After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
Or third alkaline, as you prefer.
You must be referring to the crime of battery --
Which reminds me. Why did they name a kind of battery after Al Kaline?
Actually the family changed their name once they immigrated to America - in the old country, it was simply, Klein.
But as we all know, as languages evolve, so do names, and before they were Klein, they were Kleine. In fact there's a totally unsubstantiated rumor that one of the Kleine girls - a particularly buxom one - may have inspired Mozart to write Eine kleine Nachtmusik, as it was said that Wolfy helped young Ms Kleine to hit hi C.
But then, of course, one can't always believe everything one hears --
(your serve --)
That will be far from enough. Standing on the firing range is not the same as being involved in a threatening situation and firing at targets is not the same as firing on humans.
@Arcus - I simply meant that a weapons course should at least be required. Granted firing on targets is not the same as firing on humans, but I doubt that even Texas is going to allow a course that uses humans as targets, even if they're Democrats.
such as the shooter. to everyone's benefit in that theater, his ineptitude with clearing a jam or properly loading a crappy magazine (drum). probably saved lives in there. so if training were required and instruction on the use and operation of a long gun...this idiot would have been far more lethal. so lets thank ineptitude.
Didn't know he failed to clear a misfire from an extremely simple rifle (AR-15) or was using drums/taped mags at all (they virtually guarantee misfires), but those are some of those things that illuminates the futility of having guns.
I have some military training and if you fired a pistol/revolver and missed or caught the vest, I can squeeze off a couple of rounds using point and shoot (takes 100+ hours of obstacle course to learn proficiently) while you are resteadying and you will be dead. A "clicked" gun takes a few seconds at most to clear (takes a few hundred misfires to learn), changing the magazine takes 2-3 seconds (again takes a few hundred timed changes to learn), and a full disassemble takes around 35 seconds in the dark (200+ hours of training).
Also consider that it happened in a darkened theater where gas had been applied and people were panicking. Bringing another gun into that situation would not have decrease the casualty rate, especially since being hit by a full metal jacket 5.56 is less likely to be lethal than a hollow point .38 (which is twice as diametrically large and travels slower). Even with some appropriate training I doubt I would be able to make any positive difference if there and armed.
Most of all it is the chest pounding masochism that if only they had been there with their guns nothing like it could ever happen, which I find ludicrous and clearly dangerous since it is what seems to inform US weapons debates.
nothing you said has anything to do with my statement, besides stating a few "facts" that are entirely debatable. i was simply stating the gratitude that the shooter was just as inept. where the rest of your statement came from i will assume was addressing other comments. nothing i have said anywhere can be implied about gun control or mysterious dramatic reenactments where the good guys win....
i can rattle off random information not pertaining to either comment, like having 6 years combat experience on 3 continents. but again nothing to do with your or my comment. this seems to be a trend here, and with you.
He wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. It seems to me that he was just expanding the conversation from where you left off while keeping in line with his original position. I could be mistaken, I read Arcus's statements as general statements on the efficacy of firearms training.
Not everything everyone says is always intended as a blatant contradiction.
huh? i wasnt disagreeing with him, kris. just something of a trend of unrelated and somewhat incorrect statements that arent even on topic to reply to my comment. if it were to comment in general fine. nothing was stated about anyone's position and any position being questioned/challenged. so what are you saying now since you jumped in? contradictions? where? and blatant?