The Movie Massacre

Gun rights advocates have been understandably quiet as the nation obsesses over the horror of Friday night’s movie theatre massacre in Aurora, Colorado. Yet another whack-o from out of the blue, this one clad in SWAT team gear and armed with a Glock pistol, a shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle, has indiscriminately killed or injured scores of innocent people. With 12 dead and another 58 hurt, the episode is destined for historical notoriety, even if the gruesome details are forgotten in a year or two. When was the last time something like this happened?  How many were killed? We’ve begun to lose track because so many of these horrific incidents have occurred in recent years. Meanwhile, those who would reflect nostalgically on earlier times as having been less troubled will have forgotten Charlie Starkweather. Imagine the damage he could have done if he’d been armed with an assault rifle instead of a revolver.

As it happens, James Holmes, 24, the man charged with the Dark Knight Massacre, didn’t have an automatic weapon, but rather a ‘semi’ with a 100-round magazine that reportedly jammed early in the assault. He also had no police record, only a speeding violation. This means he could probably have bought a gun even in states where weapons permits are tightly controlled. None of this will matter to political liberals in the weeks and months ahead as they use Holmes’ rampage to press their case for a total ban on, for starters, handguns. Their chances of prevailing, fortunately, are nil.  It’s not going to happen. Although a total ban would undoubtedly make it harder for Holmes and other crazies to acquire murderous firepower, it would never to stop them. Nor will any liberal remedies mitigate the culture of violence that increasingly coaxes psychopaths like Holmes to act out their fantasies. The malignancy that produced Holmes has metastasized so deeply within America’s psyche that it is no more curable than cancer itself.

Pistol Permits for All

We would not go so far as to assail liberals, however, for thinking that a ban on handguns is the answer. Their position is both conscionable and logical. But so is the pro-gun argument that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. For my part, I’m going to seek a Colorado license to carry a concealed weapon and encourage my wife and sons to do likewise.  If more people did this, Holmes would probably have been shot dead before he’d fired even a dozen rounds. For that matter, so would any gunman attempting to murder the 300 or so people (pictured above) enjoying the sun and aquatic pleasures of the local athletic club’s swimming pool on this hot Sunday afternoon. A crazed gunman could have a field day here, since the only escape route away from the killer is over the spike-tipped, six-foot-high steel fence that surrounds the pool area. As long as there is even a chance in a thousand that this patio could become the scene of yet another massacre – and no political liberal can argue otherwise — I want to be ready for it rather than risk being a pigeon in some whack-jobs’ crosshairs.

  • really? July 31, 2012, 5:49 am

    Holmes would probably have been shot dead before he’d fired even a dozen rounds.

    Supposedly the theater owner disallowed guns. Private property, so the owner can prohibit your concealed carry.

  • Cam Fitzgerald July 25, 2012, 9:44 am

    Time will tell Rick.

  • John Jay July 25, 2012, 5:27 am

    Mario,
    All the growth in the USA post Nixon was accomplished with ever increasing mountains of debt because wages just never kept pace with the inflation. Look at the size of Federal debt, Municipal Bond debt, Student Loan debt, Mortgage debt, Credit Card debt etc. All that debt enabled us to finance imports from China for decades.
    Now everyone is grumbling about China’s one way trade policy, steel dumping by China is meeting world wide opposition. Similar debt allowed Europe to prosper for decades. Now the math has caught up with the debt/fiat system.
    The EU is busy swapping debt back and forth in a futile attempt to delay the inevitable. The US military now has more pensioned retirees than active duty troops.
    Even with foreign money finding a home in Treasuries, we still don’t dare to have an auction that is not rigged and orchestrated. We will be the last to go down, but the system is failing.

    • mario cavolo July 25, 2012, 10:24 am

      …Hi JJ…and China is no exception to doing the same, fueling the fires with mountains of debt…we’ll see how it all turns out…PFFT!!!

  • Rick Ackerman July 25, 2012, 5:21 am

    You’re thinking too hard, Cam. To me, it’s just impulse legs either up or down. I’d much rather trust the charts than my — or anyone else’s — judgment.

    • Cam Fitzgerald July 26, 2012, 5:20 am

      Good interview today on Korelin radio, Rick. It is always a pleasure to hear you speak directly about the markets and express your professional opinions. Actually I take in the meaning of a speakers words much better when listening than reading. You would probably find it is the same with me. Text messages often do not convey a writers personality very clearly. Sorry if I came across as a bit of an ass yesterday. I just get really excited when I can catch a trend. No offense was intended……

      (But I am confident the dollar has nearly peaked).

  • Cam Fitzgerald July 25, 2012, 1:39 am

    “GDXJ Struggling for Lift…….
    The immediate picture is not quite as bad as the 13.90 target given here a while back, but GDXJ could still fall hard in the days and weeks ahead in search of traction. For a technical snapshot that gives the bullish case as well, check out today’s tout and chart.”
    —————————————-
    I don’t know, Rick. I just don’t see a decline ahead anymore. A “hard fall” seems even less likely. If you asked my opinion today I would tell you without hesitation GDX and GDXJ are both buys and have seen their bottoms. My optimism as usual comes from a reading of the Euro and the relationship of other commodities. The news meanwhile is only meant to confuse. So a market change is again at hand despite the negativity on Spain (which I have pretty much discounted already to be honest). Timing a reversal is never easy but my money is on the Euro rising which is imminent and so I am confident precious metals are going to see a near term recovery which should take them substantially higher.

  • peter aris July 25, 2012, 12:15 am

    Americans should look at themselves and why they are so screwed up as to need guns in the first place.My guess is that they hate migrants/blacks and each other.ask yourselves why no other country is like yours-thank goodness

    • Rusty July 25, 2012, 1:08 am

      http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/07/24/cops-catch-attempted-batmanmassmurder-copycat-massive-arsenal-151351/ maybe cause cats like this are out and about. It isn’t about “migrants/blacks.” By the way does your country allow “migrants” in without paperwork?

    • mario July 25, 2012, 4:36 am

      Come on Peter, I can easily go along with the no guns in a country view, as I live in one, but you’re pushing the wrong button on the racism as a driver…guns originally were need for the creation of America! That’s a point worth respecting, yet as the society has evolved, its a new ball game and the issues are much more complex. Note Rick’s reference to Australia, if you take half-assed measures related to banning guns where they are already an integral part of the society, it makes matters even worse. So, not easy stuff to tackle…

      Cheers, Mario

  • John Jay July 24, 2012, 11:05 pm

    Gary,
    If I had to pick one factor that screwed up this country the most since I was a little boy, my choice would be….Inflation.
    LBJ tried guns and butter at the same time.
    War in Vietnam and War on Poverty.
    He spent money we did not have and failed at both wars.
    That kicked off the ceaseless inflation and the unending growth in government and off shoring of manufacturing as the wage price spiral began. Nixon took us off gold, crude oil took off, and right after we went off gold, Nixon started the EPA. Some have argued that was to set aside land and resources to back the Dollar that was now strictly fiat. Then, the entire planet started down the same path. It is starting to implode now, whole countries in Europe, small towns here in the USA.
    I wonder how many more MFG-PFG scandals are lurking out there? We will find out.

    • mario July 25, 2012, 4:31 am

      I’ll rate the destruction of the marriage/family structure above inflation as the top driver to screwing up American society.

      Meanwhile, on inflation, I’ve decided I’m in the pro-inflation camp along with

      Indira Nooyi, Pepsi global CEO and Robert Fogel, Nobel economist and the UN and the IMF and GS and others who all expect that global GDP will be 200T in 40 years compared to today’s at 40T, with China and U.S. having the biggest chunks…plus expecting population increases, China’s baby boom, etc.

      Inflation isn’t a “monster” so to speak…its the natural result of expansion. China is nowhere near a bubble, it is simply a huge newly expanding economy, just as the U.S. was post war. The main difference being shorter time frame of cycles driven by various factors that are mostly tech-based, the web, etc.

      Of course to the degree that given country leaders don’t manage and respond to these huge macro processes well, different sectors of the population in each country will suffer, ie the western lower/middle class structures. China is on the flip side, yes there is expansion and nasty inflation, but the lower/middle class is on the rise, not a decline….simply a function of timing, being at the start of long economic expansionary and inflationary cycle, while the west is at the tail of theirs.

      Now the interesting “link” is globalization and how it may balance out the economic issues, including inflationary tendencies. 50% of S&P 500 company earnings are international, mostly from the Asia/China bloc…So for example, YUMS, KO, Starbucks, auto, tourism related stocks, etc; while their sales may be flat even declining a bit in the west, they see continuing 10% ish growth in China for at least another decade. However, again the whole scenario is inflationary. A banking industry systemic failure of course puts us all in a “all bets are off” situation across the globe. Lots to think about not only in regards to the next five years but many future decades and centuries.

      Cheers, Mario

  • MARKET FACT July 24, 2012, 10:54 pm

    Current market chart looks unstable, similar to last July.
    Back then the market fell 20%, in less than 2 weeks.

  • Rich July 24, 2012, 10:45 pm

    Sold second round of overnight DIA puts toward the close, +25% overnight, and bought GM and SPY calls.

    Overnight Options trades up +391% since 2 July 2012 beginning.

    May know tomorrow if punk AAPL numbers were fully discounted by market selloff today…

  • John Jay July 24, 2012, 8:49 pm

    Benjamin,
    It is a generational thing.
    When I grew up in the 50s no one locked their doors, and many people left the keys in their cars.
    Imagine that.
    Coins were made of silver, banks were tightly regulated, I believe even down to what they paid on savings accounts.
    Wages and prices were stable and predictable.
    The police were friendly, and not constantly on edge, ready to kill.
    We said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and even sang various patriotic songs in grammar school.
    LBJ, Vietnam, Inflation changed all that.
    And you are not bothering me by engaging in a polite discussion.
    Quite to the contrary.
    It makes me think carefully and weigh my words to get my point across, especially when we both grew up in very different worlds.
    The world I grew up in is gone for good, it is just a question of when and where we hit bottom.

    • gary leibowitz July 24, 2012, 8:59 pm

      A confluence of events created that “Golden Era”. The long depression followed by the World War created a situation that was an explosion of economic growth and stability. There was no outsourcing and we were the dominant manufacturers.

      When economic times are good there is no need to feel unsafe. That is unless the good times last too long. By that I mean people looked to recreation to supplement their free time. Too much of a good thing.

      Thats my theory anyway.

  • Rich July 24, 2012, 6:46 pm

    NEM market cap less than ABX…

  • Rich July 24, 2012, 6:12 pm

    Rick, funny you should mention GDXJ as I was just looking at it over the weekend.

    Point & Figure targeting +69%, but did not find any stocks in it that had positive targets.

    Seems like a big bet on the takeover Come Pass line, since current mine development economics seem to favour deep pockets like NEM, targeting +51% with a 3% dividend, reserves 7 times stock price and a market cap far less than …

  • gary leibowitz July 24, 2012, 5:53 pm

    On the economy,

    Looks like China can turn their economic slide faster than you can say “Centralized Control”. Latest from HSBC’s monthly survey.

    “Preliminary results of HSBC’s monthly survey of Chinese manufacturers showed the contraction in manufacturing eased in July. The bank’s Purchasing Managers’ Index which combines various measures of manufacturing activity rose to 49.5 from 48.2. Readings above 50 denote growth. The individual gauge of factory output showed an expansion in production.

    HSBC’s chief China economist Hongbin Qu said the survey suggests Beijing’s attempts to stimulate the world’s second-biggest economy are starting to work.”

    That sets the stage for a nice rally coming out of this consolidation phase. The other plus is that quarterly earnings are once again beating the expectations. Granted it is only around 2 to 3 percent on the plus side, but the street had expected a 2 percent loss. While revenue are behind expectations companies have been able to hold down costs thru low wage growth, low employment growth, hiring temps. Yes the good old days of expecting a life-long job and career is over. I know Rick finds my analysis on corporate policy change a joke but someone has to expalin to me how they rack up such a great earnings track record all these years. Is it really their lack of visibility? For almost 4 years now?
    I find that almost as hard to believe as a world wide conspiracy that controls every aspect of our lives.

    • gary leibowitz July 24, 2012, 6:02 pm

      More on the economic front:

      “Home Values Post First Year-Over-Year Increase Since 2007”

      If housing and China build momentum from here we could see the consumer staples surge. While most here are expecting the BIG CRASH to happen this summer, I see the exactl opposite. A great opportunity to get in on the next, and most likely last, surge.

    • mario July 25, 2012, 6:05 am

      Ditto…China is the last place for us to worry about Gary…its nowhere near a bubble and will continue to expand for the next 30 years, just as the U.S had done post war…

  • John Jay July 24, 2012, 5:09 pm

    I will adjust my view of those movies.
    The issue is the trivialization of human life and violence as a solution to frustration.
    In the movies I watched as a boy, one murder was a big deal, and the entire plot of a movie would usually revolve around it. That reflected the society I grew up in. One murder in town was a big deal when I was growing up.
    What do the kids growing up see as the norm now in the movies and TV? The casual application of death followed by a wise crack. The murderers apprehended keep getting younger and younger. I am neither anti gun, nor anti movie. I am just giving my take on the collapse of civil society due to drugs and homicide.
    And it is probably worse than the numbers the police release, they are notorious for misclassifying and under reporting crimes to make things look not so bad.
    Murder with edged weapons and beatings seems to be making a big comeback, it’s not all firearms.
    As I have said before, I don’t see any solutions to any of societies problems, financial or otherwise. I am just a spectator/commentator.

    • Benjamin July 24, 2012, 7:37 pm

      Well… Alright, John. It’s hard not to sympathize with you. And I didn’t even grow up in the times which you speak of (born 1976; I guess I missed it). All I can say, I guess, are some words of attempted reassurance…

      Despite my morbid interests, tastes in movies and music, and even my own life experiences, I didn’t find it not unsettling when Peter Lorre screamed and begged for his life in the movie ‘M’. I didn’t feel numb when I read of the Bath School bombings of 1927. Nor, despite having read of so many serial killers, did I find myself short on shock upon learning that America’s first serial killer, one H.H. Holmes, simply had to be evil incarnate (was he ever!).

      As for things that happen closer to me, in the local news, these days I find that political/ideological commentary often imposes itself over the tragedy being reported. Mayor Rahm Emanuel says this, he says that. Community leader says this, says that. Jessie Jackson says this and that… All of it usually about guns and how angry they are about them and “gang-bangers” (as if Chicago were stuck in the 80s, when it had a _real_ gang problem). It’s like they don’t want the loss of a person to have an impact on our day. They just want us to remember the means and who’s against it. It really sickens me. In order to get a sense of tragedy, I have to look for it in dusty and obscure histories.

      So I guess, in an odd and roundabout way, we do understand each other. Sorry to have bothered you about it, earlier…

  • gary leibowitz July 24, 2012, 2:50 pm

    For the life of me I can’t see how anyone can say the trend is to disarm? Please show me where this is the case. In fact the exact opposite is true. Florida is a perfect example. The temporary ban on semi-automatic rifles were lifted. The gun shows allow anyone to buy almost anything immediately. How did the latest nut get his weapons? There is no central database of sharing for background checks, there is legislation in many states that are reversing local governments restriction placed for the safety of police.

    Where is this paranoia coming from?

  • harry July 24, 2012, 2:02 pm

    Just a question- at what point in the process of taking in the wounded does accounting ask for insurance papers? and for that matter, shouldn’t americans be able to opt out of police/emt emergency response in such an event, unless they buy police/emt insurance? really, what’s the diff? why is the police or emergency response public and socialized?

  • harry July 24, 2012, 1:50 pm

    I wonder how, with all the gun-loving big-talkers around the US AND A, where the gun-toting heroes are when these massacres go down, to “take out” the crazy shooter. Seems only the shooter himself ever takes himself out. Jes’ sayin’. Of course I’m just a Canadian here with socialized med-sin and gun control.

  • Dale July 24, 2012, 1:04 pm

    So what do they go after next? You know after they have our guns? I think I know. Pickup Trucks.

    Yesterday, just outside Goliad, Texas… “Texas Truck Crash: 14 Dead, 9 Injured After Pickup Slams Into Trees In Texas”

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/14-dead-in-Goliad-County-crash-3726682.php
    Two children killed. More deaths from this one truck than from a Swat-clad “crazy” with multiple firearms in a theater full of people in Aurora, Co.

    All deaths are tragic. I don’t mean to make light of it. But it all comes down to individual responsibilities. The driver of that pickup and the low life holding the guns need to be held responsible, not their vehicles. Enforce the laws already in place and prescribe the appropriate punishments. That is the answer, IMO

    • gary leibowitz July 24, 2012, 5:40 pm

      It will come down to scale. The larger the event the greater the movement to stop it from happening again.

      25 people killed will not have as much impact as 250.

      Wall Street arae has armed police, large surveillance presence, restrictive street access, and spot checks of individuals. Not many are complaining about their rights being violated.

  • Chris T. July 24, 2012, 4:17 am

    Sure there is no agenda for ALL left of center do-gooders, to just “not let a crisis go to waste”, but if one sees the speed withwhich the usual suspecto-fascists, such as Bloomberg and Lautenberg are calling for assault weapons bans (like Holmes had those), how can one not wonder?

    Fact is, quite a number, probably most of those pols into banning guns for regular folks, are not in it for public safety, etc.
    After all they ALWAYS support the cops, no matter the level of malfeasance (Bloomberg again comes to mind).
    That violence they don’t care about, because it is violence from THEIR side.

    Gary states its not 1776, and that THIS govmint couldn’t be toppled by regularly armed citizens.
    If so, why do their actions prove they are so afraid, clutching every chance they get to kill the right to bear arms?
    Or pretending it’s about hunting or personal protection, when it was clearly intended to protect the people and the constitution FROM the government?

    To this case:

    Looking at many of the mass shootings over the last 20 years, including Columbine, and also abroad, there is a startling coincidence (you decide if that is the right word) between the shooters and their past psychopharmcological prescription roster:
    either they are taking the stuff
    or were recently reduced, taken-off, etc.

    And it’s very doubtful that some great diagnostic skill here weeded out the patient, but rather that one has to wonder what these amphetamines, and other UNSTIEDED-in-kids drugs do to them while growing.

    Add to that the drive in schools to feminize boys (to treat all their nat. instincts as wrong, something to be culled by school), and the blurring of reality and fiction from video games, et. al, and it’s no wonder these things keep happening again and again.

    The US leads all countries in these abuses, worst of all the psycho drugs, and look where these shootings happen almost all the time?

    Not the guns, because they don’t pull their own trigger, and no one ever hears this stuff from places where guns are even more common than here (think Iraq or Afghanistan).

    But this all will not be mentioned, just the:
    “it’s time we get tough on guns pablum”

  • John Jay July 24, 2012, 2:00 am

    Benjamin,
    Off the top of my head here are some movies where murder goes unpunished:
    All the “Death Wish” movies
    All the “Terminator” movies
    All the “Godfather” movies
    “Goodfellas”
    “Casino”
    “Taxi Driver”
    Any Clint Eastwood Western
    “The Replacement Killers”
    Any Arnold Schwarzenegger Action Movie
    “Deliverance”
    The “Kill Bill” films
    “Reservoir Dogs”
    “Pulp Fiction”
    Any Mexican “Narco Trafficante” film, there are hundreds
    “Apocalypto”
    “The Fifth Element”
    Any “Kung Fu” genre films
    “Robo Cop” series
    “Apocalypse Now”
    “Scar Face”
    It goes on forever. Murder and mayhem are depicted as casual encounters. And if the bad guy gets wasted in the final scene that is hardly punishment for all the murders he has committed for the previous 90 minutes.

    As far as Serial Killer movies go, I feel they all serve to glamourize those terrible crimes. As they say in the trade, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
    Look at the flash mobs that now invade stores and steal all they want. From my point of view we have already entered the Dark Ages.

    • Benjamin July 24, 2012, 4:25 pm

      JJ,

      I should’ve made the criteria more clear. I meant cold-blooded killers getting away, not vigilantism, retalitory violence, victim-rejection themes, and the like. In other words, where a bad guy/gal killer isn’t brought to justice, get their comeuppance, and/or aren’t given an enviable life in the aftermath; to glorify evil, in order to desensitize us to it. With that in mind…

      I had forgotten the two in Pulp Fiction, Jules and Marsellus, who both get to continue going about their lives on their own terms (though we never see how that works out for them, we’ll count this one anyway).

      The two I had come up with are Natural Born Killers and Serial Mom. In both, the killers not only get away, but apparently live happily ever after. There’s even the feeble attempt to get the audience to either sympahtize with or root for them.

      Then there’s the two that I thought of that are if-ish are Flesh + Blood (a little-known film from 1985, starring Rutger Hauer) and There Will be Blood. In both, the killer presumably gets away with their heinous deeds, but aren’t exactly given good endings.

      I’ve never seen Apocalypto, Casino, or Fifth Element, so I’ll have to pass judgement for now. However, the imfamous words ‘The horror… the horror…” in Apocalypse Now, while not justice or comeuppance, is a description and summary condemnation of the violence, not a celebration of it. Close, but no cigar!

      The vigilante/action hero movies is where the bad guys usually get whats coming to them. They also can’t be considered as conditioning us to accept violence, but rather reject victimhood. That is the common theme in Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, martial arts, and all manner of other action films.While I don’t approve of the drug war, the fact is that in real life, how the dealers and kingpins are portrayed in the movies isn’t far off. They’re scumbags, and even if they kill innocent people in the film, they always meet with their own eventual demise.

      I’ve only ever seen part of the Godfather. And that set my tastes for mafia films in general, so I’ve never seen any of the ones you listed (or any others, if any). But from what I’ve seen and read, it’s apparently just bad guys vs guys, with some innocents thrown in to emphasize that they are bad guys. Other than that, they just go about harassing and killing each other. While neither ideal nor vigilante-style justice, it does illustrate that a life of criminality comes with a price (live by the sword, die by the sword?).

      In a similar vein, the theme of a bad guy turning good or taking a path of redemption, and going up against their evil superiors fits into that category. Bad guys wind up getting what they deserve, even if by another villain. Again, live by the sword, die by the sword. It’s not ideal, but neither is it a celebration of heinous deeds.

      But the theme of “gray hero”-types, not making much if anything clear — as to who or what won (that is, good or evil) — it can’t be said that they’re letting the bad guys win (or lose; who knows?). And while I perhaps missed the point, I think the Kill Bill movies fall into that category of ambiguity (I only saw the first half or so of the first. Since I didn’t know what to make of it, I stopped watching).

      Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to make it clear why so many on your list do not fit the criteria. But why that particular standard? Not because it makes me appear more right. I see a difference between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide (real or depicted), and therefore find something to defend and something to condemn. Not that I believe that films desensitize anyway. But if they do, then I would hold that it’s a desensitization to unjustifiable homicide (via the elevation of it to the status of moral or desirability) that urges some to become killers.

      At least I would argue that if there were so many of those kinds of movies. But there aren’t. There’s only three, possibly as many as eight (thus far). But even if there were 80, or even 800, they would still be far outweighed by the sheer number and popularity of films where justifiable homicide is elevated above the unjustifiable kind. And most importantly of all…

      As Mark Uzick said, a nut is going to do what they do. If all movies were made without any kind of violence at all, good or bad, who’s to say that they wouldn’t still act out? Right. I’ll keep my guns and my movies. Taking them away would change nothing. Besides, what of all those places in the world that don’t have much if any access to the products of Hollywood, but still have their share of psychotic outbursts (even before there was a Hollywood to speak of)?

  • nitram July 24, 2012, 1:40 am
  • Robert July 24, 2012, 1:04 am

    Once you dis-arm the citizenry, all that is left are armed tyrants.

    Consider that just ONE person in that theater with the courage to carry a legal concealed firearm could have stopped that maniac and changed the tragic outcome of that situation very quickly…

    Instead, everyone in the theater did EXACTLY what the good sheep are supposed to do: they waited for Superman’s magic SWAT team to swoop in and save them….

    Sadly, Superman and his domestic protection force (with their 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition) never showed up. Instead, he sent his condolences from the White House the following morning-

  • pete downs July 23, 2012, 11:35 pm

    My point was…..if you make every effort to rid the world of everything that is dangerous or all things that can be molded, sculpted, fashioned or converted by nut jobs or whakos into weapons or devices to harm others or yourself….there’s nothing left except the whack jobs and nutcases…..which are the only things that need to be disposed of.

    When people that look like Ronald McDonald are afforded every right under the law and taken seriously…the jokes on us.

    Bloomberg should be laughed out onto the streets and rode out of town on a rail…and our man Holmes should be stretching a rope in 72 hours. As long as Bloomberg is given credibility and murderers can watch TV all day for the rest of their lives…we have little jope of survivng as a species.

  • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 10:50 pm

    Mario: … My friend from Iceland tells me its a wonderfully friendly place, no guns, nobody locks their doors, nobody’s stuff gets stolen…interesting.

    Where crime is low the demand for weapons will be lower, so it’s easier for the state to disarm the people. This is why the correlation of a disarmed populous to low crime fails to prove the causation. To prove such a fallacy, you’d have to arm the populous and observe an increase in violent crimes, when in fact, crime, low as it is, would only get lower. Counter-examples showing how crime soars when a populous is disarmed are far more convincing: they show actual cause and effect.

    Low crime societies are ideal for civil militias: they stay free from tyranny, free from military invasion and maintain friendly trading relationships with the world – eschewing foreign military adventurism.

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 4:06 am

      Very interesting. If in fact you introduced guns into a harmonious society that never imagined having guns, they would all probably just stick them in a drawer and act as if they don’t have them. Then the day that one of them snaps and decides to use theirs, innocence is broken, then the others start pulling theirs out too, the harmony party is over, the situation in the society becomes more complex, the responses aren’t effective, etc.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Mark Uzick July 24, 2012, 7:17 am

      So you believe that violent societies are so because they have liberty? and I guess that a corollary to that idea is that, given liberty, people’s worst instincts become manifest – that people need to be controlled by the state in every aspect of their lives or they will become drug addicted, cheat one-another, poison customers, sell contaminated food, discriminate against ethnic groups and women, refuse to care for their families or do charitable work, fail to save or invest, fail to create businesses, fail to create art, fail to invent technology or discover principles of philosophy and science – that in order to have civilization, we need a thug with a whip and gun ready to imprison, torture or murder us for failing to obey the decrees of his minions of bureaucrats and submitting to their ideological indoctrination.

      Even if you answer, “No, I only draw the line at self defense!” without the right to self defense it’s only a matter of time before all other rights become encroached upon using the same rationalizations by which the fundamental right of self defense was abandoned; and without the right of self defense, it becomes too late to change your mind when you realize, to your horror, where it all is leading – not only for you, but for everyone that you love or care about.

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 8:16 am

      Sorry , actually I was agreeing with you. A harmonious society without guns is much more likely to stay that way, rather than a violent society with guns, taking those guns away won’t help in the way intended because to be violent is already in the psyche of the society, as you suggested and Australia situation Rick mentioned has proven out…

      I’m not seeing the correlation between “liberty” and violence. Given liberty, people’s worst behavior may or may not come out. It depends on the society/culture they live in. Meanwhile, the right to self-defense is obvious and clear, the right to guns specifically isn’t though. If an authority does decide to allow guns in a society, the new risk then exists that the presence of the guns will stimulate the potential for gun related violence, but not necessarily…its not a direct fact that that will happen.

      Cheers, Mario

  • ebear July 23, 2012, 9:37 pm

    How do you conceal a handgun in a bathing suit?

    • mava July 23, 2012, 9:58 pm

      Why, I just let it bulge!

  • cwd July 23, 2012, 8:22 pm

    Nice post Mava…yet to clarify; I didn’t say the govt was glorious. I said not having guns in my neighborhood and city is glorious, and I readily stick by that…China is one of the safest places in the world to live, no matter any and all of the other issues which also exist.

    Cheers, Mario

    Mario, You are safe as long as don’t cross some party official, either by commision or ommision.
    The streets of all the big one party states are secure and calm.
    The action is in the government concentration camps where millions are murdered with out a word from the libs. Check the NYT in the thirties and their lack of candor about the situation in the worker’s paradise, the USSR.

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 4:03 am

      yep, that’s the risk…if your govt turns on the people, they’re screwed….countless examples across countries throughout history…very unfortunate that this is the nature of human existence…Cheers, Mario

  • JJ July 23, 2012, 6:48 pm

    Why not just revise the laws so that any criminal use of a firearm is life in a hard labor camp… yes, the prison system needs to be changed to hard labor, so that they can be self sustaining financially… enough of paying $50,000 taxpayer dollars/year for a slime-ball to sit on their ass… they can be forced to clean up sewers, roads, parks, toxic waste dumps, etc… or only get bread and water and a 5×3 foot cell. A valid deterrent is needed, this would work.

    • EasyE July 23, 2012, 8:40 pm

      Bingo! Could not agree more. The hard labor idea is a good one for violent types. Maybe brick making? The more quality bricks you make, the nicer your jail life is.

      The money spent on building and maintaining prisons is truly crazy. US locks up more than any other nation both in total amount and per capita. Mainly drug offences. Those can be cut in half by legalizing pot and turning the revenue stream to gov’t instead of crooks. Most of the cash I suspect is from pot, not hard drugs. Alcohol is already legalized and taxed.

      Many prisons for offenders over 1 year sentence should be located in remote locations like the Alaskan bush. Buildings and maintenance can be much cheaper. You want to escape, you die. So sit still and make the license plates. The thermostat doesn’t go over 60, so chill dude.

  • pete downs July 23, 2012, 6:40 pm

    Okay….I give up…you can take away every firearm. Hunt them down and destroy every shotgun, pistol, flintlock and assault rifle………

    Then…the sick whackjob fills a fire extinguisher with pressurized gasoline and makes a “works” flamethrower and heads to the high school football game…so there’s three more things we have to hunt down and get rid of.

    Finally….the whackjob gets on a roof top with a bucket of bricks. Now we have to get rid of buckets, bricks and rooftops..three more things.

    When do jackasses like Bloomburg realize that 20 Oz slurpees don’t make people fat? People make people fat and people kill people. It’s the jackasses and whackjobs that need to be disposed of……

    • John Jay July 23, 2012, 10:21 pm

      Pete,
      I know, Mayor Bloomberg is silly.
      If he bans anything larger than 16 oz soda drinks, people will either buy two or three 16 oz at a time, or
      just head to the first grocery store, or FF joint over the line from his jurisdiction and spend their money there.
      There will lines at all the grocery stores over the NYC line as people buy 2 liter bottles of soda to bring back to NYC. Of course, the Mayor could have special anti-smuggling police inspect all inbound traffic for contraband soda. That could work.
      NYC may also see the return of the “Speak Easy”, only this time for over 16 oz soda instead of bath tub Gin. The fun never ends!

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 4:00 am

      “When do jackasses like Bloomburg realize that 20 Oz slurpees don’t make people fat? ”

      They DO. Yes drinking 20oz to 40oz of sugar water a day DOES make you fat and diabetic, etc. You have completely missed the underlying point on this. Its simple sociology my friend. Social behavioral conditioning comes from positions of influence above a person; above includes the media, your education system, the companies in the business environment. You forget they are self-serving and selfish to make more profit? That’s all they care about, not YOU or your health. Hence, they come up with “supersize” me. They come up with “hey, let’s give them bigger cups and refills, they’ll consume more and on paper its more profitable.”

      Pete, the average person is, unfortunately, easily behaviorally led, influenced, persuaded. I teach this stuff in communications, its easy to do. The rules apply to all kinds of behaviors from simply getting people to consume more of your stuff to desensitizing them to commit behaviors they otherwise would never imagine they would readily do. The whacko gunman cases and similar such are the most extreme and complex of course.

      Your last part of course is very wise….again pointing out that half-assed measures get half-assed results and consequences just as absurd as the original problem…

      Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin July 24, 2012, 6:02 pm

      “When do jackasses like Bloomburg realize that 20 Oz slurpees don’t make people fat? ”

      “They DO. Yes drinking 20oz to 40oz of sugar water a day DOES make you fat and diabetic, etc”

      Sigh… I hate when you guys go into off-topics that I feel compelled to respond to 🙂

      Okay, here it goes. And don’t forget that yall asked for it!

      So what if it does, Mario? Even if obesity did cause diabetes, it’s far from the end of the world, or even ones life. It doesn’t, though. It’s what is refered to as a relative risk factor. The majority of diabetics are obese, but most obese people do not and never will. More likely means just that, not a direct causation.

      Anyway, over the past couple of years, I’ve been making a list of famous (and many not-so-famous) obese people. It’s a great way to pass the time during the gloomy winter. That, by the way, partly accounts for why I’ve seen so many movies (and clips and shorts), both foreign and American. In confirming a persons weight/size history, I often had to go into their film history and see what they looked like. Anyway, with nearly 300 people confirmed, and nearly as many to go (I never knew there were _so many_!), the verdict thus far is that just under thirty were known diabetics, with around 20 deaths directly resulting from the complications.

      This list of people, by the way, spans a timeline of over 150 years, and consists of people from many different nationalities through a variety of historic periods and turning-points. I have found there to be no variance on health and life-expectancy. Most die from ages 60-80, with the 70s being the largest group (but this is only marginal in males, who have a greater number of die-offs in the 40s and 50s).

      Anyway, here’s some of the “milestones”, in case no one believes I did this…

      Longest lives

      actress: Minnie Devereaux 1891–1984, 92, natural causes
      actor: Leon Askin 1907-2005, 97, natural causes

      Shortest lives

      singer: ‘Mama’ Cass Elliot 1941–1974, 32, heart attack
      pro wrestler: Rodney Anoa’i aka Yokozuna 1966–2000, 34, pulmonary edema
      actor/singer: Erland van Lidth 1953-1987, 34, heart failure

      Earliest born

      opera singer: Félia Litvinne 1860-1936, 76, unknown cause
      actor: Lionel Bellmore 1867 – 1953, 85, natural causes

      Latest born:

      actress: Denise Borino-Quinn 1964-2010, 46, liver cancer
      pro wrestler: Rodney Anoa’i aka Yokozuna 1966–2000, 34, pulmonary edema

      I know, I know. Ben, get a life, a hobby, a woman, etc. Right? Well, I DO have all of those, but I still find myself with not enough to do. So there! (sticks out tongue).

      Have a good one, folks!

    • mario July 25, 2012, 6:02 am

      Ben:) eat drink and be merry…I love those fatty meats…pork roast, cajun blackened prime rib, Italian sausages, German roasts giant pig knuckle…oh yea, serve ’em up with a defibrillator 🙂

  • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 5:40 pm

    A nuke, cannon, automatic gun, protective gear, gas masks. yeah that sounds like fun. For cartoon characters that is.

    You people have absolutely no idea just how lucky you are to live in the United States. Complain all you want but once you fall into a truly restrictive regime you will be begging to take all the messy problems we have today.

    The doom and gloomsters always find reasons and excuses as to why liberals, or more precisely level headed individuals, should wake up and became as cynical as them.

    I wonder how we all survive in your world where everything and everyone can’t be trusted.

    I am sure to get flak over the idea that liberals are level headed. On a psychological view point living in the head of a liberal is a less stressful life. To worry about what will be, and in most cases powerless to make the change, is a life I can’t imagine wanting to live through.
    In the end we all go thru the same experiences, why complicate it with compklicated theories and notions of conspiracies.

    • Robert July 23, 2012, 10:07 pm

      “You people have absolutely no idea just how lucky you are to live in the United States. Complain all you want but once you fall into a truly restrictive regime you will be begging to take all the messy problems we have today.”

      WHAT?

      Egads, Gary – pray tell, just how many “restrictive regimes” have you been forced to endure in your lifetime…?

      I had no idea you were from Cuba.

  • cwd July 23, 2012, 5:14 pm

    Rick, I think you are on the right track.
    The police are not in business to protect individuals.
    They are in business to maintain public order.
    The shooter didn’t even need a gun to kill, he had the ability to do just as much damage using easily obtainable chemicals.
    The outcome could have been quite different if a couple of people with handguns could have engaged the shooter.
    The person most interested in your safety is you.

  • Milo July 23, 2012, 4:24 pm

    Is it my imagination or do we too often experience a mass shooting incident when critical gun legislation is being considered? Has any research ever been done on a possible connection or is that too far out? As I grow older I grow less inclined to dismiss conspiracy theories. The unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9-11 and the subsequent Patriot Act were a turning point for me. More recently we have LIBOR rigging. Is any conspiracy theory too crazy to be considered any more? Are these lone nuts really acting alone? Just asking.

    • John Jay July 23, 2012, 5:41 pm

      Milo,
      That’s right.
      There is the headline story, and the hidden “devil in the details”.
      I do not know if 911 was a “Northwoods” type operation.
      What really matters is what was the government response to it?
      A Presidential speech saying we will not give up our Liberties in response to a vicious attack?
      No, a huge “Patriot Act” is taken off the shelf and passed unread, undoing 225 years of law in one fell swoop.
      Ditto TARP, Obama Care, etc.
      Now it seems the Government is raiding the Federal Pension Guarantee fund of billions of Dollars to pay for the Student Loan bailout.
      And the FPGF is already in deficit mode.
      The MSM news seems like it was written by Brother Bluto from “Animal House” if you are well informed.
      Dumb it down, tart it up, 24/7.
      Political archeology is a hobby of mine.
      Just like Schliemann at Troy, the more you dig, the more you find.

  • mikeck July 23, 2012, 4:10 pm
    • Rich July 23, 2012, 4:52 pm

      Aurora has stricter citizen gun laws than the state of CO, including no concealed carry and no discharging firearms.

      Right.

      In related news, Anaheim cops marked their 7th cop citizen shooting a day later by releasing dogs on a baby in a stroller and killing an unarmed citizen:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116140.html

  • mikeck July 23, 2012, 4:04 pm

    Doc,

    Would you want to go into, oh say Texas, and go house to house collecting guns? Neither would anyone else.

  • Rich July 23, 2012, 3:57 pm

    Just took 103% profits on DIA Aug 128 puts…

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 5:37 pm

      Overnight Options portfolio a quadruple in real time since 2 July 2012…

  • fallingman July 23, 2012, 3:43 pm

    The government should ban alcohol and drugs while they’re at it. Oh wait. They’ve already done that, haven’t they? Never mind.

    I’d lay 10 to one odds that this guy was on anti-depressant or anti-psychotic meds. Name one of these gun rampage characters who wasn’t. Dangerous , worthless stuff, but they dispense it like candy. It makes ’em CRAZY.

    And yet, the focus is on the guns, not what caused the psychotic behavior. Here’s a hint: Look to Big Pharma. They promote the off-label use of this crap in kids as young as six.

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 4:39 pm

      FMan, Dateline reported the night of the shooting that he showed no emotion and was on Vicodin painkiller.

      Not sure how they surmised this, since they also reported he was not talking and asked for a lawyer.

      Maybe a pharmacy violated professional ethics like Conrad Murray and his colleague who allegedly shanghaied mama Jackson last week?

      In any event, JH seems to have retained most higher faculties except compassion and empathy, exactly the traits most psychomeds turn off.

      And that was his specialty.

      Hard to believe JH got all that equipment and learned how to use it on his own since he drooped out of school on unemployment in June.

      And what’s with his Psychiatric Nurse mama IDing him from San Diego right away in the middle of the night?

      200 first responders got there in 90 seconds?

      The police chief announced 5 minutes after he surrendered that JH was acting alone while an eye witness says another man opened the door and threw a second tear gas cannister?

      Since when do cold-blooded killers tell cops they left booby traps for them at home?

      Colour me curious…

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 4:43 pm

      Maybe the cops found Vicodin in his car.

      Side-effects of hydrocodone/paracetamol are most commonly upset stomach, nausea, and altered mental states (e.g., dizziness, light headedness). Other rarer side-effects include allergic reaction, seizures, clammy skin, paranoia, hallucinations, severe weakness, dizziness, hyperventilation, unconsciousness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), unusual fatigue, bleeding, bruising, stomach pain,[3] constipation, dry mouth, decreased appetite, muscle twitches, sweating, hot flashes, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, decreased urination and altered sex drive. Vicodin also has depressant effects on the central nervous system, which may cause irritability. However, some of the less mundane effects can be desirable effects that are sought after by some. Those effects include euphoria and drowsiness, as well as slowing of the pulse…

    • Robert July 23, 2012, 10:11 pm

      “I’d lay 10 to one odds that this guy was on anti-depressant or anti-psychotic meds. Name one of these gun rampage characters who wasn’t. Dangerous , worthless stuff, but they dispense it like candy. It makes ‘em CRAZY.”

      He was a neuroscience Ph.D student… access to drugs would have been fairly easy.

      I like the angle of this story- Where DID he get all that military gear..? They don’t sell kevlar body armor at the local army/navy surplus store…

      http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21RgJSzja

    • Rusty July 23, 2012, 11:44 pm

      http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/aurora-massacre-what-does-the-location-of-the-gas-mask-tell-us-what-about-security-cameras-are-they-related/ I am going to bet Rich and hopefully Rick aren’t going to be pleased with the location of the gas mask, from an aerial view.

    • Rich July 24, 2012, 4:20 am

      Rusty, read the entire willy loman link ad nauseum.

      What emerged was a reportedly sealed case with disappeared evidence from security cams, Vicodin reports, apparent court arraignment evidence of doping or insanity, conflicting media reports, partly corrected today by the attorney of Aurora Joker Wildcard’s Psychiatric Nurse mother in San Diego, that at 5:30 Friday AM when she said, “You’ve got the right person,” she meant herself, not her son.

      The result, when information is controlled to control the masses, is that there are almost as many theories and projections as people with a point of view.

      In fact, like 9-11, JFK, RFK, RR, GG, Manson, the Unabomber et al, this is the purpose, technique and result of false flag horror films.

      They de facto conceal evidence so people project themselves into them and internalize the horror, effectively neutralizing constructive economic or political action, becoming unwilling wards of the State.

      The ultimate weapon of fear helps the perpetrators to expand control.

      The only effective lasting antidotes to fear are courage, love and truth.

      Sometimes all we have to work with is love…

    • Rich July 24, 2012, 4:40 am

      Worth watching Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ again to see how they work and how to stop them…

    • Rusty July 24, 2012, 5:22 am

      Rich-
      I knew it wouldn’t be lost on you the placement of the gas mask, relative to the crime scene. You are correct the evidence will be tailored to fit the agenda. A FOIA request won’t help in an active case.

      I could post a link where a private investigator couldn’t find routine tells as to credit, social security, etc. No point, you get it. Ain’t life grand?

    • Rusty July 24, 2012, 5:26 am

      Yes, I will watch “Passion of the Christ” real soon. I never miss church unless I’m sick. I go so much I have been promoted to usher. Really the only way I can keep my sanity in this crazy world. Thank you for a really good post.

  • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 3:36 pm

    The visceral response is to kill the sucker. If everyone carried a concealed weapon there would be 100 fold more deaths by accident or in the heat of an argument. How many punches were thrown because people can’t contain their violent outbursts? Do you think violent behavior stops simply because guns are involved? I would suggest just the opposite would be true. A person that is violent by nature would act more quickly and impulsively knowing that it would be best for self-preservation to draw first.

    Too suggest that had you or your family been in that crowded movie theatre, armed with guns, that things would have turned out different is absurd. The idea that untrained citizens can calmly return fire without injury to unintended victims is the stuff of fantasy. The OK Corral days are behind us.

    • Rick Ackerman July 23, 2012, 4:17 pm

      I can always count on your knee to jerk the wrong way, Gary – you are absolutely infallible. For your edification, here are some interesting statistics on Australia’s gun ban posted in my chat room moments ago:

      It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

      ‘Ronbl,’ who posted these statistics, further notes: ‘Australia did what the left here wants to do and look at the results. Of course they think Marxism is wonderful so go figure those are chilling numbers. Yep, but if you told them to the people banning guns they wouldn’t care just as they don’t care what happened in the Soviet Union. Facts mean nothing to them.’

    • mario cavolo July 23, 2012, 5:10 pm

      Terrible result in Australia…as I’ve suggested, because doing such a thing; such a thing as having no guns in a particular society is only one part of the whole societal and behavioral structure of the society…to just “implement” a new law without also addressing all the other related shifts needed is, as Australia has now proven, not going to work.

      Cheers, Mario

    • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 5:23 pm

      Really? Take LA as an example. The amount of road rage has increased exponentially as traffic jams continue to increase. The result of everyone holding a concealed weapon would result in less deaths? Really?

      Using the crowded theater as an example, do you really anticipate cool rational trained response from citizens? I wonder how many more deaths there would have been.

      Ask most of the mayors, even the ones in the southern belt, what their response to all this is.

      Do you really think the founding fathers would ever hold to the 2nd amendment today?

      Imagine a world where everyone can load up with concealed semi-automatic guns. I suggest you watch very carefully how you behave walking the streets. If you acc identally bump someone it could be your last.

      This dillusional notion that we are living in anarchy, where our own government can’t be trusted, where it’s every man for himself, is a sad depressing state of mind. One where i will not go. Hate, anger, and eventual lashing out is what you look forward to. Enjoy your life, such as it is. I plan on waking up in the morning and enjoy the sun. I don’t place unnecessary mental road blocks to guarantee I will never enjoy the day.

      How utterly depressing.

      &&&&&

      Gary, I don’t see a word here about Australia. While it may be convenient for you to deliberately ignore the point, you shouldn’t expect anyone to be persuaded by the string of non sequiturs you’ve provided above as an “argument” for something or other.
      RA

    • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 8:43 pm

      Just look at the list of deaths by firearms per country.

      Looks like all the liberal socialist coutries are way below our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

      You want stats? How about real long term stats.
      Please show me one example where we are not neck and neck with Zimbabwe and one quarter the deaths in France/Italy/England/Spain.

      Please go looking. You will not find any answers you will like.

      Wow. A stat from Australia. Yup that seals it.

    • TM July 23, 2012, 10:15 pm

      There was a TV program recently where they did some tests with “average” people and trained them (much as you would to get a concealed carry permit) and then gave them a pistol, and put them in a room like a lecture room in college and told them at some point a crazy man would enter the room and start shooting, and that they should shoot the crazy man.

      In most cases, the people carrying were shot multiple times before they could even get a shot off. Those that did get a shot off usually missed the assailant, or if they did wound him, were themselves shot several times before they had a chance to fire a mortal shot. The crazy man person did not know who in the room would be “armed” and decided who it was based on behavior. One “armed” person didn’t even try to shoot the crazy man and just hauled ass. The conclusion was that without proper law enforcement/military levels of firearm training, more casualties would have resulted if everyone was armed.

    • Rich July 24, 2012, 3:40 am

      TM, was that PBS?
      The link might be interesting…

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:49 am

      Well Gary I catch many of your points well, yet I think you’re missing the point about Australia. There are many complexities that must also be addressed along with the idea of the gun ban. Australia obviously failed at doing that. If the broader issues are not addressed, a gun ban is equally a bad idea. Australia case is proving that. I believe ou know as well as I do, that if today’s U.S. “leaders” (puke…) started implementing gun ban related regulations, it would be a Clint Eastwood clusterf%$#k….

      Cheers, Mario

  • Steven Orlowski July 23, 2012, 3:15 pm

    Rick is absolutely correct. And everybody should lighten up on the 2nd Amendment rhetoric. If we are born with any “right” it it is the right to protect oneself, ones loved ones, and ones property. That means I have the right to shoot you before you shoot me, and I can’t do that if I don’t own a gun. The bad guys will always find a way to secure weapons and I should be able to as well. If you don’t like guns don’t buy one.

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:44 am

      Steven, come on. Surely yes we have the right to defend ourselves. But owning a gun is a separate matter. It is a privilege with enormous responsibility. If I make you responsible for my money, you need to be bonded. If I make you responsible to handle my companies toxic chemicals, you need to be well-trained. If I entrust you to build my skyscraper, you need to have the training to be able to make sure it doesn’t tip over, etc. . If you carry a gun, ditto my friend…HUGE responsibility that opens up a host of doors for a human being to then face as the carrier of a such a weapon.

      Cheers, Mario

  • Carol July 23, 2012, 3:14 pm

    So we should all carry guns to wipe out the perpetrator? Okay. Who fires first? And is that shooter any good? Does that shooter know who is the perp, where the perp is, whether it’s safe to squeeze off a shot or will he/she hit some innocent? These are straightforward thinking questions that must be considered and answered thoughtfully, not in a knee-jerk fashion. What is being proposed is “Gunfight at the OK Corral”.

    Contrary to Rick’s bedrock assumption, this liberal isn’t necessarily opposed to handguns although training, securing the handgun, licensing and registering it, background checks are all required for sanity to prevail. No. There are miles of difference between having a handgun and having automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The sole purpose of possessing a semi- or fully-automatic weapon is to wipe out as many people as possible in 10 seconds or less. I’ve heard the pro-gun jackass argument before that compares killing by gun and killing by car or knife. A car’s purpose is transportation of goods and people, not killing and certainly not wiping out masses of people as quickly as you can run through a 33- or 100-bullet magazine. And yes, you can kill with a knife or baseball bat or ballpeen hammer for that matter although a knife is meant for cutting – but at close range…and it takes a lot of time to kill a mass of people with a knife. As for hammers, bats, etc. – same argument as for a car: their purposes are not for killing but for putting a nail through a wall or a mighty swing for the fences, not to wipe out a chunk of humanity in one fell swoop.

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 4:55 pm

      You haven’t lived until you’ve had a nail gun pointed at your face by a construction guy on meth…

    • Carol July 23, 2012, 6:38 pm

      @Rich

      A response that does not respond to the points I advanced. One more time, I guess – the sole, entire purpose of semi- and fully-automatic guns is to kill masses of people in 30 seconds or less. As for the other popular argument that the gun crowd uses – keeping guns out of the hands of criminals – James Holmes, as so many others, had no criminal record nor any psychiatric record. He will now. So you’re right after all – you can’t keep guns out of criminals-to-be’s hands. Who here is the next to go off his nut?

    • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 7:06 pm

      What’s this – is there more than one Carol posting here?

    • Carol July 23, 2012, 9:31 pm

      Yes

    • Rusty July 24, 2012, 12:44 am

      http://www.i4u.com/2012/07/susan-candiotti/shooters-source-rampage-jammed-rifle-colorado-during Anyone who is used to high capacity magazines knows they are for the most part a no count. IMO any one trying to shoot a .308 with one hundred quick rounds is likely to warp or melt their barrel. A .223 will jam if the magazine is filled to capacity. If you look at my link further down, the AR-15 looks like a 50 round clip anyway.
      You would never change my mind and I would not change yours. I like a .223 20 round magazine to shoot for fun, not defense. For home defense a .45 or 12 ga. shotgun is is my preference. Like the old timers say, “it’s better to have a gun and not need it, than needing a gun and not having one.

  • Rich July 23, 2012, 3:13 pm

    Navy Sub Nephew based in Kings Bay may be installing these door protectors after a back door break-in while he was on tour:

    http://www.mysafedoor.com/

    Talked at length with owner Charles and he says they are swamped, looking for dealers/installers across the country, particularly the West Coast…

  • Goodsport July 23, 2012, 3:11 pm

    It is ironic that the Hollywood liberals who have produced so many violent films would finally be somewhat impacted by the type of behavior that they have so graphically taught to crazed moviegoers and imitators.

    The real victims did not deserve to be the objects of this man’s rage. Too bad the coward didn’t give the police a chance to relieve him of his privates. Time to bring back the death penalty.

    Personally, I’d rather wait a few months to see a flick in the safety of my home at less cost and with better more convenient snacks.

  • John Jay July 23, 2012, 3:07 pm

    Mario,
    My take on the Second Amendment is that is as much a check on a large standing army as a guarantee of the individuals right to keep and bear arms. I believe the Founding Fathers were extremely wary of a huge, British style, permanent MIC. I think they had in mind a Swiss style, every able bodied male is armed and trained defense force. State of the Art Armed. The gist of it is that the people/military were to be one and the same. A proper, representative, Government would have no need to fear an armed electorate. Given our governments success in other areas of regulation like the SEC, War on Drugs, Border Control, Free Trade, FDA, etc., I believe gun regulation by them will turn out the same. Fast and Furious comes to mind.

  • Mike S July 23, 2012, 2:31 pm

    Amen Rick. I have placed my faith and safety in a Glock26, Ruger LC9, and a Glock 19. Just remember, locks are for honest people, they don’t deter thieves, guns are for survivors not wouldbe statistics.

  • donniemac July 23, 2012, 11:46 am

    To live in a free society is dangerous. The sick and depraved among us will have access some sort of device to kill although I do agree with the anti-gun lobby’s argument that guns make it easier to kill, not with standing bombs. Most people, including many supporters of gun ownership, have no intention to carry, concealed or open. And all we have to do is go back to “wild west” to see how unpleasant life can be with most young men armed. The movies got it mostly right with the citizens diving for cover and mostly wrong with with the gunfight being over in one or two shots. Most gunfights continued till one or both sides ran out of bullets or they finally got close enough to hit each other. The gunfight at the OK corral was done at a distance of 6 feet and then only a few deaths.
    As far as someone being armed and stopping the Aurora shooter, don’t really think that would happen as he was extremely protected and I suspect that the theater had a guns not allowed rule that most law abiding citizens would obey. A high number of armed people would result in a more dangerous world, not safer one.
    Unfortunately, the NRA has become a gun manufacturers shill and no longer primarily supportive of the shooting and hunting tradition. It relies on fear and ignorance to keep members voting the NRA way. And eventually the NRA’s tactics will result is some ballot box revolution against the very thing it purports to hold dear, the 2nd amendment. There is no rational behavior from the extremes of both sides of the argument. The NRA loses members left and right as the more rational get fed up with it’s delusional rants. A disclosure here, I am a life member of the NRA, owner of multiple handguns, am licensed to carry and do not because of my age.
    RA’s reaction is normal but systemic of the problem. More and more rush to be armed, persuaded by the all too real life experiences and by the “advertising” of the NRA and the weapons manufacturers. The level of expertise per weapon goes down and the potential for some unintended negative result goes up. I don’t know the answer, maybe there really is not one, but I know that banning handguns and increasing the armed population are two wrong answers.

    • Benjamin July 23, 2012, 1:28 pm

      “The level of expertise per weapon goes down and the potential for some unintended negative result goes up. I don’t know the answer, maybe there really is not one…”

      It’s not so hard if you approach the problem the same way as cars and drivers. The BMV/DMV is responsible for providing testing for an operators license. For guns, the elected sheriffs were at one time also the elected officers of the militia. Whether or not they used to test gun owners for basic skill and ability, I don’t know. But I imagine that if guns and permits were treated more like cars and licenses, the responsibility for testing would have to fall upon whoever holds that office.

      Now, I’m not saying that that would solve all the problems. But I do believe it would go a long way in reducing them.

    • mario July 23, 2012, 2:56 pm

      Surely yes on this one. Let’s agree across the board that carrying a gun bears an enormous responsibility to yourself, your family and those around you. Ergo, to be able to get one without proper training is ridiculous. Would you let a person who is not a trained expert in their field exercise their skill upon you, such as a surgeon?…of course not. A type of technician or construction worker involved in dangerous equipment work is fully trained first yes?… its an obvious part of the problem and so once again I wonder who are the idiots in charge who make these irresponsible rules in the first place?

      Cheers, Mario

  • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 11:13 am

    “Gun rights advocates are understandably quiet this weekend…”

    Not just gun rights advocates, but all civilized people should be loud and outraged by the murder of innocents committed by the STATE with its violation of their right to self defense. Why are people focusing on the mad gunman? He was just a lone nut; and he couldn’t have done nearly as much harm, or maybe not have even attempted such an act, had the audience not been prohibited from being any less defenseless than fish getting speared in a barrel. It’s as if the state marched people off, without weapons, into a wilderness in which dwelt wolves and bears; and when their half eaten bodies were discovered the state declared that teeth and claws were at fault, so that the next to be marched off, beside having no blades or firearms, will first have their teeth and fingernails extracted.

    Who is the murderer: the wild animals, who just do what wild animals do, or the state?

    Who is the murderer: the psychopaths, who just do what psychopaths do, or the state?

    • Benjamin July 23, 2012, 12:39 pm

      “Why are people focusing on the mad gunman? He was just a lone nut”

      Exactly. And no amount of laws, permits, policies, etc is ever going to weed them out, be they current or, especially, future nut. And for those who would say that a lack of access to guns would at least make psychos less harmful, well, skim through the links I provided earlier. Arson, poison, bombs, vehicles… There is just no getting around it. When someone’s last screw loosens, they’re gonna hurt people however they can. On a side-note…

      There’s no small number of rampages that were carried out with guns which resulted in little harm. Ditto with other methods. Point is, they don’t always succeed in doing what they seek to do, no matter their weapon of choice. There’s also plenty of cases where improvised weaponry caused quite a bit of harm.

      So why pick on guns? Oh, right… Because those are the choice weapons of governments, world-wide. They don’t like the competition. On a side-note to _that_ point…

      imv, Owning automatics is not so much about going head-to-toe with government agents and/or military. Think of it like this… If, say, ten million people kept and reguarly discharged (at a shooting range) and restocked even a modest number of rounds for their automatics, that would leave quite a bit less for the government to buy, store, and use. Government would have to be more cautious and frugal with how they use that resource. So not only would a country be free-er place, but the world would also be less violent and more stable with government less able to start and/or sustain wars across the globe.

      If only more people saw things the same way. Unfortunately, most will just look at you like you’re the same kind of nut as that lone nut.

    • mario July 23, 2012, 2:52 pm

      helluva point Mark….”Why should a STATE violate a person’s right to self-defense?” I’m too much of an idealist on these kinds of issues…if the STATE is run by responsible, civil leaders, then not having guns in the state is a fine idea, and there is no need for self-defense. But its rarely that simple and straight. Over history, such is sadly the exception not the rule… My friend from Iceland tells me its a wonderfully friendly place, no guns, nobody locks their doors, nobody’s stuff gets stolen…interesting.

      Cheers, Mario

  • mava July 23, 2012, 6:44 am

    UK45,

    That video is linked in my post above.

    Mario,
    You’re very much of a hero-type? And you’re “gloriously” happy when you are enslaved to the point that your owners won’t even allow you to have a primitive gun, while they have drones and tanks?

    And the “idiotic argument” about second amendment?
    Well, I am not born American, but I very much understand it. I don’t think it is idiotic. I think it is in fact, a “glorious” provision of American law, one of those that attracted me to this country in the first place.

    The essence of the 2-nd amendment was killed long time ago. We supposed to have, without any license, ANY weapon that the government can have. And with this law, as intended, the only mismatch of power that could be is that the government would be terribly outgunned. I know, this is too much for a hero-type like yourself to bear with. After all, you believe that the government agent is above you, a properly trained professional. By the way, a professional is someone that makes a living of his specific skill. A government agent does not make a living by definition. He is not able to negotiate in a free market, what he steals through the government. Remove the government (not a free market agent) and your “professional” is nothing. Any street fighter will make him into a crying baby. A government agent is only as strong as the murdering, mangling machine of corruption behind him. So, the term is misused here. A jack-boot would be more appropriate.

    Of course, you are smarter that the founders. They thought that any government always will have a tendency to turn into the Nazis, or Japanese, or Mao, or Stalin government. Nazis started in 1880 with NAtional Healthcare, for instance. But what did the founders knew. Idiots! You know better. You know that won’t happen. Especially, not to your glorious government.

    If the Chinese government only knew how high is your opinion of them, they might have died of laughter.

    • mario July 23, 2012, 1:14 pm

      Nice post Mava…yet to clarify; I didn’t say the govt was glorious. I said not having guns in my neighborhood and city is glorious, and I readily stick by that…China is one of the safest places in the world to live, no matter any and all of the other issues which also exist.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 5:34 pm

      M, Ayn Rand could not have said it better…

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:39 am

      Mava, you force me to clarify further, and that’s ok.

      I have ZERO love or support for any govt.

      I appreciate what they are doing well, and at the same time, I readily note what they are not doing well. I don’t care what country we’re discussing.

      Using the U.S. and China as the penultimate comparison; it is easy to see that both have done and do much right and much wrong. Such is life throughout history on planet earth.

      Cheers, Mario

  • Rich July 23, 2012, 6:40 am

    Dedicated to Jill and Vlad~

    Holocaust Survivor Denounces Anti-Gun Movement:

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/survive.htm

    • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 11:24 am

      Thanks Rich, everyone should visit that link. It’s better to die defending yourself and your family than to be worked, experimented upon, tortured and slaughtered like livestock.

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 2:54 pm

      Welcome Mark.

      Surely had a powerful impact on me to see from someone who actually went through the Holocaust on the unarmed side and lived.

      Overnight Dow futures down -193 at this point:
      Interested in RA subscriber ideas on when to take profits on DIA Aug 128 puts.

      (Usually I look for Stochastics and MACD to bottom and VIX to peak near previous support levels, 125.70, 123.66 or 120.35, but maybe this time is the barn burner.)

      Does anyone think the EZ is finally unraveling?

      Would that change their trade here today?

    • mario July 23, 2012, 3:07 pm

      Hey Rich, don’t listen to me please….but since you asked I would respond by looking at the charts and notice that the next area of support for DJ is 12300 ish…

      The only other thing I would say is when you get an extra fast extra sweet profit take at least some of it off the table….how many times I didn’t do that and regretted it…right?

      Cheers, Mario

    • Rich July 23, 2012, 3:37 pm

      Thanks Mario for good ideas and observations…

      JJ also…

  • John Jay July 23, 2012, 6:37 am

    The current sad state of affairs for mass murder in the USA is the result of a number of issues that have been developing since I was a little boy. Here are some off the top of my head.

    1) The trivialization of murder in movies and television.
    There used to be a Code for Motion Pictures, no one was to get away with murder and go unpunished for starters. Now, murder and mayhem are everywhere, movies, TV shows, rap music. Mario, China censors the media for morals violations, correct?

    2) The MSM turns serial killers/ mass murderers into celebrities. That started with Richard Speck getting the TMZ treatment after he slaughtered 9 nurses. Life and Look had whole issues devoted to him. Followed by Charles Whitman, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Hillside Stranglers, Ted Bundy ad nauseum. Everyone of those lunatics has had at least one made for TV movie to his name. Mario, I will bet that would never happen in China, correct?

    3) The MSM’s never ending promotion of win at any cost. If you are not a super model, rock star, sports superstar, or billionaire, you are a “Loser”.
    Just being a kind, honest, decent human is ridiculed.

    4) Destruction of the traditional family. LBJ’s inflation sent everyone’s mom out to work. Mario, here is another area where China is way ahead of us now.

    5) Blaming guns for the problem. Plenty of serial killers did not use guns at all. Switzerland has a majority of military aged males with an assault rifle in their house. If the problem is firearms, why are the Swiss peaceful while heavily armed? With his high IQ and bankroll, the latest nut would have found a way to mass murder if he had no firearms. In 1990, a lunatic in NYC came back to the Happyland Social Club after being dumped by the hat check girl. He found an empty gas can, filled it up and burned the place down, 87 dead. No firearms used. Ted Kaczynski was another High IQ nut that did not use firearms in his serial killing.

    6) Given that the Police have never stopped any mass shootings that I can recall, I agree with Rick that you might just as well arm yourself. We have about the same chance of returning to the old morality that made the USA safe and sane as Muhammad Ali has of making another boxing comeback.

    That is my take on it, there is growing number of alienated nuts, conditioned by our failing society to lash out at innocent people on a whim. In any case you are far more likely to meet your maker as a result of the side effects of FDA “Approved” drugs than you are being gunned down by Mad Max. From 1976 to 2006, an estimated 250,000 patients died in hospitals due to medication errors. (Journal of General Internal Medicine)
    Help me out and add to my list!
    Have a nice day, citizen!

    • mario July 23, 2012, 1:11 pm

      Great post JJ….the issues impacting exist at many levels, in the psyche of the people and the way the society shapes their thinking and behavior…

    • Benjamin July 23, 2012, 8:06 pm

      Hi, JohnJay. I have to say that I agree with most of your points, except the first two. I would’ve responded earlier, but I had to wrack my brain first in order to make sure I could refute those flawed points. Here it goes…

      Rap music and TV shows, I know nothing about. However, there aren’t many movies where killers are just allowed to go without any kind of punishment or loss. Can you name ten such films? I can only name two, possibly four. That’s it. And I’ve seen many movies from just about every decade since the advent of motion pictures.

      As for the glorification of serial killers… Well, I happen to have an interest in that subject. But I’ve never seen or read of a single one of them being glorified. About the only thing that comes close is the fan club, of sorts, that still send Manson letters, well-wishes, and the like. I’d say that is due to the fact that he’s still alive, though, and not movies and documentaries about mass/serial killers. On the other hand…

      Did you know that the worst serial killer of the 20th century was released in 1998 and that no one knows where he is (we needn’t guess what he’s probably up to)? This happened in Colombia. Despite having killed at least 100 children (possibly as many as 300), the Monster of the Andes was later declared sane and only had to pay a $50 fine before they let him go. I don’t think the authorities were trying to glamorize or downplay his evil deeds. More like holding psycho-babble in a regard that it never deserved. Still…

      Point is, you should be glad to live in a place as tame as the U.S., where serial killers aren’t nearly as successful as they have been in other parts of the world (thanks in no small part to the dedicated investigators and forensics). It could be so much worse if we truly didn’t give a d@mn. But because we for the most part do, only 3 of the top 15 serial killers were from the U.S. Bundy and Gacy were 14 and 15, by the way, with Ridgway being number five. So we don’t even have the best serial killers. The former Soviet Union and South America did.

      Sleep well tonight!

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:35 am

      The behavioral subject is “desensitization”.

      When a person is exposed to more extreme behavior of any kind, they become desensitized to it and therefore, much more possible to act it out.

      The opposite is true for “phobias”. Excess fear of snakes, roaches, etc. Research experiments showed easily that the “baby steps” approach helps alot, slowly and first from a distance giving the person proximity to the snake, then slowly moving them closer while at the same time slowly explaining the the nature of the snake, that another snake may be dangerous but this particular kind of snake is in fact friendly and harmless, etc. Thus as the person is “desensitized” , their reaction is normalized.

      On issues like becoming violent in a specific way, once a human being has “crossed a behavioral” threshold”, it is very hard to go back.

      Cheers, Mario

    • Benjamin July 24, 2012, 4:33 pm

      Good point, Mario. I said in another post, below, that I had my doubts about desensitization. I of course retract that in light of what you’re saying.

      Even so, if there aren’t that many movies where homicidal maniacs just get away with it and live happily ever after — thus elevating their acts to the status of moral and/or desirable — then how could it be argued that a glut of such movies are producing psychotic rampages? Fact is, the majority of even the most recently made films don’t allow for killers to get away or emerge better off (still, most post 2000 movies do in fact suck!). And as I said in my response to John (see waaay below!), if the psychos are going to do what they do anyway, as always they have, then how would changing movies stop them?

      Again, I’m still on the side that holds that such things are just another force we have to deal with.

  • Perry July 23, 2012, 6:36 am

    I with RA’s on this one.

    A lot of Canadian “snowbirds” spend the winter in Florida. In one area, the game for the local criminals was to drive around and bump into cars with Canadian license plates. When the drivers got out to check the minor damage, the crook would pull his gun and steal the Canadian’s car. After numerous similar cases coming before a certain judge, he asked the crook why they always robbed Canadians. The crook said “because we know they don’t have guns”.

    So now the State issues Florida license plates to Canadian snowbirds.

  • Grass Ranger July 23, 2012, 6:11 am

    Good thought, Rick. This massacre is only the latest example of the truism, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” As former LE, I have had a concealed weapons permit since I retired. All this hullabaloo caused me to get out my card just to check it only to find that it expired today. You can bet I will be at the SO Monday morning to get it renewed.

    There is support for open carry in a lot of places. I am totally opposed to open carry. In an incident such as we are discussing, obviously armed individuals would be the first target of a determined shooter.

    • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 11:39 am

      Police have no legal duty to protect people – only the legal duty to enforce laws against people. You cannot sue a policeman for refusal or failure to protect you.

      Self defense is the duty of the individual (where allowed by law).

      &&&&&

      Just ask the Korean storekeepers who survived the L.A. riots some years ago without police protection. RA

  • UK45 July 23, 2012, 6:03 am

    Agreed, i don`t want to be hit by “friendly fire” but at least the intent was there, but then again, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Wouldn`t that be something, a man who tries to protect his fellow citizens at great risk to his own wellbeing, ends up being prosecuted for manslaughter or criminal injury, that would be funny if it were not so possible. Thank you for your reasoned opinion, there are no easy answers.

    • Rick Ackerman July 23, 2012, 3:43 pm

      One doesn’t get a concealed-weapon permit hereabouts without intensive training geared to avoiding the outcome you’ve described.

  • Benjamin July 23, 2012, 5:17 am

    I can already see from the comments thus ffar what kind of day this going to be. So…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

    This of course is not to downplay the recent mass-tragedy that took place. Just the usual BS that surrounds it when things like this happens. I’m sick and tired of hearing about all the myths; the U.S. this, the U.S. that; guns this, guns that; the times this, the times that…

    Well, what about them? Fact is, humans blow gaskets. Always have, always will. And yet, here we all are.

    • mario July 23, 2012, 2:43 pm

      Hi Ben, …and as I read your point the thought flashed in my mind that when a person does blow a gasket, in fact they have a myriad of choices on how to act it out. While a gun is quite efficient at getting the job done, if a gun isn’t handy, someone who has blown a gasket and intent on going on some kind of rampage could do many other things to hurt people….eg., what’s to stop any lunatic from walking into any crowded room just about anywhere with a milk container full of a flammable?…in less than five seconds he could splash it all around and light it…? poisoning people, etc…. Psychologically, it seems guns are the lunatics weapon of choice but if not available, plenty of other ways to blow a gasket to hurt and kill a lot of people…

      Cheers, Mario

    • Robert July 23, 2012, 6:34 pm

      Right on, Mario…

      Just think of how much safer the Middle East would be if governments would just get smart and outlaw the practice of strapping explosives to yourself and blowing up a bus full of tourists…

    • Benjamin July 23, 2012, 7:24 pm

      You nailed one of the points I sought to make, Mario (the others being that of time and place; there are no boundries). Furthermore, at least with a gun, someone can just as efficiently retaliate. The same can’t be said with motolovs. Can you imagine how much more screwed up life would be if we were all forced to fight literal fire with fire?

      Frankly, I’d rather exist in the mythological world where bullets fly from everywhere than a world where motolovs fly from every hand seeking to defend itself. Or watching two people cut each other up in knife-fight death match. Or play crash derby. Or…Well, you get the idea! Boggles me noodle, it does, that some still take a strong stance against the civility and relative neatness of firearms.

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:30 am

      I’m in final confession that I’m split on this issue. I have to admit we can see it IS true that people in a society can live well with firearms around. We can also see that they can live well in a society that doesn’t. The difference as to why that is the case is what needs to be addressed along with whether or not to have them…

      Cheers, Mario

  • UK45 July 23, 2012, 5:07 am

    Well put Mario, America is not another country, it has guns and that is the situation. Did anybody else see the video of an attempted hold-up just a day or two before the terrible events in Colorado ? The video showed a robbery in progress in an interent cafe in Florida i believe. Two men entered, one with a gun, the other had a baseball bat. After a few moments of cowing the customers in the cafe, one gentleman stood up, he had a concealed weapon, and he started firing at the would be robbers, they were the only people hurt that night and high tailed it out of the establishment with the extremely brave old gentleman in pursuit, that is the other side of the coin, if the good guy has a gun too, things turn out very different. Hats off to that brave man, we should be seeing that in every headline too, how many lives might he have saved that night ?

    • mario cavolo July 23, 2012, 5:33 am

      Thanks much UK….yet again, such risks too. Let’s think about it; if the bystander who got up to save the day, if one of his bullets accidentally hit an innocent bystander, even by ricochet. And what’s the story if he shot the guy with the baseball bat, an unarmed person?…it gets really complicated in the laws…Cheers, Mario

  • mario cavolo July 23, 2012, 4:52 am

    Hi Rick, thanks for pointing up the issues on both sides of this.

    In terms of the overall safety and civility of society, China and other countries have proven society is a much better place when private citizens have no guns, rifles, etc. So Mava, it does exist.

    I and virtually every other person I know here in China know including probably 98% of the tens of thousands of American expats who also live and work here are gloriously happy there are no guns here. GLORIOUSLY HAPPY. Guns more than obviously have no place in society.

    However, as much as I have stated that above and completely agree with such an approach toward guns by a govt, the issues run deeper.

    1. Rick makes an excellent and valid point here:

    “But so is the pro-gun argument that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

    This issue depends on the structure of the society. Here in China with guns completely banned, for example, still as a percentage, very very few criminals are in possession of guns. So the society and laws and enforcement are much more effective and orchestrated. One must understand that in America the structure and context of the society and laws would make it extremely difficult to even try to create a “guns are completely banned” society. Like I said, its a FABULOUS idea, but that doesn’t matter if it can’t be properly implemented and executed by incompetent leaders and a societal structure which makes it extremely difficult to implement. Hence, Rick correctly hits this very important point. Any efforts to limit guns in America will be in their own special way half-assed, and the final result will be as he noted in the quote above. The gangs will still have easier access than they should. That’s not good either and it is another failure of leadership’s responsibility “of the people, by the people, for the people” to take care of their country and citizens.

    2. Rick, as to your idea that your family should be armed, and the idea that if you had been in that theater, you would have had the ability to shoot the f&%$#ker down. I agree with that point. Part of me is very much a hero-type. I myself would feel good as a human being knowing that I was there and put him down quick to save lives. Yes, that’s right and good.

    However, such carrying a weapon MUST include the responsibility of the proper professional training needed so that the person is both physically and emotionally capable of using it when needed. Otherwise, the average person is probably going to misuse the gun. Even worse, is the too frequent situation of a criminal who can successfully obtain the gun and use it against its holder. Dicey dangerous issues.

    3. As to the idiotic argument of the “right to bear arms” originally intended that citizens can effectively rise up against tyrannical governments, that argument is in today’s world, simply archaic and irrelevant. With or without an arsenal of guns, there is no defending your self against the firepower/manpower of the govt military complex of your country. It is a moot point. The risk to citizens in a “no guns” society is if the only ones with guns are the govt who becomes a tyrannical power violating human rights. Unfortunately as I’ve suggested, it is a moot point. Your hand gun or even Ak47 doesn’t stand a chance against a govt of today that decides to come down on you, besides ground forces, attack drone missiles included.

    Difficult, complex and sad issues…

    Cheers, Mario

    • Mark Uzick July 23, 2012, 6:55 am

      Mario: In terms of the overall safety and civility of society, China and other countries have proven society is a much better place when private citizens have no guns, rifles, etc. So Mava, it does exist.

      Isn’t the PRC the state that holds the record for murdering its own people? How safe is that?

      Since the Chinese people show so little proclivity toward violent crime, then surely they, among peoples, (just like the Swiss) can be trusted with arms against which to defend themselves from and to discourage the anarchic whims of the state like the “cultural revolution”. Societies everywhere would do well to emulate the Swiss by putting civil defense into the hands of civilian militias.

      Also: An unarmed society is unfair to the physically small or weak, e.g., women, the elderly and the disabled; and it encourages violence, robbery, bullying, abuse and rape; not to mention terrorism and mass murder like in that movie theater.

    • mario July 23, 2012, 1:08 pm

      Great points Mark as adjunct to the “gun ban” topic. China is strict with execution of convicted criminals, including crime against the society, not just in murder type cases; get caught pilfering millions from the coffers and you’re six feet under.

      I think I made it clear I completely agree with your point about anarchical govts, I called them tyrannical. That’s the downside without a doubt. If a govt turns against its people, they definitely have no means to defend themselves. I suggest again that since today’s govt’s have such might behind them, a handgun won’t be much help. …….

      As you mentioned “An unarmed society is unfair to the physically small or weak, e.g., women, the elderly and the disabled; and it encourages violence, robbery, bullying, abuse and rape;”….. I can’t say that I think an unarmed society “encourages” such behavior. The society as a whole may create those proclivities at a higher percentage compared to other societies, but I can’t think its that only factor…

      Cheers, Mario

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:26 am

      yea V….we’ve discussed that issue in other posts in the thread….if a person is hell bent on hurting people, there are many ways they can easily do that if they don’t have a gun…

      And since you’ve decided to make the effort to sneak back in, why don’t you tone it down just a bit so that you can make meaningful instead of annoying contribution….just a suggestion.

    • Rich July 24, 2012, 3:31 am

      Well put Mario.
      That’s a market hint to VVLLAADD the Impaler Rick seems to support…

  • UK45 July 23, 2012, 4:14 am

    A ban on guns would be as effective as a ban on murder, they`ve tried that and it didn`t work. If i know criminals have a gun, i want one too, a level playing field only hurts the crooks.

  • Cam Fitzgerald July 23, 2012, 4:06 am

    Another one? First I heard of it. How strange is that?

  • Doc July 23, 2012, 3:52 am

    “…a total ban on, for starters, handguns. Their chances of prevailing, fortunately, are nil. It’s not going to happen.”

    I’m not so sure. On July 27th BHO signs the UN Arms Trade treaty. Unless stopped by the Senate, it will establish “common international standards,” for regulating the sale and possession of weapons, including rifles and handguns. Liberals will argue that it supersedes the U. S. Constitution, and allows UN bureaucrats to overrule state gun laws.

    • Dave July 23, 2012, 3:21 pm

      We’re in the middle of Mercury Retrograde, 7/14-8/8/12, an astrological event which happens 2-3 times/year. This one is in Rick’s sign of Leo, so Rick gets a pass for any out of the ordinary stuff. For those who think there is no validity, past MR’s included THE flash crash, gold/silver at all time highs, AAPL at all time highs.

      As for the UN Small Arms Treaty, here’s another viewpoint of the “lone” Colorado shooter…

      Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged
      http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21RgJSzja

    • Rick Ackerman July 23, 2012, 3:36 pm

      In my life, Dave, Mercury has always seemed like it was in retrograde.

    • Rich July 24, 2012, 3:27 am

      Bada boom kaching re Mercury Retrograde:

      Mercury approaching an apparent Conjunction with the Sun, which in the past coincided with market declines:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMiHsOYwdCs&feature=g-all-lik 3:40

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjhrMBFubOM 2:54

      UN Gun Ban story hidden on alternative media.

      MSM suggesting Aurora Joker story, worse on the fourth day with grievous emotional wounds, will not end 2nd Amendment (Blame it on the UN.)

      If they try to implement UN gun ban here, there may be riots and civil disobedience with a new higher level of patriotism and respect for our Constitution.

      Maybe that’s why Feds bought remote laser recognition technology, 600,000 rounds of ammo, converted barracks with razor wire, turnstile doors in and bulletproof booths after X-raying the flying population for biomarkers.

      Can’t make this up…

    • BigTom July 24, 2012, 6:30 pm

      Doc – a treaty ratified by the senate does supersede the constitution, and I believe it cannot be undone once imposed. I for one would not trust bureaucratic regulation from less than capable politicians with nefarious intentions, making rules half a world away affecting my and my families life. Look at history….few ever messed with the dude holding a big club and as much as we wish for a perfect world, we ain’t perfect….

  • martin schnell July 23, 2012, 3:18 am

    I guess I live in a different world (Canada actually). I’d be more than happy to ban handguns and semi automatics and missile launchers (I’m sure they are protected by the US constitution too).Unfortunately up here there is some disagreement too, basically split urban (ban them) / rural (we want ‘them). Interestingly the biggest gun problem we have in Canada is due to guns smuggled in from the US illegally (about 2/3 of unregistered guns are from the US). You think you have a problem with illegal immigrants from south of the border, ours is with illegal guns from south of our border.

    Interestingly the highest crime rates and most dangerous places in Canada (on a per capita basis) are small towns (rural). Crime in the big Canadian cities (bastions of liberalism in general) is actually quite low. Toronto has a murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000, far less than Denver (10), Colorado as a whole (4), Dallas (11) Chicago (15), and still better than San Diego (2.2).

    Personally I really really like walking down the street, or sitting at the neighborhood pool, and feeling pretty darn certain that no one around me (sane or insane) is carry a weapon.

    • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 3:27 am

      Those darn liberals that started the “flower movement” in my time. Today I susupect those flowers would have multiple rapid fire projectiles coming out of their stem.

      Yeah, lets kill those bleeding heart liberals that believe in the sanctity of life, and turn the other cheek.

      We are the fire and brimstone new testament country that can find reasons to blow soemones head off despite the Lords prime directive.

    • cwd July 23, 2012, 8:29 pm

      If I have my own weapon, I am not concerned.
      If something happens, I am prepared to defend myself just like that old man in the Florida cafe, except I hope I can shoot a little straighter.

  • mava July 23, 2012, 1:36 am

    Right on, RA!

    Good answer!

    No law ever prevented criminal from having guns. I don’t know why is it so hard to understand. People imagine a situation where only the government has guns. Not real. Far from it. More like only some government, and many criminals. Because if it was possible to make guns impossible to obtain by making it illegal, then obviously, there would be even shorter route to safety, – just make murders illegal, requiring a license. Oh wait, that is the case today!

    SD1, you worrying about nothing. You don’t need a gun personally, if you too weak to say “hands off me!”. Don’t worry and don’t freak out. The order and the civility will still be maintained, just much better, by people like RA. And you can use that civil order and safety that comes with it, for free, by doing nothing about it. A criminal will not risk his life on a slim chance that you are unarmed. As far as he would be concerned, RA could be right next to you, with his wife, both packing heat.

    Criminals are not afraid of laws. They are afraid of bullets. Check this out:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFZDhCjvj0

    I am only sorry that he wasn’t too good at head-shots.

  • SD1 July 23, 2012, 12:58 am

    Really? This is the answer? Arming you, your wife and son with guns? This is what the US and the Second Ammendment has boiled down to? Kill or be killed? God, that is sad, Rick … just plain sad.

    • Bill July 23, 2012, 3:02 am

      Um, yeah…. People folk are much more courteous and respectful of the law when in a society that does not restrict firearms. Check the statistics SD…crime drops in jurisdictions that honor God-given rights.

      Now go off and sensationalize this tragedy some more in your never-ending, illogical crusade to demonize the 2nd…which will ultimately usher in a greater tyranny in this country. Useful dupes….

    • gary leibowitz July 23, 2012, 3:15 am

      What can I say. Paranoia runs amok. Lighten up Rick. The obsessive depressive nature of your rants are worrying me. Do you ever enjoy a day without finding fault? The second amendment was meant for a different time. I truly wonder what our founding fathers would have decided in current times.

      Can guns really be used against this government? Will there ever be a need for citizens to protect ourselves against our own governments? How did we fare in the last great depression? Mass shootings? Riots and citizens arming themselves? In my mind the worse possible solution during times of fear hunger and desperation is to arm oneself.

      A silly notion that you are “free” if you own a gun. The only freedon I see is the freedom to act out of violence, kill by accident, and feel invincible.

      As a hunter or hobbyest, I find no problem. Carrying it on the streets I do.

    • SD1 July 23, 2012, 4:28 am

      Ah, Bill … maybe I don’t know much about religion nor the 2nd Ammendment, but I am quite sure God had absolutely nothing to do with writing your precious 2nd Ammendment, so stop bringing God into your argument. It’s ridiculous. Owning a fun isn’t a RIGHT, it’s a priveledge, and it certainly wasn’t handed to you by God.

    • SD1 July 23, 2012, 4:29 am

      Owning a “gun,” as a correction to the above.

    • Carol July 23, 2012, 2:55 pm

      SD1,

      owning a gun is just the means to defend oneself and the RIGHT to defend oneself was given to you and to every other man or woman by their maker – God, Allah, Nature, the Universe or whatever you believe made you. It is a right NOT a privilege and that right is antecedent to any government (corporation) ever created by any set of elites.

      I agree with Rick 100% if there had been even ONE concealed carrying man or woman in that theater there would have only been a couple dead or maimed before the shooter was taken out.

      There is a small town in Georgia, can’t remember its name, but every adult citizen is required by law to own and carry a gun. Guess what is this the most violent town in the country? No you socialist its the most peaceful, non-violent town in the nation. No crime, no murder, no theft. Who would rob someone knowing their Mark is carrying?? Only an idiot!

    • mikeck July 23, 2012, 3:21 pm
    • Rich July 23, 2012, 5:47 pm

      13 people killed in an overloaded Texas pickup crash this weekend.

      A china man stabbed a 2008 Olympic tourist, the father-in-law of the US Volleyball coach, to death.

      Do we also outlaw knives and pickups?

      What about forks and spoons?

      Other than Aurora, where 200 first responders reportedly showed up in 90 seconds, can we really rely on government force to take care of us sperm to worm?

      Is Ron Paul right that offensive US wars create blowback?

      At what point do we take responsibility for our good fortunes and freedom and remove corrupt officeholders and their appointees at the ballot box?

      No way the Chief Justice should have upheld 0Care, Shovel Ready or TARP for that matter, opposed as much as 100:1 by US voters…

    • Robert July 23, 2012, 6:29 pm

      SD1:

      “Owning a gun isn’t a RIGHT, it’s a priveledge, and it certainly wasn’t handed to you by God.”

      WRONG – owning ANYTHING you want to own, and can afford the cost of, is a personal RIGHT.

      Get a clue. My rights are not granted to me, by you…

    • mario cavolo July 24, 2012, 3:22 am

      On your point Bill, I have to disagree. Many people across the world live in peaceful, harmonious societies with no guns. As I’ve suggested elsewhere in the thread, there are many other pieces to the puzzle of people within the context of their particular society and culture. But, as I’ve also stated, in the U.S. now, a gun ban would not work out as planned, not even close…

      Cheers, Mario

    • BrutlStrudl July 24, 2012, 6:19 pm

      All I want is a level playing field