Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-24-2012, 01:03 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
sorry if i don't feel all that bad.... i'm not going to board the hype train that tells me how bad this is and then says we should "control" guns. I guess I shouldn't say i don't feel bad.... I just don't feel any worse than any other day considering the 1000's of babies that are killed, the dozens of people who are killed by alcohol, the dozens of people that are killed by tobacco, even the number of people that are killed by physician error every day.... why are we not lowering the flag to half staff for them? why do we not mourn them.....???? call me desensitized, but i'd be happy if there were only 12 people that innocently died every day due to alcohol or abortion, but since the government makes money off of it and alot of people utilize or enjoy it or whatever then that is a loss we are willing to endure and overlook, calling it choice....

guess that guy just chose to be a murderer, seemed like a normal dude up until he snapped,,,, guess he was just born that way and we should tolerate it. how else should i think, i am not allowed to consider morals or biblical standards, like absolute truths or something....
usually the people who are killed by alchohol and tobacco are doing it to themselves, that is the difference (except for drunk driving, secondhand smoke etc) ... does the government also make money off guns? i am not an american, but there must be some sort of fees for having guns that the gov't makes money off of (tax, registration, licences) ...

its funny, cuz if i wrote something like this and instead of alcohol and tobacco, replaced it with "thousands of civilians killed as unintended targets of war" i woulda been called out for "typical liberal thinking" or "war always has its casualties" ... i also think its funny that this has been deemed by some a "conspiracy theory" concocted to control guns by some .. LOL ..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-24-2012, 01:46 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
usually the people who are killed by alchohol and tobacco are doing it to themselves, that is the difference (except for drunk driving, secondhand smoke etc) ... does the government also make money off guns? i am not an american, but there must be some sort of fees for having guns that the gov't makes money off of (tax, registration, licences) ...

its funny, cuz if i wrote something like this and instead of alcohol and tobacco, replaced it with "thousands of civilians killed as unintended targets of war" i woulda been called out for "typical liberal thinking" or "war always has its casualties" ... i also think its funny that this has been deemed by some a "conspiracy theory" concocted to control guns by some .. LOL ..
Your thinking is so muddled itís hard to see what youíre getting at. Yes, there are taxes on guns, just like there are taxes on everything else, what do you think that is supposed to mean? And as far as "civilians killed as unintended targets of war" Iím not sure how that would be different to the point he was making than alcohol or tobacco or traffic or cholera or falls in the shower.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
rearnakedchoke rearnakedchoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
Your thinking is so muddled itís hard to see what youíre getting at. Yes, there are taxes on guns, just like there are taxes on everything else, what do you think that is supposed to mean? And as far as "civilians killed as unintended targets of war" Iím not sure how that would be different to the point he was making than alcohol or tobacco or traffic or cholera or falls in the shower.
my point is that adam is saying why should he feel worse for the people in this tradegy then the hundreds of people who die from abortion, smoking and drinking each day ... i was just saying that the people who died in this tragedy were going to a movie and is totally different then people knowing the consequences of smoking and drinkning and still doing it .. my other point is that adam is saying the gov't gets paid for alcohol and tobacco and that is the reason they don't do anything to control it more, my response is that they also get paid for guns, so why would they want to get rid of them?

thats all
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-24-2012, 02:58 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
my point is that adam is saying why should he feel worse for the people in this tradegy then the hundreds of people who die from abortion, smoking and drinking each day ... i was just saying that the people who died in this tragedy were going to a movie and is totally different then people knowing the consequences of smoking and drinkning and still doing it .. my other point is that adam is saying the gov't gets paid for alcohol and tobacco and that is the reason they don't do anything to control it more, my response is that they also get paid for guns, so why would they want to get rid of them?

thats all
Iím provoking you to keep posting because I like your sig, LOL!

Most of the taxes on tobacco (and maybe alcohol as well, Iím not sure) are meant to raise the price and discourage people from doing it.

As for why they donít control guns: "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." -Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-24-2012, 04:01 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
my point is that adam is saying why should he feel worse for the people in this tradegy then the hundreds of people who die from abortion, smoking and drinking each day ... i was just saying that the people who died in this tragedy were going to a movie and is totally different then people knowing the consequences of smoking and drinkning and still doing it .. my other point is that adam is saying the gov't gets paid for alcohol and tobacco and that is the reason they don't do anything to control it more, my response is that they also get paid for guns, so why would they want to get rid of them?

thats all
I know that some people cause their own death with drugs and alcohol,,, i don't think they should be calculated in the equation anymore than suicide should be calculated in with gun deaths.... i am merely comparing unintentional and innocent victims to unintentional and innocent victims

i appreciate your civil arguments and am hoping to respond equally civilly

MY point is that there are way more deaths due to alcohol and drugs to innocent people than there are by guns..... i am not talking about people who accidentally or purposefully kill themselves with them

that's not even including abortion


that's also not factoring in the family dysfunction that alcohol and even gambling causes.....

and to your second point..... there is no comparison between the taxes made off of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling as compared to guns..... guns are a miniscule revenue source for the government.... proportionately less than other things like cars or such....
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-24-2012, 04:46 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheachea View Post
I wish at least one person had a concealed handgun in that crowd. I know that it still would have been tough to kill the guy because he was wearing body armor and had an assault rifle ,but they would have had a slight chance to neutralize him.
http://news.investors.com/article/61...-free-zone.htm
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-24-2012, 08:32 PM
huan huan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
One guy silhouetted against a theater screen is not a complex marksmanship problem. Most civilian self defense shootings are pretty straight forward, Ďthat guy is trying to stab me, BANG!í
a silhouette against a theater screen?

consider that the situation is totally unexpected and it begins in an instant; it's dark, the room is filled with tear gas, and your ears are already ringing from hearing damage inducing shots and screaming. you find your target: a fully armored assailant sporting an AR-15 and a 100 rd. drum of 5.56, firing rapidly and on the move. people are running, stepping over dead bodies and the wounded and this is as simple as shooting one guy silhouetted against a theater screen? I don't think so. have you ever ran through a shoot house in little to no light with a team? now how about against others who are now shooting back? now throw in the innocents whom you are there to protect and intend to save. you don't want to become a liability and kill one of them when you make a minor mistake. it is a ridiculously complicated problem, and you have to understand advanced application under stress to cope with that kind of situation.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-24-2012, 08:57 PM
PRShrek's Avatar
PRShrek PRShrek is offline
Formerly Dethbob
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huan View Post
a silhouette against a theater screen?

consider that the situation is totally unexpected and it begins in an instant; it's dark, the room is filled with tear gas, and your ears are already ringing from hearing damage inducing shots and screaming. you find your target: a fully armored assailant sporting an AR-15 and a 100 rd. drum of 5.56, firing rapidly and on the move. people are running, stepping over dead bodies and the wounded and this is as simple as shooting one guy silhouetted against a theater screen? I don't think so. have you ever ran through a shoot house in little to no light with a team? now how about against others who are now shooting back? now throw in the innocents whom you are there to protect and intend to save. you don't want to become a liability and kill one of them when you make a minor mistake. it is a ridiculously complicated problem, and you have to understand advanced application under stress to cope with that kind of situation.
Sounds like youíre overthinking this. An armed citizen is not there to run through with a team, count the rounds in his drum magazine, or worry what an after action team might think of his minor mistakes. The bad guy in this case was painting himself like a laser with his behavior and costume, and was distracted by his many intended victims. The problem for the armed citizen in this theater is: find the bad guy part with the face on it, front sight, press.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:25 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
One guy silhouetted against a theater screen is not a complex marksmanship problem. Most civilian self defense shootings are pretty straight forward, Ďthat guy is trying to stab me, BANG!í
Might not have been that easy--remember he came prepared with what sounded like full body armour, although, I'm not sure how protected his face and head were with the gas mask. Maybe if there had been someone with military or police gun/combat experience in that theater who happened to be armed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-24-2012, 11:07 PM
huan huan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRShrek View Post
Sounds like youíre overthinking this. An armed citizen is not there to run through with a team, count the rounds in his drum magazine, or worry what an after action team might think of his minor mistakes. The bad guy in this case was painting himself like a laser with his behavior and costume, and was distracted by his many intended victims. The problem for the armed citizen in this theater is: find the bad guy part with the face on it, front sight, press.
a movie theater is not a cozy & short pistol range. have you ever shot a sidearm at distance? how about under stress? most people are not even remotely capable of reasonable pistol accuracy at 15 yards. now let's say you're 25 or even 50 yards from the shooter, and your odds of an effective round on target starts to go downhill REALLY fast, especially when you can expect to be about half as accurate in a high stress situation.

look, I'm definitely not advocating doing absolutely nothing. I truly wish someone was there who was carrying concealed. would it have made a difference? I don't know, honestly. I definitely hope so, but the chaotic environment was such that we can never know.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.