Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
York Peppermint Patty?

Aren't those round though???? Sorry, I haven't even seen one of those in years, let alone in a theater.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Who throws their phone? Could it be a candy bar or something?

I also wondered about that. I don't see any sign of the object being thrown at all in the original video. I'm not saying that it was invented for the edited video, but I think they've tinkered with the footage so much it's hard to tell what it actually could have been. I think a shiny candy bar is plausible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, does that mean the elderly should start preemptively shooting those little bastards on heelies? Talk about a mortal danger.

TIL that any elderly person shooting a paperboy is a justified shoot.

"My god, that newspaper was coming right for him"

Relapse, I suggest you never watch Unbreakable.

Prestor Jon wrote:


That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to the incident that took place. Florida is a shall issue state any adult that can pass a background check can get a concealed carry permit. The old man who was the shooter is a retired police officer so he would automatically qualify for a concealed carry permit. Florida law allows concealed carry permit holders to carry in movie theaters. Being armed when going to the movie theater in Florida isn't insane it's accepted behavior. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't that others shouldn't or aren't allowed to and it certainly doesn't qualify them as being mentally ill. You expressed your opinion simply to disparage anyone who chose to act in a lawful socially acceptable way just because you don't agree with. That's not much of a contribution to the discussion.

I'm fairly sure that the argument isn't that everyone who's allowed to do so is insane. The argument is that the society and laws which allow this are.

Bran Dawri wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to the incident that took place. Florida is a shall issue state any adult that can pass a background check can get a concealed carry permit. The old man who was the shooter is a retired police officer so he would automatically qualify for a concealed carry permit. Florida law allows concealed carry permit holders to carry in movie theaters. Being armed when going to the movie theater in Florida isn't insane it's accepted behavior. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't that others shouldn't or aren't allowed to and it certainly doesn't qualify them as being mentally ill. You expressed your opinion simply to disparage anyone who chose to act in a lawful socially acceptable way just because you don't agree with. That's not much of a contribution to the discussion.

I'm fairly sure that the argument isn't that everyone who's allowed to do so is insane. The argument is that the society and laws which allow this are.

That argument is even more irrelevant and still very subjective. People who lawfully Carr concealed weapons in movie theatre aren't insane but the entire society of the US and the laws in the majority of the states are insane? Society is an aggregate of people society can't be insane only the people in society can be insane. Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either. The post was an irrelevant opinion that was deliberately phrased to be insulting and therefore of no value to the discussion.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with thinking that a law is stupid, but being okay with people who do what the law allows them to do.

(I don't think carry laws or SYG laws are stupid, just talking about the general idea regarding laws and people here.)

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that there is anything wrong with thinking that a law is stupid, but being okay with people who do what the law allows them to do.

(I don't think carry laws or SYG laws are stupid, just talking about the general idea regarding laws and people here.)

People can hold any opinion they choose but a swoop and poop post that consists of America's laws are stupid and American society is stupid isn't of any value to the discussion. And by claiming that the laws and society are stupid one is also claiming that the people who wrote the laws and abide by the laws and maintain the societal norms are also stupid because that why the stupid laws and stupid society exist. And it certainly doesn't help the discussion to have posts that declare that people who are for what you're against are insane morons.

What does TIL stand for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
York Peppermint Patty?

Aren't those round though???? Sorry, I haven't even seen one of those in years, let alone in a theater.

Their wrappers are square, but really they can take on any form it takes to corrupt and damn the innocent.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.

An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.

An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.

Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.

An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.

Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?

Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.

I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.

Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Let's leave aside the fact we seem to have different definitions of the type of movement with which elderly people may break bones, hurt their back or kneck, dislocate of pull something.

It has to be admitted that on average, a great deal more people in the senior citizen age group are more easily and more greatly injured in some fashion by impact, such as being punched, falling, etc.

I believe that you think we have different definitions for movement, but we do not. I think you got yourself in to an argument and you are trying to hand wave it away by saying we do not see eye to eye. That is not true. A healthy elderly person can do anything you and I can do. Full stop. The idea that just because somebody is elderly, they are suddenly a fragile little thing is absurd. Those who are elderly and are more prone to breaks have health conditions which make breaks easier.

If you fall down there is a chance you can seriously hurt yourself, you could break a leg or a hip just the same as a healthy elderly person. The difference is when you start comparing healthy individuals to unhealthy elderly individuals. Ones who are more susceptible to breaks because they have a condition that causes their bones to become brittle or they have a condition which causes them to be more accident prone.

I am hand waving away your assertation that older people are overwhelmingly as resilient as young people.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/004015.htm

So you did not understand a thing I said. Gotcha, we can move on then.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
What does TIL stand for?

I believe it's Today I Learned.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.

An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.

Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?

Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.

I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.

Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.

I was agreeing with you. We've seen that kind of argument before. "Miniatures don't have thoughts and feelings, therefore bigtitty Sambo can't be a racist miniature."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
What does TIL stand for?

I believe it's Today I Learned.

Thanks!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.

An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.

Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?

Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.

I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.

Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.

I was agreeing with you. We've seen that kind of argument before. "Miniatures don't have thoughts and feelings, therefore bigtitty Sambo can't be a racist miniature."

Ah, my mistake, the sexist/racist thing just caught me by surprise

I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.

They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"

I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.

They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"

I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.

From an outsider perspective, it's simply impossible not to picture the US as a country full of gun-toting maniacs.

As for the record, I believe the selection process of police officers tends to be extremely lacking pretty much everywhere. It's a very important, dangerous and demanding job, and not everyone is cut out for it. Instead of going through the effort of making sure anyone getting the badge truly deserves it, it seems they've been giving badges to pretty much anyone who was not fit to do anything else. This seems to have happened everywhere and not just in the US, the problem with the US is that these problems mix with an absolutely insane gun culture, in which apparently drawing out a gun is the natural course of action when you try to solve a problem and find yourself out of ideas.

It's tough reading about things that happen in the US that you'd expect during like a war and then hearing opinions that everything is just working as intended is a pretty terrifying thought.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.

They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"

I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.

It is not a regulatory thing it is a cultural thing, Guns in a way represent freedom to a lot of Americans IMHO. That is why is the discussions become heated (and of course the implication to the large fire arm market if stricter regulation would be pushed through would not sit well with certain lobbies)

Off course the way some popcorn is made with ludicrous amounts of caramel could be considered a deadly weapon

Yes, it is almost completely a cultural thing.

So this retired policeman apparently couldn't just hold this guy at gun-point and tell him to freeze rather than just shoot? Put that danger to society in prison.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry if you don't like how law and stare decisis works and that attacking an old guy is legally indefensible. I suggest you move to NYC where the the right of self defense is effectively nonexistent and old picked can be picked on by predators much more easily.

Or alternatively move to a civilized country where people don't kill people in movie theater for trivial reasons, and you don't need “self-defense rights”.
Because:
- A) nobody is trying to attack you.
- B) even if someone did, more qualified people are there to do the defense for you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.

They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"

I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.

It's pretty crazy from the point of view of someone familiar with Switzerland. In Switzerland there is a long tradition of “militia”, i.e. almost every citizen being trained militarily and being ready to defend the country if need be. And people are supposed to go home with all their military equipment. So it's a country where there used to be a HUGE number of people with actual war weapon at home. The law was changed and now iirc people still take their weapon home but no ammunition. Basically, it's a country where there are a lot of questions and debate about gun control. But unlike the US it is not considered a major issue and people don't lose their minds about it and we basically never have situations like this where someone goes crazy and shoot someone else and some Swiss people come defending him.

As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.

This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.

Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.

My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.

 sebster wrote:
As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.

This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.

Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.

My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.

Like a lot of people on dakka, military history and historical wargaming is a hobby of mine, so I often watch gun channels on youtube to see how these old weapons function.

All of the channels I watch are American gun owners and they are decent, sensible people who respect their guns and place a high priority on gun safety and they are willing to debate and compromise when it comes to gun laws/politics etc etc

I suspect that most gun owners in the USA are like this. Even on the anti-gun side you get good people who are reasonable, willing to compromise and are at least willing to sit down and hear what the other side are saying.

Sadly, the fanatics on both sides have put reasonable debate and compromise beyond approach.

On one side we get the 'all gunz are evil crowd.'

and of course, their opposite number 'from my cold dead hands, bring down the gummint.'

Between them, they have conspired to poison the gun debate beyond repair.

And that's the tragedy here...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Sadly, the fanatics on both sides have put reasonable debate and compromise beyond approach.
[…]
Between them, they have conspired to poison the gun debate beyond repair.

That's exactly what I've been trying to express. As far as I know, nowhere else in the world is there as much hostility between people that believe guns should be more restricted and people that believe guns should be less restricted. And, afaik, that even includes countries that recently had civil wars and where civilian disarmament is therefore a BIG DEAL.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for bringing the 2nd into the debate, but IMO, it's OT.

We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:

how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?

By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?

It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.

To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.

I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for bringing the 2nd into the debate, but IMO, it's OT.

We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:

how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?

By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?

It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.

To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.

I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.

You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for bringing the 2nd into the debate, but IMO, it's OT.

We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:

how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?

By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?

It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.

To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.

I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.

You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.

IMO that is an idiotic stance to take when we are just handing out guns to just about anyone and everyone. I still don't see how someone could be pro-life but so pro-gun to anyone and especially those with mental issues.

Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.

Ok and? That constitutes "handing guns out" how?

 Vash108 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.

I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.

Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?