Ok not quite but this
Reminds me of THIS
Ratus makes some posters of the new ATF forms and my horrible joke from the squirrel report!
For all 3 of your who DON’T get the reference:
I suspected this would happen:
Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama’s White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver…”We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.
Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, was more emphatic than many in the early hours after the shooting. “Everyone is scared of the NRA,” he said on MSNBC. “Number one, there are some things worth losing for in politics and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.”
Yet it’s been more than a decade since gun control advocates had a realistic hope of getting the type of legislation they seek, despite predictions that each shocking outburst of violence would lead to action.
They are only losing ground
And Farmdad sends me this story that gives even more logic:
Elliott said people should take caution when applying cases like the Friday theater shooting in Aurora to gun policy, saying initial police reports indicate Holmes may have spent months working out an elaborate plan.
“It appears this was so carefully planned at this point that laws wouldn’t have been a deterrent,” he said. “I don’t care what kind of gun laws you have, it wouldn’t have stopped it.”
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner agreed that one incident, while tragic, should not prompt sweeping changes to gun policy.
“I don’t know that policy could have prevented this,” he said. “It appears there was a lot of planning involved.”
As I said before like a few other nationally famous criminals, this guy was a perfect mix of crazy and intelligent. Most smart people could cook up a better plot to kill more people, or cause more mayhem…but there isn’t any real GAIN in any of this, and all these famous spree killers never saw any gain except notoriety at being a monster…which is a tough sell for anybody sane. And most people who are crazy simply don’t have the faculties to plot out such an elaborate and successful plan.
Thankfully monsters like this are VERY rare, but again if he was smart enough to do what he did, getting past a few extra laws that are comparatively minor compared to say mass murder, it doesn’t seem like much of an obstacle.
This is just as bad as the Anti-D&D campaigns of the 80s, or the violent video game campaigns of the 90s. Yeah Batman did this….
There are general parallels to the Colorado shooting, “The Dark Knight” and the comic book character:
– Bruce Wayne’s drive to become Batman arose from witnessing the deaths of his parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne, at the hands of small-time criminal Joe Chill, who shot and killed them after they had left a movie theater.
– The Batman video game called “Arkham City” takes place in an abandoned movie theatre (The Monarch, outside of which Bruce Wayne’s parents were killed).
– In the “Dark Knight” graphic novel by Miller, the Joker slaughters the audience of a television talk show with gas.
– In the same book, a man beleaguered man shoots up a porn theater after being fired from his job, killing three people with a handgun.
– “The Dark Knight Rises” features at least two scenes where unsuspecting people are attacked in a public venue: the stock exchange and a football stadium.
You idiots are stretching. You should be ashamed….but you’re not because you’re too stupid.
Seems that the Aurora shooter used a 100 round drum mag in his attack. **UPDATE** To be clear it just says the police FOUND a drum mag, no direct word if that magazine was USED in the event.
First let’s lighten things up a bit by showing Jeff Zimba having some good clean fun with them:
Now of course they want us to be transfixed and horrified by this, because they want to make another attempt to ban magazines above a certain size.
First let’s just have a quick peek at recent shootings. Most recently we have the Tuscon shooting, 6 killed, 14 injured, and a 32 round magazine used. Less than the 12 killed and 70-some injured at the movie shooting. Still compare it with the Virginia Tech shooting with 32 killed and 23 injured….oh and all but two of the magazines that were 10-round ban-compliant magazines… of course we also have The University Texas shooting from the 60s, 16 killed 32 injured, all of them with low capacity magazines, most of the damage done by a 5-shot Remington hunting rifle.
Really the weapons and tactics don’t seem to readily point in any direction, and it seems that dumb luck factors into things. Hell the Trolly Square shooter took out nearly as many people as Loughner in Arizona, but with a low-capacity shotgun and revolver…and he was shot by an off-duty police officer (as citizens were barred from carrying in the mall).
You can ban magazines, which of course will do nothing for criminals wanting said magazines, as anything can be acquired through the black market, but even when the shooter complies with such laws (like Cho in Virginia) it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference. Hell even the reaction of the people doesn’t seem to make much difference. Loughner was attacked by his intended victims and was stopped….but the Colorado and Virginia tech shooters experienced no resistance from the victims, and in this case the more heavily armed shooter got a lower body count. Dumb luck.
I thought I’d just close with the genius of this article:
A shotgun would do more damage among a tightly packed theater audience because its ammunition comes out of the weapon in a reverse funnel shape and would disperse across a wider area, according to Howard.
In a theater scenario, he said, “so many people’s heads are lined up next to each other that if you fire down these rows of people … one blast is going to kill or seriously injure 10 or 15 people, depending on a number of variables.”
Only in Hollywood, sorry buckshot just doesn’t spread like that.
AR-15 rifle: A rifle that commonly fires bullets .223 inches in diameter (**Update** Found an older version here). Originally manufactured by Colt before its patent ran out, but now also made by others. Cost: around $900 and up. Its military version is a machine gun, which allows a shooter to fire continuously by holding the trigger down. The nonmilitary AR-15 is a semi-automatic which shoots one bullet at a time, with each squeeze of the trigger. Ammunition magazines for the AR-15 commonly hold five to 15 rounds.
Crap the editor got tipped off, last night it was “.223 millimeter” which is hilariously small. Still this blurb is still almost completely fact free. M16s aren’t “Machine Guns”, $900 seems a bit steep for a stripped AR. And 5-15 round magazines? 10 round magazines became common when magazine capacities were limited to 10, many states limit hunting rifles to 5 rounds (hilariously, that limit is because the magazine of the Mauser K98 and the Springfield M1908 military rifles hold five rounds, and these rifles and variations of them were common hunting rifles back in the early 20th century when the laws were drafted) so those magazines are around now that more people are hunting with ARs (What was that antis about not coming after our hunting rifles?), but 15 round mags are a bit of an oddity, they exist, but they’re rare. Really 20 and 30 round mags were the first magazines made for this rifle.
870 Remington 12-gauge shotgun: One of the most popular shotguns in history. It can be modified to have a short or long barrel.
Or you can simply swap out various barrels….your point is?
40-caliber Glock handgun: Common weapon for police. Similar in size to other popular handguns.
And one of the more popular handguns out there….again, your point?
Carpeted walls, which are common in movie theaters would reduce the risk of ricochets, said ballistics expert Jon Nordsby. Bullets that have first passed through objects such as theater chairs might cause worse wounds. The bullets start tumbling after they first penetrate the object. A tumbling bullet will tear more flesh when it hits, he said.
First his name is Nordby, and while I respect his qualifications, I’m not 100% sure if I agree with his analysis. First carpeted acoustic walls really won’t give much more in ballistic penetration and ricochets than bare walls. The only possibility depending on the thickness of the carpeting it MIGHT limit penetration of tumbling or fragmenting rounds on the back side as the carpet stretches. There is a similar effect in human terminal ballistics where the stretchy skin on the back side of the target will often adsorb a lot of ballistic energy, so frequently in hunting and homicide the bullets are recovered under the skin on the back side of the target. Still that’s a stretch as well.
A tumbling bullet WILL do more damage than a stable bullet simply punching through targets….but a bullet tumbling IN AIR, is losing a LOT of energy BEFORE it hits the target.
So yeah, GREAT article, you should be proud!
While thinking about the Ron Regan Jr video from last night I got thinking about a fundamental difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun side of arguing a point.
Ron Starts off with saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, then immediately contradicting this point by talking about how much guns kill people. Further he states that the “Constitutional Right to Firearms has never been threatened, and never will”….well except for the fact that in recent memory Heller v DC, and McDonald v. Chicago struck down some unconstitutional gun laws that had been in effect for generations. The Federal Assault Weapons ban was also fairly recent.
He’s either totally stupid, or he doesn’t even remotely believe the words he’s saying. So why is he saying it? Simple, he wants to appear more moderate on the gun control issue so that he can garner more support.
Now that in itself isn’t a bad thing, the slippery slope goes both ways and all major political battles, the only problem is he’s openly saying he’s opposed to the very slippery slope he’s supporting.
Essentially its a con.
Same goes with this video from Ladd Everett:
Ladd leads out with a statement that CSGV has never claimed that “Guns Cause Crime”, and even notes that the UK and US homicide rates WITHOUT guns are fundamentally different…but then quickly abandons all of that to talk just about guns. If you don’t believe that guns cause crime, and just that guns make crime worse…then why are US knife crime rates so much worse in the numbers than the UK? And why have so much to say about guns, but not about that relevant fact? Does the US simply have more criminal people? A greater culture of violence? Or is it the fact that the UK counts crime in a drastically different way than we do? (*hint* Its that one)
The answer is simple, Ladd thinks that guns DO cause crime…and he also knows he has NOTHING to actually prove this. Hey but it makes him seem less crazy by opening with that….the only problem is it makes him look MORE crazy in the event we make the mistake of trusting him for the first step.
The best example of this is what is generally considered the apex of the gun control movement when there was no direction other than down: The federal assault weapons ban. People bought into the anti-rights lies that the ban wouldn’t effect THEIR guns, so they supported it….and the antis quickly turned on them.
They haven’t been trusted since, nor should they (you don’t need to go any further than this video to see just how moderate their views REALLY are)
The slippery slope can slide…but it can also slide both ways if the first step is a lie. The antis haven’t learned this, but I think we can see it easily.
Oops, forgot to schedule one today. Here’s one from the files! Again Guns and cars!
A man driving the wrong way on Highway 287 caused a deadly head-on collision that caused both vehicles to burst into flames.
How much longer are we going to allow people to buy incendiary missiles!!! WE MUST BAN CARS!!!!
Oh wait, antis drive cars. WE MUST BAN PEOPLE WHO ARE AT FAULT FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM HAVING DRIVER’S LICENSES!!!
Oh wait, antis probably get in fender-benders too. Why would they vote to make THEMSELVES prohibited people?
Its not that they want a safer world, its that they want to ban rights they aren’t currently using.
h/t Bob
yep
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
OK first saying that guns cause crime…without ever actually saying it.
Then dropping the “guns are just for killing” fallacy…while coupling it with “Politically Correct guns are ok”….by his argument a Ruger mk III target is “Just For Killing”, but a Browning Auto Five…or the Rem 870 used in the Colorado shooting is just fine.
BTW have you noticed that antis do this? They pretend to be “moderate” by framing the argument with things they neither believe or respect. I think there’s only one way to take the argument that follows…they don’t really believe that either.
Even then antis never dare to step down from the ivory tower so that they might see that their “bold” “fresh” argument has been beaten to death ages ago!.
I know you probably don’t know any gunnies, and if you do they constantly assure you their guns are only for hunting, and they’re all wood and blue steel, honest, and they assure you they’re guilty about owning things, and they can’t recite the text of the 2nd Amendment.
But the next time you think you’re being clever or original, they make tools for that!
Of course not that he believes any of that in the first place, nor does he care what we lawful gun owners think, his dream is to eradicate our rights, then smugly sit back and let the police sort us out.
Just finished watching the press conference from Aurora Colorado on the shooting.
Guy didn’t have much of a police record. He used a Glock .40 Cal, Rem 870 12 gauge, and a S&W M&P-15 rifle in the shooting. He was also wearing ballistic armor on most of his body.
No word on his motive, but this guy was loaded to bear. Does bring the subject of armor defeating rounds into consideration. They were branded “Cop Killers”, but it isn’t just cops who can get this stuff.
Very scary.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Anti gun people are pretending they’re winning. Eddy has some pretty high demands…good luck with that, skippy!
You might have been successful back in the 90s when the lie was alive, but now the truth is out there and people aren’t buying it.
Thought I’d add this for political contrast:
George and the people cheering thought they were on the right side of history too.
