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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail

I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.

The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.

Well he is in his 70's, I don't want to be presumptuous but a lot of people start losing it around that age. If this story is true...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-woman-alleged-theater-shooter-confronted-texting-3-weeks-article-1.1580192

...it sounds like he might have some mental issues going on. I don't know how hard it is to test for early stage dementia.

yeah, I uh, posted that exact same link on the first page so I've seen it.

Yeah I know, I was just using it to frame my discussion of why he might not have been found fit to own a gun if there were some basic tests

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.

 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?

Man, it is all over the place by state and then it varies again by county. I will tell you how it is in my state and county for a carry permit:

I paid for and registered at a site, where I first had to watch a video on a youtube-like setup. It covered some very rudimentary firearm safety - don't point it at anything you're not planning on shooting, don't pull the trigger until you're ready to shoot, positively identify and know what is behind your target. It also covered the places you're not allowed to bring a gun - courtrooms, federal buildings, or on a snowmobile. That last one is probably state-specific. Then I had to pass a test on that same video, which was 10 questions and I imagine any bright 5 year old could pass. Then I printed a certificate, went down to the sheriff, paid $50 and had a background check, and then i had a concealed carry permit, good for 5 years or so. If I had lined up the timing right I think I could have done it all, including driving time, within about 3 hours.

At no point was I required to know the laws regarding use of deadly force in my state, or even advice about when not to start blasting, nor any really serious safety stuff. I also didn't have to show proficiency at any point whatsoever, or pass a vision test or anything like that. You can take classes for all of those things, obviously, but you asked what was mandatory. I am not a hunter, but my understanding is that for a hunting permit, you are required to take a safety course. Again, nothing to do with getting a carry permit.

You can also just get a permit to acquire in my state, which means you can buy pistols and transport them to and from places when properly secured, but you can't carry one concealed on your body or easily accessible in a vehicle. This cost almost more scaled to time - it's $25 but only 2 years - so I think most people opt for the carry permit.

I'd call my state middle of the road in terms of regulation of firearms. They are much looser in some states, and much tighter in others.

Prestor Jon wrote:


No it wasn't.

Aye, it was.

My reaction is more the sheer insanity of thinking that going to the cinema armed is a reasonable thing to do.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.

I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.

Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?

I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.

I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.

Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?

I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.

As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.

Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/most-common-health-concerns-seniors/

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

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.

I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.

Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?

I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.

As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.

Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/most-common-health-concerns-seniors/

So you agree with me then? Healthy adults do not break bones just from moving.

I broke a toe falling out of the shower.

Fortunately I was well armed so I was able to shoot the little fether pretty damn smart.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.

I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.

Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?

I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.

As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.

Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/most-common-health-concerns-seniors/

So you agree with me then? Healthy adults do not break bones just from moving.

I think we are operating on a different definition on what we mean by moving. I do reject your statement that seems to imply elderly people are not more prone to bones or joints giving way than young people.

It depends on the individual. Not all elderly individuals are prone to breaking bones, the ones who are have medical conditions which may cause bones to become brittle and break easier. If we are talking about people breaking bones just from impact, you and I could do the same thing if we were unable to break our fall or land correctly. That is often times the case with the elderly, they are walking, have an unsteady gate and then fall without being able to catch themselves on something or properly break their fall.

Having brittle bones is an entirely different situation and that is caused by serious medical conditions. In these cases they are often bed ridden or non ambulatory for fear of turning and breaking a bone or falling due to an unsteady gait.

Healthy people do not break bones just from moving. No matter the age.

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'll admit there are outliers in this, but we don't know the shooters' or his wife's' medical condition. If he was worried about getting punched, then it's understandable why he shot.

That being said, it was remarkably poor judgement on his part to participate in an escalation of a non event into a situation where he may have felt he had no other recourse in protecting himself and his wife.

I do wonder at what angle and facing the dead man was at in his chair, to make it so that no one else seems to have been hit.

Relapse wrote:

I do wonder at what angle and facing the dead man was at in his chair, to make it so that no one else seems to have been hit.

But someone else *was* hit. The widow was hit in the hand.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


No it wasn't.

Aye, it was.

My reaction is more the sheer insanity of thinking that going to the cinema armed is a reasonable thing to do.

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.

squidhills wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I do wonder at what angle and facing the dead man was at in his chair, to make it so that no one else seems to have been hit.

But someone else *was* hit. The widow was hit in the hand.

That's true.

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.

Sounds like elderly people should be banned from owning a firearm, because the recoil from a shot can leave their wrist shattered and their weakened body won't be able to adequately control the gun to make sure they are aiming in the right place.

I walked into work today and noticed a sign that read "Caution: Wet Floor"

I quietly unbutton my firearm from it's holster and flipped the safety off. If I wasn't safe, no one would be safe.

I stood my ground for what seemed like an hour. A man appeared,I feared he would attempt to wrest control of the situation from me. My hand reached down to draw, but thankfully the unknown possible tresspasser/stalker took his threatening sign down and left.

I sighed a breathe of relief. Truly, if I did not have my gun there that day, who knows how many may have died. Falls are the #1 cause of injury and death in the workplace in the USA, after all.

In that case, wouldn't the more prudent course of action be to find the Janitor and ask him what he's doing in your neighborhood by threateningly following him in your pickup track late at night; "Gey boy what you doing here with that mop?!"

Nah, he was white and thus was likely not a threat. The stick man on the sign tho was of indeterminate race so I contacted ICE just in case.

 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

I will admit I'm not entirely sure why this thread has spent so much time discussing the fragility of older people Reeves is claiming he is a delicate old man with arthritis and a bad back.

I think if you're fragile maybe you shouldn't be picking a fight... unless you have a gun and think the stand your ground law is going to have your back. Old dude should have taken his wife's advice and sat somewhere else and left it up to the manager to sort out (Oulson probably would have just stopped texting once the movie had actually started).

Curious about the "enhanced" footage the defence is showing, apparently demonstrating a phone being thrown. I can't see anything in the original footage about a phone being thrown, unless it was thrown before the popcorn?

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

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

Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.

 cuda1179 wrote:

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

Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.

I believe that was the "enhanced" version. So I wasn't sure whether that was actually a glowing screen or that it was enhanced to make it look more like a glowing screen.

 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 think you are mixing up two different things: Owning a firearm, and carrying a firearm.

You compared buying a firearm to buying a car, and brought up licensing. The truth is that you do NOT need insurance, or a license, or any kind of registration to buy or own a car, only to operate it in public. In most cases the same is true for guns.

In most places (some states have different laws) anyone that is a citizen, not a felon, not doing illegal drugs, that can pass a background check, that is at least 18 years-old can buy a rifle. 21 year-olds may buy a pistol. Now, carrying that weapon around is a different matter. A couple states have "constitutional carry laws" so that you may carry that weapon on your person (as long as you stay in that state) without any further training or licensing. Most states have a concealed weapons permitting process. This varies from state to state on how it is implemented. At a minimum there is an educational class that goes over legal and practical issues. Some states add differing levels of marksmanship requirements and more training hours. The advantage of getting a permit, even in those constitutional carry states, is that you MIGHT (depending or reciprocity laws between states) be able to take that weapon across state lines.

 cuda1179 wrote:

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

Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.

It was an enhanced version of a nightvision video, wasn't it? The object could have been merely shiny.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

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

Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.

It was an enhanced version of a nightvision video, wasn't it? The object could have been merely shiny.

True. However by the scale of that thing it was pretty wide compared to length. If it wasn't a smart phone the only thing I can think of would be a king sized Hersey Bar that was unopened.

York Peppermint Patty?