I mean, talk about disproportionate responses on the part of the shooter, to horrific consequences. And according to some, it's "probably not life threateningly justified self-defense?" Wow.
I would say the shooter's probably going to get what he deserves but this is Florida we're talking about.
Since I'm not his attorney, since I'm not the jury, since I'm not the judge, since I'm not the shooter - "probably" is as good as I wish to do given the information I have on the case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I've stood up for my position. Standing up for it doesn't mean I am obligated to take on all comers. I have the right to pick and choose who I argue with.
I do not choose you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
The last thing I require for my self esteem is adulation on internet forums.
But, if you're the kind of person who easily gets his jimmies rustled so much you can't support your beliefs, lol - I didn't even flame you or say anything really insulting and you run from it lol
You came in here spouting a bunch of liberal gun grabbing rhetoric and talking points with as much factual support as oh ONE anecdotal story and some emotional gut reaction opinions. I called you on it, pointed out why your opinions are false, and since you can't refute anything I said, you'll use my slight impoliteness to run off
Good times, well done - good thing this isn't 4chan or yellow jacket, my goodness you wouldn't last a day in those delicate jimmies
No, I'm just smart enough to know the end result of arguing with people who think like you; I simply lack the desire for engaging in a zero-sum argument, which is all we'll have, seeing as how you've bandied about terms such as "naive," "asinine," and "liberal gun grabber" when discussing my opinions.
While the first two are matters of opinion, the last, as evidenced strictly by my posts in this thread, is patently false.
I can't discuss anything with someone so inherently biased that he's already assumed a position for me without even digging into my posts in this very thread.
You posit that you don't "require adulation on Internet forums." Then, why belittle me, and my opinions? Surely, YOUR beliefs are strong enough that you can express them without name-calling or assumptions.
But, it seems that's not the case. Too bad for you.
Oh, and goodbye. I've got not one word left for you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
This is not a gun debate. Keep it relevant to the topic at hand, or start a gun debate thread and move this discussion there.
That doesn't leave a whole lot to discuss then.
I say that because I am absolutely pro gun, pro self defense, and pro Stand Your Ground and I certainly don't support shooting a man for texting in a theater and/or throwing popcorn at you.
I think we can all agree that killing a man because he kind of annoyed you isn't justifiable, legal, or could - in any way - be considered the responsible use of a firearm for its intended purpose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
I say that because I am absolutely pro gun, pro self defense, and pro Stand Your Ground and I certainly don't support shooting a man for texting in a theater and/or throwing popcorn at you.
I think we can all agree that killing a man because he kind of annoyed you isn't justifiable, legal, or could - in any way - be considered the responsible use of a firearm for its intended purpose.
To be clear, you can discuss guns and gun law as it relates to this case, but this is just not the place for a long, general debate on the merits of firearms.
It's already crazy. I have to take off belt and shoes and go through metal scans to get on a boat to go to Ellis Island, which is all tourist now.
The movie theaters can have rules saying "No guns allowed!" and they can post those signs. But if they're not actually doing anything to enforce it, why bother?
It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.
All of that was before I even showed up to defend gun owners.
SO it's cool if people like 9909, and GoC call gun owners cowards, or psychos, and complain that guns need to be regulated harder, and that gun owners are "fanatics". It's totally okay for people like GoC to poison the well of debate by suggesting anyone who disagrees should have their humanity questioned...but if any gun owners show up to defends our case, suddenly the thread is veering off topic?
Not my fault people like 9909 and GoC don't actually want to defend the positions they take with any real substance.
So what should we discuss then?
I'd be happy to discuss the ANGER problem we have in America.
America definitely has an issue with violence. When it's perfectly cool to have a show on cable where a dude gets his neck sliced open with a box cutter but nipples and the F-word need to be censored you know something is just odd.
Then you have kids making games out of punching strangers, or shooting up the first car that reacts to being tailgated... People throwing punches or worse as spectators of a ball game (although Soccer has the problem too)... It seems to me that American's if not just people are just plain violent.
America definitely has an issue with violence. When it's perfectly cool to have a show on cable where a dude gets his neck sliced open with a box cutter but nipples and the F-word need to be censored you know something is just odd.
No doubt - you got like 4 activist groups jumping all over the Janet Jackson nip-slip, or even Tom Hank's F bomb, while pretty much no one complains about the rape and murders happening on CSI, L&O, and more...
Then you have kids making games out of punching strangers, or shooting up the first car that reacts to being tailgated... People throwing punches or worse as spectators of a ball game (although Soccer has the problem too)... It seems to me that American's if not just people are just plain violent.
We do have a serious issue with lack of restraint, out-of-control anger, senseless violence, and of course I believe the devaluation of human life and desensitization to suffering...
seems like a whole 'nother thread though
After all, don't they want us to stick to this particular case?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If you want to discuss my moderation, please take it to my help desk in community issues. That's what it is there for. I'm always happy to explain my actions in detail.
I probably even agree with you about THIS GUY, getting popcorn thrown at you in an argument over texting during a movie, yeah, probably not life threateningly justified self-defense.
I'd be happy to discuss the ANGER problem we have in America.
I agree. I'm not really sure how thrown popcorn escalates to a bullet. It was pretty clear that neither individual were capable of controlling their temper. But shooting a guy for texting and throwing popcorn? Throwing popcorn in a movie theater is at worst harassment, not any kind of assault. I think an insanity defense instead of a stand-your-ground defense would be more likely to succeed.
I agree. I'm not really sure how thrown popcorn escalates to a bullet. It was pretty clear that neither individual were capable of controlling their temper. But shooting a guy for texting and throwing popcorn? Throwing popcorn in a movie theater is at worst harassment, not any kind of assault. I think an insanity defense instead of a stand-your-ground defense would be more likely to succeed.
This is why I cringe whenever I hear somone say that "an armed society is a polite society". A society where I will get shot if I make someone angry would be a dystopian nightmare.
Well, if my inability to control my anger ended in something - I'd hope that all I did was cuss a little and throw some popcorn, over throwing LEAD.
This guy, if what we know turns out to be true, way way way overreacted.
Guilty of 2nd degree murder wouldn't be an overreaction by a jury.
I agree. Considering that this is the first real high-profile test of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (remember the Zimmerman case didn't actually use it in there defense), I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I doubt it will, but it's Florida.
This is why I cringe whenever I hear somone say that "an armed society is a polite society". A society where I will get shot if I make someone angry would be a dystopian nightmare.
Yeah, that's kind of a horrific scenario where rudeness, even extreme rudeness, is an excuse for a shooting. The difficult part about this case is that it's a retired police officer. Granted there are always going to be crazies, but I would expect Police Officers and former Service members to have a bit higher of a standard while open carrying. It makes it harder to justify the case for firearms when there are so many compelling anecdotal examples.
I'm pro-gun, but cases like this are why I'm hesitant about open-carry. I don't think it's a good idea to have untrained civilians with firearms in public, because they won't be able to respond properly and may end up causing more damage. I'm going to hold out this guy as an off-example, however, for the most part retired Police Officers are responsible.
I agree. Considering that this is the first real high-profile test of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (remember the Zimmerman case didn't actually use it in there defense), I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I doubt it will, but it's Florida.
Again, SYG isn't the affirmative defense. You're not being charged with the crime of "not running away".
SYG simply says you don't have to run away.
The actual defense for the crime of murder (or whatever they push for, negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) is self-defense.
I think Zimmerman got away with a crime, but that's a different debate for a different day.
Yeah, that's kind of a horrific scenario where rudeness, even extreme rudeness, is an excuse for a shooting. The difficult part about this case is that it's a retired police officer. Granted there are always going to be crazies, but I would expect Police Officers and former Service members to have a bit higher of a standard while open carrying. It makes it harder to justify the case for firearms when there are so many compelling anecdotal examples.
Cops (and soldiers) are just humans.
They have the added complications of being more susceptible to PTSD, power-tripping, a sense of authority real or imagined...
This is what bothers me about all the hero worship I see people heap upon cops and soldiers.
There are plenty of dirty cops who gun people down without justification, beat people to death, beat people to within an inch of it, accept bribes, traffic drugs and money for people, take some cheddar from crime scenes...
Plenty of soldiers have shot unarmed "combatants", taunted or abused the residents of the countries we are occupying, and there are nearly 5000 cases of sexual assault on female troops by our own soldiers (their comrades) each year...
I do not put them on a pedestal, they are just as effed up as the rest of us.
I'm pro-gun, but cases like this are why I'm hesitant about open-carry. I don't think it's a good idea to have untrained civilians with firearms in public, because they won't be able to respond properly and may end up causing more damage. I'm going to hold out this guy as an off-example, however, for the most part retired Police Officers are responsible.
I've both open carried, and concealed carried at times - Open is a tactical mistake since it gives away your element of surprise (but there's no concealing a full sized Ruger .357) - concealed is fine but can also be a tactical mistake if your clothing doesn't allow for an error free draw.
I wish this guy was a fluke - unfortunately for responsible gun owners like myself - there are far too many people out there jeopardizing my right to keep and bear by breaking the law or flying off the handle. I hope the book gets thrown at this guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Cops (and soldiers) are just humans.
They have the added complications of being more susceptible to PTSD, power-tripping, a sense of authority real or imagined...
This is what bothers me about all the hero worship I see people heap upon cops and soldiers.
There are plenty of dirty cops who gun people down without justification, beat people to death, beat people to within an inch of it, accept bribes, traffic drugs and money for people, take some cheddar from crime scenes... Plenty of soldiers have shot unarmed "combatants", taunted or abused the residents of the countries we are occupying, and there are nearly 5000 cases of sexual assault on female troops by our own soldiers (their comrades) each year...
I do not put them on a pedestal, they are just as effed up as the rest of us.
I agree that cops and soldiers are human. I agree 100% with you on this. However, judging cops and soldiers as a whole by the actions of a few corrupt cops, war criminals, and sexual predators is pretty ridiculous, especially considering your first post in this thread, where you stated that "close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday. A fraction of a percent did." Below is your earlier quote.
Yay! Another violent crime happens, and the focus goes right to WE NEED GUN CONTROL ERHMAHGAWD!
Close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday.
A fraction of a percent did.
Most of the ones who did weren't lawful owners to begin with.
A fraction of them were.
Drunk drivers likely killed more people yesterday than gun owners.
If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!
Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!
No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
Come on man.
I know you're saying that you don't "put them on a pedestal" but your reason for not doing so is by essentially judging the many by the actions of the few. I'm just saying treat them like everyone else until that particular individual proves they don't deserve that treatment, not because you perceive them to be criminals or rapists.
To address the topic at hand, I don't believe any more security is necessary in public places. I, for one, don't feel particularly threatened (I don't own any guns and don't plan to) and I don't feel I need to live in a police state. That being said, being the person that I am, I don't think I would necessarily start a fight with a stranger over something as simple as texting in a theater. If I were texting and it bothered someone so much that they had to mention it to me, I (more than likely) would apologize and put it away. Problem solved.
A series of bad decisions on both sides led to this but that doesn't excuse the shooter from his actions, which was a completely disproportionate response to thrown popcorn. I think everyone can agree on that.
I agree that cops and soldiers are human. I agree 100% with you on this. However, judging cops and soldiers as a whole by the actions of a few corrupt cops, war criminals, and sexual predators is pretty ridiculous.
I'll stop judging the US army when they actually begin to confess their war crimes and actions. As long as they're willing to hide the actions within their ranks, I see them all to be responsible for them. And US has a long record of never admitting to anything and trying to hide evidence, and I do not see it ending anytime soon.
I know you're saying that you don't "put them on a pedestal" but your reason for not doing so is by essentially judging the many by the actions of the few.
Is the implication here that soldiers should be put on a pedestal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I'll stop judging the US army when they actually begin to confess their war crimes and actions. As long as they're willing to hide the actions within their ranks, I see them all to be responsible for them. And US has a long record of never admitting to anything and trying to hide evidence, and I do not see it ending anytime soon.
Is the implication here that soldiers should be put on a pedestal?
I see you conveniently ignored the sentence after, so let me state it again:
I'm just saying treat them like everyone else until that particular individual proves they don't deserve that treatment, not because you perceive them to be criminals or rapists.
But of course, this has nothing to do with the shooting in the movie theater. So why even comment on my post if you apparently have no interest in the topic at hand?
I see you conveniently ignored the sentence after, so let me state it again:
I'm just saying treat them like everyone else until that particular individual proves they don't deserve that treatment, not because you perceive them to be criminals or rapists.
That doesn't necessary mean you have a view of complete neutrality towards them, if you see the fact that they are soldiers or cops as something that is good and desirable. That's why I asked for a clarification.
But of course, this has nothing to do with the shooting in the movie theater. So why even comment on my post if you apparently have no interest in the topic at hand?
I feel like discussion about the place Police and Military officials hold in society, and what standards they should be expected to follow, is very relevant to the topic. The shooting likely would not have happened if there was tighter screening on potential police officers. I mean, the shooter clearly is damaging the reputation of the police force, and steps could be taken to avoid incidents like these.
How is that not relevant to the discussion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What, do you want an applause for being unwilling to stand up for your position when it comes under scrutiny?
Looks like we'll have to wait for you to man up.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Since I'm not his attorney, since I'm not the jury, since I'm not the judge, since I'm not the shooter - "probably" is as good as I wish to do given the information I have on the case.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I do not choose you.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Your statements were incorrect, I showed you why, and you have no response. I like winning
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You can take it as you like, but it doesn't make it so.
You can't win a competition that doesn't happen. Sorry, you'll have to find some other way to feel better about yourself. I will not assist you.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
But, if you're the kind of person who easily gets his jimmies rustled so much you can't support your beliefs, lol - I didn't even flame you or say anything really insulting and you run from it lol
You came in here spouting a bunch of liberal gun grabbing rhetoric and talking points with as much factual support as oh ONE anecdotal story and some emotional gut reaction opinions. I called you on it, pointed out why your opinions are false, and since you can't refute anything I said, you'll use my slight impoliteness to run off
Good times, well done - good thing this isn't 4chan or yellow jacket, my goodness you wouldn't last a day in those delicate jimmies
Infraction for Trolling - Jay13x
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
While the first two are matters of opinion, the last, as evidenced strictly by my posts in this thread, is patently false.
I can't discuss anything with someone so inherently biased that he's already assumed a position for me without even digging into my posts in this very thread.
You posit that you don't "require adulation on Internet forums." Then, why belittle me, and my opinions? Surely, YOUR beliefs are strong enough that you can express them without name-calling or assumptions.
But, it seems that's not the case. Too bad for you.
Oh, and goodbye. I've got not one word left for you.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That doesn't leave a whole lot to discuss then.
I say that because I am absolutely pro gun, pro self defense, and pro Stand Your Ground and I certainly don't support shooting a man for texting in a theater and/or throwing popcorn at you.
I think we can all agree that killing a man because he kind of annoyed you isn't justifiable, legal, or could - in any way - be considered the responsible use of a firearm for its intended purpose.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
I've said my piece on this issue and I will leave this thread after this post.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
To be clear, you can discuss guns and gun law as it relates to this case, but this is just not the place for a long, general debate on the merits of firearms.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's right, it was...
Rusty
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=11535522&postcount=7
8999
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=11537756&postcount=14
GoC
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=11541439&postcount=15
and
All of that was before I even showed up to defend gun owners.
SO it's cool if people like 9909, and GoC call gun owners cowards, or psychos, and complain that guns need to be regulated harder, and that gun owners are "fanatics". It's totally okay for people like GoC to poison the well of debate by suggesting anyone who disagrees should have their humanity questioned...but if any gun owners show up to defends our case, suddenly the thread is veering off topic?
Not my fault people like 9909 and GoC don't actually want to defend the positions they take with any real substance.
So what should we discuss then?
I'd be happy to discuss the ANGER problem we have in America.
Infraction for spam
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Then you have kids making games out of punching strangers, or shooting up the first car that reacts to being tailgated... People throwing punches or worse as spectators of a ball game (although Soccer has the problem too)... It seems to me that American's if not just people are just plain violent.
No doubt - you got like 4 activist groups jumping all over the Janet Jackson nip-slip, or even Tom Hank's F bomb, while pretty much no one complains about the rape and murders happening on CSI, L&O, and more...
We do have a serious issue with lack of restraint, out-of-control anger, senseless violence, and of course I believe the devaluation of human life and desensitization to suffering...
seems like a whole 'nother thread though
After all, don't they want us to stick to this particular case?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I agree. I'm not really sure how thrown popcorn escalates to a bullet. It was pretty clear that neither individual were capable of controlling their temper. But shooting a guy for texting and throwing popcorn? Throwing popcorn in a movie theater is at worst harassment, not any kind of assault. I think an insanity defense instead of a stand-your-ground defense would be more likely to succeed.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This guy, if what we know turns out to be true, way way way overreacted.
Guilty of 2nd degree murder wouldn't be an overreaction by a jury.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This is why I cringe whenever I hear somone say that "an armed society is a polite society". A society where I will get shot if I make someone angry would be a dystopian nightmare.
piss off a cop, and not just the retired ones at movie theaters.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I agree. Considering that this is the first real high-profile test of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (remember the Zimmerman case didn't actually use it in there defense), I really hope this doesn't go anywhere. I doubt it will, but it's Florida.
Yeah, that's kind of a horrific scenario where rudeness, even extreme rudeness, is an excuse for a shooting. The difficult part about this case is that it's a retired police officer. Granted there are always going to be crazies, but I would expect Police Officers and former Service members to have a bit higher of a standard while open carrying. It makes it harder to justify the case for firearms when there are so many compelling anecdotal examples.
I'm pro-gun, but cases like this are why I'm hesitant about open-carry. I don't think it's a good idea to have untrained civilians with firearms in public, because they won't be able to respond properly and may end up causing more damage. I'm going to hold out this guy as an off-example, however, for the most part retired Police Officers are responsible.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Again, SYG isn't the affirmative defense. You're not being charged with the crime of "not running away".
SYG simply says you don't have to run away.
The actual defense for the crime of murder (or whatever they push for, negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) is self-defense.
I think Zimmerman got away with a crime, but that's a different debate for a different day.
Cops (and soldiers) are just humans.
They have the added complications of being more susceptible to PTSD, power-tripping, a sense of authority real or imagined...
This is what bothers me about all the hero worship I see people heap upon cops and soldiers.
There are plenty of dirty cops who gun people down without justification, beat people to death, beat people to within an inch of it, accept bribes, traffic drugs and money for people, take some cheddar from crime scenes...
Plenty of soldiers have shot unarmed "combatants", taunted or abused the residents of the countries we are occupying, and there are nearly 5000 cases of sexual assault on female troops by our own soldiers (their comrades) each year...
I do not put them on a pedestal, they are just as effed up as the rest of us.
I've both open carried, and concealed carried at times - Open is a tactical mistake since it gives away your element of surprise (but there's no concealing a full sized Ruger .357) - concealed is fine but can also be a tactical mistake if your clothing doesn't allow for an error free draw.
I wish this guy was a fluke - unfortunately for responsible gun owners like myself - there are far too many people out there jeopardizing my right to keep and bear by breaking the law or flying off the handle. I hope the book gets thrown at this guy.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I agree that cops and soldiers are human. I agree 100% with you on this. However, judging cops and soldiers as a whole by the actions of a few corrupt cops, war criminals, and sexual predators is pretty ridiculous, especially considering your first post in this thread, where you stated that "close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday. A fraction of a percent did." Below is your earlier quote.
Come on man.
I know you're saying that you don't "put them on a pedestal" but your reason for not doing so is by essentially judging the many by the actions of the few. I'm just saying treat them like everyone else until that particular individual proves they don't deserve that treatment, not because you perceive them to be criminals or rapists.
To address the topic at hand, I don't believe any more security is necessary in public places. I, for one, don't feel particularly threatened (I don't own any guns and don't plan to) and I don't feel I need to live in a police state. That being said, being the person that I am, I don't think I would necessarily start a fight with a stranger over something as simple as texting in a theater. If I were texting and it bothered someone so much that they had to mention it to me, I (more than likely) would apologize and put it away. Problem solved.
A series of bad decisions on both sides led to this but that doesn't excuse the shooter from his actions, which was a completely disproportionate response to thrown popcorn. I think everyone can agree on that.
I'll stop judging the US army when they actually begin to confess their war crimes and actions. As long as they're willing to hide the actions within their ranks, I see them all to be responsible for them. And US has a long record of never admitting to anything and trying to hide evidence, and I do not see it ending anytime soon.
Is the implication here that soldiers should be put on a pedestal?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I see you conveniently ignored the sentence after, so let me state it again:
I'm just saying treat them like everyone else until that particular individual proves they don't deserve that treatment, not because you perceive them to be criminals or rapists.
But of course, this has nothing to do with the shooting in the movie theater. So why even comment on my post if you apparently have no interest in the topic at hand?
That doesn't necessary mean you have a view of complete neutrality towards them, if you see the fact that they are soldiers or cops as something that is good and desirable. That's why I asked for a clarification.
I feel like discussion about the place Police and Military officials hold in society, and what standards they should be expected to follow, is very relevant to the topic. The shooting likely would not have happened if there was tighter screening on potential police officers. I mean, the shooter clearly is damaging the reputation of the police force, and steps could be taken to avoid incidents like these.
How is that not relevant to the discussion?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.