Mass Shooting in Colorado

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is the kind of thing I've been talking about:

More rounds: Yep.
More range: Not in the slightest. Many states require hunting rifles fire full power rounds that have vastly greater range than a 5.56.
More accurate: No, people accurize their hunting rifles. In an enclosed space accuracy is pretty meaningless anyway.
More lethal: I could go into a long discussion of biology and physics and history about trying to measure the "lethality" of a given round. Suffice to say bullets don't become more deadly because they're fired from a scary looking gun.

Because people say and believe things like this the gun community is very happy to dismiss its critics as having no idea what they're talking about, because so often they clearly do not. It gives the impression of hysteria. When someone opens a conversation with "the LHC should never have been made because it will destroy the universe" it doesn't matter what other arguments they bring against it, they just proved they've failed to understand the very thing they're talking about.

to be fair, though, what Alexander is saying isn't really that hard to parse from that. Whether the lethality of a round can be determined to any exact degree is one thing, but there are surely reasons why the militaries on this planet have moved from hunting rifles to assault rifles beyond simply them looking scary.

I do sort of get what you are saying, but isn't this a little nit-picky? I mean, I'm still sort of confused about a clear distinction between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon, I don't think that represents as fundamental of a misunderstanding as does the LHC example, and certainly doesn't invalidate my opinions on guns made for the specific purpose of efficient human killing for the military.

(being honest, however, the range/accuracy claim about hunting rifles was a fairly obvious gaff; just out of curiosity, what is the technical difference between a hunting rifle with a scope and a sniper rifle?)

Does anyone know why he did it?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Whether the lethality of a round can be determined to any exact degree is one thing, but there are surely reasons why the militaries on this planet have moved from hunting rifles to assault rifles beyond simply them looking scary.

A large part of the change to small caliber rounds can be credited to a study found that the only factor that strongly correlated with an increased chance of willing a battle was firing more shots than the enemy. Small rounds weigh less so you can carry more. Doctrine has changed since then but the basic philosophy that that "no one ever regretted having an extra shot" is still the main argument in favor of assault rifles.

The 5.56 round that is used in most assault rifles (starting with the M16) tears itself apart inside soft materials like flesh, which was marketed as making it more effective, but there's little evidence for the claim of improved lethality. Actually the biggest controversy is that soldiers feel doesn't kill people very well.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I do sort of get what you are saying, but isn't this a little nit-picky? I mean, I'm still sort of confused about a clear distinction between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon, I don't think that represents as fundamental of a misunderstanding as does the LHC example, and certainly doesn't invalidate my opinions on guns made for the specific purpose of efficient human killing for the military.

I'm mainly pointing out cultural things. The people who are anti-gun (for lack of a better term) usually don't care about guns enough to learn a lot about them while people who are pro-gun can be very invested in the subject. The perception is that anti-gun people are easily swayed by misinformation and emotional appeals. I think this is more true than many people are willing to accept.

The American assault weapon ban, for example, ended up banning nothing but cosmetic features that people thought looked scary. As in you could literally take one gun and change the grip and suddenly it would be illegal. Yhe very term "assault weapon" just means "scary gun", there's no actual standard meaning. In New Jersey the M1 Carbine (a semiautomatic rifle from 1938) is an assault weapon.

There is so much precedent of ignorance from the anti-gun side that the pro-gun side feels justified in just dismissing them. I think it would seriously benefit anti-gun people to get enough of an understanding of the subject to understand in serious term what it is they want to stop. At the very least it prevent the other side from saying "this guy have no idea what he's talking about" to mobilize.

It is true, however, that the AR-15 was originally specifically designed for and marketed to the US military (which I didn't know).

Semiauto vs fullauto is pretty easy.
Full auto means that if you pull the trigger and hold it the guns keeps firing and reloading until its out of rounds.
Semi auto mean that if you pull the trigger and hold it the fires once then reloads and stops.
Burst fire means that if you pull the trigger and hold it gun fires and reloads a given number of times (usually 2 or 3) then stops.

Originally posted by Oliver North
(being honest, however, the range/accuracy claim about hunting rifles was a fairly obvious gaff; just out of curiosity, what is the technical difference between a hunting rifle with a scope and a sniper rifle?)

There really isn't one. Lots of organizations arm snipers with accurized Remington 700s (a common hunting rifle) that fire high quality ammo.

Specialized sniper rifles usually fire something that was designed for long range shooting like a .338 LapuaMag or .300 WinMag. Antimaterial rifles, arguably a subset of sniper rifles, fire stuff .50 caliber or larger in order to take out harder targets like vehicles.

so then what would be an example of a weapon that is neither automatic or semi-automatic? something like a pump action that requires the pump to load the next round? is a revolver semi-auto, or is the self loading of a different nature?

Originally posted by Oliver North
so then what would be an example of a weapon that is neither automatic or semi-automatic? something like a pump action that requires the pump to load the next round? is a revolver semi-auto, or is the self loading of a different nature?

Revolvers, pump actions, lever actions, bolt actions, and single shot guns are all considered to be manual and thus not automatic. In a revolver the pressure you place on the trigger provides the energy used to rotate the cylinder (except in two very rare automatic revolvers).

Going to have to agree that not knowing the basic difference between weapon types doesn't help the anti-gun squad much. When the assault weapons ban expired Bill Mahr made a joke that there were Uzis under the seat for the entire audience, which was either a piece of slanted commentary that skewed things further for a likely ignorant audience or showed that he himself was ignorant over the piece of legislation.

so the assault weapon ban didn't restrict Uzis but did restrict the M1?

that does seem really superficial and totally useless...

Originally posted by Oliver North
so the assault weapon ban didn't restrict Uzis but did restrict the M1?

that does seem really superficial and totally useless...

No, the Uzi was banned because it had a folding stock and a pistol grip (the original was also full auto which makes it banned by an older law). A Chinese company made an import legal version by giving it a wooden stock.

assault weapon:
http://www.gunlistings.org/uploads/l2_rifles_norinco_m320__uzi_clone_72602.jpg
non-assault weapon:
http://thumbnails43.imagebam.com/19855/2b5c5f198549361.jpg

I believe the most extreme example that's ever been found was that under the AWB you couldn't buy an AK-47 (which was banned as a line item because it didn't have banned features) but you could buy a Type-56. The only difference between the two guns is the shape of their sights.

The provisions of the ban are very strange in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The strangest by far is that obsolete (as in antique) grenade launchers were banned but not the modern versions.
Suppressors being banned is probably the most interesting from a social/political perspective. Most people are familiar with them as a movie assassin's tool, which is why they're listed, but pre- and post-AWB they're used more for extra hearing protection.

And it didn't entirely ban any of these things. You could attach a suppressor to a rifle . . . as long as it didn't also have a pistol grip.

I believe in the end it was allowed to expire because everybody hated it. The pro side found it restrictive and the anti side needed to get rid of it in order to make a useful law.

No, the assault weapons ban didn't change whether or not you could have a fully-automatic weapon without the appropriate class of dealer license, which is what what Mahr's full statement implied and what his audience seemed to believe.

What it did was things such as banning flash suppressors, certain types of magazines, and specific firearms. I don't recall there being any reduction in crime statistics that could be linked to its passage and there certainly wasn't an increase in gun crime once it expired. It was done to appease anti-gun voters and lobbyists. If they want to do something of worth push for proper legislation.

Looks like I was thoroughly beaten to the punch by SC. =p Yeah, to say it was a weird piece of legislation is only to begin the conversation. It made no sense what-so-ever.

oh, for sure, I knew there were dumb things, like if the clip was in front/behind the trigger or those things, I just misunderstood the joke.

if it did ban a ww2 era rifle but not the Uzi, that would seem particularly problematic, but Sym pointed out a number or equally confounding issues...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This is why living in the Colorado suburbs is terrible. Growing up there it's like the endless rows of clone tract housing (the American equivalent of communist matchbox apartments), the dry and high altitude, the featureless prarie, the ample supply of guns and drugs, and the general ****ed attitude of people and ample hate grouops creates these monsters. Even coming to visit for a prolonged time to certain towns will **** you up. Just a reminder that several spree killers (including this one), Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Sayed Qutb (the father of Muslim Terrorism), James Watt, and Tim Allen and Jake Lloyd(not as bad, but definitely a plague on acting) all were born or studied in the Colorado suburbs.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Does anyone know why he did it?

Some of the factors that may have led to his mental meltdown could be a life structure that was too rigid and demanding, a false presentation of perfection important to his family, and possibly a desire to share pain to those he felt were oblivious to suffering.

Originally posted by Impediment
This is the latest meme of Holmes floating around Facebook.

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. What say you blokes?

LoL.

So, I was in North Dakota for a conference when this happened. For a laugh, my girlfriend and I had been listening to conservative talk radio for the 4-5 hour drive to and from Fargo from Winnipeg (at least on the American side of the border, we switched that shit back to CBC immediately once we got north of the 49). The station was FLAG AM 1100, supporting "Faith, Family, Freedom and Free Enterprise".

I can't imagine it is going to surprise anyone that I and the Tea Party crowd disagree on most things, but I did want to share an awesome part of the experience of hearing this news event covered by batshit insane individuals.

So, the obvious:

- Laura Ingraham knows karate and has escape routes planned from every building she is ever in because she expects the unexpected (she teaches her kids to do this too)

- the theater's policy of not allowing concealed weapons into the theater was responsible for so many people dying

- the media loves it when white people shoot other people but wont report on the Fort Hood shootings [this I actually don't understand as I followed that in real time back in '09 on American media outlets] for fear of upsetting Muslims

- Laura Ingraham does not have the capacity to understand why Barack Obama would suspend his campaign for a day or why Romney would pull political ads in Aurora in the wake of the shooting

but...

what was really amazing was her reaction to a morning talk show that mentioned someone with the same name as the shooter was scheduled to attend a Tea Party rally of some type. I sympathize with her criticism that, even if the shooter was a Tea Party member, this is generally irrelevant unless it comes out that the attack was politically motivated.

However...

Ingraham quite literally spent the next 3 hours playing the most amazing game of "I know you are but what am I?" in the most immature way possible.

Her argument basically boiled down to this:

- It is irresponsible to say he was a member of the Tea Party

- The Batman film portrayed the people of Gotham as rabble

- The rabble is an allegory for the 99%, Batman is the 1%

- Internet trolls were angry that some people gave the film a bad review

- Therefore, the Batman film inspired anger and violence in the 99% because they were mad it got bad reviews or they were mad at how they were portrayed (she moved back and forth between these positions frequently)

- The tactical armor the shooter was wearing was black

- The black bloc wears black

- Gas masks are also a part of the black bloc attire

- The black bloc is the military wing of the Occupy movement

- Occupy caused the shooting

Now, she would say things like "we don't know for sure yet, but..." and so on, the same way conspiracy theorists say "I'm just asking questions", however, the implication was really clear. She was pissed that someone would associate guns with the Tea Party, so she insisted it was actually Occupy that was to blame (even though nobody blamed the Tea Party, just mentioned something they found online possibly linking the shooter to an event). That the Tea Party also are upset by the 1% and could be included in the metaphorical "rabble" of the film is ignored, among many other factual things, and she yelled for the half of her program that wasn't constant commercial breaks.

Anyways, the minute we got back to Canada, CBC did a news recap of the shooting, where I learned several things that 3 hours of Ingraham didn't teach me, for instance, which guns were used and other sort of "facts" about the event. So ya, fun story, made me chuckle. I know very few people actually listen to talk radio, and the average age is something like 65, but man...

God bless America

Wearing this today. Too soon?

Holmes' court appearance [unfortunately the audio is terrible at times]:

YouTube video

He looks terrible...

AJE summation:

YouTube video

Additionally, it appears that the shooter had taken Vicodin prior to the shooting at a regular dose, almost certainly to ward off pain associated with the attack [maybe he expected to be shot at?].

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-aurora-shooting-suspect-not-cooperating-with-investigators

Not that I have any real idea of what happened, but it seems he might have had a sort of "moment of insanity" type of deal... maybe explains why he didn't shoot back at the cops? who knows...

He looks like a stupid ****ing clown, I'd suspect that sad dopey look on his face is due to the anal-rapings he's looking forward to receiving and the possible death sentence.

I wish I could afford that much weaponry right out of college while not being able to find a job and having a place of my own.

Epic fakery by that guy. Trying to play his way to an insanity defense.

Send him to arkham