This is topic Gun Fires In Movie Theatre in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002801
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-22-2014, 11:22 AM:
Fox News
quote: Fox News
MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Police say no one was hurt when a loaded gun fell out of a man's pants pocket in a movie theater and fired.
Memphis police said 63-year-old George Gholson was arrested and charged Tuesday with reckless endangerment and failing to follow a posted "no-weapons" notice.
Police said Gholson took a .38-caliber, two-shot Derringer into a movie theater in east Memphis. The gun, which was loaded with one bullet, fell out of his pants pocket and fired the round.
Police said none of the 18 people in the theater were hit. An off-duty police officer who was in the theater at the time took Gholson into custody.
The theater had posted a notice prohibiting weapons inside the building. Online court records do not show if Gholson has a lawyer.
Proves that you are never to old to win the Darwin Stupidity Award...
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-22-2014, 11:33 AM:
This reminds of a story I heard before:
A while back in Nashville, Tennessee - a similar thing happened. At the Regal Hollywood 27. A man had a gun in plain sight and was planning on walking into the theatre with the gun on his hip. A manager told him he wasn't allowed to bring it in. They asked him to put it in his car. The man explained that he didn't want the gun in his car, as he felt someone would steal it. He then asked if they would hold onto in the manager's office (BIG MISTAKE). The manager's office is located directly behind the box office. At some point during the two hour film the man was watching - a manager decided they wanted to 'check out' the gun. Needless to say - I was told that the box cashier who was shot in the back of the leg when the gun went off - would be o.k.
This story may not be entirely accurate - but it is true. I don't know if the manager dropped the gun and it fired - or whether they actually pulled the trigger - but luckily the cashier was only shot it the leg.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-22-2014, 11:59 AM:
Thus we have No Guns Allowed signs on our doors. Our lege passed a law that says you can take a gun anywhere unless there is a sign saying otherwise. Brisk market in signs when that one passed.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-22-2014, 12:08 PM:
One thing I can say for either one of those stories: if someone drops a gun and it fires when hitting the ground then that is one piece of shit gun.
Just about any halfway decent handgun made these days has internal safety mechanisms in place to prevent such things from happening. You could load a SigSauer P226 and throw it against a cinder block wall as hard as you can and it would never fire. The firing pin is only engaged when the trigger is pulled back a certain distance. That particular handgun has no external safety levers. They're unnecessary. Your index finger is your real safety.
And that gets to another issue: people handling guns with apparently no clue regarding the four cardinal rules of gun safety.
1. Consider any gun to be loaded.
2. Point the gun only at something you want to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
4. Identify your target & what is behind your target.
It's impossible for anyone to have an "accident" with a gun if they follow those four rules. The incidents described above involve breaking at least 2 or more of those rules. I don't consider them accidents either. They're acts of negligence. If someone can't handle the concepts of gun safety he probably shouldn't be screwing around with guns in the first place. It would work out much better for other gun owners.
quote: Martin McCaffery
Brisk market in signs when that one passed.
In my experience only a few types of businesses get interested in posting such signs. We get the most call for those kinds of graphics from hospitals. In Oklahoma it's illegal for someone with a concealed carry permit to carry into government buildings, bars/nightclubs and a few other places.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 05-22-2014, 02:08 PM:
The only other way I can see a gun going off when adhereing to the above rules is if the person holding the gun trips and a something like a twig or branch engages the trigger. This exact scenario happend to my brother-in-law while pheasant hunting. When the hunting dogs made a point at a brush full of birds the hunter next to him walked up to the area and just as he raised his gun to shoot at the flushing birds he tripped and the gun fell just right to have a twig engage the trigger and shot my brother-in-law in the face and lost an eye.
But I agree the above rules are exactly what one should adhere to for gun safety.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-22-2014, 04:10 PM:
But your typical home-defending gun nut would never want to adhere to those rules, especially the last three. For example I can just hear it now: "But I gotta have my finger on the trigger, otherwise how can I blast the bad guy before he blasts me?"
I have a feeling about 75% of gun owners probably shouldn't own guns, because they're probably too dangerous in the hands of those kind of people, trained or not. A lot of training lessons get forgotten when a person is in (what he thinks is) a desperate situation.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-22-2014, 05:39 PM:
Without sounding too preachy and since I don't live in the U.S., it's rather not my business... but here are my 2ct for what it's worth...
You generally don't require a license to own a vehicle, but since a car can be a dangerous tool when operated without proper training, you need a license to use one in public, at least in the overwhelming majority of countries on this planet. The quality of those licenses can probably be debated, but there seems to be an universal opinion that a car is something that comes with inherent danger and responsibility.
Consider guns: Many countries/states/provinces/whatever around the planet allow you to own them (at least certain models), often without any kind of license. Interestingly though, some even allow you to carry and potentially use them in public, without any proper training or license.
So, I'm wondering, shouldn't guns be considered potentially dangerous "tools", just like cars?
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-22-2014, 09:29 PM:
Almost every Handgun except those pieces of Crap Jennings, Ravens,junk guns etc., after 1972 added a transfer bar between the hammer/firing pin so things like falling out of your pocket on the floor wouldn't let the gun go off. Prior to that it wasn't uncommon especially with pre 72 Ruger Blackhawk and Super blackhawks to have something like this happen. First of all you were told in your manual not to put more than 5 rounds in a six shot revolver and leave the hammer on the open chamber. Those Guns also had a 1/4 cock feature that if you had it in that position even with a live round it shouldn't have gone off hitting the ground.
All major Firearms Mfger like Ruger wanted you to send your old model BH & SBHs back to them in a prepaid mailer so they could modify it with the safer Transfer Bar. Trouble was it made the firearm safer but took away valve from the original 3 screw model which now days fetch a pretty good price. Consequently there are a ton of pre 72 Rugers out there that the owners never sent in to be modified because of this reason.
Like everything most of these Firearm accidents even with the older Models are caused by incompetence and not following directions from the manual your firearm came with...
BTW: I would bet you that off duty cop was carrying a firearm in that theater. Many Cops not only carry their service weapon which in most cases now days is 40 S&W or 9MM x 19 but they like to carry usually a compact .380 in a ankle holster. Usually a theater owner probably wouldn't have objected because he was still a Cop but off Duty. But remember not long ago a retired decorated Cop shot and killed a another man in a theater for Texting. The Deadly weapon on the Victims part was his Box of Popcorn.I'm a Class 2 Firearms Dealer since 1983 along with Explosives but Firearms don't belong in Movie Theaters...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-22-2014, 11:53 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
But your typical home-defending gun nut would never want to adhere to those rules, especially the last three. For example I can just hear it now: "But I gotta have my finger on the trigger, otherwise how can I blast the bad guy before he blasts me?"
I laugh at a lot of movies and TV shows when they frequently show improper gun handling. Actors frequently hold the gun wrong, doing things like palming the magazine (it's a good way to cause a jam or failure to feed issue). They'll often have their trigger finger wrapped around the trigger past the 2nd knuckle, ignoring rule #3. On top of that, if they have to fire they'll pull their shots to the left.
Most of us saw the funny video of the cop shooting himself in the foot as he talked to a bunch of elementary school kids about guns -rules #2 & #3 ignored for our laughter.
A home owner choosing to ignore rule #3 might get up in the middle of the night to check on some noises he heard. He gets startled by someone in the hallway and fires because his finger is on the trigger. He hasn't even had time to figure out if the person in the hallway was an intruder. And then he finds out he shot one of his family members.
A lot of hunting accidents occur due to some dumbass shooting at movement in brush. He thinks he might be shooting at a deer, but sometimes ends up shooting a fellow hunter, hiker or some other person instead. Several years ago a couple cops outside Oklahoma City answered a call about a rat snake that climbed a pole up to a bird house. They decided to shoot at the snake. Their stray shots landed nearby at a creek where an elderly man and his grandson were fishing. The grandson caught one of those stray rounds in the head, killing him.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I have a feeling about 75% of gun owners probably shouldn't own guns, because they're probably too dangerous in the hands of those kind of people, trained or not. A lot of training lessons get forgotten when a person is in (what he thinks is) a desperate situation.
No one is going to know for certain how they'll react when put into a life threatening situation until it happens. Gun owners who practice at the range enough to be proficient at shooting and take classes in gun tactics will have much better odds than someone who just buys a gun, loads it, puts it away in the night stand and does nothing else. If someone has serious doubts if they could act quickly and use deadly force against a home invader, car jacker, etc. they probably shouldn't have a gun for personal defense. Hesitation and doubt can lead to a person's gun getting turned against him by the criminal.
Another tough thing about using guns in life threatening situations: doing it legally. The "make my day" and "stand your ground" laws help in some areas, but a lot of people have very serious misconceptions about what they can do to a bad guy. They can use deadly force to stop a threat, but they don't have the explicit right to kill anyone. If you shoot an intruder and incapacitate him yet he is still alive and you reload and finish him off then you will have committed first degree murder.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
You generally don't require a license to own a vehicle, but since a car can be a dangerous tool when operated without proper training, you need a license to use one in public, at least in the overwhelming majority of countries on this planet.
It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Here in the United States cars kill and injure a hell of a lot more people every year than guns. People use cars very frequently in their daily lives. An American's odds of getting hurt or killed in some kind of car accident are quite a lot higher than getting hurt or killed by a handgun. And that's even with most people having a license and insurance.
There's lots of other tools, dangerous ones even, that don't require a license. You don't need a license to own and use a chainsaw. I get more nervous using one of those things than shooting a gun. A chainsaw blade can kick back out of a tree branch and cut deep into your neck and torso without any warning.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-23-2014, 01:49 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Here in the United States cars kill and injure a hell of a lot more people every year than guns. People use cars very frequently in their daily lives. An American's odds of getting hurt or killed in some kind of car accident are quite a lot higher than getting hurt or killed by a handgun. And that's even with most people having a license and insurance.
Regarding apples and oranges: I'm pretty sure that in the United States, the car is a "tool" much more commonly used by a much wider range of people than a gun. A driving license doesn't eliminate all accidents, but I'm also pretty sure it helps to reduce the frequency.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There's lots of other tools, dangerous ones even, that don't require a license. You don't need a license to own and use a chainsaw. I get more nervous using one of those things than shooting a gun. A chainsaw blade can kick back out of a tree branch and cut deep into your neck and torso without any warning.
Yeah, but unless some kind of zombie movie-esque cataclysmic event precedes the situation, a chainsaw is something very few people will carry in public to defend themselves let alone, bring it to a movie theater.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 05-23-2014, 02:46 AM:
I remember reading about someone who held up a convenience store using a chainsaw a few years ago.
The intimidation factor would definitely be there in that situation.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-23-2014, 03:41 AM:
Politicians have always felt that more paper work deters Criminals buying Firearms.Criminals don't fill out paper work;they Steal other people's guns through Home Burgularies,Robbing Gun Sale related Businesses or they find unscrupulous Kitchen table FFL Holders that will sell them a Firearm for Cash, No 4473 Form,No Nothing. They will also scour
Gunshows looking for a Privateer Table that won't even ask for an ID as long as your Flashing Cash in front of their Face.
Handgun Control has never worked, will never work,so why the anti-gun Politicians keep trying to ban certain firearms, Hi-capacity Magazines, etc. is Fruitless.If every Firearms Mfger
in the US stopped Production Today; their would still be so many millions of Firearms out there it wouldn't matter. The Major Cities that had the Strictist handgun control like Chicago, District of Columbia,New Orleans,etc. have the highest Murder Rates involving Handguns in the Nation.
Back before the 93 Ban on Certain style Assault weapons 2 Major Distributing companies "Southern Ohio Gun" SOG and KY IMPORTS merged temporarily and imported over 6 million Norinco SKS's and close to the same number of MAK 90s & BK92s.to the US. The ATF in their lame thinking thought that Banning Norinco Imports would cure this happening again. All it did was bring more imported assault style weapons from former Communist Block Countries like Romania,Hungary,Bulgaria,along with countries like Egypt(Maadi)South Korea(Daewoo)and Israel...Also when the Soviet Union's economy Collapsed in 93 the Russians went down in their 6 story underground vaults and brought up untold numbers of Russian made SKSs that had been stored since the early 50's. Most of those Guns ended up over here also. So there are millions of variants of AK47s,SKSs,along with all the different companies that make copies of the Original Colt AR-15...all over this Country and all the anti-gun people like Diane Feinstein, Schumer,OBAMA,etc. will always be fighting a non-win situation.
Most of your Dealers were selling SKS's anywhere from 79 to 99 dollars per gun and 7.62x39 ammo back then was under a 100 dollars a Case(1000 to 1200 Rds) There are probably more SKS Rifles(mostly Norinco)in this Country than the old Popular 94 Winchester 30-30. Same with the Maks; they sold as cheap as 179 dollars in the early 90's. There is no Shortage of Firearms or Ammunition in many parts of this Nation and disarming a Nation that loves it Guns as much as this Country would be The Last Job you would ever want in the World...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-23-2014, 09:32 AM:
I think if the US government really wanted a gun ban to affect street crime they might try targeting the kinds of guns street criminals really use instead of the guns they see used in movies. Lots of gang members and other kinds of street criminals like cheap, sub-compact small caliber handguns. They don't look glamorous, but they're easy to obtain, hide, sell/trade and then throw away after a crime is committed.
Very few of the murders committed in the United States are perpetrated with assault rifles. You can't conceal an assault rifle. A good one tends to be pretty expensive. I saw some interesting statistics from the FBI showing consistently more people were killed with blunt weapons like hammers & clubs than rifles (assault & single shot bolt action rifles combined). In 2005, 445 people in the US were killed with rifles while 605 were killed with blunt objects. In 2011, 323 were killed with rifles and 496 murders were committed with blunt objects.
By the way, the homicide rate in the US isn't what it used to be. Last year there were 14,827 murders in the United States, and that's actually an increase over the previous few years. The rise in violent crime in recent years may have something to do with the economic downturn that started in 2006. Back in 1980 this country had over 30,000 murders -and that's with a population of 226 million back then versus 317 million now. Back in 1990 New York City had over 2000 murders in the 5 boroughs; last year the city had under 500 murders. Politicians pushing for tighter gun control laws usually don't bring up those statistics.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Yeah, but unless some kind of zombie movie-esque cataclysmic event precedes the situation, a chainsaw is something very few people will carry in public to defend themselves let alone, bring it to a movie theater.
Who said anything about using a chainsaw as a personal defense weapon? I'm talking about dangerous tools people just use in everyday life.
People have to use chainsaws to cut big tree branches in their yards, particularly after a severe storm has made a mess of things. Around 30,000 people in the United States are injured every year in chainsaw accidents; a good number of those accidents come from the logging industry with workers who have a lot of practice using chainsaws. Nail guns, circular saws, table saws and even ladders are dangerous, yet widely available and require no licensing or training of any kind to purchase. I don't have to worry about my handgun flipping back 180° to shoot me in the face when I fire it. Anyone using a chainsaw has to watch out of all kinds of unpredictable shit, particularly kick back.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-23-2014, 01:57 PM:
I remember about 10 years or so ago a similar incident happened at a picnic ground
at one of the wineries here in Northern California- - a gun fell out some guys
pants, went off, and seriouly injured some other guy having lunch with his family.
The injured man succesfully sued the winery for a sh_tload of money for not
having a "no guns allowed" sign posted. (Lawyers!)
Not sure what happened to the guy who couldn't keep his gun in his pants.
Statistically speaking, your chances of not getting shot are still much better
in a movie theater than at a high school, as recent news events can confirm.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-23-2014, 02:21 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Who said anything about using a chainsaw as a personal defense weapon? I'm talking about dangerous tools people just use in everyday life.
The difference is, people use those tools themselves and they primarily risk themselves. Nothing is going to hold you back stabbing yourself with a knife or burning yourself with a blowtorch.
Before you bring your firearm into a public space, you'd better know how to use the thing, or else you're not just a danger to yourself, but also many people around you.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't have to worry about my handgun flipping back 180° to shoot me in the face when I fire it.
But apparently there is crap out there that fires just when being dropped. That supposedly only happens in movies...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-23-2014, 03:02 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Before you bring your firearm into a public space, you'd better know how to use the thing, or else you're not just a danger to yourself, but also many people around you.
So that's a comforting thought. I would expect about 80% of the people carrying guns around are "a danger to many people around them" because I think, trained or not, they don't have the mental capacity to be in a shoot-or-don't-shoot situation and handle it correctly. A lot of "manly men" would either go nuts shooting too soon, or be trembling in their loafers if they got into a situation where they actually had to point their gun at someone and consider firing it. Making split-second life or death decisions under stress is not the average guy's strong suit. This is why we have things like the Zimmerman case.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-23-2014, 03:34 PM:
Well there are always exceptions in Firearm Misfires even on the Best of Firearms. I've seen Quality S/A handguns like Beretta 92's 96's, Glock 17's,19's,20's,22's,Sig-Sauer 226's,228's,229's,Walther P5's, H&K P7's Browning Hi-power P35's,etc. Many of which have a safety system where the Firing pin is completely out of Registration with the Hammer yet accidental Discharges still occurred. Much of this sometimes occurs with people who do their own reloading and are careless with not seating Primers correctly. A primer is just a miniature version of a blasting cap using Shock sensitive chemicals like Potassium Chlorate and mercury or silver fulminate. That's what makes a primer go off in the first place; being hit or jarred to the point where the 2 shock sensitive chemicals create a detonation which intern ignites the powder charge in the Cartridge case.
Actually it's pretty amazing that you don't have more ammunition accidents than what is reported in the industry. Fulminates are so sensitive they can ignite at the drop of a hat. If you remember the days of the little cracker balls kids threw down on the sidewalks that made a small pop/explosion; that was the fulminate being shocked by the impact on the sidewalk or any hard surface causing the explosion.
Theoretically the quality control on Factory Ammo is so good this would rarely ever happen but it occassionly does. You can't just have the attitude that I have a Top Notch 800 to 1200+ dollar Handgun and think you are excluded from ever having an accidental discharge even with your safety on. Firearm safety for a big part is too much taken for granted;Gun owners still need to use competence as well as common sense when carrying/handling any Firearm.
Bobby is right on much of gang violence using these cheap junk throw away type Firearms in crime. Most reputable Gun stores don't want anything to do with the likes of Ravens,Jennings,Hi-points,etc. just to name a few. they've been a detrement to the Firearms industry for decades. Most of the time their not reliable enough to be considered a home defense weapon. They Jam at the drop of a hat and quality ammunition sometines cost as much or more as the firearm. People that buy these usually buy throw away Ammo like the aluminum case BLAZER Ammo which makes these guns jam constantly. I wish they were completely banned from the Industry. The Firearms Mfgers(all of them) have so many lawsuits against them they don't even question if you have a problem or malfunction on your Handgun or Rifle. They will usually FedEx a Box for you to ship back to the Factory and repairs or replacements are rarely ever charged to the Owner...
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2014, 03:37 PM:
President Reagan was surrounded by how many of the world's best trained security guards? Not a single one got their gun out in time to stop the shooter. Which probably saved a few bystanders from injury. They did wrestle him to the ground. And if the book "Blink" is to believed, this led to them being trained to NOT go for their guns, go for the shooter.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-23-2014, 10:59 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Here in the United States cars kill and injure a hell of a lot more people every year than guns. People use cars very frequently in their daily lives. An American's odds of getting hurt or killed in some kind of car accident are quite a lot higher than getting hurt or killed by a handgun. And that's even with most people having a license and insurance.
However, I'd be interested to know what proportion of those hurt or killed in car accidents were involved in accidents that were caused by someone who was not properly licensed and/or insured. I don't know what the situation is like here, but in the years before I left Britain accidents caused by uninsured drivers were a big and growing problem. The insurance industry ran a program to cover the claims of the innocent victims of such accidents (i.e. third party drivers who were insured and found to be not at fault, or non-drivers such as pedestrians and cyclists who were the victims of uninsured drivers), and the cost of it was widely blamed for driving up the cost of insurance premiums. It was estimated that the average driver paid about £30 ($50 ish) on each policy for this.
Likewise, one of the major arguments that is often used against gun control is that the main effect of is to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to own guns, but that it has little impact on those who are prepared to break the law, i.e. armed criminals. That argument is certainly supported by what seems to be happening here. My local paper (the San Bernardino Sun) has a report virtually every day of an armed robbery or domestic violence incident involving a gun of some description, and in almost every case the perpetrator, if caught, is charged with illegal firearm possession along with whatever mischief he (or occasionally, she) was actually causing with the thing.
The essence of this incident - someone causing trouble with a fiream they are in possession of legally - seems to be to be the exception rather than the rule. It's the firearms that are owned illegally that cause most of the problems.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-24-2014, 05:13 PM:
Isn't car insurance mandatory (legal minimum being third party insurance) in Britain as it is in practically all E.U. countries?
Around here the penalty process for uninsured vehicles is fully automated, they run it against several central databases. Also, with all this license plate scanning stuff going on, the chance of them pulling you over is rather large. If your car isn't insured even for a couple of days, you will get a hefty fine (something like at least EUR 400) if it was the first time they got you and if it's a "repeat offense", you usually end up in court as it is actually considered a crime. You might even lose your driving license and/or car as a result...
The fact that your own car insurance always covers the costs for accidents you didn't cause, even if the other party isn't insured is probably a good thing, even if it drove up the costs a bit. What good is insurance, if they always have a reason not to pay you when the shit hits the fan? Maybe it is better to pay the real cost of protection. There will always be people gaming the system, but insurance is also about being protected for those cases.
It's getting a bit political now, but regarding the whole discussion about guns, gun control, etc. I don't have all the background information, but let's just have a look at the "cold hard numbers":
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population
United Kingdom: 0.25 (2010)
Germany: 1.24 (2010)
Netherlands: 0.46 (2010)
United States: 10.3 (2011)
From the countries on this little list, the U.K. has by far the most restrictive gun control laws (even normal police officers don't carry guns), closely followed by the Netherlands. Germany also has restrictive gun control laws, but less strict than the U.K and the Netherlands. It may all be purely coincidental and there surely are other factors that count, but I do see a trend, don't you?
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 05-24-2014, 06:59 PM:
Marcel, you DO know how this is going to end, don't you?
- Carsten
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-24-2014, 08:20 PM:
If you watch the Reagan Assassination attempt by Hinkley; you will notice after the shots are fired and Hinkley has been wrestled to the Sidewalk; a SS Agent is holding a UZI 9MM Sub-machine Gun. He is trying to get the weapon cocked as they use an open bolt type firing system like many Select fire Automatics.
He really looked like Amateur Hour doing this; but since situations like this rarely happen I'm sure he like the other Agents were in a Panic situation not knowing if there could be more than one gunman trying to assassinate the President.
Non-Uniformed Agents aren't trained to get in Gun Fights with Assassins. They are there to take a bullet if necessary to protect the life of who ever they are assigned to protect. This just doesn't apply to the President or VP. They protect the Seretary,Speaker of the House,and usually Head Cabinet Members along with Heads of States and a number of so called Big Shots that makeup our Government. Now the Uniformed Secret Service which IMHO are a Joke and should still be relagated to looking for Counterfeit Currency being Treasury Agents as they all are. They will shoot you and in a number of cases have been a little too quick on the draw.
Since modern day Assaination Attempts on Presidents rarely are in the range Hinkley was to Reagan;I'm sure they were more than surprised and in a Panic mode that they never thought would happen on their Watch. The only way a President could really be free from these Attempts on their life is to stay in the White House 24/7 and conduct business via the WWW which is unrealistic for a head of state to do in this day and age. So they will always be a Target by some extremist or Nut Case looking for their 15 minutes of fame...
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-27-2014, 02:13 AM:
quote: Carsten Kurz
Marcel, you DO know how this is going to end, don't you?
Probably in a good old fashioned Mexican Standoff? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2014, 10:38 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It's getting a bit political now, but regarding the whole discussion about guns, gun control, etc. I don't have all the background information, but let's just have a look at the "cold hard numbers":
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population
United Kingdom: 0.25 (2010)
Germany: 1.24 (2010)
Netherlands: 0.46 (2010)
United States: 10.3 (2011)
It's easy to put some big statistics on a page and not say what the numbers really mean, much less admit there are some apples to oranges comparisons taking place.
Most people would look at those numbers above and automatically assume the 10.3 deaths yearly out of 100,000 statistic in the U.S. is all from crime. Less than 1/3 of those gun related deaths in the United States come from criminal activity. Some of it comes from gun handling negligence. Most of it comes from suicide.
The United States currently ranks 33rd in the world in suicide rate. A bunch of countries, including developed ones like Finland, France, Japan and South Korea, have higher suicide rates than the United States. The availability of guns in the United States may give people here an additional choice in how to end it all, but the numbers from other countries with far more restrictive gun control laws prove people are resourceful in finding other methods to take their own life.
Gun availability alone does not automatically equate to a high crime rate or rate rate of gun deaths. Canada is a very interesting example. Firearms are just about as easy to obtain in Canada as in the United States, yet Canada has a far lower homicide rate than the United States (currently 1.6 per 100,000 in Canada versus 4.8 per 100,000 in the US -2012 numbers).
The United States has the highest homicide rate out of developed nations, but that has far more to do with culture than it does with gun availability. The United States brings in more immigrants than any other developed nation. We're practically a nation of immigrants. That includes immigrants from many developing nations with much higher homicide rates. The United States has spent much of its history importing Europe's tired, poor, huddled masses. It shipped in millions from Africa for use as slave labor. In more recent decades most of the United States' immigrants have come from Mexico, Central America and Asia. The United States has benefited tremendously from its immigration policies, but having the world's biggest "melting pot" has carried consequences too. This country has to deal with a lot of complex social issues due to clashing cultures and classes. Issues like poverty and racism aren't hidden away like they are in so many other nations. Add to this the value our country puts on individualism. Even if no one in America had guns we would still have the highest homicide rate in all of the developed world.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2014, 11:39 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Most people would look at those numbers above and automatically assume the 10.3 deaths yearly out of 100,000 statistic in the U.S. is all from crime. Less than 1/3 of those gun related deaths in the United States come from criminal activity. Some of it comes from gun handling negligence. Most of it comes from suicide.
I'm sure this is true. I've never heard of anyone being shot to death in this town I live in, but I can think of several local people who committed suicide with guns.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-28-2014, 12:28 PM:
Firearms have always been an easy target for politicians and anti-gun people who want them banned.Every time you Ban something you make the situation worse because US Citizens don't really want Federal and state government telling them what they can and can't have or do. Prohibition is a perfect example; there were more speak easy's in Chicago and other major Cities than there were legal establishments before and after prohibition was lifted.
Like it or not we are a violent nation and if someone is determined to hurt or kill someone/s they will find another alternative if they can't access a firearm. When someone gets in a 4000+ lb Cadillac and decides to mow down a group of children on a playground or pedestrians on a sidewalk; I don't ever hear Politicians wanting to ban or regulate the particular Automobile used in the Crime.
Any type of a Weapon whether it be a Firearm,Knife,or even a rolling pin,can't by itself commit a crime, it's the human element that intervenes as these are just an object or tool that has no will of it's own or brain to commit any type of Crime.Human beings have been this way going back as far as CAIN & ABEL and I don't really see any forseeable change especially with an epidemic Drug Culture that only seems to get worse as time goes on....
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-28-2014, 12:34 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
I don't ever hear Politicians wanting to ban or regulate the particular Automobile used in the Crime.
Automobiles of all types are heavily, heavily regulated already. Much more so than guns. And you can't "open carry" a car into a movie theatre, or restaurant. No one would even think of doing so (ok, drive-ins of both types excepted).
At the very least, guns should have the same basic regs as cars: License, Registration, Insurance. And all of them revokable.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-28-2014, 01:34 PM:
not really about guns, but AMC Tyson's in just one week's time has had two separate incidents of bottle bombs exploding with people in attendance:
Tyson's Movie Theater Evacuated Again, After Second 'Soda Bottle Bomb' Incident in One Week
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-28-2014, 05:04 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's easy to put some big statistics on a page and not say what the numbers really mean, much less admit there are some apples to oranges comparisons taking place.
I did note that there is more to the show than just the plain numbers. For example, if a society is already inherently corrupt, the any gun control law is just a meaningless piece of paper.
But let's get back to the start of the discussion, it started with a gun randomly firing in a theater. The owner of the gun most likely never intended to commit a crime, so some of those non-crime related numbers also count in this particular discussion.
My personal objection isn't the laws themselves, I haven't any say in it anyway. It's your "God given" right to decide for yourself and if the majority doesn't want to give up their freedoms to own and carry firearms without any further regulation, it's their choice. My personal objection is primarily due to the fact that those laws are often defended with flawed arguments, like: The world is a safer place without any gun control laws. Although the definitive answer to that argument is hardly black and white, I'm pretty sure there is compelling evidence that in most cases, strict(er) gun control will at least have some impact. Even knowing this, you can still decide that your freedoms outweigh the potential risks, it's a decision that's been taken on may other subjects too. Sometimes you decide to "pay the price", because the alternative is considered worse.
quote: Steve Matz
Firearms have always been an easy target for politicians and anti-gun people who want them banned.Every time you Ban something you make the situation worse because US Citizens don't really want Federal and state government telling them what they can and can't have or do.
Luckily, "the law" still tells people what they can and can't do. Some people might find anarchy an appealing way of life, until they experience what it actually implies...
Prohibition is a perfect example of over-regulation gone bad. Banning alcohol was a stupid move. Some may claim that banning cannabis is an equally bad move. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But you have to draw a line somewhere, or would you actually prefer to deregulate everything? Would you prefer living in a world where heroin and enriched uranium can be bought at the local grocery store?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-28-2014, 07:22 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
Like it or not we are a violent nation
Oh come on now, that is ridiculous. The vast majority of people in this country don't tend to violence at all.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-28-2014, 07:58 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
Like it or not we are a violent nation
And like it or not, there are developed countries that have higher rates of overall violent crime incidents per 100,000 people than the US.
And like it or not, the rates in the US of violent crimes are dropping year after year, overall. And this change has been most dramatic in DC, which had its 2012 reported intentional homicide rate be 1/3 of that from 2000 (granted, it's still higher than the rest of the country, but from what I know it's improving still).
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-28-2014, 08:18 PM:
Well Mike, apparently you don't get out of Montana Much. Look at Cities like Chicago,Washington DC,New Orleans,Philidelphia. These Cities have more Homicides in one year than Montana has seen in a Hundred years. The Los Angeles Morgue at any one time has more Homicide Victims than you can imagine.Just because you live in a peaceful little town like Forsyth doesn't mean it's that way all over this Country...
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-28-2014, 08:33 PM:
Of the 4 people I know who have died suddenly of something other than "natural causes":
Two committed suicide. One by gun, one by self-inflicted carbon monixide poisioning;
One was stabbed to death during a robbery;
One shot himself, accidently. (never play with & try to clean a loaded weapon!)
I'm not sure more laws would have made a difference to any of them.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-29-2014, 12:45 AM:
I don't think Mike was saying that there are no cities that have higher crime than where he is, but rather that the vast majority of people as a whole no matter where they are from are not violent. And even if most cities had high crime similar to LA, it's still true that most people in those cities aren't the ones causing the crime...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-29-2014, 01:10 AM:
Exactly. Steve, the "big cities" have millions and millions of people, OF COURSE there are going to be more "crime victims" at any given time than in a small town. But 99% or more of people are not committing violent crimes. To say that the U.S. is a "violent nation" is just not true.
Do we have a lot of shootings? Yes, way too many. But it's not as if it happens everywhere every day.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-29-2014, 01:21 AM:
Also, there's the issue that gun deaths have been on the decline for years and years, where the reports in the media always look at the big shootings.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-29-2014, 04:23 AM:
quote: Steve Matz
Well Mike, apparently you don't get out of Montana Much. Look at Cities like Chicago,Washington DC,New Orleans,Philidelphia. These Cities have more Homicides in one year than Montana has seen in a Hundred years. The Los Angeles Morgue at any one time has more Homicide Victims than you can imagine.Just because you live in a peaceful little town like Forsyth doesn't mean it's that way all over this Country...
About 1M people live in Montana. In 2012, there were 27 murders.
About 17M people live in the metropolitan area of Los Angeles, in 2012 a total of 298 murders took place.
If you look at the statistics of the last years, the murder rate in Montana averages around that number. If you look at the same numbers in Los Angeles, you'll see it's actually declining.
So, going by those statistics alone, the chance of getting murdered is higher in Montana than in Los Angeles by a wide margin...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-29-2014, 10:12 AM:
You goofed on the crime stats from Los Angeles.
Those 298 murders you mentioned took place only within the city limits of Los Angeles itself, not the entire metropolitan statistical area. Los Angeles alone has 3,792,621 residents (2010 US Census). It's a little more subjective over what makes up a city's metro area. I've seen one figure for Greater LA having 18 million people while another MSA figure for LA-Long Beach-Anaheim showing 12.8 million people. Los Angeles County has just under 10 million people as of the 2010 US Census.
Lots of cities, big and small, have their bad neighborhoods. There's zones here in Lawton I wouldn't fart around in unless I had a good reason to be there. Nevertheless I'd fell a lot safer strolling through a bad neighborhood in Billings than I would strolling through Compton neighborhood in LA.
It is worth saying the homicide rate in LA is down quite a lot from previous highs. The current rate is 7.8 homicides per 100,000 people per year. That's way down from the high of 34.8 homicides per 100,000 people rate in 1980.
quote: Martin McCaffery
Automobiles of all types are heavily, heavily regulated already. Much more so than guns.
The fact is automobiles NEED to be more regulated than guns. They've been killing more Americans than guns. Cars are used far more frequently by their owners than guns. An automobile is a far more complex device than a gun. It has far more moving parts, including many parts that wear out over time. They require a lot of maintenance. I'm not too pleased at how computerized cars have become. If they get too much more complicated than this drivers will need to run through a pre-drive checklist before driving anywhere. There's a lot of benefits to owning a car, but our country has to spend a huge fortune building and maintaining an infrastructure of streets & highways for those things. Cars not only need to be regulated, but also must be taxed to pay for all that infrastructure. Automobiles inflict a pretty high environmental cost, high enough that they could be contributing to health problems and deaths. We at least know some people use their cars as a tool in suicide.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm pretty sure there is compelling evidence that in most cases, strict(er) gun control will at least have some impact. Even knowing this, you can still decide that your freedoms outweigh the potential risks, it's a decision that's been taken on may other subjects too. Sometimes you decide to "pay the price", because the alternative is considered worse.
Unfortunately the issue of gun control in the United States is often framed by people on both extremes of the argument: the side who wants no controls at all on guns versus the side who wants to ban gun ownership. They both have their agendas whether they want to admit it or not. Neither side seems interested in any reasonable, middle ground solution where Americans are still able to own guns but they are regulated sensibly. Our news media prefers this arrangement because it makes for more entertaining screaming matches on talk shows. The media believes a sensible discussion would be boring for couch potatoes. And they might be right.
I own guns for two reasons. They're fun to shoot and they're useful for personal defense. Target shooting is a fun and challenging sport. I have a lot of friends who hunt & fish, but I'm not really into that. Regarding the personal defense angle: only I can protect myself. No matter how a local police department tries, it can't really live up to that "to protect and serve" motto. Cops are rarely ever able to prevent a crime from happening. Cops are only there, after the fact, to investigate the crime, find the perpetrator and bring him to justice. That's fine for preserving the greater good of society. But that's absolutely useless to me if I get murdered in the process.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 05-29-2014, 09:02 PM:
Well I've sold Firearms&Explosives since 1983 so I get a lot of inside Industry statistics.First of all there is not one American Firearms Maker,and that covers everyone from the Junk Makers to the Legitimate long time Mfgers like(Remington,Colt,Ruger,S&W,Browning,Savage,just to name a few)that have enough Lawsuits against them to choke an Elephant.
99% of these Lawsuits are not from defective or malfunctioning firearms.They are from Families/Relatives who had one of their Members Fatally Shot or Severly injured by a Criminal who happen to be using their Brand of Firearm.So if Every Gunmaker in America is being Sued;even the ones that don't make Military Style assault weapons then what does that say about the Violence in our Nation. When I said we are a Violent Nation I didn't mean we are a bunch of Barbarians;but a Country that prides itself as being Above ordinary in intelligence,being sophisicated,and educated compared to 3rd world countries; we have way too many Fatalities related to Violence.
Just because a Major City's Homicide rate went down a percent or so doesn't make me feel any better that a person is being Killed every other day rather than one a day.Thats like telling Citizens that they should feel a lot safer now from Nuclear Disarmament between Russia and the US;saying we now only have enough Nukes to blow up the World 5 times over verses the amount we had previously to blow it up 10 times over.That statement really makes me feel at ease.
Of course a small city like Billings can't be compared to the likes of L.A.,NEW YORK,CHICAGO,etc. but even our little town has had it's share of Shootings. In fact our Police Force has had more Officer Involved Fatal shootings in the last 2 years than 20 years previous.Most of this Violent Crime I still attribute to
Drugs. METH probably being in 1st place followed by old standby's like Cocaine and Heroin which is making a comeback because of it's Cheap Price and availability.
I guess most of us should be thankful that we live in communities where we don't hear Gunfire Nightly in our Neighborhoods or see Ambulances every few days responding to Crime Victims.People in this Country especially inner city people who feel like sardines from massive population tend to be
more on edge and react to things like Road Rage or even as something as Trivial as the Ex-cop shooting someone for Texting in a Movie Theater.Hopefully every Firearm I've sold through the years has only been used for Hunting,Target Shooting,and Home defense situation.Sueing Gun Mfger's and Dealers doesn't stop Criminals from being Violent;That just seems to be their Nature...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-30-2014, 04:32 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
Just because a Major City's Homicide rate went down a percent or so doesn't make me feel any better that a person is being Killed every other day rather than one a day.
Any homicide or untimely death is tragic, and especially so when you know the victim. Nevertheless, these statistics are worth measuring and progress is definitely worth reporting, even though the media rarely likes to do that in terms of violent crime. They love inflaming the situation, making viewers scared.
New York City is a hell of a lot safer now than when I lived there. They've cut their homicide rate down to 1/5th what it was back in the early 1990s. The 5 boroughs were registering over 2000 murders per year. In 2013 the 5 boroughs had 333 murders, a 20 percent drop from the total of 417 in 2012. That's pretty amazing for a city of 8.3 million people, particularly one with notorious neighborhoods like Harlem, Bedford Stuyvesant, Brownsville and the South Bronx. That gives NYC a homicide rate of 4.11 per 100,000 people. That's very close to the nation-wide average for the United States, but well below the typical averages for large cities.
quote: Steve Matz
Most of this Violent Crime I still attribute to Drugs. METH probably being in 1st place followed by old standby's like Cocaine and Heroin which is making a comeback because of it's Cheap Price and availability.
Drugs and alcohol do contribute immensely to all kinds of violent crime. Detached apathy from still law abiding citizens contributes to it as well. Drug addicts and criminals are enabled in some way to do the destructive things they do. They have various safety nets they're mooching from in order to preserve their habits. They will only clean up their acts out of necessity when those safety nets are removed.
A lot of illegal drug use would be eliminated if most work places randomly drug tested their employees and had tough policies for violators. More of it would be eliminated if family members got tough with loved ones who are using rather than give them a free place to live and eat (this is obviously easier said than done; there's a lot of co-dependency taking place in those situations). Neighborhood watch and community policing programs do work. Looking the other way and not getting involved does not work. It also helps if a city or town's police department strives to have a positive relationship with the community.
New York City was hitting record high numbers of murders at the end of the 1980's and into the early 1990's when crack cocaine was very popular. It took a lot of different efforts combined together to make progress.
Tougher jail sentences have made progress in some areas, but we have a huge prison population of nearly 2.4 million people. The most serious charge for more than 50% of prisoners is drug possession or drug distribution. Eventually most of those prisoners get released. They often re-offend and end up back in jail or prison for various reasons. If they already have a felony on their record that makes it even more likely they'll go back to prison. A lot of opportunities in life are permanently eliminated once you have a felony on your record.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-09-2014, 04:24 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
You goofed on the crime stats from Los Angeles.
Maybe the on-line paper I got them from goofed on them, but I did not.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Lots of cities, big and small, have their bad neighborhoods. There's zones here in Lawton I wouldn't fart around in unless I had a good reason to be there. Nevertheless I'd fell a lot safer strolling through a bad neighborhood in Billings than I would strolling through Compton neighborhood in LA.
It was part of my point though... It's the nice thing about statistics, they all to often hide the underlying causes. Maybe most people that "don't belong there" are smart enough to avoid those neighborhoods in L.A.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The media believes a sensible discussion would be boring for couch potatoes. And they might be right.
The problem with commercial media is that it will only go for the stories that give the required amount of eyeballs or their owners have a vested interest in. But blaming it all on the media is probably a bad excuse, I guess people have just generally become to lazy and as long as it's not in their backyard yet, they don't bother. Every now and then they will all collectively scream out on it, and as soon as it has left the headlines, it's been forgotten and buried. This is not a U.S. exclusive, it's a "Western World" thing and we're globalizing it, so it's probably just a human thing...
quote: Bobby Henderson
I own guns for two reasons. They're fun to shoot and they're useful for personal defense. Target shooting is a fun and challenging sport. I have a lot of friends who hunt & fish, but I'm not really into that. Regarding the personal defense angle: only I can protect myself. No matter how a local police department tries, it can't really live up to that "to protect and serve" motto.
It seems that you at least have some practice. You know how to use your firearms, you know how to aim, you probably also have a sense to distinguish between the good and the bad guys. How many people that own guns have those same qualities? And what would they eventually achieve in a situation that would allow the use of a gun as self-defense?
And that's actually the only point I want to make. Just like a car, a gun is a tool that requires at least some training for safe handling and it could probably also benefit from insurance...
I'm almost wondering why half of the industry isn't lobbying for mandatory training, licensing and insurance, there's billions to be made here .
quote: Bobby Henderson
Tougher jail sentences have made progress in some areas, but we have a huge prison population of nearly 2.4 million people. The most serious charge for more than 50% of prisoners is drug possession or drug distribution. Eventually most of those prisoners get released. They often re-offend and end up back in jail or prison for various reasons. If they already have a felony on their record that makes it even more likely they'll go back to prison. A lot of opportunities in life are permanently eliminated once you have a felony on your record.
It's another political discussion entirely, but I guess it has been proven all over the world that prison for "minor" felonies like drug possession (not dealing) doesn't do anybody any good. Those people don't leave prison as a better person. Also, I doubt that those non-erasable criminal records for those kind of felonies are helping anybody.
Some people make mistakes, once they've "paid the price" and it is clear they learned their lessons, they should become normal part of society again or else those people will become a permanent problem, you're practically forcing them to lead a criminal existence.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 06-10-2014, 12:05 AM:
Well if your a State like Montana that uses the Prison System as it's Major Source of State Income then most of it's inmate's either in the Main Prison in Deer Lodge or the Regional Prisons they added in the 90's will stay in the System one way or another. Bobby is correct in that most of the Inmate Population here is for Drug Related Offences. Usually Possession or Small Time Distribution. The system knows that a majority of these inmates that go to Pre-Releases or get Paroled will re-affend in weeks or Months and that's what they want because the state doesn't make money off of you if your Free. At the Rate of anywhere from 60 to 90 dollars a day the DOC gets from the State on each inmate you can see it's just a big money Business.It ceased being a real Justice System about 20 years ago.
They make the inmates take numerous Chemical Dependency Groups along with CP&R Classes, and every other type of Group where someone in the System gets Thousands of Dollars for overseeing these so called Self-help Groups.Many of these inmates have no intention of changing their ways and just jump through the Hoops to get where they want to be. But they always get caught again and are right back in the System where the State is just as Happy for them to be There. I once heard a Fellow say Montana's Judicial/Justice System is like "FLY PAPER" Easy to get on but try and get out of it. Believe me I have no sympathy for Drug Dealers,users,etc. But we have over crowed prisons that Need to concentrate on who should really be in Prison. Murders,Rapists,Child Molesters should be at the top of the List.Sending someone to Prison for Smoking Marijuana while a Sex Affender is still roaming the Streets is not an efficient way to run a Prison System. If the Tax Payers in this State knew How much of their Money was going to this Corrupt Moneymaking only top Priority Business they would quit paying their Taxes.It's pretty Sad that people are being sentenced to Prison while some of the same people that Arrested them are doing the Same thing but because they are law enforcement they rarely even get a wrist Slap while Joe Citizen can get Years of incarceration ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-10-2014, 08:54 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe the on-line paper I got them from goofed on them, but I did not.
The problem is you used those dubious numbers to claim Montana is more dangerous than Los Angeles in a murders per capita basis. Those numbers were just asking to be double-checked, which is something you probably should have done before making the claim rather than giving me the opportunity to point out the mistake.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It was part of my point though... It's the nice thing about statistics, they all to often hide the underlying causes. Maybe most people that "don't belong there" are smart enough to avoid those neighborhoods in L.A.
Most people have always avoided neighborhoods where they don't belong, especially the bad zones. When it comes to crimes like murder, it often takes place between people who know each other. And even when it doesn't the perpetrator and victim are still often of the same race and socio-economic background.
I can't help but laugh a little at the suburbanites in my town who wring their hands and make statements like, "I guess I'll need to move," whenever a murder is committed here in Lawton. Why are they worried at all? Unless they're hanging aroud dangerous people their chances of falling victim to a violent crime like murder are really pretty low.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The problem with commercial media is that it will only go for the stories that give the required amount of eyeballs or their owners have a vested interest in. But blaming it all on the media is probably a bad excuse, I guess people have just generally become to lazy and as long as it's not in their backyard yet, they don't bother.
The media is ultimately screwing itself in the long term. It's aiming its content at lowest common denominator audiences. Meanwhile, the better educated, more affluent viewers which advertisers want to reach the most are pushed away by all that garbage. Cable/satellite TV service prices have gone way up over the past decade, putting a squeeze on those lowest common denominator audiences. And the folks who are better able to afford the service increasingly care less about it.
If it wasn't for certain live sports programs and a few shows on HBO I wouldn't have cable TV at all. Unfortunately this syndrome of trash TV has hijacked America's political process and painted an exaggerated picture of reality in America to viewers.
I kind of feel sorry for kids these days. So many are far more sheltered and shadowed by their parents than my brother and I were when we were kids. The fear-mongering from the media has conditioned parents to be this way. We had all kinds of freedom and independence that kids these days do not, despite the fact that times were actually quite a bit more dangerous than they are now. Back then we didn't have 24 hour cartoon channels, the Internet and high quality game consoles. We had to go outside to play. But we also didn't have our parents attending every baseball, soccer and football practice either.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It seems that you at least have some practice. You know how to use your firearms, you know how to aim, you probably also have a sense to distinguish between the good and the bad guys. How many people that own guns have those same qualities? And what would they eventually achieve in a situation that would allow the use of a gun as self-defense?
If a person is in a situation that requires him to grab his gun out of his bedroom night stand or the console in his car the "bad guy" is already probably doing something to make it obvious he is the bad guy.
The real issues, which demand some education, training and practice on part of the gun owner, is being able to act at the moment of truth rather than hesitating and take action legally. A lot of people have serious misconceptions over the legal use of deadly force. Some of those misconceptions get home owners charged with murder.
quote: Steve Matz
Bobby is correct in that most of the Inmate Population here is for Drug Related Offences. Usually Possession or Small Time Distribution. The system knows that a majority of these inmates that go to Pre-Releases or get Paroled will re-affend in weeks or Months and that's what they want because the state doesn't make money off of you if your Free. At the Rate of anywhere from 60 to 90 dollars a day the DOC gets from the State on each inmate you can see it's just a big money Business.It ceased being a real Justice System about 20 years ago.
There's all kinds of things that need to be changed in the criminal justice system. Right now it's a farce where someone with enough money can get away with murder and an innocent person with not much money can get wrongly convicted.
America's prison population is an ever worsening burden to taxpayers. Prisons are indeed big business. And there is some incentive to keep the same convicts rotating in and out of those jails. Unfortunately, the failure of the criminal justice system of actually rehabilitating inmates sometimes results in other people becoming crime victims at the hands of those convicts.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 06-11-2014, 12:34 AM:
I've seen instances where even the most Knowledgable and Firearms Savey Individuals,and this includes trained law enforcement Officers have everything they learned,been taught,and practiced basically go out the window when they were confronted with something like a home invasion or dealing with a deadly force confrontation.
When your out learning to shoot your Firearm or watching Videos of Situations that might possibly happen to you one day; your still in an environment where there is no danger to yourself or Family. You can't really Train for a home invasion because if it happened it still wouldn't be something that you most likely thought would ever happen to you.
When it does your Adrenaline is going beserk and your heart is pumping a hundred miles an hour because you are now in a situation where life and limb of yourself and family may be on the line.This is when instances of Questionable Judgement come in, along with tunnel vision where everything else around you is oblivious and your terrified because as humans our natural instinct is for self preservation. This is the kind of situation where a Father ends up shooting his own Daughter who had snuck out earlier to be with her boyfriend and then is mistaken for an invader by the Father.Uncontrolable Fear is something no video or safety class will have control of your immediate instincts.This is where the Argument comes in about keeping Firearms in the Home for Protection. Most of us will never have violence or situations in our homes where we would ever need to produce a firearm; however saying that the incident mentioned above couldn't happen to you because you are knowledgable of Firearms,have taken every safety course in the book and would know how to control the situation. It comes down to the old saying Don't judge til you've walked in that person's shoes.
I've talked with Police Officers who were in Deadly Force Situations who swore they only fired their weapon 2 or 3 times when in fact they emptied the Clip.The emotion that a person goes through when they believe they could be killed or severely injured is still something you can never train for or practice. it's just something you hope you will never have to experience in your lifetime...
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-11-2014, 09:44 AM:
Yahoo News
quote: Yahoo News
Annapolis Maryland (Reuters) - A Maryland man suspected in a spate of "bottle bomb" incidents at movie theaters in the Washington, D.C., area has been arrested and charged with tossing an improvised explosive device into a cinema last month, officials said on Sunday.
Manuel Joyner, 20, has been charged with manufacturing, possessing and detonating a destructive device in a Largo, Maryland, movie theater on May 24, Prince George's County Fire officials said in a statement. The theater was cleared after the incident and there were no injuries.
"Movie theater patrons around the region can breathe a sigh of relief as a suspect has been identified and arrested for using 'bottle-bombs,'" said a statement from Prince George's County Fire/EMS.
Joyner is considered a suspect in multiple incidents at AMC theaters across the region in recent weeks, the statement said.
No one was seriously injured in any of the explosions. In one incident two weeks ago, two homemade bottle bombs exploded in a movie theater in McLean, Virginia, sending more than 2,000 frightened audience members scrambling for the exits.
Federal bomb experts were helping investigate the incidents, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said last week. The devices are usually made with the explosive mixture of baking soda and vinegar in a bottle, the spokesman said.
Joyner was arrested without incident at his home in the Washington suburb of Bowie, Maryland, late on Saturday.
The felony charges carry a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison if he is found guilty.
A spokesman for AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc, which had offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to an arrest, issued a statement thanking local and federal law enforcement.
At least nobody was killed this time.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 06-11-2014, 12:19 PM:
Mitchell's Post is another example of the Negative side of the WWW/Internet, These Looney-Tune Characters can go to a search engine and type in something like "Explosives made from Home Ingredients" I don't know if they've finally been taken down from the Net but 2 Books that were widely known and even in Public Libraries for years(THE POOR MAN'S JAMES BOND & THE ANARCHIST'S COOK BOOK) have been around for a couple decades.
They basically show someone how to make explosives from Products that you can Buy at Stores like Walmart,K-Mart,Target,etc.,Along with Plumbing Supply Stores also. I'm all for freedom of the Press but these Books have no practical Value except to entice someone to build an explosive or destructive device that could end up killing or severly injuring people.
These Young teenagers may think making Bottle Bombs to be a Prank but their unknowing Knowledge of Explosives and the Dangers they can put on the Public shows that they are the last people that should have Access to anything related to making something that explodes.
I'm hoping that they are finally cracking down on Business's(online) that sold Chemicals for making Flash Powder to Amateur Fireworks Makers. It was so easy years ago to be able to buy the 2 chemicals that are used in making Aerial Salutes used in Professional Fireworks Shows. The Power these Deflagrating type Explosives can produce is close to some of your high explosives that require detonators.
They need to get the message out there that even if you think throwing a Bottle Bomb in a theater is just a Prank;maybe a mandatory 50 year Federal Prison Sentence would change your mind about pranks. As Far as the Mentally Deranged individuals out there I don't know what can be done with them. Many of them can fool even Shrinks as to their Mental Competence...
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-11-2014, 03:29 PM:
I have been watching this thread and I am kind of on the fence in regards to gun control. I think I am leaning towards gun access as to what the issue is. People will always kill people but it is far easier to kill someone if you have easy access to a firearm than if you do not.
Where I live it is very difficult to legally buy, possess, transport and store firearms. Concealed carry is all but pretty much non existent and hand guns are generally not legal or very limited. An assault rifle purchase? I don't think that is even possible in Canada.
Canada does get it fare share of firearm related crimes but I think the United States has something like 60 times the firearm related crimes compared to Canada. (factoring out the difference in population)
What concerns me more than anything are those who falsely believe that they are trained or have the capacity to take on an armed gunman because they are carrying themselves. This is where things can get very messy and ugly for those who have watched to many movies.
Firearms do not need to be banned in the United States, but there has to be some sort of restriction to the access of firearms. It really is far to easy to access a firearm in the United States and that is pretty disturbing.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 06-11-2014, 08:52 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What concerns me more than anything are those who falsely believe that they are trained or have the capacity to take on an armed gunman because they are carrying themselves. This is where things can get very messy and ugly for those who have watched to many movies.
Perfectly Good Point Terry;The good Samaritan who got involved with the Husband and Wife who killed 2 Las Vegas Police Officers recently is Dead Now along with the Couple.People that get Carry Permits too many times get this false sense of Security that now they will be able to handle a situation that they aren't remotely trained for.This Man had good intentions because 2 Police Officers were basically Ambushed and executed but like I said earlier when Adrenaline is Flowing in situations like this;Questionable Judgement comes about also.
Montana is probably one of the Few States where Obtaining a Conceal/Carry Permit is fairly easy to obtain.You basically answer a few questions,one of which asks you why you need a
carry permit. The most Common Answer is "Its my Constitutional Right" and if the person has no Felony Convictions and looks reasonably Mentally Competent he pays his 75 Dollars(may be higher now) and he has the permit. Fortunately so far there hasn't been any incidents where a Permit Holder has Fatally Shot someone but just because your carrying a Firearm whether it be a 9mm or 44mag.doesn't mean your going to prevail in a deadly force situation. In fact your more likely to be injured or fatally wounded yourself...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-11-2014, 10:06 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
I've seen instances where even the most Knowledgable and Firearms Savey Individuals,and this includes trained law enforcement Officers have everything they learned,been taught,and practiced basically go out the window when they were confronted with something like a home invasion or dealing with a deadly force confrontation.
Such an experience will scare the living shit out of most people. Nothing can really prepare you 100% for it. That's why it's important to take classes, practice at the gun range and hope as much of it becomes second nature as possible. Military personnel deployed to a theater of combat have it worse. They know chances are good they'll be a bad guy's shooting target at some point. Situational awareness is the key. Home owners can take other steps to improve their odds: like installing a burglar alarm system and maybe getting a big dog. The end goal in all of this is avoiding the life threatening situation in the first place.
Some gun owners take things too far. They'll use a life threatening gunfight as an opportunity to commit murder. Nothing in any of the "stand your ground" or "make my day" laws gives anyone the explicit right to kill. Nothing. You only have the right to stop a threat. Killing should only be incidental.
Here in Oklahoma a pharmacy store owner went to prison for 1st degree murder. Two men entered his store and one of them pulled a gun intending to rob the place. The store owner pulled his gun and a firefight ensued. The store owner shot the unarmed man. The armed bad guy fled with the store owner hot on his tail, but the armed robber got away. The pharmacist came back into the store and saw the man he shot lying on the floor. So he went back to his office, reloaded his pistol, returned and shot the incapacitated man a few more times to finish him off. This was all caught on surveillance video. It was a controversial case. Lots of people here in Oklahoma wanted the store owner to walk. But if I had been sitting on that jury, I damned sure would have found him guilty of first degree, cold blooded murder.
Recently a couple of home owners have been put on trial for murder under similar circumstances. If you incapacitate an intruder, you don't have the right to reload and finish him. Unfortunately a bunch of macho twerps out there think they have the legal right to do so. Idiots.
quote: Steve Matz
I've talked with Police Officers who were in Deadly Force Situations who swore they only fired their weapon 2 or 3 times when in fact they emptied the Clip.
Police officers are often trained to fire repeatedly, even emptying an entire magazine of ammo, when seriously threatened. People rarely ever drop like they do in Hollywood movies when hit by one or two rounds of handgun fire. A bad guy, even an unarmed bad guy, might still have a lot of fight left in him until he slowly loses enough blood.
If a home owner wants a personal defense weapon he'll have to fire only once or twice, he'll need a shotgun loaded with some large ball ammo, like double-ought buck. 1 cartridge of .00 shotgun ammo in .12 or even .20 gauge is worth a magazine of handgun ammo. It'll blast a big freaking hole in something.
Unfortunately, a shotgun barrel is long and easy for a bad guy to grab if you let him get anywhere close to you. That's the handgun's advantage. The bad guy practically has to be on you to fight for your weapon.
quote: Steve Matz
The good Samaritan who got involved with the Husband and Wife who killed 2 Las Vegas Police Officers recently is Dead Now along with the Couple.People that get Carry Permits too many times get this false sense of Security that now they will be able to handle a situation that they aren't remotely trained for.
Again, it's about situational awareness. Police and military are trained to keep their head on a swivel and watch their corners. They're also trained to watch everybody, not just who they might think is a bad guy. If you introduce a gun into a life threatening situation you radically increase the danger to yourself, even if you're well trained. You gotta be ready for anything.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-12-2014, 03:37 PM:
quote: Steve Matz
Perfectly Good Point Terry;The good Samaritan who got involved with the Husband and Wife who killed 2 Las Vegas Police Officers recently is Dead Now along with the Couple.People that get Carry Permits too many times get this false sense of Security that now they will be able to handle a situation that they aren't remotely trained for.
And that's just it. The guy who was concealed carrying would probably be alive if he was not carrying. The cops had no chance, but the civilian did. And from what I understand, the police were the ones who killed the male suspect as it was not the wife.
quote: Steve Matz
The most Common Answer is "Its my Constitutional Right" and if the person has no Felony Convictions and looks reasonably Mentally Competent he pays his 75 Dollars(may be higher now) and he has the permit.
So how quick can one get a firearm? It is same day?
quote: Steve Matz
In fact your more likely to be injured or fatally wounded yourself..
I hear that accidents with firearms are pretty prevalent in the U.S.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2014, 06:53 PM:
There are a lot of gun accidents but not so many where I would say they are "prevalent."
I've lived in gun-happy Montana my whole life. In this town I'd guess about 75% of the households have firearms in them. Even so, I've never met or known anyone who has been injured in a gun accident.
Yes, come and visit the U.S., folks.....the chances you will get shot (or even shot AT) are roughly in the same neighborhood as your chances of getting struck by lightning, probably less.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-12-2014, 07:20 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Yes, come and visit the U.S., folks.....the chances you will get shot (or even shot AT) are roughly in the same neighborhood as your chances of getting struck by lightning, probably less.
Actually, the chances of being KILLED by a gun in the U.S is 3.5 per 100,000....hit by lightning is 1 in 700,000 and getting killed by a lightning strike is far more rarer than a gunshot.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-12-2014, 09:54 PM:
Given what the suicide rate is around the developed world, you have a much greater chance of killing yourself, either deliberately or accidentally, than getting murdered.
Those lightning statistics are actually crude and misleading. During thunderstorms the vast majority of people are already indoors. That skews the people stuck by lightning statistic to an extreme. Most Americans work indoors and spend too much of their leisure time indoors too. Decades ago when Americans spent a lot more time outdoors working and playing lightning strike death rates were quite a bit higher (400 or so deaths per year instead of the couple dozen now). A person can radically increase his risk of being struck by lightning by doing things like being out in the middle of a wide open field (like a golf course fairway) or boating in the middle of a lake during a thunderstorm. Those 1 in 700,000 odds are going to be a whole lot different.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2014, 03:03 PM:
OK, so I stand corrected, sort of, I guess.
I just get tired of the scare-you-to-death media and misinformed people on the Internet trying to make the whole world think the U.S. isn't a safe place to visit and you'll probably get shot (or at least see some good gun action) if you visit here. It's not true.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-13-2014, 04:36 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I just get tired of the scare-you-to-death media and misinformed people on the Internet trying to make the whole world think the U.S. isn't a safe place to visit and you'll probably get shot (or at least see some good gun action) if you visit here. It's not true.
Bummer... When I visit the U.S. I want to see gunfights and cops racing after criminals while firing out of broken windows, damn it! Just like in the movies.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2014, 06:57 PM:
Go to Cody, Wyoming. It's a tourist town with an "old west" background (founded by and named after Buffalo Bill Cody). They have a good ol'fashioned western gunfight downtown every evening in the summer.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2