Operation American Spring Still Going. Kinda. »« Cass Warns Judges of God’s Wrath

Okay, Okay…THIS is The Dumbest Thing Said about Isla Vista Shootings

Are the Koch Brothers putting up some cash reward for the right winger who can say the single dumbest thing about the Isla Vista shootings? Because they are falling all over themselves to one up one another. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America says Elliott Rodgers’ manifesto “clearly reflects the thinking of a person like our president, who’s extremely narcissistic and it’s all about me, all about me.

Comments

  1. Al Dente says

    Okay, Okay…THIS is The Dumbest Thing Said about Isla Vista Shootings

    You are daring the God of Dumb to cause someone else to say something even dumber.

  2. blf says

    You are daring the God of Dumb to cause someone else to say something even dumber.

    Oh, oh! I know, know! Let me try! Let me try!! Howzibout, ah, er, ah, um… “heT shoter can rite therfour proffing use less elites!! ‘educantationz,1!!1!!”

    (Add yer own multicolored crayon effects…)

  3. alanb says

    Elliott Rodgers’ manifesto “clearly reflects the thinking of a person like our president Larry Pratt, who’s extremely narcissistic with paranoid delusions and it’s all about me, all about me guns, guns, guns.

  4. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Yeah, the shooter was self centred.

    If only he was like me, me, who always thinkz o’others. Well, one other anyzhow. Like that fuckin Obama bloke!!! I, I can’t not think about him! Everything that goes wrong is Obamas fault! Obama ! Obama! O’fuckn Bama! Terrorists kill folks in Libya Benhazi! O fuk’n Bamas fault!

    Poor people get fucken helthcare! Ofuckn Bamas fault!

    Earthqauke happens in China! O- bledin’-bama ‘gaen!

    Some misogynist spoilt scumbag brat shorts up a sonority house or tries to – Obama! Obama Obama!

    Volcano goes off in Indonesia and cancels a few flights! Becoz o’ Obama! Bar, hack Hoooooooooosssseeeeewin O-bma-nation!

    Sarah palin Sez summin’ stupid, I spillme fucken beer! Damn U OBummer! Damn U ya made me spill me beer!

    If only the brat weren’t self centred on himself and his hatred of women and writing that 140 page maneeefesto on how much he hates on an’ wants revenge on them fer not wetting his wick.

    If he jus’ went and looked at how bad Obama is, why he wouldn’t be such a murdering misogynist scum becoz .. well Obama that’s why! It just is!

    See I ain’t self-centred! Its that guddurnd O-bama .. obama O… (fade to black)

  5. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Obama made me say that see! It woz ‘im! It was!

  6. says

    I got about 20 seconds into that video before having to cut it. Calling the father of a girl who has just been killed a “stupid son of a bitch” was as much as I could stand.
    If we want to Monday morning quarterback this, how about: If prostitution were legal this guy could have easily gotten laid and discovered that sex isn’t the end-all be-all of life and after sex he could have gone home and shot people in computer games while eating Cheetos.
    That makes a metric fuck-ton more sense than: “Every 18-22-year old should be walking around with guns.”
    Because people that age are totally level-headed and responsible enough for that.

  7. imback says

    Theorem: If there is at least one dumb thing said about a topic, then there cannot be a dumbest possible thing to say about it.
    Proof: Suppose there was a dumbest possible thing to say, and call it D. Take all the dumb things said on the topic up to and including D and multiply them together and add one, and call it E. Then E would clearly be dumber than D. Proof by contradiction. Q to the E to the D, mothers.

  8. sabrekgb says

    Is this really dumber than the incel guy nonsense, though?

    I got two points before my ears shut off and they were just speaking static:

    -had the kid been spanked more as a child he might have grown up to be less of a shitstain
    -had one of the victims (or those nearby) been armed, the rampage might have been stopped sooner

    These points are arguable, but i don’t think either of them are so dumb as to not be worth talking about. Just saying to spank the kid and it would have all been fine is simplistic, of course, but there’s a good discussion to be had on the role of parenting in the creation of horrible people like that kid. Also, i don’t see how it’s stupid to say that if one of the people that he killed or who was near by one of the people he killed had been armed they may have been able to stop him sooner. I watched the video of him shooting up the convenience store, and if one of the other patrons had been armed and willing to return fire, he very well may have been stopped there. I don’t know the specific details of the other killings, but since 3 of them were stabbings, i tend to think that they may have been prevented by an armed person as well.

    Anyway, not saying those guys don’t say dumb things, but the core points are at least debatable. That dumb shit at the end about Obama was a pointless non-sequitur, though.

  9. John Pieret says

    Because an asshole who should never have had a gun (thanks, NRA!) let’s loose a hail of bullets, everything would have been better if a whole lot of other people, who would, of course, been calm and composed in such a situation, each let loose another hail of bullets! Uh huh!

    And, Solomon … keep it just as classy … calling the father of a dead teenage a “stupid son of a bitch” does more for gun control than anything I can think of!

  10. dingojack says

    “… but i (sic) don’t think either of them are so dumb as to not be worth talking about.”
    And that says everything anyone needs to know about you.
    Bye-Bye!
    Dingo

  11. sabrekgb says

    Does “(sic)” apply for capitalization? I’m lazy and don’t like holding the shift button *shrug*

    @11 Dingojack

    Does it? Does it really…? That’s a very substantive and whole-person concept you got there.

  12. says

    @ sabrekgb I’ll try to explain the problem with “good guy with a gun” fantasies briefly.
    First of all, guns with no skill/training are far more dangerous to innocent bystanders than “bad guys.” Police officers who train regularly and must maintain qualification shoot the wrong person in the heat of the moment; about the only “good guy” who would have helped would have been one of the elite few qualified for special forces with previous combat experience.
    On top of that, the meme about not bringing a knife to a gun fight has been tested and found to be flawed. At short distances given equal reflexes the knife usually strikes first.
    At risk of TL;DR I have one more point. In an armed society where everyone carries many more people will die for no reason. Imagine you are at the mall and hear gunfire just outside the store you are in. You run to the door heroically with your gun drawn and see two people down and one man standing with a smoking gun. You are the hero, shoot down the killer, and the last thing you hear is the next person on the scene being the hero and gunning down the killer he sees with a smoking gun. You.

  13. birgerjohansson says

    We should saturate public spaces with faulty “robocop” drones manufactured by Halliburton. The moment they spot something suspicious they will be programmed to let loose with flame-throwers and 0.50 cal machine guns. That will be even better than letting every person carry a gun.

  14. says

    “…but there’s a good discussion to be had on the role of parenting in the creation of horrible people like that kid.”

    The shooter had apparently spent YEARS in close contact with psychiatric professionals. Two things that might have prevented his shooting a bunch of people (which do not include his parenting) are:

    1.) A national database for all people who have such a history–as this young man apparently had–of psychiatric problems.

    2.) A federal law making it a major felony with hefty punitive fines and incarceration upon conviction for ANYONE selling a weapon to such a person is that database has the information that they might be a danger to themselves or others.

    It is completely unthinkable that such a thing could EVER happen, because FREEDUMB!

    “Also, i don’t see how it’s stupid to say that if one of the people that he killed or who was near by one of the people he killed had been armed they may have been able to stop him sooner.”

    Sure, great idea. Cops get the 9-1-1, roll on a “shots fired” and see 2 (or more) people shooting at each other in a crowd. Likely outcome is cops shoot both or shoot innocent bystanders. And cops, btw, are trained to do their job–regardless the fact that many of them seem to have slept through the class PLUS they deal with mentally deranged people, assholes, generic criminals and generic criminals who are deranged assholes on a daily basis. I’ll take my chances with the cops doing their job over some vigilante fuckwad puttin’ notches on his gun.

    Gunz don’t kill people, people who are wimps without gunz kill people when they get their hands on teh gunz.

  15. says

    @democommie #16

    While I’m 100% for more gun regulation, I’d be worried about a broad rule that put people with psychiatric problems on a list that would be accessible to retailers and presumably potential employers as well. I think that could potentially discourage people from getting psychiatric help, when they need it. If you haven’t committed a crime, your medical information (mental or physical) shouldn’t be available to the public.

    So how do we identify people whose mental health issues are also public safety issues? I don’t know the answer, and I think it’s an important question, but I don’t think stigmatizing mental health issues even further is the answer.

  16. dingojack says

    sabrekgb – No it isn’t capitalised:

    sic
    adverb Latin.
    so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim: He signed his name as e. e. cummings (sic).”

    Dictionary.com

    Re-hashing thoroughly de-bunked ideas is (almost by definition) dumb.

    Dingo

  17. says

    @Miss Marnie:

    A fair question, to which I do not have a ready answer. With a minimum three day waiting period for the background check to be run there would be a lot of ways to do it with out necessarily stigmatizing the would-be buyer.

    Since the bombing in OKC back in the 90’s, anyone buying a large quantity of Ammoniua Nitrate fertilizer get’s a good hard look–or is supposed to.

    It doesn’t have to be something like:

    “The guy is a fucking nut job”.

    All it would have to say is:

    “Individual is currently prohibited from making weapons purchases; any questions about this notice should be directed at the local Dept. of Public Safety.

    FWIW; a lot of people who sell gunz are on record as saying that they don’t give a fuck who buys then, s’long’s they got the Benjies.

  18. sabrekgb says

    @14 blorf & 16 democommie

    I notice in both of your replies an implicit assumption that the police are “trained” and are somehow better than the average gun-carrier in regards to marksmanship, performance in deadly situations, and judgement. That they are, somehow, better than other people and so the arguments you make against letting people have guns in public don’t apply to them. I’m curious as to why this is. What is it that you think divides people who put on a police uniform and those who don’t? What training do they get that other’s are unable to? If someone else had equivalent training or proficiency, would you have less of an issue with them carrying a weapon?

    @ blorf

    “Police officers who train regularly and must maintain qualification shoot the wrong person in the heat of the moment; about the only “good guy” who would have helped would have been one of the elite few qualified for special forces with previous combat experience.”

    I don’t understand how you can make the argument that because police often shoot the wrong person in the heat of the moment, that means everyone else shouldn’t have weapons. Police are very good at preventing crime in their presence, but when they respond to a call for service, they must analyze the situation as a third party and may get it wrong. Someone who is involved in the situation and is being shot at will not likely have the same level of confusion as to who the “bad guy” really is. Add to that the fact that while police can and have murdered people and gotten off scott free, those immunities are not available to most citizens, so the incentive to get it right is much higher.

    You mention special-forces experience in a way that seems to imply it would put someone on par with police in the ability to respond to deadly force with same. I think this is a huge over-estimation of police prowess. Do you really think the two are comparable, or am i mis-reading your response? Also, why SF specifically, why not infantry as a whole, or anyone who has military training and has qual’d with a weapon? I have an expert marksman rating with the M-9 and the last class i shot in had a cop as one of the students…he scored the second lowest of everyone there. High enough to pass, but still… Would i be “useful” in such a situation, or should i be disarmed as well?

    You also mention a “fantasy” (to borrow your own phrase) of a sort of domino effect of people shooting each other. I am curious, do you have a lot of instances where this has happened? It seems exceedingly unlikely to me, for the reasons i outlined above regarding the nature of risk for most citizens for using deadly force and the way their proximity to the event gives them a better appreciation of the situation. Why would you shoot someone who wasn’t threatening you imminently? Just like police should, the “next person on the scene” should ascertain what happened before jumping to action. This is not a high bar to set for action and to require it of everyone, Quite often police are allowed to slip with it, but it is unlikely that someone without the immunities afforded to police would.

    @ democommie

    Years of interaction with psychiatric professions does not preclude bad parenting. I stand by my statement that it’s reasonable to discuss the impacts of that on his character and, sadly, his ultimate actions.

    You said: “Sure, great idea. Cops get the 9-1-1, roll on a “shots fired” and see 2 (or more) people shooting at each other in a crowd. Likely outcome is cops shoot both or shoot innocent bystanders.”

    Why the fuck would cops shoot bystanders? You mean like that clusterfuck they had up in NY where the Keystone Cops managed to hit 9 people they weren’t trying to? Either they shot when they shouldn’t have or they are piss-poor marksmen…in either case, why are they allowed to carry weapons and shoot at bad guys? If you suck that much, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it?

    “And cops, btw, are trained to do their job–regardless the fact that many of them seem to have slept through the class”

    How does that work? You’re basically saying that cops are trained, so it’s ok if we don’t hold them to the same standard. They may not do the right thing, but at least they’ve had “training”, so it’s ok. How is that any different from having “untrained” people doing the same thing…something you seem to be against? I don’t think your position is consistent here. Cops are not some mythical supermen. They are pretty average citizens, who just happen to be given powers and immunities above their fellows.

    Here’s a question back at you: Which would you trust more to think twice and make a better decision before shooting someone: A person who, if they make the wrong choice, likely will go to prison and be liable for civil lawsuits -or- A person who will be supported by many no matter what decision they make, who will get a paid vacation for doing so, and even if they make the wrong decision will not face jail time and is immune to civil lawsuits for it.

    You mention training…what training is it, and why do you think it is something that others don’t have? I (and most other people who carry weapons in public regularly) train with said weapon, go to the range (more often than the min quals required of police), and have a reasonable apprehension of the laws in my locality regarding the use of deadly force to protect myself and others. Based on recurring stories of conduct, my judgement is at least as good as the minimums required of police as well. Add to that the fact that police have no obligation to protect me.

    How is it that they are fundamentally different, then, and allowed to carry weapons but others are not?

    I can understand arguments against all weapons in public (not to say i agree with them), but it seems that most people only argue for non-police to be disarmed…and that’s where you lose me. If an argument applies against guns, then why do guns held by people with badges find exemption?

  19. says

    “I notice in both of your replies an implicit assumption that the police are “trained”>

    There is no assumption. Police officers ARE trained, whether you agree that the training is effective or not is a different subject..

    “You mention training…what training is it, and why do you think it is something that others don’t have? I (and most other people who carry weapons in public regularly) train with said weapon, go to the range (more often than the min quals required of police)”

    Exactly, you know how to shoot targets. Cops spend the biggest part of their day dealing with situations that are utterly boring and don’t require that they kill bad perps. Some of them are really good at being cops, some are not. What is not surprising is that trained police officers actually kill the wrong people sometimes.

    This:

    ‘”In 2011, according to data I collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607. Between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012 I used the Internet to compile a national database of police involved shootings. The term “police involved shooting” pertains to law enforcement officers who, in the line of duty, discharge their guns. When journalists and police administrators use the term, they include the shooting of animals and shots that miss their targets. My case files only include instances in which a person is either killed or wounded by police gunfire. My data also includes off-duty officers who discharged their weapons in law enforcement situations. They don’t include, for example, officers using their firearms to resolve personal disputes”

    is from here: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/01/police-involved-shootings-2011-annual.html

    These stats are somewhat elusive, although I know the CDC keeps some record of this, it’s tough to drill down to. Regardless, 1,146 is the total number of shootings the author cites. Of that number, 607 were fatal. Several U.S. states have higher murder tolls than that. Most people that get killed by gunz in the U.S. are killed by people who they know.

    I have to go deal with a faulty beer tap at a local pub and will look into this when I get back.

  20. sabrekgb says

    @ 21 democommie

    I’ll wait for the rest of your reply, but i want to point out that you cut my sentence off pretty short. The point is not that no training happens for police, it obviously does (and, yes, we can debate the effectiveness of it), but that you both were using that “but police are trained” mantra to imply that others are not competent to defend themselves. and cannot be trusted with firearms. Further, it implies that no one else trains, when they very obviously do.

  21. says

    “but that you both were using that “but police are trained” mantra to imply that others are not competent to defend themselves. and cannot be trusted with firearms. Further, it implies that no one else trains, when they very obviously do.”

    Bullshit.

    You implied that the police are no better trained than YOU and many other people. Prove it, put up photos of the documents that show that you’ve been trained on breaching techniques, hostage negotiation, high speed vehicle chases, SWAT tactics and the like. Show the number of hours that you’ve spent on patrol in some city neighborhood or rural county, in a cruiser, dealing with the myriad duties of a full time police officer. I’ve known quite a few cops over the last 40+ years. Few if any of them are anxious to use whatever training they’ve had in going mano-a-mano against armed hooligans or, for that matter, a pissed off spouse in a domestic disturbance situation. They rarely used a gun on duty or otherwise. Them I trust, a little bit, the yahoos who tell me that they can spot a crimnul, determine his intent and “take him out” before he commits a crime–they give me the willies.

    Las Vegas, NV–since Thursday–6 people shot, 5 of them dead, including two cops who were on their lunch break.

    Lotsa gunz in NV but not enough good ones apparently.

    Ya gotta love this:

    “How many (estimated) gun owners in Nevada? FAR TOO MANY TO DISARM AND ENSLAVE.”

    from here: http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=37051

    The comments there are pretty representative of what I find on any site of that type.

    I’d feel sorry for them–if they weren’t so fucking dangerous to society.

  22. sabrekgb says

    @ 23 democommie

    Why would i need to be “trained on breaching techniques, hostage negotiation, high speed vehicle chases, SWAT tactics and the like.”?

    We’re talking about carrying a weapon for self defense and the defense of others. All you really need for that is training on the weapon itself, knowledge of the laws regarding deadly force, and good judgement. None of these things require attendance at a police academy or years of OJT.

    I did imply that my level of training in these things is of a sufficient level to put me on par (or, let us say, at a level commensurate with action) with police for defending myself and those in my immediate vicinity. Plus, I have the added benefit of always being around me to provide that protection, the police are mostly absent.

    “the yahoos who tell me that they can spot a crimnul, determine his intent and “take him out” before he commits a crime–they give me the willies.”

    If i knew people like that, they might give me the willies too. I don’t know people like that, though. I do know plenty of people who can spot a violent crime in progress, though. If someone like Elliot Rodgers was trying to kill you or someone nearby, do you really think it takes specialized training to see what is happening?

    You seem to be arguing against a strawman of a person and then extending this strawman to cover most others who carry weapons in public.

    Also, you didn’t address most of the other points i made above.

  23. says

    “We’re talking about carrying a weapon for self defense and the defense of others. All you really need for that is training on the weapon itself, knowledge of the laws regarding deadly force, and good judgement. None of these things require attendance at a police academy or years of OJT.”

    No. You’re talking about being as well trained as a professional and then admitting you’re not.

    Nice try. Thanks for trying to sound reasonable, gunzloon.

  24. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @democommie
    I’d rather not have any rights abrogated on the basis of some yahoo doctor’s estimation that I might be a threat to others. In the world I live in, in the country I live in, the government should have to convict you of a crime or some equivalent procedure to deny you of any civil liberty.

  25. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To continue: compare to the unconstitutional bullshits of no fly lists. People are put on the no fly list or your list with minimal oversight, with no due process, with no conviction. Innocent until proved guilty anyone?

  26. sabrekgb says

    @ 25 democommie

    Come on, seriously? That’s your response? Here i am trying to actually engage you and “Thanks for trying to sound reasonable, gunzloon.” is what you come back with?

    “No. You’re talking about being as well trained as a professional and then admitting you’re not.”

    Are you purposely misunderstanding me…? Why do i need to be trained in ” breaching techniques, hostage negotiation, high speed vehicle chases, SWAT tactics and the like.”? That is not what i was talking about, and i think i might be a reasonable judge of what i was talking about.

    When it comes to marksmanship, i am as well trained as the average cop or better (want my 522 to prove it?). When it comes to knowledge of the use of deadly force in my locality, i am as well trained as the average cop or better. When it comes to judgement, mine is as good as the average cop or better. What does it matter if i know how to negotiate with a hostage taker, or dust for fingerprints? Why is that relevant?

    Why the hell would you think just calling me “gunzloon” is a legit response?

    Dude…come on…

  27. dingojack says

    1146 police shootings with 607 fatalities in one year (2011-2)?!?
    In Australia, between 1989 and 2011, there were 105 fatal police shootings*.
    That means the deathrate in the US is over 7.52 times (per capita) that of Australia.
    And that’s considered normal and acceptable?!?
    Dingo
    ——–
    * However, the number of deaths due to being shot by the police is around 1.94 per million persons in the US and in Australia it’s around 0.258 per million persons. Not a likely occurrence.
    PS: in the UK in 2013 the rate was 0.035 deaths per million, SA in 2008/9 23.7 per million (highest in 12 years, twice the 2010 rate)

  28. says

    @29:

    Sad, but true. Yes, that many shootings in one year. There are over 300M firearms in the U.S. Many, many millions of them are completely unaccounted for. There are (depending upon the sources one looks at) somewhere between .5M and 900K+ cops in the U.S. There are thousands of instances, every day, in the U.S. of the police of various jurisdictions engaged in confrontations with people who are armed or exhibiting threatening behavior.

    If the police in the U.S. were better trained and subject to annual fitness exams (both physical and mental) the numbers might be somewhat better. One of the reasons we’ll never know is because the taxpayers/legislators have the completely unrealistic expectation that those who “protect and serve” are immune to the toxic effects of their job. History is replete with stories of cops who CAN’T cope with the stress of their jobs any better than anyone else; and yet the police are expected to be able to deal with the level of stress that is inherent in their jobs without being human. Nothing in this paragraph should be construed to suggest that I think that behavior of bad cops is acceptable.

    So, yes, training and support services for ALL cops would be a step in the right direction. Having a fuckton of gunz (and having them completely unaccounted for) in the hands of people who have NO training in how to deal with people–beyond triple tapping, center mass–does not help.

    “Come on, seriously? That’s your response? Here i am trying to actually engage you and “Thanks for trying to sound reasonable, gunzloon.” is what you come back with?”

    This:

    ” I notice in both of your replies an implicit assumption that the police are “trained” and are somehow better than the average gun-carrier in regards to marksmanship, performance in deadly situations, and judgement. That they are, somehow, better than other people and so the arguments you make against letting people have guns in public don’t apply to them. I’m curious as to why this is. What is it that you think divides people who put on a police uniform and those who don’t? What training do they get that other’s are unable to? If someone else had equivalent training or proficiency, would you have less of an issue with them carrying a weapon?”

    is your idea of engagement.

    It boils down to this:

    ” I and my fellow “regulators” don’t need no steenkeen batches and don’t need no steenkeen training–cept how to load and shoot on the run and hit paper or pop-up targets on some tactical shooting range.”.

    Well, it’s completely wrong, so there’s that.

    “When it comes to marksmanship, i am as well trained as the average cop or better (want my 522 to prove it?). When it comes to knowledge of the use of deadly force in my locality, i am as well trained as the average cop or better.”

    That’s a substitute for dealing with the public on a daily basis? That’s a substitute for having to talk to people who are bugfuckingnuts and people who are hard-core criminals (up to and including homicidal felons) and being able to sort them out–without killing them first?

    Cops KNOW that shooting people, whether it’s justified or not, is as likely to cost them their job as it is to garner a commendation. Them’s the facts. There were over 1,100 shootings in the year from which I took that figure. Of those 1,100 shootings–even the ones with multiple eyewitnesses, both private citizens and LE professionals–every single one of them has a file of many. many pages of testimony along with forensic evidence and “expert” opinion by any number of people. The cop who did the shooting, at the very least, became the subject of a lot of nastiness from some quarter or other and, in many cases, was relieved of duty until the case was decided in his favor. So, you want to deal with all of that? No, of course you don’t. You’re a guy who knows better than the cops how to deal with the bad guys with gunz, ‘cuz you’re a good guy with gunz.

    Hey, here’s a place you’re gonna find common some likeminded palz.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/08/2-police-officers-shot-in-las-vegas/

    The comments threads are replete with guyz who know better than anyone–expecially them gummint peckerheads–how to deal with the bad-o-perps. A fair number of them seem to be suffering from ODS as well as TPS*. THEY are the ones I’m talking about and YOU seem to be a brother-in-arms with them. I’m sure that you will say that they’re whackos, not the LAGO’s that you and your friends are.

    Did you look at some of the images from any recent mass shooting and it’s aftermath? The cops showed up, armed to the teeth, and as soon as the threat was identified and neutralized the AR’s and other weaponry–beyond issue sidearms for street cops and whatever is issue for other agencies–went back in the trunks or on the gunrack. They don’t wear them into the Chipotle when they’re on lunch break. Had the two cops in the Vegas shooting done that, the bad-o-perps would have had THOSE weapons as well as the sidearms that they took off of the cops after shooting them.

    There isn’t a lot of information out yet about the shootings at either the restaurant or the Walmart but demographics indicate that there are more than a few CC permits (over 75K, according to the State of NV website that I looked at) and NV has reciprocity for CC permits from 15 other states so there’s a good chance at least one of them was at either the restaurant of the Walmart. Why wasn’t one of the many thousands of CC permit holders in NV (or a tourist from one of those other states that have reciprocity) near enough to get their before the cops? I hear crickets from the NV chapter of the GFGA** on this.

    If those asswipes at the Bundy Ranch had been facing people as whacked out as they are, there would have been a fucking bloodbath and it would have been pretty one-sided unless the TP’s ambushed the feds. That’s the sort of society you seem to be okay with. Please take it far, far away from the boring, safe life that I live in.

    You people want NO regulation, NO accountability and NO pentalties when you fuck up and shoot the wrong person. When you and your palz are ready to register for training classes and get certified as being capable of doing what you claim to be capable of doing, then you’ve got an argument about being better at it then the cops. Until then you’re blowing smoke and making an argument from non-existent authority.

    * Troo PATRIOT! Syndrome

    ** Gasden Flag Gunzloonz Alliance

  29. dingojack says

    Demo – I’m assuming all but the first 3 paras of #30 are meant for sabrekgb #28.

    Here, as in the UK, the police are trained to back off, contain the threat, talk ‘em down and play for time ’till the cavalry arrive, rather than charging in all guns blazing. Less criminals die, less civilians die*, less cops are placed into danger.
    And in all three countries there is a high level of scrutiny of police shootings, with a similar level of exonerations (what you’d expect from police investigating police and a strong bias toward imagining that police never lie, I suppose) and still, 7.54 and 55.4 times more police shootings per capita in the US, clearly something ain’t working.

    Dingo
    ——-
    * there’d be about 11 deaths per year in the US if the police shootings were at UK levels.

  30. says

    @31:

    “Yes.” to your first sentence.

    You won’t get a lot of argument from me on the U.K. and Australia having far fewer police shootings. OTOH, I have it from VERY reliable sources* that the situations in both the U.K. and Australia have degenerated into urban killzonez for the krimnulz who prey on the innocent, now that the cops are completely ineffectual. I’m told that they’re doing a re-make of “Mad Max”, but this time it’s a documentary!

    This:

    “TChola 2 hours ago

    Obviously, the good guy with a gun must not be taken by surprise! These cops were taken by surprise and didn’t “see it coming”. They were eating and talking. So, their reflexes were slow or they were not paying attention to their environment. From all this it doesn’t follow that the good guy has no advantage possessing a gun (and the training to use it wisely and effectively) in the face of a threat to life. In America these days you really need to cultivate a “samurai mindset” which is always alert to the possibility of danger striking anywhere, at any time, and in any form.”

    is from the comment thread, here:

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/

    “Samurai mindset”?

    I’m thinking of this:https://screen.yahoo.com/samurai-delicatessen-000000556.html

    * Take your pick of any of the “Gunz’R’Us!” websites

  31. says

    @26&27:

    Gosh, I never even saw you slither in here, you piece-of-shit lying fuckbag–although the stench should have tipped me off.

    “I’d rather not have any rights abrogated on the basis of some yahoo doctor’s estimation that I might be a threat to others. In the world I live in, in the country I live in, the government should have to convict you of a crime or some equivalent procedure to deny you of any civil liberty.”

    What you’d rather or rather not have is not how the laws get on the books, a-hole.

    There’s a “tell” in your comment, btw, “yahoo doctor’s estimate”, I thought I detected a certain way of bullshit spewin’ that I’d seen before. You’re the commenturd formerly signing as, “Wow”. Fuck off.

  32. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @dingojack
    It’s socio-economic. And no, this is not a dog whistle for black people. This is a “dog whistle” for poor people, with little education, and little prospects in this poor economy. Plus all of the negative effects of being a dirt poor Republican in the country who has no clue about anything. I believe a lot of those other countries don’t have the particular problems which the US has.

  33. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @democommie
    What is your fascination with trying to assign me as just another nym of someone else? Easier to write me off, perhaps. Do you have any idea of the history of mental asylums and how often they were abused in the recent past and how easy it was to abuse them? Again, the law should be that to be declared mentally incompetent requires a full blown trial, or something that stringent. It should not be allowed for even a doctor of the best to be able to unilaterally abridge someone’s right to travel, right to associate, and so on. Consequently, gun rights too.

  34. sabrekgb says

    @ 30 democommie

    ” I and my fellow “regulators” don’t need no steenkeen batches and don’t need no steenkeen training–cept how to load and shoot on the run and hit paper or pop-up targets on some tactical shooting range.”

    So, i know this has quotes around it, but i don’t know who you’re quoting, as it’s not something i said. In fact, you did quote what i said…and then ignored it to make up your own quote of what you want me to have said instead of responding to the actual, you know, quote. That’s disingenuous and you should stop doing it.

    “That’s a substitute for dealing with the public on a daily basis? That’s a substitute for having to talk to people who are bugfuckingnuts and people who are hard-core criminals (up to and including homicidal felons) and being able to sort them out–without killing them first?”

    I don’t even know what you mean by this, as it doesn’t really relate to what you were ostensibly responding to. You were talking about training to carry a weapon in public, i responded, then you say that I was saying it’s a substitute for dealing with the public. You might want to re-read the conversation, because i think you’re missing some important points. I did not say this. Carrying a weapon is not a substitute for dealing with others on a daily basis. I deal with others all the time, even people i’m reasonably sure are crazy in some way or another. Oddly, i do it without killing them first too, and i even have a gun on me when i do. I’m not sure if you can believe it, but it really is possible for a person to walk around with a gun (even lacking a badge), have positive interactions with others, and have no violence erupt. If i did encounter a homicidal felon who was feloniously homiciding, that may be a bit different.

    “The comments threads are replete with guyz who know better than anyone–expecially them gummint peckerheads–how to deal with the bad-o-perps. A fair number of them seem to be suffering from ODS as well as TPS*. THEY are the ones I’m talking about and YOU seem to be a brother-in-arms with them. I’m sure that you will say that they’re whackos, not the LAGO’s that you and your friends are.”

    Cool story, bro. How about you actually engage with what i say, not with what some dude in a comment thread on another website that isn’t me says? If you want, i could start replying to some other dude on another site too, but i don’t think that would get us anywhere. Not that we’re going far now, what with you not actually wanting to respond to what i write and instead want to respond to what others do or what you choose to pretend i wrote.

    “…the AR’s and other weaponry–beyond issue sidearms for street cops and whatever is issue for other agencies–went back in the trunks or on the gunrack. They don’t wear them into the Chipotle when they’re on lunch break.”

    So…?

    “There isn’t a lot of information out yet about the shootings at either the restaurant or the Walmart but demographics indicate that there are more than a few CC permits (over 75K, according to the State of NV website that I looked at) and NV has reciprocity for CC permits from 15 other states so there’s a good chance at least one of them was at either the restaurant of the Walmart. Why wasn’t one of the many thousands of CC permit holders in NV (or a tourist from one of those other states that have reciprocity) near enough to get their before the cops?”

    Dunno. How’s that relevant? A CC didn’t cause any collateral damage either. Should we put that as a point for your side or mine? Neither i think, because…well, you’re just babbling at this point.

    “That’s the sort of society you seem to be okay with. Please take it far, far away from the boring, safe life that I live in.”

    The boring and safe life you have is that, until it’s not. Hopefully that won’t happen for you, but it might for me, and i would rather be able to defend myself and others. I don’t begrudge you not wanting to be armed, i’m not trying to force a gun in your hand. Please don’t take away my right to effective self-defense in return. I promise i won’t hurt you if you don’t hurt me. Oh, hey, i think i may have just discovered to social contract…neato.

    “You people want NO regulation, NO accountability and NO pentalties when you fuck up and shoot the wrong person.”

    I don’t know who the fuck “you people”: is, but for myself: False, False, and False. Especially the last one…where did that even come from?

    You’ve got a severe case of tribalism going on, democommie. A lot of me + us, vs. you + them. You’re grouping everyone who disagrees with you about this issue into a nice little box in your head and assigning them the same characteristics…and you’re wrong. How many articles do we read on this blog about doing just that? Quit that shit.

    “gunz; gunzloon; cuz; palz”

    Also, you’re using too many “z”s.

  35. says

    Enlightenment Liberal is a pretty stupid fucking “nym” for a socialist; donchathink?

    Are you this “Enlightenment Liberal”? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/profile/enlightenmentliberal-3610/area.showposts/start.30/

    He seems to be about as befuddled and full of shit as you are.

    “Do you have any idea of the history of mental asylums and how often they were abused in the recent past and how easy it was to abuse them?”

    Do you have any idea how many fucking people are NOT under care who should be? Do you have any fucking idea how shitty the services for people with mental/emotional problems are in the U.S.? I doubt it.

    You want to go on about incarceration? Nobody brought up incarceration, you stupid fuck. Saying people with mental illness shouldn’t be allowed to have gunz is nothing like saying they should be incarcerated. There are a lot of reasons that people are treated for mental health issues that have nothing to do with their being incompetent to live their life outside a mental institution.

    Your rant reads like someone who’s had their “rights” abridged because of mental illness.

  36. says

    @36:

    For a guy who claims to be on top of things you don’t seem to know a fuck of a lot about how the world works. Most of the planet doesn’t have societies where people run around armed to the teeth–on the off chance that they’ll get a chance to whack somebody whom they perceive to be a dangerous person. Those societies certainly do exist, in Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan and other countries where the rule of the gun supplants the rule of law.

    As I suspected you would do, you ignore the insanity of the idiots on the comment threads. Is that because you think that they’re fucking idiots? Is it because you think that they’re Troo PATRIOTS? Why do you ignore their comments and pretend that they aren’t part of YOUR tribe. Is it because they’re unreasonable assholes who would rather shoot people than be afraid of the world in general?

    You keep saying that a police officer’s training is immaterial; why the hell do you suppose we train them, then? Just to waste the taxpayers’ money? I mean, really, wtf purpose does it serve to even HAVE cops if you and your buddies with the hidden handcannonz are gonna make my world a safe place? You say that you are as well trained or better trained than cops to deal with an imminent threat and dismiss the years of training and experience that they have undergone; why is that? Do you think that they’re stupid or corrupt–as a class? Do you really want to suggest that the people who are involved in hundreds of stupidents with gunz every day of the fucking week are better trained than the average cop in how to handle their firearms, assess threats and deal with same?

    “You’ve got a severe case of tribalism going on, democommie. A lot of me + us, vs. you + them. You’re grouping everyone who disagrees with you about this issue into a nice little box in your head and assigning them the same characteristics…and you’re wrong. How many articles do we read on this blog about doing just that? Quit that shit.”

    Go fuck yourself.

    “gunz; gunzloon; cuz; palz”

    Also, you’re using too many “z”s.”

    Tough shit.

  37. sabrekgb says

    @ 38 democommie

    You might want to turn your doucheometer down from 11. 6.5-7 is probably enough. Don’t want to blow it out.

    “on the off chance that they’ll get a chance to whack somebody whom they perceive to be a dangerous person”

    This is one of your big misunderstandings. I am armed for the off chance that i will be forced to respond to a dangerous person, not that i’ll “get” to. I’m not a fan of combat, at home or abroad.

    “Why do you ignore their comments and pretend that they aren’t part of YOUR tribe.”

    Because they’re not. I’m arguing a position on an issue, nothing more. It may be easier for you to mentally demonize me if you can lump me in with a “tribe” you don’t like, but that don’t make it so. Also, much like everyone, i ignore most comments on the internet. It’s not my responsibility to go to a website you happen to be reading and jump into the fray. This may hold some humor for you: XKCD: Duty Calls

    “You keep saying that a police officer’s training is immaterial;”

    I don’t keep saying that. Let me break it down for you, since you never actually replied to what i really did say originally:

    Me: “if one of the people that he killed or who was near by one of the people he killed had been armed they may have been able to stop him sooner”
    You:” Likely outcome is cops shoot both or shoot innocent bystanders. cops, btw, are trained to do their job”
    Me:”Why the fuck would cops shoot bystanders? … I train with said weapon, go to the range, and have a reasonable apprehension of the laws in my locality regarding the use of deadly force to protect myself and others…How is it that they are fundamentally different [than me in that regard]?”
    You:”Prove it, put up photos of the documents that show that you’ve been trained on breaching techniques, hostage negotiation, high speed vehicle chases, SWAT tactics and the like.”
    Me:”Why would I need [training on those things you mentioned]? We’re talking about carrying a weapon for self defense and the defense of others. All you really need for that is training on the weapon itself, knowledge of the laws regarding deadly force, and good judgement.”

    Which you never actually responded to. Why do i need to know SWAT procedures in order to carry out the limited action of carrying a weapon for defense of myself and others? You injected something that is irrelevant and then declared victory when i called it out as such…never providing any reason for why it matters.

    “You say that you are as well trained or better trained than cops to deal with an imminent threat”

    I’d say that my training is “good enough” (though i would also bet that my marksmanship, knowledge of the relevant laws, and judgement is above the police average, as related by anecdote up-thread), but the real kicker is that I am always where I am. Cops mostly aren’t. As they say: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    “dismiss the years of training and experience that they have undergone”

    Standard police academy is approx 6 months. They carry a gun in public after that. 21 yr old Rookie day 1 doesn’t have “years of training and experience”, but your position would hold him on a pedestal above someone like myself who does literally have years of firearm experience, a better knowledge of the relevant laws, and since we can’t objectively measure judgement (here at the moment) let’s just say more years of life experience. What is it about him that makes him able to carry to defend himself and others but should preclude me from doing the same? We just went over the relevant training, and I would be on par or better than him. So…what is it that makes us different? You can’t just spout “Training!” without actually talking details. Training isn’t a monolithic, magical thing…

    “Go fuck yourself.”

    *sigh*… Eat a dick.

    “handcannonz”

    Is your keyboard’s “S” key busted…?

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Enlightenment Liberal is a pretty stupid fucking “nym” for a socialist; donchathink?

    Only if you’re grossly ignorant of the actual writings from the Enlightenment. Many of them were quite socialist, including many of the “founding fathers”.

    Are you this “Enlightenment Liberal”? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/profile/enlightenmentliberal-3610/area.showposts/start.30/

    He seems to be about as befuddled and full of shit as you are.

    Yes, that is me. Can you be more specific about how I am befuddled and full of shit?

    Do you have any idea how many fucking people are NOT under care who should be? Do you have any fucking idea how shitty the services for people with mental/emotional problems are in the U.S.? I doubt it.

    I do. I know that there is a serious problem when we defunded our mental asylums and such a few decades back. Now, prisons are the place where the mentally ill are put. It’s really quite unfortunate.

    What does that have to do with my position that to abridge someone’s civil liberties, you need a trial or some equivalently stringent standard? Are you familiar with how mental asylums, nursing care homes, and such, have been often abused in the past?

    You want to go on about incarceration? Nobody brought up incarceration, you stupid fuck.

    God you’re stupid. You argued that any doctor has the authority to decide that someone should no longer have their constitutionally protected right. I noted that a logical conclusion of this is that a doctor would have the authority to commit someone against their will on the flimsiest of circumstances.

    I understand that you see a difference because you think that gun rights is not civil right, and freedom from being kidnapped or otherwise falsely imprisoned is a civil right. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of that position. As long as the second amendment is a thing, you are either for ignoring amendments you disagree with and thus destroying the rule of law – which protects us all – or you are for doctors having the authority on the flimsiest of excuses to falsely imprison people.

    I think you need to be reminded of this:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    Would you cut down the rule of law to get rid of guns? And then what would protect your other civil rights, with the rule of law having been cut down?

    Your rant reads like someone who’s had their “rights” abridged because of mental illness.

    Again, cut out the ad hom.

  39. says

    Good guyz with gunz stopping bad guyz with gunz fail.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/shooters-carried-arsenal-supplies-sunday-rampage

    @38&39:

    Here’s a news flash for both of you idiotz; I don’t hate firearms. I don’t hate people who HAVE or USE firearms–even those with a lot of them. I don’t even hate you two moronz. What I hate is having some smug asshole tell me that he knows more about how to deal with criminals than a cop does OR that he knows more about mental health screening and treatment than medical professionals You two fucktards deserve each other, get a room somewhere and leave the rest of us alone OR NOT.

  40. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    OR that he knows more about mental health screening and treatment than medical professionals

    I’m sorry. I don’t conflate “medical treatment” with “abrogate civil liberties without trial”. You do?

  41. sabrekgb says

    @41 democommie

    Oh, look…conflating separate people again. I don’t know Enlightenment Liberal from Adam (or Eve…or Steve) and we weren’t even making similar points, but there you go lumping us both together because it’s easier to say “Fuck all y’all!” than argue reasonably.

    You never addressed what i said to begin with, you just pounded on about how people shouldn’t have guns because “Training!” (which, incidentally, i like…training is good) and cops can because “Training!”…but what if my training is as good as theirs in the relevant areas? I asked if you’d be ok with people carrying weapons in public in that case. Crickets. In every single post i tried to actually address what you said, and you just give zero fucks about it.

    I definitely need the ‘newzflashes’ because you don’t respond to actual substantive argument, you just stick your finger in your ear and spout out “z” crap at the top of your textual lungs. If you’re not an ideologue about this issue, you’re sure playing one on TV.

    I may be a fucktard, but not for anything i’ve said in this thread. You, on the other hand have acquitted yourself quite poorly…and are a fucktard.

  42. sabrekgb says

    Oh, and about that article:

    Do you think the part about the CC confronting the guy somehow makes a point for you? Yeah, he didn’t stop them, because he was shot from behind by someone else. Kinda like the two cops didn’t stop them at Cici’s.

    Wilcox didn’t shoot any bystanders and he was 100% correct about the person he confronted being a danger…so how is this an argument against lawful citizens carrying weapons in public? Those are your arguments for disarming people, are they not? It doesn’t really matter that he failed (though it would have been much better had he succeeded), he took the defense of others upon himself and did nothing wrong. I’d probably categorize his actions as somewhat heroic, actually. Hey, here’s a question, what would you say if Wilcox had in fact been successful in stopping Miller? Seems like that would have been a pretty good thing, no?

  43. says

    “I’m sorry. I don’t conflate “medical treatment” with “abrogate civil liberties without trial”. You do?”

    You conflate spewing words with making sense, dumbfuck.

    Your first bit of stupid on this subject:

    ” In the world I live in, in the country I live in, the government should have to convict you of a crime or some equivalent procedure to deny you of any civil liberty.”

    You’re apparently unfamiliar with the way U.S. law works.

    Not content with the self-immolation of that bit of burnin’ stoopit, you pile on YOURSELF with this:

    “Do you have any idea of the history of mental asylums and how often they were abused in the recent past and how easy it was to abuse them? Again, the law should be that to be declared mentally incompetent requires a full blown trial, or something that stringent. It should not be allowed for even a doctor of the best to be able to unilaterally abridge someone’s right to travel, right to associate, and so on. Consequently, gun rights too.”

    when nobody on this thread had mentioned incarceration in mental health facilities. So you’re saying that you don’t want people to examined by doctors to find out what their status is? Okay, got it. Moron.

    “but what if my training is as good as theirs in the relevant areas?”

    like this guy’s training?

    http://wonkette.com/551139/man-killed-in-wal-mart-by-rightwing-lunatics-was-good-guy-with-gun

    Obviously he hadn’t reached the level of expertise that you have or his “samurai mindset” would have enabled him to simultaneously confront the guy while tracking the gal with the shopping cart who actually killed him. I hope his family gets a refund from whatever training facility he paid to teach him how to die.

    If your training was as good you would be able to furnish photocopies of those documents stating that you had been trained by certified professionals in a few more things than shooting your handcannonz and savin’ MurKKKa from the bad-o-perps.

    I honestly don’t give a flying fuck what you think or how many gunz you have to own to feel safe but, since you’re apparently slow on the uptake I guess I have to spell it out. Most of the people who are on this blog’s threads have their own opinions about what works best for staying alive in the 21st century. The vast majority of those people do not feel the need to preach the Gunslingerz Gospel. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else.

  44. dingojack says

    Socio-economic?
    So what you’re saying is that economic inequality causes US police to be 7.5 times more likely to shoot someone dead than Australian ones*.
    Well then, here’s the choice, either reduce GINI or restrict guns (or even better, both). Which would you prefer? Would taking money off people earning high incomes and funnelling to those with low incomes be intrusive to the rights of the individual? Would restricting gun ownership be intrusive to the rights of the individual? Which would be more intrusive? Discuss.

    If a person is a threat to the health and safety of others, then society has a right to protect itself from the harm that individual poses. If a person murders someone else and it’s determined they’re a threat to themselves or others then it’s reasonable that they are held on remand until they’re tried. If a person is a carrier of, say Ebola Virus (even if it’s no fault of their own) they must be quarantined immediately, they cannot be allowed to put others at risk. The rights of society as a whole trumps individual rights.

    As discussed above police (perhaps not in the US) are trained to back-off, contain, negotiate and play for time. This leads to fewer dead people and less danger (and long term harm generally). Weekend warriors, armed to the teeth are not. The difference can be a peaceful surrender or a massacre.

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Poverty Rates in UK 16.1% (60% median income, before housing costs, 2010-11)
    US 18% (Not including non-cash and near non-cash benefits, 2012)
    Australia 12.8% (50% median disposable income,2012)

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Would taking money off people earning high incomes and funnelling to those with low incomes be intrusive to the rights of the individual? Would restricting gun ownership be intrusive to the rights of the individual? Which would be more intrusive? Discuss.

    I’m all for wealth redistribution. Wealth inequalities exist only insofaras required for capitalism to function. Otherwise, because material wealth is finite, one person having more deprives a second of his right to property. One of the fundamental flaws of libertarianism is their idiotic and evil belief that private property rights are inviolable.

    I am weakly in favor of gun rights. You could argue me out of it. Regardless, it would be great to have a class as hard hard or harder than driver’s ed to be licensed to own firearms, and IMHO clearly that would be constitutional.

    And why not do both?

    The rights of society as a whole trumps individual rights.

    Actually no. We are not slaves to society. Oftentimes, one of the rebuttals I hear to JS MIll’s On Liberty is that hurting oneself means that you are less capable to be a good friend or family member, or that you pay less taxes, which hurts society, which means that society can prevent you from harming yourself. Bollocks I say.

    To some extent, we can impose duties on people for the betterment of others, but the bar should be high for that. Requiring taxes to provide for universal health care is a good idea. Outlawing sugary drinks because they’re bad for you … less of a good idea.

    It’s the fundamental premise of a free society to have the right of self determination, which means that we acknowledge that the rights of the individual do trump the rights of the society to some extent. Not completely either way, but definitely biased towards individual self determination.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @democommie
    Again, saying a doctor can unilaterally put you on a database which restricts your gun rights civil liberty is entirely equivalent to saying a doctor could put you on a database which restricts your right to assembly civil liberty. I fail to see a significant difference. A doctor should never be able to unilaterally add someone to a database and deprive that person of their civil liberties. It’s too easily abused.

    And you’re still being an asshat for purposing ignoring my argument, and pretending I’m saying something else. And you’re still being an asshat for claiming I’m strawmanning when I’m not, and then refusing to engage my actual argument. And then you call me names. Again, want to cut out the ad hom and actually engage arguments? It seems you are pathologically incapable of ever responding to an argument.

  47. sabrekgb says

    @ 45 democommie

    I don’t understand why you think Wilcox is somehow supportive of your position. Yes, he was a good guy with a gun who didn’t stop the bad guy (because he was shot unsuspectingly). So were two cops. Wilcox did not cause any harm to innocents.

    It’s a bit hard to figure out your exact position because you seem intent on not spelling it out clearly and explicitly without hyperbole, childish name-calling, talking about other people’s comments on the internet, and gratuitous “z”s…but as best i can figure, you don’t want people who do not possess badges to have guns in public because you think they may hurt people they shouldn’t.

    You imply Wilcox should not have been armed…but you never say why. You toss out smarmy insinuations that he was insufficiently trained to have a weapon because he was killed. I notice that smarmy bullshit is absent with regard to the two cops that were killed as well. Were they insufficiently trained to have weapons? Clearly, right? I mean, they died and didn’t stop the bad guy.

    Oh, they were surprised and that’s why they died? Hmm…seems like Wilcox was surprised by Amanda Miller.

    Wilcox confronted Miller, who was in fact the bad guy. Wilcox did not hurt an innocent bystander. Why should Wilcox not have had a weapon in that case? If you argue that him pulling the weapon drew attention to himself that led directly to his death, then that would be correct…but that’s also a decision that he made knowing full well the risks. That’s a heroic decision, and it’s a damn shame he’s not alive now.

    “f your training was as good you would be able to furnish photocopies of those documents stating that you had been trained by certified professionals in a few more things than shooting your handcannonz and savin’ MurKKKa from the bad-o-perps.”

    Trained in what, exactly. You keep yelling “Training!” and i keep asking you specifically in what…and you don’t answer. I have sufficient training and skills in the relevant areas to safely carry a weapon in public. I am an expert marksman (which, yes, i can furnish proof if you like. I mean, i won’t, because this is the internet, but i could.), cognizant of the relevant laws, and have good judgement. What more is necessary? You mentioned high-speed chases before…but why the fuck does that matter? You need to pull one of two things out of your ass: either an answer, or your head.

    “you’re apparently slow on the uptake I guess”

    Ha! Pot to fuckin’ kettle, man…

    “people who are on this blog’s threads have their own opinions”

    Yuppers, and i’m explaining mine to you. Trying to do it with, ya know, reasons and shit. You are not doing the same.

    “Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else.”

    No. I’ve been a reader of this blog for somewhere near a decade. You might like echo chambers, but i’m going to contribute if i disagree with something. I’m also going to do my damndest to do it in a more constructive way that you. Your bullshit is what i am calling here, and all you can do is proclaim it don’t stink. Take your “z”s and stay right the fuck here, but open your ears and actually listen to what someone is saying, not what you think you heard someone else think on another website in a comment about a different article this one time back in the day.

  48. sabrekgb says

    @ 46 dingojack

    A quibble: “society has a right” – I’d argue that society (and groups in general) doesn’t have rights, only individuals have rights. Your point about viral quarantine is well taken, though.

    ” police (perhaps not in the US) are trained to back-off, contain, negotiate and play for time”

    Yeah…your parenthetical is sadly correct; they don’t really do that in the U.S. They quite often, if fact, do exactly the opposite.

  49. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I was talking with a friend about this, and I realized we might be talking past each other. To be exceedingly clear, of course if someone is declared mentally incompetent by a judge / jury, then they can be barred from owning firearms, and from a bunch of other basic civil liberties too. I’m saying that there should be a clearly-defined stringent legal standard for declaring someone mentally incompetent, and I’m saying that one should not be denied any civil liberty short of some thing like that.

Leave a Reply