The Liberal Gun Club Forum

gendoikari87 wrote:

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.

It's my understanding it's not just civilians that are fighting these battles, it is military defectors (Syrian Free Army) with mostly light arms supplied from the army they left along with RPG's and heavy weapons. A lot of the stuff is being brought in as well as purchased on the black market. I'm not sure how the 2nd amendment and legal firearms purchases would fit into that. It's also my understanding that Syria had (has) major restrictions on gun ownership. So what you are seeing is an uprising of a country that really didn't have an overwhelming number of weapons in citizens hands. We'll see how it goes...

As far as insane people shooting up people and places here in the U.S. who here is an advocate of brining back public hangings? It's amazing that this was standard practice in our country not that long ago, relatively. I played a gig at a place called the Cell Block in Williamsport, PA once. It was an old prison converted to a huge club. After the gig the owner brought us in the basement to check out old records and pictures that were left from the administration. It was crazy to see kids and adults smiling and having a good time while a prisoner is hanging lifeless in the background. Quite the family event. I guess it wasn't effective since it was phased out. How should we deal with these people? I'm still interested to see how it works out for Jared Lee Loughner.

SBRm1917 wrote:
It's my understanding it's not just civilians that are fighting these battles, it is military defectors (Syrian Free Army) with mostly light arms supplied from the army they left along with RPG's and heavy weapons. A lot of the stuff is being brought in as well as purchased on the black market. I'm not sure how the 2nd amendment and legal firearms purchases would fit into that. It's also my understanding that Syria had (has) major restrictions on gun ownership. So what you are seeing is an uprising of a country that really didn't have an overwhelming number of weapons in citizens hands. We'll see how it goes...

You do realize A) the U.S. Military's "small arms" Are AR-15's B) Training on the platform is better than no training C) it's better to be prepared than to not be

As far as insane people shooting up people and places here in the U.S. who here is an advocate of brining back public hangings? It's amazing that this was standard practice in our country not that long ago, relatively. I played a gig at a place called the Cell Block in Williamsport, PA once. It was an old prison converted to a huge club. After the gig the owner brought us in the basement to check out old records and pictures that were left from the administration. It was crazy to see kids and adults smiling and having a good time while a prisoner is hanging lifeless in the background. Quite the family event. I guess it wasn't effective since it was phased out. How should we deal with these people? I'm still interested to see how it works out for Jared Lee Loughner.

Jared->Jail-> cell; key-> Trashcan.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who reportedly travels with armed body guards) has already begun pressuring Obama and Romney to "do something about guns in America". Coming from Mayor Bloomberg, this most likely represents a first shot across the bow to begin a national gun grab campaign. I hope Liberal gun owners are busy preparing a reasonable counter proposal, if needed, that would satisfy non-gun owning fellow Liberals while tamping down the noise from anti-gun extremists. I won't hold my breath, though. Unfortunately, Liberals -- now days -- are rarely able to coalesce around a single political objective.

LibShooter wrote:NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who reportedly travels with armed body guards) has already begun pressuring Obama and Romney to "do something about guns in America". Coming from Mayor Bloomberg, this most likely represents a first shot across the bow to begin a national gun grab campaign. I hope Liberal gun owners are busy preparing a reasonable counter proposal, if needed, that would satisfy non-gun owning fellow Liberals while tamping down the noise from anti-gun extremists. I won't hold my breath, though. Unfortunately, Liberals -- now days -- are rarely able to coalesce around a single political objective.

Guns had as much to do with this most recent failure of our mental heath system as alcohol has to do with persons killed by drunk drivers.

LibShooter wrote:NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who reportedly travels with armed body guards) has already begun pressuring Obama and Romney to "do something about guns in America". Coming from Mayor Bloomberg, this most likely represents a first shot across the bow to begin a national gun grab campaign. I hope Liberal gun owners are busy preparing a reasonable counter proposal, if needed, that would satisfy non-gun owning fellow Liberals while tamping down the noise from anti-gun extremists. I won't hold my breath, though. Unfortunately, Liberals -- now days -- are rarely able to coalesce around a single political objective.

Cars. License like cars. Seriously people this shit isn't that hard. If you are responsible enough to own a gun you are responsible enough to own a gun. Fully automatics that are more difficult to learn how to handle safely, require higher grades of training. Simple, easy as pie.

And should they start a gun grab....

rolandson wrote:

LibShooter wrote:NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who reportedly travels with armed body guards) has already begun pressuring Obama and Romney to "do something about guns in America". Coming from Mayor Bloomberg, this most likely represents a first shot across the bow to begin a national gun grab campaign. I hope Liberal gun owners are busy preparing a reasonable counter proposal, if needed, that would satisfy non-gun owning fellow Liberals while tamping down the noise from anti-gun extremists. I won't hold my breath, though. Unfortunately, Liberals -- now days -- are rarely able to coalesce around a single political objective.

Guns had as much to do with this most recent failure of our mental heath system as alcohol has to do with persons killed by drunk drivers.

That's a good analogy.

It's a sad situation. The shooter fits the classic profile for development of schizophrenia with a major psychotic break. It usually happens in the early twenties--- the subject has moved away from familiar surroundings and often is pursuing a high-stress goal. Most become delusional and are a danger to themselves. A few are dangerous to others. There is usually little or no forewarning. I don't know if this guy is psychotic, but it wouldn't surprise me.

For what it's worth, all the different response scenarios, all the talk about what you could have done in that situation, it's all just fantasy. Best bet would probably be to take cover if you can; run if you can. I was hit in a drive-by about twenty years ago. Things happened so fast that I could have had a gun in my hand with the safety off, and I would not have been able to fire a shot. A car rolled up, killed the lights, and guns started firing. Maybe five seconds later, they hit the gas and I had a hole in my arm. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that bullets flying by do not sound like they do in the movies or on TV. Maybe like butterflies on meth. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Nothing can make you safe from a lunatic."

Gnigma wrote:For what it's worth, all the different response scenarios, all the talk about what you could have done in that situation, it's all just fantasy. Best bet would probably be to take cover if you can; run if you can. I was hit in a drive-by about twenty years ago. Things happened so fast that I could have had a gun in my hand with the safety off, and I would not have been able to fire a shot. A car rolled up, killed the lights, and guns started firing. Maybe five seconds later, they hit the gas and I had a hole in my arm. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that bullets flying by do not sound like they do in the movies or on TV. Maybe like butterflies on meth. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Nothing can make you safe from a lunatic."

That's what makes me sick about all these armchair commando imbeciles. All this talk of "If I was there, I would have...". Bullshit. They ignore the fact that this guy was obviously at least aware of the possibility of being shot at (body armor, irritant gas to impair vision and breathing), they ignore the fact that it took place in a room that's constantly shifting through various levels of lighting/sound and that's full of other shooter-shaped objects. The entire scenario is such a situational nightmare that maybe 0.1% of the human race would be able to shoot rapidly and accurately under those conditions. Yet every one of these dumbshit Boondock Saints wannabes believes themselves to be part of that 0.1%. Every one of them is willing to shit on the dead and the injured so they can sound badass. Every one of them is convinced that the dead and injured DESERVED to be victims because they didn't kill this evil fucker within the first 2 seconds. Fuck these fucking people. Given the choice between someone talking this worthless keyboard soldier shit and talking to someone irrationally suggesting total firearms bans, I'll take the latter right now. The former is like listening to someone blaming a rape victim for how they were dressed.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

Gnigma wrote:For what it's worth, all the different response scenarios, all the talk about what you could have done in that situation, it's all just fantasy. Best bet would probably be to take cover if you can; run if you can. I was hit in a drive-by about twenty years ago. Things happened so fast that I could have had a gun in my hand with the safety off, and I would not have been able to fire a shot. A car rolled up, killed the lights, and guns started firing. Maybe five seconds later, they hit the gas and I had a hole in my arm. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that bullets flying by do not sound like they do in the movies or on TV. Maybe like butterflies on meth. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Nothing can make you safe from a lunatic."

That's what makes me sick about all these armchair commando imbeciles. All this talk of "If I was there, I would have...". Bullshit. They ignore the fact that this guy was obviously at least aware of the possibility of being shot at (body armor, irritant gas to impair vision and breathing), they ignore the fact that it took place in a room that's constantly shifting through various levels of lighting/sound and that's full of other shooter-shaped objects. The entire scenario is such a situational nightmare that maybe 0.1% of the human race would be able to shoot rapidly and accurately under those conditions. Yet every one of these dumbshit Boondock Saints wannabes believes themselves to be part of that 0.1%. Every one of them is willing to shit on the dead and the injured so they can sound badass. Every one of them is convinced that the dead and injured DESERVED to be victims because they didn't kill this evil fucker within the first 2 seconds. Fuck these fucking people. Given the choice between someone talking this worthless keyboard soldier shit and talking to someone irrationally suggesting total firearms bans, I'll take the latter right now. The former is like listening to someone blaming a rape victim for how they were dressed.

Lots and lots of truth here.

Rolandson, you too.

It is really sad to see both sides of the political spectrum pointing fingers at each other over this sad and unfortunate incident. Why can't we just show some respect to the victims that were affected by this horrible tragedy?

The entire scenario is such a situational nightmare that maybe 0.1%

In the dark through irritant smoke, if you mean avoiding innocent bystanders I think you're being a bit generous.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

Gnigma wrote:For what it's worth, all the different response scenarios, all the talk about what you could have done in that situation, it's all just fantasy. Best bet would probably be to take cover if you can; run if you can. I was hit in a drive-by about twenty years ago. Things happened so fast that I could have had a gun in my hand with the safety off, and I would not have been able to fire a shot. A car rolled up, killed the lights, and guns started firing. Maybe five seconds later, they hit the gas and I had a hole in my arm. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that bullets flying by do not sound like they do in the movies or on TV. Maybe like butterflies on meth. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Nothing can make you safe from a lunatic."

That's what makes me sick about all these armchair commando imbeciles. All this talk of "If I was there, I would have...". Bullshit. They ignore the fact that this guy was obviously at least aware of the possibility of being shot at (body armor, irritant gas to impair vision and breathing), they ignore the fact that it took place in a room that's constantly shifting through various levels of lighting/sound and that's full of other shooter-shaped objects. The entire scenario is such a situational nightmare that maybe 0.1% of the human race would be able to shoot rapidly and accurately under those conditions. Yet every one of these dumbshit Boondock Saints wannabes believes themselves to be part of that 0.1%. Every one of them is willing to shit on the dead and the injured so they can sound badass. Every one of them is convinced that the dead and injured DESERVED to be victims because they didn't kill this evil fucker within the first 2 seconds. Fuck these fucking people. Given the choice between someone talking this worthless keyboard soldier shit and talking to someone irrationally suggesting total firearms bans, I'll take the latter right now. The former is like listening to someone blaming a rape victim for how they were dressed.

I couldn't agree more.
200+ panicked moving targets in a darkened room, you trying to get any kind of hit on an armored individual dressed in black. The biggest difference is that the shooter didn't have to pick his targets, and you do.
Can you imagine what would happen if only 10% of those in the theater started shooting back? 30 people shooting at each other in the dark surrounded by another 270 panicked people.
Maybe I am 'too liberal' but even the 'bullet button' seems to make it too easy to reload an AR right now.

gendoikari87 wrote:In the dark through irritant smoke, if you mean avoiding innocent bystanders I think you're being a bit generous.

Nope, I was meaning seats and suchlike. With a packed theater that number pretty much becomes zero. Worse, it could have initiated an exchange of fire between people who'd each be thinking the other was the real attacker. The only sensible course of action in that situation is get low and get out. And I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from some people who were carrying in there who made that exact decision instead of trying to play Die Hard.

Awake wrote:I couldn't agree more.
200+ panicked moving targets in a darkened room, you trying to get any kind of hit on an armored individual dressed in black. The biggest difference is that the shooter didn't have to pick his targets, and you do.
Can you imagine what would happen if only 10% of those in the theater started shooting back? 30 people shooting at each other in the dark surrounded by another 270 panicked people.

And that's exactly it. This guy didn't need to aim. The entire theater was his target. Anyone trying to shoot back would have to spot him among 200+ other similar shapes in erratically flickering light and through all the fluids pouring out of their own faces from the CS. The idea that anyone would be able to just casually say "Oh yeah, I could've got him" is fucking revolting.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:

Gnigma wrote:For what it's worth, all the different response scenarios, all the talk about what you could have done in that situation, it's all just fantasy. Best bet would probably be to take cover if you can; run if you can. I was hit in a drive-by about twenty years ago. Things happened so fast that I could have had a gun in my hand with the safety off, and I would not have been able to fire a shot. A car rolled up, killed the lights, and guns started firing. Maybe five seconds later, they hit the gas and I had a hole in my arm. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that bullets flying by do not sound like they do in the movies or on TV. Maybe like butterflies on meth. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Nothing can make you safe from a lunatic."

That's what makes me sick about all these armchair commando imbeciles. All this talk of "If I was there, I would have...". Bullshit. They ignore the fact that this guy was obviously at least aware of the possibility of being shot at (body armor, irritant gas to impair vision and breathing), they ignore the fact that it took place in a room that's constantly shifting through various levels of lighting/sound and that's full of other shooter-shaped objects. The entire scenario is such a situational nightmare that maybe 0.1% of the human race would be able to shoot rapidly and accurately under those conditions. Yet every one of these dumbshit Boondock Saints wannabes believes themselves to be part of that 0.1%. Every one of them is willing to shit on the dead and the injured so they can sound badass. Every one of them is convinced that the dead and injured DESERVED to be victims because they didn't kill this evil fucker within the first 2 seconds. Fuck these fucking people. Given the choice between someone talking this worthless keyboard soldier shit and talking to someone irrationally suggesting total firearms bans, I'll take the latter right now. The former is like listening to someone blaming a rape victim for how they were dressed.

Roger that.

Sonofagun wrote: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.

You sound like some of my right wing neighbors. Going after his family? Geez, get a grip.

gendoikari87 wrote: Cars. License like cars. Seriously people this shit isn't that hard. If you are responsible enough to own a gun you are responsible enough to own a gun. Fully automatics that are more difficult to learn how to handle safely, require higher grades of training. Simple, easy as pie.

Let the deluge of feel good ineffective legislation proposals begin! How exactly would a license have prevented this disaster?

"The shooter fits the classic profile for development of schizophrenia with a major psychotic break."

First, my thoughts a prayers go out to the victims and families. There are a lot of folks mourning right now and a lot more who are worrying about loved ones (many of whom are probably little more than kids) in hospitals.

+1 for Gnigma's observation. Textbook schizophrenia case.

Third, thanks to the posters pointing to the deficiencies in our mental health care "system." Every time some nut goes on a shooting spree, 99.9% of the rhetoric afterwards is along the lines of "we need to get these guns off our streets." Hey, how about getting these crazy people off the streets? In addition to more funding and better integration into the overall health care system, we really should be talking about some better procedures for involuntary commitment of those between 18 and 25. This is when many serious mental health issues become fully apparent, especially schizophrenia. Yet family members, law enforcement and medical staff are often completely helpless to intervene until something goes terribly wrong.

Fourth, if there wasn't a single gun available to civilians in America, this guy would have killed a bunch of people. He was a PhD neuroscience student who apparently booby-trapped his apartment with explosives. With little more than a credit card and an Internet connection, he could have built some terribly destructive explosives. The Unibomber could have killed hundreds if his own schizophrenia had taken another form. His twisted mind sought some sort of political agenda, but if his delusions had influenced him to focus on body counts instead of his violent political statements, he could have killed a lot more (although he probably would have been captured much sooner).

Five, I'm not sure anyone without serious paramilitary training AND hardware could have stopped the shooter in that theater. You might have been able to get him to retreat or duck with return fire, but that's a BIG maybe. If this guy didn't want to be taken alive, even the cops would have had a difficult time taking him down. Anyone remember the North Hollywood shootout? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout I'm sorry, but unless your CCW is a Weatherby with a nightscope, I'm not sure adding one more gun to the situation would have made any (constructive) difference. This was not a Virginia Tech scenario.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Sonofagun wrote: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.

You sound like some of my right wing neighbors. Going after his family? Geez, get a grip.

Seems to me for no good reason he did what he did. Who's to say someone in the same gene pool couldn't do the same thing? I'm just pissed there's no way to hurt this guy.

And after the family asks for privacy? Yeah, OK...

lemur wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: Cars. License like cars. Seriously people this shit isn't that hard. If you are responsible enough to own a gun you are responsible enough to own a gun. Fully automatics that are more difficult to learn how to handle safely, require higher grades of training. Simple, easy as pie.

Let the deluge of feel good ineffective legislation proposals begin! How exactly would a license have prevented this disaster?

This particular one? probably wouldn't have. The giffords one, yeah. But hey, that's the price you pay for living in a free society, if you want total security, i'd suggest a benevolent fascist dictatorship.

I agree with those who say that there is little anyone could have done. Tear gas is nasty stuff, I know from my Army experience and training. When you're gasping for oxygen and cann't see 2 feet because your eyes are teared up, I don't think you can shoot accurately. Never mind the panic people running around.
This was a horrible tragedy. I wish we could lessen the publicity the murders get, maybe not publish their pictures after they are captured.Limit the use of their names etc. Deny them the publicity they want (I know, I know there is a constitutional problem to this suggestion but if wing nuts can talk about taking him out while tear gassed in a crowded theater, i can re-arrange the world).
I do think we have to brace our selves for a barage of anti-gun proposals ranging from the minor to the sever. In Salon magazine Bill Moyers , I like some of his works, has written the the RKBA applied to individuals is a perversion of the constitution it only applies to a state militia.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pol ... 32177.html

A law enforcement official familiar with the explosives left in the suspect's apartment described them as "pretty sophisticated" improvised explosive devices.

The thermal liquids left behind "could certainly heat up that room pretty quickly," he said. "We're not going to destroy a building."

basically the kid booby trapped his apartment with napalm and i'm guessing C4 since he was a neurobiology student, and would have the chemistry to make that. If there's one small sliver lining it's that he didn't use that, this could have been much worse.

No guns were used in the Tokyo Subway Slayings. I don't doubt that this guy could have made serin gas in his apartment.

ErikO wrote:No guns were used in the Tokyo Subway Slayings. I don't doubt that this guy could have made serin gas in his apartment.

Good point. It is a wonder he didn't use home made grenades. He wanted to kill so he did. The guns were a tool but potentially he had other tools that could have been more lethal

Roger Ebert has an interesting take on this event.

I'm not with him at all on more restrictions on guns. I think Caliman73 has it right.

This is my position - My cars are traceable to me. So are my current firearms. I have a license for each. I take a very small pride in both. I have insurance for my home and car and that covers you if you are hurt on my property.

If we decide to send a bunch of reps to change the constitution to outlaw firearm possession, then so be it. Until that happens then I play the hand I'm dealt in the country I live in. I took a 45/70 short carbine legally into Canada. No problem They even can have a gp100 or a 3" sp101. Enough for me for defense.

I also believe in urban areas, self-defense with a rifle is not wise, and at anything over X feet it becomes just another firefight. So the need for a hi-cap mag is less. (actually a 10/22 will work for suppressing fire) so the need for a hi cap semi auto BLACK RIFLE isn't that great in the city.

So for hunting, I don't see the need for the Hi-Cap mag. I also do not advocate restricting them for others. I just think they are more a fetish, like an appreciation of old tube radios and just about as useful.

Anyway here's Roger -

JAMES HOLMES, who opened fire before the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises,” could not have seen the movie. Like many whose misery is reflected in violence, he may simply have been drawn to a highly publicized event with a big crowd. In cynical terms, he was seeking a publicity tie-in. He was like one of those goofballs waving in the background when a TV reporter does a stand-up at a big story.

Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again. Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action. The cinematic prototype is Travis Bickle of “Taxi Driver.” I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.

That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

I was sitting in a Chicago bar one night with my friend McHugh when a guy from down the street came in and let us see that he was packing heat.

“Why do you need to carry a gun?” McHugh asked him.

“I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”

“It would be safer if you moved.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opini ... d=pl-share

beto wrote:

ErikO wrote:No guns were used in the Tokyo Subway Slayings. I don't doubt that this guy could have made serin gas in his apartment.

Good point. It is a wonder he didn't use home made grenades. He wanted to kill so he did. The guns were a tool but potentially he had other tools that could have been more lethal

I'm fairly sure 1) he wanted to be caught, 2) he wanted a shit ton of publicity. It's possible he's a narcissistic psychopath who specifically didn't just want his acts to be publicized but his name and face. Which is the only explanation I can come up with since he had bombs at home and he could have easily just set a bomb, walked out and at least try to avoid detection.