OT: live by the bullet, die by the bullet (American Sniper author shot dead Saturday)

[RayLopez99]

"Guns do kill people".

Imagine the perp trying to kill with a knife. It'd be less deadly.

And a fellow American did what the Iraqi insurgents could not. How ironic?

RL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/chris-kyle-dead_n_2608772.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Chris Kyle, an ex-Navy SEAL who wrote the bestelling book American Sniper about his service in Iraq, was shot and killed at a gun range in Texas, multiple outlets reported Saturday night. A second man was also killed.

According to local TV station KHOU, officials said that Kyle was shot at point-blank range "while helping another soldier who was recovering from post traumatic stress syndrome" at a range near the town of Glen Rose.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Lancaster, Texas police arrested a suspect, 25-year-old Eddie Ray Routh, after a brief chase.

Kyle had become well-known for his exploits in Iraq, where he deployed four times, set the record for sniper kills at 150, received numerous commendations, and, according to the Stephensville Empire Tribune, was given the nickname "The Devil of Ramadi" by insurgents.

[Big Steel]

I guess what goes around comes around, as the old saying goes. Yeah, he
doesn't have to worry about that money he was trying to collect, huh?

[RayLopez99]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 2:19:48 PM UTC+2, Big Steel wrote:

>
> I guess what goes around comes around, as the old saying goes. Yeah, he
>
> doesn't have to worry about that money he was trying to collect, huh?

RIP/DEP. He was not at fault as much as America's gun culture (which he promoted, unfortunately) was.

Enjoy the Super Bowl BS. Here in Europe we don't get it and besides it's after midnight for the kickoff for me. Might watch it a bit online though. Go '9ers!

RL

[owl]

RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Guns do kill people".

> Imagine the perp trying to kill with a knife. It'd be less deadly.

> And a fellow American did what the Iraqi insurgents could not. How ironic?

> RL

Once again, mental illness an poor judgement collide.
The guy had PTSD. Kyle took him to a *gun range* to "help" him.
Unbelievably stupid.

[owl]

Oh yeah, the guy also got a DWI last month. So we have drugs in the
mix also. It has nothing to do with "gun culture."

[Big Steel]

Nope, go Ravens and Ray Lewis, since this is his last game before
retirement. A friend of mine is a big 49's fan. But he told me he
wouldn't be too upset if the Ravens won, because of Ray Lewis. :)

[owl]

Not surprising you would idolize a murderer.

[RayLopez99]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:14:00 PM UTC+2, owl wrote:

> Oh yeah, the guy also got a DWI last month. So we have drugs in the
>
> mix also. It has nothing to do with "gun culture."

But those factors all mix in owl. They're all part of the equation.

Would you go to a minority neighborhood as a non-minority, acting drunk, at night, that is known to be a high-crime area? I've seen in happen (in the news) and almost always the outcome is not pretty. Because all these factors are part of the package. Same with doing drugs: unless you know your source, and pretty much grow your own, I've seen countless examples of people thinking there were doing one drug and ended up having a bad trip since somebody spiked it with another drug. That's why you should stay away from drugs...and guns.

Gun owners have a higher than average propensity to do bad things with their guns. It's not a tautology, it's a fact.

I don't have a problem with you owning a gun, if, as you claim, you are a responsible gun owner. But besides the fact everybody thinks they are responsible, the fact remains that people that end up shooting and killing others are simply people who have access to guns--and how often have you seen the kook described as 'a normal person... a family man ...I'm shocked this happened...etc etc"'?

And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).

People don't kill people easily...guns kill people easily.

RL

[-hh]

On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).

How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide


-hh

[Hadron]

Erm, how about tha wasnt one man?

Sheesh....


--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[owl]

RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:14:00 PM UTC+2, owl wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, the guy also got a DWI last month. So we have drugs in the
> >
> > mix also. It has nothing to do with "gun culture."

> But those factors all mix in owl. They're all part of the equation.

...

> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).

I've also never seen the headline: "Mass murderer kills 100 people with gun"

(though I suppose that's possible).

And I haven't seen the headline: "Mass murderer kills 10 armed people with gun."(I pretty sure why I've not seen that one).

> People don't kill people easily...guns kill people easily.

Nice slogan. Here's another:
Don't be caught with a slow gun.

[-hh]

On Feb 4, 10:31 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> writes:
> > On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).
>
> > How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
>
> > -hh
>
> Erm, how about tha wasnt one man?

It also wasn't only a mere 100 that were killed.

FYI, the 500,000 killed is the *lower* estimated: the BBC estimated
the number killed at 800,000 and the upper end is 100K.

This raises the question of just how important is it to seek
consolance as the act of a single individual ("one man"?

Particularly when confronted with the reality of scores of murders, be
there at least 5,000 (for 100 per) or even 50,000 (for 10 per) such
individuals at even the lowest homicide estimates.


>
> Sheesh....

Congratulations for utterly missing the point.

To use the Sandy Hook school shooting as the contemporary example, the
news reports have now been corrected (and now confirm the earliest
reports): Mom's Bushmaster was not taken into the school. The
implications are that all of these homicides were by pistol - - and
yet the public gun control debate is overwhelmingly about so-called
'Assault Rifles' instead.

The point here is that statistics are very frequently selectively
manipulated to advance some particular agenda, even when it does not
make any sense objectively when viewed in context.



-hh

[owl]

Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> writes:

> > On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).
> >
> > How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
> >
> > -hh

> Erm, how about tha wasnt one man?

> Sheesh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932012%29
<quote>
March 2010
Main article: Nanping school massacre

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)[2] 41, murdered eight
children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,[3] Fujian
province;[4]

...

May 2010
An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and
two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten
in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010;[3]
</quote>

[Hadron]

-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> writes:

> On Feb 4, 10:31 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> writes:
>> > On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).
>>
>> > How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
>>
>> > -hh
>>
>> Erm, how about tha wasnt one man?
>
> It also wasn't only a mere 100 that were killed.
>
> FYI, the 500,000 killed is the *lower* estimated: the BBC estimated
> the number killed at 800,000 and the upper end is 100K.
>
> This raises the question of just how important is it to seek
> consolance as the act of a single individual ("one man"?
>
> Particularly when confronted with the reality of scores of murders, be
> there at least 5,000 (for 100 per) or even 50,000 (for 10 per) such
> individuals at even the lowest homicide estimates.
>
>>
>> Sheesh....
>
> Congratulations for utterly missing the point.

No point missed.

Look its quite simple : some mentally unstable nut will damage a lot
more people a lot more quickly if he can get hold of a semi automatic
weapon easily. Other ways of hurting and damaging people exist
yes. Duh. But in most cases it requires more preperation, more chance of
discovery etc etc. Sure one can run a bus into a crowded shop etc etc
etc. But powerful arms which "armies" use? You're a fucking idiot if you
think allowing the population access to that shit is ok. Controls must
and need to be tighter.

As for that bollox about people killing people and not guns then in that
case dont give the US Army guns....

Jaysus.

[owl]

US military personnel use select-fire rifles, not semi-auto, you idiot.
Semi-auto weapons have been around for 100 years and are commonplace
amongst the US population in the form of shotguns, pistols, and hunting
rifles. They are not about to be banned because some clueless euro
soccer-mom gets in a tizzy.

> As for that bollox about people killing people and not guns then in that
> case dont give the US Army guns....

And don't give the Brit police force semi-auto pistols.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65677000/jpg/_65677405_taserstill.jpg

[-hh]

On Feb 4, 1:16 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> writes:
> > On Feb 4, 10:31 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> writes:
> >> > On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100 people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).
>
> >> > How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
>
> >> > -hh
>
> >> Erm, how about tha wasnt one man?
>
> > It also wasn't only a mere 100 that were killed.
>
> > FYI, the 500,000 killed is the *lower* estimated:  the BBC estimated
> > the number killed at 800,000 and the upper end is 100K.
>
> > This raises the question of just how important is it to seek
> > consolance as the act of a single individual ("one man"?
>
> > Particularly when confronted with the reality of scores of murders, be
> > there at least 5,000 (for 100 per) or even 50,000 (for 10 per) such
> > individuals at even the lowest homicide estimates.
>
> >> Sheesh....
>
> > Congratulations for utterly missing the point.
>
> No point missed.
>
> Look its quite simple : some mentally unstable nut will damage a lot
> more people a lot more quickly if he can get hold of a semi automatic
> weapon easily.

It is still only one man, and the public at risk is highly
localized.

Take the USA for example - it is roughly 3.8 million square miles in
size and if we normalize that total area for population and incident
susceptibility, even if we have a new lunatic go on a rampage every
day of the year *and* say that he's somehow able to endanger up to a
300m radius circle (300m is the 'max effective range' DoD standard
metric for small arms), the resulting 'hazard area' footprint is still
so small that an entire family of four has only a 0.3% chance across
their entire 72 year lifespan (72 years = actuarial data) of ever
being potentially at risk from all of these ~26,000 (365.25 * 72) nut
cases combined.

> Other ways of hurting and damaging people exist
> yes. Duh. But in most cases it requires more preperation, more chance of
> discovery etc etc.

The inference here is that crazy people can't be smart. Or will never
be "loners". Unfortunately, there's ample historical precidence such
as with the Oklahoma City bombing to illustrate otherwise.

> Sure one can run a bus into a crowded shop etc etc
> etc. But powerful arms which "armies" use?

First off, the M16A2 rifle and M4 Carbine that the US Military uses
isn't a semi-auto weapon that would be eligible for a private US
citizen to own. The reason why is because it has a 3 round 'burst'
feature which causes it to be catatorized the same as traditional
'full auto' (machine gun). As such, the civilian 'equivalent' version
isn't equivalent

> You're a fucking idiot if you
> think allowing the population access to that shit is ok. Controls must
> and need to be tighter.

Actually, I've not expressed a personal opinion either one way or the
other. When it comes to the question of controls, what I've pointed
out is that the majority of firearms fatalities in the USA are
suicides. And even if you set these aside and look at the actual
assault types, we find that the vast majority of these are committed
with handguns. Not "Assault Rifles".

I've pointed out this disconnect between the facts and the public
reaction ... and you've avoided this disconnect like the plague.

> As for that bollox about people killing people and not guns then in that
> case dont give the US Army guns...

Armies have a lot more than just "Assault Rifles". Even if we forget
that Artillery is "King of the Battlefield" and focus just on
Infantry, we find force structures such as this one:

Platoon element:
Platoon commander, platoon sergeant, RTO

One weapons squad, with:
2 MG teams (4 men, 2 MG)
2 ATGM teams (4 men, 2 ATGM)

Three rifle squads, each with:
1 squad leader (M4)
2 fire teams, each with:
1 team leader (M4)
1 SAW (M249)
1 grenadier (M4+40mm grenade launcher; M203 or M320)
1 rifleman (M4)

Sure, there's some of those **more-powerful-than-Civilan-Assault
Rifles** in the above mix, namely the M4's. For example, at the
lowest organizational level (Squad), five of the nine have an M4 - -
but the remaining four (44%) are even more heavily armed.

As such, it is quite clear that every individual in a contemporary
Army infantry unit is already more heavily armed than the 'Assault
Rifle' which is the subject of the public discourse. In fact, you may
be challenged to find who (if anyone) in a Platoon Infantry unit whose
BOIP included a pistol in their basic gear.


-hh

[DFS]

God Bless these guns

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16661068-god-bless-these-guns?lite&lite=obnetwork

[owl]

DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 1:31 PM, owl wrote:
> > Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> >
> >> Look its quite simple : some mentally unstable nut will damage a lot
> >> more people a lot more quickly if he can get hold of a semi automatic
> >> weapon easily. Other ways of hurting and damaging people exist
> >> yes. Duh. But in most cases it requires more preperation, more chance of
> >> discovery etc etc. Sure one can run a bus into a crowded shop etc etc
> >> etc. But powerful arms which "armies" use? You're a fucking idiot if you
> >> think allowing the population access to that shit is ok. Controls must
> >> and need to be tighter.
> >
> > US military personnel use select-fire rifles, not semi-auto, you idiot.
> > Semi-auto weapons have been around for 100 years and are commonplace
> > amongst the US population in the form of shotguns, pistols, and hunting
> > rifles. They are not about to be banned because some clueless euro
> > soccer-mom gets in a tizzy.
> >
> >> As for that bollox about people killing people and not guns then in that
> >> case dont give the US Army guns....
> >
> > And don't give the Brit police force semi-auto pistols.
> > http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65677000/jpg/_65677405_taserstill.jpg


> God Bless these guns

> http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16661068-god-bless-these-guns?lite&lite=obnetwork

Cool. Belarus is a perfect example of why we don't amend our constitution
on a whim. They started out in 1994 with presidential terms of five years
with a two-term limit. Then they just happened to have a referendum-based
constitutional amendment in 2004 to allow their first president to run
again, and of course it passes, and of course he wins -- with like 90%
of the vote. :) It's good to be the king.

Don't drink and shoot :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQq72ULF_g

[RayLopez99]

On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:35:25 PM UTC+2, owl wrote:

> Nice slogan. Here's another:
>
> Don't be caught with a slow gun.

Why don't we legalize grenades then? Right be bear arms, no?

Use your head (f)owl, not the small one either. You think being irrational will sway the other side?

You and your small arms are going down.

RL

[RayLopez99]

Population of Rwanda was 10M. So that's 1 person killed for every 20 people nominal. Figure half the population is women, who don't kill, and half of the remaining is children (boys), leaves you with 2.5M men. Divide 500k/2.5M gives 1 person killed for every 5 men over 100 days.

Do the math stupid gun loving idiot.

RL

[owl]

RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:35:25 PM UTC+2, owl wrote:
>
> > Nice slogan. Here's another:
> >
> > Don't be caught with a slow gun.

> Why don't we legalize grenades then?

Fine with me.

> Right be bear arms, no?

Yep.

> Use your head (f)owl, not the small one either. You think being irrational will sway the other side?

> You and your small arms are going down.

We'll see what goes down in the 2014 midterms. Democrats can't unring
*this* bell, and they aren't passionate enough about gun control to
actually make it a reason to go to the polls, unlike the millions on
the other side for whom gun rights are the *only* issue.

[-hh]

On Feb 5, 2:24 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 4:42:39 PM UTC+2, -hh wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 9:20 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I've never seen the headline: "mass murderer kills 100
> > > people with machete" (though I suppose that's possible).
>
> > How about 500,000 killed over 100 days?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
>
> Population of Rwanda was 10M.  So that's 1 person killed
> for every 20 people nominal.

Or 1 in 10 (10%), if you use the upper mortality estimate instead of
the lowest.

> Figure half the population is women, who don't kill, and half
> of the remaining is children (boys), leaves you with 2.5M men.
> Divide 500k/2.5M gives 1 person killed for every 5 men over 100 days.

Yes, that's what the math does, but you've neglected to account for
this genocide being ethically based. As such, the notional set of
perpetratorswas not the set of "All Men", but of a particular subgroup
thereof. Specifically, the Interahamwe and the Akazu /Presidential
Guard.

> Do the math stupid gun loving idiot.

In Rwanda, 6,000 were killed on the first day. Three days later, the
number had already passed 20,000.

(A Thousand Hills: Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It By
Stephen Kinzer; chapter 9). See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interahamwe

With the 6,500 Interahamwe, plus the Presidential Guard, call it 7,000
aggressors. That math would be 800K killed (per BBC) by 7K (per
above) for an average of 114 murdered per aggressor.

Naturally, there was statistical variation. During the genocide,
there was the incident at the Ecole Technique Officielle Catholic
School where 2,000 were killed in a single day by a single "gang" of
Interahamwe.

Overall, a very ugly piece of the history of violence.


-hh