WWTBAM Bored

... in a theater in Renton, WA, has been arrested after the gun went off when he accidentally dropped it, injuring a woman. Not surprisingly, the man was there to see 13 Hours. He admitted that he had been drinking before entering the theater. The woman is in critical condition at a local hospital. The man left the theater after the incident but his father later turned him in.

On the plus side, there were no terrorist attacks in that theater, so I guess he did keep other patrons (all but one) safe from being assaulted by ISIS backers looking to make a statement by trying to disrupt playing of a movie that portrays them in a bad light.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /79156180/

and 34,999,999 other gun owners shot no one.

Repeal the 21st Amendment

I wonder how many people have been hurt or killed in construction accidents in the past 24 hours because somebody dropped a hammer or failed to follow safety rules in using a saw? I think we should stop letting folks build things.

What was the guy with the gun building?

smilergrogan wrote:What was the guy with the gun building?

A hangover and a bunch of legal problems.

silvercamaro wrote:

smilergrogan wrote:What was the guy with the gun building?

A hangover and a bunch of legal problems.

What a scamp! The woman in critical condition probably thinks that's hilarious.

silvercamaro wrote:I wonder how many people have been hurt or killed in construction accidents in the past 24 hours because somebody dropped a hammer or failed to follow safety rules in using a saw? I think we should stop letting folks build things.

This is a false analogy that is unworthy of your intelligence. Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not, as illustrated by the many Western democracies that do just fine without making guns as readily available as Big Macs. It makes more sense to argue that we should stop enacting construction safety rules because criminals will ignore them, allowing them to undercut honest construction companies.

And the argument that the net utility of making personal firearms readily available is positive because the benefits of ready availability outweigh the costs is fairly clearly (to me) outweighed by the evidence of our actual experience. Not very many people are saved from crime because they have a gun available. Lots and lots of people (including far, far too many kids) get killed or injured because it's much too easy to get guns. --Bob

smilergrogan wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:

smilergrogan wrote:What was the guy with the gun building?

A hangover and a bunch of legal problems.

What a scamp! The woman in critical condition probably thinks that's hilarious.

Obviously not, and I hope she will have a full recovery without everlasting side effects from the actions of the idiot. This story does touch on my personal greatest area of fear, disdain, and dislike, however. I don't like drunks -- particularly including drunks with guns and drunks who drive. That doesn't mean that I support the return of prohibition for everyone.

What "I don't like" should not determine public policy, nor should the dislikes and fears of anti-gun people.

Bob78164 wrote:This is a false analogy that is unworthy of your intelligence. Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility.

Then we need movie control No social or economic utility of movies, either.

If there had been no movie, that woman would likely be fine.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:This is a false analogy that is unworthy of your intelligence. Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility.

Then we need movie control No social or economic utility of movies, either.

If there had been no movie, that woman would likely be fine.

Just as fallacious. Leaving aside the value of culture for the moment (I'm thinking Uncle Tom's Cabin had a positive effect on America), movies lack the obvious downside that accompanies ready availability of personal firearms.

It makes more sense to ban peanut butter than to ban movies. At least with peanut butter, the risk (such as it is) is inherent in the product. We don't ban peanut butter because it also has a clear and obvious social utility (people like to eat it) that we judge outweighs the risk to those with peanut allergies. We have, however, started to move in the direction of protecting those at particular risk, but discouraging or banning peanut butter from schools (where vulnerable kids can't protect themselves from exposure). --Bob

Bob>>>Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not,<<<

The venison that is in my freezer tells me that there is economic utility to guns.

The multi-generational hunting camps, that you can not even begin to understand, tells me that there is social utility to firearms.

Spock wrote:Bob>>>Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not,<<<

The venison that is in my freezer tells me that there is economic utility to guns.

The multi-generational hunting camps, that you can not even begin to understand, tells me that there is social utility to firearms.

And I'm okay with hunting rifles, used for hunting. But that's got nothing to do with bringing personal firearms into a movie theater. --Bob

How do you get the deer to go into the movie theater so you can hunt them in there? Trail of popcorn, maybe?

Spock wrote:Bob>>>Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not,<<<

The venison that is in my freezer tells me that there is economic utility to guns.

The multi-generational hunting camps, that you can not even begin to understand, tells me that there is social utility to firearms.

For a small percentage of the hunting population, there is indeed economic utility to firearms. SteelersFan and I are not in that small percentage. Our turkey licenses cost three times what loss leader turkeys cost at the local grocery store with our loyalty card. My recent (unsuccessful) Bighorn Ram hunt cost about 100 times (SWAG) what the meat would have been worth. SteelersFan's elk hunts are probably about a wash since elk are so big, red meat is so expensive, in-state licenses are relatively reasonable, and SteelersFan has all the necessary equipment purchased gradually over decades.

I do worry about multi-generational outings. The local annual Jakes Day, all free to kids who have to be accompanied by a parent, draws about a quarter of what I think it should.

Bob78164 wrote: Just as fallacious. Leaving aside the value of culture for the moment (I'm thinking Uncle Tom's Cabin had a positive effect on America), movies lack the obvious downside that accompanies ready availability of personal firearms.

This is dangerous thinking. The kind you seem to decry when its those you disagree with are speaking their minds in a similar manner.

To you, guns have no utility. To you movies provide a positive effect. To you movies have no or less downside.

To you.......so then all else is wrong.

I would be willing to bet more people were accidentally killed by cars, maybe even driving to the movies, last week than were accidentally killed by guns.

BackInTex wrote: I would be willing to bet more people were accidentally killed by cars, maybe even driving to the movies, last week than were accidentally killed by guns.

Of course, that completely avoids the question of what good guns do. True, most of them don't do any harm, but the number of murders, suicides, assaults, and accidental shootings far outweighs any beneficial effects guns have in the possession of untrained "good guys" like the man in Washington.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Bob>>>Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not,<<<

The venison that is in my freezer tells me that there is economic utility to guns.

The multi-generational hunting camps, that you can not even begin to understand, tells me that there is social utility to firearms.

And I'm okay with hunting rifles, used for hunting. But that's got nothing to do with bringing personal firearms into a movie theater. --Bob

You said Guns have no utility. You did not qualify that.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Spock wrote:Bob>>>Construction (and driving) have obvious social and economic utility. Guns do not,<<<

The venison that is in my freezer tells me that there is economic utility to guns.

The multi-generational hunting camps, that you can not even begin to understand, tells me that there is social utility to firearms.

For a small percentage of the hunting population, there is indeed economic utility to firearms. SteelersFan and I are not in that small percentage. Our turkey licenses cost three times what loss leader turkeys cost at the local grocery store with our loyalty card. My recent (unsuccessful) Bighorn Ram hunt cost about 100 times (SWAG) what the meat would have been worth. SteelersFan's elk hunts are probably about a wash since elk are so big, red meat is so expensive, in-state licenses are relatively reasonable, and SteelersFan has all the necessary equipment purchased gradually over decades.

I do worry about multi-generational outings. The local annual Jakes Day, all free to kids who have to be accompanied by a parent, draws about a quarter of what I think it should.

I was kind of hoping that somebody would say something like this. Yes, I agree 100% with you that most people could buy meat (or raise it) cheaper than it costs to hunt it.
1) The extra money is obviously circulating in the economy providing jobs/conservation department funding etc.

2) Of the 5 people in my house, 3 of us prefer venison hamburgers to beef hamburgers. Yes, that costs more, but maybe it could be compared to choose buying expensive cuts of meat to cheap cuts. In essence, I can afford to pay for quality and I am also paying for recreation with my food dollars. Or better stated, I am getting some food with my recreation/tourism dollars.

3)Because of the ever more increasing focus on local and sustainable foods; there is a small, but growing, subset of adults who are coming to hunting for the "Foodie" aspect of it.

4) I fear for conservation in this country when the current generations (with no grounding in the land) and country kids are just as mesmorized by those damn screens as any other kids. One of the sporting newspaper that I get often carries exit interviews with retiring goverment conservation folks and they are scared to death of how few kids they see outside.

One story that has always stuck with me was when one interviewee talked about what you would have seen on a flight over lake country 40 years ago.....Over there would have been a group of 12-year olds building a raft....Over here there would have been a couple of 14 year olds taking out the old rowboat etc, etc


Sprots-there is a 3-book series by Clinton's Sec of interior(A pretty hard-bitten guy) that I have on my list and it is jumping up all the time. You might want to look at it. Sprots and me are obviously mostly political opposites, but I would imagine that we are both strongly opposed to turning federal lands over to the states, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Forks-Trail-Conse ... +the+trail

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I would be willing to bet more people were accidentally killed by cars, maybe even driving to the movies, last week than were accidentally killed by guns.

Of course, that completely avoids the question of what good guns do. True, most of them don't do any harm, but the number of murders, suicides, assaults, and accidental shootings far outweighs any beneficial effects guns have in the possession of untrained "good guys" like the man in Washington.

What good to movies do? Paintings? Music? Volleyball? Lawyers?

It's all in the eye of the beholder. And you, like Bob, are a dangerous hypocritical beholder. You castigate those who do not believe as you do, yet call others doing the same (on a side opposite yours) fascist.

Your "far outweighs" comment is pure opinion. True, there is a lot of harm guns do, but much of that harm is intentional and the harm would come with our without the gun. But to ignore the beneficial utility of a gun in a responsible person's possession is being intentionally blind.

You can point out all the "good guys with guns" who make mistakes. Many of them are not "good guys" in my book. I would say this guy was likely not a "good guy" by my definition; maybe by yours because I think you probably have much lower standards.

But the fact remains that it was one incident and 34,999,999 other gun owners did not accidentally shoot someone.

Here is a book that some may find interesting "Gun Guys".

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Guys-Road-Vin ... s=Gun+Guys

>>>>Dan Baum is a gun fanatic. He is also Jewish Democrat who grew up in suburban New Jersey. In Gun Guys, he takes us on a guided tour of gun stores and gun shows, shooting ranges and festivals, contests and auctions, trying to figure out what draws so many of us to guns in the first place. Is it just part of being American? Introducing a wide cast of characters, Baum shows both sides of the gun culture in America, bringing an entire world vividly to life, and in doing so helping to find a middle ground in the gun debate, where actual conversation can take place.<<<<<<<
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The fears on my side (and the wet dreams on the other) is that eventually government forces will go door to door confiscating weapons. Obviously, voluntary turn-ins are not going to work in Texas, etc. I don't really fear the door-to-door scenario because I don't know who you will get to do it(on a mass scale). It also doesn't apply to me because all my firearms (and ammo) were lost in a freak boating accident.

SSS isn't going to go door to door, neither is Bob#s or Smiler or the faculty of any Womens' Studies Department.

In the last couple of years, liberals have totally demoralized the big city police departments-are they gonna do it for you? A friend's brother is an Los Angeles County Deputy and morale there is shot. They are hated and they know it. He is close to retirement or he would leave. My friend's son is a newly minted and trained police officer and his uncle has told him-"Don't come out here."

Are "Red County" kids in the marines/army infantry gonna do it for you?

Spock wrote:The fears on my side (and the wet dreams on the other) is that eventually government forces will go door to door confiscating weapons. Obviously, voluntary turn-ins are not going to work in Texas, etc. I don't really fear the door-to-door scenario because I don't know who you will get to do it(on a mass scale). It also doesn't apply to me because all my firearms (and ammo) were lost in a freak boating accident.

SSS isn't going to go door to door, neither is Bob#s or Smiler or the faculty of any Womens' Studies Department.

In the last couple of years, liberals have totally demoralized the big city police departments-are they gonna do it for you? A friend's brother is an Los Angeles County Deputy and morale there is shot. They are hated and they know it. He is close to retirement or he would leave. My friend's son is a newly minted and trained police officer and his uncle has told him-"Don't come out here."

Are "Red County" kids in the marines/army infantry gonna do it for you?

I doubt there are liberals who dream of repealing the 2nd and 4th Amendments! No, I think the most any gun control advocate could hope for is a ban on assault weapons, with searches and confiscation requiring probable cause and a warrant. And if public opinion changes that much, then the police would enforce it.

Police: Two concealed weapons holders killed suspect during barbershop robbery

http://www.wistv.com/story/31036728/pol ... op-robbery

I'm sure this clerk saw great utility in his firearm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

ten96lt wrote:I'm sure this clerk saw great utility in his firearm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that he risked his life for whatever was in the cash register. Because when you've got multiple people holding guns and the shooting starts, anything can happen.

If you came home and found your house on fire, would you run in to try to carry out a couple of hundred dollars in cash or a few bottles of liquor (which is probably what was in the liquor store till)?

If I had a gun when I was robbed, I might have saved myself $60 that night. Or I might have gotten killed. I don't think it's worth risking my life over $60.