The media was more ideological than the Arapahoe shooter

posted at 9:31 am on December 15, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The latest school shooting to take place in the country, perpetrated at Arapahoe High in Colorado by Karl Pierson, lacked many of the elements we’ve come to expect from the inevitable media circus which follows such events. The shooter was a student, for one thing, more reminiscent of the Columbine event than the more recent Newtown or Washington shipyard attacks. Also, the extent of the carnage, while still horrible, was fortunately considerably more limited. Authorities are saying that he came equipped for and with the intention of causing widespread harm. He brought a pump action shotgun (model not released yet that I’ve seen) with plenty of extra shells, several Molotov cocktails and a machete. Yet in the end, he injured two students – one gravely – and lit one fire in the library before taking his own life.

Given Pierson’s current, room temperature status, we may never fully discern his intentions and motivations, but early investigations may provide some clues.

But students who witnessed the attack later clarified that it was the school librarian and debate team coach, identified as Tracy Murphy by NBC affiliate KUSA in Denver, who was the target of Pierson’s rage.

Steve Miles is an English teacher who taught Pierson as a freshman, told the Associated Press that Pierson had recently been cut from the debate team, but he didn’t know why…

“‘Revenge’ is the word that I chose,” [Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson] Robinson told reporters. “This is where our initial investigation is taking us. We know that there was some controversy between the student suspect and the teacher.”

In the end, this may have been a case of a sick individual seeking revenge who also decided to “make a big splash” on his way out. Whether his will to carry out a mass slaughter faltered when the moment arrived or alert response tactics by the school made targets largely unavailable may remain one of the unknowns. But we still can’t refrain from trying to read more into the shooter’s motives and defining them through the usual ideological lens.

What’s been discovered so far seems to indicate that Pierson was well and truly embedded in an early, liberal world view. His disparaging comments about Republicans on social media, combined with his self-professed love for Keynesian economics makes that much clear. But the circumstances of his attack make it difficult to think that he arrived at school that day hell bent on striking a blow for the progressive agenda. Far more likely was the Sheriff’s analysis that he was there to kill the debate team coach who he perceived as having wronged him.

But that doesn’t mean that some ideological tilt and bias wasn’t discovered. As Mediaite reported, the Denver Post was apparently busy making sure he didn’t come off looking too far to the left.

In a profile on the shooter in the Denver Post which focused on his “strong political beliefs,” several of Pierson’s classmates offered their impressions of the shooter. One of the shooter’s classmates described him as a “very opinionated socialist.” Shortly after that post was published, however, that description was edited out. The current copy simply describes him as “very opinionated.”

If his own friends testified that he was a self-described socialist, why not report that as part of the story? I think that question pretty much answers itself. You can read the current version of the Denver Post story here. As near as I can tell, they have still neither returned the copy to its original form nor made note of the deletion.

Finally – and this should go without saying – when the inevitable calls for more gun control begin in the wake of this tragedy, they can be entirely ignored. This was yet another case of a person with no reported criminal record legally purchasing a shotgun (not an “assault rifle”) and shells in accordance with even the most restrictive laws. No background checks or bans on magazines or “excessively dangerous” guns would have prevented it. So spare us the sanctimonious speeches and lets figure out how families, communities and churches can do a better job of spotting problem individuals and keeping them from arriving at this sort of juncture in the future.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Spin all you want.
You’re aim is bad here.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Yep. Sounds like he’s never figured out why people don’t use Bushmasters to shoot skeet.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:08 PM

wheelguns

scatterguns

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM

And add to that most ARs, in fact most rifles of any kind, are sighted in for 50 to 100 YARDS out, or more. For the mathematically challenged (verbalunatic) that’s 150 to 300 feet. That means if you’re inside a building and you try to shoot a moving target that’s only 10 or 20 feet away, your sights will be way off target.

Verbalunatic keeps trying to talk about spinning and denying facts and logic, when she’s the only one doing so – with no clue about the subject matter.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Spin all you want.
You’re aim is bad here.
verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM

You haven’t refuted a point I’ve made yet. You just huff and puff and scream “spin”. You’ve been wrong on every thing you’ve said as anyone with even a passing familiarity with firearms reading this knows. If somone wanted to shoot three clay pidgeons thrown into the air at the same time (a feat requiring very fast shooting which many practiced shooters can do) why do you think they always choose a shotgun over any rifle with a 30 round mag? I’ve never seen anyone hit more than a single skeet with a rifle. Ever. And even hitting one with a rifle requires an expert marksman. In addition, Shooting a shotgun from the hip can still be very, very accurate. Shooting the AR clone from the hip will never hit a thing. In fact none of my three tactical shotguns even have sights – you just point the barrell and shoot.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM

If somone wanted to shoot three clay pidgeons thrown into the air at the same time (a feat requiring very fast shooting which many practiced shooters can do) why do you think they always choose a shotgun over any rifle with a 30 round mag?

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Gawd…painful.
Of course it’s a shotgun…of course it’s different…of course that’s what you use for that…of course it’s much much harder to hit 3 or even 1 clay pigeon with a single bullet than it is with a spread of pellets.
Are you actually trying to argue that with me??
You aren’t making any points at all.
You’re all over the place, but never on target as far as actually being responsive to what I’ve said.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Let me try a different angle with you –
IF indeed it was true (just assume for sake of argument) that a Bushmaster/similar was more effective and more likely to successfully cause more casualties in a mass shooting, would you then favor additional regulations for that weapon vs. a pump action 12 gauge?

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Gawd…painful.
Of course it’s a shotgun…of course it’s different…of course that’s what you use for that…of course it’s much much harder to hit 3 or even 1 clay pigeon with a single bullet than it is with a spread of pellets.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I literally just put my face in my palm. Holes, man. The first rule of holes!

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

course it’s much much harder to hit 3 or even 1 clay pigeon with a single bullet than it is with a spread of pellets.

But according to you more bullets (30 round mag) makes it more deadly because you can hit more targets and shoot faster. The point is that’s not true because it’s not nearly so accurate and it takes much longer because you have to aim. That’s why the shotgun is the more deadly weapon inside even without a 30 round magazine. For the same reason it is more effective with skeet. A fact you now know but refuse to concede because it doesn’t fit the liberal meme.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Why is this idiot arguing about something that is used incredibly rarely in acts of criminal violence?

I don’t have the numbers handy, but AR’s (BUSHMASTER!!!!) are used in a tiny fraction of one percent of all criminal acts using a firearm.

BTW…IT’s THE LAW.

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Let me try a different angle with you –
IF indeed it was true (just assume for sake of argument) that a Bushmaster/similar was more effective and more likely to successfully cause more casualties in a mass shooting, would you then favor additional regulations for that weapon vs. a pump action 12 gauge?

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Only if we regulate liberals first.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

IF indeed it was true (just assume for sake of argument) that a Bushmaster/similar was more effective and more likely to successfully cause more casualties in a mass shooting, would you then favor additional regulations for that weapon vs. a pump action 12 gauge?
verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

NOpe. Nor would I favor propane gas control despite the fact a bomb easily made with a propane tank is more deadly than any firearm. The issue is the person not the weapon. I note the greatest mass killing ever (at a Chicago nightclub) was accomplished with fire. An arsonist locked the door and set the crowed club on fire. Do you favor “additional regulations” on matches?

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Why is this idiot arguing about something that is used incredibly rarely in acts of criminal violence?

I don’t have the numbers handy, but AR’s (BUSHMASTER!!!!) are used in a tiny fraction of one percent of all criminal acts using a firearm.

BTW…IT’s THE LAW.

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Because gun-grabbers are starting with the weapons they think are the easiest to confiscate.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

NOpe. Nor would I favor propane gas control despite the fact a bomb easily made with a propane tank is more deadly than any firearm. The issue is the person not the weapon. I note the greatest mass killing ever (at a Chicago nightclub) was accomplished with fire. An arsonist locked the door and set the crowed club on fire. Do you favor “additional regulations” on matches?

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM

The most horrific school massacre also involved bombs. He did shoot his wife, though.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

But according to you more bullets (30 round mag) makes it more deadly
tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

No, makes it more effective…in this scenario (not in skeet shooting…or to explode melons with).

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?
(I know there are exceptions…no need to point each one out.)

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?
(I know there are exceptions…no need to point each one out.)

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

First sentence: It doesn’t happen.

Second sentence: Oh wait, it does.

Rifles are better weapons at range than shotguns. And there is also a reason why the vast majority of those rifles aren’t automatic. Any idea why?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Because gun-grabbers are starting with the weapons they think are the easiest to confiscate.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM

tommyboy –
This argument above doesn’t require denying that some guns are different than others, see? This just the paranoia/slippery slope angle. It’s political, and thus can avoid any pragmatism or practicality. It could be used to argue support for personal armored tank ownership.
Your approach requires denying basic facts – but they remain regardless.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

No.
The weapon is irrelevant. You need to do something about the people who are likely to do that, and we need to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for a fighting chance when more left-wing nuts go off the deep end.
You left wing psychos keep proving over and over that it’s the gun free zones that kill people – because they are safest most target rich environment for the psychos intent on mass killings.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

tommyboy –
This argument above doesn’t require denying that some guns are different than others, see? This just the paranoia/slippery slope angle. It’s political, and thus can avoid any pragmatism or practicality. It could be used to argue support for personal armored tank ownership.
Your approach requires denying basic facts – but they remain regardless.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Do you deny what I posted? When 3/4 of all gun related homicides involve a handgun why is it that the left has a hard-on for a weapon type rarely ever used in murders? And how many clay pigeons can you shoot with a single shot blunderbuss?

Keep digging. It’s entertaining.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Guess what numbnuts. Citizens can own tanks and even fire destructibles from them. I feel sorry for your family.

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM

You need to do something about the people who are likely to do that…

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Agree

You left wing psychos..
dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Um…disagree.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?
verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Are you really that ignorant? Shotguns are banned for use by soldiers by the Geneva convention. That’s the reason. They were used in WW I and because of their incredible ability to inflict death and horrible wounds they were outlawed by mutual agreement. Most police cars are equipted with a shotgun in the trunk but not an AR 15.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Are you really that ignorant? Shotguns are banned for use by soldiers by the Geneva convention. That’s the reason. They were used in WW I and because of their incredible ability to inflict death and horrible wounds they were outlawed by mutual agreement. Most police cars are equipted with a shotgun in the trunk but not an AR 15.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM

This isn’t true. At one time the Germans tried to interpret the Geneva convention that way, but we told them to get stuffed and nothing more ever came of it.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:04 PM

From a year ago, immediately after the Newtown, CT massacre . . . . . . . . . . .
.

The Second Amendment is FIRST and foremost about self defense against a Tyranical government.
Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess the same weaponry as civil law enforcement ON ALL LEVELS.
Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.

.
Nothing more needs saying.

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?
(I know there are exceptions…no need to point each one out.)

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Yes – because a shotgun is a short range weapon. Most military tactics involve shooting at the enemy when they are 10s and hundreds of yards away.

Old military saying – “if the enemy is in range, so are you”.
Unless you have a shotgun and the enemy has a rifle, then you’re dead long before you get close enough to use your shotgun.
BTW, snipers typically use bolt-action rifles – and have a record of killing people over a mile away.
However, in close quarters combat, a shotgun (or handgun) would be more effective.

Oh ya – further proof you don’t know what you’re talking about – Bushmaster is just one of many manufacturers of AR-15 rifles.
How you’re using the name is equivalent to your eco-terrorist buddies saying we need to outlaw Chevys, when what you mean to say is SUVs.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Um…disagree.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Denying facts again?
Look it up. Nearly every mass shooter has been a left-winger or just a complete psycho on drugs.
Sorry if actual facts hurt your talking points – but that’s the real world for ya.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Shotguns are banned for use by soldiers by the Geneva convention.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM

You’re wrong (or confused by those Geneva regs) and you’re not answering the questions I ask.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM

You’re wrong (or confused by those Geneva regs) and you’re not answering the questions I ask.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Do you have a license to operate that backhoe for the hole you’re digging?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Oh ya – further proof you don’t know what you’re talking about – Bushmaster is just one of many manufacturers of AR-15 rifles.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Chill out…just using as shorthand for what we are both referencing.
(Imagine if I’d said ‘assault rifle’?)
It’s hard enough getting to the point in these discussion as it is without all the “they called a magazine a clip!, a bullet a round!, a shotgun a rifle’ shrieking.
Maybe you missed me using ‘Bushmaster/similar’.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

just using as shorthand for what we are both referencing.

Bushmaster is your shorthand for AR?

lmfao…

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

How is Bushmaster shorthand for AR-15?

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Shotguns are banned for use by soldiers by the Geneva convention.

tommyboy on December 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM
.

You’re wrong (or confused by those Geneva regs) and you’re not answering the questions I ask.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM

.
Do you have a license to operate that backhoe for the hole you’re digging?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

.
I don’t want to make too much out of this, but my recently deceased hunting buddy (90+ year old Marine Corps veteran against Japs in the south Pacific) told me that 12 ga shotguns with #00 were THE weapon for all those pulling guard duty, at night.
Once the sunlight was sufficient, you’d get your rifle or carbine back.

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Maybe you missed me using ‘Bushmaster/similar’.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Maybe you should just stop commenting about things you clearly don’t understand.
All you’re doing is making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I don’t want to make too much out of this, but my recently deceased hunting buddy (90+ year old Marine Corps veteran against Japs in the south Pacific) told me that 12 ga shotguns with #00 were THE weapon for all those pulling guard duty, at night.
Once the sunlight was sufficient, you’d get your rifle or carbine back.

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Tommyboy was factually incorrect, and I pointed that out to him. My reply to verbalidiocy was a general reply to all the ignorance he’s leaving everywhere in this thread. And now he’s moved on to having a semantical hissyfit because we refuse to play along with his ignorance.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I don’t want to make too much out of this, but my recently deceased hunting buddy (90+ year old Marine Corps veteran against Japs in the south Pacific) told me that 12 ga shotguns with #00 were THE weapon for all those pulling guard duty, at night.
Once the sunlight was sufficient, you’d get your rifle or carbine back.

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

It’s just not accurate to say Geneva banned shotguns.
Either way, it’s irrelevant and a digression.
(Sorry about your pal, but sounds like he lived a long and full one.)

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM

This imbecile isn’t American is it?

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

This imbecile isn’t American is it?

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Sorry…what?

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Sorry…what?

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Excuse me?

Come again?

Say what?

No you didn’t!

Whoserwasit?

Fiddleyfump?

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Yes – I believe tommyboy was wrong about that one. When we introduced shotguns into WW1 for trench warfare (i.e. close quarters combat down in the trenches), the Germans complained and tried to get shotguns banned, but we kept using them anyway. I don’t believe they were ever actually banned, but they are not in widespread use because they are limited in range, and therefore not an optimum all around battlefield weapon for the average soldier.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Shotguns are primarily used for Breeching.

The county police here no longer have a 870 in their vehicle, they have been issued Sig 556′s.

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM

listens2glenn on December 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Yes – I believe tommyboy was wrong about that one. When we introduced shotguns into WW1 for trench warfare (i.e. close quarters combat down in the trenches), the Germans complained and tried to get shotguns banned, but we kept using them anyway. I don’t believe they were ever actually banned, but they are not in widespread use because they are limited in range, and therefore not an optimum all around battlefield weapon for the average soldier.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Geneva/Hague seems more about kinds of ammo.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Geneva/Hague seems more about kinds of ammo.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Plus one for finally getting something right, but I think the following is probably still more your speed:

Area Woman Has Some Thoughts About a New Computer Programming Language to Be Created in Accordance With Feminist Ideology
—Ace

Although I’m sure you’ll return and pontificate in total ignorance on that subject as well.

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Plus one for finally getting something right…

NotCoach on December 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Aww…now there’s the holiday spirit.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The county police here no longer have a 870 in their vehicle, they have been issued Sig 556′s.

Murphy9 on December 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Which makes sense beecause the police are or should be concerned about collateral damage – innocent bystanders getting hit. An AR has much more precision so the shot can be better controlled, and you have one bullet at a time coming out – not a spread fan of shot – so less likely to hit bystanders.
A 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buck shot puts out 9 pellets, each of which is about the size of a .223 bullet. So one 12 gauge buck shot shell puts out the equivalent lead of 9 individual shots from an AR. So 3 shotgun shells gives you about the same amount of lead flying toward the target(s) as a full 30 round magazine on an AR-15.
Back to the most recent point of this thread – you’re more likely to hit a close target or multiple targets with the shotgun than an AR. So if you don’t care about collateral damage, or for that matter actually WANT a lot of it, the shotgun is the more effective weapon in close quarters, especially if shooting at a group of people.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Do you acknowledge there is a reason the military chooses not to issue shotguns to soldiers?
(I know there are exceptions…no need to point each one out.)

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The reason the military doesn’t issue shotguns to as many soldiers as it does other weapons is because of range. Shotguns don’t have as much range.

In reality, in a close range situation, a shotgun is much more effective than an AR, particularly if the shooter is not a good shot, not experienced with the weapon and not and not trained in combat type situations – like most of the loons who engage in this behavior.

Because with a shotgun at close range, you are far more likely to hit someone than with an AR. Indeed, you are likely to hit a couple of people.

Your argument appears to be that you believe an AR is more likely to cause a greater number of casualties in mass shooting type situations than a shotgun, but that is not necessarily correct.

it’s all of a piece of trying to frame the argument as “this particular gun is sooo crazy deadly that everyone should agree to regulate it”. Which is really nonsense. And most libs know this, but realize that if they can create enough of a scare about one type of firearm and get regulations as to that specific type of firearm, they’ve got the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent from which to work up more regulations against other types of firearms.

Monkeytoe on December 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Back to the most recent point of this thread – you’re more likely to hit a close target or multiple targets with the shotgun than an AR. So if you don’t care about collateral damage, or for that matter actually WANT a lot of it, the shotgun is the more effective weapon in close quarters, especially if shooting at a group of people.

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Which is why most police departments still use shotguns for drug house raids the the like.

And, despite some comments upthread about the Geneva Convention – the military also uses shotguns in certain situations.

it depends entirely upon proximity and desired outcome as to which weapon is better in any situation.

Liberals are trying to argue that an AR is “deadlier” and/or “causes more casualties” but that really isn’t true. the best argument that can be made in that regard is that shotguns don’t hold as many rounds as an AR magazine. But, that is mostly irrelevant in a movie theater/school/mall situation. Reloading a shotgun is pretty quick – I can’t imagine it would really slow someone down that much in the chaos they were causing.

Monkeytoe on December 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Reloading a shotgun is pretty quick – I can’t imagine it would really slow someone down that much in the chaos they were causing.

Monkeytoe on December 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM

You can’t divorce the amount of rounds available before re-loading. Leaving aside what you can or can not imagine, are you aware at what point those being attacked were able to tackle and subdue Jared Loughner (Tucson shooting)?
It’s just silly to dismiss firepower and arsenal as a factor.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Hey Verbulice, Sgt. O’Neill (John C. McGinley) carried a wicked shotgun in the epic movie Platoon, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

BigAlSouth on December 16, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Hey, is Mulatto a bad word around here?

BigAlSouth on December 16, 2013 at 7:06 PM

…are you aware at what point those being attacked were able to tackle and subdue Jared Loughner (Tucson shooting)?
 
verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

 
Way to personally defeat your own hours-long argument, verbaluce.
 

He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

 
(Hint: 10 round magazines don’t jam as easily.)

rogerb on December 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM

As near as I can tell, they have still neither returned the copy to its original form nor made note of the deletion.

Actually Lee Ann Colacioppo tweeted this response when asked about the deletion:

We decided not to have another student apply a label to the shooter — a label the student likely didn’t even understand ..

11:34 AM – 14 Dec 2013

Because understanding the meaning of “socialist” is so complicated.

Dollayo on December 16, 2013 at 9:37 PM

You can’t divorce the amount of rounds available before re-loading. Leaving aside what you can or can not imagine, are you aware at what point those being attacked were able to tackle and subdue Jared Loughner (Tucson shooting)?
It’s just silly to dismiss firepower and arsenal as a factor.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Are you aware that the crowd at that rally was all anti-gun Democrat supporters who were asked NOT to bring guns to that rally – effectively making it a gun free zone full of people who generally seem to be afraid of guns?
So I’ll ask you: Why do you think nobody tried to stop him as soon as he started shooting, when people were within arm’s reach of him when he pulled out the gun?
Hint – the answer is within my first sentence…..

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Yes, they can be ignored by the ignorant or those incapable of accepting the simple logic that some arsenals afford greater chances for greater causalities…and some offer less chances for such.
And if you had to choose between handing a madman a pump action shotgun with extra shells and a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine ..and extra magazines?
Exactly.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM

When 100 angry hotairians charge you in some parking lot, I sure do hope you choose the AR.

WryTrvllr on December 17, 2013 at 4:35 AM

That, of course verb, was purely hypothetical. Hotairians would never want to harm a constant source of humor.

You do, of course, realize a typical 12 guage 2 3/4 00 load of buckshot has 9 pellets (around .30 cal) and a spread of about 3-4 feet at 35 yards. Five shells is a lot of firepower.

And you do, of course, realize that while cutting down a 223 AR to a 6 inch barrel turns it into a pistol (with a hell of a lot less power), doing the same to a shotgun turns it into a felony.

Do you know why that is?

WryTrvllr on December 17, 2013 at 4:58 AM

Way to personally defeat your own hours-long argument, verbaluce.
 
 

He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

 
(Hint: 10 round magazines don’t jam as easily.)
 
rogerb on December 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM

 
In all seriousness, verbaluce, why are you advocating
 
1) increased reliability of murderers’ firearms and
 
2) the removal of one of the main windows of opportunity for police and bystanders to stop a mass shooter?

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM

A teen age socialist?, he must have been taking his news from the media a little to seriously. That could destroy a lot of minds.

arand on December 17, 2013 at 11:16 AM

BTW, when you see people joking about ignorance the clip vs. magazine remarks that you always take so personally:
 

Likely and fortunately missed lectures on clips vs. magazines from the gun fanboys ‘experts’.
 
verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 1:26 PM

 
Basic things like complicated and prone to malfunction vs simple, portable, and extremely reliable is one of the reasons.
 
With that in mind, mandatory 100 round drum magazine ownership might be a better position for you to take. Do you understand why yet?

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Having the most basic and rudimentary understanding of a topic helps in understanding and debating, but I really doubt anyone here would blame you for sticking with a not-prone-to-jam “all guns should be banned” position so that you don’t accidentally come out on the mass shooters’ side again.

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

verbaluce, one last thought now that you’ve learned this information:
 
If you persist in your efforts to force only reliable magazines into murderers’ hands it’s because you’ve made a conscious and newly-informed choice on the matter.

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

A teen age socialist?, he must have been taking his news from the media a little to seriously. That could destroy a lot of minds.

arand on December 17, 2013 at 11:16 AM

.
News media ? . . . . . hell, what were his public school teachers feeding him?

listens2glenn on December 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

And if you had to choose between handing a madman a pump action shotgun with extra shells and a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine ..and extra magazines?
Exactly.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM

A 12 ga 00buckshot has between 9 and 15 .33 caliber pellets. That means two trigger pulls of a shotgun will send as many projectiles downrange as 30 pulls of the trigger on an AR..etc.

That’s 75 .33 caliber projectiles from the average 3 inch Magnum, 5 round magazine, shotgun.
You seem determined to show your ignorance about firearms…
Are you as ignorant of simple math?

soundingboard on December 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM

dentarthurdent on December 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM

I gotta start reading to the end of the thread.

soundingboard on December 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM

This thread still going?

Oh, I see. verbaloon.

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM

He’s prone to jamming.

rogerb on December 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Seems I poked the bear cub.

In all seriousness…

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM

If only.

verbaluce on May 27, 2014 at 12:18 PM

And if you had to choose between handing a madman a pump action shotgun with extra shells and a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine ..and extra magazines?
Exactly.

verbaluce on December 16, 2013 at 12:30 PM

A 12 ga 00buckshot has between 9 and 15 .33 caliber pellets. That means two trigger pulls of a shotgun will send as many projectiles downrange as 30 pulls of the trigger on an AR..etc.

That’s 75 .33 caliber projectiles from the average 3 inch Magnum, 5 round magazine, shotgun.
You seem determined to show your ignorance about firearms…
Are you as ignorant of simple math?

soundingboard on December 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I just predicted you on the other thread.
I said someone’s gonna throw out a ‘shotgun is worse’ line.
Ha.
So you see those 15 pellets as more likely to kill more people than 15 rounds from a Sig? You’re just being silly. Why would an ‘expert’ spout something that absurd. You base this theory on ‘projectiles downrange’…really?
Please stop.
The scenario in question isn’t 2 guys shooting at one another. It
Again, if one wants to argue that we should as a society accept the risk then at least that’s a rationale argument.

verbaluce on May 27, 2014 at 12:27 PM

rogerb on December 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Hi – How goes?
I don’t accept your theory.
I’m all for guns jamming in these situations.
I imagine you are as well.
But they just don’t jam as dependently as you’d need for your snark to be meaningfully applied.

verbaluce on May 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5