Thursday, December 3, 2015

Another Day, Another Massacre



It's getting that our flag is down in a position of mourning so often that people will start to tune it out. 

If they haven't already.

 Click to enlarge/read
UPDATE 3:00 PM:

This is an update to the below order from Governor Charlie Baker. *In accordance with the Presidential proclamation Flags will remain at half-staff until sunset on Monday, December 7, 2015.

92 comments:

Anonymous said...

We shouldn't call for gun control. Let's all start calling for massacre prevention!

Larry Kelley said...

A decent number of decent people see them as being one and the same.

Anonymous said...

They are the same Larry. That was the point of my comment. Maybe if we stop calling it gun control and call it massacre prevention instead we might be able to move Congress to finally do something!

Anonymous said...

Precisely the problem with flying too many flags too frequently. They become decorations. They lose their ability to inspire the kind of thoughts and feelings that we need so desperately in our country.

Larry Kelley said...

Like a lot of things in life (or a Facebook status): it's complicated.

Anonymous said...

So, are you advocating NOT going to half staff so frequently..? Just curious.

Larry Kelley said...

No.

Actually if it were up to me today, December 3rd, would forever be a half-staff day anyway to remember the six firefighters who perished in that "building from hell" 16 years ago in Worcester.

And I would also fly the 29 downtown Commemorative flags on Monday (as well as flying all the flags at half staff, which the country will do) to remember that "date which will live in infamy."

Anonymous said...

We need to ban automatic assault riffles for non-military. I am not opposed to the right to bear arms with hand guns and riffles; but who the heck needs anything that can send out a bazillion bullets in a short period of time?

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about radical Islamic terror. And secondly, mental illness. Let us enforce the laws we already have. We might try that...

Anonymous said...

We have laws on the books. Enforce them!

Anonymous said...

This is Not about the fuckin' flag. The flag has Nothing to do with this .

Anonymous said...

As though the Flag is what the issue is. Only in Amherst.

Larry Kelley said...

It's a symbol. A sad one.

Anonymous said...

The massacres will spread to corner as Islamonazism is at war. Against the citizenry of every philosophy which is not theirs. But aren't you comforted by the rebuke we've sent these slimeballs by going ahead with the climate conference. After all, climate change is the biggest threat we face. Wow, what a joke. I've seen the polls. The people do not agree. Climate change is way way down the list of what we care about. Terrorism is number one. Are you listening President Obama?

Anonymous said...

Agree with previous speaker that all assault rifles be confiscated. Make it a felony to own one and put the real psychos in jail. NRA killed a bill that would have done this. Some say it is too late but I say better late than never.

Anonymous said...

Would you kindly define what you mean by an "assault" rifle? What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think that arms should be controlled? We can't even control people coming into the country illegally. And somehow you think we can control guns? I suppose if we began enforcing the laws we have, (like the ones which say it's not legal to sneak into this country, for example), I might have a modicum of faith in the ability of the government to "control guns." The government would rather "call out the deniers" of climate change. Good luck with that, too.

Anonymous said...

Name for us a law which would have prevented any recent killings. Can you do it? How about the death penalty? Pretty strong deterrent in effect there. Diesn't seem to stop any crazies. Or jihadists.

Anonymous said...

There is plenty of gun control. But the laws are not enforced. So what--add more laws? Great idea.

Anonymous said...

3:09, here's your definition. An assault rifle is a semi-automatic firearm with a rifled barrel designed specifically to kill people in close quarters.

The purposes of criminalizing bad behavior are (1) to punish; and (2) to provide a deterrent, like speeding on the highway. Even thought a 65 mph speed limit is "unenforceable" and mostly unpunished it deters speeds over 80mph because of the consequences. Just as our immigration policy has the effect of deterring illegal immigration (but not stopping it). And tax policy deters tax cheating, even though it still happens.

So yes, I do think that guns should be "controlled" as you put it. Felony as I put it. If owning an assault rifle could land a person in federal prison, people would be deterred from owning them. And the fewer that are out there, the less the chance one falls into the wrong hands. Yes, people would still flout the law but there would be fewer of them and the steady stream of large capacity weapons would stop being produced and imported.

I think deterrents work best where people have more to lose - you'll see more rich people speeding, for instance because they can afford the tickets. And you'll see more poor people cheating on their taxes because they are unlikely to be audited. And immigrants will continue to come in illegally if they are desparate enough.

So, 3:09, if not an assault weapon ban, what do you think would deter mass shootings? We are all ears.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:57,

Do live in a cave. There are laws on the books to deal with every problem you see here, and those you don't see here. The problem is this. Courts do not enforce them. You can see this every day on this blog and on the news. Police make the arrests, the judges release. There is no deterrence.

Anonymous said...

It's about religion. All religions are fiction. When people believe in things that do not describe reality, bad things happen.

Anonymous said...

If assault riffles are not available for purchase or legal possession, then we'd only have to focus on the illegal ones. That sends a huge message and will at least be a beginning. We need to start somewhere! No more justifications about why not, why it hasn't worked, etc. Ban these weapons!

keithw said...

The .223 AR's used to perpetrate this horrible act did not belong to the shooters and are thereby illegal. The investigation into the shooting is sounding more and more like terrorism so I think the whole gun control debate is kinda moot at this point.

keithw said...

Anon 3:57

Since You're all ears....

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Anonymous said...

Your comments all prove how disassociated with reality you all are. Ban guns? Again you fools blame the tool, not the man/woman who wields it. Look at facts, not conjecture or speculation or manipulated figures or what your disingenuous politicians bleat to the clueless masses. you have a greater chance of being hit by lightning (twice) than from dying in a mass casualty/massacre/terrorist incident. Were you looking to ban pressure cookers after Boston? Planes after 9/11? Cmon people. Who is responsible for their own personal safety? You are, the individual. When seconds count the cops are minutes away..ask one and they will tell you that they WANT you to have a gun to defend yourself and your family. Ask any victim...that lived about that.

Please, please, please stop echoing the hollow rhetoric and dogma of the talking heads and look at history..an objective look, and see what really happens when guns disappear. CA, IL & military bases(ironic as it is) have strict gun laws yet laws only stop the law abiding. You ever notice how these incidents happen in gun free zones? They are target rich environments because criminals know that no one will shoot back. Criminals will always find away irrespective of the means. Hell, the mopes yesterday had ordinance...ban pipes! Oklahoma City anyone? Ban fertilizer. There are potential consequences of living in a free society. Now that I think of it, more people die from car crashes (ban cars) than guns. Booze is involved (ban alcohol...ahem) as is distracted driving (ban cell phones). Doctors and medical malpractice also causes a high number of deaths (ban doctors). Blunt object/aggravated assault deaths also outnumber gun deaths (ban all blunt objects...). Ugly truth? Why has the murder rates remained constant or less than previous years? Medical advancement, pure and simple. Paramedic ambulances and ERs are saving victims that would have died 10/15 years ago. Those people are amazing.

So are some constitutional rights greater than others? Suggest that a governmental ID be produced to vote (cuz voter fraud never happens) and the pitchforks come out. It is the improper opinion of many (just like here in respect to other views) that radical Islamists are the perpetrators of many of the terrorist incidents. Let's force Islamists to register and be subject to random inspections! Pitchforks and torches. Yet some cop hangs the stars n bars on his personal property (1st amendment anyone?) or a business owner flies the same...you guessed it. Pitchforks and torches (in the wrong direction).

So let's enact laws that turn a lawful man into a felon and that have zero impact on public safety. Asinine. Push for em so you can all go backslapping not realizing the inherent damage done to freedom. We are free, not socialist no matter your view. We make choices..and live by the outcome of said decisions. Ask CA, MD, MA, IL and NY. Strictest gun laws....highest gun violence. Some of you are sheep. Got it. Better pray that there is a sheepdog nearby when the wolves come out.

Push too hard and civil war II is on the horizon. I know this has fallen on deaf ears. When it happens here y'all be the first victims. Hooray for me

Anonymous said...

He doth protesteth too much.

Anonymous said...

Well get used to it. It sort of what your ancestors did here upon their arrival. What goes around comes around. You didn't think you'd get away with it forever did you.

Anonymous said...

And the Second Amendment to the Constitution? You don't support it? Our president and others are sworn to uphold it.

Anonymous said...

Your saying all religions are fiction will hold little water when the Islamonazis come for you.

Anonymous said...

I know that you'd like to keep these certain weapons out of the wring hands. We know who these wrong hands are, in large part. And we should be arresting these people. But we don't. ENFORCE THE LAW!

Anonymous said...

I think we should ban pipe bombs. And pie in the sky, too.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you're clearly smarter than the rest of us. Thanks for educating us.

Anonymous said...

Time for better parenting and less gevernment oversight. Neglectful parents, where both work all the time because they have to constantly pay the government or get the next icrap is backfiring. And ignorant folks wil pretend we can pry guns away,from criminals or Americans. Perhaps gun control would work if there were say 100 guns, but psss, there are more and gun control has not worked to date, more regs have coincided with more shootings, literally. Shootings have increased with government spending, literally. Shootings have increased the more we pay attention to them, literally. Again, I hope parents step up to the plate and start focusing on their kids so they grow up sane enough to not shoot people. Works for way more than shootings. Think of all the peaceful people that will become violent when you try to take a poseession of guns they own and have a very secure right to keep via the constitution, our governing body of law, more right to keep than your child, that they can come and take any time they want, but not your gun. Poorly parented people kill people, guns don't, guns are just things, like badges and tress.

Anonymous said...

Isn't heroin baned? Wasn't using the gun the way they did already banned? Wasn't planning their,action banned? Isn't police beating citizens baned? Good luck with all that.

Anonymous said...

keithw, from the "Time" story you linked, thank you. The primary focus of the article is on how Swiss citizens are trained from age 12 to use and possess firearms safely and responsibly and that, therefore, they do not normally use them against their fellow citizens. It also says:
"(Swiss) law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer."
Is this the solution you are proposing? If so the three requirements described would be a huge improvement over what we have now. Which in many states is no permit, no background check, and unlimited purchases.
As for the second amendment, there is nothing sacred about it. The only reason it hasn't been changed yet is that psycho gun owners and the NRA intimidate any attempts to modify it. There is no way I would want to be a spokesman for a movement to repeal the second amendment - I don't yet have the courage (hence my CAN status here). We all saw what happened down south during the civil rights movement where people trying to educate ignorant hillbillies were routinely lynched to try to prevent the inevitable. But that's the level of committment it's going to take put a stop to gun culture. Which in my view is not much different from Jim Crow - it creates an intimidating class of gun owners that get their way by bullying.
We need a critical mass of people willing to speak out against GUN OWNERS and take the heat knowing these idiots are likely to open fire. But what choice do we have? Continue to live under the pall of a society where physical violence trumps reason?

Anonymous said...

"sort of like what your ancestors did upon their arrival...what goes around comes around..."

Yeah it's true, but prior to Europeans' permanent arrival, North America was made up of many separate and independent nations, and their activities included brutal raids of conquest against other more peaceful nations, raping and kidnapping of children and women, brutal torturing of each other, stealing each others' land, destroying each others' culture... The ugliest sides of humanity existed on this continent, and every other, and within most geographic sub-groups of people, long before 1492 and yes they exist today.

And so, if you take a little joy in things comin' around that go around, well, you're only human after all, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

Hear? Hear!

Dr. Ed said...

If you listen to the media hysteria, the leading cause of death in America is Opiate Overdose. (It isn't -- heart attacks & such is leading cause for both men and women, lung (not breast) cancer is the leading M&F cancer killer today.)

In any case, Heroin is killing lots of folks -- and would kill a lot more but for our first responders such as the AFD -- who would also do their best to save the lives of a GSW victim. But when was the last time the AFD had someone with a GunShot Wound?????

Heroin has been totally banned for about a century now -- it's a Schedule I Narcotic and I don't believe is allowed anywhere for any purpose (there isn't even an exception for police as there is for fullyautomatic guns) and there sure as hell isn't a "Heroin Show Loophole..."

Heroin killed over 5% of the people in the plantation (form of municipality too small to be a town) have been killed by Opiates (one of the fatalities was Methadone, rest Heroin) -- guns haven't killed anyone...

And dogs can smell Heroin -- unless they have been recently fired and/or not cleaned, dogs can't smell guns. (What are they going to smell? Steel? Grease? Oil? The cops would be arresting every locksmith and bicycle mechanic...)

And notwithstanding the Civil Rights issues, it is quite easy to tell if someone has been exposed to Heroin.

How about actually banning Heroin before you start worrying about guns?!?!?

Anonymous said...

We all have a shadow...just ask Martin Sheen.

Walter Graff said...

Sorry Ed, there are many K-9 gun dogs on police departments today who can not only be trained to sniff out the distinctive smell of a gun, but who can easily be trained to smell ammunition. I watched a demonstration of one such dog, and it's amazing. You might want to do an internet search and learn a bit about it.

keithw said...

CAN 10:18

You're an idiot.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious as to why you post as anonymous.

Dr. Ed said...

An assault rifle is a semi-automatic firearm with a rifled barrel designed specifically to kill people in close quarters.

Wrong answer.

First, all "semi-automatic" means is that (essentially) energy from the recoil is used to load the next round (bullet) -- where a revolver rotates the next bullet into place, the "semi-automatic" uses either springs and/or some of the same compressed gasses that propels the bullet to push a slide back, ejecting the now-empty shell casing, and then inserting the next.

A fullyautomatic firearm then automatically fires the second and third round. (The M16-A-1 restricts it to three rounds unless the trigger is pulled again -- the M-16s of the 1960's and other weapons would continue to fire until either you took your finger off the trigger or ran out of bullets.)

Both semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns can and do jam, particularly if not kept meticulously clean -- there are lots of parts with close tolerances. Now the AK-47 was designed not to have close tolerances -- at the expense of accuracy, and sharpshooters (and snipers) still use bolt-action rifles. And you also have barrels heating up as you fire additional rounds which further degrades accuracy, but I digress...

The WW-II GI carried a M-1 Garland rifle, which makes an excellent deer-hunting rifle -- and it is a semi-automatic (although I'm told when it is really cold, it will sometimes fire a second round). It fires the .30-06 round, a bullet 0.30" wide that was designed in 1906 -- down at the old Springfield Armory.

By contrast, the M-16 fires a much smaller .223" round -- the AR-15s that people use for hunting are chambered for larger rounds (which can no more be fired fully automatic than you can put a Diesel engine on a motorcycle). In most states, it is illegal to hunt "big game" (e.g. Deer) with a bullet smaller than .30 because a .223 (or .22) will only wound the animal, not immediately kill it and the animal will run off and die a lingering painful death days later.

Conversely, the human can be rushed to the hospital and will live.

The concept of an "assault rifle" was to fire a lot of smaller lower-energy (shorter range) bullets than fewer high-power long-range bullets. The goal is to stop people, to immobilize them, not really to kill them as the primary purpose. Notice how many times some of the people who lived were shot -- while Napalm is designed to kill the enemy, the assault rifle is designed to neutralize him/her/it.

The problem with the term "assault rifle" is similar to the term "car" -- anything with a GVW under (I think) 27,000 lbs is legally considered a "car", including most of the UHaul & Ryder rental trucks (which is really scary, but I digress).

But no, you can't buy the guns that Rambo plays with in KMart. One could no more fire a .50 cal machine gun from the hip than one could use the deck gun on a fire truck as a handline -- no matter how strong you are, you're going downrange... (And if you fire a rocket launcher from inside a helicopter, you've just incinerated your helicopter...)

Dr. Ed said...

My suspicion is that the dog recognizes the smell of specific things, such gun oil or odors on shells from the plant. Were you to wipe down the shells and gun with bleach (not so sure I'd want to for safety reasons, but I also am not a criminal), I'm not so sure the dog could find it.

I'm reminded of Sgt. Yorkby mo (the weapon system, not the man after whom it was named) -- it was very effective at finding and targeting rotating blades, but not only those of helicopters but those of bathroom exhaust fans, and I believe further tests were discontinued for "safety reasons" after it successfully targeted (and destroyed) the base latrine (restroom) building.

Which was almost as good as the West Point Grad who accidentally got an extra 180 degrees into his calculations and called in artillery -- on the Officer's parking lot, destroying the General's car (fortunately unoccupied). Or the guys who mistakenly put all the bags of powder into a mortar and overshot the boundary of Camp Edwards (Cape Cod) by more than a mile and put a live round down literally on the yellow line of the MidCape Highway....

But I digress.

Dr. Ed said...

The purposes of criminalizing bad behavior are (1) to punish; and (2) to provide a deterrent, like speeding on the highway. Even thought a 65 mph speed limit is "unenforceable" and mostly unpunished it deters speeds over 80mph because of the consequences.

Speed studies showed something interesting:

When speed limits were raised from 55MPH to 65MPH, average speeds actually went down -- for two reasons.

First as people considered the speed limit more reasonable, they respected it.
Second, as cops weren't chasing "everyone" anymore, they had time to go after the folks going over 80.

Maine showed this even better --- it's 70 MPH to Bangor, 75 MPH beyond -- and just about everyone is going only 3-4 MPH faster than that. It has slowed down the folks doing 90...

Anonymous said...

3:09 here. Enforcement .

Anonymous said...

Why the fuck does Obama try to hide what we all seem to know? He actually thinks he's smarter than us, true, but the American people are, in large part, smarter than he. So why the fuck does he not say what we all know? This is radical Islamic terror. The President says he's Christian. I don't think he believes that himself . He's nothing.

Dr. Ed said...

Swiss train stations are quite noisy on Sunday nights because all the young men coming home from military drills -- drunk out of their minds, each lugging his fully-automatic rifle with him.

They do not have rounds chambered, and I believe the clips are somehow sealed so that the military could tell that they have been inserted into a weapon -- but these young men could load their guns if they wanted to, and I had visions of street lights and whatnot being used for target practice, if not worse...

(Imagine a couple hundred drunken UMass undergrads lugging M-16s with ammo in their backpacks -- enough said?)

The thought of even one of these quite-intoxicated young men even firing his weapon is totally incomprehensible to the Swiss. "It just wouldn't happen" I was told, "they just wouldn't do it."

It's "could" versus "would" -- where our approach is on the "could", theirs is on the "would."

And as to UMass students --- a year older, they are every bit as drunken on the MBTA coming home from Sox games, and they don't pull the airbrakes on the Green Line....

Anonymous said...

There's a little thing called the death penalty. (Or life in prison for those states which don't have it.). If this doesn't prevent someone from killing, then it can't be done. You were trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, punishes law abiding citizens. The death penalty.

Anonymous said...

I have a right to protect myself. Why would you want to take that away? Repeal the second amendment? It's precisely because of those who want to repeal our rights that we need the Second Amendment.

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, why do cops carry sidearms? Because they want to kill people?

OK, the cops who wear the badge for the right reasons...

The incident occurred at a Christmas Party for/of the County Health Department -- and Section 8 Inspectors often get invited to county/state health dept events, I went to several. Many Section 8 inspectors are armed, I chose not to be but could have been.

Can you imagine if one or two of the people attending that Christmas party had been armed and able to shoot back?

I doubt it would even have happened --- if he knew that any one there might be able to shoot back, but not who (and hence who to shoot first) -- it wouldn't have happened.

Anonymous said...

Honest Politicians do not fear Armed Citizens.

Dr. Ed said...

During WW-II, a Nazi sub could have gone into any of the offshore islands (or even coastal communities) after food/fuel -- and none ever did. They knew that there was a rifle or shotgun behind every kitchen door and on every one of the lobster boats. They knew that almost everyone was armed, would shoot, and likely effectively -- I don't know what the crew of a sub was, but not only were they outnumbered but an alarm would get out before they killed everyone.

In other words, it would be tactical suicide because the islands were within the flight range of an airplane which could both see a submerged submarine and sink it with depth charges. (After the war started, the shipping losses occurred further out, beyond the range of shore-based airplanes.)

Can you imagine if all the Jews in Europe, circa 1933, had been armed?

Can you imagine if someone had seen the perps pulling out their weapons and calmly said "don't even think about it" and they looked up to see weapons pointed at them? No one would have died but them, and I doubt they would have...

Terrorism only works becase we feel helpless -- it's why flying is more scary than driving, while driving is statistically far more deadly.

Walter Graff said...

No Ed sorry, you can dip a gun in bleach, acetone coffee or anything you wan,t a dog will still find it. It has been tried many times with everything possible - a properly trained dog can find a scent very easy, whether you try to mask it or not. A dog has upwards of 7000 times the ability to smell something then your nose does. And yes, you can even train a dog to smell a specific type of metal. In fact there are now dogs that can sniff out cancer in human beings.

Anonymous said...

I have heard it said that Obama is the greatest gun salesman this country has ever seen. I'm thinking about buying me one. The government is not protecting us. We have to do it ourselves.i

Anonymous said...

True, but most jihadists seem willing to go to their death. So it's the opposite of a deterrent. Which is why you have to kill them before they kill us. They are at war with our lifestyle, but they are killing us civilians. Who do you think is going to protect you if you do not protect yourself?

Anonymous said...

Tyrants fear armed citizens. An oppressive Government cannot tolerate an armed citizenry. Good thing our own government is not like that. You know, totalitarian. Like where they want you to agree with everything they say and do, and brand you would denier for exercising your right to free speech, for example.

Jackie M'Vemba said...

Hey 6:35, you mean all religions are fiction except yours, right?

Anonymous said...

In the Old West they had a saying "smile when you say that." Because everyone was armed. It was a more polite time. Ah yes, it harkens back to the carefree days of train robberies...

Anonymous said...

In order to speak out against gun owners, you are speaking out against the United Staes Constitution. Well, go ahead. You have that right, just as you have the right to be a gun owner, but I think there are ( and I believe Ought to be) vastly more defenders of that particular founding document. I find myself wishing for the US to split into two countrys. One which celbrates freedom and liberty, while the other supports more tyrannical government control. I wonder which would be the happier country?

Anonymous said...

...brand you a denier... Of course. My god, the typing.

Anonymous said...

A federal offense with jail time criminalizes me and ither (formerly) law-abiding citizens. The evil ones who would kill people will get the guns anyway. They are not deterred by the death penalty for murder let alone the federal time for posession.

Anonymous said...

Dogs? Now we're talking about dogs?

Anonymous said...

Criminals do not follow the law. It is completely illegal, for instance to make, posess, or detonate pipe bombs. Yet these two scums of the Earth stockpiled them. And the two have paid the ultimate price. They're dead. Good riddance, too.

Anonymous said...

There is a "decent number" of "decent people" who understand that there are already plenty of gun control laws which go on the enforced. These massacres simply cannot be prevented. If someone is willing to die for their act, that's the best you can hope for, failing advance intelligence about an upcoming event. We always call for more gun laws. More gun laws. More. More. More. You can't enforce the ones you've got.

Anonymous said...

If you take away one right, you may as well lose them all.

Anonymous said...

Family members should fear armed citizens....they are more likely to get shot then any politician.

Anonymous said...

Yes 8:48. Two separate countries. One with strict immigration laws, one with open borders. One where the president serves the people and whose president is a tyrant who imposes hi will on the people. One country where the people live who respect success and another country where success is ridiculed and torn down. One country which apologizes for and drags itself through the mud for its history, and another country which stands up for what is right with itself. One country which bases almost everything it does on division and race, and another country which sees race as unimportant. You ask which country would be happier. I know which one I would like to live in. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Anonymous said...

12:16, are you still on about Switzerland? Because it's about as unfree a society as you can get. Not exactly Laizzes Faire.

Anonymous said...

some folks are made to raise the flag, it aint me ,it aint me ,I aint no fortunate son no ,it aint me I aint no military son no.
Some folks are made to wave the red , white and blue, and never put in one day to what that really stands for and thats you Kelly

Anonymous said...

Anyone who sacrifices liberty for security will deserve neither.

-Benjamin Franklin

Larry Kelley said...

So then let's allow people to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Anonymous said...

I never mentioned Switzerland. And wouldn't. I'm talking about to Americas, and just pipe dreaming about what it would be like if we conservatives and you liberals decided to get a divorce from each other and start two countries

Anonymous said...

Oh Larry! So much smarter than Benjamin Franklin. Why didn't He think of that??

Larry Kelley said...

Times were different then. They didn't have movie theaters. Or automatic weapons.

Anonymous said...

Excuses, Excuses, when everbody has a "License to kill" because terrorism-guns, drunk driving DUI, drugs, etc are "Normalized" by society as culturally accepted-we forget that there is a victim-which is the whole point of law-to protect those harmed from victimization

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, "fire in a crowded theater" was in the era when movie film was essentially made of Nitroglycerine. It -- and the theater -- routinely caught fire, and there were no smoke detectors tripping box alarms nor sprinklers nor any of the stuff we have now. It was more like The Station and that is what the reference was to.

If you have any negatives around, look at the edge and you will see that (at least Kodak) says "Kodak Safety Film" -- as I understand it, once Rayon was invented, they went to that instead of Nitrocellous for film.

keithw said...

Anon 11:02

I think you're a little confused. If guns were "Normalized by society" then wouldn't that mean everyone would be walking around openly armed? If that were, in fact, the case do you think these victims you speak of would actually be victims? And would they have to rely on others to protect them?

Anonymous said...

Aren't we all victims these days?

Anonymous said...

Oh that explains it. Times are different. So u are in favor of giving up liberty, then.

Anonymous said...

Huh? No, we're not. What are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Politician? Who's talking about politicians?

Anonymous said...

No, just opera houses and open markets. Sporting events. Bombs, cannons...

Anonymous said...

Again: Smile when you say that.

As a saying, I think it's going to make a comeback.

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, seen this?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/20/concealed-permit-holder-stops-attempted-mass-shooting-in-chicago/

Larry Kelley said...

No but I did see Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet comparing the number of Americans who died in all War fought since 1776, 1.4 million, and the number of Americans who died via household guns since 1968, also 1.4 million.

Anonymous said...

Yes. Thank you for stating the obvious ( on the level of a pop song): it ain't you. I guess we know to count you out.

Anonymous said...

It's not that you don't have the Right to yell "fire" there. It's simply that there are consequences to pay if you do.

Anonymous said...

From when e do those figures come? Would like to see a source other than someone's "tweet."

Anonymous said...

You put a lot a faith, I suppose in someone else having a gun if neede, for your own defense,eh? But surely you'll defend my right to defend my own family and my property. Or do you think I should abdicate that right?

Dr. Ed said...

No but I did see Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet comparing the number of Americans who died in all War fought since 1776, 1.4 million, and the number of Americans who died via household guns since 1968, also 1.4 million.

And the WHO (i.e. UN) estimates that 1.5M people died of AIDS in 2013 alone.

Of course, they are talking worldwide which is a much bigger population than the US, much like the US had a much bigger population in 1968 than 1776, although it has long been said that combat in Iraq was safer than living in Chicago...

But Larry, you are comparing apples to bricks, alleging they are the same because both are red. The vast majority of people who die of GSW are statistical outliers --- they are criminals. Barbara O'Connor often made the point of the high co-relationship between illegal drugs and gun-related violence. And a lot of this is related to gangs.

So Larry, unless you have multiple (legitimate) felony arrests* that I don't know about, unless you are delivering drugs with your drone or a closet member of La Familia, the statistics you cite don't apply to you.

And as to Tyson, that schmuck is living proof that if you lean far enough to the Left, all will always be forgiven.

* I.e. You actually did what you were arrested for -- even if you plead guilty to a lesser involved offense, or if charges were dropped or jury nullification occurred. That's the problem with discussing the "non-violent drug offenders" in prison -- many of them pled guilty to the "non-violent drug offense(s)" so the DA would dismiss the VIOLENT offenses they had also committed...

Dr. Ed said...

A related aspect of the aforementioned often arises in rape & child molestation cases -- the accused has the right to a fair trial and to confront his accuser.

I believe in Locke's concept of "Life, Liberty, & Property" (aka Jefferson's "Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness") -- that the individual has God Given Rights that only God can take away.

Hence, I argue, the crime of rape belongs to the woman who was raped. If all she wants is for the perp to be in jail for the next six months so she can finish the semester, graduate & go down to DC, if she (upon reflection) doesn't care what the paperwork that put him in jail says, only that he is -- so she can tell herself "it isn't him, he's in jail" every time she has a panic attack or sees a shadow moving -- I say give her what she wants (and needs). Many cops and most feminists disagree with me on this, but I ask "whose body is it?" -- and hence "whose life is it?"

If after having raped her, the perp stole her bra (which, I was told, isn't uncommon) and if the state doesn't have an over/under law like Massachusetts does, I say charge him with theft. Officer Friendly can testify that he found the bra on the perp when arrested (for the rape), the rape victim can testify that it is her bra (i.e. her property) and as she paid for it with a credit card when she bought it last year, the credit card company can produce a record showing exactly what she paid for it.

All the victim has to do is say "yes, it is mine" -- maybe bring another one with her to court so she can show that it is the same size & such (particularly if it is identical) -- she doesn't have to say how the perp came into possession of it, and if he is stupid enough to admit to having raped her, well that sorta confirms his guilt on the bra theft...

And while everyone knows that it is because of what he also did, he winds up sentenced to the (maximum) six months for the theft of a $9 bra.

Six months in jail for the theft of something worth $9 looks outrageous unless you realize that it isn't like he stole it from WalMart. Likewise with the so-called "non violent drug offenders" in prison...

And the gun carnage looks outrageous until you start (a) looking at who the perps are, along with (b) looking at who the victims often are. One also needs to remember that a significant percentage of these deaths are suicides, and that there are many other ways for one so inclined to commit suicide. (Gun-free Japan actually has a "suicide forest" at the base of Mount Fuji -- once a year, cops & volunteers go through it to clean out the bodies...)

Larry, Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than any of my guns ever have...

Dr. Ed said...

One other thing: It is said that the cop in Chicago who shot the Black Male 16 times (emptying his weapon) attempted to reload and was stopped by fellow officers.

Clearly that police officer should not have had a gun.

Do we take guns away from the rest of the police because of this one officer?
Or (after a fair trial) do we take the individual (former officer) away from society?

While the "wall of blue" exists because of the collective individual need to know that a "Signal 2" will roll if requested (read Serpico's book), I suspect every "boots on the ground" police officer can think of at least one other police officer who really ought not possess firearms.

Larry, it's like the Catholic Priests, 99+% of whom were/are kind, decent & honorable people who'd never molest or rape anyone. I have it on good authority (from someone in a position to know) that there was only one bad one in Western Mass -- that all the rest weren't.

Do you know what a "statistical outlier" is Larry?

Cops who use Black males for target practice, Priests who sodomize Altar Boys, and gun owners who shoot/kill other people (except in defense of self or others) are statistical outliers. They are statistically irrelevant -- it is like the classic "man bites dog" story, newsworthy because it is an outlier.

And Larry, medical malpractice kills THREE TIMES the number of people that auto wrecks do -- with alcohol involved in less than half of the auto deaths, and OUI responsible for probably less than a third.

14 deaths in California are tragic -- but I have no doubt there have been 14 medical malpractice deaths at CDH and where is the outcry on that????