Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I just read that the Norway gunman attacked for 90 minutes...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:23 PM
Original message
I just read that the Norway gunman attacked for 90 minutes...
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 02:20 PM by Cid_B
I have a hard time imagining this happening anywhere in America.... (except maybe Illinois or a campus or other "gun free zone")

Loughner was stomped in seconds...

Thoughts?

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Charles Whitman
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Whitman had the advantage of higher ground.
And the police didn't have the weapons to counter him. Today, he would probably have been sniped within 20 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. Even U. of Texas was "gun-free." And he killed the elevator guard.
You may have seen some of the footage of this shooting. Among the "first responders" were folks with "high-powered" deer rifles, laying down what is called suppression fire. This prevented Whitman from killing anymore unarmed civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
175. That Is Utter Bullshit.

Whitman killed and wounded plenty of people after those "first responders" turned up. The only thing it caused Whitman to do was to move from plain sight on the tower to hunkering down and shooting out of the rain spouts---and he had plenty of rain spouts on all 4 sides to utilize. Your characterizing all of that unorganized shooting by civilians from the ground as "suppression fire" is the wildest sort of wishful thinking and historical revisionism.

You Gun Enthusiasts keep trying to make the 1966 UT shootings out to be a triumph for the Second Amendment and you never, ever succeed. I was in Austin that day, and I had friends who lost family members. The gun militancy movement's attempt to put it in a positive light turns my stomach, to this very day. Absolutely shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. I assume that because Norway has had so little terrorism/ violence, security has not been tight
This will change as a result of this incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
48. They sure have strong gun-control laws, for what that's worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
73. I'd say this incident shows EXACTLY what those are worth NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
90. do tell
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/Norway-terro...
FIREARMS ownership in Norway stands at the highest level in Western Europe, with one third of households owning a gun. As a nation of passionate hunters and with a long tradition of world-class sports shooting, rifle ownership is part of society.

Although gun control is tightly regulated <sic> by the Norwegian government, citizens can apply for either a hunting licence, the most common permit, or a sports shooting licence, which is also popular.

Unlike in the United States, for example, applicants must complete courses and exams, including demonstrating they are already trained in the use of firearms.

The most popular type of weapons are semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, and it is also possible to buy shotguns. ...
(Handgun ownership is more restricted.)

So the difference between Norway and the US is ... in Norway you have to complete training and testing in order to obtain a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference there, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #90
100. No, norway has all the little crapy gun control laws that the anti gun people like
Limit on how many guns you can own, limit on types of guns, have to have a permit to even own a gun, gun registration, no ability to carry. Can't own a 50 cal. Must show a need to own a gun. Must store gun in a safe place. Limits on the amount of ammo you can own.

Meanwhile a guy shoots 80+ people with an illegal machine gun bypassing all gun laws, but the law abiding citizens did not break the law, they did not carry a gun onto the island and you can see the results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #100
119. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #100
166. guess I'll have to start keeping copies of everything I post

Meanwhile a guy shoots 80+ people with an illegal machine gun bypassing all gun laws, but the law abiding citizens did not break the law, they did not carry a gun onto the island and you can see the results.

You assert that the mass murder is the RESULT of people not carrying guns onto the island.

Is there an institution of higher learning where you are?

Does it offer courses in elementary logic?

Allow me to recommend that you enquire.

Do you have any reason to believe that IF Norwegian law permitted people to promenade around with pistols, ANYONE ON THE ISLAND WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING SO?

There is in fact very good reason to believe that NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING SO, since Norwegians pride themselves on their open society and do not appear to have evinced any interest in behaving like you.

Norway is a democracy. Norwegian firearms laws have been enacted by democratically elected governments.

I'm sure Norwegians are very interested in your analysis of their tragedy. Have you made some attempt to let them know where they have gone wrong? I hope so; wouldn't like to think you're keeping all that wisdom to yourself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #166
179. oh look!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #179
186. And Dave Codrea quoted me on the radio today .
Am I gonna get the boot now ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #166
185. Wow! What monumental hypocrisy!
This from the character who thought DC should have hired her in the Heller case to solve America's Second Amendment problem:

31. I figure DC should have hired me

Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...


There's a lot more where that came from, as I showed here--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You go ahead and believe the US needed your help, iverglas. The Field has you. Wrapped around its little finger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #185
200. and yet I was being so sincere
People with wisdom like lawodevolution's should not keep it to themselves when it could plainly help so many others in the world ...

Surely Norway did need his help. Even if they didn't want it, why would he not offer his advice so they could give it all the weight it was due before making their choice??

You know, for someone such as yourself to have had their sense of humour surgically removed at what was apparently such a young age ... isn't that some kind of child abuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #90
106. No. False difference. In fact, bullshit strawman.
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 07:08 PM by TPaine7
So the difference between Norway and the US is ... in Norway you have to complete training and testing in order to obtain a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference there, eh?


The quality of sophistry in this place has seriously declined. Contrary to expectations, Your Sophistry's return hasn't helped; the iverglas of old must have scooped poop in better pastures.

No, the difference between Norway and the US isn't simply that "you have to complete training and testing in order to obtain a semi-automatic rifle." As Your Sophistry herself put it, "Handgun ownership is more restricted." In the US, people have handguns. They own them. And there is a small detail that some--who are not lifelong devotees of the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field--might consider relevant to mass shootings:

IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE ARE MULTITUDES OF SANE, LAW ABIDING ADULTS WHO ARE LICENSED TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS ON THEIR PERSONS.

So the difference between Norway and the US is ... in Norway you have to complete training and testing in order to obtain a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference there, eh?


Ah, no. Just tired bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. ARRRRRRGH!!!
And w/ all that required training someone still got an illegal machine gun and went to town
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pigheaded Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #109
197. It was not an illegal machinegun
It was a semiautomatic rifle obtained and licensed legally

PH
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #90
111. your source is off a bit. According to the UN, 52 percent of Finnish homes
so Finland is number one, US is two, Norway is three, and Canada is four.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #90
181. It is a huge difference.
As per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

To obtain a hunting license (necessary for the purchase of a hunting rifle/shotgun) , the applicant must complete a 30 hour, 9 session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

For sports shooters, the qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two thirds of the course is completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.

As opposed to here where I walk in, pay my cash, go through NICS check, and walk out, all in about 15 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #181
182. since I've already replied to this
I'll just give you directions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Feel free to respond there. Nobody else has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. I believe they were isolated somewhere at a lake. I can certainly
see the improbability of help arriving in time. In most obscure camps, there is little local police presence, but yeah, I would like some info on why it took so long, especially since these kids were talking and testing parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:27 PM
Original message
Utoya is an island completely surrounded by water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
46. Well, then, it's a very unique island, huh?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #46
72. As in "not close enough to the shore to have a bridge"
Generally, you need to take a ferry to get to the island, which means any police response would would require boats or a helicopter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AzWorker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
62. "I can certainly see the improbability of help arriving in time. In most obscure camps...."
And many here said "who needs a gun in a National Park....."

Now we know why we need one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. or at our summer camps
even in the U.S., kids at summer camp aren't usually armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Go Rub Some Oil On It, Sweeet-Heart
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
56. Psst, you forgot to say "sir".
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. My daughter's at camp. They turn in their cell phones when they arrive.
It's possible the kids didn't have phones on them. Even the counselors are not allowed to have phones when they are "working".

If they were in an isolated camp site, without phones, I can imagine it happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. Interesting that you thought of phones...
... the thought didn't really occur to me.

I was referring to personal weapons. I am surprised that there are camps that allow their wards out of communications reach. It seems like a liability issue in today's litigious society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
187. Norway is not a litigious society
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. They had their phones.
One survivor used his dead friend's cell phone to call for help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. and authorities asked parents NOT to call
for fear the ringing wold give away the children's locations to the gunmen
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Now there's a message you never want to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. gunmEn? There were 2 or more?
I hadn't heard that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. To clarify
when authorities made that request they still weren't sure what was going on. To my knowledge there was only a single gunman, but we know that NOW.

Point is, police didn't want some kid's hidey hole given away because his/her phone rang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #67
98. Ah, okay. The first report I heard, late this morning said one guy.
Makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
physioex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think there was such an incident in Los Angeles...
Way back in the 90s when the perpetrator wore body armor and used machine guns. I think fortunately no citizens were hurt in the incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
61. North Hollywood shootout
That was a bank robbery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily armed bank robbers and officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997. Both perpetrators were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the perpetrators and the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. Part of the reason that the Columbine incident lasted so long ...
was law enforcement took a long time to enter the building.


Shoot first: Columbine tragedy transformed police tactics
Updated 4/19/2009 6:27 PM

GOLDEN, Colorado (AP) The first officers on the scene had never trained for what they found at Columbine High School: No hostages. No demands. Just killing.

In the hours that followed, Americans watched in horror as the standard police procedure for dealing with shooting rampages in the U.S. proved tragically, heartbreakingly flawed on April 20, 1999.

Two officers exchanged fire with one of the teenage gunmen just outside the school door, then stopped as they had been trained to do to wait for a specially trained elite police team. During the 45 minutes it took for the elite team to assemble and go in, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot 10 of the 13 people they killed that day.

The killers committed suicide around the time the makeshift elite team finally entered. But the elite officers took several hours more to secure the place, moving methodically from room by room. One of the wounded, teacher Dave Sanders, slowly bled to death.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-19-columbin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. It was an island.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Loughner is psychotic. All he knew about firearms was pull trigger, go boom.
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 01:27 PM by geckosfeet
While he was struggling to reload his weapon he was taken down by one of his victims, and elderly woman, who was soon aided and disarmed by others in the crowd.

The Norway gunman appears to have had a great deal of training in explosives and firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. Virginia Tech and Columbine lasted hours.
Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Yes. OP is flat wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
102. In the US, most of the country is not a "no gun zone" so I'm sure you will be able to
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 06:51 PM by lawodevolution
post a link to or point out a mass shooting in the USA in a location where guns are permitted, in which the killer was able to keep shooting constantly for an hour, killed a lot of people and no one was able to stop him. I'm sure that the gun capital of the world will have such an event in its history if the assertion that "no gun zones" attract mass shootings allowing them to shoot without Resistance is not correct. We have plenty of mass shootings in no gun zones in the USA and europe where the shooter had lots of time to shoot without resistance, I'm sure that in the 95% of the land area in the USA that is not a "no gun zone" you will be able to come up with an event that is similar in magnitude as one of the "no gun zone" shootings.

Otherwise, if you can't or if you do not respond, the OP is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #102
155. Cloumbine for one.
Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 07:32 AM by geckosfeet
A number of school campus shootings.

Recent shooting of congress woman and civilians in Az.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. No. Both lasted much less than an hour.
Columbine went on because the police stopped and took 45 minutes to enter the building. Virginia Tech lasted about half an hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. In my defense...
... I covered those in the OP.

I know VT was a "gun free zone" and likely Columbine as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AzWorker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
63. Columbine and VT, cops failed to engage as soon as they arrived
That is why there are 'Active Shooter' protocals now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
74. New Life church was over in 10 minutes
Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #74
93. Yup. One person with a legally concealed weapon can stop a massacre.

New Life Church shooting

On Sunday, December 9, 2007, at about 1 p.m. Murray, armed with an assault rifle and two pistols, entered the foyer of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and fatally shot two and wounded three others before himself being shot and wounded by Jeanne Assam, a church member acting as security. Murray then took his own life.<5><6>

***snip***

The pastor of the church stated that Assam shot Murray before he entered 50 feet (15 m) inside the building, after she encountered him in the hallway, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."<14>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New...


Unfortunately Jean Assam says was asked to leave the church. If true, that's an example of how a a non-denominational charismatic Evangelical Christian megachurch shows its gratitude.


Jeanne Assam Says She Was Asked To Leave New Life Church After Coming Out
First Posted: 02/25/11 12:10 PM Updated: 02/25/11 01:11 PM



The former security guard at New Life megachurch who heroically stopped a gunman at the Colorado Springs church in 2007 says she was asked to leave after announcing that she is gay.

In December, 2009, a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray opened fire on New Life's Colorado Springs facility, shooting four people and killing two. Jeanne Assam, then a 42-year-old volunteer security guard and ex-Minneapolis police officer, shot the gunman--who fatally shot himself soon afterward--as he entered the church.

At the time, Assam--who said her strong faith was responsible for her swift and decisive action--was hailed as a hero.

However, she says the warm feelings from New Life subsided after she told them that she was gay.
The former security guard at New Life megachurch who heroically stopped a gunman at the Colorado Springs church in 2007 says she was asked to leave after announcing that she is gay.

In December, 2009, a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray opened fire on New Life's Colorado Springs facility, shooting four people and killing two. Jeanne Assam, then a 42-year-old volunteer security guard and ex-Minneapolis police officer, shot the gunman--who fatally shot himself soon afterward--as he entered the church.

At the time, Assam--who said her strong faith was responsible for her swift and decisive action--was hailed as a hero.

However, she says the warm feelings from New Life subsided after she told them that she was gay.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/jeanne-assam-s...




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #93
108. Jean Assam says was asked to leave the church.
Jeanne Assam is a liar, she came up w/ that story right about the time her book came out. and since the story broke she has totally distanced herself from it. 17(or so)thousand people attend New Life do you really think she was the only lesbian there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. If you noticed in my post I said ...
"Unfortunately Jean Assam says was asked to leave the church. If true, that's an example of how a non-denominational charismatic Evangelical Christian megachurch shows its gratitude.

I was aware that there was some controversy. I wasn't aware of the fact that she had distanced herself from the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #112
151. Sorry , that whole controversy just pissed me off
the reporter that broke it (Barry Noreen, Springs Gazette) has an axe to grind w/ New Life Church and he basically wrote the story as a hit piece. The head Pastor at New Life Church (Brady Boyd) denies the story and basically said that Assam just quit coming to church.

In her book (which shall remain nameless) Assam states that God "delivered" her from lesbianism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #151
158. The media really didn't cover Jeanne Assam much after the initial incident ...
I found the story when I searched for info on Assam a while ago.

On the subject of open carry which we have been discussing, I was thinking last night that I often open carry a fairly large fixed blade knife in public. In the area of north Florida where I live, it is not unusual to see someone with a hunting knife on their belt. Nobody pays any attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #158
160. On the subject of open carry
You never did answer my question why is open carry equated w/ imtimidation and attention seeking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #160
167. First you must note that I live in a state where legal concealed carry is very common ...
and open carry by a civilian in public illegal.

When I was a child growing up in Northeastern Ohio, I remember seeing an older fellow walking down Main Street in Ashtabula, Ohio with two Pearl handled revolvers on a gun belt. I asked my father why he was carrying such weapons and he replied, "It's legal and he is just a harmless old codger."

The one time I did see a person open carrying a firearm in Florida was in 1985 when Hurricane Elena was approaching the Tampa Bay area. My wife and I were in a grocery store stocking up on supplies when I noticed an individual in a camouflage outfit strutting around with a holstered Colt .45 auto on his belt. Another customer said that he was a member of a militia group. He struck me as somewhat of an asshole with an attitude as he was serving no purpose in the situation and he looked as foolish as all the people who were filling up their carts with frozen food. My wife and I picked up our canned goods, water and beer and left the store. The place was a madhouse.

Needless to say, this individual left me with a bad impression.

Yet I was reconsidering open carry last night due to our posts and after I came across an article that the Florida open carry movement was sponsoring a march in Venice Florida.


Gun owners plan march in southwest Florida
Posted on Saturday, 07.23.11

VENICE, Fla. -- Gun owners in the southwest Florida city of Venice are marching for what they say should be their right to bear arms in public.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that as many as 100 people are planning to march in Venice Saturday morning displaying their weapons to protest Florida's "open carry" law, which has prohibited the unauthorized display of firearms in public since 1987.

The marchers will be toting fishing gear to exploit a caveat in the Florida law that allows for the public display of firearms for people who are hunting, fishing or camping, or traveling to and from those activities.

The activists say they want to educate uninformed gun owners about their Second Amendment rights in Florida, one of only seven U.S. states to ban "open carry" of weapons.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/23/2327271/gun-owner...


Personally I can't come up with a lot of reasons for why I would want to carry openly except for the fact that it would enable me to carry a fairly large firearm in a belt holster without having to worry about wearing a covering garment such as a vest or a jacket. This could have advantages when the temperature is in the high 90s and the humidity is oppressive.

The drawbacks that I can see are:

1) Carrying openly could make me a target.

Some fool might decide that he can grab my firearm. Therefore, I would have to get a good retention holster and practice with it until I was very proficient. It is also possible that if I was in a store that was being robbed, I might be shot because the bad guy sees my firearm and views me as a threat.

2) Open carry removes my advantage of surprise.

I remember one time at 11 pm when I was in a the liquor store portion of a Walgreens Drug Store (buying cigars) when I noticed two younger gentlemen behaving in a suspicious manner. One was running around the aisles in an erratic manner and as the other approached the counter and appeared nervous, He asked me if I would like to go before him and I politely refused and said that I was in no hurry. I placed my right hand in my front pant pocket on my S&W snub nosed revolver and backed off several feet near an aisle and watched.

The guy at the counter fumbled around and announced that he had forgot his wallet. He walked out to his car and returned several minutes later and bought his items and both men left. I talked to the clerk for a few minutes, bought my cigars and headed off to work. I was about 10 minutes late but since I was the shift supervisor that was no problem.

I have no proof that the two guys intended to rob the store, but they did set off my internal alarm system and that is extremely unusual.

If the guy would have pulled a weapon, I most likely would have simply observed unless the situation looked like it might result in violence. If I had to draw my weapon, I would have been able to do so faster than if I had it in a holster on my belt as it was already in my hand. I was also in a position to move quickly to cover.

3) In a state like Florida where open carry is illegal, if it is legalized in the future it will still be fairly unusual and could attract negative attention. I personally prefer to be viewed as a polite harmless older man with a bad limp than an old fart with a gun.

However, in the area of Florida where I live, it is not unusual to see a person with a hunting knife on their belt. I usually carry a fairly large fixed blade and only one time in the last five years have I noticed anyone who seemed to be interested in the fact that I had one on my side. I suspect he was more interested in who was the manufacturer of the knife than the fact that I had it with me. I was carrying a Bark River Classic Lite hunter with a 4" blade.



While carrying such a knife where I live is not unusual, it may attract more negative attention in a larger urban area such as Tampa. If I journey into such areas, I carry a folding pocket knife such as a Benchmade 710.



Or I carry a smaller less noticeable fixed blade such as the Bark River Bravo Necker II with a 3.5" blade in a Kydex sheath on my belt.



My thoughts, after consideration, is that is it somewhat hypocritical of me to suggest that those who carry firearms openly, in areas where it is common, intimidate others. After all, I commonly open carry a knife which I consider merely a tool but others may view as a dangerous weapon.

To the best of my knowledge, my knives have have intimidated anyone and I doubt that the firearms you openly carry have either.

















Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #93
188. One highly trained professional doing her job
No some random toter playing hero
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #188
194. Not "highly trained" (in any objective sense) and not a professional. Very competent, though.
She had ordinary LE training years before (LE non-SWAT gun training in most departments is fairly rudimentary, given time and budget constraints, and quals are similarly basic). She was a citizen who maintained gun proficiency on her own time and on her own dime, obtained an ordinary carry license, volunteered as a parishioner with a CHL to provide a discreet armed presence at services, and carried her personally owned Beretta 9mm. She was not an official security guard and would not have been allowed to carry that gun in Colorado had she been one, although that rule has since been changed.

Thankfully, she was in the right place at the right time to stop a mass shooter, but other than that, not so different from hundreds of thousands of other ex-LEO, ex-military, or competitive shooters out there with CHL's who stay proficient and routinely carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. OK but obviously trained well enough. I assume you know her
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #195
196. Know of her, and a bit about her. Have read about her background, training,
Edited on Tue Jul-26-11 09:03 PM by benEzra
somewhat brief history as an LEO, and life after. I've also taken a bit of an interest in the events of that day, and she did damn well, IMO as well as or better than any "professional" with a security guard license (or a badge) and an agency-issued gun would have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #196
198. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
milwaukeelib33 Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. I've had similar thoughts
What if there were a few armed citizens on the island? Would the outcome have been less severe? I don't think death would've been averted entirely, but I think there would be fewer victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. There are some people who think it's better for victims to be slaughtered like dogs than
to exercise any kind of armed defense. And no I do not understand that kind of sick mindset, I just know it exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
87. wtf? there WAS an armed defense. You think kids at camp should be armed?
There was an armed defense, it just took a while because, oddly, kids at camp don't usually carry guns. Good lord you are an example of something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. Well, I am certainly TRYING to be an example of something...that being
a person who is sick and tired of namby-pamby anti-constitutionalist assholes who care more for the gangbangers and thugs than for their victims. I can't figure out what sort of mental illness makes people hate the idea of self-preservation in the face of horrific attacks. By the way, where and when was the 'armed defense'? All the victims were already dead by the time the armed cops arrived. Yes, you are god-damned right I would have preferred to have some of those campers armed...WELL armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #92
99. In any shooting the victims are dead when the shooter is stopped. Duh.
You want kids carrying loaded guns at camp. And call anyone who questions this a "namby-pamby anti-constitutionalist assholes who care more for the gangbangers and thugs than for their victims". Ah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. I stopped the attempted murder of one of my gay friends with my gun years ago
we were coming out of a gay bar and 3 guys with baseball bats were coming fast and swinging them at us. I would have GLADLY killed those sonsabitches if they hadn't backed off, so please do not lecture me about what is acceptable behavior for a REAL TRVE DEMOCRAT. You may take my comment as the shoe fits. By the way, many of those 'kids' were 18 and 19 years old, of legal age to be in the military or even cops in many places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Ah, so you are a REAL TRVE DEMOCRAT and we are "namby-pamby anti-constitutionalist assholes who care
"namby-pamby anti-constitutionalist assholes who care more for the gangbangers and thugs than for their victims".

Gotcha.

You still haven't shown me anyone who " There are some people who think it's better for victims to be slaughtered like dogs than to exercise any kind of armed defense".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #101
122. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #92
121. you certainly are indeed!
And you are doing a damned fine job of it, if you'll allow me to say. ;)

We can only your efforts will soon gain the recognition they deserve!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #92
190. You need to calm down and drink a nice cup of tea
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #87
199. My summer camp was armed
I went to Boy Scout camp. There was a rifle range full of rifles and ammunition. Even an archery range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
120. schools of thought ... people ...
There are some people who think it's better for victims to be slaughtered like dogs than to exercise any kind of armed defense.

C'mon, use your time here to good avail. You never know when it will end.

Name some.


And no I do not understand that kind of sick mindset, I just know it exists.

Then you will have the evidence at hand, and no problem producing it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
189. To claim that anyone thinks that without attribution is beyond sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #189
202. and the fact
To claim that anyone thinks that without attribution is beyond sick

that it goes on here day in and day out, year in and year out (and not infrequently is personalized), seems to lead inexorably to one conclusion, doesn't it?

The lunatics are running the asylum.

:rofl:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
43. Come to camp and bring your Glock?
Now we need to arm teenagers? Just brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Stand back a moment and be reasonable...
Even a few adults, armed and trained in the use of said arms, may have put an end to the slaughter.

BTW, by 12-years-of-age I owned a revolver and shotgun, and was previously instructed in the use of both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
64. You just inspired me not to buy one, a Glock. They are so...cliche so
I'll take either my Ruger or Walther.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
153. It wasn't a summer camp-type camp; more like a YDA convention
And just like the YDA has members up to age 36, and the Young Republicans up to age 40, the "youth wings" of European political parties have members, particularly cadres, well into their 20s and 30s. I remember that, as a teenager in the Netherlands, I was actually moderately disgusted to discover that the chairman of the Jonge Socialisten (the "Young Socialists," youth wing of the Dutch Labor Party) was 32 years old. I suspect the cadres of the Christian Democrats and parties further to the right were even older, but I wasn't interested in joining those outfits in the first place.

But I digress. Point being that the members of any "youth wing" of a political party are by no means exclusively teenagers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #153
164. and then of course there are the ... what are they called? ...
FACTS.

(emphases added below)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-southwood/norway-sho...
The main target of Friday's twin attacks in Norway were the young people, average age 16, on the island of Utya.


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/22... /
The shootings at Utoya, where the Labor Party's youth group was having its summer camp, were devastating. This is a group of kids, most aged 14-18.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/a-nati... /
Police launched two raids in downtown Oslo as they interrogated 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who admitted to setting off a car bomb in central Oslo, killing at least seven, before going on a 90-minute shooting spree at an island summer camp for supporters of the governing Labour Party, killing at least 86 people, some reportedly under 10 years old.


It seems we are still waiting for lists of names and ages of the victims.

In any event, I'm wondering what the point of the post I'm replying to was. An effort to show how the victims could all have been wandering around the island with guns, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
78. I give up
Why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp?

(And I wonder: what if there had been armed permanent resident non-citizens, as I always do ...)

Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed".

I know this is hard for people of a certain kind to believe (or admit), but trust me, it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AzWorker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #78
110. "Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children..armed"
"Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed". "

I would bet some of those greiving parents are now wishing quite the opposite....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. The grieving parents don't count...
they are not in the complete thrall of the "Gun Control Reality Distortion Field."

Only the opinions of those devoted to the Field can be taken seriously. Anyone free of the field--either through grief, persuasion, personal reflection or any other means--is untrustworthy by definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #115
124. no, only Master Paine counts
And only to about 10.

You speaking for the grieving parents now, son?

Can you give us a direct quote or two?

C'mon, I'm sure you can. The implication that you're speaking for them is too strong to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #124
138. Armed adults and living children or unarmed adults and dead children...
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 11:13 PM by TPaine7
I know that would be a tough choice for a "decent and rational" person like yourself, but for most indecent and irrational folks it isn't.

Nevertheless, I did not speak for the parents. If you care to follow the thread, I responded to a post that said:

AzWorker (52 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-23-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #78
110. "Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children..armed"

"Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed". "

I would bet some of those greiving parents are now wishing quite the opposite....


So as any literate person can see, even the post I responded to was not "speaking for the parents."

There WAS someone speaking for parents. Your Sophistry. It was quoted just above, but I'll repeat it for you:

Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children..armed"


How's that for a direct quote?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #138
141. well, here's the thing
If most normal parents in the world wanted the adults in charge of their children AT A SUMMER CAMP armed (note the capitalized words, the ones you decided to excise, for reasons known only to yourself ... although some of us can guess), then ... and this may just be me ... I'd expect to see the adults in charge of children at summer camps armed. In at least a good proportion of cases.

And yet ... I don't.

And I'm still waiting to see the money to go with your mouth.

You're betting some of the Norwegian parents in question are wishing "quite the opposite" -- a bit of a tangled web of words, but capable of being interpreted only as "wishing the adults at the summer camp had been armed".

How much, and when's the payout?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #141
152. Sigh
Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 02:45 AM by TPaine7
If most normal parents in the world wanted the adults in charge of their children AT A SUMMER CAMP armed (note the capitalized words, the ones you decided to excise, for reasons known only to yourself ...


They're "excised" because I copied the quote from the text block directly above it. Feel free to imagine that I'm terrified of your words, LOL, if that's what the Field wants.

If most normal parents in the world wanted the adults in charge of their children AT A SUMMER CAMP armed (note the capitalized words, the ones you decided to excise, for reasons known only to yourself ... although some of us can guess), then ... and this may just be me ... I'd expect to see the adults in charge of children at summer camps armed. In at least a good proportion of cases.

And yet ... I don't.


Let's see. Are you at a summer camp?

I'd expect to see the adults in charge of children at summer camps armed. In at least a good proportion of cases.

And yet ... I don't.


And, of course, you're intimately involved with the policies of summer camps the world over, right?

My guess, and I state it as a guess rather than using it as evidence as would Your Sophistry, is that many US Democrats want the people at their children's summer camps armed. And that in a good proportion of cases, at least in the US, they are, your not seeing them notwithstanding. I would also guess that many other countries at least have armed guards at summer camps, if just for the possible rabid animals.

You're betting some of the Norwegian parents in question are wishing "quite the opposite" -- a bit of a tangled web of words, but capable of being interpreted only as "wishing the adults at the summer camp had been armed".


I'm betting all of them--at least all of the "irrational indecent" ones--would rather their children had been defended by armed staff than that they were killed.

I know you look down on us irrational, indecent Americans, iverglas, but you must understand. Decency like yours, that prefers the purity of the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field and dead children to the impurity of armed defense and living children, is quite rare, at least in the States.

How much, and when's the payout?


If you escape the Field, the payout is clear thinking, freedom from programming and the fact that you no longer have to pretend that it's abnormal for parents to prefer armed resistance to dead children.

I know, I know, that will never be enough for Your Sophistry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #152
159. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #152
165. nope, sorry, not wearing this
This is my post.



you can't even quote yourself accurately ...


... or is it that ... you won't?


me: You're betting some of the Norwegian parents in question are wishing "quite the opposite" -- a bit of a tangled web of words, but capable of being interpreted only as "wishing the adults at the summer camp had been armed".

you: I'm betting all of them--at least all of the "irrational indecent" ones--would rather their children had been defended by armed staff than that they were killed.


Now, reply to what I said ... or not. Your choice!


my words are "excised" because I copied the quote from the text block directly above it. Feel free to imagine that I'm terrified of your words, LOL, if that's what the Field wants.

That's cute. You excised relevant words from what I said the first time you quoted it, then quoted yourself quoting the doctored version of what I said. Haha, what a card.


My guess, and I state it as a guess rather than using it as evidence as would Your Sophistry, is that many US Democrats want the people at their children's summer camps armed. And that in a good proportion of cases, at least in the US, they are, your not seeing them notwithstanding. I would also guess that many other countries at least have armed guards at summer camps, if just for the possible rabid animals.

Haha. You didn't "guess", you BET. Which would be rather a foolish thing to do without having done some sort of analysis of the risk involved in losing the bet. Which would ordinarily involve weighing the ... oh, you know ... available evidence. Which is?

Rabid animals? On that idyllic island in Norway?

I know we can't expect you to know anything about Europe, so allow me to help.



ONLY BAT RABIES PRESENT in Europe.
- go here to enlarge the maps, which I haven't done so as not to break the thread:
http://www.who.int/rabies/rabies_maps/en/index.html

Any other theories about why parents in Europe might want armed guards/camp counsellors at their children's summer camps? Lemme see, would they sleep with their pistols under their pillows? Rabid bats / machine-gun toting murderers might appear after dark. Camp counsellors with pistols under their pillows seem like an excellent idea to me. Campers never play pranks on counsellors in the middle of the night. Campers never include children/youth at risk of violent behaviour.


(Oh, okay, if somebody wants to play the game that the next line broke some rule, I'll leave it out. Use your imaginations!)


Decency like yours, that prefers the purity of the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field and dead children to the impurity of armed defense and living children, is quite rare, at least in the States.

I'm sure it's rare worldwide. Rarer than rabid animals in Europe even, maybe. In fact, I think it exists only in the fevered imaginations of the fanatic few ... and even there has to be conjured up on purpose for purposes not admissible in civil discourse.



Now, a post that STATES that *I* (or anyone) prefer dead children to ... anything -- that one is cool in the Guns forum at Democratic Underground, and my objection to the vile demagoguery of such a post is deleted? Well well well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #165
183. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #124
193. Well, look what we have here.
"Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed".

From the same poster that says "You speaking for the grieving parents now, son?"




Bwahahahaha.



So cute.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #110
123. yeah, yeah

I would bet some of those greiving parents are now wishing quite the opposite....

Take your bet out for a stroll among the parents in question, why don't you?

C'mon, put that money where your mouth is.

Ask the parents in question, many of whom are undoubtedly Labour Party activists, whether they will be calling for armed camp counsellors at their children's holiday sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #123
132. How many of those Labour Party activists or
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 10:49 PM by gejohnston
Labour Party in general were members of Det frivillige Skyttervesen(The National Rifle Association of Norway)? I can list a lot of Dems in the NRA. Probably more than a few. Here it is kind of a left/right issue, in Canada you and I both know it is a rural/urban issue. You and I both know the only parties that supported the long gun registry were the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. The Tories, Greens, and your NDP opposed it.
From what I can find, guns are a nonissue in Norway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. nah
In Canada, it is a left/right issue.

You and I both know the only parties that supported the long gun registry were the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois. The Tories, Greens, and your NDP opposed it.
(emphasis added)

You actually believe that falsehood, or you just think you can get away with propagating it?

Some NDP MPs represent western constituencies where their voters are not "left". They were pressured to vote to eliminate the long gun registry. They did not vote to eliminate the long gun registry.

Here, we have what's called party discipline. You get elected under a party name, you adhere to party policy and vote according to the party position, or you get ejected from caucus.

The constituents in question are the same ones that defeated Svend Robinson for the party leadership several years ago. Because he's gay.

You've probably never heard of Bev Desjarlais, one of those western NDP MPs. She voted against the bill recognizing the right to same-sex marriage. She was sadly not ejected from caucus, although she was relieved of her position as critic, and resigned from caucus after being defeated for the party nomination for the upcoming position. The decision not to eject her from caucus was a nasty blot on the party's record and was made for expediency only, to pander to the western right wing of the party, and with the knowledge that the situation was going to be short-lived. Had that wing been pandered to on the firearms registry, I would have quit.

The NDP in the west ain't the party of Tommy Douglas anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #135
143. so if we had your party discipline
Howard Dean, the nearest thing we would have to Tommy Douglas, would be kicked out over the gun issue? Hell, cross burners like Trent Lott (who really said that he wished Strom Thurmond would have won the 1948 election) would be kicked out of the GOP because he supported the "assault weapons" ban. Party before constituents and country, that sounds like a shitty deal. If the people in your riding thinks Harper is a lunatic but also think the registry is expensive theater benefiting Honeywell stock holders instead of public safety, they are screwed?
Not being Canadian and only started following Canadian politics for my own reasons, that is what my research come across. Yes I actually believe it. I think it is true of the US more than many would like to admit. No, I have never heard of Ms. Desjarlais.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. that was an acknowledgement that your statement was false?
The NDP voted to retain the long gun registry. Right?

I have no clue how party discipline would work in your country. What it might get you, though, is a functioning Congress where votes were based on policy rather than horse trading, and a whole lot fewer barrels of pork, of course. The term "earmarks" is not in a Canadian dictionary. Legislation is about what it's about, not about a bridge to nowhere in a riding nobody's ever heard of.


Party before constituents and country, that sounds like a shitty deal.

Actually, you have your horses and carts seriously confused.

Party must have policy and be trusted to act on that policy, and then constituents get a genuine opportunity to vote for policy of their choice and expect party, if successful, to carry it out.

Strange concept for you to grasp, I do understand.

If the people in your riding thinks Harper is a lunatic but also think the registry is expensive theater benefiting Honeywell stock holders instead of public safety, they are screwed?
Not being Canadian and only started following Canadian politics for my own reasons, that is what my research come across.


Your research came across people who based their position on the registry on something having to do with Honeywell share values? I don't think you found those people in LUFA, who don't have enough brain cells amongst them to understand the sentence. Amazing, the things some of you people manage to "know" that none of us people who actually live here, vote for/against and even belong to / run as candidates for the parties in question manage never to have heard of.

Find someone who thinks Harper is an evil piece of shit and opposes the firearms registry and I will show you someone who has not yet managed to separate fact from propaganda.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #144
150. not exactly
I was talking about voting for initially in 1995. The NDP supports it now, I should have clarified.
Actually, I'm not a big fan of parties or all or nothing. Ours have many factions and while there is horsetrading and pork, we also have people who think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Like I said, under your system some of our best progressives, who would make Tommy Douglas proud, would be tossed out of the Democratic Party over the gun issue. With your style of party discipline, do you or all of them just warm bodies who have to check their brains at the door? Seriously.

Does everyone that disagrees with you a closet fascist or a dim wit? No one has valid points of view but you and those who are in lock step? How authoritarian and unenlightened.

Find someone who thinks Harper is an evil piece of shit and opposes the firearms registry and I will show you someone who has not yet managed to separate fact from propaganda.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? A logical and well thought out answer would be nice.

Your research came across people who based their position on the registry on something having to do with Honeywell share values?

From what I found, Honeywell has the contract to maintain the IT system for the registry. It also is not delivering as promised.

I don't think you found those people in LUFA, who don't have enough brain cells amongst them to understand the sentence.

While I do not approve of LUFA telling the law to screw off, the sentence says more about the value of your arguments than LUFA, NFA, or Canada Carry for that matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #150
161. oh sigh (edited)
Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 11:19 AM by iverglas
While I do not approve of LUFA telling the law to screw off, the sentence says more about the value of your arguments than LUFA, NFA, or Canada Carry for that matter.

LUFA is a collection of RIGHT-WING PIECES OF SHIT. If you're going to talk about something, you owe it to the world, if not yourself, to know what you are talking about. And I'm sorry, but it is not my job to educate you. The evidence of what LUFA is can be found with a very few clicks of a mouse. One thing it is, is the bedmate of the extreme piece of shit Gary Breitkreutz MP; they are symbiotic pieces of shit, existing like lichen. If you need to know anything about him, just google his name with mine.

They do not oppose parties left of the present-day Conservatives based only on firearms policy; they aren't the NRA. :rofl:

They hate the left and even the "centre" with a passion, they hate everything that is not on the extreme right-wing agenda. They are tea party north.


From what I found, Honeywell has the contract to maintain the IT system for the registry. It also is not delivering as promised.

Good for you. Now, the question was:

Your research came across people who based their position on the registry on something having to do with Honeywell share values?

Whoever makes those voting machines for the US may be the tool of the devil. Do you propose that voting be eliminated?


Does everyone that disagrees with you a closet fascist or a dim wit? No one has valid points of view but you and those who are in lock step? How authoritarian and unenlightened.

Do you make up false shit and attempt to stick it on everyone who disagrees with you? How anti-democratic.


I was talking about voting for initially in 1995. The NDP supports it now, I should have clarified.

edit - my apologies, I am looking at the recorded division in the House of Commons
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.asp...
and trying to determine the reason for the nay votes ...


A number of provinces challenged the 1995 legislation on purely division-of-powers grounds: that the legislation fell within provincial jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" (note that "civil rights" has nothing to do with what the term means in the US) rather than federal jurisdiction over "criminal law". The provinces lost in the Supreme Court of Canada.

If you are saying that the federal NDP opposed the 1995 Firearms Act, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. There were differences within the party and caucus, for reasons similar to opposition to progressive firearms control measures in the US: rural populations take an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude toward the concerns of urban populations, and politicians pander to them rather than educating them ... it actually being a fact in Canada that firearms violence is as serious a problem in rural communities as in urban communities, quite apart from the fact that registering firearms does not rise to the level of minor inconvenience and is an essential part of the machinery of preventing firearms from reaching hands where they should not be (straw purchases and illicit private transfers being a major target, and never ever addressed by anti-firearms registry yahoos).

I feel the way about western/rural NDPers who oppose the gun registry that I imagine northern Democrats felt about southern Democrats who opposed desegregation. Maybe segregationist Democrats were just, oh, misunderstood, and anti-segregationists were ... how'd that go? ... "authoritarian and unenlightened". It's all a matter of opinion, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #161
170. still not exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #78
114. You have a good point. It would have been irrational for the adults to think
that the youth camp might be attacked by a mass murdering maniac. Only insane people believe that low probability dangers should be thought of, or that anyone should take preventative steps just in case.

The need for a concealed weapon in the hands of a sane adult could never arise in such a place. You've convinced me.

What do you think, iverglas? Would those parents rather be "normal" and bereaved or American-style freaks whose children were coming home?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #114
125. I give up
Would those parents rather be "normal" and bereaved or American-style freaks whose children were coming home?

Summer camps in the US have "armed" counsellors on patrol at all times, do they?

C'mon, give us some documented examples. The implication in your post that this is the case is just too strong to ignore.

Nobody call you on your crap in my absence? What an easy if not especially useful life you must be having.

I'm sure the Democratic Party doesn't have summer camps for its youth. But doubtless there are gatherings of Democratic Party youth from time to time, and doubtless the parents of the young people who attend ensure that there are armed staff on site. Right? Right! I don't doubt, I assure you. I just like to see the proof for myself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Many US Democrats, including this poster, prefer a society that doesn't ban concealed carry.
As for "proving" anything to you that conflicts with the Field, I'll pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. you seem to have missed the post you replied to
so I'll copy it for you.

you said:

Would those parents rather be "normal" and bereaved or American-style freaks whose children were coming home?

I replied:

Summer camps in the US have "armed" counsellors on patrol at all times, do they?

C'mon, give us some documented examples. The implication in your post that this is the case is just too strong to ignore.

Nobody call you on your crap in my absence? What an easy if not especially useful life you must be having.

I'm sure the Democratic Party doesn't have summer camps for its youth. But doubtless there are gatherings of Democratic Party youth from time to time, and doubtless the parents of the young people who attend ensure that there are armed staff on site. Right? Right! I don't doubt, I assure you. I just like to see the proof for myself.



You now say:

Many US Democrats, including this poster, prefer a society that doesn't ban concealed carry.



Oops. Non sequitur, eh?



As for "proving" anything to you that conflicts with the Field, I'll pass.

Hahaha.

The word you were looking for was "fail".

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. Fail indeed.
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 11:24 PM by TPaine7
Summer camps in the US have "armed" counsellors{sic} on patrol at all times, do they?


I'll respond after you show me where I said that.

C'mon, give us some documented examples. The implication in your post that this is the case is just too strong to ignore.


LOL

Nobody call you on your crap in my absence? What an easy if not especially useful life you must be having.


If you're going to talk to yourself, please do so privately. If someone involved in this exchange said anything to you about '"armed" counsellors{sic} on patrol at all times' it must have been you.

I'm sure the Democratic Party doesn't have summer camps for its youth. But doubtless there are gatherings of Democratic Party youth from time to time, and doubtless the parents of the young people who attend ensure that there are armed staff on site. Right? Right! I don't doubt, I assure you. I just like to see the proof for myself.


You're funny. Some of them have parents who fought to pass concealed carry and who do so themselves. And quite possibly some, or even many, of them want to ensure that there are armed staff on site. Not that I said anything of the sort, of course.

Feel free to continue the debate with yourself, if it pleases you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #125
191. The only armed camp I know of is Camp Jedel in the Catskills - JDL outfit
I live on an island where there are about 8 youth camps and zero guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #191
201. snork
But of course, Boy Scout camps with shooting ranges are "armed".

:rofl:

(Although I assume that Boy Scout leaders keep said "arms" well locked up and preferably disabled when not in use, I have no doubt that should a crazed shooter show up at campfire time, at least one intrepid Scout will be able to make his way to the storage facility and secure at least one target-shooting weapon and take out the crazed shooter before any harm is done.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #78
116. There was a time when most "normal" parents thought lots of strange and wrong things.
"Normal" is not a synonym for "correct."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #116
126. "normal" in my sentence
is short form for decent and rational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #126
134. both are value judgements and have no empirical value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. Some of the worst public policy have been based on "decent and rational"
according to some people. The US has a long list of such things. Not that Canada or any other place has been immune.
Some Canadians convinced parliament this was this was rational, even though the military and RCMP thought otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #139
162. I see
Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 12:20 PM by iverglas
It's fine for one of these to draw an analogy between firearms control advocates and racist human rights violators ... but not for me to reply.

Got it. Love the new rgime here.



edited typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #162
171. no the issue was use of normal and decent
and why value judgments without overwhelming and demonstrable public interest has no place in making policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #171
173. no
you were the only one pretending that "making policy" had anything to do with anything I said.

Keep it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #139
172. so as I was saying ...
You chose to misrepresent what I was saying. Your choice.

I referred to normal / decent and rational people and their preferences in their private lives, specifically in relation to what goes on around their children.

Your decision to pretend that parents' preference not to have people carrying firearms in their children's summer camps is analogous to a public policy decision that violated the rights of individuals based on national origin (something not unique to Canada even in that particular manifestation, we will of course recall) was despicable.

I'm entitled to my opinion. :rofl:

And I stated it.

People who do not wish to have "armed" individuals wandering around their children's summer camps are normal, decent and rational.

(For anyone to pretend to think that such a statement is one of anything other than opinion and then get all huffed up about it ... well, whatever floats one's boat, I guess.)

I can say no more than that your pretense that parents' preference regarding the presence of "armed" individuals at their children's summer camps is analogous to governmental decisions to violate the rights of individuals is despicable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #172
176. Yes you are
and thank you for the clarification, I was simply pointing out that such things are relative. I simply took it as you were speaking for all parents of the world and that you would think parents in a different situation as not rational or normal.

I was actually surprised to find the relocation issue. I grew up learning about the underground railroad went to Canada partly because of the Fugitive Slave Laws applied to the north. The parallels were amazing. Both militaries, FBI, RCMP pointed out there was no national security threat. Both were supported mostly people who stood to profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #176
178. no, you were not
I was simply pointing out that such things are relative.

Preferences regarding one's children's circumstances and government policies are NOT matters of degree.

They are apples and basketballs.


I simply took it as you were speaking for all parents of the world and that you would think parents in a different situation as not rational or normal.

Did you really ...




http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/23/world/ottawa-will-pay...

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/21/us/senate-votes-to-co...

Virtually simultaneous, interestingly -- with the decision under Reagan breaking the impasse in Canada under Mulroney (Canada had wanted to offer only collective compensation).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
156. Sigh...
Normal? Really? Lemme guess... you drew that one out of the big book of facts from your ass...

Most of my senior counselors and the majority of the parents were armed at my camps... but they weren't "normal" right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #156
163. I will resist
I will NOT ask which militia operated the camps ...

:rofl:

Obviously many camping experiences, in the US at least, involve firearms used for sports shooting. I tend not to think the firearms in question are lying around loose most of the time.

If I'm expected to believe, however, that counsellors and parents (what were parents doing at a child's summer camp? mine certainly never hung out at my Girl Guide and church youth group camps, except for drop-off and pick-up) were promenading around with pistols in case of attack by machine gun-wielding murderers ... well ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #163
168. My camp experiences.....
... were not of the all summer under the supervision of teenagers type ( a la Jason and Camp Crystal Lake)

Ours were of the the shorter term (1-3 weeks) under the supervision of scout leadership or our fathers and they were indeed armed or had access to arms. There was a bit more of an adventure/survival theme to ours than what you described as well so that may be the difference.

*goes to search for a properly shocked emoticon*
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #168
169. now try reading the post I was initially replying to
which is of course the post I was ... well, replying to, eh?

What if there were a few armed citizens on the island?

WHY WOULD ANYONE ON THAT ISLAND HAVE BEEN "ARMED"?

They were not on an "adventure/survival" outing.

They were at a summer gathering of members of the youth wing of a political party, at an established facility, on an island, not in the remote wilderness, where they attended meetings and engaged in R&R activities.

So on the topic at hand ... as I said in the post ...

Why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp?

to which Cid_B replied:

Most of my senior counselors and the majority of the parents were armed at my camps... but they weren't "normal" right?

... why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp?

Your camping experiences seem to have, excuse me, sweet bugger all to do with the event in question.

Yes, I did also say:

Most normal parents in this world really do not want the adults in charge of their children at a summer camp to be "armed".

and plainly if I had been referring to "summer camps" in which children are exposed to predatory wildlife, I would expect parents to want staff to have means of protecting children from that wildlife. That was not the context.

Children's summer camps that involve such situations, in the US or anywhere else, are in a distinct minority.

I was posting about the particular youth camp in issue, the camp that the post I replied to was about.

Why would there be "armed citizens" at a political party's youth camp ... in Norway, on an island, with no predatory wildlife?

Plainly, the poster in question was NOT referring to individuals "armed" against wildlife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #78
174. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
demmiblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:31 PM
Original message
Unseemly.
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't think you thought about it very hard.
It has happened. Unfortunately it will happen again. American gun-porn all but commands it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. This was Norway.
What does "American gun-porn" have to do with it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
82. Try to follow along.
The OP was about whether such a lengthy spree could happen here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. I never heard of gun-porn...what is it?
??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
50. Term used by many gun-control/banners here. Good question...
and not clearly answered by the users. I speculate that (as with most forms of prohibition), an attempt is made to attach notions of perversion with the object/practice opposed, and thereby associate the people using the object and engaging in the practice with the perverse practice. Hence: "gun porn," "gun-love," "penis substitute," "child pornography" comparisons, "dirty," "fat," "rednecks/trailer trash," "drugs," in general, etc. Note also that many (not all) gun prohibitionists seem comfortable with drug prohibition, one of the grandest (and bloodiest) failed social engineering policies in our history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. There are other interpretations as well...
(1) The posting of photographs (usually high quality) of firearms; and

(2) The posting of photographs of attractive women using firearms.

Fortunately, moderators here don't seem to be as incensed by this kind of "porn," though some gun-controllers of a "vulgar purtitanism" bent are. I have yet to see "gun porn" attached to an attractive man using a gun. Maybe they don't count?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. That's 'cause I haven't posted my picture here yet....
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 04:27 PM by PavePusher
Sorry, figured we could use a little mood lightening there...

:cry: My prayers for the people of Norway.

Pave in Tucson.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. It's so sad because this mass murder stuff has gone celebrity...
Loughner and his ilk want the attention, status, and celebrity which comes from these dreary murderous acts.

You may have guessed from previous postings that I have little sympathy for violent criminals. I worked for a short time in a county slam. Whenever one of these murderous punks came through on his way to state prison, he trailed marriage proposals like a bad fart.

People everywhere just want to be free and live in peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. I really think we need to have a law....
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 04:50 PM by PavePusher
or, at minimum, a pledge from the Media, that the name, photo and personal details of these criminals never get mentioned in the press. Ever. On pain of losing your broadcast licence, and/or being fined into bankruptcy.

Maybe that will help stop the "I wanna be fay-muss" crowd.

Not sure if it would have any affect on truely wacko psychopaths though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. Well, not a law. But I see your point. It would be nice if MSM were responsible.
Edited on Sat Jul-23-11 05:07 PM by SteveM
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. I've remarked before on this forum about the relationship between mass murderers and 24-hour news
To put it bluntly, mass murderers and 24-hour news channels feed off each other: the murderers give the news channels material for their sensationalism, and the news channels give the murderers publicity and notoriety, thereby encouraging more mass murders, which they can then report in sensationalist fashion.

There was actually a period in recent history when school shootings stopped completely: for several months after 9/11, when TV news had something else to report on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #68
107. Sorry ....but
(The Awesomeness ) There's none left for you
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
79. "I have yet to see 'gun porn' attached to an attractive man using a gun."
I have yet to see such pictures published for the sexual titillation of women.

I wonder ... could that be because women tend not to find violent images sexually titillating, and to perceive sexually provocative pictures of men with guns threatening rather than exciting? Hmm. Given that women are the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual violence ... I wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #79
95. I have a different theory
From what I understand, women tend to respond more to touch while men respond mostly to sight. That said, I don't share the advertising industry's definition of beauty with its plastic boobs, airbrushing (photoshop), starving models etc. Most gun guys I have known (including me) are attracted to strong women who can shoot etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #79
117. Lots or women find violent aggressive men very appealing, images or not.
That goes for psychopaths on death row with pen pals and groupies, to football players and elite military men.

Women on average are also less interested in images of men posed for titillation who are not holding guns but are, for example, standing by sports cars or other commercial products.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
127. here ya go
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway...



"Anders Behring Breivik from the video he posted on YouTube before his shooting spree"


The image appears in the closing seconds of the video, which has been reposted by someone who saved a copy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE


There's yr gun porn.

Kinda like this one:


http://www.canada.com/technology/Facebook+page+devoted+...



"Photos of Kimveer Gill, the Fabreville, Quebec resident responsible for the death of one student and injuries to others after a shooting rampage at Dawson College in Montreal, Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2006."



Assholes with guns, taking pictures of themselves with their fetish objects before using them to commit mass murder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #127
145. no takers?
snork
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #145
148. No takers on what, dear?
Was there a question? A statement you expected refutation of?

Kind of hard to read your mind, since your post said.. fuck all, as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #127
147. Mr Gill fits this profile also
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #147
177. interesting source
From the post you linked to:
Among young people who resort to violence, there exists an intense desire to regain control over their own lives. For years they've asked themselves who needed them, where they belonged, but they received no answers to those for them very important questions. In such circumstances, shooting people in public can give a wonderful feeling of power and self-confidence, because you become the one with the power to decide who lives and who dies. And then you accept the less heroic moment--dying between the checkout lines of a supermarket--into the bargain.

Interesting theory, but not one I'll adopt as an exclusive explanation.

Many young people, if not most, experience those feelings. A minute fraction engage in acts of public violence.

I prefer my own theory: unsuccessful narcissists. I coined the term for use at DU and then found I was not the first:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women...
"... Successful narcissists have something extra that means people tolerate their bad behaviour. The most dangerous is the unsuccessful narcissist. He doesnt have money or power or charm, so hes fired a lot of the time. He drives more and more people away, until he ends up alone and a very bleak person."


Paid access only, but refined googling gets:

www.springerlink.com/index/x534p121664265k7.pdf
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
W. Campbell and Roy Baumeister

... From the failed narcissist's perspective, the depression, not the NPD, is the problem. This small group of failed narcissists, then, is different from the majority of narcissists who are largely happy and nondepressed. This skewed sample of those with NPD seen by clinicians may, in part, be responsible for the view of narcissism as a defense against clandestine feelings of worthlessness (described above). If this dimensional conceptualization of narcissism is correct, this has important implications for research. There is very little research done on individuals diagnosed with NPD. This reflects the low number of individuals with NPD seeking treatment, as well as perhaps funding priorities by the major research grant agencies. ..."


Interesting, in any event, to note some things said in an article in a book edited by Wilhelm Heitmeyer, the sociologist quoted in the post you linked to.

I have to retype as the text is not copy-able. (The text is a lengthy article and so the excerpts below are fair dealing/fair use; with emphases added.)

International handbook of violence research, Volume 1
By Wilhelm Heitmeyer, John Hagan

portions of which are available via google books. This is from the article "Youth Violence and Guns" by Alfred Blumstein.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=A4mqsik_VDcC&pg=PA659&l...

p. 659 ... Alternatively, we might seek to determine the degree to which that growth in youth violance was attributable to a particular change in the environment rather than in the mix of people. In particular, we will want to explore the extent to which handguns--and especially the semiautomatic handguns with their high firepower and large clips of ammunition--became avaiable to people who had not previously had access to handguns and who had no experience in carrying them with restraint.

In this article, we will explore the degree to which handguns have made the difference. America is plagued by the widespread availability of guns to people who cannot be trusted to use them responsibly. ...

p. 669 ... Then, in view of the recklessness and bravado that is often characteristic of teenagers, and their low level of setting disputes other than through the use of physical force, many of the fist-fights that would otherwise have taken place escalated into shootings as a result of the presence of guns. This can be exacerbated by the problems of socialization associated with high levels of poverty, high rates of single-parent households, educational falures, and a widespread sense of economic hopelessness. ...

p. 671 ... always males--came to school with guns and killed a number of classmates or teachers. ... Rampage killing was often part of a suicide, with a clear realization that they would either be killed in the process or kill themselves, but would exact a penalty from their "enemies" or their proxies. ... Many were well-educated ... but more than half were unemployed despite their education, so that their violent acts could be a consequence of their frustration of their underachievement, or it could be that their underemployment was a consequence of their personality problems.

... It is also the case, however, that rampage killings increased in recent years. ... There are certainly many possible explanations, but that shift certainly coincides with the increasing availability of semiautomatic handguns with larger magazines, whose greater lethality makes multiple killings in a matter of seconds more possible than with a traditional six-shooter. Testimony to the limits of gun control in the United States is that a majority of the rampage killers had obtained their guns legally. For the students in particular, they had to get the guns illegally because they were always under legal age to make the purchase. They could take the gun or guns from home, steal them from a relative or a neighbor, or recruit a straw purchaser who could buy the gun legally for them. ...


So all in all, "unsuccessful narcissist" seems to fit the portrait of "rampage killers".

Certainly it fits everything known about Marc Lpine and Kimveer Gill, the two Montreal mass murderers.

Since political ideology alone does not drive people to commit atrocities such as the one that has occurred in Norway, I will be interested in what comes out about that individual's personality as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #147
180. Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/anders-behr...

... He was a fan of violent video games and former neighbours said he had sometimes been seen in "military-style" clothing. In the pictures that have so far emerged, Breivik appears well dressed, slender and clean shaven, a picture of the young entrepreneur he wanted to be. His businesses, however, were not much of a success, each one being dissolved after a short while after making a loss, until he established his farm business in 2009 and moved out of Oslo.

... What seems clear from his online postings was that Breivik increasingly perhaps had a grandiose sense of himself. In one attacking Brundtland he predicted that Norwegians would soon no longer be "immune to inflated <political> rhetoric", while in a solitary Twitter post a week before launching his attack, he paraphrased John Stuart Mill to write: "One person with belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests."


"Narcissistic personality disorder" just comes to mind ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #32
192. Urban Dictionary says
Gun Porn as a term meaning photos of guns that display them in the same carefully posed and lighted manner as the models in traditional pornography, has been around for a long time in firearms and shooting cultures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #192
203. there now
That wasn't so difficult, was it? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. At a youth camp, on an island, by someone in police uniform??
Really, it isn't that much of a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. Loughner was stopped by unarmed persons.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. Yes, I know...
Hence the reason I used the word "stomped" instead of "shot"

However, there were also multiple CCW holders in the crowd who stated they were prepared to use their weapons if Loughner had been more persistant or a bit more competent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
51. One armed peson was in a store and ran toward the scene...
when shots had already been fired, and da punk was thrown down. What could have been a better situation was to have a couple of armed people actually on the scene. It may not have prevented casualties, but it could have cut down on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
donco Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. Does Norway have the death penalty? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
71. No, and the maximum prison sentence is 21 years
Though I suspect, that like various other European countries, they have provisions for involuntary commitment for those deemed criminally insane which can, in effect, amount to a literal life sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
76. No, not since 1905 apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. When seconds count, the police are only
90 minutes away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
85. I saw that on a bumper sticker the other day, right next to some Republican ones.
If the problem is slow response by the police, that's probably because
we, following Republican guidance, have cut so many police departments
past the bone.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #85
103. Very clever, implying that I'm secretly a Republican.
The fact is that, regardless of what they paint on the sides of their overpriced cop cars, police have no ability OR obligation to 'protect' anyone. The first is obvious with a bit of rational thought, and the latter is established by law and the Supreme Court...you can look it up. In any case, are you attempting to deny the truth of my earlier 'bumper sticker' comment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. I would never imply you are a Republican; that is against the DU rules.
I will, however, unambiguously state that that position is a position
held, aided, and abetted by many Republicans and if you choose to
align yourself with that position, you help Republicans elect Republicans.

Meanwhile, in my city, we still vote enough taxes on ourselves that
police response time to emergencies is far, far less than "90 minutes".

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #113
137. Not always a money issue
mostly it is a geography issue. This case certainly is. An extreme example in the US is where I grew up. The county has the same land area as Mass, but the population is under 38K. Outside of the couple of towns, your power company is solar/wind, gas generator, or not at all. Phone? Now maybe with better wireless and satellite technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Marengo Donating Member (296 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #113
157. Do you oppose the Patriot Act? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #113
184. I'm glad that your fellow citizens have decided to do that. However:
Edited on Sun Jul-24-11 06:04 PM by friendly_iconoclast
Should the cops not show up in time, you will have no recourse.

You are free, of course, to arm or not arm yourself as you prefer.


I note that your state has much laxer gun laws then mine. I doubt you'll be moving to Massachusetts, however, as

we have a higher violent crime and murder rate than you do- despite our allegedly more 'progressive' politics...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #85
212. It ain't Republicans saying it in Detroit and other cities
I'm pretty sure Flavor Flav wasn't speaking as a conservative either when he called 911 a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
19. How about at youth camps, Girl Scout Camps, etc. ? Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. I'm thinking of the camps from my scouting days...
... and weapons were an integral part of the majority of them (either senior staff or the personal weapons of the leaders in the troop)

Dunno about girl scout camps...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
55. Increasingly, "youth camps" include training in firearms. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
80. I got my marksmanship badge at a boy scout camp..
with a marlin 22lr rifle. This would have been.. oh.. 1977? 1978?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #80
89. Yeah. So did I. But nobody at camp could have dealt with a mass murderer
The adults who managed the rifle range would not have run across camp to get a rifle.
We didn't camp in a Hollywood movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #89
131. My scout master always carried on our events.
Mostly for copperheads, but we did get the occasional eastern diamondback, or cottonmouths (around water).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #131
205. I meant to ask this too
My scout master always carried on our events.
Mostly for copperheads, but we did get the occasional eastern diamondback, or cottonmouths (around water).


Assuming that your post is meant to be relevant to the actual issue at hand -- whether having "armed" individuals on the island would have prevented this tragedy -- how would your scoutmaster's handgun (I assume) have prevented you and your troop from being killed by a skilled marksman armed with a semi-automatic rifle?

But maybe you were just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #205
206. Ahh, a wonderful 'what if'
Who said anything about "preventing" a tragedy?

It's possible that he might have put a premature end to such a rampage, I suppose.

Might not matter to the parents of victims 1, 2, or 3, but I daresay it might matter quite a bit to potential victims 4 through whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #206
207. yes, because skilled shooters with semi-automatic rifles
bent on mass murder really are that stupid that they are going to set themselves up for getting shot by a scoutmaster with a handgun.

In somebody's world, anyhow.

So on the island in Norway, perhaps only 30 or 40 people would have been killed before someone with an appropriate weapon and the appropriate skill and the necessary circumstances took him out.

Great outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #207
208. Rather than 73? Absolutely.
Edited on Wed Jul-27-11 11:08 AM by X_Digger
I'll take half a loaf over none any day.

Are you so short-sighted that that such an outcome isn't positive in your mind?

eta:

I love how you set this nut up as some supah-ninja-sharpshooter, as though he were sniping people from long distances.

So far details are sketchy, but we have at least two accounts of people being within talking distance of him.

What leads you to believe that he was never within handgun shooting distance?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #208
209. yes, we know
I'll take half a loaf over none any day.

You'll take dozens of dead young people over laws that would have kept this individual from legally acquiring and possessing the weapons he used to kill them.

(Note that I am not talking about laws like Canada's or Norway's, which permit the possession of semi-automatic weapons and handguns by individuals. I am talking about the laws I advocate, as a change to laws in Canada: laws that do not permit the possession of semi-automatic weapons or handguns off the premises where they are used for sports shooting.)

We don't know that such laws would have made it impossible for him to acquire the weapons in question or equivalents. We can assume that they would not prevent everyone everywhere from doing so.

But we do know that many such acts are committed by persons otherwise in legal possession of their firearms ... not to mention the ones acquired directly from people who acquired them legally (e.g. via theft or straw purchase and transfer).

But you will take the murders committed by people with these weapons over laws that would plainly prevent at least some of them.

So I guess I'll take half a loaf too, eh? Public policies that prevent more firearms violence than current policies do.

You, on the other hand, favour public policies that prevent less firearms violence than laws like Canada's and other countires' plainly do, by at least limiting access to such weapons.

112 handgun homicides in Canada 2009
- if the US had the same rate of handgun homicide, it would have had fewer than 1,000 handgun homicides in 2009.

39 firearms homicides in the UK in 2008-2009
- if the US had the same rate of firearm homicide, it would have had 195 firearms homicides in that period

(If someone wants to go off on the substitute-method, comparison of non-firearm homicide rates, etc., tangent, they'd better be prepared to demonstrate exactly how a significant number of those firearms homicides in the US, and of the firearms homicides not committed in Canada as the rate has declined, would have been committed sans firearm.)


And there we are. You actually prefer a much smaller fraction of a loaf, I guess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #209
210. Nice bob and weave..
I said, "It's possible that he might have put a premature end to such a rampage, I suppose. Might not matter to the parents of victims 1, 2, or 3, but I daresay it might matter quite a bit to potential victims 4 through whatever."

to which you replied:

So on the island in Norway, perhaps only 30 or 40 people would have been killed before someone with an appropriate weapon and the appropriate skill and the necessary circumstances took him out.

Great outcome.


to which I replied, "I'll take half a loaf over none any day. Are you so short-sighted that that such an outcome isn't positive in your mind?"

Suddenly you jump from whether or not the possibility of decreasing the number of victims exists via an armed response-- to you pet prohibition.

But you will take the murders committed by people with these weapons over laws that would plainly prevent at least some of them.


And I'll 'take' some sexual assaults over chemically castrating all males over the age of 16 except for those trying to procreate.

I'll 'take' some highway fatalities over mandating all cars only be able to attain 10 miles per hour.

I'll 'take' some drownings over outlawing home pools.

I'll 'take' the occasional Bush over literacy tests and poll taxes.

Somehow I'm reminded of this..





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #210
211. oh my
me: But you will take the murders committed by people with these weapons over laws that would plainly prevent at least some of them.

you: And I'll 'take' some sexual assaults over chemically castrating all males over the age of 16 except for those trying to procreate.

Quite apart from how grateful I am that YOU will "take" some sexual assaults, the overwhelming majority of which are committed against WOMEN ...

... I think you'll be hearing from some of your fellow travellers here.

You think of laws restricting access to firearms, and you immediately think "Castration!!!"

:rofl:

Yes, prohibiting possession of semi-automatic firearms and possession of handguns is analogous to castration.

Well, in some people's minds!


Somehow, you're reminded of courageous women who crusaded against the violence and poverty and abuse and degradation suffered by large masses of women and children at the hands of drunken/alcoholic men?

Good. You need to spend more time thinking about things like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #211
213. So which were you-- WCTU or ASL?
And nice attempt at spin.

Face it, the temperance movement fell flat on their collective asses. They managed to pass prohibition and what happened? Crime skyrocketed with the rise of the criminal organizations rushing to fill in the demand. When did it drop? Oh that's right, with the repeal of prohibition.

But you keep banging that drum and marching, I'm sure someone, somewhere, will give a damn.

Just don't expect the rest of us to march along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #213
214. I don't suggest that your Prohibition was a success
or that it was wise public policy. (Never had it up here ...)

I'm sick to the back teeth of the misogynist attacks on the women who did put themselves on the line, and endure all that and worse, to try to do something about the abuse and horrors endured by untold numbers of women and children at the hands of drunken and alcoholic men.

Nobody was as sophisticated in their analyses of social problems and solutions then as we are now, and we're not even tremendously adept at it now, in the case of most governments anyway.


Face it, the temperance movement fell flat on their collective asses. They managed to pass prohibition and what happened

"They"? The temperance movement was enacting legislation at the time, was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #214
215. Nit-picking words, again?
That's how I know I've struck a nerve.. you dodge, bob, and weave until you're left criticizing.. word choice.

I'm sick to the back teeth of the misogynist attacks on the women who did put themselves on the line, and endure all that and worse, to try to do something about the abuse and horrors endured by untold numbers of women and children at the hands of drunken and alcoholic men.


Feel free to be sick to the back teeth of whatever you please. *I* was criticizing prohibition, and you echoing sentiment from distant history, in case you missed it.

That's okay, next time I'll be sure to bring up Harry Anslinger, and the 'reefer madness' schtick next time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. yeah, big man?
*I* was criticizing prohibition, and you echoing sentiment from distant history, in case you missed it.

Actually, YOU posted a photograph of a bunch of wmoen who were NOT the legislators who enacted your Prohibition. Not for the first time. And for the sole plain and obvious purpose of denigrating THOSE WOMEN. Because otherwise you'd have posted a picture of the MEN who enacted the legislation. And THAT was what I was responding to.

So that would be why I said, in direct response to what you posted:

Somehow, you're reminded of courageous women who crusaded against the violence and poverty and abuse and degradation suffered by large masses of women and children at the hands of drunken/alcoholic men?
Good. You need to spend more time thinking about things like that.


Bob and weave and have castration fantasies all you like.

Oh, and keep up the pretense that there is any analogy whatsoever to be drawn between firearms and alcohol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. Prohibition of a very popular item? Yah.. no relation.
You might not sound like a drum banger in Canada, but you damned sure would, here.

Leave out his religious twaddle and you'd sound like Donald Wildmon and the AFA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #89
154. "We didn't camp in a Hollywood movie"?
Since when does anybody attending a summer camp in a Hollywood movie have ready access to a firearm? How long do you think any of the Friday the 13th movies would have lasted if any of the Voorheeses' victims had had ready access to a 20-gauge pump-action and a couple of boxes of #3 buckshot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. Well, according to some schools of thought, it's a good thing none of the victims were armed
because the attacker might have been hurt.



:eyes:
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
81. name those schools of thought
Please.

There's a prize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AzWorker Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. "name those schools of thought"

'Stupid U' has been giving out degrees to anti-rights activists for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. "'Stupid U' has been giving out degrees to anti-rights activists for decades."
And I assume you have yours proudly displayed!

I asked a question to someone who made a specific statement, about that specific statement.

Well, according to some schools of thought, it's a good thing none of the victims were armed
because the attacker might have been hurt.


If you can't follow a two-item exchange, feel free to withdraw from the playing field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #86
96. Why would Azworker have an anti-rights degree? He's obviously Pro-rights.
Who can't follow a 2-item exchange?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #96
128. oh dear, is that the only kind of degree that 'Stupid U' gives out?
I thought it rather obvious it had more than one faculty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #81
91. Gerard Stampfield Kindergarten is one
you would love for me to include present company, I suspect, not falling for it. They know perfectly well who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
88. I'd like to see any proof of that beyond your mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. Simple...just read the posts.
It's not really that complicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. point me to one. It's not that complicated. If you assert it, you prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #97
140. That would technically be a call out, and against DU rules.
Feel free to search for 'death penalty' in the last week's posts in this forum. You'll find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #140
146. oh, come on
There are brazillions of people in the world who do not post at DU.

Surely you can provide evidence of ONE who supports your allegation, one person, somewhere, you can name and direct us to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-24-11 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #146
149. Having trouble reading two posts up?
Simple...just read the posts.


I took the poster to mean @ DU. Perhaps the poster will clarify.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. On an island accessible only by boat with no on-site security
Attacked by a gunman in a police uniform that used a fake ID to pass a security checkpoint on the mainland, to gain access to the island, after the gunman blew up the prime minister's office as a "diversion" and tied up Oslo security.

How long did Bush sit in that classroom on 9/11/2001 with a dumbass look on his face?

How many hours did it take for the 9/11 plane strikes to unfold?

How long did it take Bush et al. to respond?

nice try but

FAIL

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bellcrank Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. So do you have any ideas about how to solve the "problem"?
You seem to have a lot to say except when it comes to constructive suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. Take a deep breath... step away from the keyboard...
... and go play with some butterflies.

I'm sure you'll feel much better in a few hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. Yup.
You're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
58. "Gun-free" zone? I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
57. Actually, a gun-free zone. Bet the attacker knew it, too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-27-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #57
204. I forgot to ask
Actually, a gun-free zone. Bet the attacker knew it, too.

How do YOU know it?

Not in hindsight from the empirical evidence: that there were apparently no firearms on the island.

How do you know it was a "gun-free zone", which ordinarily refers to an area in which firearms are not permitted?

If you had been presented with the scenario before the events happened, how would you (or the attacker) have known there were no firearms on the island?

Breivik expected to be killed in attack
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
84. Not even the same
NYC did not have to wait for Bush to get his head out of his ass. They did not even have to wait for Rudy Boy to do anything. Someone picked up the phone and NYPD and NYFD were on the scene within minutes, before the politicians had a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. (Your vote: -1)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
26. Do you assume everything, everywhere, is the same?

because you just compared the Loughner gun killing to this event.


If you are going to do that, you should do it intelligently. Which would mean consideration of the facts.


Loughner did his deed in a crowded parking lot, and was surrounded by people from the start, some of whom tackled him when he ran out of ammo. A gun was not used to take him down, and in fact the only person who came running with a gun admits that he came very close to shooting an innocent.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Cid_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. No... do you?
One can't compare unless all facts are exactly equal? Conversation with you must be a real whiz bang of an experience....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
60. Insult other DUers
typical ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
65. Loughner did not run out, his gun jammed. Other than that, you are right nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
104. If loughner kept shooting and was able to avoid being stopped there would have
been someone with a gun to stop him. In Norway, virginia tech and many others no one was there with a gun. The fact that the guy with the gun did not shoot the person who took the gun from Loughner shows that the argument that people will shoot each other by accident will not likely happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
xocet Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
35. AGP...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
40. Fascist Bible bangers are evil. Those are my only thoughts right now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #40
66. true, but I expand that to all fascist (fill in the blank) bangers nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #66
118. True. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC