Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

The imitation would have served you as well be cause he ran off.

I understand that, but your earlier Post: # 5,073,355
appeared to imply that a bluff gun woud have been BETTER
than a functional one, and that (somehow) it was more desirable.

Your exact words were:

Izzythepush wrote:

So you didn't actually need a real gun,
an imitation would have frightened him off

I infer that u allege that a bluff gun "an imitation" is (somehow) PREFERABLE to a functional gun,
tho u did not explain what I shud have done if he did not fall for the bluff and kept firing at me.
( Will u agree that violent criminals r not always co-operative ?? )

I remain most earnestly curious concerning HOW a non-functional bluff gun
is BETTER than a good one that actually WORKS.

I hope that u will enlighten me on that point !

izzythepush wrote:

You told me off for imaginings earlier on so don't you start.

Is it only imagination that robbery can occur in the future?
Maybe in MY future ?
Shud I reduce my state of preparation
to one of helplessness, with a non-functional bluff gun????
By what logic woud I wanna do THAT ????????

Maybe there r no robberies in England.

David

1 Reply

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

What is the CORRECT length of time
that is to be dedicated to the creation of a republic
that will rise to be the mightiest nation in the history of the world ?

spendius wrote:

The time it took to surrender freedom in order to be able to embark on such a journey.
The mightiest nation is logically the least free.

Your reasoning is very defective.
That absence of freedom is confined to the military establishment,
for battle discipline, where it is needed literally as a matter of life or death.

spendius wrote:

Free people don't accept the discipline necessary.

It is unnecessary.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

To this extent, I 'll admit it,
qua my personal history: at age 8, I was a little ill-at-ease,
wondering how I 'd defend my home, if it became necessary to do so.
( I had little factual basis for concern, in that we lived in a safe, quiet naborhood. )
When I took possession of a small frame, 2 inch .38 caliber revolver,
I felt psychologically better, more tranquil & serene -- safer than b4.

So, in compliance with your demand to ADMIT
that it is psychological: that is what u get.

That is fair enough and it is not a position I would argue with. I can well see that being ill-at-ease at 8 will likely result in being less so with a shooter close at hand.

I'm left wondering if being ill-at-ease could be faked, or exaggerated, to justify having a liking for guns stemming from what they were shown to be capable of in movies.

Imagine firing a broadside on a battleship Dave. I bet that's exciting. As long as all the pots and pans below deck are screwed down.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

the same as we don't discuss
vertebrate paleontology in symposia for scrutiny of String Theory

Now you have suggested it somebody might take up the challenge.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

What you should consider Dave is that we are all vulnerable to a lethal attack.

But what seems to be the case is that if we agree to pretend we are not vulnerable we become less vulnerable and the more vulnerable we allow ourselves to believe we are the more vulnerable we become. Thus your position increases your vulnerability which feeds on itself. You create increased vulnerability by refusing to put your felt vulnerability, which is always there in everyone to an extent, , out of your mind.

Have you ever been a prosecutor? I daresay they feel more vulnerable than average.

2 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

To this extent, I 'll admit it,
qua my personal history: at age 8, I was a little ill-at-ease,
wondering how I 'd defend my home, if it became necessary to do so.
( I had little factual basis for concern, in that we lived in a safe, quiet naborhood. )
When I took possession of a small frame, 2 inch .38 caliber revolver,
I felt psychologically better, more tranquil & serene -- safer than b4.

So, in compliance with your demand to ADMIT
that it is psychological: that is what u get.

spendius wrote:

That is fair enough and it is not a position I would argue with.
I can well see that being ill-at-ease at 8 will likely result
in being less so with a shooter close at hand.

I'm left wondering if being ill-at-ease could be faked,
or exaggerated, to justify having a liking for guns
stemming from what they were shown to be capable of in movies.

I don't understand. Y woud I have any interest in FAKING anything ???
Neither do I understand Y any justification (to whom?????) shud be
rendered for LIKING anything. That is a matter of personal freedom that everyone has.
Anyone can like whatever he wants without justification.

David

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What you should consider Dave is that we are all vulnerable to a lethal attack.

But what seems to be the case is that if we agree to pretend we are not vulnerable we become less vulnerable and the more vulnerable we allow ourselves to believe we are the more vulnerable we become. Thus your position increases your vulnerability which feeds on itself. You create increased vulnerability by refusing to put your felt vulnerability, which is always there in everyone to an extent, , out of your mind.

Have you ever been a prosecutor? I daresay they feel more vulnerable than average.

1. I usually stay away from high crime areas.

2. I do not feel vulnerable.
I cannot remember the last time that I felt vulnerable.

When someone actually shot at me, I was not feeling vulnerable.
I was busy looking for something.
When I drew out my defensive gun, I had no emotions. Then the bad guy fled. I felt mild humor.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Y woud I have any interest in FAKING anything ???

I didn't think you were that naive old cock.

And "Y" is no substitute for "why" because the ""h" is sounded in "why".

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I cannot remember the last time that I felt vulnerable.

Okay. "Ill-at-ease" then.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I do not feel vulnerable.
I cannot remember the last time that I felt vulnerable.

Sounds like you're overdue a prostate examination.

0 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

Y woud I have any interest in FAKING anything ???

spendius wrote:

I didn't think you were that naive old cock.

OK: I don't get your point.

spendius wrote:

And "Y" is no substitute for "why" because the ""h" is sounded in "why".

IF that were true,
then I 'd not have done it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Appeared to imply is not the same as imply, but for the record, it would be better if you all had imitation weapons, no-one would be shot, and you could still strut about like cock of the walk.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

OK: I don't get your point.

It's not my point. It's a well known point.

An exhibitionist stripper claiming to be performing lewd exhibitions because she is putting her daughter through college. A power mad politician claiming the be serving the public. A gun fetish masquerading as self-defence. A journalist hacking phones claiming to be protecting the public interest. A poster on the evolution threads claiming he is promoting scientific excellence.

It's rife Dave.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We have a thing called elections over here, which coupled with legislation that stops broadcasters being overly biased means we have free and fair elections. We don't have rulers we have elected representatives.

You have the tyranny of the majority.

No thanks. I prefer living in a country where I have rights that the majority can never take away.

izzythepush wrote:

Oralboy

Your name-calling is a poor substitute for a well-thought out argument.

izzythepush wrote:

I'm not so selfish to believe that innocent people should be murdered on an almost daily basis just so I can feel big by holding a gun.

Your statement about the motives of gun owners is just more of your bigotry.

And gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Small arms have shown themselves to be of limited use against fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks. If all the SFA had to sustain itself were small arms it would have collapsed a long time ago. It is heavily reliant on foreign aid.

Shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets (bazookas) are of great use against tanks. And just think what impact a HEAT round would have against personal body armor such as that worn by this batman shooter guy.

Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are of great use against helicopter gunships. A modern fighter jet would likely be secure against such a small missile however.

Note Justice Antonin Scalia's recent comment to Fox News showing his willingness to consider the possibility that American civilians have the right to own Stinger Missiles under the Second Amendment.

http://able2know.org/topic/195698-1

Justice Scalia truly cares about the rights and freedom of the American people.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

You have the tyranny of the majority.

You really are stupid. We don't have gunmen walking into gurdwaras and shooting everyone. That's tyranny.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

oralloy wrote:

You have the tyranny of the majority.

izzythepush wrote:

You really are stupid. We don't have gunmen walking into gurdwaras and shooting everyone. That's tyranny.

Speaking as someone who has been nearly shot,
within about 3 inches in front of my face,
I can assure u that being shot at is not tyranny.
For sure, it never occurred to me that the attempted robbers were tyrants.
That is not a correct use of the definition of that word.

Socialists (e.g., the National Socialists and the international socialists, i.e., the commies) are tyrants.
All tyrannys r bad things. Not all bad things r tyrannys.

I can maybe see a possible argument that IF
the robbery had persisted, and IF I had acquiesced therein,
perpetrating a cowardly effort to placate the robbers
(instead of making a good faith effort to kill the robbers), THEN
I can see where possibly the event coud be characterized as tyranny.

Maybe the rioters who enforced nudism upon the Englishmen
of London in the full light of day, against their will,
coud by some extreme stretch of the imagination,
be characterized as tyrants.

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

izzythepush wrote:

Small arms have shown themselves to be of limited use against fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks. If all the SFA had to sustain itself were small arms it would have collapsed a long time ago. It is heavily reliant on foreign aid.

oralloy wrote:

Shoulder-fired anti-tank rockets (bazookas) are of great use against tanks. And just think what impact a HEAT round would have against personal body armor such as that worn by this batman shooter guy.

Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are of great use against helicopter gunships. A modern fighter jet would likely be secure against such a small missile however.

Note Justice Antonin Scalia's recent comment to Fox News showing his willingness to consider the possibility that American civilians have the right to own Stinger Missiles under the Second Amendment.

http://able2know.org/topic/195698-1

Justice Scalia truly cares about the rights and freedom of the American people.

Here is what Justice Scalia said on this topic in D.C. v. HELLER:
" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

First cities are a death traps for tanks even given only IUDs and gasoline bombs once more please see WW2 history and you used small arms to capture heavy equipments.

Air support in city block by block fighting does not work well either.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

How were you "nearly shot"? Did he shoot and miss by "3 inches"? Was he standing 3 inches away and for some reason not fire?

Illuminate this harrowing and obviously paradigm-shaping experience for us, please.

0 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know