Yet another movie theater shooting.

[SkepticThinker]

I saw them on the AlCan on our way up to Alaska in freaking November. Not the worst possible time to be driving that road, but pretty damn close to it.

There is never a good time.

 

[Marisa]

There is never a good time.

It was pretty th following fall on my way the hell out of Alaska, which was on fire at the time.

 

[Kapalika]

Of course but that's not dramatic enough for the media to talk about.
It's FAR easier for the liberal media to beg even more gun control.
If they talked about vehicle safety no one would listen anyway.

Last time I checked the media in America has as strong right lean, mirroring it's politics.

Hell I wouldn't mind if cigs were banned.

That would never work and the suggestion alone scares me. The "war on drugs" fails for a reason, in part because it's designed to fail to feed the prison industrial complex, and also because it just wouldn't work anyway. Yes, they are bad, but that's why you get *accurate* information on the risks ect instead of all the silly propaganda often used that kids later learn isn't true then they underestimate the real risks.

The laws aren't so reasonable when government creates gun free zones, thereby advertising to criminals that theaters are for shoot'n fish in a barrel.
The "gun free" requirement never affects perps bent on evil....only the law abide'n gun owners comply.

I consider myself a liberal and as someone who loves liberty I can actually agree with this. I consider myself to be for rational gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated milita", I'd take that to mean that some regulation should be expected.

But I don't think that banning where guns should be is the way to go. At the same time, I don't think people should be taking large weapons into parks and other public spaces. I'm divided on if there should be allowed to be ordinances against it or if it should just be a social thing as there is some realistic risk, but if my next point would be valued by our lawmakers it would make this entire division moot. (But before that, perhaps there should be some kind of law that concealed weapons are exempt from "gun free zones" since you need a permit for that specifically anyway).

The big issue in my mind, isn't limiting the firepower or even where people can take firearms. It's regulating who is sane enough to have that firepower. If everyone buying a gun for the first time had to go through a psychological evaluation and see their medical history to make sure they are not the unstable, impulsive kind of person, the vast majority of these shootings wouldn't happen. Actually, I'd argue that a follow-up every 3 years would be good if they want to buy more. And mandatory background checks on a federal level for private sales. I'd also throw in mandatory safety courses as some people just don't know how to safely use them. Also there could be an appeal process if someone thinks that there was a mistake in the evaluation.



I heard one veteran say that our gun culture is ridiculous now. In his words people "wear them like bling" and he's right; gun culture doesn't appreciate the true nature of firearms nor their potential for being a tool of destruction. They are toys now to people. But they have and always will be things designed to kill and/or incapacitate (since can still use nonlethal ammo ect) animals, human or not. Things like skeet shooting or target shooting is a sport, sure, but you don't need gunpowder based fire-arms to do that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm speaking of the NRA as a lobbyist organization, not individual due-paying members. I've known many members of the NRA who fully back all manner of logical, common-sense firearm and ammo regulations. Of course, they don't have as much vested interest in blocking the reduction of firearms and ammo sales as the firearm industry does (nor as deep of pockets).

I disagree with this adjustment too.

 

[JayJayDee]

I am always intrigued by the American mind-set on gun control. Coming from a country where we don't see a need for owning or using weapons, it is astonishing to see people want more guns to solve the "gun problem". That to me is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

After Sandy Hook...they wanted to arm the teachers! Seriously?!

What do you need guns for? If everyone has a gun, does it stop the killing, or does it promote it? Why does the "Wild West" mentality prevail when the Wild West is no longer the place where you live? Or is it that the Wild West mentality never left and this is what drives the need to carry weapons? Why is there no progress in the average person's mentality? Why is Canada such a "different" country, when you share a border. They have the same gun laws but not the same gun crime rate. What makes them different?

Who do people need to protect themselves from? Isn't it other people with guns? The solution seems obvious to those on the outside looking in.

If it is your government that you need to protect yourself from....then don't look now, but I think you are slightly out-gunned in that department. Want to go down shootin'? You'll get your wish.

If we profess to be Christians, we are in an even bigger dilemma because Jesus taught us to "love our enemies"...he didn't tell us to shoot them. He said if men took up the sword (gun) then they would die by the sword (gun) Isn't that what we are seeing?

I will never understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty much.
I've never had any need for a gun (and I've been in some pretty hairy situations).

There certainly are. I don't really have to worry about being shot to death in a movie theatre.

I don't worry about it either.
To me carrying a gun is about as exciting as carrying property insurance.
I haven't even enjoyed shooting in a long time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Aye, tis a magical land where the laws of physics dunna apply. We Canadians may look like you but we are a completely different species. Our blood is green, and our pee is purple.

And if Nixon hadn't cancelled the draft, I'd be one of yooze.

 

[freethinker44]

Then we can't really talk about anything until we address the kids starving.

Yup. Well then, I guess that settles the gun control debate.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, but I am being sarcastic, or at least attempting it. All this "how can we talk about about gun control when people are dieing in car accidents" talk is just the "starving kids in Africa" fallacy.

 

[Revoltingest]

What works down here doesn't work down here.

To implement real gun free zone is to take away all guns and prevent guns from entering the zone.

Hence, Canada is a real gun free zone, because they've repeatedly busted us Yanks for bring guns into their territory.

Describing any local state or city as a gun free zone because they legislated it as a gun free zone is not a valid point. Legislation needs to be enforced and given that local cities within states have gazillions point of entry without full screening is an invalid point of a gun free zone. The same can be said of neighboring states.

Gun free societies have shown dramatic reduction in gun related crimes and violence. Best examples are Korea and Japan. The numbers are out there and can be easily obtained. Doesn't matter if I present it here which I've done before. Americans will go to their graves with their guns besides them.

Aye, the only way to make a gun free zone in Americastan is to detect'm & check'm at entry points.
Any organization which doesn't take such measures shouldn't be called a "gun free zone".....it should be called an "undefended zone".

 

[Revoltingest]

No, theater are still for watching movies, ballets, symphonies, and a variety of theatrical performances.

I just use'm for movies.
The other things are torture.

 

[Revoltingest]

I consider myself a liberal and as someone who loves liberty I can actually agree with this. I consider myself to be for rational gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated milita", I'd take that to mean that some regulation should be expected.

But I don't think that banning where guns should be is the way to go. At the same time, I don't think people should be taking large weapons into parks and other public spaces. I'm divided on if there should be allowed to be ordinances against it or if it should just be a social thing as there is some realistic risk, but if my next point would be valued by our lawmakers it would make this entire division moot. (But before that, perhaps there should be some kind of law that concealed weapons are exempt from "gun free zones" since you need a permit for that specifically anyway).

The big issue in my mind, isn't limiting the firepower or even where people can take firearms. It's regulating who is sane enough to have that firepower. If everyone buying a gun for the first time had to go through a psychological evaluation and see their medical history to make sure they are not the unstable, impulsive kind of person, the vast majority of these shootings wouldn't happen. Actually, I'd argue that a follow-up every 3 years would be good if they want to buy more. And mandatory background checks on a federal level for private sales. I'd also throw in mandatory safety courses as some people just don't know how to safely use them. Also there could be an appeal process if someone thinks that there was a mistake in the evaluation.

No arguments here.
I put in many hours of training (for competition), & I see much value in it.

I heard one veteran say that our gun culture is ridiculous now. In his words people "wear them like bling" and he's right; gun culture doesn't appreciate the true nature of firearms nor their potential for being a tool of destruction. They are toys now to people. But they have and always will be things designed to kill and/or incapacitate (since can still use nonlethal ammo ect) animals, human or not. Things like skeet shooting or target shooting is a sport, sure, but you don't need gunpowder based fire-arms to do thkat.

I've never run across a single gun owner who treated a gun as "bling".
We all (everyone I know) keep'm concealed or locked up.
This will vary with where one lives, so there is no single "gun culture".
(Btw, I don't live in a violent urban city....it's upscale rural & small university town.)

Ultimately the 2nd Amendment is about defense of self & country....not target shooting.
Guns must be dangerous.
We need to concentrate on making those who have them safer.

I'm glad you joined us!

 

[Twilight Hue]

How about having to pass a psychological test before purchasing a gun?

I propose Russian roulette.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aye, tis a magical land where the laws of physics dunna apply. We Canadians may look like you but we are a completely different species. Our blood is green, and our pee is purple.

Ah. The Pan Am games.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No arguments here.
I put in many hours of training (for competition), & I see much value in it.

I've never run across a single gun owner who treated a gun as "bling".
We all (everyone I know) keep'm concealed or locked up.
This will vary with where one lives, so there is no single "gun culture".
(Btw, I don't live in a violent urban city....it's upscale rural & small university town.)

Ultimately the 2nd Amendment is about defense of self & country....not target shooting.
Guns must be dangerous.
We need to concentrate on making those who have them safer.

I'm glad you joined us!

You've never met my brother-in-law.

 

[Neo Deist]

Last time I checked the media in America has as strong right lean, mirroring it's politics.

Strong right lean? Fox news perhaps.

These are liberal media groups: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LA Times. Those also happen to be the biggest media outlets in the country. They tend to lean to the left, the journalists that work for them typically vote Democrat, and they give 10x the amount of donations to the DNP vs. the GOP.

It is also why most national news reports/stories will typically have a liberal lean to them. They like to leave out little details that would otherwise support a conservative point of view.

For example, the two recent cases of suicide while in jail (Sandra Bland - TX, Kindra Chapman - AL). Both females were black and both apparently hung themselves in their cells. The families initially refused to believe the cases were suicide, they blamed the police, they had protests and rallies, some protesters were arrested for their conduct, and one protester took down an American flag outside of the Homewood, AL. jail and threw it on the ground.

Then in an interesting turn of events, the coroner's reports for both cases indicated suicide. In the AL case, other inmates came forward and stated that she hung herself. Video surveillance from inside the jail shows that no officer was involved. Hmmm...

Initially, the media ran with it and pointed the finger at law enforcement. They are now non-stories.

Edit: oh and now the local community around Homewood, AL. is DEMANDING that the NAACP, ACLU and Black Lives Matter group all make a formal, public apology for their false accusations against the Homewood Police Dept.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These are liberal media groups: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LA Times. Those also happen to be the biggest media outlets in the country. They tend to lean to the left, the journalists that work for them typically vote Democrat, and they give 10x the amount of donations to the DNP vs. the GOP.

NY Times leans neither way, though they will (and have) admit they are more cosmopolitan, and conservatives accuse it of being liberal while some liberals accuse it of being conservative. The Wall Street Journal tends to lean right, especially in its opinion pieces, and is a division of News Corp. The Washington Post swings both ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've never met my brother-in-law.

That's likely true.
Does he also hold a handgun sideways?
Does he call it a "piece" or "heat".
Ew.

 

[Neo Deist]

NY Times leans neither way, though they will (and have) admit they are more cosmopolitan, and conservatives accuse it of being liberal while some liberals accuse it of being conservative. The Wall Street Journal tends to lean right, especially in its opinion pieces, and is a division of News Corp. The Washington Post swings both ways.

They are liberal, left leaning. I spoke, therefore it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

NY Times leans neither way, though they will (and have) admit they are more cosmopolitan, and conservatives accuse it of being liberal while some liberals accuse it of being conservative. The Wall Street Journal tends to lean right, especially in its opinion pieces, and is a division of News Corp. The Washington Post swings both ways.

Leaning left v right depends so much upon our individual perspectives.
But we can say all (except perhaps the WSJ) lean towards Democrats.
A hint at why......
Media Bias Basics

Considering the above......could we objectively say Dems are to the left of Pubs?
If so then we could say the media lean to the left.
(Fox News is of course aberrant.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Leaning left v right depends so much upon our individual perspectives.

Not always or necessarily. In the case of the Washington Post, its positions and endorsements can be reviewed, and it will be revealed that they have indeed swung both ways, sometimes supporting republicans and conservatives, sometimes endorsing democrats and liberals.