BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

This was going to be posted eventually

At least 14 people were killed and 50 wounded when a gunman opened fire during an early Friday morning screening of the new Batman movie at an Aurora, Colorado, theater, Police Chief Dan Oates told reporters.

The heavily armed suspect, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, was apprehended by police in a rear parking lot of the theater, Frank Fania, a police spokesman, told CNN. The suspect was not immediately identified, though Fania said he was believed to be in his early 20s.

"He did not resist. He did not put up a fight," Fania said. Police seized a rifle and a handgun from the suspect, and another gun was found in the theater, he said.

rdx-fx wrote:

But Wisconsonites and Chicago FIBs are the worst... they're either drunk, distracted, or perpetually perplexed about how to drive in snow.
Every. Fucking. Year.  " snow?! what is this? I don't even..."

So very damn true, Friday and Saturday nights are especially the worst.

Dilbert_X wrote:

People who will follow the law, because they're law-abiding

People who will follow the law if its convenient for them and depending on the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of punishment

People who are going to do what they want no matter what, until they're incarcerated or killed - because they're psycopathic, stupid, immature, former marines or whatever

If fruitcakes are going to close their minds to the existence of the last two groups and insist on 'freedoms' which are obviously going to have a social consequence then it proves they're stupid or have read too much Ayn Rand or both.

RAIMIUS wrote:

That brings up much of the dilemma for US gun laws.  If the psychos are only going to be stopped by force, do you let "normal" people have access to tools for lethal force, or do you simply hope that only a few victims get completely screwed without a method of recourse?  I prefer letting people have the means to defend themselves.  Obviously, the more widespread weapons are, the easier it is for each group to obtain them (legally or illegally).  I can see the philosophy that desires fewer total weapons, in the hopes that the psychos don't get them, but we both know that won't ever be completely effective.  I guess philosophically speaking, I would rather have a "level field" than victims with no power.

As for opportunists, it is very gray.  Personally, I think how secure people keep their firearms should have some latitude.  I do advocate that everyone secures their firearms when not in use, but what constitutes "secure" is fuzzy.  I don't like the idea of "hiding" a firearm from children.  Experience has shown that to be unreliable and dangerous.  For a single guy with no unsupervised guests, I think I can afford a little less "security" than a couple with small children.  I know that if a criminal really wants my guns, I'll be hard pressed to stop them.  Even decent safes can be broken into with hand tools and a bit of time.  However, most "opportunists" are not going to kick in my door, find my gun locker, and break into that.  Generally speaking, a decent lock will keep most people "honest."  I consider my firearms "secure" in a less-than-Fort-Knox safe.  I wouldn't have a problem with someone keeping a condition 1 pistol in a small safe, in similar circumstances.  Neither of those meet your idea of "secure."

Pretty much.

The problem isn't that we need more laws.
We have laws to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, crazies, and anarchist thugs.
The problem is that we need better enforcement of existing laws, for Dilbert's category 2.
And bigger cages to warehouse category 3.

Dilbert X wrote:

If fruitcakes are going to close their minds to the existence of the last two groups and insist on 'freedoms' which are obviously going to have a social consequence then it proves they're stupid or have read too much Ayn Rand or both.

Would you care to rephrase that in a rational manner?
"'freedoms' which are obviously going to have a social consequence"
Okay.. so, we need to outlaw privately owned automobiles, and everyone needs to walk or take public transport - because far more people are killed in car wrecks than are killed by firearms, ergo (by DilbertLogic™) private citizens are unqualified to exercise the 'freedom' of private transportation. We "obviously" need trained and certified bus drivers to carry us around.

Too extreme?

Okay.. Alcohol.  Bring back prohibition, and outlaw alcohol.
Obviously, people are too stupid to consume alcohol, as far more people are killed or injured by alcohol related incidents. Drunk driving, bar fights, "hold my beer and watch this".  There's no reason for people to drink alcohol, and anyone found with in possession of an alcoholic beverage must, obviously, be an addict or have judgement too poor to be trusted with the 'freedoms' of a normal citizen.

How about reproduction?
Outlaw reproduction for felons, addicts, or those too poor to "properly" care for a child (as determined by the Nanny State).
$200 tax stamp, Federal approval, backround check, and 6 month waiting period before being issued a Permit to Breed.



Obviously, mostly sarcasm above, but you get my point.

You can't legislate common sense and compassion.
On the contrary, the more you pile on bureaucratic legislation, the more you absolve people of common sense & personal responsibility.  When you reach the point of bureaucratic leviathan 'Nanny State', you get a population that considers 'anything not illegal is okay'.

There are always going to be dipshits, irresponsible assclowns, and sociopathic crazies. A fundamental problem of society is to remove those undesirables from the larger population of law-abiding, peaceful citizens without causing undue pressure on responsible, law abiding citizens.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-07-20 14:50:52)

I think it more likely the PhD student at the Batman premiere was despondent over his student loans.

Can't declare bankruptcy,
stuck with a 20% APR on a $200,000 student loan,
looking at 5-10 years of unpaid post-grad work,
competing for a 20:1 shot at university tenure -or- looking at a $35,000/year job in the private sector.
(and, for those playing at home, just the 20% interest on a defaulted student loan is $40,000/year)

Welcome to Academic Science in America

Apparently you can get out of paying loans if you die. I remember that from exit counseling. Should've faked his own death if that was the problem. I think I've got 3 months until $20k starts coming in for me and no job yet. Stay tuned.

rdx-fx wrote:

I think it more likely the PhD student at the Batman premiere was despondent over his student loans.

Can't declare bankruptcy,
stuck with a 20% APR on a $200,000 student loan,
looking at 5-10 years of unpaid post-grad work,
competing for a 20:1 shot at university tenure -or- looking at a $35,000/year job in the private sector.
(and, for those playing at home, just the 20% interest on a defaulted student loan is $40,000/year)

Welcome to Academic Science in America

Umm, where has it been reported that he had a 20% APR? Was he paying for school with a credit card?

Also, he graduated top of his class everywhere. You don't think he had scholarships?

Last edited by Jay (2012-07-20 18:13:41)

eleven bravo wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

itrs doesnt cost 200K to go to 4 years of UC.  more like 60K

Also takes longer than 4 years to be a PhD student

4 years undergrad + 2 years masters, at $20k/year tuition/books/etc, and $15,000 to live on ($1250/mo rent/food/car/etc)
= $35k/year
= $210K total

if he was in school for his phd, chances are he wasnt paying any loans.  and your 210K is including a phd that wasnt completed.  he barely dropped out last month.  as far as i know he graduated in 2010 after 4 years as an undergrad and barely recieved in his masters.  unless he was in some kind fast track phd program he didnt have to worry about paying off loans for a few more years.  you dont have to pay or accumulate interest while you are still enrolled

Between this rant and his rant about HFC and organic foods, you'd think he was a soccer mom.

Jay wrote:

Between this rant and his rant about HFC and organic foods, you'd think he was a soccer mom.

Between his inability to read things in context, and general asshattery, you'd think Jay was an old Ayn Rand fan..

In really short words that even Jay can understand;

• Our resident Russian suggested a silly reason for the Colorado shooter.
• I responded with a more plausible, yet equally silly reason to go on a shooting spree.
• 11B doubted the $200K total, so I showed a price breakdown
• Jay chimes in with some insulting bit of irrelevant asshattery, as usual

11B wrote:

if he was in school for his phd, chances are he wasnt paying any loans.  and your 210K is including a phd that wasnt completed.  he barely dropped out last month.  as far as i know he graduated in 2010 after 4 years as an undergrad and barely recieved in his masters.  unless he was in some kind fast track phd program he didnt have to worry about paying off loans for a few more years.  you dont have to pay or accumulate interest while you are still enrolled

I don't know what the guy was doing.

The $210K doesn't include the PhD, just 4 years for a undergrad and 2 years for a masters.

I proposed the student loan angle, in response to Shater's less plausible (sarcastic?) proposal about him 'going all Rambo in a theater, 'cause of invisible Commies, 'an invisible Freedoms, 'an 'Mericafuckyeah'.  I may be paraphrasing Comrade Russia's position...

An ironic troll since he made his way through life with tax payers money.

rdx-fx wrote:

Jay wrote:

Between this rant and his rant about HFC and organic foods, you'd think he was a soccer mom.

Between his inability to read things in context, and general asshattery, you'd think Jay was an old Ayn Rand fan..

In really short words that even Jay can understand;

• Our resident Russian suggested a silly reason for the Colorado shooter.
• I responded with a more plausible, yet equally silly reason to go on a shooting spree.
• 11B doubted the $200K total, so I showed a price breakdown
• Jay chimes in with some insulting bit of irrelevant asshattery, as usual

11B wrote:

if he was in school for his phd, chances are he wasnt paying any loans.  and your 210K is including a phd that wasnt completed.  he barely dropped out last month.  as far as i know he graduated in 2010 after 4 years as an undergrad and barely recieved in his masters.  unless he was in some kind fast track phd program he didnt have to worry about paying off loans for a few more years.  you dont have to pay or accumulate interest while you are still enrolled

I don't know what the guy was doing.

The $210K doesn't include the PhD, just 4 years for a undergrad and 2 years for a masters.

I proposed the student loan angle, in response to Shater's less plausible (sarcastic?) proposal about him 'going all Rambo in a theater, 'cause of invisible Commies, 'an invisible Freedoms, 'an 'Mericafuckyeah'.  I may be paraphrasing Comrade Russia's position...

Call me an idiot all you want. You're the one making assumptions about the guy based on the latest woe is America talking point. Not everyone that goes to school is $200k in debt, and not everyone that has gone to school recently is a member of OWS. Was it your goal to pin the blame on a leftist and get that ball rolling?

rdx-fx wrote:

Jay wrote:

Was it your goal to pin the blame on a leftist and get that ball rolling?

Try reading what I wrote one more time. 

Slowly this time.

In particular, the four bullet points immediately after "In really short words that even Jay can understand"

"pin the blame on a leftist"
The hell?
Where did I even imply anything to do with political leanings, other than giving you grief for being a former Ayn Rand fan?

(hint: I didn't. Also.. In my teens and 20's, I liked Ayn Rand's Fountainhead - at least the first half before it got rapey, explodey, and preachy. Always found Atlas Shrugged overly bitter, and smelling of revenge fantasy though)

Lol. You're a joke dude. What a book I read five years ago has anything to do with... well, anything, is beyond me.

Why would you mention $200k in loans?

Why would you assume he has a 20% APR?

Why would you then talk about his job prospects, and ability to pay back whatever loans he does have?

Your argument read like an Occupy Wall Street manifesto for angry white men.

I made the soccer mom snipe because you're too old to be a hipster, but otherwise have covered all the ideological bases to become a true Brooklynite over the past few months.

All of your questions have been answered 2 or 3 times already, regarding my hypothetical college loan scenario. Scroll up.

A 'book you read 5 years ago' overly minimizes things - it seems to have had enough impact on you that you went around with the forum name John Galt for quite a while.

And, for your last point, you (as usual) ascribe to me political and philosophical positions that bear no relation to reality. 
You paint me with the brush of your own imagination, rather than bother to read what I've actually written.
This is far from the first time you've done that.

If Comrade Russian and Dilbert can parse what I'm saying (two people here that generally disagree with me), then the lack of comprehension is on you, Jay.