Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: eugene kane article, comments, thoughts,

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    eugene kane article, comments, thoughts,

    In the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shootings, I'm not going to argue about concealed carry gun laws anymore.

    We've been through all that here in Wisconsin.

    Like many workplaces, the building where I work in this concealed carry state has a sign on the entrance informing folks that no weapons are allowed inside. Some gun advocates think that's part of the problem.

    After all, folks like the orange-haired suspect in Aurora can read, too.

    Concealed carry became a buzz phrase on my social message sites after some learned Colorado actually does have a concealed carry law that allows residents to exercise their Second Amendment right in a limited manner.

    It's so limited the entire town of Aurora - along with other Colorado towns and cities with "gun-free zones" - doesn't permit anyone to carry a concealed weapon legally even though it's the law in other parts of the state.

    That means the answer to one of the most asked questions after the Aurora shootings became a moot point: "Why didn't someone with a concealed weapon just take the guy out?"

    The answer: They would have been breaking the law. (OK, I'll admit that does sound a bit wrongheaded.)

    Proponents of concealed carry laws always use the example of random encounters with nefarious criminals as their main justification for why the public should be allowed to pack heat.

    Given the bedlam in the Aurora theater - a tear gas cloud and a masked gunman with multiple weapons spraying bullets - it seems highly unlikely a regular citizen could have disrupted the killer's plot. My guess is the only ones who believe they actually could have stopped the guy are probably influenced by too much television or Hollywood.

    You know, like the "Batman" series that features a lone hero saving the day. Of course, that's not real life.

    The orange-haired suspect appeared in court for the first time Monday. Just like President Barack Obama, I'm not going to use his name.

    Don't worry; you'll hear it plenty of times as he awaits charges in connection with one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

    But he doesn't deserve the publicity. (Now that I think of it, we should have given Jeffrey Dahmer the same treatment.)answers begins, but there's no guarantee anything we find out about the suspect will ever make sense.

    For some, what happened in Aurora is all about the demons of mental illness. For others, it's about a gun culture some Americans embrace so passionately they even defend the sale of automatic assault rifles to regular citizens who aren't soldiers or law enforcement officers.

    Again, I don't want to argue about the effectiveness of concealed carry laws to protect innocent citizens. In many ways, the argument was effectively settled for me in Aurora.

    Some will now seek even more gun laws than ever, while others will insist less is more. But basically, concealed carry gun laws are no guarantee against crime or violence.

    With folks like the orange-haired suspect out there, some laws are destined to be broken.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    No one knows if it would have made a difference. But it would have changed the odds.

    The smoke didn't fill the theater instantly like magic, that's not how it works. So between when he threw them and started shooting, there was at least a period of time where some (most likely those in the front rows) would have had the opportunity to react.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    My point would be that an armed person would of slowed him down. Would of saved at least 1 life or made 1 less injury.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

  4. #4
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by range rat View Post
    Given the bedlam in the Aurora theater - a tear gas cloud and a masked gunman with multiple weapons spraying bullets - it seems highly unlikely a regular citizen could have disrupted the killer's plot. My guess is the only ones who believe they actually could have stopped the guy are probably influenced by too much television or Hollywood.
    This man is drunk with the Kool Aid of the Brady camp. He would rather everyone simply give up and be executed without resistance. The coward with the orange hair was only firing a single weapon at any one moment. His primary weapon jammed so there was a lull in the shooting. While they could not have totally eliminated some loss of innocent lives, I have no doubt that armed movie goers would have created a different ending for this tragedy. Sheep like this idiot make me physically ill. He should be ashamed of himself.
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    The smoke didn't fill the theater instantly like magic, that's not how it works....
    Also, "tear" gas does not incapacitate you totally and definitely not instantly when it is released in a large room. It is only an irritant.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-24-2012 at 06:25 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    The good news is that so far this ammendment is the only bill of right that goes unenforced. I think your fustration, if I am right comes from the right being infringed by the feds and the states. You feel that you really can't carry because of all those clauses, GFZs etc... I am with you on that. I believe that lawabiding citizens should be allowed to bear arms anywhere. Under the guize of regulation we get prohibition. The progressives have done a good job in instlling unreasonable fear in the citizenry starting with government schools. Maybe Hollywood's goory movies may be a reverse phsycological way of instilling that fear.
    Not too long ago house speaker Robert winthrop said: Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.
    Sadly the latter is the case.

    Still we must all be armed. Gun sales in Colorado have increased by 43% as a result of the killer. You should read what they said as to why they are now buying guns
    Last edited by Law abider; 07-24-2012 at 06:27 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    It would help to have a link to the opinion piece...
    I've found a list of Kane's recent pieces, but nothing like what you've posted.

    defend the sale of automatic assault rifles to regular citizens who aren't soldiers or law enforcement officers
    I don't think that regular citizens are able (easily) to get their hands on actual 'assault rifles'... those being military use automatics.
    And by definition, an "assault weapon" is a semiautomatic.

    Yes, a regular citizen can buy an automatic firearm, if s/he has the money for the tool itself + $200 for the tax + time to wait for the ATF to d|c< around.

    I remember reading somewhere (will find it again eventually) that in the not-too-distant future the ATF will no longer be requiring the approval of the local top cop on someone's application.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I remember reading somewhere (will find it again eventually) that in the not-too-distant future the ATF will no longer be requiring the approval of the local top cop on someone's application.
    That is not an ATF requirement. It is a NFA requirement set by Federal Code.

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I don't think that regular citizens are able (easily) to get their hands on actual 'assault rifles'... those being military use automatics.
    The only limitation is one's pocketbook so long as they were produced before 1986. I know of several assault rifles in civilian hands.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 07-25-2012 at 05:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    It would help to have a link to the opinion piece...
    I've found a list of Kane's recent pieces, but nothing like what you've posted.


    I don't think that regular citizens are able (easily) to get their hands on actual 'assault rifles'... those being military use automatics.
    And by definition, an "assault weapon" is a semiautomatic.

    Yes, a regular citizen can buy an automatic firearm, if s/he has the money for the tool itself + $200 for the tax + time to wait for the ATF to d|c< around.

    I remember reading somewhere (will find it again eventually) that in the not-too-distant future the ATF will no longer be requiring the approval of the local top cop on someone's application.
    google jsonline, then click on Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, go to the search box typ in Eugene Kane an that will bring it up.. or you can read it in Tuesday paper wild waiting for a job enterview like i did.

  9. #9
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by range rat View Post
    google jsonline, then click on Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, go to the search box typ in Eugene Kane an that will bring it up.. or you can read it in Tuesday paper wild waiting for a job enterview like i did.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...163485286.html

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by range rat View Post

    Given the bedlam in the Aurora theater - a tear gas cloud and a masked gunman with multiple weapons spraying bullets - it seems highly unlikely a regular citizen could have disrupted the killer's plot. My guess is the only ones who believe they actually could have stopped the guy are probably influenced by too much television or Hollywood.
    A cloud of tear gas? It would not effect my performance .. I have been trained in this type of environment. Tear gas hardly effects me at all, other than it being a semi-opaque gas. And many people have been trained similarly. So your premise is pure poppycock nonsense.

    You must think that all people are untrained children who cringe at the slightest sign of distress. I think that the majority of members on this site would disagree.

    You need to take your viewpoint to the Huffington Post where they will be received with open arms.

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    I think Kane is coming around on this issue

    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    No one knows if it would have made a difference. But it would have changed the odds.

    The smoke didn't fill the theater instantly like magic, that's not how it works. So between when he threw them and started shooting, there was at least a period of time where some (most likely those in the front rows) would have had the opportunity to react.
    He used to be rabidly anti-freedom. Now, he is tepedly against guns, and cannot bring himself to do so without bringing up the arguments on the pro-freedom side. He will become more pro-freedom over time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •