The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Zapp Brannigan wrote:I doubt all the injuries where due to gun shot wounds. Smoke inhalation along with sprains, scrapes and bruises from the rush to run out of the building probably account for most of the injuries.

"Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates, in a briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon, said that 71 people had been shot in total and 12 had been killed during the shootings at an area movie theater early Friday morning. Two of the victims died at area hospitals, while 10 were killed at the scene of the crime. "

I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force? Will semi-autos and antiques owned by some trained and many untrained private citizens (me and my bolt action from WWI) stand up to a force of mechanized highly trained warriors? Looking at Syria those who are standing up to the government have full autos and RPG's and have training from compulsory military service. Not sure where they are getting the weapons but are these the things Americans need to stand up to some tyrannical future government? I hope not. Any reasonable gun laws would seem to be counter-initiative if "protecting democracy" is the 2nd amendment's goal. Also re-instituting state militias with the ability to operate weaponry to stand up to any tyrannical Federal agency would seem to be the only logical way for a citizenry to defend themselves. Tanks v. Tanks, anti-aircraft vs. helicopters and bomb runs. Please don't think I'm being a wiseass, or that I actually have any real answers to this seemingly unwinnable argument. Sorry for maybe getting off topic, but stories like this just bring up these questions again. It doesn't seem like the right to bear arms helped anyone law abiding in this situation, just the nut that ran amuck. It may have actually been worse if some cowboy starting shooting to defend others.

merged part two into part one...

Awake wrote:(The previous thread was getting long)

"...71 people had been shot in total and 12 had been killed during the shootings..."

71 people... that is hard for me to comprehend... since some people were shot multiple times, and lots of shots missed, just how many shots would it take to actually hit 71 people? In the dark, with gas in the air. And lots of movement.

The police claim they were on-site within less than 2 minutes from the first 911 call.

Difficult to see how a lone gunman could do so much damage, not that I am suggesting anything. Granted, it was a sold out show with 300 people in the theater, but still...

Shooting into a packed crowd? I'm surprised more weren't hurt.

Sad very very sad ! Everyone has legitimate points. No one has an answer and never will. The NRA will continue to push their agenda and in the long run, their method will only hurt good gun control and that will cause the anti gun folks to get stronger. If the NRA would lobby for restrictions on gun sales and would support federal background checks, so that sick folks are not able to purchase weapons, that would go a long way to protect the rights of good citizens to own weapons for personal protection. well that's my take.... PS if you are a believer say a prayer for the folks in Co, If not keep them in your thoughts.....

SBRm1917 wrote:I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force? Will semi-autos and antiques owned by some trained and many untrained private citizens (me and my bolt action from WWI) stand up to a force of mechanized highly trained warriors? Looking at Syria those who are standing up to the government have full autos and RPG's and have training from compulsory military service. Not sure where they are getting the weapons but are these the things Americans need to stand up to some tyrannical future government? I hope not. Any reasonable gun laws would seem to be counter-initiative if "protecting democracy" is the 2nd amendment's goal. Also re-instituting state militias with the ability to operate weaponry to stand up to any tyrannical Federal agency would seem to be the only logical way for a citizenry to defend themselves. Tanks v. Tanks, anti-aircraft vs. helicopters and bomb runs. Please don't think I'm being a wiseass, or that I actually have any real answers to this seemingly unwinnable argument. Sorry for maybe getting off topic, but stories like this just bring up these questions again. It doesn't seem like the right to bear arms helped anyone law abiding in this situation, just the nut that ran amuck. It may have actually been worse if some cowboy starting shooting to defend others.

The deal is that forcing the Army to have to shoot at armed Citizens would potentially cause them to question their orders. Also, the ability to block supply lines would cause mobility issues. Just the chaos that would ensue due to potential widespread insurrection gives most elected officials pause.

Based off of the info from the media, it sounds like he was armed with things you could buy/order from WalMart, aside from the plate carrier which can be ordered online. Smoke grenades can be ordered online, CS probably not so much but bear spray cannisters can be made into ersatz CS bombs.

When it comes to all of our civil rights, I am an absolutist.

SBRm1917 wrote:I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force? Will semi-autos and antiques owned by some trained and many untrained private citizens (me and my bolt action from WWI) stand up to a force of mechanized highly trained warriors? Looking at Syria those who are standing up to the government have full autos and RPG's and have training from compulsory military service. Not sure where they are getting the weapons but are these the things Americans need to stand up to some tyrannical future government? I hope not. Any reasonable gun laws would seem to be counter-initiative if "protecting democracy" is the 2nd amendment's goal. Also re-instituting state militias with the ability to operate weaponry to stand up to any tyrannical Federal agency would seem to be the only logical way for a citizenry to defend themselves. Tanks v. Tanks, anti-aircraft vs. helicopters and bomb runs. Please don't think I'm being a wiseass, or that I actually have any real answers to this seemingly unwinnable argument. Sorry for maybe getting off topic, but stories like this just bring up these questions again. It doesn't seem like the right to bear arms helped anyone law abiding in this situation, just the nut that ran amuck. It may have actually been worse if some cowboy starting shooting to defend others.

I agree with you 100%. Personally owned weapons would have little to no influence in the outcome of a anti-government insurrection. "Our" stuff is nothing but pea-shooters compared to what we would face. Only a true civil-war, where significant portions of the military turn against the government, would have any chance of a positive 'rebel' outcome. The days of "we are going to war, bring your own gun!" passed 200 years ago. Revolutions like that in Libya were fought by military and paramilitary uniting, using heavy weapons and 3rd party control of the skies.

Good points.

ErikO wrote:The deal is that forcing the Army to have to shoot at armed Citizens would potentially cause them to question their orders.

More so than unarmed citizens? I think not. American soldiers are trained to shoot the enemy, not unarmed civilians.

wfaulk wrote:

ErikO wrote:The deal is that forcing the Army to have to shoot at armed Citizens would potentially cause them to question their orders.

More so than unarmed citizens? I think not. American soldiers are trained to shoot the enemy, not unarmed civilians.

Like in Afghanistan or Vietnam (see My Lai)? Soldiers may be trained one way or another, but in the heat of "battle", if it moves, it gets shot (see 5/4/70, Kent, OH). How come Americans always think their troops suffer none of the moral turpitude any combat soldier suffers?

irishman wrote:Sad very very sad ! Everyone has legitimate points. No one has an answer and never will. The NRA will continue to push their agenda and in the long run, their method will only hurt good gun control and that will cause the anti gun folks to get stronger. If the NRA would lobby for restrictions on gun sales and would support federal background checks, so that sick folks are not able to purchase weapons, that would go a long way to protect the rights of good citizens to own weapons for personal protection. well that's my take.... PS if you are a believer say a prayer for the folks in Co, If not keep them in your thoughts.....

+1

troutkiller wrote:Like in Afghanistan or Vietnam (see My Lai)? Soldiers may be trained one way or another, but in the heat of "battle", if it moves, it gets shot (see 5/4/70, Kent, OH). How come Americans always think their troops suffer none of the moral turpitude any combat soldier suffers?

I have no such fantasy. But if the argument is about the ethical dilemma of an American soldier shooting Americans, any person is more likely to have one when ordered to shoot the unarmed than the armed.

Awake wrote:

SBRm1917 wrote:I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force? Will semi-autos and antiques owned by some trained and many untrained private citizens (me and my bolt action from WWI) stand up to a force of mechanized highly trained warriors? Looking at Syria those who are standing up to the government have full autos and RPG's and have training from compulsory military service. Not sure where they are getting the weapons but are these the things Americans need to stand up to some tyrannical future government? I hope not. Any reasonable gun laws would seem to be counter-initiative if "protecting democracy" is the 2nd amendment's goal. Also re-instituting state militias with the ability to operate weaponry to stand up to any tyrannical Federal agency would seem to be the only logical way for a citizenry to defend themselves. Tanks v. Tanks, anti-aircraft vs. helicopters and bomb runs. Please don't think I'm being a wiseass, or that I actually have any real answers to this seemingly unwinnable argument. Sorry for maybe getting off topic, but stories like this just bring up these questions again. It doesn't seem like the right to bear arms helped anyone law abiding in this situation, just the nut that ran amuck. It may have actually been worse if some cowboy starting shooting to defend others.

I agree with you 100%. Personally owned weapons would have little to no influence in the outcome of a anti-government insurrection. "Our" stuff is nothing but pea-shooters compared to what we would face. Only a true civil-war, where significant portions of the military turn against the government, would have any chance of a positive 'rebel' outcome. The days of "we are going to war, bring your own gun!" passed 200 years ago. Revolutions like that in Libya were fought by military and paramilitary uniting, using heavy weapons and 3rd party control of the skies.

Farmers with guns worked out pretty well against us in Vietnam, did a number against the nazi's (mostly thinking about jewish russians, but there were MANY more cases of armed civilians kicking nazi ass). Anti-tank weapons are easily home made (seriously the devices we see over in iraq/afghanistan are the hallmark of idiots). Anti-aircraft, well that's a different story. So yes. The arms of citizens can be effective, it might not work, and it might be under effective but it's all we've got, and they've proven to work much to the chagrin of many professional soldiers who thought otherwise. This notion that a modern army is required to fight a modern army was proven false in Vietnam, and in Iraq/Afghanistan. The rules of guerrilla warfare are so far removed from what is taught in the military they still don't know how to combat it. For instance Americans or at least the american military still thinks it can win a war against insurgents, despite two decade long wars. Each of which was partially to blame for bankrupting us.

It is a huge mistake for any organized military to think it can automatically win a war against an insurgent group. it's also one they don't understand why they have a hard time. they have hard time because guerrilla warfare is fought on the terms of the insurgents, not the professional military, and when you do that, you can dictate the usefulness of things like tanks and such.

This thread is getting to be a stretch into civil disorder, something I can still vividly recall from the late 1960's and which continues to flare up on occasion, such as Cincinnati in April, 2001. I wouldn't wish any of that on anyone.

My heart goes out to the shooting victims in Aurora, and all shooting victims in this country, of which we suffer too many. Here in Cincinnati, 500 people a year are shot (of which 70 or so die right away) according to my sources (police). You'd be surprised how many people are shot every year in Chicago (1600+).

In some alternate reality, if the U.S. were to wage a war against its own citizenry, I doubt there would be much of a fight, even with all the guns here. Not very many ordinary civilized people would be willing to risk their lives by taking part in an insurgency when they could just leave the country instead. Canada is pretty big.

AR15
Remington 870
Glock .40

troutkiller wrote:This thread is getting to be a stretch into civil disorder, something I can still vividly recall from the late 1960's and which continues to flare up on occasion, such as Cincinnati in April, 2001. I wouldn't wish any of that on anyone.

My heart goes out to the shooting victims in Aurora, and all shooting victims in this country, of which we suffer too many. Here in Cincinnati, 500 people a year are shot (of which 70 or so die right away) according to my sources (police). You'd be surprised how many people are shot every year in Chicago (1600+).

Well, so that those of you coming to the Annual Meeting know what you're getting yourselves in to...

Portland had 24 homicides last year. 27 in 2010, 19 in 2009, 24 in 2008. Portland doesn't publish "shootings" statistics, but they have about 1600 "aggravated assault" per year. Last year, of the 24 homicides, 8 were gang-related, the highest percentage (and raw number) of gang homicides in Portland in decades. (In 2005, there were no gang-related homicides.) And in one recent year (exact year escapes me,) just shy of 50% of homicides were police shootings! (Yes, even 'justified' police shootings are declared as 'homicides', since that's what they are - the killing of one person by another person.)

As a white male in Portland, I am more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a criminal during the commission of a crime.

Chicago's on course for well over 2000 shootings, fatal and non-fatal, this year.

"From Jan. 1 through April 1 this year, 120 homicides were recorded in Chicago, up sharply from 75 in the same period in both 2011 and 2010, according to department statistics. Nonfatal shootings totaled almost 490 in the first three months of 2012, up 37 percent from a year earlier."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... icago-lawn

And, yup, white people got it a lot safer than other groups. Can't say it makes things easier to swallow. I've got at least two acquaintances, both black, who've lost sons to homicides.

leon wrote:EDIT / UPDATE:
I had it wrong earlier the blogger wasn't a survivor, she survived a shooting at a Toronto Mall earlier this year, only to die in Colorado
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20 ... e-gunfire/

Really weird. This is her last Tweet, just before the movie started: https://twitter.com/jessicaredfield

SBRm1917 wrote:I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force?

I used to be of the same mind. But it looks like the Syrian Freedom Fighters are kicking the ass of one of the largest Middle Eastern militaries. It seems, what is required, is that enough civilians need to be willing to die, to defeat the military.

Zenmason wrote:

SBRm1917 wrote:I 'm not saying anyone is wrong or trying to pick a fight, but is our armed citizenry really a match for a modern army or government backed paramilitary force?

I used to be of the same mind. But it looks like the Syrian Freedom Fighters are kicking the ass of one of the largest Middle Eastern militaries. It seems, what is required, is that enough civilians need to be willing to die, to defeat the military.

Courage, and determination. That will win you the war, even if you loose every battle. Because short of vaporizing every living being (which is a possibility), when you push a population beyond the breaking point, they will stand up for their rights, and they can't just go home, they are home, and their home has been usurped.

Live Feed:
http://mashable.com/2012/07/20/ten-kill ... -colorado/

From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/co ... ml?_r=1&hp

"Mr. Holmes had apparently planned the attack for some time: In addition to the gas mask, he wore body armor, a ballistic helmet and was dressed completely in black. His gear included a throat protector, a groin protector, a bulletproof vest and leggings, and tactical gloves.

He entered the theater with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun and a .40-caliber Glock handgun. A fourth gun, another Glock pistol, was found in his car. “This is the act, apparently, of a very deranged mind,” said Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado."

This reminds of of that Uwe Boll movie Rampage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampage_(2009_film).

I've heard he was a PhD student so it's possible he just snapped under pressure.

When we start punishing weirdo scumbag cowards accordingly, we'll have some impact on this thought process. It must have been planned for some time. Not snapped. I'd like to tell him I a joker too after pulling out the first but not last fingernail. His family should not be spared either. Fuck them all. That's my take.

Dumb dick mother fucker kick started another look at gun restriction. Fucking asshole.

Hey, the suspect is a neuroscience PhD candidate. Wonder why I didn't hear more about this at work today. Without making excuses for his actions this really puts into a new light all the students I've seen with alcohol problems and eating disorders.

Jeezus.