Regarding the Aurora tragedy in Colorado, and inevitable questions from friends and co-workers about the 2nd amendment...

I'm still processing this. I've gotten at least one direct question from a friend regarding this. "How does the 2nd amendment hold up today?" and another vague question asking about magazine capacity and "assault rifles".

I don't know how to answer these.

Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer for right now, meaning for the next few days?

Yes.

If you're not comfortable making stuff up, it is the best answer you can give.

Yes, too bad most media outlets haven't focused more on the tragedy.

I don't know why people still tend to blame the 2nd amendment everytime a tragedy like this occurs.
I question just where did our society fail in terms of people thinking it's ok to do shit like this,whether it's mental illness or some schmuck just wanting his 15 minutes of fame there has been a major failure in reconizing the potential of danger in some individuals,alot of things factor in,violence on tv,in music and video games,the breakdown of the family,no authoritve figure at home and just a general lack of morality.
James,I don't think I don't know is any worse answer than another but in a tragedy of this proportion I prefer to stick with my this guy was obviously a raving lunatic defense and keep any mention of the 2 nd amendment out of the conversation

may I ask what you thought about those things on Thursday?

Why would the depraved act of a psychotic change that?

Then I would like to ask how you feel about cars, alcohol, smoking...all of which kill more annually than firearms...and none of which caused a single death on their own?

Now let me inquire what you think about mental health care in your community? Do you think a person seeking help is likely to be stigmatized for doing so? How easy would it be for you to seek assistance for someone you know even against their will? How willing would you be to seek help for yourself?

But for what it's worth...

From my perspective, not knowing something is actually a fairly high degree of certainty...definitely of greater certainty than "believing" something...in fact the only greater degree of certainty that I am aware of is that of actually "knowing".

rolandson wrote:may I ask what you thought about those things on Thursday?

Why would the depraved act of a psychotic change that?

Then I would like to ask how you feel about cars, alcohol, smoking...all of which kill more annually than firearms...and none of which caused a single death on their own?

Now let me inquire what you think about mental health care in your community? Do you think a person seeking help is likely to be stigmatized for doing so? How easy would it be for you to seek assistance for someone you know even against their will? How willing would you be to seek help for yourself?

But for what it's worth...

From my perspective, not knowing something is actually a fairly high degree of certainty...definitely of greater certainty than "believing" something...in fact the only greater degree of certainty that I am aware of is that of actually "knowing".

Wow...Well, let me try to answer your questions, Rolandson.

1)What did I think about those things on Thurs. afternoon?

I support concealed and open carry. I still support both of those. I'm just wondering how to answer my friends who don't necessarily support gun laws.

2) Why would the depraved act of a psychotic change that?

I'm not sure. That's why I posted my question in order to answer my friends' questions.

3) I drink, I smoke, I drive a vehicle. I'm not suggesting that those be banned.

4)I don't think a mental health care patient is likely to be stigmatized nowadays. I'm one of those patients. I've been on SSRIs, SNRIs, and bupropion on and off in the the past 10 years or so. It is difficult to seek this treatment for yourself if you don't have insurance, and it's difficult to get this treatment for others if they don't have insurance that covers it.

Edit:
Bah...I'm still thinking about this. I don't know the answers. Hope this satisfies you for now, Rolandson.

rolandson wrote:
From my perspective, not knowing something is actually a fairly high degree of certainty...definitely of greater certainty than "believing" something...in fact the only greater degree of certainty that I am aware of is that of actually "knowing".

I don't know what that means. Please rephrase, if you could. Thank you.

Vodkin wrote:I don't know why people still tend to blame the 2nd amendment everytime a tragedy like this occurs.

Really?

It's because people interpret guns of the sort used in most of these assaults as having no purpose beyond killing people. And, beyond target shooting, they're not wrong. No one hunts with a Glock or an AR-15. And, say what you will about self-defense, it's still about killing people.

There are multiple avenues of argument here.

There's the argument that these attackers are not concerned about breaking the law, so making the weapon illegal isn't much of a help. But then again, making it illegal might restrict the ability to get one. Would an attacker of this sort really have access to a black market for firearms?

But then, if he didn't have access to handguns and semi-auto rifles, would he have just used a bolt-action or lever-action rifle? Or just the shotgun? If so, would that have made a significant difference to the outcome?

Or would he have just used a different weapon? Knives, bombs, or gasoline could have done just as much damage.

(I'm not supporting any of these arguments here, either for or against. I'm just pointing out that the reaction isn't asinine. There are good reasons why people feel this way. They are, of course, influenced by emotion, and there may or may not be valid counterarguments. But you can't just dismiss those feelings as nonsensical.)

Actually, I know quite a few folks that hunt with AR platform firearms. With luck I'll be one if not this season then next year.

Also, since I plan on loading my own subsonic frangable 223 round my AR PIstol will be a defensive weapon as well as fun at the range.

ErikO wrote:Actually, I know quite a few folks that hunt with AR platform firearms. With luck I'll be one if not this season then next year.

Also, since I plan on loading my own subsonic frangable 223 round my AR PIstol will be a defensive weapon as well as fun at the range.

huh? subsonic? why not just buy a .22 long rifle and use 60gr aguila SSS, they're barely subsonic, about 800fps out of a 5in barrel.

wfaulk wrote:

Vodkin wrote:I don't know why people still tend to blame the 2nd amendment everytime a tragedy like this occurs.

Really?

It's because people interpret guns of the sort used in most of these assaults as having no purpose beyond killing people. And, beyond target shooting, they're not wrong. No one hunts with a Glock or an AR-15. And, say what you will about self-defense, it's still about killing people.

There are multiple avenues of argument here.

There's the argument that these attackers are not concerned about breaking the law, so making the weapon illegal isn't much of a help. But then again, making it illegal might restrict the ability to get one. Would an attacker of this sort really have access to a black market for firearms?

But then, if he didn't have access to handguns and semi-auto rifles, would he have just used a bolt-action or lever-action rifle? Or just the shotgun? If so, would that have made a significant difference to the outcome?

Or would he have just used a different weapon? Knives, bombs, or gasoline could have done just as much damage.

(I'm not supporting any of these arguments here, either for or against. I'm just pointing out that the reaction isn't asinine. There are good reasons why people feel this way. They are, of course, influenced by emotion, and there may or may not be valid counterarguments. But you can't just dismiss those feelings as nonsensical.)

Yep...This as counterarguments...
As much as I hate it for myself as being a responsible gun owner...

Many people hunt with an AR-15

But then, if he didn't have access to handguns and semi-auto rifles, would he have just used a bolt-action or lever-action rifle? Or just the shotgun? If so, would that have made a significant difference to the outcome?

if this guy didn't have access to firearms the death toll would have been at least double in a crowded theater. This kid had bombs in his apartment and given that as a neurobiology student he's had some pretty serious chemistry, i'm fairly sure that was home made C-4, or if he was lazy, nitroglycerin. he'd also have the ability to make sarin gas. Now all of these, save for the sarin gas, can be made at home with ordinary household chemicals (and I'm not even certain that can't be made at home). Point being, this kid took the low road because he wanted fame. if he wanted to kill a bunch of people, and not get caught, at least the first time, to do so again, he could have VERY easily done so.

wfaulk wrote:

Vodkin wrote:I don't know why people still tend to blame the 2nd amendment everytime a tragedy like this occurs.

Really?

It's because people interpret guns of the sort used in most of these assaults as having no purpose beyond killing people. And, beyond target shooting, they're not wrong. No one hunts with a Glock or an AR-15. And, say what you will about self-defense, it's still about killing people.

There are multiple avenues of argument here.

There's the argument that these attackers are not concerned about breaking the law, so making the weapon illegal isn't much of a help. But then again, making it illegal might restrict the ability to get one. Would an attacker of this sort really have access to a black market for firearms?

But then, if he didn't have access to handguns and semi-auto rifles, would he have just used a bolt-action or lever-action rifle? Or just the shotgun? If so, would that have made a significant difference to the outcome?

Or would he have just used a different weapon? Knives, bombs, or gasoline could have done just as much damage.

(I'm not supporting any of these arguments here, either for or against. I'm just pointing out that the reaction isn't asinine. There are good reasons why people feel this way. They are, of course, influenced by emotion, and there may or may not be valid counterarguments. But you can't just dismiss those feelings as nonsensical.)

well,I know why the 2nd A argument always comes up but it really comes down to mental illness and as you pointed what would the argument be if he had used some other method?,I know this is a tired argument but it's like drunk driving,if some kills a family while driving drunk are you going to take everyone elses keys?,not arguing with ya just stating my side

Vodkin wrote:I know this is a tired argument but it's like drunk driving,if some kills a family while driving drunk are you going to take everyone elses keys?

No, but unlike cars, knives, gasoline, and even explosives, guns have no use beyond killing people. Assuming we want to avoid killing people, it doesn't seem unreasonable to get rid of tools whose only use is killing people.

At the very least, that's the implicit argument.

wfaulk wrote:

Vodkin wrote:I know this is a tired argument but it's like drunk driving,if some kills a family while driving drunk are you going to take everyone elses keys?

No, but unlike cars, knives, gasoline, and even explosives, guns have no use beyond killing people. Assuming we want to avoid killing people, it doesn't seem unreasonable to get rid of tools whose only use is killing people.

At the very least, that's the implicit argument.

Problem though. The most effective tools can be made in your basement, are harder to trace, but still require effort to make. Guns provide an easier method of acquisition that is not quite as effective, even if it is more publicized.

JamesH wrote:

rolandson wrote:
From my perspective, not knowing something is actually a fairly high degree of certainty...definitely of greater certainty than "believing" something...in fact the only greater degree of certainty that I am aware of is that of actually "knowing".

I don't know what that means. Please rephrase, if you could. Thank you.

Beliefs are subject to change, knowledge is definite. Not knowing is the acceptance of a lack of knowledge which implies the willingness for expansion. I have always thought that 'not knowing' is a pretty good place to be. I have always thought that 'believing' something means that I am pretty uncertain about it.

wfaulk wrote:

Vodkin wrote:I know this is a tired argument but it's like drunk driving,if some kills a family while driving drunk are you going to take everyone elses keys?

No, but unlike cars, knives, gasoline, and even explosives, guns have no use beyond killing people. Assuming we want to avoid killing people, it doesn't seem unreasonable to get rid of tools whose only use is killing people.

At the very least, that's the implicit argument.

My response to that is: unfortunately killing is sometimes a necessity.

ErikO wrote:Actually, I know quite a few folks that hunt with AR platform firearms. With luck I'll be one if not this season then next year.

Also, since I plan on loading my own subsonic frangable 223 round my AR PIstol will be a defensive weapon as well as fun at the range.

With 30-round magazines? I don't about your state, but mine limits to 5 rounds, period.

FelidaFAL wrote:

ErikO wrote:Actually, I know quite a few folks that hunt with AR platform firearms. With luck I'll be one if not this season then next year.

Also, since I plan on loading my own subsonic frangable 223 round my AR PIstol will be a defensive weapon as well as fun at the range.

With 30-round magazines? I don't about your state, but mine limits to 5 rounds, period.