Comments on: Allergy Medicine And Cigars Are Tougher To Get Than An Arsenal Of Weapons

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:18:24 +0000

@Bocktean The fallacy in your questions is evident in the very quote you
Iifted from my post. I said if you want to make “THIS country” more prone to attacks like they see in the Middle East, make it tougher to buy guns here. The point – which is not all that novel- is that deranged people will find a way to do their damage. I never suggested giving guns to Palestinians and, in fact, made a point of distinguishing our society from the Middle East and saying that the right to bear arms works here but would not there. At the end of the day, I could care less what they do in Israel. I simply don’t want my liberty curtailed by knee jerk reactions to tragedy.

By: bpa_kc

bpa_kc — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:02:56 +0000

John – I find myself agreeing with 90% of the stuff you write… but this article as well as pretty much all of your views on how “Pedo State” is being handled, definitely fall into that 10%. Murderous nutjobs are going to find ways to kill/maim/injure people no matter what restrictions the government places on the rest of us. Just like fat people are going to find ways to stuff their fat faces, no matter how much of a nanny state our nation becomes.

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:50:02 +0000

@Bocktean Incivility is incivility. Disagreement has nothing to do with it.

I didn’t say there was a difference in the nut. I said there was a difference in the environment the nuts operate in. You said less Glocks would result in suicide bombers: “If you want to turn this country into a place where nut jobs hurl bombs into crowded places or strap homemade explosives in their underwear and go to a pizzeria full of kids, just make it tougher to get a Glock. There’s a name for places like that. It’s called Israel.” I asked two simple questions, which I really would like to hear an answer, which is why I have now asked three times. I am genuinely curious:

1 – How would more Glocks in the hands of Palestinians stop suicide bombers?
2 – How would more Glocks in the hands of Israelis stop suicide bombers?

I’ve been to Israel. There’s a trained soldier with an automatic weapon at every turn. How are more guns going to deter suicide bombers? It’s a genuine question, not a sarcastic rejoinder.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:10:01 +0000

@John at MrSEC @John @MJWilliamson
Or, as my mom said, “if you can’t say something nice . . .”. And no, I didn’t see his statement as snotty.

By: MoKelly1

MoKelly1 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:05:30 +0000

@rmgxt9 Millions of guns and ammunition are owned by Americans who will never shoot anyone. Next.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:08:27 +0000

@John @MJWilliamson

The headline didn’t match the story because I was trying to make it short so that it would make sense and go out on Twitter.

You didn’t find MJWilliamson’s comment to be “snotty?” When he clearly referred to the headline and not the story itself?

I try to reply to everyone I can. When I’m calm, cool and nice… no one says anything. When I reply in the same tone that someone uses with me, then I get hit for being snotty.

As usual, I just shouldn’t respond to anyone.

John

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:32:17 +0000

Agreed 100 per cent, well written.

By: RoadTrip

RoadTrip — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:06:12 +0000

I want to add that 71 people got shot in random fashion. Why would anyonegetting shot at in a theater be concerned with a law abiding citizen trying to stop the threat with their own handgun? Dumb statement. You are trained in gun safetyclasses that you are not a police officer. You are to be a good witness and use the piece only when the threat is immediate, intentional and life threatening. Everybody should take the class whether they choose to own or carry a gun or not. If they did many dumb assumptions and statements that stir up emotions would never be made. Truth always works better than perception. Mulaw is absolutely correct – the courts and constitution have long settled the right to own guns. So lets work on the misconceptions and the abusers. John’s point in the story is that it is too easy to amass an arsenal when you have no personal liberty to simply buy a decongestant or cigar without a hassle. We have wacky, lobbyist, self interest system of government that is totally run bythe desire for power and greed. They do not have our best interests at heart. So if you have a brain, take a stand and defend yourself and your loved ones in every legal way you can.

By: RoadTrip

RoadTrip — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:46:42 +0000

The people in the front rows were passed over by the idiot and being 20 yardsaway as one poster claims is an untrue assumption for a shot on the guy. Many of the people were within 3 – 20 feet. I just got through nailing the head of a target with 5 shots from 20 feet with an LCP and I have been to the range 3 times in my life. Considering the fear factor and realizing at this point you have to assume you are going to get shot anyway – if you have two people with handguns start shooting at him this cat is running away as fast as he can go even if they miss him. He is a coward. That’s why he went outside and laid down afterwards. He had no desire for a shoot out with someone that would shoot back. I agree with statements on ammunition control. That could work.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:27:20 +0000

@Bocktean No need to take your marbles and go home just because you don’t like my answers. I don’t know what “picking the questions means” and I don’t have any “agenda.” I’m not in the NRA and I don’t own a gun. I did, however, spend years prosecuting gun crimes and I know from hands on experience what works and what doesn’t. Don’t presume to know me or my “agenda” from a few short posts. And btw if you have in mind some “clear differences” b/w the types of nuts I brought up at the beginning, let’s hear them, but don’t get in a twist if I don’t see them. Disagreeing is not incivility.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:17:13 +0000

@John at MrSEC @MJWilliamson
That seems a bit unnecessarily snotty, John. I have three advanced degrees and I can see how “get cigars” might actually be taken to mean “get cigars” and not “find someplace to smoke” them.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:10:30 +0000

@bigorngebri
Which ammo? And how many rounds are too many? And who do you want deciding?

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:38:46 +0000

@MJWilliamson

The headline couldn’t fully explain the point of the story unless it said: “Getting Allergy Medicine And/Or Finding A Place To Smoke A Cigar Are Tougher Than Getting An Arsenal.” So I shortened, assuming most intelligent readers would read the story and see quite clearly that I was referring to the recent jump in smoking bans.

Obviously, not my assumption was incorrect.

John

By: bigorngebri

bigorngebri — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:29:48 +0000

Ammunition control and regulating multi round clips are the key to this issue

By: rmgxt9

rmgxt9 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:25:28 +0000

@MoKelly1 millions of people watch batman and don’t shoot anyone. next?

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:22:51 +0000

@Bocktean You make the comparison to say they’re the same thing, but you won’t explore clear differences – because that doesn’t meet your agenda. You call it “settled,” yet gun laws can and do constantly change, If it’s “settled,” then why does the NRA constantly push for less regulations? Because it’s not settled. Never has been.

You’re beginning to sound like one of those with all the answers because only you get to pick all the questions. Again, I’m not for banning guns. I have civil conversations on this topic all the time with friends in the NRA who want to explore reasonable opinions and differing views. Guess that’s not happening here.

Have a nice day.

By: MJWilliamson

MJWilliamson — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:13:34 +0000

John,

I can buy cigars over the internet and have it delivered to my house. I cannot buy an weapon over the internet and have it delivered to my house.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:13:24 +0000

@BrandonALawson
And all I’m trying to say is that there isn’t always an “answer to the problem.”. Some people are just evil.

By: BrandonALawson

BrandonALawson — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:03:28 +0000

@BrandonALawson I would dispute that guns were controlled in this situation. That aside, I was just trying to point out that the answer to this problem is a lot more complex than either “take the guns away” or “arm everyone.” Everyone in this theater packing heat and trying to take out the gunman could have been much worse than it was, just as allowing concealed weapons may prevent violence in other situations.

By: MoKelly1

MoKelly1 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:31:44 +0000

My point exactly. Millions of guns owned by people who will never shoot anyone. Also protected by the constitution. Can’t argue for one right and start wanting to restrict other rights.

By: Vander

Vander — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:26:44 +0000

In Texas is not a state law that guns can not be carried into a theater. It is up to the city or theater to ban them.

By: Vander

Vander — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:26:02 +0000

@BrandonALawson Not in Texas. It is up to the theater to allow them or not.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:12:12 +0000

@BrandonALawson
Doesn’t matter what “we want.” It was against he law to be armed in that theater. That didn’t stop the killer. Case in point of the impotence of gun control. Guns were controlled and 12 people died anyway.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:07:40 +0000

@Bocktean
When it’s lamenting a policy that the courts and the Constitution say is a settled issue and the lament is based on impressions of the status quo rather than facts, it smacks of handwringing, albeit from good inentions. And no, you’re the one drawing the distinctions between Islamist crazies with their “political” grievances and a homegrown crazy with his grievances. I do not distinguish between the two, you did. As for the Palestinians and them getting guns, two points: (1) I won’t make an apples/oranges comparison b/w a free Constitutional society based on the rule of law, where the right to bear arms can work, and a society where an entire class of non-citizen inhabitants have as a major motivating force the desire to force the nation they inhabit into the sea. (2) the reason Islamic terrorists use bombs is that using guns doesn’t accomplish what they want the most – mass casualties better accomplished by bombs. In other words they wouldnt be interested in th guns anyway. As for your second question, I’ve been to Israel and they have citizen-soldiers who ride the bus and walk the streets with M-16′s and they don’t get bombed much anymore. They seem to think it works for them. But no, I’m not advocating Uzis for every American. I just wish we could resist the urge to look for freedom-reducing fixes to every tragedy that comes our way.

By: Vander

Vander — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:02:44 +0000

Psychos are psycho and they are going to do what they can to cause harm. There are really only a few possibilities in this situation

1. Ban guns all together (worst idea ever)
2. Accept that we can only do so much to stop people from acting a way we do not like and pray nothing like this happens again.
3. Have flags that warn the proper authorities when someone purchases a set number of guns or ammo in a set time frame.

A big issue with #3 is there will be a lot of people to go through on that list and it will take a lot of time and money to investigate all of them. Plus we would lose some more of our freedoms.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:51:45 +0000

@Bocktean
The people in the room say otherwise. I’ll defer to them since I wasn’t there.

By: mac

mac — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:12:05 +0000

@MoKelly1 wow i have terrible grammar and cant spell good

By: mac

mac — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:09:04 +0000

@MoKelly1 that entire idea ludacris to say we should “get rid of this junk.” these movies and games are protected under freedom of speech. what needst to change are the restrictions on access to these violent games and movies. there are millions of people who will see this movie and not want to go out and kill people.

By: MoKelly1

MoKelly1 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:04:49 +0000

This is not a gun issue. This is an issue with the garbage movies and video games that are allowed to be produced and shown. The Batman movie itself is nothing but violence and garbage made to look real. Same with video games. Get rid of this junk and we as a society will do much better than banning guns or creating government data bases to tract citizens.

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:44:58 +0000

@Bocktean He had a shotgun, semi-auto rifle, and a Glock at a densely packed room of people. I’m not sure aim was really involved.

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:34:20 +0000

@Bocktean For the record, it was your “bogus” distinction. I was just asking questions about it. Want to revisit them?

1 – Should Palestinians be allowed the same access to guns as Americans?
2 – How would more Israeli access to guns deter suicide bombers?

I am not for banning guns. As I noted, I have plenty of friends with guns, and I’ve taken the time to train my son, because he’s going to be around them. I do think a lot of gun lobby arguments are pure crap – just as some of the gun control arguments are pure crap. If we can weed out some of this crap on both sides, maybe we can have a real discussion.

It’s not hand-wringing. It’s a policy discussion.

By: BrandonALawson

BrandonALawson — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:18:32 +0000

In a dark, tear gas filled theater , with terrified people running around doing everything they can to find a safe place, do we really want armed citizens firing weapons at what they think is the shooter?

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:12:19 +0000

@Bocktean

Incidentally, where did you get “from 20 yards away” from? I seem to recall witnesses talking about him putting the gun right in their faces. And that gas mask on his face didn’t seem to inhibit his aiming ability, tragically. Just a thought.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:08:32 +0000

@Bocktean
I didn’t conveniently ignore anything-I knew someone would try to draw a bogus distinction between a nut who kills innocents because he’s the Joker and he’s been wronged somehow and a nut who kills innocents because he’s Allah’s soldier and he’s been wronged somehow. Their weapons do the same damage regardless of the pathology that launched them. Do you really want to be conferring ANY political legitimacy on Palestinian bus bombers? Crazy is crazy no matter the concocted reason for the killing.

As for the difficulty in hitting a target under stress, you’re right (although even a round that hits a Kevlar vest packs one hell of a wallop, perhaps an incapacitating one – don’t believe the movies) but I never said there should be a Glock in every theater seat. It was illegal for ANYONE to be armed in the theater. Most public places don’t allow concealed carry. Didnt do much good on Friday. Which is the entire fallacy of gun control advocacy; all such laws would do is inhibit the Constitutional rights of those who care about obeying the law in the first place.

Moreover, contrary to your impressionistic “doesn’t seem to make a difference” statement, the statistics say otherwise. Cities with the strictest laws have the highest homicide rates, and violent crime declined without the benefit of the assault weapons ban. In any event, I never offered deterrence as a reason to protect gun ownership. If deterrence was the point of carry laws, they’d eliminate the “concealed” part and we’d all wear them on our hips like Wyatt Earp. The point is protection.

Finally, I hope your last comment wasn’t meant to imply that I begrudge John or anyone else his First Amendment rights. I don’t. I just don’t see the point in the handwringing that results when people forget about the Amendment that comes right after that one and act like getting rid of guns is even an option.

By: StackMonkey

StackMonkey — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:56:05 +0000

I agreed with everything in this post except the last statement. “Especially since guns seem to be a much deadlier problem than allergy meds and Cohibas.” I guess SEEM would be appropriate given the something as tragic as the Batman movie massacre just happened. However, the Meth problem is a pandemic issue for the United States. Just ask any Government agency. Even the EPA has become involved in this issue.

By: Bocktean

Bocktean — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:20:03 +0000

Hitting a moving target about the size of a soccer ball (face) in a dark theater about 20 yards away while its shooting an automatic weapon: damn near impossible. Heck, remove the shooting back part. If AE’s: Top Shot” competitors routinely miss that sort of shot, I’m going to guess Average Joe could never hit it.

Would Israel be safer if it were easier to get a Glock? Depends on what you mean by safer. But the comparison conveniently ignores the political hatred fueling those fires. Are you suggesting that Israel allow the Palestinians to arm themselves so they can shoot Israeli citizens instead of bomb them? Or for average Israeli citizens to arm themselves so they can shoot suspected bombers? Did OK’s conceal-carry laws deter McVeigh? Or change his choice of terrorist act?

I took my son to a gun safety class, even though we don’t own one – because all of his friends’ homes have guns. This nation is crawling in guns, and it doesn’t seem to be having any of the effects people claim. it doesn’t deter crime. It doesn’t prevent murders. I don’t see how more of them would change anything. I could see how less might. But this is fundamentally a political question and an untouchable one for the most part at that. Kudos to Mr. P for sounding his opinion. That’s in the Constitution, too.

By: tp

tp — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:55:46 +0000

Agree their needs to at least be discussion. Kudos to you for even bothering to write this considering the places where most of your readers live, myself included.

By: studio1103

studio1103 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:27:34 +0000

Steve, While I agree with your statement, this guy only had a speeding ticket. He did everything legally. While I am not sure what can be done differently that won’t limit some type of freedom because I as an owner don’t particularly want the gov’t to limit how many rounds of ammunition for my 8 guns. Not sure what can be changed.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:34:53 +0000

Families, not Amelie’s. I hate auto fill.

By: Mulaw424

Mulaw424 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:31:42 +0000

If you want to turn this country into a place where nut jobs hurl bombs into crowded places or strap homemade explosives in their underwear and go to a pizzeria full of kids, just make it tougher to get a Glock. There’s a name for places like that. It’s called Israel. Do we want to end up restricting sales of lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel?
I happen to think the Claritin and smoking bans are unduly intrusive, and I live in the meth capital of the world and used to prosecute those who made the stuff. But the obvious difference between those items and guns is that the latter have an Amendment dedicated to them and the former do not. Give the government the ability to start nibbling around the edges of that freedom (Surely no one has a right to THIS gun or THAT round, right?) and you’ll have Alabamans able to get AR-15s and San Franciscans only able to get water pistols (with ammo restrictions that don’t allow you to use environmentally wasteful bottled water). Or, alternatively, we can let the federal government decide those questions for all Americans.
This is a human problem, not a technological one. And as terrible as these events are, they are NOT increasing in frequency, according to the FBI, which keeps pretty good statistics. True, they’re less frequent in other countries, but then I don’t want to live in North Korea, Saudi Arabia or even France. And there are families in Norway still hurting like the Amelie’s in Aurora.

By: RoadTrip

RoadTrip — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:01:49 +0000

Just took a required gun safety class with my adult daughter for the carry permits.It was excellent. I would have tested the theory that his body armor would have kept him safe.Somebody shooting back at him would have changed his thinking. A .380 LCP with a reasonable aim would have put a large hole in the coward’s face, which only had a gas mask on it. Should assault rifle and body armor purchases be registered with the state – IMO they should. But there are millions of handguns, rifles and shotguns out there that were never registered. The practical aspect outweighs the ability to regulate it. The primary ways to handle this is education of the masses and much more severe penalties for criminals using and selling guns. The crime rate for assault type offenses have been going down for years in states that support concealed weapon carry. That is why law enforcement agencies generally support and most of the classes are taught by active law enforcement trainers. Not just in these CO situation, but it would alarm most citizens to know that there are numerous foreign national gang members growing pot and making meth throughout our mountains with IED’s that will trigger if you hit a trip wire or catch on your clothing. The Home Depot’s/Lowe’s know who they are for what they purchase every day in their stores. Think about that on your next hike off the beaten path or hunting expedition. Education of the masses, stronger laws, more highly trained law enforcement officers. All law abiding citizens need to band together an be one big giant neighborhood watch organization.

By: kaput

kaput — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:51:11 +0000

There are no easy answers, that’s for sure. I’ve long been in favor of stricter gun control, but have sort of evolved away from that position (in a good way or bad way, I suppose). There are so many weapons already on the streets that restricting new sales might not make a dent in the bigger picture. For me, it’s almost like we’re too far down the road for good control of weapons to really make a difference.

I think instead of gun control we implement strict bullet control. At least way we can limit the usefulness of the millions of weapons that are already out there.

All that said, I’m seriously considering a concealed weapons permit.

By: Steve on the Bayou

Steve on the Bayou — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:32:25 +0000

It is illegal for felons to carry guns. Yet every day, felons have guns in their possession. Rules only restrict rule followers.