Let the "If more people in the theater were armed" discussion begin

[Venya]

Nothing credible I've seen indicates that there were any warning signs on this. I agree that there often are, but mental health screenings are not a silver bullet for the problem any more than guns on every hip would be.

There's also the question of just how much you want to trust the government to implement policy based on a somewhat fuzzy, inexact science. I'm thinking specifically of issues like the recent Madigan Army Hospital kerfuffle, when they had to re-evaluate a whole bunch of potential PTSD cases because there was found to be pressure to deny claims to "keep costs down." If I think it likely that my gun rights could be suspended indefinitely if I chose to seek mental health care, that's a pretty strong disincentive to get help. It's a pretty fine line to walk.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I think you missed my comment:


I know these are not easy situations to prevent because otherwise we would have already solved it. I do not have any delusions that we will fully prevent these types of situations from happening either. However, rather than everyone sitting around talking about how they would tactically handle killing the perpetrator, why don't we discuss how we can 'help' prevent at least some of these situations from happening in the first place while still protecting our rights. If we do nothing to help by offering solutions (that protect our rights) then those that are against gun rights will 'help' offer their solutions.




I'm willing to bet that on a daily basis you 'inflict' psycho analysis on people you interact with. We all analyse people we are around, people we interact with and if we educate ourselves on how to key up on signs then yes, I think we can make a difference. Because I have taken time to educate myself on how to detect signs (and some were very subtle) that a family member was becoming unstable, I am certain I prevented something from happening.



I'm sorry but I completely disagree with that statement, there are far more possibilities and solutions to address these issues. If we are proactive and work with our government officials to help find some solutions that still protect our rights while giving them and ourselves tools to help prevent these types of situations from happening in the first place, it will be a major win for everyone.




I absolutely did not mention that I or everyone else should be enslaved in order to help find solutions that will help prevent these situations from happening.

You have no idea how difficult it was for me to have my family member committed for psychiatric help. I'm not saying there should be fewer steps in the process because I know his rights needed to be protected until the proper process had been followed to determine that he was mentally unfit to act on his own. The thing that really made me upset about the process was the lack of information and resources that was available and the lack of knowledge by the personnel within the agencies I was supposed to work with so I could start and work my way through the process and system. I was passed from agency to agency and back to previous agencies numerous times trying to get things processed and it was a complete joke. If a person hasn't at least attempted to commit suicide or homicide, the information on the initial steps in the process are hidden from the general public for some reason.

Our mental health institutions have also dramatically decreased in size and numbers in favour of for-profit penitentiaries. So rather than trying to help people work through their mental health issues, we wait until they commit a crime then we throw them in prison so the for-profit penitentiaries can make more money. In order to help my family member (not immediate family either), I have to pay a lot of money every month out of my pocket to keep him off the streets and out of jail and it is causing a major burden on my immediate family.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree with this group... It doesn't seem like very many here are interested in prevention but rather re-Action.

How many "for profit penitentiaries" do we have? I bet if we privatized penitentries we would have better services , cheaper rates.

You are right if you won't have much luck selling me on more "prevention" if it means restricting any liberties or increasing our already unconstitutional proactive law enforcement.

I won't sacrifice liberty for safety.

So are you suggesting, I help pay for your family problems? By publicly funding loony bins?

We should all arm ourselves and when a wacko goes nuts, we protect ourselves. This might mean some of our loved ones who are whacko get wacked.........deal with it.

 

[jolly__roger]

Nothing credible I've seen indicates that there were any warning signs on this. I agree that there often are, but mental health screenings are not a silver bullet for the problem any more than guns on every hip would be.

I never suggested that mental health screening was the 'silver bullet for the problem'. I clearly said that I do not have the answer but if we put our minds together, we could present possible solutions that will protect our rights rather than doing nothing and letting the antis present their solutions that will infringe on our rights.

There's also the question of just how much you want to trust the government to implement policy based on a somewhat fuzzy, inexact science. I'm thinking specifically of issues like the recent Madigan Army Hospital kerfuffle, when they had to re-evaluate a whole bunch of potential PTSD cases because there was found to be pressure to deny claims to "keep costs down." If I think it likely that my gun rights could be suspended indefinitely if I chose to seek mental health care, that's a pretty strong disincentive to get help. It's a pretty fine line to walk.

I don't have the answers to this either but if enough people started working on some possible solutions then we can try our best to ensure that our rights are protected. I am not familiar with the Madigan Army Hospital kerfuffle but I will do some research on that. You are correct in that currently we should fear seeking (even voluntary) help for mental health issues because our government, by way of those that do not wish to protect our rights, are pushing to have people deemed unfit to possess firearms if they have any mental health issues. This is exactly why I'm trying advocate that we take a proactive approach to presenting our own views and ideas in how to prevent these situations before they happen so we can protect our rights even if we are having bouts of mental health instability.

 

[Venya]

I never suggested that mental health screening was the 'silver bullet for the problem'. I clearly said that I do not have the answer but if we put our minds together, we could present possible solutions that will protect our rights rather than doing nothing and letting the antis present their solutions that will infringe on our rights.

You're absolutely right, and I should have read (and edited) more carefully to avoid implying that.

 

[jolly__roger]

How many "for profit penitentiaries" do we have? I bet if we privatized penitentries we would have better services , cheaper rates.

I really suggest that you do some research on our prison industrial complex(I included some reference material below). The privatized prison corporations are constantly lobbying for harsher sentences, more and stricter laws because the more people they have in their walls, the more money they make. You better believe that they are not in favour of our gun rights because if they can outlaw guns, that means more of us will go to jail because we will try to defend our right to bear arms.

You are right if you won't have much luck selling me on more "prevention" if it means restricting any liberties or increasing our already unconstitutional proactive law enforcement.

I won't sacrifice liberty for safety.

Have I even once suggested that 'we' sacrifice any of our liberties? NO!! I'm going to repeat that a few times because people do not seem to be getting it.

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!
I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!
I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!

Does that make it a little more clear?

So are you suggesting, I help pay for your family problems? By publicly funding loony bins?

Would you rather when I can no longer afford to pay for his mental health treatment that he commit a crime and go to jail where you will be forced to pay for his incarceration (likely at a for-profit corp facility) that does not include mental health treatment? Then when he gets out, because he hasn't had any mental heath treatment, the percentages that he will re-offend is much higher than if he had been receiving mental health treatment?

We should all arm ourselves and when a wacko goes nuts, we protect ourselves. This might mean some of our loved ones who are whacko get wacked.........deal with it.

You sound just like a lot of our doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Rather than trying to prevent an illness or find a cure, you would rather wait until something dramatic happens and then apply a temporary patch that does not resolve the issue only masks it and lets it fester for it to rear its ugly head another day. That's a real productive approach there.

I cannot believe how closed minded some people are here. There are ways to deal with these problems that will not infringe on our rights and liberties. We just have to put our minds together and work out some possible solutions so we're not left with nothing when our rights are taken away...


Reference Material:
I want to make something perfectly clear, I do not rely on any of the information on these websites (especially Wikipedia) as 'fact', I strictly use them as a launching point for additional research.

State and Federal Prison info

private prison companies lobby against immigration reform for their own profit

Louisiana is the worlds prison capital

Why Do Prison and Alcohol Lobbies Oppose Drug Treatment?

Private Prisons Spend Millions On Lobbying To Put More People In Jail

Private Prisons Turn a Handsome Profit

 

[Vitaeus]

How many "for profit penitentiaries" do we have? I bet if we privatized penitentries we would have better services , cheaper rates.

Not sure privatizing prisons is a good idea, looked for a better source, but I remember seeing this in a more reputable news source

http://archive.truthout.org/021909J

Pennsylvania two judges were shareholders in the company that provided the jail for the area they presided over. In he old days it was kickbacks not dividends.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If we are proactive and work with our government officials to help find some solutions...

Yeah see something say something right? You are very good at projecting big government values. The reason you talk a lot and don't offer solutions is because you can't get around what I said, you have to give up your freedom to stop these tragedies.

So rather than trying to help people work through their mental health issues, we wait until they commit a crime...

What exactly are you implying? You want to type 5000 limpdick words without saying a dang thing... Why don't you admit what your hinting at. Forcing people you feel exhibit signs of mental instability to prison, or some sort of prison/treatment facility.

We wait until they commit a crime because we....are....free....people. Unless they "commit a crime" you have no damn right to lock them up!

Hey jolly! My family went through 1500 rds of 5.56, in the last 4 months and we also continue to make small additions to our "emergency food" stores every month. Quick call your "government officials" and find me some help.

 

[scott58dh]

12 Dead and many injured in Dark Knight Midnight Show (Aurora, CO)

http://heraldnet.com/article/201207...ie-in-Dark-Knight-shooting-suspect-in-custody




That statement alone tells me that having armed patrons in the theater means the outcome would probably be the same, with the exception of a dead shooter.

A new report this week by the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirms that the number of Americans exercising the right to carry firearms for personal protection is skyrocketing.

Read more;http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...spx?s=&st=&ps=

PDF Report;http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

 

[Lante]

On the mental health issue, frequently the problem is that those who have received help then start feeling better and stop taking their meds. I have long advocated med patches or even medicine pumps for long term control of mental illness. Since, face it, you have a patient that has a mental illness, and the doctors expect the patient to be able to remember and be motivated to take a medicine on a regular schedule every day, that likely has horrible side effects....

From working with the transient population in Seattle, I would say that about 1/3 of the transient problems are caused by failure to take required medications. When they are medicated they feel fine so they 'don't need the meds' and when they are off the meds they are too crazy to take them......

Obviously the CO shooter had some warning signs or problems as his mother said she was not surprised.......

 

[sudden valley gunner]

How many "for profit penitentiaries" do we have? I bet if we privatized penitentries we would have better services , cheaper rates.

You are right if you won't have much luck selling me on more "prevention" if it means restricting any liberties or increasing our already unconstitutional proactive law enforcement.

I won't sacrifice liberty for safety.

So are you suggesting, I help pay for your family problems? By publicly funding loony bins?

We should all arm ourselves and when a wacko goes nuts, we protect ourselves. This might mean some of our loved ones who are whacko get wacked.........deal with it.

I really suggest that you do some research on our prison industrial complex(I included some reference material below). The privatized prison corporations are constantly lobbying for harsher sentences, more and stricter laws because the more people they have in their walls, the more money they make. You better believe that they are not in favour of our gun rights because if they can outlaw guns, that means more of us will go to jail because we will try to defend our right to bear arms.



Have I even once suggested that 'we' sacrifice any of our liberties? NO!! I'm going to repeat that a few times because people do not seem to be getting it.

I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!
I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!
I am not suggesting that we sacrifice any of our rights or liberties!

Does that make it a little more clear?



Would you rather when I can no longer afford to pay for his mental health treatment that he commit a crime and go to jail where you will be forced to pay for his incarceration (likely at a for-profit corp facility) that does not include mental health treatment? Then when he gets out, because he hasn't had any mental heath treatment, the percentages that he will re-offend is much higher than if he had been receiving mental health treatment?



You sound just like a lot of our doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Rather than trying to prevent an illness or find a cure, you would rather wait until something dramatic happens and then apply a temporary patch that does not resolve the issue only masks it and lets it fester for it to rear its ugly head another day. That's a real productive approach there.

I cannot believe how closed minded some people are here. There are ways to deal with these problems that will not infringe on our rights and liberties. We just have to put our minds together and work out some possible solutions so we're not left with nothing when our rights are taken away...


Reference Material:
I want to make something perfectly clear, I do not rely on any of the information on these websites (especially Wikipedia) as 'fact', I strictly use them as a launching point for additional research.

State and Federal Prison info

private prison companies lobby against immigration reform for their own profit

Louisiana is the worlds prison capital

Why Do Prison and Alcohol Lobbies Oppose Drug Treatment?

Private Prisons Spend Millions On Lobbying To Put More People In Jail

Private Prisons Turn a Handsome Profit

Looks like you don't get me at all, Please re read my second sentence, I will reiterate, I am not on board if ( you see that clarifier there?) it infringes on liberty, you have yet to explain how it won't do that, and taking my taxes to fund your program does infringe upon my liberty.

I'd rather see all drug laws and nanny state laws, and the welfare state eliminated. That would solve most the illegal immigration problem.

I would like to see all public servants, including prison guards de-unionized, and I would love to see all special interest lobby power done away with.

I am well aware of our unjust prison facilities funny how you totally ignore the wacko legal system we have with the countless unconstitutional laws and the overzealous cops and prosecutors we have so willing to lock people up, and keep up the illusion of how much we need to keep funding them more every year including state worker prison guards. We have 5% of the worlds population yet 25% of the worlds prison population.

If private prisons operated efficiently without lobby power, they would be way better than state ran ones, I am absolutely positive about that. I have no problem with profit....you do?

Where did I say I don't want the cure or prevention? I don't want to pay for it. And know I don't want to pay for them to be in prison either, I would rather people arm themselves and take care of the problem you attack me I am not going to take the time to discern whether or not you have mental problems, I will simply end the attack. I would also rather live with the possibility of being harmed then try to throw a safety net around society.



I am tired of positivist looking for a crisis not to go to waste. So no I don't want to pay to prevent what might happen.


Hmmm interesting looks like private prisons (I don't think we have any here in Washington) operate more efficiently and cheaper....http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/private-prisons-sensible-solution

 

[jolly__roger]

Yeah see something say something right? You are very good at projecting big government values. The reason you talk a lot and don't offer solutions is because you can't get around what I said, you have to give up your freedom to stop these tragedies.

Try to expand your horizons a little... One solution; make it a little easier for those that need help, can get help, without risking their rights. Is that really so difficult to come up with? My point is there has to be more than just that...

What exactly are you implying? You want to type 5000 limpdick words without saying a dang thing... Why don't you admit what your hinting at. Forcing people you feel exhibit signs of mental instability to prison, or some sort of prison/treatment facility.

I would rather "type 5000 limpdick words" if that meant any solutions I helped contribute towards saved even a single persons life while still protecting our rights. I would rather "type 5000 limpdick words" and be proactive towards helping our community instead of getting a hard-on solely thinking about and critically analysing how I might react when a situation arises. I'm not saying that we all shouldn't be prepared for these types of situations but that doesn't mean we can't devote some of our time to suggesting some solutions that prevent them while also protecting our rights.

Did you see me suggest that anyone should be locked up? I never once said my family member was locked up. I said that I struggled to go through the proper channels in order for my family member to be "committed" to receive the help they needed. I think you are interpreting "committed" as being locked up in a nut house. I am simply using the same terminology that the "system" uses to describe the situation. My family member is free to leave at any time but he chooses to remain at the facility because he's finally learning how to cope with his mental health issues and is seeing the benefits. His rights to own a weapon have been suspended until such time that he is "deemed" mentally fit and I do see an issue with that as I have read over the laws that govern that and they're very convoluted.

I am strongly opposed to our current judicial system that simply locks people up and doesn't try to help them to become productive members of society again. There are a lot of cases where I feel people should be locked up forever but the majority of cases (sorry I don't feel like doing a bunch of research right now to prove this) could be dealt with in a better way than to simply lock them up to rot and fester until they are released again.

We wait until they commit a crime because we....are....free....people. Unless they "commit a crime" you have no damn right to lock them up!

So let me get this straight... If you learned that a family member of yours was showing signs that they were mentally unstable so you go to investigate and find that their behaviour was considerably 'out of character' which included severe fits of rage, you would sit by and do nothing? You would wait for them to commit an act of violence because they are "Free"? How would you feel having known that you could have prevented someone's death or injury had you been proactive in getting someone the help they needed but you choose not to interfere because you didn't want to infringe on their rights? What about the rights of the person that they committed an act of violence against? Did you read the stories from the friends and family members of Ian Stawicki that expressed their deep remorse for not having intervened to get him some help when they saw obvious signs that he was mentally unstable? Let me reiterate this: I have never said anything about locking anyone up.

Hey jolly! My family went through 1500 rds of 5.56, in the last 4 months and we also continue to make small additions to our "emergency food" stores every month. Quick call your "government officials" and find me some help.

On the contrary to what you might think, I am glad that you were out with your family exercising your rights. I think you still have overlooked the point I am trying to get across here.... I'm going to say this one more time: If we sit by and do nothing but say "Because the constitution says so" and not work with our government to offer solutions, they are going to take the solutions offered to them by those that oppose our beliefs and rights.

 

[The Patriot]

I do not go to many movies but when I do I sit in the back row in the corner farthest from the exit. this does two things I have a place to put my legs and I have a view of the entire theater. If there had been someone armed that also had some awareness of their surroundings then maybe a few people would have been saved. Just firing a shot at him may have stopped him.

This is exactly what I do. I also went and saw the movie that night and I was armed.

 

[jolly__roger]

Looks like you don't get me at all, Please re read my second sentence, I will reiterate, I am not on board if ( you see that clarifier there?) it infringes on liberty, you have yet to explain how it won't do that, and taking my taxes to fund your program does infringe upon my liberty.

I apologize for not reading your comment more carefully. As I have said multiple times, I do not have the answer to "HOW" any of this can be accomplished and won't infringe on our rights. I am here (and I apologize to the OP for hijacking this thread as well) trying to spark some ideas as to how we, a community of gun rights activists, can formulate some plans and ideas to present to our government so that those whom oppose us (antis) do not have sole say in the plan to combat these types of situations. I fear that if the antis are the only ones presenting ideas how to prevent these situations from happening, they're going to win the battle because we do not have any plans or arguments other than "It's unconstitutional to take away our guns".

I'd rather see all drug laws and nanny state laws, and the welfare state eliminated. That would solve most the illegal immigration problem.

I would like to see all public servants, including prison guards de-unionized, and I would love to see all special interest lobby power done away with.

I am well aware of our unjust prison facilities funny how you totally ignore the wacko legal system we have with the countless unconstitutional laws and the overzealous cops and prosecutors we have so willing to lock people up, and keep up the illusion of how much we need to keep funding them more every year including state worker prison guards. We have 5% of the worlds population yet 25% of the worlds prison population.

I am 100% on-par with you on those subjects, I just didn't want to steer this thread too far from what it originally started as.

If private prisons operated efficiently without lobby power, they would be way better than state ran ones, I am absolutely positive about that. I have no problem with profit....you do?

Actually I do have a problem with for-profit prisons. Regardless if they can lobby or not, they still have share holders they're trying to please and make money for. I believe that the prisons should be non-profit as that greatly limits their ability to have political ties and certain non-profit statuses even limit some of their ability to lobby, natively. It also changes the climate and attitude towards the inmates. Non-profits would be a little less inclined to act like the big corporate ranches that are focused on cramming as many animals into the pens as possible for the most profit possible. For-profit corps board members are elected by the share holders and the CEO elected by the board so they are in constant pressure to return as high of profits as possible and often times that means sacrificing things like maintenance, quality guards in order to reduce costs to increase profit. Personally, it scares the crap out of me to think about a for-profit corp running a prison when I go looking at the track records of big corporations for maintaining their facilities. One major one that comes to mind is the
BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico...

Where did I say I don't want the cure or prevention? I don't want to pay for it. And know I don't want to pay for them to be in prison either, I would rather people arm themselves and take care of the problem you attack me I am not going to take the time to discern whether or not you have mental problems, I will simply end the attack. I would also rather live with the possibility of being harmed then try to throw a safety net around society.

It was simply an analogy, not intended to mean that you didn't want those things but merely that you acted similarly in the respect that you were opposed to 'prevention' in general. I lean more towards liberalism than anything else so I too do not want any more of our taxes taken out for needless institutions like our current judicial system has built. However, while I am opposed to needless spending I don't think helping people who truly need help is 'needless'.

I would have no problem contributing some of my income to helping you or any of your family members if they were in a situation that they needed (needed is the key word here) mental health services. I'm not being 'taxed' to keep my family member housed in a mental health facility, I'm doing it out of compassion for another human being that I happen to be related to. I donate to open source projects because they benefit our community as a whole. I donate web hosting services to animal shelters all over this country because I want to contribute to our community. I donate to cancer research (not pharmaceutical research), I donate to all kinds of other organizations because I believe in our community and we must all help each other in times of need if we are going to survive. No, I do not mean being taxed. Even back in our lawless wild-wild west days people showed some compassion towards each other so I'm baffled why there is so much emphasis on the attitude that it's every man/woman for him/herself. I would like to think we've grown a little ways beyond a anarchist society.

I am tired of positivist looking for a crisis not to go to waste. So no I don't want to pay to prevent what might happen.

Hey, I learned a new word today, "positivist".

I'm not saying that we jump on this 'crisis' as a means to promote our agenda, I'm saying that we try come up with answers and solutions (that also protect our rights) to the questions being asked by the public and the government. Some of the questions are: What can be done to prevent gun violence by mentally unstable people? How do we prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals? We need to look at these questions through "constitutional" goggles and see what (if anything) can be done to help because the antis are sure "gunning" to offer their suggestions but they're most likely not wearing the constitutional goggles. I have read so many posts on this forum that people are ready to take out their gun to protect themselves and their family (I'm not saying that is a bad thing) but what I don't see a lot discussion about how to answer the questions above. The old saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" seems to fit this situation except that the antis have the guns because we can't seem to find the gun and ammo to fight where the real battle is happening. We need to 'fight fire with fire' if we're going to protect our rights and the only way we can do that is to provide answers to those questions while still protecting our rights.

Personally, I am for prevention in certain circumstances. I kind of like having guard rails and dividers on our busy highways to help 'prevent' someone from crossing over the road and crashing into me or to help 'prevent' me from plummeting to my death off of a cliff if I hit a patch of ice on a mountain highway. I like that there are certain safety regulations that help 'prevent' accidents for elevators, cars, trains, chemicals and the list goes on. I have no delusions that we can prevent everything from happening but there are certain things that are nice to have in place, just in case.

Hmmm interesting looks like private prisons (I don't think we have any here in Washington) operate more efficiently and cheaper....http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/opinion/private-prisons-sensible-solution

The articles I linked below seem to contradict that article but I never did try to say they were cheaper to run, the links I previously provided were to point out that the people that ran them aren't such great people.

Why I Hate CCA (Corrections Corporation of America)

Are private prisons cheaper?

Dockery says DOC records show private prisons aren’t cheaper

 

[jolly__roger]

On the mental health issue, frequently the problem is that those who have received help then start feeling better and stop taking their meds. I have long advocated med patches or even medicine pumps for long term control of mental illness. Since, face it, you have a patient that has a mental illness, and the doctors expect the patient to be able to remember and be motivated to take a medicine on a regular schedule every day, that likely has horrible side effects....

From working with the transient population in Seattle, I would say that about 1/3 of the transient problems are caused by failure to take required medications. When they are medicated they feel fine so they 'don't need the meds' and when they are off the meds they are too crazy to take them......

Obviously the CO shooter had some warning signs or problems as his mother said she was not surprised.......

I used to be brainwashed that big pharma prescriptions were the answer to 'fix' people but my views have done a 180 in recent times. I have witnessed the psychotic episodes people go through while they're detoxing and suffering withdrawals from those horrible drugs. I volunteer as often as I can at the facility where my family member is at and they do not allow those drugs, period. When people that have been taking those drugs arrive at the facility, they all go through detox. I was very skeptical of their approach to treating mental health issues but I have come full circle and I have learned a lot about about our bodies chemistry. I wish I could go into more detail but I have already been bordering on divulging too much info in this thread in respect to privacy...

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Interesting post.....we are probably more along the lines than you think.

I am for liberalism in the classical sense.

There are more studies to show that "regulation" has actually hurt business, stunted growth in safety etc.

BP Oil spill had Government hands all over it, tons of regulation and an "insurance" (tax) BP paid to government, the buck was passed, the motivation for not spilling were removed.n It's called moral hazard, much like what the Fed does with Banks, and the government "insurance" (tax) that covers your deposits. The Bank doesn't have to be as careful as it would without that.

Profit, motivates people to work efficiently and inexpensive. I am self employed, hiring the cheapest isn't good, it costs you more in the long run. But when you are guaranteed pay anyway, (lobby, not true, privatization) it goes out the window. Because then it don't matter who you hire. Much like our public prisons nowadays, with their union backed guards. Look at most people in the "public" sector, most wouldn't last long in the private sector working the way they do.

I have no problem with volunteer, donations, I donate to causes I think are important too, I have a problem with government forcing us to "donate".

This whole thread is off topic, it has nothing to do with OC in Washington so I don't mind straying it.

 

[rapgood]

This week

Was watching "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos interviewing CO Gov. Hickenlooper and Aurora, CO mayor Steve Hogan. At one point in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Gov. Hickenlooper if that, as a result of the shooting incident, he felt that Colorado gun laws need to be revisted.

Gov. Hickenlooper responded, saying that shooting suspect James Holmes would have found a way to create "horror" even if he hadn't been able to acquire guns. "This wasn't a Colorado problem. This is a human problem," Mr. Hickenlooper said. "Even if he didn't have access to guns, this guy was diabolical...he would have found explosives or gas. He would have found something...he would have done something to create this horror."

Curiously, the Washington Times referred to the governor's comments as "dodging the question" about revisiting the CO gun laws. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...22/hickenlooper-dodges-gun-control-questions/ The Times article asserted (without citing to any particular source), "The shooting has brought renewed focus to gun control." Well, not in the eyes of Gov. Hickenlooper. He was very direct in his response that the incident was not a "gun control" incident; rather it was a "diabolical terrorist" incident. I guess that according to the Washington Times, simply because a gun was involved, it was a "gun control" problem. Gimme a break.

In any event, we're proud of you Gov. Hickenlooper! You are absolutely right! It isn't a gun control problem! It's a "broken person" problem, and all the "gun control" laws that the Colorado legislature could pass couldn't have changed what happened. It might possible have changed only the manner in which the terrorism was perpetrated.

 

[gogodawgs]

The left (&media) largely ignore good and evil. This is clearly a case of evil emerging from the shadows of darkness. You can either bury your head in the sand and ignore evil or you can be prepared to confront evil when evil arises.

 

[gogodawgs]

I've been thinking about the title of this thread. And I think the wrong question may be being asked. Instead of what if more had been carrying..... The firearms community should be asking; "Why was there no one carrying?" "How do we get more gun owners to carry all of the time?"

When there is only 8 million concealed carriers in the USA and over 300 million people the burden is upon the firearms community to grow these numbers.

 

[jolly__roger]

Interesting post.....we are probably more along the lines than you think.

I am for liberalism in the classical sense.

There are more studies to show that "regulation" has actually hurt business, stunted growth in safety etc.

I don't doubt that regulations has hurt business, stunted growth etc... one bit but I do know from my industry (IT/Network Administration) certain regulations have help prevent a lot of peoples personal and private information from being easily obtained by not so nice people. If you look at HIPAA, SSAE 16(formerly SAS70), PCI DSS, Sarbanes-Oxley Act and FISMA you can see that while they can be a major pain in the rear to deal with, they ultimately are protecting your and my data from easily being passed to the bad guys. And you better believe that there are countless lazy or ignorant programmers, administrators etc... that do not care about your privacy. I must admit, I may be partially biased because if it weren't for those regulations I might not have had the opportunity to take over hosting thousands of sites and services that were forced to leave the management of those less concerned about privacy and security.

BP Oil spill had Government hands all over it, tons of regulation and an "insurance" (tax) BP paid to government, the buck was passed, the motivation for not spilling were removed.n It's called moral hazard, much like what the Fed does with Banks, and the government "insurance" (tax) that covers your deposits. The Bank doesn't have to be as careful as it would without that.

We could spend weeks debating how much of a clusterF*** that mess was/is, I was simply giving a blatantly obvious example of poor maintenance by a for-profit corp. I could very easily dig up more examples from non-oil industry but I don't think it's necessary.

Profit, motivates people to work efficiently and inexpensive. I am self employed, hiring the cheapest isn't good, it costs you more in the long run. But when you are guaranteed pay anyway, (lobby, not true, privatization) it goes out the window. Because then it don't matter who you hire. Much like our public prisons nowadays, with their union backed guards. Look at most people in the "public" sector, most wouldn't last long in the private sector working the way they do.

I think there is a general misconception about non-profit organizations(NPO)(not saying that you don't understand them). NPOs can (and a lot do) seek to earn a profit however, there are limitations as to what the NPO is allowed to do with those profits. Another limitation is that there can't be share holders so you don't have to worry about them breathing down your neck to produce a profit to line their pockets.

Certain type of NPO's are allowed to pay their employees a base salary along with a sudo-profit sharing(or gainsharing) and performance bonuses with their employees similar to a for-profit. But those bonuses must be within reason... Personally, I believe that a profit/gain-sharing pay structure is the most conducive to promote motivated workers in both business models. I too run my own business and I have sat on the boards of several NPOs over the years(For some odd reason, when you offer free web hosting services, it 'qualifies' you to be a board member...)and they are very similarly conducted as a for profit business except that the majority of the profits are to be used for the 'cause' for which the NPO is for. Growth and expansion of the NPO is absolutely allowed as well.

As for the union subject, I am torn on that because years ago I used to work in an underground silver mine (as a miner) and I have no doubt that the unions were a major contributing factor to the increased safety and working condition regulations that protected the workers. And I am very grateful for those safety regulations because I used to listen to the old-timers stories and they went through hell just to get a paycheck, if they survived.

This next example happened just two years ago: My mother used to work in a county jail (in the control towers) as a non-deputy and the county had not given any of the non-deputies a raise in seven years while the deputies (union members) received yearly raises that matched inflation. It wasn't until the non-deputies rallied and joined a union did they finally receive a raise and a little bit of back compensation for not getting a raise for so many years. They were also finally "granted permission" to be able to take regular lunch breaks outside of the towers because the county had previously forbidden them from leaving the control towers for lunch breaks. They were forced to eat their lunches while performing their normal operations so except for bathroom breaks (which required calling a deputy for relief) they were not allowed to leave the towers to get a mental break from their jobs.

I have no problem with volunteer, donations, I donate to causes I think are important too, I have a problem with government forcing us to "donate".

Amen! (I'm not really all that religious, just seemed fitting)

This whole thread is off topic, it has nothing to do with OC in Washington so I don't mind straying it.

You are correct, that is why I didn't hold back so much to go OT this time...

However, I would like to steer(with permission of the OP, see question below) this somewhat back "On Topic" to my proposed task of coming up with some possible solutions to their questions that protect our open carry, gun rights and constitutionalist ideals to our city and state governments (kept it to WA to be on topic . I would like to be a contributing 'member' to the OC and gun rights movement beyond just going out and about OCing and handing out pamphlets(not saying there is anything wrong if that is your preferred method of promotion).

The antis are pro-actively approaching the questions the government and public have towards these shootings and they are providing their ideas as 'solutions' while we're just sitting & spinning on our thumbs (dramatic exaggeration...) because we do not have any answers to address those questions.

Before we go any further though, this question is directed at the OP: Would your preference be that my proposed discussion is opened in a new thread or can it remain in this thread? (again, sorry for hijacking your thread)

 

[jolly__roger]

In any event, we're proud of you Gov. Hickenlooper! You are absolutely right! It isn't a gun control problem! It's a "broken person" problem, and all the "gun control" laws that the Colorado legislature could pass couldn't have changed what happened. It might possible have changed only the manner in which the terrorism was perpetrated.

I agree with the vast majority of what you said and too am glad the Governor is standing up for our rights. I did want to share that I think we need to be careful not to fall into the governments "terrorism" propaganda because they are systematically trying to change the public's perception of what terrorism is. We do not fully know the motives behind the shooting and we may never fully know why but without absolute proof that it was an act of terrorism, we need to be very careful about using that term so we're not spreading their propaganda.