 22:55
Ruddman, im with you in spirit but remember Martin Bryant? Biggest single mass shooting in history (at the time, might still be) and the Brothers for life or whoever they are are plugging each other on a fairly regular basis too.

Nowhere near the same as the states (thank fcuk) but similar tendencies.

500N
15th Jan 2014, 23:02
And the underworld crims in Melbourne. That was fairly regular for 10 years.


And the Monash shootings.

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Jan 2014, 23:04
Europeans will never understand or agree with the US gun culture.
Correct. I happen to like being able to go to the cinema without having to worry about whether I'm going to get shot.

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 23:05
I certainly do remember Bryant. A loonie with an AR-15. Hence the reason for the stricter gun laws here.

belfrybat
15th Jan 2014, 23:19
There's something missing here. The guy was texting, not talking. Can't be nearly as disruptive. And the main feature wasn't even on yet.

Richo77
15th Jan 2014, 23:19
500,

Yes the underworld crims in Melb too but mercifully that was mostly just ratbags plugging other ratbags and in-fighting (if you will) over money drugs and probably sheilas.

And whilst there may have been a few innocents caught in the crossfire or such no one ever armed themselves to the teeth then went into a cinema or a school (except for Bryant).

The account of what happened in Port Arthur (even the wiki version) is chilling to say the least.

rh200
15th Jan 2014, 23:26
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns only make it easier. How many people are we now seeing now get stabbed or bashed to death now. It is symtamatic of a wider issue. All getting rid of the guns does, is delay or suppress a deeper underlying problem.

Guns have been around in countrys for eons, the problems we are having now are a manifestation of a modern issue. There are several "modern" countrys I believe that have easy access to guns and don't have the problems we have.

What would be interesting, is to do some modeling on deaths/killings with some groupings on type of death. Another words gang related, family, phsyco etc. and means of death. Have the data in percentage form instead of the usual emotive absolute numbers. We could then see how many of those deaths are just [email protected] or other ones that where going to die any way due to asscoations etc.

A good example is suicide, a large percentage of those can be ignored as the person was going to top themselves anyway, the gun was just convenient.

N210KD
15th Jan 2014, 23:45
The Swiss are required to own fire arms. Their murder rate is among the lowest in the world.

ruddman
15th Jan 2014, 23:49
It's because they make the best chocolate. Truly orgasmic.

:ooh:

:bored:

:\

:E

:ok:

FlyMD
16th Jan 2014, 01:08
Both previous posters wrong, sorry to have to get my pedant on:

1. Only males who do military service are issued an assault rifle to take home. Firstly there is an alternative civil service available now for those who don't want to serve under arms; secondly, if you feel a gun in your home would not be safe, you have the possibility of storing your issue rifle at the local state armory.

2. While Swiss confectionary is without doubt the best in the world (suggestions to the contrary are so ridiculous they will not be entertained), it also has to be said that the best raw material (ie best chocolate) these days comes from France or Belgium. As for the famous Swiss milk chocolate, its inventor was a very smart Italian.

carry on...

John Hill
16th Jan 2014, 01:20
A careful use of statistics...The Swiss are required to own fire arms. Their murder rate is among the lowest in the world..

The death by firearms rate in Switzerland is well up the list and higher than countries including Australia, NZ, Canada, UK but lower than the US.

rh200
16th Jan 2014, 03:03
The death by firearms rate in Switzerland is well up the list and higher than countries including Australia, NZ, Canada, UK but lower than the US.

What are you implying John, suicides??

John Hill
16th Jan 2014, 04:24
Think about it for a moment. If everyone has a gun that is the perfect condition, right?

Everyone has a gun and no one hesitates to shoot the bad guys which I am sure is the gun fondlers favourite version of a perfect society.

rh200
16th Jan 2014, 04:44
Obviously not answering the question John?

Never mind, had a look at some stats myself, basically most of the Swiss deaths are related to them topping themselves. Which in the grand scheme of what people are generally worried about, in relation to gun crime is irrelevent. If you strip away the suicide stats there then their gun murder rate is virtually non existant.

Looking at the stats is interesting, as comparisons can be made with western countrys in relation to their laws. What is also interesting is the ratio of suicides to gun homicides. In the US it is only a factor of 2 difference.

A little more digging around also can show that violent crime and murder rates can be worse than the US in particular places. All this really come downs to supporting the view that its the social values that are causing the problems. The huggy fluffys just like to squawk about guns to draw attention away from it.

So in short, some poor [email protected] went to the movies, got p!ssed off by some self absorbed pr!ck who couldn't give a sh!t about anybody else and lost the plot and shot him . This because when confronted by what he did was wrong, got a hard on and instead of apologizing decided to take it further.

In either case, both got what they deserved, one taken out of the gene pool and the other will serve time (hopefully not much time).

John Hill
16th Jan 2014, 04:52
You are right I did not answer the question because the answer is bound to be rather complex. It is impossible to compare one country directly with another unless everything is identical except what is being considered which in this case is the accessability of guns.

The next thing to look at would be the suicide rate in Switzerland compared to like countries that do not have readily available guns.

CityofFlight
16th Jan 2014, 04:56
John Hill...Based on your obscure comments and not knowing exactly what you imply by them, it may interest you to know that the majority of US deaths resulting by guns, are a result of suicide. That's two thirds of deaths.
(2010, 19,000+ of the 31,000+ deaths by guns were suicide)

Those percentages keep increasing. Then CDC reports that 80 of the remaining are gang related/illegal/criminally based deaths.

What's left are what makes the headlines. We all hate this part. But at this point, the genie is out of the bottle.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 05:08
Here we are John

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

onetrack
16th Jan 2014, 06:59
So in short, some poor [email protected] went to the movies, got p!ssed off by some self absorbed pr!ck who couldn't give a sh!t about anybody else and lost the plot and shot him
No, not quite right. The "self-absorbed pr!ck", was a retired former police officer. A gent who should have had decades of training, experience and substantial personal skills, to be able to deal with and defuse, aggro or criminal behaviour.

Instead, he just chose to plug the person who offended him. That speaks volumes for the level of training and abilities of U.S. police - and even more for the total lack of training of every American civilian who is "constitutionally entitled" to nearly any firearm of nearly any calibre, of his/her choice.

Unfortunately, this taking offence and answering with a firearm is an all-too-common story from the U.S.

Upset because you got fired, or your co-workers laugh at you? Take your firearms into work, and shoot them all! Problem solved!

Need some money because you're a little short? Just take your firearm and shoot someone to get it. Problem solved.

Had some bad service in a restaurant/gas station/7-eleven? Take your firearm into the business and shoot some of the staff, and some of the customers as well. That'll teach 'em to mess you about.

Watched a really vile and horrendously violent Hollywood movie lately? Think you can do the same as the bad guys did in the film and shoot up a few dozen people? Take your firearm and copy what they did in the film! That'll make you a hero!!

Feeling a little down, and can't see a way out? Blow your brains out with your conveniently-to-hand favorite firearm! Problems solved!

Spouse has left you, told you your dick's too small, or been screwing around? Too easy, grab your conveniently-to-hand favorite firearm, and blow her brains out! Problem solved!

Sadly, there's dozens of millions out there, who dote on every word of propaganda that the armaments-manufacturers, in the form of the NRA, spout endlessly. "You NEED a firearm! It's your RIGHT! A firearm will PROTECT you from ALL types of dangers! Come face to face with some muggers? Hey, you can just draw your firearm and kill them all! Problem solved!"

Sadly, the constant message from the firearms manufacturers and the gun lovers is that a multitude of firearms in the hands of every man woman and child, makes you safe - when the exact opposite is true.

If this propaganda from the NRA was true, the Wild West would have been the safest region and time in which to live.
We all know it was the exact opposite - but that's a conveniently-ignored fact in the current NRA propaganda.

FlyMD
16th Jan 2014, 06:59
Might also be useful to add that while the purchase of firearms is easy in Switzerland for collecting and sports purposes, the carrying of a concealed firearm is forbidden to all but a very few.

So it is perfectly normal on a Saturday afternoon to see a 16-year old riding his bike with an automatic assault rifle strapped to his back (he is going to the 300m shooting range for pre-military rifle training).

If it was discovered that some yokel was drinking in a bar and had a handgun tucked in his belt, the other patrons would shit themselves, and police would be on the scene in short order.

As John Hill said, it's very difficult to compare 2 countries unless all other circumstances than the one which you are discussing are equal.

The same applies by the way to healthcare: we have a system of mandatory purchase of health insurance, not unlike the one being tried in the US. However the fact that we've had it for more than a generation, and started the system in different economic circumstances means we don't face the same set of problems as experienced presently in the US, even though the actual cost of Swiss healthcare is tending towards the same dizzy heights..

Takan Inchovit
16th Jan 2014, 07:20
Trying to work out here whether someone died because of a gun or a person.

Was the ex-cop on drugs (unlikely)? Did he have a delicate frame of mind? Was he looking for someone to kill? Haemorrhoids perhaps? If the ex-cop was an ex-con would the opinions here by each poster be reversed? :sad:

North Shore
16th Jan 2014, 07:49
Quote:
So in short, some poor [email protected] went to the movies, got p!ssed off by some self absorbed pr!ck who couldn't give a sh!t about anybody else and lost the plot and shot him
No, not quite right. The "self-absorbed pr!ck", was a retired former police officer. A gent who should have had decades of training, experience and substantial personal skills, to be able to deal with and defuse, aggro or criminal behaviour.


Last time I went to a movie (albeit North of the border) there was a polite little blurb on at the beginning of the previews, asking people to refrain from phoning/texting during the movie.

Just because the shooter was a retired cop, doesn't necessarily mean that he had 'substantial personal skills'. Just as easy to say that he was a control freak, who got upset when someone didn't follow the rules, and when called upon it, told him to pi$$ up a rope. Old cop is used to people obeying him - he was a cop, after all, and so things escalate to BANG!

Either way, tragic all around...

rh200
16th Jan 2014, 08:01
Instead, he just chose to plug the person who offended him.

Not so simple depending on what news report you read, got a bit more heated before the "plugging". My initial thoughts where, why didn't he just ask him to stop. This was because some news stations where just describing it as getting show for text.

The phenomena you describe is not just in the states, I believe we have had a few killed when things get out of hand. For eaxample new years eve just north of Perth ring a bell? Instead of "plugging" we choice to hack to death with machetes.

onetrack
16th Jan 2014, 08:48
I'll take my chances against an angry bloke with a machete, as compared to an angry bloke with a firearm and possibly a couple of magazines, any day.

The bottom line is, if you have a perpetually-pushed gun culture in a country - and hundreds of millions of legal and freely available firearms - you've lowered the bar towards a much more dangerous society, and there isn't any easy way of getting it back up again.

IMPO, I reckon the founding fathers of America who wrote up the 2nd amendment would be appalled to see how the cult of the firearm has developed in the U.S., as compared to what they saw in their limited vision of the future.
After all, it was written up in 1791 - and what relevance does anything from 1791 have to do with 21st century society??

I've even heard some thoroughly-misguided gun nuts claim the 2nd amendment was a "God-given right". You'd think they were talking about something Moses brought down from Mt Sinai. Gimme a break!

chuks
16th Jan 2014, 10:22
The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a fairly recent one, that US Americans have some sort of basic right to go about armed. (Vermont, for instance, allows "concealed carry" to all state residents. Well, perhaps not those who are either insane, criminal, or both, just otherwise.)

Before this latest interpretation by the Supreme Court, the obvious link between "to bear arms" and "a well-regulated militia" had over-ridden the right of "people" in general "to bear arms" in the view of the Court. So, it's a matter of interpretation, when the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment perhaps should have been a bit clearer about their exact intent.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 10:26
"I've even heard some thoroughly-misguided gun nuts claim the 2nd amendment was a "God-given right". You'd think they were talking about something Moses brought down from Mt Sinai. Gimme a break!"

It is a god given right. Charlton Heston said so :O

From my cold dead hands :ok:


Thank god for the US in keeping the UN and the UN Agenda at bay.

belfrybat
16th Jan 2014, 11:00
In fact it was just a senile old git unable to control himself. Probably high on drugs too.

Checkboard
16th Jan 2014, 11:09
... and carrying a gun at a cinema, not in a down-town rough spot at night, a cinema.

Before this latest interpretation by the Supreme Court, the obvious link between "to bear arms" and "a well-regulated militia" had over-ridden the right of "people" in general "to bear arms" in the view of the Court.
The writers of the US constitution had just successfully over-thown their legitimate government using essentially a guerrilla force armed with personal firearms. They saw that process as an extreme, but legitimate, expression of the will of the people (you can't recruit enough for an effective guerrilla force if enough citizens don't agree with you - and they aren't effective if they aren't armed).

They meant exactly that the government should not restrict the people they govern owning arms (not state militia or any other interpretation). If they were alive today, they would all be NRA members on the side of citizens owning guns (they were after all much more violent in the 1700's - they saw personal duelling as legitimate! :ugh: )

Doesn't mean I agree with them - but trying to re-interpret what they meant isn't the way to go.

chuks
16th Jan 2014, 12:33
I don't think you are very well acquainted with the history of the American Revolution, Checkboard. Individual citizens carrying firearms were not a major factor in winning the war against the British. That took an army of our own, along with, yes, some militias; it was not just a mob of proto-Rambos popping off at Redcoats more or less at random that did the job. In light of that, it's reasonable, probably more reasonable than not, to take the 2nd to mean "bearing arms as a member of a well-regulated militia," as it had been interpreted earlier by our Supreme Court.

There are a lot of quirks in our history that people may not understand, such as the rather recent appearance of "In God we trust," on bills. That only happened in 1957 for paper money, although coins had borne the motto since 1864. Does that violate our injunction against having an "established religion," though? Again, it's a matter for interpretation, with many today having some notion of the USA as some sort of divinely ordained entity, one uniquely blessed by God. I don't buy that, but many of my fellow citizens do, so that they are happy to see that motto on what they use at Wal-Mart to buy their Cheetos. Gott mit uns!

Another myth is the central role that guns played in our Revolution and in the taking of the American West. In reality those events were much more complicated than the way they have been shown in almost numberless books and films, but "strong and simple" is the way we like our heroic narratives. If some pesky Redcoats or Redskins show up then you get out your shootin' iron to drive them off - Sorted! Believing in that helps to accept the obvious costs of individual gun ownership to American society, as if owning guns were some uniquely American thing to do.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 13:31
1. Only males who do military service are issued an assault rifle to take home. Firstly there is an alternative civil service available now for those who don't want to serve under arms; secondly, if you feel a gun in your home would not be safe, you have the possibility of storing your issue rifle at the local state armory.

I stand corrected.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 13:43
"No, not quite right. The "self-absorbed pr!ck", was a retired former police officer. A gent who should have had decades of training, experience and substantial personal skills, to be able to deal with and defuse, aggro or criminal behaviour.

Instead, he just chose to plug the person who offended him. That speaks volumes for the level of training and abilities of U.S. police - and even more for the total lack of training of every American civilian who is "constitutionally entitled" to nearly any firearm of nearly any calibre, of his/her choice.

Unfortunately, this taking offence and answering with a firearm is an all-too-common story from the U.S.

Upset because you got fired, or your co-workers laugh at you? Take your firearms into work, and shoot them all! Problem solved!

Need some money because you're a little short? Just take your firearm and shoot someone to get it. Problem solved.

Had some bad service in a restaurant/gas station/7-eleven? Take your firearm into the business and shoot some of the staff, and some of the customers as well. That'll teach 'em to mess you about.

Watched a really vile and horrendously violent Hollywood movie lately? Think you can do the same as the bad guys did in the film and shoot up a few dozen people? Take your firearm and copy what they did in the film! That'll make you a hero!!

Feeling a little down, and can't see a way out? Blow your brains out with your conveniently-to-hand favorite firearm! Problems solved!

Spouse has left you, told you your dick's too small, or been screwing around? Too easy, grab your conveniently-to-hand favorite firearm, and blow her brains out! Problem solved!

Sadly, there's dozens of millions out there, who dote on every word of propaganda that the armaments-manufacturers, in the form of the NRA, spout endlessly. "You NEED a firearm! It's your RIGHT! A firearm will PROTECT you from ALL types of dangers! Come face to face with some muggers? Hey, you can just draw your firearm and kill them all! Problem solved!"

Sadly, the constant message from the firearms manufacturers and the gun lovers is that a multitude of firearms in the hands of every man woman and child, makes you safe - when the exact opposite is true.

If this propaganda from the NRA was true, the Wild West would have been the safest region and time in which to live.
We all know it was the exact opposite - but that's a conveniently-ignored fact in the current NRA propaganda."

Obviously clueless about reality in the US.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 13:47
'Before this latest interpretation by the Supreme Court, the obvious link between "to bear arms" and "a well-regulated militia" had over-ridden the right of "people" in general "to bear arms" in the view of the Court."

And that 'well regulated militia' at the time of our revolutionary war was..... Wait for it:

The armed citizen.

chuks
16th Jan 2014, 14:54
I just spent about three years in Vermont, when I did happen to study the early history of that region, from the time of the New Hampshire Grants on through the Revolutionary War.

There were plenty of individual encounters between individual armed citizens and groups of armed citizens called militias on our side, and the British military on the other, yes. For example, the Battle of Bennington was fought between American militia irregulars and for the most part German troops serving in the British Army, but our citizen-soldiers then were often anything but "well-regulated." (For example, General John Stark basically told his Continental Army superior to get bent when requested to hand over his command; then he marched off to fight the British at the head of his New Hampshire militia.)

Think about it: there you are, when a troop of British regulars comes marching by your farmstead, say. You seriously think that you're going to achieve much on your own in such a situation, just by blasting away with a fowling-piece? No, you will need more than just that gun of yours to sort that one out.

We finally did get it sorted out, but that took the molding of the Continental Army into a disciplined fighting force, and more than a little bit of help from the French Navy. Those "armed citizens" that the gun enthusiasts justly admire, while often very brave individuals, were prone to not following orders and were thus obviously not what was meant by "well-regulated."

These are details of history that gun enthusiasts tend to overlook because they do not fit the sort of story you, among many others, choose to believe, N210KD: the "armed citizen" as an effective counter to the (very well-regulated) British Army and the Royal Navy. To take some distorted, essentially false version of our history as justification for this modern "right to bear arms" is simply not correct, in my view.

You guys who want to play with guns, well, please do so, but try very hard not to shoot anyone you do not really mean to. I would not want to see your guns taken away, because I hate to see grown men cry. If they mean so much to you, please keep them, but play safely.

Of course, the very day that North Korean paratroops land in my backyard, you may be sure that I shall run sniveling to the nearest gun owner for protection. How to ring his doorbell without being shot, though ... I am still trying to figure that one out.

Do not, however, take playing with your guns to mean that you are in the footsteps of such real American heroes as Ethan Allen. Ethan Allen would bitch-slap you silly, and then sit down and eat your popcorn, guns or no guns, if you so much as looked sideways at him.

By the way: Don't SHOUT! Whatever your argument is, it isn't made any stronger by writing it in bold.

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2014, 15:09
But, you know, you could always move if you feel threatened by other violent individuals in your country? I'm in Mexico presently. Its close to you. Far, far safer to be here then the US. People are nicer. Less violence.
You remain wrong in your statement, as you don't know how to use the term "race" in a sentence, and I laugh at you in re Mexico having "less violence" than much of anywhere.

Quite the comedian, you are.

I don't worry about my safety, here in Texas, but I do worry about some of my friends who have families in Mexico.

rgbrock1
16th Jan 2014, 15:09
chuks wrote:

Before this latest interpretation by the Supreme Court, the obvious link between "to bear arms" and "a well-regulated militia" had over-ridden the right of "people" in general "to bear arms" in the view of the Court. So, it's a matter of interpretation, when the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment perhaps should have been a bit clearer about their exact intent.

Although the men responsible for the writing of the 2nd Amendment were all too clear about the "right to bear arms" and the "well-regulated militia" if you read further published works by these men you'd find out exactly what they meant.
Mr. Jefferson, for example, was very precise on what was meant by the right to bear arms. As was James Madison and, believe it or not, Benjamin Franklin.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 15:12
RGB

Regardless of our individual thoughts on the subject, do you thin the Current Supreme Court has got it (the interpretation) right or wrong based on what the original founding fathers wrote ?

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2014, 15:14
This second amendment and fouding fathers debate is less interesting to me than this old grandfather not knowing how to behave himself in public.

Sorry, gunplay was not called for.

goudie
16th Jan 2014, 15:32
Harping on about various historical Amendments and the fight (a just one) for Independence, to justify the right to carrying a lethal weapon when doing the shopping or going to the cinema has no bearing on todays society. Not so long ago we hanged children, in public, for stealing a loaf of bread. It was the Law. We like to think we're a bit more civilised these days.

Lonewolf_50
16th Jan 2014, 15:40
Not so long ago we hanged children, in public, for stealing a loaf of bread. It was the Law. We like to think we're a bit more civilised these days.
Nah, we've just gone soft. :p That is why civilizations decline and founder; getting all soft and lumpy.

rgbrock1
16th Jan 2014, 15:58
500N:

I think the Supreme Court got it right. Again, several of the founders in different forms of communication expressed exactly what they meant by the wording in the 2nd Amendment. One just has to research it to find it.

The right to bear arms was never meant for as a right to take up arms against ones fellow man. That was not what the founders meant. What was meant was that the right to bear arms was the right to take up those arms against tyrannical government. Such as we have in the U.S. today.

Here are some quotes, from several of the founders about that right:

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

"what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? --Patrick Henry

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -- Samuel Adams

ExXB
16th Jan 2014, 17:09
Including this bit?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

John Hill
16th Jan 2014, 17:43
Sometimes guns are the only answer..

Admitting that diplomatic outreach efforts in the area have so far proven unsuccessful, the president claimed that his administration is weighing the feasibility of committing combat troops to both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives in order to bring lasting peace and stability to the chaos-afflicted legislature.

Obama Not Ruling Out U.S. Military Action In Congress | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-not-ruling-out-us-military-action-in-congres,34946/)

John Hill
16th Jan 2014, 17:48
BTW, what they really meant was..

We need some sort of army and anyone can join.

chuks
16th Jan 2014, 18:19
One hopes that foreigners, too, understand that the "Onion" is not a source of news as such. If so, what's the relevance of the previous post to this argument about the 2nd Amendment in particular, and gun ownership in the States in general?

bcgallacher
16th Jan 2014, 18:52
I think using 300 year old laws to justify 200 people a day being transported to A&E with gunshot wounds is nonsensical.If that were the case we could use the same philosophy to hold public hangings or use of the rack . We have surely advanced our societies beyond carrying firearms to protect ourselves. The USA has ended up with a prime example of the law of unintended consequences - there is absolutely nothing can be done to change the gun culture,the guns are already there,no laws will make any difference.As in most countries gun crime is slowly reducing,its just that the USA will take a lot longer than the others to get down to an acceptable level.This subject will be debated time and again to no useful purpose each time we have another gun atrocity.

brickhistory
16th Jan 2014, 19:48
Several of the last posts have made a simple error:

You equate the Bill of Rights as "laws" to be changed by Congress. Nope, can't be done. Changing the Constitution can be accomplished, but not via a "law."

And I have to disagree with the learned chuks on his interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those "Minutemen" were just Joe Farmer until called out for militia duty. And Joe Farmer had need of his weapons for the defense of his family and property hence him having those implements to start with.

Just as I do today. I have the natural, God-given if you prefer that terminology, but in either case, the absolute right to keep and bear firearms without the government's permission.

To the overseas holier than thou brigade, I refer you to the Magna Carta. Seems those gents were a bit upset about your king saying they couldn't retain their arms.

Something similar in the restoration of the monarchy after Cromwell's adventures as well?

Meanwhile, vent away your respective spleens. Point the collective finger; we'll muddle along just fine, despite the stupidity of some firearm owners. We haven't, yet, quite surrendered our self-respect and ability to decide for ourselves whether we can be responsible for ourselves. You enjoy your being made to conform in your perfect safety. The 'occassional' violence you seem to experience, even at the wrong end of a gun, is surely just an anamoly and one bound to disappear over time as you continue to evolve.

Us savages will surely learn, right? Darwin and all that?

Funny how the numbers of firearms and numbers of background checks purchased and accomplished in 2013 were both historical records.

I don't 'need' any of the firearms I possess. I don't have nearly as many as I want; damn those financial restrictions, and I enjoy immensely being able to decide for myself, all by myself, whether I do or not.

bcgallacher
16th Jan 2014, 20:12
If you really believe that God gave you the right to bear arms you are bringing the debate to a whole new level - rational argument I can cope with but religious fanaticism is a little beyond me.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 20:13
brick

"You enjoy your being made to conform in your perfect safety. The 'occassional' violence you seem to experience, even at the wrong end of a gun, is surely just an anamoly and one bound to disappear over time as you continue to evolve.

Us savages will surely learn, right? Darwin and all that?"

You forget that in Europe, the "public" has been disarmed before,
then they found other methods to kill over 6 million of them :rolleyes:
Then you have the "safety" as provided by the UN / EU / NATO
which lead to a few recent massacres.

Oh yes they are safe !!!


"We haven't, yet, quite surrendered our self-respect and ability to decide for ourselves whether we can be responsible for ourselves."

+ 1 :D:D:D

goudie
16th Jan 2014, 20:13
Brickhistory Should our paths ever cross and you accidentally step on my toe, be assured I will apologise profusely. Hope that makes you feel, carrying a gun worthwhile!

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Jan 2014, 20:14
we'll muddle along just fine
If by "fine" you include "dead".
We haven't, yet, quite surrendered our self-respect
Just your lives. Odd system of values, but there you are - goes with "better dead than red" I suppose, I never understood that one either.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 20:19
They haven't surrendered their lives. Most of the dead are perps that
need removing anyway so no loss to society. A lot to be said for
stopping some people from breeding.

In any case, better to be dead with self respect than cowering on one's
knees waiting for the gas to kill you.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 20:22
What I haven't seen mentioned-and I'm thinking the African continent countries here- is that in some countries where gun ownership is totally prohibited the murder rate with guns is higher than in countries where citizens are permitted ownership.

Now; those here in the US who favor gun control highly skew statistics while advocating their position.

brickhistory
16th Jan 2014, 20:25
goudie, should we meet, I will be polite as I usually am with or without a firearm on me. And should I step on your toe, I can assure you I will be the one apologizing.

There are lots of law-abiding gun owners in America. The vast majority are responsible and deplore the stupid misuse as, apparently (still say all the relevant facts aren't in the public domain), this instance was. Or the very infrequent, but well-publicized, mass shootings. Crimes all, reprehensible all.

There are also more than a fair number of non-law-abiding gun owners in America who would do harm. I take active measures mostly based on see and avoid to not be in their presence.

But, should evil appear, I hope I have the option of how to deal with the threat. And as hope is not a great tactic, I usually, where legal, am armed.

Too bad if you don't like my choice. The freedom to make that choice is my concern and one to be defended in word and deed.

Logic doesn't appear to be a strong point to some in this thread. If I am writing, I cannot (as best I can tell) be 'dead.' Therefore, 'fine' does seem to be an accurate description.

True, I am not holier than thou, but if it's a trade off between deciding for myself or letting the state do so and pursing my lips and condescending to 'savages,' then it's a good exchange in my view.

Note that's my view and not one decided for me by a government.

Subtle point that seems to be lost in the argument.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 20:29
"Note that's my view and not one decided for me by a government."


Even worse in the EU, it seems to be bureaucrats that decide
on restrictions for the general public, not elected Gov'ts.

brickhistory
16th Jan 2014, 20:30
If you really believe that God gave you the right to bear arms you are bringing the debate to a whole new level - rational argument I can cope with but religious fanaticism is a little beyond me.


Read the post in it's entirety and not try to distract.

My words were:


I have the natural, God-given if you prefer that terminology, but in either case, the absolute right to keep and bear firearms without the government's permission.


God-given is a reference to the description in the Constitution. My meaning is that I, as an individual, have the right to keep and bear firearms and it is not for any government to decide that for me.

Do try and keep up.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Jan 2014, 20:37
God-given is a reference to the description in the Constitution
So, given the non-existence of "god", the constitution is therefore void, and so is the "right" to go round shooting people ... :D

brickhistory
16th Jan 2014, 20:55
Well, aren't you clever. There is no 'right' to go around shooting people. With or without a belief in God.

There is a natural right I, as a legal citizen of the United States of America, to keep and bear arms. For self-defense, for protection, for sport, or just for the hell of it. For some, 'natural' equates to 'God-given' as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

And you can do nothing about it. Nor, really, should it be your concern, but for some reason I cannot fathom, non-U.S. ppruners seem to have a need to instruct Americans on what we should or should not do.

Last time an Englishman tried that, our guns (and French ships) decided the issue.

Sometimes, it's a good day.

Almost as good as some action flick where the bad guy is a Brit who gets shot by some good ol' boy 'Murican. Yippee-kay-yay...

And as long as I'm on movies, James Bond seems to rack up an impressive body count (er, yes...) in each offereing. Many times with a firearm. Surely you don't contribute to such?

Richo77
16th Jan 2014, 21:31
Brick,

Happy for you to believe in "god" (I've heard she's black you know) and that she gave you the right to bear arms, you love your guns good on you.

However your reference to "infrequent but well publicised shootings" seems a bit off. Having heard something on the news recently I did some quick research, albeit internet but from sources such as the bbc, cnn among others (lets call them "somewhat" credible). 23 mass shootings in the US SINCE Sandy Hook. 23! across 17 states leaving 100+ dead. A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as the killing of more than 4 persons without an "extended" cooling-off period by the perpetrator.

I suppose 100+ dead over 350m US citizens really isn't much of a percentage but 23 mass shootings isn't it a bit much?

Seems (to me at least) that the law-abiding citizens are starting to go off the rails. Lunatics taking over the asylum?

Found this little nugget too:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence jointly issued a 2013 scorecard that ranks state gun legislation in all fifty states. The scorecard ranks each state along thirty-eight criteria that address a variety of policy areas, including allowance of firearms in public places, and background checks and access to firearms.
Texas and Oklahoma were ranked 33 and 35, respectively, out of the fifty states, and are assigned a grade of “F”. The worst-rated state was Arizona, the best California.

500N
16th Jan 2014, 21:42
Richo

" Seems (to me at least) that the law-abiding citizens are starting to go off the rails. Lunatics taking over the asylum?"

I assume that is Sydney, Australia ?

Pot, kettle, black ?

You know, the place where, like Melbourne, people walk up behind others out
for a night and king hit them, often killing them and if not, plenty brain damaged.

How many people have been king hit in Melbourne and Sydney
in the last few months ? (and to a certain extent Brisbane)

And don't forget all the Random shootings in Sydney over the last few years,
(following on from where Melbourne left off).

I suggest we clean up our own back yard before we start lecturing the
US on things that don't affect us at all.

And yes, I am from Melbourne.

Richo77
16th Jan 2014, 21:53
500, are you kidding? Yep lots hurt by Coward Punches and i think they should all be treated like Russell Packer (the NRL player) 2 years cold. No appeal, no bail, if you knock someone out (when not expecting it) or stomp them when knocked out then 2 years, gone.

But comparing punches to guns? Mass shootings was what i referred to. 23 of them since Sandy Hook. Only 2 or 3 coward punch victims have died as opposed to 100+ i mentioned.
Yes, lots of random shootings too but not a lot of deaths, and as i mentioned in an earlier post most of the sydney ones related to the BFL.

And the police here have done something about the BFL so the shooting here should be lessened. Also i believe next Tuesday the NSW government will bring in legislation regarding the Coward Punches.

Seems to me WE ARE cleaning up our own backyard.

Compare an even playing field and not fists to guns before you bandy around pottle ket comments yeah?

500N
16th Jan 2014, 22:07
I still think it's a bit rich to be lecturing he US.

"And the police here have done something about the BFL so the
shooting here should be lessened."

Really ? That's one group of young men.

Haven't seen any great hauls of illegal guns by the Police lately.

They will still go on.

brickhistory
16th Jan 2014, 22:15
Compare an even playing field and not fists to guns before you bandy around
pottle ket comments yeah?


There is no "even playing field." You are not on our field. I am not on yours.

Your government decided for you. You seem content with that. Fine by me. And when I'm in Australia, I will abide by Australian law.

Here, in most places, we have the choice to make for ourselves. Why can't that be fine by you?


Possessing firearms, or not, is a right enshrined in the founding of my nation. It is not one to give up and it is not one the government can take.

Again, I refer the right honorable gentlemen to the Magna Carta and the 1689 (?) English Bill of Rights. At one time, you, or at least your ancestors, considered this of fundamental importance. The nanny state seems to have bred it out. Good for you. Tell me when your violence is likewise bred out.

Until then, I'll muddle along in my semi-savage state. And you are powerless to do anything about it. Much like any other victim.

Richo77
16th Jan 2014, 22:22
What's the view like from your pedestal 500? I'm not lecturing anyone mate, i just asked if Brick thinks 23 mass shootings since SH is a bit much. Other than that i stated an opinion and re-posted some stats about the state rankings i found. Where was the lecture?

According to the Police in NSW most of the recent random shootings which have been occuring HERE in Sydney are related to the BFL which is why they rounded them up. They have been cracking down on the bikie gangs too. Again, at least they are doing something about it. If you havent seen any hauls of gun then you havent been watching the news or reading the newspapers, albeit they havent been massive but each time they have arrested bikies or BFL members they are finding and confiscating guns, money and drugs.

I'm sure they will go on, but to say there nothing being done about it is incorrect.

Richo77
16th Jan 2014, 22:28
Nice one Brick, you address a comment i made to 500 and ignore the question i asked you.

All i wanted to know is if you, a well protected and god fearing law abiding citizen think 23 mass shootings since Sandy Hook is a bit much?

I'm not condemning you or your ways and i'm happy for you to make your choices regardless of what i think of them.

And don't refer to me as a victim.

ruddman
16th Jan 2014, 22:39
You remain wrong in your statement, as you don't know how to use the term "race" in a sentence, and I laugh at you in re Mexico having "less violence" than much of anywhere.

Quite the comedian, you are.

I don't worry about my safety, here in Texas, but I do worry about some of my friends who have families in Mexico.


Nope. I've spent quite enough time in the States and Mexico to know which country is safer. And Aussies, Canadians and Americans living here also know it.

Gotta stop believing the propaganda the government feeds you. Same propaganda that says Starbucks makes good coffee. :yuk:




Forgot to add....yes, I am a comedian. Comes naturally. :ok:

ruddman
16th Jan 2014, 23:21
We can own guns too in Australia. Many of my friends have them.

Our government hasn't decided we shouldn't. All it did was make it harder for loonies to obtain high powered weapons that can kill many people quickly.

OUR Government has shown concern for its citizens by protecting them as much as possible.

YOUR Government couldn't give a flying f*** for its citizens and lets them shoot each other into hell and rewards those that do by continuing to fund the pro-gun types.

For every 100,000, 1 person or thereabouts loses his life due to gun related violence here.

It is 10 times that number in the US. Gangs, suicide or otherwise. 10 times worse.

We have strict gun laws. You don't. 10 times more. Yep, your 'carry a gun for protection' works....not.

Remember, it's encouraged in your country to have one because you need the protection, not from Iraq, not from the Taliban, but from YOUR OWN CITIZENS.

Great country you got there. Evidently Americans call that freedom. Everybody else calls it s***. Kinda the opposite. Know where I'd like to not live!



Biggest mis-conception though is that we love to tell Americans what they should do. Nope. Not at all. If you want to murder your own children, go right ahead! Not our fault the rest of the world would like you guys to stop it! But we really don't care.


There are around 7 billion people in the world. 6.7 billion think the USA is a joke and don't care at all for it when it comes to its gun laws.

Richo77
16th Jan 2014, 23:27
Police Sgt Smith (on scene attendee from YET ANOTHER RANDOM SHOOTING) sums it up:

"There's not a day that goes by, it seems like anymore, where we're not learning of a school shooting or at a business. ... We hope that this would never come to our hometown and here it is," Sgt. Smith said.

onetrack
16th Jan 2014, 23:29
Haven't seen any great hauls of illegal guns by the Police lately.
500N - You obviously don't get to read much, outside the latest gun model news?

328 illegal firearms seized, along with 4 tonnes of illegal ammunition (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/trio-charged-as-328-guns-4-tonnes-of-ammo-seized-in-queenslands-biggest-haul-of-illegal-weapons/story-fnihsrf2-1226770246618)

Weapons seized - ABC news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/weapons-seized/4956566)

Guns seized from house with bikie links - Yahoo!7 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/20669056/guns-seized-from-house-with-bikie-links/)

Police gun seizures continue in SA | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/police-gun-seizures-continue-in-sa/story-e6frfku9-1226649377084)

Man charged over 86 guns and associated items seized at Renmark - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-09/man-charged-over-86-guns-and-associated-items-seized-at-renmark/5144428)

Firearms seized - S.A. (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/loaded-uzi-machine-gun-seized-in-25m-drug-and-weapons-bust/story-e6frea83-1226464885795)

Operation Unification - http://www.police.wa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=EXecc%2F40i8E%3D&tabid=1488

All of the above reports are just the major illegal firearms seizures in recent times. It's an almost daily occurrence that drug busts also involve the seizure of at least one, and usually several illegal firearms, with each bust.

The regular shootings in Sydney can be sheeted home to one factor - the entry to Australia of a large group of criminally-inclined Middle Easterners, who come from a nation where a gun culture is combined with the belief that real manhood and guns belong together - coupled with a sizeable degree of mental illness amongst this group, and an overwhelming level of unemployment amongst this group (due to a lack of basic employment skills).

You can thank (ex-P.M.) Malcolm Fraser for this shambles, because he over-ruled the Immigration Dept and Australia's Immigration laws, to allow these "refugees from the civil war in Lebanon", in - against the advice of every immigration authority.

These Middle Easterners were hand-picked by the Syrian Army to go to Australia, as they were the ones causing the most trouble in Lebanon during the '76-77 civil war.
The Syrian Army also made sure their criminal records were erased, to avoid any background checks, which would have seen these people rejected for admission to Australia.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 23:53
"Having heard something on the news recently I did some quick research, albeit internet but from sources such as the bbc, cnn among others (lets call them "somewhat" credible). 23 mass shootings in the US SINCE Sandy Hook. 23! across 17 states leaving 100+ dead."

Ricoh, That is dead wrong. Our mass media thrives on sensation and scaring the hell out of the sheep. The liberal media here are almost all in support of gun control and are skewing the numbers to their satisfaction. Your sources are lying. They are not true journalists. They have an agenda.

rh200
16th Jan 2014, 23:54
So, given the non-existence of "god"

Thats a belief not a fact.

On that point does the American constitution actually mention god. If it does, thats and interesting propersition. Not really understanding it, its easy to get confused.

The bit about organized religion etc. That would mean that Under the constitution, then it is implicit that there is a god. Just the government can't promote a specific faith to that specific deity? Interesting, but I most likely have it wrong.

But on what the thread is actually about. It will be interesting if the shooter can get a real sly lawyer, and what they can do with it. There's several angles there, that could go in his favor if his lawyer was real cunning.

N210KD
16th Jan 2014, 23:59
I'm exiting the conversation. Those who are not willing to get their ducks in a row and listen to the truth will never be convinced.

John Hill
17th Jan 2014, 02:39
Those who are not willing to get their ducks in a row and listen to the truth will never be convinced.

Thats what they said to me when they kicked me out of the church!

Richo77
17th Jan 2014, 03:13
N210KD,

You go right ahead and bury your head in the sand, its common practice and i'm used to it from those who don't have the nous to respond properly. "ITS ALL LEFTY FLUFFY HUGGY PROPAGANDA!!!!".

Or, you could buck the trend, do a little research and find out the FACTS don't lie. Or perhaps the FBI and CNN are in a CONSPIRACY to belittle us all and make us look silly.

CNN and the BBC are not true journalists, i should believe you instead.
Seriously, since i first responded there has been another shooting in Elkhart FFS!.

Do you even know what "getting your ducks in a row" means? because it has no relevance to this conversation.

rh200
17th Jan 2014, 03:33
And for a good laugh

NFL Wife Carelessly Forgets AR-15 Rifle, Leaves it Behind in Rental SUV (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/16/nfl-wife-forgets-ar-15-rifle-leaves-rental-suv.html)

Hmm, now, make up hand bag, adjust the skirt, now where did I leave my AR-15?:cool:

John Hill
17th Jan 2014, 03:41
The big challenge faced by modern media organisations is that reality has an undeniable 'leftist' bias!:E

Um... lifting...
17th Jan 2014, 04:42
Actually, John, reality has no bias at all. However, most media organizations have a bias of their own to which their strongest supporters generally adhere.

Anyone or any organization that assigns reality any particular bias is the one or ones who hold that bias, so try again, John. This time try something you didn't read on a bumper sticker.

The U.S. Constitution makes only one mention of religion in the main text (and later in the Bill of Rights), and that is as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Those of you with Google already knew that. Those of you who hold forth on how many times God or religion are mentioned in The U.S. Constitution quite clearly have not bothered to read it.

twb3
17th Jan 2014, 05:15
Must have been a very crowded theatre, what with all the the eyewitnesses on this board that have been able to tell us, in precise detail, exactly what happened, why, and who is to blame for it.

Will you be returning to Florida to testify at trial?

PinkusDickus
17th Jan 2014, 05:23
The title by the OP is misleading. A more appropriate title would be:

"FORMER POLICEMAN MURDERS MAN IN MOVIE THEATRE",

If the victim contributed to his demise because he was texting, or threw a peanut at the shooter, that's no excuse to kill.

He may have been an annoying prick, but he was not a threat. The shooter should get life imprisonment - nothing less.

rh200
17th Jan 2014, 05:50
The title by the OP is misleading. A more appropriate title would be:

I got the impression it was the OP's way of taking the p!ss at the gun culture, hence the title.

ExXB
17th Jan 2014, 08:27
1. Only males who do military service are issued an assault rifle to take home. Firstly there is an alternative civil service available now for those who don't want to serve under arms; secondly, if you feel a gun in your home would not be safe, you have the possibility of storing your issue rifle at the local state armory.

I stand corrected.

Also Ammunition is no longer allowed to be kept with the weapon (army issued rifles and pistols). The Canton of Geneva is talking about requiring the guns to be kept in armouries (except for rapid reaction forces).

Purchases of most firearms, either in stores or from individual sellers, require an authorisation from the cantonal police. If an authorisation is not required, buyer and seller must put together a written contract of which a copy must be provided to the police. Rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, automatic weapons, laser sights, night-vision sights and silencers are banned.

Sports shooters are only allowed to transport their guns from their home to the firing range. Guns and munitions must be kept separate during transport. Gun licences themselves are required for any person bearing a weapon in a public place. In practice, only security specialists receive one after passing theoretical and practical exams. Nationals from Sri Lanka, Algeria, Turkey and Albania as well as from ex-Yugoslavia, are not permitted to buy and carry weapons in Switzerland.

And still deaths from guns remain at 200-300 per year. The highest rate in western Europe.

Takan Inchovit
17th Jan 2014, 08:35
Deaths caused by cellphone are more difficult to track.

Ancient Mariner
17th Jan 2014, 08:36
Interesting, according to UNODC the homicide count in Switzerland has not been above 100/year since 1995. Latest figure for 2011 is 46.

Some numbers here.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
versus
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

Draw your own conclusions.
Per

Edited to add that maybe ExXB figures might include accidental shootings and suicide?

John Hill
17th Jan 2014, 08:36
Actually, John, reality has no bias at all. I am sure it does not appear that way to the 'righties', or maybe they have a defective appreciation of reality.:rolleyes:

John Hill
17th Jan 2014, 08:46
Ancient Mariner, examples from those tables:

US homicide rate is about 4 times that of NZ and US gun ownership is about 5 times that of NZ.

goudie
17th Jan 2014, 08:48
S. American countries, S. Africa and Jamaica are way way ahead in gun-related deaths. Compared to them the USA is a safe haven.
Mostly drugs/crime related I would imagine.

Don't suppose irritating texters are in any danger!

chuks
17th Jan 2014, 08:57
So, John, are you sure that you are seeing bias that exists, or simply seeing bias due to your own biased way of looking at things? In other words, what sort of test for truth do you use in making your observations? Yours looks like just another case of "validation by emoticon" to me. You know, stick of few of those little guys onto something and then it simply must be so!:)

The papers these days are full of stories from Mexico about extreme levels of violence, verging on civil war, yet one poster here thinks it's safer than Texas. So what's the deal; are the papers keeping all that news about Texas quiet, headless bodies laid out on show in the streets and all? If not, then I think I would have to choose Texas over Mexico, really.

I always think of a cartoon from years ago, a middle-aged couple on a city street, flanked by a dead elephant, with the wife telling her husband that she will never make fun of him again for always bringing an elephant gun along. Really, perhaps we should go out dressed like a modern infantryman, just in case, but with the addition of an inflatable life vest in case it's a tsunami that's the problem, instead of an armed maniac.

One day I was out in the neighbor town, just doing some window-shopping, when a fellow togged out in full combat gear approached. "Just another maniac," I thought to myself, preparing to die. Then I remember that this was Germany, not the States. It turned out to be a young lieutenant leading his US Army squad on a training exercise: part of Reforger probably.

The ultimate in protection was achieved when we got a Pershing rocket unit emplaced just down the road in Barme. The wife and I were in a local pub around then, when two of the dumbest GIs I ever met were chatting with one of our village drunks and coming in second-best. She turned to me and murmured, "Those are your people in charge of atomic weapons."

I thought to myself, "Oh no. This looks something like 'Dude, where's my tactical nuke?'" Anyway, they hung around for a while, with everyone pretending they weren't there, and then they packed up their nukes and left. After that the Soviet Union collapsed, but I don't know if those two events were related. Funny place, Germany: we had nukes but almost no firearms.

rh200
17th Jan 2014, 10:38
And still deaths from guns remain at 200-300 per year. The highest rate in western Europe.

An example of manipulation of statistics to further a view, although technically correct, in the argument about gun crime and murder its a falsehood. The Swiss have one of the lowest murder rates. Suicide is clear different problem which is hard to deconvolve how many of them would still kill themselves if they didn't have easy access to a weapon.

Nationals from Sri Lanka, Algeria, Turkey and Albania as well as from ex-Yugoslavia, are not permitted to buy and carry weapons in Switzerland.

OMG has anybody reported this gross abuse of their human rights to the UN, isn't that racial profiling?:p

rgbrock1
17th Jan 2014, 13:40
chuks wrote:

Really, perhaps we should go out dressed like a modern infantryman, just in case,

I'm game. :}:ok:

The wife and I were in a local pub around then, when two of the dumbest GIs I ever met were chatting

Probably Infantrymen. :}:ok:

500N
17th Jan 2014, 13:54
rgb
"perhaps we should go out dressed like a modern infantryman"

That's means DPCU's, not Pink Tutu's so don't get too excited :O


"Probably Infantrymen. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"

Now, now RGB, you aren't THAT Stupid even though you are a Grunt ;)

PTT
17th Jan 2014, 13:56
Suicide is clear different problem which is hard to deconvolve how many of them would still kill themselves if they didn't have easy access to a weapon.A valid point, but not one which allows dismissal of the statistics at hand. If it's clear that suicide rates are higher in comparable countries with easy access to guns (and I'm not saying they are but proposing a hypothesis) then it suggests that guns might be a factor in increasing suicide rates.

rgbrock1
17th Jan 2014, 13:58
No, no, no 500N; Infantry don't dress up in pink tutus: only Army Rangers do. :}

I WAS a grunt, 500N. Not anymore. Well, sort of.

Stupid? "Stupid is as stupid does."

bcgallacher
17th Jan 2014, 15:56
As far as suicide statistics are concerned I would not take them seriously as many countries are reluctant to give suicide verdicts for religious reasons.

rh200
18th Jan 2014, 04:29
then it suggests that guns might be a factor in increasing suicide rates.

This is true, an as I have already mentioned it as a factor, the spur of the moment issue and conveniance of a firearm is most likely what drives that.

But frankly I don't even entertain the gun issue with suicide, except in the case of murder suicide, which sadly seems to be a rising problem.

ExXB
18th Jan 2014, 10:02
Downsizing Swiss Military Tied to Fewer Suicides (http://www.medpagetoday.com/TheGuptaGuide/Psychiatry/40815)