Gun Shots Fired at Art Bell's Property Tonight

[PB the Deplorable]

In all seriousness; what is the big deal? Today, 80 people will have been killed by guns in the USA, and the same will happen tomorrow. Many many more will be shot at, some critically, and others in ways that will render them unable to walk, talk, or function how they did previously.

Art Bell says there were shots fired in the vicinity of his home; How many listeners could report that scenario over the next or previous twelve months? Did/will that get reported? Unlikely. As they say in the movies, there's nothing to see.

I'm guessing you think Art and the rest of the honest citizens should be disarmed, and wait for the police to show up?

As you are fond of saying, what could possibly go wrong?

[inuk2600]

Anyway, since you so artfully dodged the point, which admittedly was set rather comically, let me rephrase and give you a chance to clarify:

Assume that you were one of the customers sitting at a table at a McDonald's (or really, name ANY place) as it was about to be assaulted by an armed terrorist. A really desperate situation. People are being or could be shot-up.
You cower under a table because that's all you know to do. Cower in fear. Because that's how we're brainwashed into thinking.
YET. Hope beyond hope. There just happens to be an off-duty detective, or let's say any armed citizen (qualified to carry, to your satisfaction of course), in the booth next to you with his family. He rises, in an instant draws down on the shooter and ends the assault.  Few if any casualties.
Yours, and everyone Else's life saved.
Bad scenario? What say you?

Yes that is great but the amount of impulsive and passion killings would skyrocket.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes that is great but the amount of impulsive and passion killings would skyrocket.

People are carrying now, when they can - and that just is not the case.

What would happen if guns were confiscated, is the violent criminals would feel much more safe and secure and gun violence and violent crime in general would increase dramatically.  I realize facts don't matter, but the areas in our country with the highest rates of gun violence and other violent crime are the very same places that have the most onerous 'gun control' laws.

[inuk2600]

Anyway, since you so artfully dodged the point, which admittedly was set rather comically, let me rephrase and give you a chance to clarify:

Assume that you were one of the customers sitting at a table at a McDonald's (or really, name ANY place) as it was about to be assaulted by an armed terrorist. A really desperate situation. People are being or could be shot-up.
You cower under a table because that's all you know to do. Cower in fear. Because that's how we're brainwashed into thinking.
YET. Hope beyond hope. There just happens to be an off-duty detective, or let's say any armed citizen (qualified to carry, to your satisfaction of course), in the booth next to you with his family. He rises, in an instant draws down on the shooter and ends the assault.  Few if any casualties.
Yours, and everyone Else's life saved.
Bad scenario? What say you?

I admit I haven't been following this thread closely enough to be sure my response isn't a straw-man, so I'll just say I'm not   in favor of disarming everyone.

[Yorkshire pud]

Anyway, since you so artfully dodged the point, which admittedly was set rather comically, let me rephrase and give you a chance to clarify:

Assume that you were one of the customers sitting at a table at a McDonald's (or really, name ANY place) as it was about to be assaulted by an armed terrorist. A really desperate situation. People are being or could be shot-up.
You cower under a table because that's all you know to do. Cower in fear. Because that's how we're brainwashed into thinking.
YET. Hope beyond hope. There just happens to be an off-duty detective, or let's say any armed citizen (qualified to carry, to your satisfaction of course), in the booth next to you with his family. He rises, in an instant draws down on the shooter and ends the assault.  Few if any casualties.
Yours, and everyone Else's life saved.
Bad scenario? What say you?

And in a none Hollywood world, yes; bravo! Well done the person who does it. However in the Realworldâ,,¢, that doesn't happen. What is likely to happen, is a bloodbath because in the Realworldâ,,¢, 99.9999% of civilians have never been in a cqb situation with live rounds in a training situation, let alone when it's really happening. I doubt most police officers have been in a shootout. I know how to shoot BTW, but I doubt if I'd be able to assess who was the good/bad guy simply because they had a firearm in their hand ( you might not be the only good samaritan in your scenario). Knowing how to shoot doesn't make anyone able to establish who the 'enemy' is. Unless of course it bestows them with special powers to establish that in split seconds. Usually all the time anyone would have.

[inuk2600]

People are carrying now, when they can - and that just is not the case.

What would happen if guns were confiscated, is the violent criminals would feel much more safe and secure and gun violence and violent crime in general would increase dramatically.  I realize facts don't matter, but the areas in our country with the highest rates of gun violence and violent crime in general are the very same places that have the most onerous 'gun control' laws.

Sorry, I just clarified my position in my last post.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm guessing you think Art and the rest of the honest citizens should be disarmed, and wait for the police to show up?

As you are fond of saying, what could possibly go wrong?

You think the present situation is sustainable? Art Bell has posted an alleged event, and the answer by some is to make his home a version of a small garrison. Yeah, okay.

[PB the Deplorable]

And in a none Hollywood world, yes; bravo! Well done the person who does it. However in the Realworldâ,,¢, that doesn't happen. What is likely to happen, is a bloodbath because in the Realworldâ,,¢, 99.9999% of civilians have never been in a cqb situation with live rounds in a training situation, let alone when it's really happening. I doubt most police officers have been in a shootout. I know how to shoot BTW, but I doubt if I'd be able to assess who was the good/bad guy simply because they had a firearm in their hand ( you might not be the only good samaritan in your scenario). Knowing how to shoot doesn't make anyone able to establish who the 'enemy' is. Unless of course it bestows them with special powers to establish that in split seconds. Usually all the time anyone would have.

You do realize sitting in England consuming what our news media spoon feeds you is not all that different from watching ''Hollywood'' movies and TV shows, right?

[Yorkshire pud]

You do realize sitting in England consuming what our news media spoon feeds you is not all that different from watching ''Hollywood'' movies and TV shows, right?

You mean civilians on an everyday basis win shootouts and save dozens in Mc D's,  by dint of their intense and ongoing weapons training? I never knew that. 

[nooryisawesome]

If you want to talk politics of guns, please use the political forum. I generally avoid the area for a reason.

Thank you.

[wr250]

Anyway, since you so artfully dodged the point, which admittedly was set rather comically, let me rephrase and give you a chance to clarify:

Assume that you were one of the customers sitting at a table at a McDonald's (or really, name ANY place) as it was about to be assaulted by an armed terrorist. A really desperate situation. People are being or could be shot-up.
You cower under a table because that's all you know to do. Cower in fear. Because that's how we're brainwashed into thinking.
YET. Hope beyond hope. There just happens to be an off-duty detective, or let's say any armed citizen (qualified to carry, to your satisfaction of course), in the booth next to you with his family. He rises, in an instant draws down on the shooter and ends the assault.  Few if any casualties.
Yours, and everyone Else's life saved.
Bad scenario? What say you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_58YdwEKkZY
or maybe http://www.angryalien.com/0605/pulpfictionbuns.asp

[DanTSX]

Pud, can you please go try to dream up all of the infinite things that could go wrong in a self-defense scenario somewhere else?  The guy has a right to defend himself, and unless you want to call Art irrational and irresponsible, I highly doubt he's going to be accidentally shooting people in their beds a mile and a half away with reckless shots.

You are seriously projecting a lot into what goes into someones' mind when having to make self-defense decisions, what guns can, and cannot do, and what influence they have on the mindset of the person holding them.

You are being ridiculous, overly critical, and above all.......very close-minded and judgmental.   This thread has become sad enough without you trying to dominate it with whatever logic you are trying to prove your opinion that if someone tries to defend themselves with firearms, they will fuck up and the wrong people end up dying.  Please take your selective stupidity to another thread, like the politics forum, where you can bleat about how handguns (which you've likely never have even held) are going to turn Art Bell into a murderous liability.


Now, let's put this thread back on the rails.   GLOCK #1   GOOD CHOICE ART! 

[DanTSX]

I admit I haven't been following this thread closely enough to be sure my response isn't a straw-man, so I'll just say I'm not   in favor of disarming everyone.

Who would you disarm, and on what grounds?

Who is "ok" to have guns?

[AppealPlay]

This thread has been hijacked by the gun grabbers.  I feel like I accidentally wandered into the politics board.

[Ciardelo]

This thread has been hijacked by the gun grabbers.  I feel like I accidentally wandered into the politics board.

https://youtu.be/4kU0XCVey_U

[Yorkshire pud]

This thread has been hijacked by the gun grabbers.  I feel like I accidentally wandered into the politics board.

Oh please! Carry on regardless. As I said earlier, nothing to see. No big deal.

[AppealPlay]

https://youtu.be/4kU0XCVey_U

R. Lee Ermey is a national treasure.  That guy rules.

[shamrock]

ART, we are on our way.  Remember, though, if shit goes down, the coppers should be advised NOT to respond until after sunup. 

Have the girls fry up some of that survival food that Steve Shenk and the efoods gang sold you and a put on a pot of coffee.

Paladin you are a hoot!  Your post still has me laughing.

[MsTruNorth]

Yorkshire,

You wrote:  You think the present situation is sustainable? Art Bell has posted an alleged event, and the answer by some is to make his home a version of a small garrison. Yeah, okay.

As to Art's event having been "alleged," keep in mind that he was notified by text message by a neighbour who heard the shots and then by text by another neighbour who saw someone use a rifle to shoot at art's compound, get into a car and speed away. This is not on Art's say-so alone. 

As regards the current situation regarding guns being sustainable, please try to imagine that there are mre than two options, i.e., there are options more than "everyone has guns and no civilian has a gun.  I firmly believe that history has amply demonstrated that rogue governments can and do occur in the most unexpected of places.  Any people who want to be subject to a rogue government invites such by surrendering their right to own firearms and whatever else might be necessary for the people to defend themselves against a rogue government.  There IS a way to protect society from emotionally unstable people having access to firearms.  Leglslation  to fund operation of an armory in each police district and which would allow police to confiscate for a 6-month period any firearms that an individual whom a citizen has sworn out a statement they know to have expressed desire to harm others with firearms or to be as unstable as the boy who shot the children in an elementary school has access to.  These could be guns the individual owns or Grandpa's or parents' guns that are not trigger locked. After 6 months, the individual would be re-examined by a psychologist and those with contact to the individual are re-interviewed.  If the individual is found to still be unstable then the holding period for the firearms is renewed for another 6 months.  If he/she is found to have recovered fro a period of instability, the guns are released to their owners.  The legislation would also include a provision requiring a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year for any individual who swears out a statement against an individual in bad faith. The degree of emotional instability required to meet the requirement of this legislation would protect us from instances such as that of the boy who shot up the elementary school or the young an who killed 44 people at Virginia Tech.  Many people could readily see that each of these young men were emotionally unstable to a clinical degree.  This legislation would not protect us 100%, would anything?  No.  But a measure such as this is a way of addressing the mass shootings that are usually done by evidently unstable people who others can readily see are emotionally unstable.  The way our laws currently are, the police have no mandate to act to confiscate guns even if, for example, the danger had been reported to them by the gun range operator who saw the unstable boy who shot up the elementary school being brought to the gun range by his mother to learn to use firearms.  The only choice is not "take away the guns from everyone".  Some thought can lead to a thoughtful approach.

[DanTSX]

Oh please! Carry on regardless. As I said earlier, nothing to see. No big deal.

Carry on indeed.

[onan]

Yorkshire,

You wrote:  You think the present situation is sustainable? Art Bell has posted an alleged event, and the answer by some is to make his home a version of a small garrison. Yeah, okay.

As to Art's event having been "alleged," keep in mind that he was notified by text message by a neighbour who heard the shots and then by text by another neighbour who saw someone use a rifle to shoot at art's compound, get into a car and speed away. This is not on Art's say-so alone. 

As regards the current situation regarding guns being sustainable, please try to imagine that there are mre than two options, i.e., there are options more than "everyone has guns and no civilian has a gun.  I firmly believe that history has amply demonstrated that rogue governments can and do occur in the most unexpected of places.  Any people who want to be subject to a rogue government invites such by surrendering their right to own firearms and whatever else might be necessary for the people to defend themselves against a rogue government.  There IS a way to protect society from emotionally unstable people having access to firearms.  Leglslation  to fund operation of an armory in each police district and which would allow police to confiscate for a 6-month period any firearms that an individual whom a citizen has sworn out a statement they know to have expressed desire to harm others with firearms or to be as unstable as the boy who shot the children in an elementary school has access to.  These could be guns the individual owns or Grandpa's or parents' guns that are not trigger locked. After 6 months, the individual would be re-examined by a psychologist and those with contact to the individual are re-interviewed.  If the individual is found to still be unstable then the holding period for the firearms is renewed for another 6 months.  If he/she is found to have recovered fro a period of instability, the guns are released to their owners.  The legislation would also include a provision requiring a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year for any individual who swears out a statement against an individual in bad faith. The degree of emotional instability required to meet the requirement of this legislation would protect us from instances such as that of the boy who shot up the elementary school or the young an who killed 44 people at Virginia Tech.  Many people could readily see that each of these young men were emotionally unstable to a clinical degree.  This legislation would not protect us 100%, would anything?  No.  But a measure such as this is a way of addressing the mass shootings that are usually done by evidently unstable people who others can readily see are emotionally unstable.  The way our laws currently are, the police have no mandate to act to confiscate guns even if, for example, the danger had been reported to them by the gun range operator who saw the unstable boy who shot up the elementary school being brought to the gun range by his mother to learn to use firearms.  The only choice is not "take away the guns from everyone".  Some thought can lead to a thoughtful approach.

First, this would be a new revenge tactic for anyone with an axe to grind towards anyone. Worse, the government would now have a legal and mostly quiet way to confiscate firearms. Secondly, do you have any idea how many people say shit that borders on conveyance of a threat towards another or themselves? Thirdly, and this one is the important one, what mental health professional is going to ever declare someone safe after there is a public record of threat of violence towards another? the answer is none of them. There is no accurate way to predict behavior. If we as humans were unable to lie, it would be a much easier process.

It isn't unheard of, though. Many psychiatrists "bargain" with patients that are resistant to treatment, by either supporting of denying the privilege of a driver's license.

[Robert]

What's interesting is that while Art and most neighbors prosperity are sparse on vegetation, there is one neighbor about a block away, whose property is in stark contrast, being lush and green, like an oasis.

Greenery looks so much better than headstones, don't you think?

[mikuthing01]

lol@ the anti's wishing Art was disarmed and defenseless. I would think that this might bring some anti's over to our side when it came to personal defense but i guess they just want Art defenseless. Anti's are a queer bunch especially the Brits who seem to love tyranny and being raped by Pakies.

[chefist]

Liberal's Solution for Self-Defense...

[albrecht]

I hear them frequently from the police pistol range here in the Bronx over 2 mi. away.  I frequently hear shots when I'm at a friend's in Sussex Co., NJ -- apparently sometimes in response to my homemade fireworks.  A friend in NE Penna. remarks that neighbors shoot guns frequently.

Sure I mean the Hollywood/LocalNews scenario where there are just people shooting guns off on city streets everywhere. Funny you mention, big legal fight between a gun range here and encroaching suburbs/city. And frequently, especially during dove season, between suburbs and landowners. I'm guessing this happens everywhere as cities/suburbs expand into rural areas. Not so much about safety (you aren't going to get hurt by dove loads or someone shooting in a well designed range but noise complaints.) Also the green wackos and anti-freedom types are starting to use "lead" as an end-around for gun control and look towards Obama using his EPA (it was proposed but then shelved) to go after various types of ammo using lead as an environmental hazard for a regulation without Congress (and not just for waterfowl which already happened and made some sense, I guess.)

[MsTruNorth]

Onan,

Read my posting again.  This time read it carefully for the details.  For example, you totally missed that the legislation I suggest should have a provision that mandates a 6-month to 1-year jail sentence for any sworn statement found to have been made in bad faith.  Later in my posting suggests the basis for a good faith sworn statement.  With these parameters, the government couldn't abuse this means of keeping firearms out of the hands of emotionally disturbed individuals.  You're thinking every hot head you've ever conversed with.  This legislation is setting as the bar folks like the guy who killed 44 people at VA Tech, and the guy who shot up the elementary school.  Both were obviously way past being a little hot headed and well into the zone of serious disturbance.  Read the posting again.  Most of your comments suggest you skimmed the posting.

[b_dubb]

More laws won't solve the issue. Art needs sniper teams on his roof and his shrubs. We all need sniper teams on our roofs and in our shrubs.

b_dubb 2016

[AppealPlay]

More laws won't solve the issue. Art needs sniper teams on his roof and his shrubs. We all need sniper teams on our roofs and in our shrubs.

b_dubb 2016

Oh, I see you've visited my uncle's compound.

[paladin1991]

Oh, I see you've visited my uncle's compound.  In Idaho.

Fixed

[albrecht]

Onan,

Read my posting again.  This time read it carefully for the details.  For example, you totally missed that the legislation I suggest should have a provision that mandates a 6-month to 1-year jail sentence for any sworn statement found to have been made in bad faith.  Later in my posting suggests the basis for a good faith sworn statement.  With these parameters, the government couldn't abuse this means of keeping firearms out of the hands of emotionally disturbed individuals.  You're thinking every hot head you've ever conversed with.  This legislation is setting as the bar folks like the guy who killed 44 people at VA Tech, and the guy who shot up the elementary school.  Both were obviously way past being a little hot headed and well into the zone of serious disturbance.  Read the posting again.  Most of your comments suggest you skimmed the posting.

My main issue is that psychiatry, and even less so psychology, is not (for the most part) a real "science" and the privacy aspect. The theories change, the DSM expands (and contracts,) new "diseases" are added/subtracted, and efficacy of different types of drugs and therapy vary wildly in effectiveness (or in reproducible studies.) Regarding privacy also: should your medical records also be made public if you wish to practice another Constitutional right? And why should "emotionally disturbed" be allowed to speak, assemble, vote, or practice other rights; under your theory?

"Emotionally disturbed" is not a legal term, and I'm not sure it is even a psychiatric term. Most people have emotions, I guess under your theory a psychopath would be the only one competent to purchase a firearm.  I guess we should have the government monitor everyone, maybe via smartphone or smartwatch, for any biochemical variation so that if a person might have had a bad day, had a fight with a spouse, lost a sports match, got fired, got a B instead of an A, that 'time of the month', going through menopause, lost a pet, is pregnant, gets frustrated in traffic, broke up with their girlfriend, or any other normal situation that causes "emotional disturbance," albeit temporary usually, and have some government minion kick their door down and seize their guns? Then, what, return them once the device registers have no more emotions or "ok emotionally" based on some government standard?" What precisely is "normal emotion" and what is the cut off on both sides to curtail one's rights? And this standard is determined by whom? A consensus of scientists? Psychologists? Psychiatrists? Societal poll? Congress? Some government bureaucrat? The President?

I think clearly if adjudicated as "harm to self or others" or not convicted as "legally insane" shouldn't be able to buy guns but once you start saying that the government needs to give everyone a psychiatric exam periodically worries me and shades of Khrushchev:

"A crime is a deviation from generally recognized standards of behavior frequently caused by mental disorder. Can there be diseases, nervous disorders among certain people in a Communist society? Evidently yes. If that is so, then there will also be offences, which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not norm"