Secrets of the City

I want to send this Matt Snyder person a box of chocolates for enduring this torture.

I haven’t read the article yet but the pictures are funny!

The article’s hilarious. I loved when he started screaming on the bench outside Camp Snoopy.

I’m also surprised he only went to one movie and only got drunk once.

First entertaining writing I’ve seen in CP in a few months. Next time I go to the MoA I’ll watch out for the gaggle of pteranodons.

Amazing! He’s going to need years of therapy.

My girlfriend works for Underwater Adventures – lots of crazy stuff happens there. And you’d be surprised how many celebrities swing through town and stop to swim with the sharks (Well, the SCUBA certified ones)

Oh, and that’s where he spent his night in the MOA, at the UA overnight event

So, some guy discovers it’s boring to spend a week in a mall… what makes that interesting?

So, some guy discovers it’s boring to spend a week in a mall… what makes that interesting?

Agreed.

It’s a study in humanity.

A study in humanity?

Bitch please!

This was an interesting, if totally unoriginal, idea and the writer blew it. It’s all setup and no delivery. Re-read the opening paragraphs and just try to tell me he followed through with even a quarter of that stuff.

And the climax of the story is that he smokes a cigarette? Really?

This is the sort of story that would be fine in a college newspaper, so if that’s what City Pages is aiming for these days, well, they hit the mark.

This article is definitely among the best that I’ve ever read in City Pages. It’s hilarious!

A study in humanity?

Bitch please!

I’m fairly certain that comment didn’t merit a “bitch, please”. However, if I were an editor and a writer pitched this story to me I’d definitely say “bitch, please” because I’m fairly certain something like this has been done before. Plus, I’m pretty sure there have been people who have actually slept in the MOA and spent all day there.

the problem is that cp has stopped doing interesting, engaging journalism … now it’s just skinny dudes, frat dudes @ the mall, or big scary hockey players.

i remember being excited when i picked up a city pages — there’d be some huge piece taking on pawlenty or discussing some issue in depth and in an interesting way. now it’s just “how much will i be let down this week?”

yeah the story’s entertaining, but it’s also frustrating because of the changes that have happened.

It was a sudy in sarcasm.

Like most of my comments on MnSpeak.

*study

Just sayin’, is there anything out there that you do like?

I’m fairly certain that comment didn’t merit a “bitch, please”.

I’m fairly certain it did.

Just sayin’, is there anything out there that you do like?

Why yes, Amber, there is. But since multiple people use this name, those things tend to get lost in translation.

the problem is that cp has stopped doing interesting, engaging journalism … now it’s just skinny dudes, frat dudes @ the mall, or big scary hockey players.

Amen to that. This article was a snooze. I have a friend who has been going to the mall every day for 4 years, who tells me all sorts of semi-interesting things about which stores are where and why, what they’re changing. (Did you know a food court has two mexican restaurants right next to each other? Which one will triumph? What color will they paint the West Side pillars next? Which store locations are cursed? What will happen to the 4th Floor now that Gators is gone?)

The real story at the MOA is the people, like the Iraq/Hooters girl or the shopaholic lady. What about the employees? Seven days in the mall, and that’s all he’s got? The story needed a lot more people, and a lot less self-aggrandizing. (”Look at me! I’m hip!” )

In other words, the CP is not even trying anymore.

But we all know it’s a 100 page life support system for “Savage Love”.

Also known as “Withering Glance” in Strib-speak.

i don’t think the city pages cares, though?

mnspeakers can rip all they want about how bad it sucks, but really, the old 20 page stories on pawlenty’s budget or an in-depth analysis on the timberwolves (i seem to remember a robson piece that was really great) make advertisers nervous. where’s the sex and gore and sensationalism?

i used to be all sad that our papers blow, but now i just want them to make the transition to trash quicker, because these complaints get old and they’re not going to get any better. once they’re irrelevant i can stop feeling annoyed that i still care.

I worked at the MOA for a year. I stayed there plenty of days open to close. I even went in on a Sunday night at closing and stayed all night doing a floor change in my store, and then worked the opening shift the next morning. I was there for 24 hours straight with no sleep or shower. There were weeks I had no day off, and spent more than 7 days straight there. Sometimes I wondered why I bothered to go home at all.

I do not find this story to be compelling.

The story isn’t from a perspective of an employee.

That would be a whole other story entirely.

This story would be better if the ghost of Hunter S. Thompson wrote it.

This story would be better if the ghost of Hunter S. Thompson wrote it.

Personally, I preferred the writing style of Zombie Hunter S. Thompson more.

Fear and Braaaaaaaaaaains in Las Vegas FTW

I am not the same just sayin, but I’m inclined to agree that this story was kind of drivel. The writer seems kind of like a giant douche.

The story isn’t from a perspective of an employee.

That would be a whole other story entirely.

I’m aware the story isn’t from a perspective of an employee. Of course that would be a different story. My point is that plenty of other people do basically what he did day in and day out for much longer than a week, therefore making this whole experiment ridiculous and unoriginal.

I’ve found people who name drop Hunter S. Thompson (or Lester Bangs) have never actually read any of his work and are just attempting to make themselves look smarter or edgier than they really are.

Not saying that’s the case here of course.

An intelligent reader would simply ask “what’s the point”?

I’ve read Hunter S. Thompson. So suck it.

Oh snap!

that wasn’t me

ENOUGH

Actually, Hunter S. Thompson is solely responsible for my ether obsession.

I’ve read everything Bangs ever wrote. Hell, I’ve even hung out in the duplex / crackhouse where he lived on Cass Ave in Detroit. And I don’t try to be smart or edgy…it’s just how I roll. Anybody seen my Romilar?

Dag, yo. Some young frattie’ writes something funny and folks get mad because it’s not news?

Yeah, the CP is in decline. No, it ain’t what it was when Rex, I mean Steve Perry, was there.

But especially given the pictures, the article was pretty clearly not intended as investigative journalism. And it was funny.

I’ve found people who name drop Hunter S. Thompson (or Lester Bangs) have never actually read any of his work and are just attempting to make themselves look smarter or edgier than they really are.

Same could be said of the righty tightie wingnut knuckledragers who cite Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman all the time.

The only book I’ve read:

If y’all have such brilliant ideas about how to write this story, or a similar story related to MOA, then I suggest you write your own. In fact let’s have a contest. Who can write the best one? Deadline is December 10. I’ll publish them on my bloggie.

Fuck yeah!

Even with all the criticism of the article, it seems to stand out from the bland and safe drivel that has filled City Pages following the exodus of the veteran staff. Sure, it isn’t hard-hitting investigative journalism but it proves that someone on staff there can generate interest and while the article didn’t follow though it shows that the writer has some promise. At lest until next week when he writes a huge bag of suck.

Come on Pav, that image is so two weeks ago.

I’ll have what grote’s having . . .

I haven’t picked up a copy of City Pages in couple years. If folks here think its getting bland and safe, maybe they’re doing some good journalism.

Doh! Caught me in an internet fad faux pas – but I have a very good reason why. I can’t remember right now though.

but I have a very good reason why. I can’t remember right now though. Proximity to grote’s Romilar thread.

yeah actually I was a big Ayn Rand fan for a while. look at how ridiculously progressive it’s made me!

MNspeak is the new craigslist.

is it really?

If folks here think its getting bland and safe, maybe they’re doing some good journalism.

Rat…you’re starting to sound like an old person.

I just always thought City Pagesdid a lot of reckless agenda driven reporting.

I just got off the phone with my sis who was shopping with her two daughters at the mall in Omaha, NE. Apparently a guy opened fire in the mall and killed 8 people and others are wounded. WTF?

Fatalities are up to nine. Two of the wounded have died in the hospital. I have emails out to all my Omaha friends to make sure they’re all right.

Holy balls! I’ve been to that mall several times when I was young (family friends live there).

It’s very disturbing.

More.

I’m always amazed in situations like that to read about people who were shot but didn’t immediately realize it. It’s almost like the mind purposely ignores it so a person’s sole focus can be on survival.

First, a guy falls through a glass ceiling, then the shooting in the mall I never went to in college.

This day sux.

i don’t think the city pages cares, though?

»» Submitted by the problem at 1:33 PM on December 5

Well, they put Hollidazzle on the A-list. That’s pretty bad. Do the advertisers know that the people most likely to pick up a CP are people who DON’T want Star Tribune-like content?

If the advertisers don’t know this, then someone at City Pages is not doing their job.

Just saying: “I’ve found people who name drop Hunter S. Thompson (or Lester Bangs) have never actually read any of his work and are just attempting to make themselves look smarter or edgier than they really are.”

That’s odd, I have typically not found that to be the case, although I suspect that many people under 50 might be mystified by some of the more obscure Nixonian references in his more popular books. And fair enough, really.

I do find though that if a journalist lists Hunter S. Thompson as a personal hero in a bio or whatever, you can pretty much guarantee that a Tabasco enema would be preferable to reading much of that person’s output.

The greatest sin of Hunter S. Thompson was inspiring so many horrible writers to write horribly.

Having said that, I quite enjoyed the CP article, although I get the feeling there might be a lot more mall lore that wasn’t tapped.

although I get the feeling there might be a lot more mall lore that wasn’t tapped.
Time to tap that lore, She-she is posting it on her website.

Also, a Tabasco enema?
Please tell me it involves a mall story.

Re: If the advertisers don’t know this, then someone at City Pages is not doing their job
bartleby for the bullseye.

[sarcasm]
But but but…

There COULDN’T have been a shooting at that mall… they BANNED (legally carried) firearms. They even had (unarmed) security “officers”.

Boo-hoo… we need more gun laws.

[/sarcasm]

There must be some place you can go where your relentless one-note commentary on guns is appreciated, binky. Especially when you relentlessly, and tastelessly, bring it into threads about tragedies. I’m not sure why you think this is that place.

There must be some place you can go where your relentless one-note commentary on guns is appreciated, binky.

There are those on this forum that see common sense, I’m sure; they’re the ones that appreciate the fact that there’s at least one voice of reason in the tempest of emotional knee-jerk reactionaries.

Especially when you relentless, and tasteless, bring it into threads about tragedies.

Surely, you can see the logic of the statement… people decry the second amendment, and right-to-carry, and a hundred other things related to guns but fail to see the logic that gun control simply doesn’t work.

(Such control as “banning (legally owned) guns on this premesis (by the law-abiding).)

I’m not sure why you think this is that place.

Because it’s germaine to the situation, and the story brought up.

I’d like to think that there are enough Minnesotans who are responsibly carrying a personal firearm (me included) that this type of tragedy could be averted here.

I’m certain that this is what Binky was trying to convey…

Apparently, binky believes in the first amendment and offers his satiric commentary in that spirit, on a forum that claims to offer access to opinions on current events.

Unfortunately, it appears as if the aliecats and sparbers actually prefer to respond with ad hominem attacks and censorship, when the ‘free speech” doesn’t match their world-view.

There are those on this forum that see common sense, I’m sure; they’re the ones that appreciate the fact that there’s at least one voice of reason in the tempest of emotional knee-jerk reactionaries.

Nobody in this thread had mentioned gun control. That makes you the emotional knee-jerk reactionary, Binky. But, hey, you have a friend in bud.

I didn’t say your comments should be deleted, bud, just that you should knock off inserting race into a thread where it was not an issue…

…oh, shit, I was supposed to be ignoring you…

Nobody in this thread had mentioned gun control.

Not yet…

Just consider it a return salvo in response to all the smart-assed comments dirrected at (and belittling) me in this thread.

Well, thank God you’re here then. You’re the hero of the day.

Oh, and BTW… if anyone makes comments, posing to be me again go ahead and leave them up, just make sure the “submitted by” field says “jealous of” in front of my screen name.

Or take some other step to expose their fraud. But by all means, leave the comments up.

It does so much for my ego when posters feel they need to resort to ridicule to make their point. Gives me the high ground, and one hell of an ego-boost.

What I “inserted” was a supposition that if the poor dead guy was an illegal, we will hear nothing further from the media.

Now, if you want to shout me down due to suppositions of “race”, so be it.

I still like you.

Poor Omaha. What is wrong with the young men that they have to be so violent? Binky wants to be a 3 minute hero, and then there’s these Jeremy shootings. Is it hormones or media based conditioning ?

It seems pretty clear that the young man had an undiagnosed and unattended mental illness, just like the fellow in that school shooting seven or so months ago. And, despite Binky’s concerns that this will be a discussion about gun control, for me this is more an issue of how we deal with the mentally ill. If you look around the world, even in places where guns are not widely accessible, people who are psychotic can do terrible damage and kill dozens with whatever they have on hand — I read about a Chinese guy who killed something like 12 schoolchildren with a knife before he was stopped.

It sounds like a lot of people who knew this guy knew he was mentally ill. Unfortunately, its not terribly easy to get access to the care you need in this country, especially when your only job is working part time at MacDonalds.

Like I said…

[sarcasm]“We need more gun laws (to disarm the law abiding).” After all, the law-abiding are the worst scum out there, and shouldn’t be trusted to drive a car, let alone have a sensible option to defend themselves and their families.

The criminals will see that guns are banned and realize that it’s just “not nice” to shoot an unarmed person, or they’ll leave their guns in their cars and use harsh words to rob, hurt and maim.
[/sarcasm]

I don’t know what your comment has to do with mine.

It starts with parenting.

Let’s see the media examine that kid’s family situation.

I’m with binky – when someone becomes an armed threat to the personal safety of the public, we need to have armed citizens available.

No excuse for unarmed “security guards”. None.

The copycat aspects of this are particularly concerning.

Mental illness has absolutely nothing to do with parenting, bud.

I read about a Chinese guy who killed something like 12 schoolchildren with a knife before he was stopped.
A similar thing happened in Japan, near Osaka about three or four years ago.
its not terribly easy to get access to the care you need in this country, especially when your only job is working part time at MacDonalds.
When the government stopped funding and the states closed down their mental hospitals in the 80’s we saw a rise in the mentally ill population on the streets. Omaha used to have a private facility for young adults called Robert Young iirc. But the treatment guidelines in private health insurance changed and they closed down most of their programs in the 90’s. The private insurance clients funded the whole show, so they could do more for the indigent. We really have retreated from intervention based mental health treatment to the here’s a pill approach. But that seems to be swinging back around.

I’d like to think that there are enough Minnesotans who are responsibly carrying a personal firearm (me included) that this type of tragedy could be averted here.

I cannot follow this argument at all. Does carrying a firearm give you X-ray vision to see someone hiding (presumably) a gun under his clothes? This tragedy could NOT have been averted by a law-abiding conceal-carry person. Perhaps the death toll could have been reduced if someone was able to pick the kid off before he killed too many people, but unless packin’ heat makes you faster than the first bullets, I’m not buying this one bit.

An armed crowd managed to put an end to Charles Whitman’s murders. Of course, he had already killed 16 people by then.

I cannot follow this argument at all. Does carrying a firearm give you X-ray vision to see someone hiding (presumably) a gun under his clothes? This tragedy could NOT have been averted by a law-abiding conceal-carry person. Perhaps the death toll could have been reduced if someone was able to pick the kid off before he killed too many people, but unless packin’ heat makes you faster than the first bullets, I’m not buying this one bit.

Uhhhmm, in this case the guy was carrying a full sized rifle. A little hard to shove down your pants, or conceal easily in a shoulder-type holster.

No, this guy was walking into an environment that was full of sitting ducks. And he probably had a pretty good idea that that was so.

You’ve never been to Omaha, have you, Binky? I guarantee you, there were people there who had guns on them.

There’s a big difference between the wild west fantasy you inhabit and the real world.

When the government stopped funding and the states closed down their mental hospitals in the 80’s we saw a rise in the mentally ill population on the streets.

That wasn’t entirely due to budget reasons. A lot of that was due to a push for de-institutionalization. Prior to the ’80s there were far too many people institutionalized that shouldn’t have been, and in horrendous conditions.

Unfortunately, two things happened: They swung the pendulum too far to the other side, and people who probably should have remained in an institution were put out on the street. The other thing that happened was that they didn’t follow through on funding group homes and other support services that were needed.

Just because you don’t need to be institutionalized doesn’t mean you don’t need support.

An armed crowd managed to put an end to Charles Whitman’s murders. Of course, he had already killed 16 people by then.

Ironically, if that “armed crowd” had a little better firepower, they may have had a chance of keeping him at bay until the two heroic individuals could make their charge and put a stop to his spree.

Unfortunately, the only immediately available firearms were the handguns that the police had. Several locals, in fact, went home to get rifles in an effort to render aide.

Some sources credit this rifle-fire with reduction of the death toll.

You’ve never been to Omaha, have you, Binky? I guarantee you, there were people there who had guns on them.

Not the law abiding. The mall is listed among Omaha’s “Disarmed vic”— uh… I mean “Gun Free” zones.

Read down the page a little and you’ll find it.

Here’s a story describing the killer. I’ll let us mull it over before commenting.

Binky (or is Clint Eastwood) – are you saying that not only should we have more guns in more people’s hands, but more high powered guns in more people’s hands? Rifles? Is it rifles that are going to end gun violence because handguns aren’t effective at lowering gun violence? That said, I would also assume it follows that once rifles get out of hand, most of use should start carrying bazookas to protect us from the rifles?

If this is the trend, I’m going to start designing personal tanks. I’ll be a gazillionaire!

I cannot follow this argument at all.

Evidently you follow it a little – Perhaps the death toll could have been reduced if someone was able to pick the kid off before he killed too many people,

How can one not understand the logic that armed responsible law abiding citezens are a positive force? Would it not have been a good thing if the death toll was lower?

Fact is that I am never going to change your mind and you will not change mine. I will, however, protect you if the opportunity ever presents itself.

Fair enough?

Perhaps I was too glib. Really, Binky. I really do want you to explain the evolution of firepower to me. I truly don’t understand the natural course of affairs that follows “Too bad they didn’t have rifles.”

Blinky resprising the role of Paul Simon in “One Trick Pony.”

I’m glad I don’t live in Blinky hazy world of constant paranoia.

Minnesota had some extremely large self sufficient group homes in the past in Willmar, St Peter, and Fergus Falls. These group homes sometimes housed upwards of 2000 people and raised their own cattle and farmed, baked thier own bread. When they started main-streaming people into communities the populations fell and these huge building either sat empty or were used as county drunk tanks or turned into Prisons.

Here’s a story describing the killer. I’ll let us mull it over before commenting.

From the Article:
“…felony drug conviction…disorderly conduct charge…contributed to the delinquency of a minor…“

Gee, I don’t see a problem with this guy so far…

…She regarded him so benignly that when he showed her an SKS semiautomatic rifle the night before his attack, she thought little of it…

Yeah… uh, wasn’t he making threats during that meeting?

… he left or was kicked out of his family’s house…

Uhhmmm, yeah. A pillar of the community, to be sure.

As for the “more powerful guns” comment— yes, I do believe that, as long as it can be concealed. More powerful, higher capacity, augmentations to help you aim, etc… tip the balance in power of the law-abiding.

…in favor of the law abiding.

Roadking – the problem is I don’t think the ratio of responsible capable citizens is greater than the gun-happy weirdos. Too scary of a line to cross in my opinion.

Perhaps I was too glib. Really, Binky. I really do want you to explain the evolution of firepower to me. I truly don’t understand the natural course of affairs that follows “Too bad they didn’t have rifles.”

The comment about rifles was in reference to Max’s comment about Charles Whitman. The police, trying to stop Whitman, found their department issued handguns woefully underpowered to handle the threat they faced.

It wasn’t until armed citizens provided (and some used) rifles that allowed the responders to keep him (Whitman) at bay.

Roadking – the problem is I don’t think the ratio of responsible capable citizens is greater than the gun-happy weirdos. Too scary of a line to cross in my opinion.

Understood. But calm, reasoned thought must lead a person to the conclusion that anti gun laws do little or nothing to keep guns away from the bad guys.

I think I could hang out with Binky and feel safe. I understand and agree with him on this. However, I don’t think the volume of his rhetoric helps my cause.

I don’t think the ratio of responsible capable citizens is greater than the gun-happy weirdos. Too scary of a line to cross in my opinion.

Fortunately for the rest of us, your opinion of who is a “gun-happy weirdo” vs. who’s a good shot doesn’t ammount to a hill of beans in the eyes of the law.

I guess I don’t understand how more people carrying hand guns would have changed the outcome in this case or any case where someone is determined to kill as many people as possible without care for their own well being. In this case better control of semi-automatic assault weapons may have slowed down this boy.

I understand in a robbery situation where having armed citizens may have some deterrent or retaliation aspect but in rampage cases that occur over short time spans, normal citizens will never have superior fire power. I think it’s slightly unrealistic to think people will start carrying about rifles and shotguns for protection.

RK – I agree with you about our country’s gun laws as I am a calm and reasonable person.

Binky – bite me

Never seen a rifle rack in a pickup?

The SKS is the SAME rifle that the Hmong deer hunter was using when he shot five people in Wisconsin.

It is an “assault style” rifle which operates just exactly like the more “traditional” rifles you can buy today at Dick’s, or any other sporting goods store.

An armed citizen in that Mall could have fired back.

That would have ended that chickenshit a-hole’s little escapade.

In this case better control of semi-automatic assault weapons may have slowed down this boy.

*DING DING DING!*

And there it is.

The constant undercurrent of “more control, less rights” that comes from situations like this.

So, how do you propose forcing compliance on someone intent on breaking the law? On making a name for himself? On going on a one-way suicide mission?

I guess I don’t understand how more people carrying hand guns would have changed the outcome in this case or any case where someone is determined to kill as many people as possible without care for their own well being.

I think you forgot your sarcasm tags, here. Because jsut *one* well placed shot from a person legally carrying could have stopped the shooter and drastically changed the outcome from “9 dead” to “1 dead; Gunman also killed before he could take more lives.”

“gun-happy weirdo” vs. who’s a good shot

I don’t think those are really what are at odds.
The gun happiest weirdo might be a fantastic shot.
What we really need are well trained level headed decision makers.

With what I have seen of the general public not many people fall into the well trained level headed decision maker category.

How about if binky, roadking and bud jr all throw a NYE bash?

Now THAT would be a party!

God, here we go…

Simpleton, you obviously don’t hang with the right crowd.

How about if binky, roadking and bud jr all throw a NYE bash?

Now THAT would be a party!

Roadking parities outdoors on NYE and has been known to discharge his firearm at the end of the countdown. Right before hopping on his mighty Polaris and racing off into the night.

I think you forgot your sarcasm tags, here. Because jsut *one* well placed shot from a person legally carrying could have stopped the shooter and drastically changed the outcome from “9 dead” to “1 dead; Gunman also killed before he could take more lives.”

I see you are an advocate of a shoot first ask questions later philosophy.

You could all ring in the new year with a “PEW PEW PEW!” and poke fun of all of us lily-livered varmints. Report back and tells us how it goes!

Looks like aliecat is in for the NYE party!

Simpleton, you obviously don’t hang with the right crowd.

So you want to arm the people that are too stupid to not block the intersection with their car during a massive snow storm? You give too much credit to the unwashed masses.

Binky – what you’re proposing is so Hollywood to me. You’re painting this picture of yourself crouched behind a potted plant in an atrium of a crowded shopping mall, setting your sites on this kid with a high powered gun, dropping him with a single shot between his eyes, and then being lauded as a champion of armed citizenry. It’s a nice thought and I don’t doubt your good intentions to save the lives of innocent (and unarmed) people, but the likelihood of it playing out in any way close to that scenario seems outlandish.

Or even more unlikely, as you seem to hint at, there would multiple armed citizens, all with really cool and powerful guns, all with excellent marksmanship, and you’d all drop this kid in a flurry of well-aimed shots. I think that in a case where everything went perfectly, perhaps your world view could work. But for the most part, I don’t think this drama is likely to play out quite as surgically (or as heroically) as you would like.

I never said anything like that.

But I do have a weapon in my auto at all times.

Looks like aliecat is in for the NYE party!

Nope, partying with my gay boyfriend and his hubby for the new year in Kenwood.

Bud, I would rather poke my eyes out with rusty nails. But, Happy New Year all the same!

With what I have seen of the general public not many people fall into the well trained level headed decision maker category.

And you think the police (whose response time was six to seven minutes in the Omaha incident anyway) are “well trained level headed decision maker’s”?

Here are some.
And some more.
And even more.

I didn’t say the police now did I?

I’m all for conceal and carry.
I just don’t see why anyone needs a weapon that has a 30 round clip.

Police Chief Warren said the gun had two 30-round magazines

…crouched behind a potted plant in an atrium of a crowded shopping mall, setting your sites on this kid with a high powered gun, dropping him with a single shot between his eyes, and then being lauded as a champion of armed citizenry.

First of all, there are very few people I’d risk my life or freedom for.

Second, Crimson Trace laser grips make that single shot (and where did I say “between his eyes”? WTF?) extremely easy to make if he’s close enough for me to feel justified using deadly force.

As for the high-power bit, .357 magnums are among the most effective and easily concealed revolvers available. Also adaquate would be the para-ord “Warthog”, in .45 ACP.

I just don’t see why anyone needs a weapon that has a 30 round clip.

It makes practicing very easy (minimal down time between reloads). It also makes prarie-dog hunting a lot more enjoyable (again, less time between reloads). And because it’s in the “Bill of Rights” not the “Bill of Needs”.

Ain’t America great?

I am partial to the S & W .38 with the +P loads. If not that, the Kahr PM9 is a useful piece.

Binky: “It also makes prarie-dog hunting a lot more enjoyable (again, less time between reloads).”

It also improves the chance of having more than 5 rounds left if you shoot and only wound a prairie dog.

Ain’t nothing more dangerous to a hunter than a wounded prairie dog. They’re vengeful, and they’re fast and small. Four rounds to try to kill it and keep one for yourself in case it tries to take you alive.

So in the balance of “fun shooting animals and less time reloading” vs “access to weapons by unbalanced people that can be used to kill many people quickly” we see where your opinion falls.

Hammerless 5 shot Taurus .357 in lightweight titanium.

With speed loader for reload.

I do like that Warthog. Looking at subcompact .45’s for alternative carry.

Maybe Big Clips make Binky feel like a Big Man.

Lotta gun owners roll that way.

Binky: “It also makes prarie-dog hunting a lot more enjoyable (again, less time between reloads).”

Hmm can take out an armed man running through a shopping mall without any collateral damage with one shot but need to constantly reload to shoot small ground vermin.

To claim there is any “balance” at all there indicates that YOU are, in fact, unbalanced.

The “unbalanced” will ALWAYS have access. They obtain through criminal means, largely.

That, among other things, shall not infringe on MY right to bear arms.

Get it?

Actually, ranchers in the Dakotas welcome prarie dog hunters for a couple of reasons; the cute little prarie dog “villages” ie “holes in the ground” have a tendancy to be a leg-breaking hazard for live-stock.

Second, prarie dogs are known disease carriers, and carriers of disease vectors such as tick and fleas. In fact either last year or the year before there was a case of the bubonic plague confirmed in a prarie dog village in either Montana or Wyoming.

As for another reason for “needing” a 30 round “clip”; there are plenty of stories about people high on meth, or PCP, or other drugs that attack and will not stop despite being hit by 20 shots that should be fatal.

This sure has knocked Diablo off the front burner!

Guns to the rescue, once again.

Can we please, PLEASE stop using the word “clip” to describe a magazine?

C’mon people!!

here…this will make you feel betterer.

Great, another reason to waste time at work…

PLEASE stop using the word “clip” to describe a magazine?

Gun guys always fall back on the terminology. The world of guns is rife with jargon.

Get in a discussion and one of the guys will invariably ask in an rather sardonic tone, “do you even Know what an assault rifle is.” He sits back and waits for one stumble, one uninformed remark. When he hears it, he pounces.

How can you even have an opinion, the now feigned indignant guy asks.

Happens all the time.

Oh, hi there. I’m the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I allow states to create militias. I prohibit infringement on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. And by ‘the people’, I don’t refer to individuals. I mean the militias created by the state.

Hmm can take out an armed man running through a shopping mall without any collateral damage with one shot but need to constantly reload to shoot small ground vermin.

Mall shooter = Single target (Hopefully) at close range where odds of a miss are at a minimum. Wind drift is not a factor. Most witness accounts state that he methodically stalked from one location to another, even pausing to shoot into a teddy-bear. No mention of running in this story.

Prarie Dogs = Small animals, usually at a range in excess of 200 yards. Wind drift becomes an issue, as does the slightest muscle movement. Oppertunity for multiple target selection Not only are they small, they’re dumb… pictuere a “whack-a-mole” game played at extreme ranges-when one prarie dog goes down another will pop up to see what that noise was and to see why his tunnel-mate picked that exact time to take a nap.

Ugh. Please stop encouraging him to indulge his fantasy.

Binky: “Actually, ranchers in the Dakotas welcome prarie dog hunters for a couple of reasons; the cute little prarie dog “villages” ie “holes in the ground” have a tendancy to be a leg-breaking hazard for live-stock….”

Who said they didn’t? It just amuses me that when you try to advocate for large capacity magazines, you choose for your example to sway the undecided, the more efficient execution of small fuzzy-faced little guys that are not entirely unlike hamsters.

Binky, believe it or not, we’re mostly on the same side. It’s just that a lot of the 2nd Amendment folk aren’t exactly good at PR and it shows. I think a lot of the time, rights are preserved in spite of many of their advocates, not because of them.

You might as well try making the argument for 50 caliber rifles by explaining to people how they’d enable a cleaner assassination of Punxsutawney Phil.

First of all, there are very few people I’d risk my life or freedom for.

So then for all your bluster, you admit you’d never actually do anything in a situation like this, unless someone you love is in danger. However, you could, if you wanted to. Does this reasoning help keep your manhood intact?

Oh, hi there. I’m the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I allow states to create militias. I prohibit infringement on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. And by ‘the people’, I don’t refer to individuals. I mean the militias created by the state.

Hi. I’m the U.S. Code.

One of the things I do is define who belongs to the militia.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me.

For the “link impaired”:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

This sure has knocked Diablo off the front burner!

Maybe if she packed some heat..

As for me, I have no need to blast anything. Got that out of my system a long time ago. Besides, after you have fired one of these, anything else seems so puny…

The Rat: “Get in a discussion and one of the guys will invariably ask in an rather sardonic tone, “do you even Know what an assault rifle is.” He sits back and waits for one stumble, one uninformed remark. When he hears it, he pounces…”

Well, actually the gun guys do have a bit of a point. The terms “assault rifle” and “automatic” get misused and misunderstood all the time and yet they are heavily loaded terms, if you will excuse the pun.

The definition of assault weapon characteristics in the recently unrenewed AW ban is a case in point. People have a bad habit of using terms without understanding (or clearly defining) what they mean. It is important in any argument to try to avoid that; particularly important in this one.

I think even the Brady people would agree with that after the Assault Weapon ban fiasco.

You might as well try making the argument for 50 caliber rifles by explaining to people how they’d enable a cleaner assassination of Punxsutawney Phil.

While I think that a .50 BMG round may be a bit of overkill on a groundhog, I do think that any rifle that you routinely practice with at 1500 yards requires a lot of discipline over your mind and your body.

To put the bullet on target at ranges of half a mile or more nearly requires a meditative standpoint.

Besides, show me one crime that was actually committed with a .50 BMG.

God, don’t get me started on the Great Prairie Dog Scandal…

I can’t. So far, fifty cal owners have been an extremely responsible lot (aside from the seven or so that got shipped to Northern Ireland in the 1980s). I hope that never changes, as I would not want to see support for a law or amendment to ban them.

And I completely agree with you regarding long range shooting – it is a meditative practice. Don’t you think that’s a better argument to present than “they’re great for murdering cute little fluffballs at an extremely rapid rate”?

So then for all your bluster, you admit you’d never actually do anything in a situation like this, unless someone you love is in danger. However, you could, if you wanted to. Does this reasoning help keep your manhood intact?

Where did I say that?

I love myself among all others in my various social circles. Enough to use deadly force if the circumstances dictate that I do so.

What’s the matter, is that too “well reasoned” for you? Or would you rather I shot without one iota of thought in the matter to save someone else’s dumb ass because they chose not to have a means of protection accessible to them?

Don’t you think that’s a better argument to present than “they’re great for murdering cute little fluffballs at an extremely rapid rate”?

Sorry, dude… I gotta disagree…

The cute little fluffball tag negates the hazards these animals cause (broken legs on horses and cattle, plague, etc…).

Also, to apply the term “murder” to any other animal than the human animal devalues my life, your life and the lives of all the humans around us. Now, I’m not one whose gonna go into all that religious bullshit, but I do think that we’re at the top of the food-chain for a reason.

It’s because killing animals that may (either directly or indirectly) lead to our harm, or killing animals that may taste good fried with a little garlic and butter is an ingrained part of who we are.

Give yourself and your fellow members of mankind some credit—murder is a term that should only refer to humans.

Still not getting it, though.

It doesn’t matter what you think, what matters is where you choose to fight.

You picked prairie dogs, I use hyperbolic terms to describe your intentions (”murder” and “assassinate”), you take issue with said terms, I make an appeal to emotion and link to a picture on dogbegone.com, who specialize in making videos of shooting prairie dogs with high velocity and large caliber ammunition, like so:

Then I point out that this site links to a forum called “Seekers of the Red Mist” and, for good measure, I post a link to a Youtube video that the dogbegone guys linked to from their site of some guys shooting cute Prairie Dogs with a 50 caliber.

Like so.

So it really doesn’t matter what you think about the terms I used, because it will be tougher for people to consider the matter without images of prairie dogs being exploded by bloodthirsty yahoos stuck in their heads.

Teucer, please. No inline images like that.

And, again, please stop baiting binky. He has only one song, and we don’t need to keep encouraging him to sing it.

And from the sounds of that song, he’s only read every other note. Or maybe it’s he’s read every note the NRA has written down?

I’m mostly done with the topic anyway. Sorry if anyone was offended by the exploding prairie dog image. I’m not baiting him though (well, not just baiting him anyway) – if he’s really interested in advocating for guns, he needs to think about how this stuff comes across.

Is tpavleck possibly THAT foolish / unaware / ignorant of the founder’s intent with the Second Amendment?

If you are too stupid / lazy to READ the Constitution, here’s a question:

Would a frontier era (1770) pioneer living in upstae New York or Pennsylvania etc. actually thing a state “militia” would be accessible and / or available to protect him from tyranny, let alone criminals?

Understood,

But you’ve got to understand that the trend of devaluing humanity (so that terms like “murder” and “assassinate” don’t apply exclusively to us as a species) has a larger part in contributing to such massacres as the mall shooting than the “proliferation” of guns and the “flurry” of right to carry laws.

I do like how it went from protecting your fellow man / self to prairie dogs.

Solid digression.

First they came for the prairie dogs, and I did not issue a sharp chirping alarm call, for I was not a prairie dog….

I do like how it went from protecting your fellow man / self to prairie dogs.

Solid digression.

The statement that was made was that “the people” don’t “need” a rifle that can hold a 30 round magazine.

I then gave a couple solid reasons as to why I for one have my 30 rounders.

At that point the word “murder” was used when applied to the shooting of a lower life form.

At which point I tried to make the point that when you lower the value of a human life so that it’s equal to that of a prarie dog, or gopher, or coyote, or anything else that doesn’t fit under the designation “homo sapiens“, bad things begin to happen.

WTF? No video linking?

Well, here’s the link anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkk5q_sCc3M

17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age
Well atleast this thread will die when Binky turns 45 and gives up his gun.

Bud, you need to re-read it yourself there. And if we were able to know the exact intent with which that amendment was written, then we wouldn’t have such a controversy.

BTW, The 2nd amendment was there to help stop things like shays’ rebellion, and for the states to keep the military power of the goverment in check and to ensure that, oh, I dunno, that they don’t try to make it illegal for protestants to own guns, like King Henry did.

we’ve discovered binky’s real identity. Francis Soyer.

God, Tom Hanks looks so young in that clip. He’s about 12 or something.

Funny, I don’t suppose he mentions Stripes or Bachelor Party much these days; no use dwelling in the glories of the past, I suppose…

I love it… when your “logic” falls apart and you can’t make a rational argument, you’ve got to result to insults.

Doesn’t hurt my feelings, though. It just give me a stronger footing on the high ground.

Have fun playing in the mud puddle and smearing shit on the bathroom walls like the little kids you are.

At which point I tried to make the point that when you lower the value of a human life so that it’s equal to that of a prairie dog, or gopher, or coyote, or anything else that doesn’t fit under the designation “homo sapiens”, bad things begin to happen.

Binky I agree with the second amendment and the right to bear arms no matter what gun you want to use. However, animals are living beings not equal to humans and there for us to use. That said, I love to hunt and kill animals for food but the joy people have in blasting prairie dogs seems kind of over the top. It moves from hunting to killing for killing sake and does not respect the act of killing. I would protect your right to kill what ever you want to, as long as it is legal and the animal is not endangered. but I don’t agree with the whole video of animals disintegrating in thin air. It is only my opinion and it is from a moral not a legal point of view. I think that we have an obligation as gun owners and hunters to show respect for life and not abuse our Right to hunt or bear arms.

Understood.

Prarie Dog hunting may have been a bad example, but dammit, there’s no reason I should have to explain excercising my rights to someone who believes those rights should be taken away.

As for the imagery part, I wasn’t really the one posting the splatterfest images on the web.

I still don’t believe they’re “innocent fluffballs”, though; nor are they completely harmless…

On Bubonic Plague.

Keep in mind, the article was from 2005.

Here’s one from 2007.

And one from LA.

So, by hunting a couple prairie dogs, the animals life you may save may be your pets… or potentially your own.

I would protect your right to kill what ever you want to, as long as it is legal and the animal is not endangered.

Isn’t killing something the ultimate in endangerment?

Oh Binky. Binky Binky Binky.

I’ve been away from my computer for hours (NICE!) but have been sincerely wondering where this discussion would end up in the hours between.

Seriously Binky. I’ve tried to be both tolerant and non-ahole-ish about some of your ridiculous leaps in logic, but you’ve completely lost me.

You started this thing out with saying that if there were more armed people in Omaha, then they could have killed the shooter. You then went on to say that perhaps if they had higher powered guns it would even go better. Then you say this:

First of all, there are very few people I’d risk my life or freedom for.

So now I’m totally confused by you. So you think you’d protect the innocent if the need arised. But then you qualify it by saying that you’d be selective in when you used your firearms? So… you would use them at Ridgedale but not at Southdale? You’d use your gun if the shooter was…?

Honestly, your own subjectivity and mercurial ethics is why I DON’T want more people with bigger guns.

I realize this comment will probably get lost because of the time I’m writing it. But you are one whacked out dude. Yikes.

I bet none of you gun crazy assholes could find my clip with a flashlight and a map.

Raindog…you misspelled clit.

I think you just stepped on her joke, Geoff.

I bet none of you gun crazy assholes could find my clip with a flashlight and a map.
Clip? I thought the proper firearm term was magazine.

You started this thing out with saying that if there were more armed people in Omaha, then they could have killed the shooter.

That’s right. More armed citizens could have stopped the massacre before it went too far.

You then went on to say that perhaps if they had higher powered guns it would even go better.

Point out exactly where I said this about Omaha. The context I used the “bigger and more powerful” comment was in regards to the tragedy in Texas where Charles Whitman was stopped by a well-armed population.

Then you say this: First of all, there are very few people I’d risk my life or freedom for.

That’s right.

So now I’m totally confused by you. So you think you’d protect the innocent if the need arised.

I’d protect the lives of my family, my loved ones and myself.

But then you qualify it by saying that you’d be selective in when you used your firearms? So… you would use them at Ridgedale but not at Southdale?

Why is that such a hard concept to get? A person looking out for their own interests? Is socialism so ingrained in your collective psyche that even if you see the action taken by an individual frightening and objectionable, as long as it benefits the collective it’s okay?

Sorry, in pretty much any disaster situation, it’s every man for himself. If you haven’t prepared yourself with the tools available to you and you find youself facing a deadly situation, that’s kinda evolution at work.

Them’s the breaks.

You’d use your gun if the shooter was…?

…A direct threat to me or my loved ones. All others are on their own.

Selfish? Probably. Do I care, if it gets me home at the end of the night? Not one bit.

And then someone like Raindog comes in with her “glib” little sexual innuendo.

And yet it’s the gun-nuts that have sexual issues. Right.

I’ll ask again, project much lately?

Binky. Armed. Occasionally dangerous. Never heroic.

His solution to these incredibly infrequent cases of psychotic shooting up public places: Everybody carries guns, and there are wild west style gun fights every so often.

My solution: A good enough health care system so that it is easier and cheaper for the mentally ill to get help than semi-automatic weapons.

And let me just add: I actually have been held up at knife- and gunpoint, I have interrupted a man beating his girlfriend and, in turn, been attacked by the man with the hammer. Binky’s experience with real violence, by his own admission: Shooting prairie dogs.

Binky, when you have some real-world experiences to share, then you should feel comfortable stepping up to the adult table. Until then, you’re another obnoxious single-issue commentor wasting bandwidth with untested fantasies.

Oh yeah, and I was beaten up in a race riot.

A good enough health care system so that it is easier and cheaper for the mentally ill to get help than semi-automatic weapons.

I went down to my local police precinct a few months ago and traded in my mental health for $100.

That explains everything.

Wow, even I can understand this latest Theory of Everything. Suddenly the universe seems infinitely simpler, and infinitely more troubling.

Binky. Armed. Occasionally dangerous. Never heroic.

Binky, when you have some real-world experiences to share, then you should feel comfortable stepping up to the adult table. Until then, you’re another obnoxious single-issue commentor wasting bandwidth with untested fantasies.
…
Oh yeah, and I was beaten up in a race riot.

All this has happened to you, and yet I’m the nut because I choose to have options available to defend myself and my family.

Yep.

And if the shit really hits the fan, I’m selfish because I’m not using those tools to defend people I don’t even know, instead of coming in with guns blazing (in a very literal sense).

Uh huh.

If you’re dumb enough to walk into a situation where you may need to defend yourself and choose to be defenseless, and then get your ass handed to you because you didn’t have the sense to have those tools at your disposal when you choose to play hero (“I have interrupted a man beating his girlfriend and, in turn, been attacked by the man with the hammer.”), that’s a special kind of natural selection.

What experience I have with violence is really none of your business; the fact that you keep finding yourself in compromising situations merely reflects on the poorest of choices you made that put you in those situations.

My “real-world” experiences often fall shy of allowing someone to kick my ass, simply because I took steps to prevent the attack or attacks. True, I’ll never know the full possibility of the situation because when approached, the people (who may have been) threatening violence decided that that library book on their coffee table might be a day or two overdue—or perhaps that DVD needed to get back to Blockbuster right now, and decided to move along when they saw that I wasn’t simply ignoring them as they approached (and had tools at my disposal to defend myself).

I’ve never made a claim to have aspirations of being a hero. That’s your projection. I’m looking out for myself and my own. Selfish? Absolutely. If you feel slighted by my selfishness, maybe you need to do some soul searching and figure out just how prepared you want to be, instead of relying on the “heroism” of others.

I hope that my “fantasies” remain “untested”. That means that I never slipped, that I never found myself in a situation where I might have to take another life.

As for all of your petty, childish fears, stop projecting them upon me.

I plan on making it home to (or with) my family at the end of the day.

Binky: We will always be on opposite sides of the carry issue, but your carrying doesn’t bother me as your blind, unsupported insistence that if people were armed, it would save them.

Now tell that to the soldiers in Iraq.

My sister was in the store where the shooter was. She is an excellent trained shot. I believe her when she said that outside of having armed guards at every entrance/exit and elevators, there was little that could have been done. Most of the people killed were located in a pretty small area. The cops response was what, 6 minutes. My sis said that it was probably over in 2.

Your bravado makes it close to impossible to reasonably respond to your rants. If you spoke from personal experience, people might take you seriously, but you don’t and therein lies the problem.

My guess is that if you ever had to shoot someone it would not be the “Woo Hoo” experience your attitude lends it to be.

We as a society have become so emasculated that we can not countenance armed security in public venues.

We paid the price, again.

Bud: I don’t think it’s because we’re an emasculated society. Public massacres are pretty recent history. School shootings led to security changes in schools. Who knows what the wave of mall shootings will bring.

I plan on making it home to (or with) my family at the end of the day.

And yet. millions of people do exactly that everyday without being armed to the teeth.

We as a society have become so emasculated that we can not countenance armed security in public venues.

How do you call yourself a free and open society if you have armed guards everywhere?

I think Binky and Bud are making a fine team today.

Since Maz left there hasn’t been many people around here who swagger and spit and grab their crotch and talk about knockin’ around pencil-necked, urban crawling, liberal pinkos who mollycoddle criminals and illegal immigrants.

It’s like we’d lost a side of the board’s collective personality.

Nice, Rat!

I think we should make Mollycoddle the word of the day and use it as often as possible.

My guess is that if you ever had to shoot someone it would not be the “Woo Hoo” experience your attitude lends it to be.

I never said anything about it being a “woo hoo” experience.

Those are more words you’re putting in my mouth, more of your hopolophobe projection.

What I’ve been saying was “I would use the amount of force necessary, if necessary, to try to stop the threat if I or my loved ones were in danger.”

All the rest of you? You’re on your own.

There are those among you who decry that attitude as selfish, and at the same time accuse me of bravado, of wanting to be a hero.

As I’ve said before, I’m looking out for myself; the rest of you, if the situation arises, are on your own.

Binky: Not putting words into your mouth, nor is it a projection. If you had really taken the time to read my comment, it’s the attitude you project. You accuse others of reacting, but it seems that’s what you do best.

You change your response to suit you when people call you out. You have blamed the victims of crimes for “not being prepared – meaning armed in your world,” but now you have changed your response to say that the entire time all you’ve been saying is that you would use force. Then you cry foul when people ask you to back up your claims with real life experience. Of course it’s everyone else’s lack of clarity and never accountability on your part.

Again, it’s your attitude. Not just what you say. You lecture and rant and yet, you have nothing to defend your claims. It is pure supposition on your part.

This is your statement re: Omaha:
That’s right. More armed citizens could have stopped the massacre before it went too far.

You. Were. Not. There. It’s impossible for you to know that the outcome could have been different. This is a perfect example of you making a statement for which you cannot support.

No one has asked you to look out for them so to assume that they are is arrogant on your part.

And definition of bravado: a pretentious, swaggering display of courage.

You. Were. Not. There.

Neither. Were. You.

It’s impossible for you to know that the outcome could have been different.

Just as it impossible for you to know how different it could have been if the mall hadn’t posted the “Disarmed Victim Zone” signs.

This is a perfect example of you making a statement for which you cannot support.

As is yours.

No one has asked you to look out for them so to assume that they are is arrogant on your part.

No? The responses replying to the statement I made that I’m there to look out for my family, loved ones and myself suggest a different opinion than yours. Just a couple examples:

“…Never heroic.”

Honestly, your own subjectivity and mercurial ethics is why I DON’T want more people with bigger guns.”

The difference that you can’t seem to comprehend, Binky, is that I’m not making a claim to support. I wasn’t the one stating that the outcome would have been different and although I wasn’t there, my sis was. I trust her judgement and those who are experienced that there was probably nothing that could have been done to change what happened.

And once again you shuck and jive when called out.

The statement was: “So you think you’d protect the innocent if the need arised.” They didn’t ask you to look out for them.

It’s interesting. At least you are consistent in trying to manipulate others comments to continue your “I’m being picked on” rant.

For a guy who walks around well-armed, binky sure gets his feelings hurt easily.

I really didn’t want to get involved in this one, but since I am, I hope the word Mollycoddle helps.

As I’m sitting here looking at two different shooting stories, one of someone mentally disturbed and one of two trained professionals, I can’t help but make a correlation.

In both cases I see poor decision making and human fallibility. There isn’t a weapon in the world that can solve that problem.
There’s a chance more guns could have helped either situation, but the likelihood of more guns helping doesn’t just seem probable.

If a trained professional like a police officer can make a mistake like shooting another officer when called to help; a mall full of Joe Remingtons have to be just as likely to end up shooting each other.

JACC: Indeed. The use of mollycoddle is very soothing.

In mid-1800’s England, “molly” was slang with two meanings – it was a bastardization of “mary”, which is slang itself for prostitute, and it was slang for “sissy” – i.e., a weak, ineffectual man. Both of these groups need to be coddled – treated gently – in an exaggerated, patronizing, subtly ridiculing manner. So you probably shouldn’t be taking too much comfort and joy from its use.

Thanks, Cliff Claven.

Um… yeah, Bobby, we know the etymology and the meaning of mollycoddle. But thanks for your condescending input.

For a guy who walks around well-armed, binky sure gets his feelings hurt easily.

I really couldn’t care less what a person says about me. What I think is telling is how fired up you all get over someone merely stating a point of view.

They didn’t ask you to look out for them.

And yet the phrase “never a hero” or some variation of it is thrown around several times when I say that I’m not gonna run up and “take care of business”.

If not asking, the prevailing sentiment is one of people expecting people to look out for them.

If a trained professional like a police officer can make a mistake like shooting another officer when called to help; a mall full of Joe Remingtons have to be just as likely to end up shooting each other.

How often do police qualify? Practice? Put at least 50 rounds through their service weapons?

I put at least 50 or more a month through the gun I carry, oftentimes more.

As for being a “Joe Remington”, that’s why I wouldn’t stake anything for someone who’s not in my immediate circle. As for the potential of shooting another “Joe Remington” (I prefer Federal hydrashocks, myself; either in a Smith and Wesson, or a Para-Ord), if they’re not pointing the gun at me but instead aiming in the general direction of the shooter, I probably wouldn’t percieve them as a threat.

I’m not making a claim to support.

Where’s my claim? If you didn’t notice, between the [sarcasm] tags I merely stated that such a thing couldn’t have happened at the mall, a gun free zone that prohibits (law abiding citizens from) carrying weapons.

I’m pretty steadfast in that belief. And every time you put the words in my mouth, I back up my postition and debunk your claims.

God, you’re a study in contradictions. For someone who claims they couldn’t care less about what anyone says about them, you have every perceived slight memorized and, apparently, bookmarked.

Let me make this clear, Binky. Nobody on this board is specifically anti-gun, as far as I have been able to tell; if they are, they tend to steer clear of these threads. Neither are they anti-concealed carry. People make fun of you because you are such a closed-minded cowboy, spinning out fantasies of a world made safe by endless Mexican standoffs. These fantasies, as you yourself have admitted, do not come from actual experience. And yet, not only do you persist in stating them, but you gallingly suggested, again and again, that victims of crimes are somehow at fault for not having acted out your Rambo fantasies.

Well, we don’t need to argue with someone who behaves like that. Arguments that are worth a damn are rooted in fact and reason. People who refuse to participate in such an approach to discussion, but instead look for any tragedy to pop up in the news to launch into extended fantastical babbling online, are not engaged in debate. They are hitching their hobby horses to tragedy, and I personally find such behavior deplorable. You get made fun of because you invite it, and you deserve it.

Thank you, Max.

I bet none of you gun crazy assholes could find my clip with a flashlight and a map.

I’d take that challenge. I know my way around a set of roast beef curtains, if you know what I mean…

“Um… yeah, Bobby, we know the etymology and the meaning of mollycoddle. But thanks for your condescending input.“

Actually, it wasn’t meant to be condescending so much as it was meant to be an (admittedly lame) attempt to interject a quick chuckle in between long, caustic, hostile “here’s why you’re pathetic” “no, no, here’s why YOU’RE pathetic” mutual deconstructions. It was all just so grim.

There you go, adding lightly humorous fuel to the fire.

These fantasies, as you yourself have admitted, do not come from actual experience.

And how do you know that? How do you know what experiences I’ve had in my life?

Just because I don’t go into a situation to get my ass kicked, much like you have on numerous ocasions, apparently…

So, show me the reasonable facts that show how, in this situation, banning guns at Westroads Mall worked. Show me reasonable facts about how any of the mass shooting tragedies where the defacto gun bans, already in place, prevented a criminal from having a huge pool of unarmed victims to choose from.

Show me the reasonable facts where New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, any of the cities that pretty much ban private carry of firearms (let alone ownership of those firearms) by the law-abiding are any safer.

Not knee-jerk reactions by someones liberal-mindset aunt, or something you heard from CNN, none of that… but actual unbiased facts.

I’ll agree that “I. wasn’t. there.” But, to use Cat’s particularly pretentious and halting typing style, “You. were. not. there. either. and. so. you. really. have. no. idea. yourselves. .”

Not condescending, but judgemental. Even better.

I admit that it’s never good to go rounds with Binky as it all comes back to the same place, but having a close family member involved made his unsupported claims more maddening.

And how do you know that? How do you know what experiences I’ve had in my life?

Just because I don’t go into a situation to get my ass kicked, much like you have on numerous ocasions, apparently…

That’s how I know. I also know because I’ve asked you repeatedly what experiences you’ve had with real violence, and you have admitted that there have been none. Please correct me if I have gotten the wrong idea. But I doubt that correction will be forthcoming.

And, again, you can’t help but blame the victim. In one instance, I was caught in a riot in a tony section of LA. In another, I was walking home near the University of Minnesota when I saw a man beating his girlfriend, and, apparently unlike you, felt I could not in good conscience continue on. Oh, and one of my robberies? I was at work, at a movie theater, again in a rich part of LA. The other? Right outside my house. In only one of these instances did I get beat up. The riot. Eight guys will do that to you. You’d remember all this, as I have told you it before, but you haven’t much interest in what the other guy says when it conflicts with your idiotic perception that somehow people who are victims of crimes are responsible for being victims.

One of these days, the dice will roll badly for you and you’ll find yourself facing a violent crime. Then you’ll discover its quite a lot more complicated than your cartoonish worldview makes it out to be.

And, by the way, demanding that we prove a negative is ridiculous. You are making an assertion — that having a lot of people with guns would have changed things at Westroads Mall. It is now your responsibility to demonstrate your assertion; it is not our responsibility to refute it until you’ve made some sort of case.

And at this point I will invite MnSpeakers to simply ignore Binky when he posts. He hasn’t really got much to add to the discussion, beyond what he has already posted endless times, and we end up in these maddening, roundabout conversations. As I’ve said, the only appropriate response is really to rib him for his viewpoints, and I would guess we have better things to do with our time.

and I would guess we have better things to do with our time.

Oh I have, Max. I’ve ignored the entire thread.

…but having a close family member involved made his unsupported claims more maddening.

Isn’t this “close family member” the same Aunt you said would resort to violence if she heard a person using one particular word?

[...Nevermind, that was alliecat. Sorry for the error in memory, there.]

But what claims have I made that have been “unsupported”? Simply stating that such a crime couldn’t have occurred at that mall because it was a “gun free zone”, and criminals have as much respect for the law as the rest of us? Or was it the claim that maybe, just maybe, a lawfully carried concealed weapon might have changed the outcome? Help me out with this one.

That’s no more unsupported a claim than the claim of a person saying that a legally carried pistol wouldn’t have changed the situation. (Even if They. were. there. . . . . . . . and an extra . for good measure.

You. know. typing. in. this. halting. style. can. be. kind. of. addictive.)

As for my “assertion” that a lawfully held concealed firearm would have prevented such a tragedy, tell me…

How many of these tragedies have occurred in a place where Concealed Carry was allowed on the premises?

I. know. I’ve. posted. this. link. before. but. here. it. is. again.

While. none. of. these. incidents. happened. at. a. mall,. they’re. pretty. good. proof. to. me. that. firearms. can. protect. the. law. abiding. too.

Binky, why don’t you link yourself to a profile? If you’re going to share so much information with everyone, you owe it to the community to share with us a little more about yourself. It’s part of a credibility play on your part.

In my experience, people who avidly promote conceal and carry and other pro-gun laws use fear, ignorance and intimidation to advance their narrow views.

If they are sooooooooo right why do.they.have.to.scream.so.loud?

In my experience, people who avidly believe in global warming and other pollution control laws use fear, ignorance and intimidation to advance their narrow views.

If they are sooooooooo right why do.they.have.to.scream.so.loud?

Avoid loud and aggressive people, they are vexations to the spirit.

The Desiderata

Or, as National Lampoon had it their Deteriorata: “Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep. Rotate your tires.”

That’s not funny.

The world is full of trickery, Rat, but let this not blind you to what virtue there is.

“In my experience, people who avidly believe in global warming and other pollution control laws use fear, ignorance and intimidation to advance their narrow views.”

Er, “fear, ignorance and intimidation?” kevin?

Please tell me who is afraid of Sen. Ellen Anderson and the renewable energy law she authored? Who now is ignorant of global climate change (use the correct term, please) after Mr. Gore’s little PowerPoint show? Are you intimidated by a Republican Governor who can reach across party lines to form a wind energy coalition with Bill Richardson of New Mexico?

If you are right and I am wrong about global climate change, then the worse that could happen is: a) we get a little more energy independent, b) our skies become a little cleaner and c) a lot of Americans get rich building a global green economy (read Newt Gindrich’s new book).

If you are wrong, and enough people who think like you block corrective actions, we are a) in trouble b) in big trouble or c) toast.

I don’t think we’re looking at entirely as clear a win-win-win or lose-lose-lose scenario as you seem to think, Bob.

If you are wrong, and enough people who think like you block corrective actions, we are a) in trouble b) in big trouble or c) toast.

Bing. O.

Anyone wanna guess how large the death-toll might have been if this security officer had been unarmed?

527

A bazillion.

And 39 South Africans might still be alive if this security guard hadn’t been armed. You are making a lousy argument lousily.

And 39 South Africans might still be alive if this security guard hadn’t been armed. You are making a lousy argument lousily.

And 39 South Africans might still be alive if this security guard hadn’t been armed. You are making a lousy argument lousily.

???

Yeah, I’m aware of the crime figures in SA and it’s a shame that the ANC has chosen to make its population legally defenseless.

The point is, your story about the benefits of one armed security guard is easily countered by another.

And I know Max has already addressed this, but I don’t think the general climate on MNSpeak is anti-gun, despite your best efforts to try and push it in that direction.

Despite your best efforts Binky, I remain in favor of the 2nd Amendment and legal permits to carry.

“I don’t think we’re looking at entirely as clear a win-win-win or lose-lose-lose scenario as you seem to think, Bob.”

You may be right, Rat, but when the stakes are this high, I’m siding with Mom Earth.

Hay! If you’re gonna drag me into this argument, Binky, at least spell my damn name right…

Oh, and my aunt is not a liberal. She’s a native of SD and a Mormon. She’s about as far to the right as she can get. Talk about making assumptions.

The Earth is not your Mother, Bob.

No? Well, she can be a Muther when pushed too far….

I’d trade Binky, cash and a first round draft pick to get Maz back instead.