Rob's Lobs

[mrmarket]

Mr. Market, I do indeed own guns but I'm no gun-nut. I was raised around them and was taught to respect them. As a child was never allowed to play like I was shooting (playing "cowboys and Indians" was not allowed by my father). Instead, shooting and gun safety was something that I was taught by my father as guns were a fact of life for us.

I know literally hundreds of people that are gun owners and I can't think of one single firearm accident (like Park and Tatnic allude to) within the circle of folks I personally know of. I have never had one of my guns accidentally discharge, but I know it can happen depending on the design. The most common malfunction a gun experiences causes the gun NOT to shoot.... or to jam, rather than accidentally discharge. Most malfunctions are caused by a lack of care (dirt and grime in the mechanical action).

To me, a firearm is more than just a weapon. It's is a tool. I use guns to help protect my cattle and rid my farm of pests.... and feed my family within legal hunting seasons. As a mechanically inclined fella, I understand how firearms work.... And I equally understand the damage they can inflict on a living creature. And believe it or not, I am not always armed.LOL!.... BUT I like to have the right to be if I so desire.

OH! and btw I'm rarely in NJ anyway, if you can believe that...SssSsssss!

You are what we would call a very responsible gun owner.

[ParkTwain]

Cho, the Va. Tech shooter, was firing two handguns in the classroom building, a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther .22, one in each hand. The Glock used a 15-round magazine (I don't see a report about any magazine for the Walther), and the Wash Post reports that more than one empty magazine was found at the scene. He had purchased at least one box of 50 9mm rounds at the time he bought the Glock, according to the Wash Post.

If he was thinking as he was shooting, he could have accomplished his carnage such that there wouldn't have been a time when both guns would have needed to have its magazine changed, thereby interrupting his fire for at least a few seconds. So there wouldn't have been much of a chance for anyone to have ambushed him without taking direct and up-close fire.

[ParkTwain]

Virginia firearms purchase eligibility test

If any of the (reported) three women that Cho had stalked on the Va. Tech campus had put a restraining order on him and it was still in effect, he could not have legally purchased a handgun in Virginia.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

//
6. Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court?
7. Is there an outstanding felony or misdemeanor warrant of arrest pending against you from any jurisdiction?
//

[ParkTwain]

WH Secret Service gun accident (4/17/07)

//
2 Officers Injured at White House
By REUTERS
Published: April 17, 2007

Two Secret Service officers were injured on the White House grounds after a gun accidentally fired, said a spokesman for the service, Darrin Blackford. Their injuries are not life threatening, Mr. Blackford said. One officer suffered a shrapnel wound to the face, and the other was wounded in the leg. Both are from the service’s uniform division. They were taken to George Washington University Hospital. At the time, President Bush was in Blacksburg, Va., to attend a ceremony at Virginia Tech after Monday’s shooting rampage.
//


Just another little "gun accident" right on the White House grounds. Yep, NO PROBLEM, everything's UNDER CONTROL, just some SHRAPNEL TO THE FACE, and a little leg wound. Check in with the hospital spokesman at noon for your story. Nothing serious to report. Everything's under control, under control, ...

[ParkTwain]

Re: Neal Boortz article

'The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never."

For Neal, the best is the enemy of the good. His "never" means that our government should do nothing to improve the rampant handgun situation in America? Do tell ... This is called a "straw man" rejoinder. Very weak. See today's article of reaction (I posted a link earlier in this thread) from certain other nations with differing philosophies (i.e., non-Wild West philosophies) about handguns.


"The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others."

Well, when those saving lives are using a gun to face down another person with a gun, it's perhaps hard to see why that's a great situation. You have to deal with the root cause here, not another gun-shaped band-aid. Come on, Neal, you can do it, you can do it. Focus ... What if the criminal didn't use a gun ...


"And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation?"

We had a little discussion of this very topic on this thread earlier today. Not a bad discussion.


Here's the Boortz (gun-lover) coup de grace:
"Let me ask you another question. In fact, let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm."

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

I would say that Boortz's take is pretty lame. It's basically, "the more guns in gatherings of vulnerable people, the better." There is no questioning of the assumption of "the guy walks in with a gun." That's what he can't envision or address. That's a big problem with his position. There are definitely alternatives to what we have to live with about proliferating handguns. Look at the respondent nations mentioned above.

The 2nd Amendment argument is such a crock. As if all citizens need to own a gun to be ready to serve as a "militia." And what is a "militia" and what purpose does it serve. Two hundred fifty years ago it served a purpose, when the state authorities had an army carrying muskets and bayonets, with a few cannon thrown in. A band of militia with its own muskets would make any despot's army think twice. Too many armed citizens out there.

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

[Tatnic]

'The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never."

For Neal, the best is the enemy of the good. His "never" means that our government should do nothing to improve the rampant handgun situation in America? Do tell ... This is called a "straw man" rejoinder. Very weak. See today's article of reaction (I posted a link earlier in this thread) from certain other nations with differing philosophies (i.e., non-Wild West philosophies) about handguns.


"The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others."

Well, when those saving lives are using a gun to face down another person with a gun, it's perhaps hard to see why that's a great situation. You have to deal with the root cause here, not another gun-shaped band-aid. Come on, Neal, you can do it, you can do it. Focus ... What if the criminal didn't use a gun ...


"And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation?"

We had a little discussion of this very topic on this thread earlier today. Not a bad discussion.


Here's the Boortz (gun-lover) coup de grace:
"Let me ask you another question. In fact, let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm."

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

I would say that Boortz's take is pretty lame. It's basically, "the more guns in gatherings of vulnerable people, the better." There is no questioning of the assumption of "the guy walks in with a gun." That's what he can't envision or address. That's a big problem with his position. There are definitely alternatives to what we have to live with about proliferating handguns. Look at the respondent nations mentioned above.

The 2nd Amendment argument is such a crock. As if all citizens need to own a gun to be ready to serve as a "militia." And what is a "militia" and what purpose does it serve. Two hundred fifty years ago it served a purpose, when the state authorities had an army carrying muskets and bayonets, with a few cannon thrown in. A band of militia with its own muskets would make any despot's army think twice. Too many armed citizens out there.

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

I'm in favor of making it very hard for anyone to own a handgun. I own many firearms but only one handgun and I can't even find it now. I love firearms..I think they're works of art and every one I own has been a decent investment that does not go down in value. I also load my own ammo and can customize a load for my 300 winchester so it shoots like Lye's pee shooter .308, that is if I wanted to.

And I would have absolutely no problem with registering them and from an investment standpoint, the fewer guns there are the more valuable they become..simple supply and demand. But if the government ever decided to take away my rights of legal gun ownership I'd be the first one to resist and tell them to go phuck themselves.

I saw on the news last night that australia, one of the last frontiers of independence and capitalism went through a huge effort to get rid of firearms and handguns....not registering them, but simply eliminating them. This was done from a safety standpoint, not so the government can become totalitarian and suppress the rights of the citizenry (ie illegal wire taps, voter harrassment, all the things our administration is so good at). If we get too many more VPI incidents that's where we're headed. Virginia is known as one of the easiest places in the country to buy a handgun, ask any gang member or drug dealer in Boston and New York.

[Rob]

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

Allow me to point out the flaws in your arguement. First, this situation is not much of a parallel to the VA Tech incident. Those terrorists did not have guns, they had box cutters. It's a lot easier to jump somebody armed with a box cutter than it is to jump somebody armed with a loaded gun. Second, the people who decided to try to overpower the terrorists on that flight knew that their death was a certainty if they did nothing. They learned of the other attacks that day via cell phone while in flight. They knew what was going to happen, therefore they had nothing to lose. Now here's the part you're going to love: if one or two law-abiding passengers had been carrying, there's a good chance that not only could the terrorists have been stopped but that the plane could have landed safely, sparing the lives of the rest of the passengers and crew.

I realize the weaknesses in the last part of that arguement, i.e. that if people are allowed to carry guns on flights, how are you going to stop terrorists from boarding planes with guns? But what are the chances that under those circumstances a flight is going to become an airborne shooting gallery? Actually the armed, plain-clothed, federal air marshal system they have in place now I think is a reasonably good solution.

But the circumstances in the school shooting on Monday bore very little resemblance to the incident on United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001.

It's funny to me that Tatnic says, on one hand, that if a student in a classroom being besieged by a crazed shooter had a handgun, he would probably freeze up with fear and be unable to use it anyway, and on the other hand you think that a number of students in that situation are going to be able to simultaneously "jump" the assailant. I don't even begin to buy that.

I stand by my original position. A responsible person with a loaded gun at his disposal in that Norris Hall building on Monday could have saved lives.

Let's say that instead of 33 the death toll would have wound up at 16, about half of what it was. If responsible students and teachers were allowed to be armed, how long would it take for the additional 17 accidental deaths to occur? Obviously that question cannot be answered, but I submit that it would take a long, long time.

I would further argue that the first 16 lives may also have been spared, because if Cho knew that other people in the building were armed there's a good chance he would not have had the will to act out as he did.

I have little doubt that you will disagree with that arguement and attempt to belittle it, but if so then you're just wrong. Sorry.

Obviously there would have to be rigorous standards that one should have to adhere to in order to carry such lethal force. But if I were a student in a university classroom this morning somewhere in America, I would feel much better knowing there was a loaded gun in the building at the disposal of a responsible person well-trained in its use than I would knowing there was no such weapon any closer than the nearest police officer.

[Lyehopper]

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

Every law abiding "gun nut" with his little "basement backroom arsenal" is NOT the problem Park. Why not focus on disarming the bad guys.

Hey Park, Since guns are NOT illegal in America, why not learn to shoot?.... You could get out of the house and from behind that computer and take in some fresh air, shoot some targets, maybe meet a girl at your local shooting range.LOL!.... And with her help, I'll bet figure out how to operate a gun without killing yourself.... Heck! you might even enjoy yourself!

[mrmarket]

Allow me to point out the flaws in your arguement. First, this situation is not much of a parallel to the VA Tech incident. Those terrorists did not have guns, they had box cutters. It's a lot easier to jump somebody armed with a box cutter than it is to jump somebody armed with a loaded gun. Second, the people who decided to try to overpower the terrorists on that flight knew that their death was a certainty if they did nothing. They learned of the other attacks that day via cell phone while in flight. They knew what was going to happen, therefore they had nothing to lose. Now here's the part you're going to love: if one or two law-abiding passengers had been carrying, there's a good chance that not only could the terrorists have been stopped but that the plane could have landed safely, sparing the lives of the rest of the passengers and crew.

I realize the weaknesses in the last part of that arguement, i.e. that if people are allowed to carry guns on flights, how are you going to stop terrorists from boarding planes with guns? But what are the chances that under those circumstances a flight is going to become an airborne shooting gallery? Actually the armed, plain-clothed, federal air marshal system they have in place now I think is a reasonably good solution.

But the circumstances in the school shooting on Monday bore very little resemblance to the incident on United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001.

It's funny to me that Tatnic says, on one hand, that if a student in a classroom being besieged by a crazed shooter had a handgun, he would probably freeze up with fear and be unable to use it anyway, and on the other hand you think that a number of students in that situation are going to be able to simultaneously "jump" the assailant. I don't even begin to buy that.

I stand by my original position. A responsible person with a loaded gun at his disposal in that Norris Hall building on Monday could have saved lives.

Let's say that instead of 33 the death toll would have wound up at 16, about half of what it was. If responsible students and teachers were allowed to be armed, how long would it take for the additional 17 accidental deaths to occur? Obviously that question cannot be answered, but I submit that it would take a long, long time.

I would further argue that the first 16 lives may also have been spared, because if Cho knew that other people in the building were armed there's a good chance he would not have had the will to act out as he did.

I have little doubt that you will disagree with that arguement and attempt to belittle it, but if so then you're just wrong. Sorry.

Obviously there would have to be rigorous standards that one should have to adhere to in order to carry such lethal force. But if I were a student in a university classroom this morning somewhere in America, I would feel much better knowing there was a loaded gun in the building at the disposal of a responsible person well-trained in its use than I would knowing there was no such weapon any closer than the nearest police officer.

If 5 kids jumped Cho simulataneously, he would have been disarmed. He was small and weak.

[Tatnic]

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!
Geezzz...I thought you were referring to Iraq for a second there. I think they're doing a pretty good job of making our boys pretty miserable, with a lot of help from Iran obviously.

I just wanted to say that everything has a price, and usually that price is much higher than anyone thought it would be at the outset. The NRA (ie lobbyists of death) has been so successful in its whore-mongering campaign on capital hill that they must be beaming with pride that yet another massacre has happened in this country....handguns for all!!

And the news media too....they must love all the ad time they can sell in this time of crisis.

And how about Hollywood? They've done such an outstanding job of making mass murder look like fun that they ought to be given an acedemy award for their efforts! Way to go Martie Scorcese and friends! Little Angelina and Brad must be so proud of their efforts to promote wanton and senseless violence, while not getting so much as a scratch in the process.

Its too bad that they don't use live ammo in Hollywood shoot-em-ups. I'd be glad to offer it to them for free!!

Alright, I'm done with the topic. I truely feel sorry for all the victims of the massacre and their families and hope that this country can find the real leaders to help solve the violence problem in this country. Its an absolute shame how bad we've gotten.

[Lyehopper]

AH! We do agree on something!

I truely feel sorry for all the victims of the massacre and their families and hope that this country can find the real leaders to help solve the violence problem in this country. Its an absolute shame how bad we've gotten.

And to this I say.... AMEN!

[Rob]

Self Defense

I just read another excellent op-ed piece this morning that is in agreement with what I've been saying on the subject of people being able to defend themselves, written by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee. This one is shorter and takes only a minute or two to read, but he makes the point very well. The text file is attached.

[Tatnic]

And to this I say.... AMEN!

Lye, I'm pretty sure we agree on alot more than we disagree, but its more fun to argue with someone who can go toe to toe with you.

Lets face it, if someone is so disturbed that they're intent on doing harm, there's not much anyone can do unless luck is on their side. Those little girls in that Amish school house....it wouldn't have helped much if they were armed. Those little kids in the day care in Oklahoma City were pretty much defenseless against Timmy McVeigh and his arian buddies. If they were all packing heat they'd still be dead.

The last time I was in NY there was a killer who shot a bartender (the killer was mad at the restaurant because his buddy was fired), fled the store, was stopped by 2 unarmed, volunteer cops, he punched one in the face then proceeded to shoot them both and kill them. A few miinutes later he was killed in a shoot out with a plain clothes cop. One of the vol cops was shot through his protective vest and killed by that bullet. These vol. cops were trained not to try and apprehend any suspect with a gun but to call in backup. They were young and trying to be heros, it got them killed.

When I worked in NY for a summer right out of college, I was wandering around China town one day and came upon an awards ceremony for cops. It was so moving to observe that I was getting choked up. The cops receiving awards were just standing there dressed in their every day, boring blue uniforms while the announcer read their stories as to why they were receiving their bravery awards. It wa absolutely incredible the things they go through on a routine basis in NY. The only place worse is Baghdad. I used to hunt with a retired cop in the Catskills and asked him one day if he ever got buck fever....he looked at me and said..."why, the deer aren't shooting at me".

[Rob]

Are “Gun-free Zones” Barrels of Fish for Shooters?

Tennessee Moves to Allow Guns in Public Buildings

NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted [yesterday] to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.

“I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. “I hope that is what this vote reflects.”

[Rob]

Long EBAY

I bought EBAY in premarket this morning for 34.80.

Edit at 9:39: I could have waited, obviously. Oh well.