Aurora Tragedy Shines Spotlight On Medical Schools

Friday, July 20th, 2012

Aurora, Colorado: As families and friends of the victims of today’s tragic shootings gather to mourn for the departed, a storm of suspicion is gathering over the institution some say is at the heart of the nation’s recent epidemic of mass homicides, the American medical school.

In the early hours of confusion surrounding the attacks at a screening of “The Dark Night Rises” at an Aurora movie theater, some media outlets and politicians erroneously tied the shootings to the Tea Party movement, the Democratic Party, violent videogames, and enemies of Judeo-Christianity. But as details on the shooter emerge, a clearer picture is coming into focus. The sole suspect in the shootings, James Holmes, was a recent drop-out from the University of Colorado medical school.

Experts caution that it is too early to say that the suspect’s medical education led him down a path ending in mass murder, but many are reminded of Dr. Nidal Hassan, who is presently awaiting trial for his role in the Fort Hood shootings of November 2009, and who, like James Holmes, attended medical school.

“I don’t want to speculate on whether attending medical school inspired the Batman killer’s rampage,” said Professor Lewis Deery of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in an interview on MSNBC, “but the similarities are eerie. Here you have one graduate of a medical school opening fire, with no apparent motive, on innocent people on an Army base, and here you have another man who attended medical school opening fire, with no apparent motive, on innocent people at a midnight movie. Am I saying that these men were trained to kill when they attended medical school? No, but that possibility can’t be discounted based on the limited information we have at this time.”

In a roundtable discussion on the Fox News Channel’s Fox and Friends, Ariel Spain of the Columbia School of Journalism’s Tragedy Studies Department echoed Professor Deery’s caution concerning the Dark Knight shooter’s medical background. “It would be irresponsible, and reckless, to claim that James Holmes was programmed to become an unthinking assassin at the Colorado medical school simply because of the countless cases in which medical school graduates have gone on murder sprees, but many are asking themselves, right now, about the similarities between the Aurora shootings and the case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, who murdered his entire family in the 1970s. In both cases, I’ll note, the murderer attended a highly regarded medical school.

Following a moment of silence for the fallen in the United States House of Representatives, House majority leader Eric Cantor promised a grieving nation that its Congress would conduct a full investigation into the causes of the Aurora shootings. “It’s far too early to say whether the nefarious crimes of the infamous assassin James Eagan Holmes were the work of insidious medical professors, transforming our nation’s best and brightest into psychopathic killing machines. But,” Cantor informed the House, “the American people have a right to know.”

Across the capital, Attorney General Eric Holder convened a news conference on the killings, promising federal aid to Colorado authorities in conducting full, fair, and impartial investigation into the tragedy. “I cannot comment on specifics of the case at this time, and  it would be imprudent for me to speculate on who may be responsible for these horrific crimes at the outset of an investigation, but let me assure the grieving people of Aurora that the Department of Justice will hold all those who aided and abetted this tragedy responsible, from the lowest professor to the Dean of the medical college himself.”

Historians of past calamities reiterated the Attorney General’s warning against pre-judging the case. On C-Span’s Books in Review, Dr. Thomas Waltham of the American University’s Department of European History warned against a “witch hunt” in connection with the Aurora case. “Time and again, we historians see cases in which the people are led, by politicians, the media, and religious leaders into demonizing some despised minority for the actions of one. That only compounds the tragedy. It would be reckless to tie the Batman shootings into some historical framework of past atrocities by medical school graduates, such as the infamous “Doctor’s Plot” in the Soviet Union, where prosecutors showed that a sinister cabal of people who, just like Nidal Hassan and the Batman killer, attended medical school had committed an unspeakably vile series of murders aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing the government.”

Representatives of the American Association of Medical Colleges, which represent medical schools including the Colorado institution where James Eagan Holmes was allegedly trained, were contacted for comment, but did not return telephone calls before this story went to press.


Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

140 Responses to “Aurora Tragedy Shines Spotlight On Medical Schools”

  1. #1 |  Matt | 

    @94

    So, whatever legislation we DID manage to pass would be inconsistent, unclear, selectively enforced, highly complex and… just a functionally worthless, massive pain in the ass that doesn’t actually make anyone safer.

    While that is certainly the problem I was addressing in that post, I think it is the least of the problems of trying to enforce any sort of ban. The biggest problem I think would be that the way people generally tend to enforce theses bans is that they give guns to the least balanced, most aggressive, and least accountable members of society and then tell them to confiscate guns from everyone else (who isn’t politically connected). It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is going to happen next.

    I should have been clearer when discussing the context (I thought I was clear by specifying “converted AR-15″) that I am well aware that anyone posting in these comments could easily make the illegal transition of an AR-15 to a fully automatic weapon in a few hours. This is why I believe the AR-15 should be illegal. See my complaints about legislation above, though. The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 (?) was functionally worthless in accomplishing that.

    Post #82 was a link I gave showing how easily one could create an AK receiver from sheet metal and rivets, making any sort of ban pointless. It doesn’t have anything to do with AR-15s. But now that you have brought it up, lets discuss some problems with what you said:

    1. There is one company that makes a gun called the AR-15. That company is called “Colt”, and they more concentrate on selling to police and military than civilians. During the 10 years the AWB was active, AR-15s (along with guns called “AK-47s” were banned:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

    But then, something funny happened. Gun companies came out with guns like the “Olympic Arms PCR” (Politically Correct Rifle). Though they looked the same as an AR-15 and they functioned the same as an AR-15, they weren’t AR-15s and weren’t covered by the ban (the companies dropped the politically correct terminology after the ban expired). If you attempt to ban it by name they will change the name. If you attempt to ban it by compatibility they will modify the parts. You cannot ban a specific rifle like the AR-15 and expect that ban to stick without banning all semiauto rifles.

    Now, as to the purpose of why you want to ban the AR-15, because it can be “converted to full auto”. Well, any semiautomatic rifle can be converted to full auto. Actually you can convert most semiauto rifles to something functionally equivalent to “full auto” with a piece of string. You can also “bump fire” any semiauto rifle, which will approximate full auto fire.

    This whole discussion is worthless, though, as you have yet to say why full auto weapons should be banned. What makes them so much more lethal than their semiauto counterparts? Just pull your finger faster and you get the same result.

    Hell, they aren’t even exactly illegal now. You can buy any full auto that was registered before 1986, or you can get permission from the ATF to build or modify an existing gun to full auto (which will become non-transferable).

  2. #2 |  Matt | 

    @95

    If we are talking hypotheticals here, let us say that a police officer was in the theater that night with his sidearm. How would you wish him to proceed with the situation? And do you think a police officer being there would improve the situation?

  3. #3 |  John Spragge | 

    @99: A shooter and several other people firing in “self defence” killed a young woman on Boxing day 2005. One of the people killed in Aurora had escaped a shooting at the Eaton Centre in Toronto a few weeks ago. And just last week, two people exchanging shots from automatic pistols killed two young people at a block party. Those incidents all happened in the city where I live.

    @102: I don’t think having a badge would make it any wiser for a police officer to fire a weapon at an indistinct in a crowded place with people panicking. I would hope that a police officer would have enough training to know when not to shoot. Unfortunately, the idea of a gun as a magic solution seems to have infected American police departments with a special virulence.

  4. #4 |  John Spragge | 

    Also @99: I don’t want to”grab” anyone’s guns. If a responsible person wants to own a gun, as long as they store it safely, I regard that as their business. If, on the other hand, you want to regard your gun ownership as part of the process of upholding freedom, or think having a gun would magically enable you to bring a mass shooting like the one in Colorado to a close, then I will point out the (many) flaws in your argument.

  5. #5 |  John Spragge | 

    @91: Eric, whether you consider the number of people killed by gun violence acceptable or not depends, at least in part, on whether you can imagine measures compatible with individual freedom that would prevent these crimes. I will grant you two things: guns kill fewer people than cars, and the North American car culture has a much less responsible attitude to lawbreaking and mayhem than the American gun culture.

  6. #6 |  Matt | 

    @103

    So, if I’m reading you correctly, what you would like to happen in such a situation is for people to sit quietly until the gunman runs out of ammo? Hopefully he runs out before he gets to you? This is your master plan?

  7. #7 |  Mary | 

    @Christopher Swing (#98): You think over 100 responses indicates that the satire was achieved? I do not think so. Reread the thread. Folks bought this crap. Very unlike Radley’s crowd I would say.

  8. #8 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Well, he’s Canadian, right? What sort of plan did you expect?

    He’s ignoring the examples given in this thread like Jeanne Assam, so I don’t expect much from him.

  9. #9 |  John Spragge | 

    I don’t have a “master plan” for surviving a massacre. Nobody that I know of does. In a society such as ours, anyone with a big enough grudge who doesn’t mind dying can kill large numbers of people. If I found myself caught in a public place with a shooter I would probably try to leave as quickly as possible without trampling anyone or getting trampled myself. I would certainly not want anyone to do anything, like opening fire without a clear target, that would compromise the ability of the majority of patrons to evacuate.

  10. #10 |  John Spragge | 

    @108: Right, I did not address the assumption that because a security guard successfully brought down an assailant in a relatively empty foyer in broad daylight, any random person with a concealed carry license can bring down an attacker in a dark theatre in which one or more smoke bombs have detonated. Perhaps you failed to note that Jeanne Assam did not have to deal with the three problems that any concealed carry permit holder, or indeed any police officer, would have faced in this case: the dark, the smoke, and the presence of a large and very frightened crowd.

    It amuses me, although I also find it discouraging, that so many readers of a web log that spends years debunking the attitude that more violence is always better when dealing with anti-social behaviour turn right around when the putative violence comes from private individuals rather than the government.

    I also find it discouraging that so many people invest so much energy in magical beliefs. We are vulnerable to violence. Somebody with smarts and resources who doesn’t care what happens to them can kill a huge number of people, and nothing, not concealed carry permits, not confiscating and crushing every gun, can stop them with any certainty. Some people write about these issues as though acceptance of this simple fact lacks dignity. But dignity and courage come from, and through, accepting reality and living despite the risks, not in pinning our faith on some mystical ubermensch with perfect steel nerves, inhuman perception and accuracy, and a gun license.

  11. #11 |  Matt | 

    I don’t have a “master plan” for surviving a massacre. Nobody that I know of does. In a society such as ours, anyone with a big enough grudge who doesn’t mind dying can kill large numbers of people.

    Unless someone else shoots him before he can finish his spree, of course.

    If I found myself caught in a public place with a shooter I would probably try to leave as quickly as possible without trampling anyone or getting trampled myself.

    Which might not be possible, and indeed most likely was not possible for many people in the theater. So your advice to them is apparently “wait until he runs out of ammunition”. Anyone who tries to stop him might make things worse maybe, so just wait until he runs out. Just sit tight.

    Perhaps you failed to note that Jeanne Assam did not have to deal with the three problems that any concealed carry permit holder, or indeed any police officer, would have faced in this case: the dark, the smoke, and the presence of a large and very frightened crowd.

    Why wouldn’t they have been able to deal with those things successfully? Sure if they didn’t have a clear shot they wouldn’t have taken it, but what if they did? What if they could see through the smoke at the crazy guy spraying bullets everywhere? You don’t know that they couldn’t. I don’t see why bullets going downrange in his direction would be a negative thing, especially because it would almost certainly cause him to stop and hide, at least temporarily. You have presented no evidence or examples in favor of your views besides “IT WILL TURN INTO A FREE FOR ALL AND ALL THE CCWS WILL START SHOOTING EACH OTHER AND IT WILL BE ANARCHY AND THE CCWS WILL SHOOT ALL THE BYSTANDERS”, which might be impressive on your average Brady Campaign website but isn’t impressive here, especially if you only have your own fantasies to back it up.

    A CCW has consequences for their actions. If they don’t have the shot they won’t take it, but if they do have the shot they might, and if they did it could have saved a lot of lives. We already know what happens when they don’t take the shot.

    It amuses me, although I also find it discouraging, that so many readers of a web log that spends years debunking the attitude that more violence is always better when dealing with anti-social behaviour turn right around when the putative violence comes from private individuals rather than the government.

    I’m against violence directed at peaceful individuals. Even against violent individuals, I’d like things to be resolved peacefully if at all possible. I don’t see how this particular situation could be resolved in such a fashion. I do know that your way was already tried, and it didn’t go very well. I also know that you haven’t presented any evidence that a CCW in the crowd would have made things worse.

  12. #12 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @76 – Created a bloodbath, because now there’s multiple shooters, and in a confused environment with smoke, there’s virtually NO way for people to tell the difference. That’s special forces discipline you’re expecting.

    @81 – Why yes, it might make it possible for mass protest to achieve something rather than being viewed as an armed threat. See: Eastern Europe (And alternatively, Libya and Syria).

  13. #13 |  John Spragge | 

    @111 Matt, I suggest you read what I actually wrote. I cited three instances of individuals exchanging shots. In one of these cases, one shooter got killed; in the others, no actual shooters got hit, and in all three instances, bystanders were hit. In one case, several bystanders were seriously injured; in the others, at least one bystander was killed. These instances all come from just one city. Your refusal to acknowledge the examples I have clearly cited even exist make your argument look like that of someone desperately clinging to a belief.

  14. #14 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “Right, I did not address the assumption that because a security guard successfully brought down an assailant in a relatively empty foyer in broad daylight, any random person with a concealed carry license can bring down an attacker in a dark theatre in which one or more smoke bombs have detonated.”

    But you want to act like every attack from now on will be at the most difficult setting, and regulate based on that.

    “It amuses me, although I also find it discouraging, that so many readers of a web log that spends years debunking the attitude that more violence is always better when dealing with anti-social behaviour turn right around when the putative violence comes from private individuals rather than the government.”

    Wow, you have an incredible lack of reading comprehension, then. Sometimes violence is justified. If you missed that…

    I think you’re the one with magical beliefs here, John. But you live in Canada, so kindly fuck off and mind your own damn business. And keep up your plan of being bullet-absorbent, whoever is defending you (if anyone is there to protect you) will appreciate the distraction.

  15. #15 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @114 – A man comes out the smoke, holding a gun.

    Should the security guard shoot him?

  16. #16 |  John Spragge | 

    @114: Please quote the post in which I indicated any desire to regulate guns based on anything. Just because I want to see the discussion of this event framed by the truth, even uncomfortable truths, rather than comforting fantasies about an ubermensch with a concealed weapons permit.

    And no, I don’t have any comprehension problem. Radley has spent years here, rightly pointing out that the police don’t need more armoured cars, more automatic rifles, more M113s, or more military gear of any kind. He has argued, consistently and honourably, that giving the government more firepower and more license to use it will not solve problems. But when it comes to a tragedy like this, so many people offer the lame argument that more guns would have solved the problem, even when the actual circumstance made that so unlikely.

    If you want to make rights based argument against gun control, fine. Just because I refuse to buy fervid fantasies about every gun owner a guarantor of freedom or an amateur sheepdog™, doesn’t mean I think a civil servant or politician should necessarily have the right to judge what weapons the citizenry should have.

  17. #17 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Fine, you want to regulate *the discussion.* Happy now, John?

    “And no, I don’t have any comprehension problem. Radley has spent years here, rightly pointing out that the police don’t need more armoured cars, more automatic rifles, more M113s, or more military gear of any kind. He has argued, consistently and honourably, that giving the government more firepower and more license to use it will not solve problems.”

    OK, you’re just too stupid to realize that’s not the same thing as saying “violence is always avoidable and never necessary.” You pressed the issue.

    “But when it comes to a tragedy like this, so many people offer the lame argument that more guns would have solved the problem,”

    Well, except for the people pointing to actual instances where in fact, it did help…

    “…even when the actual circumstance made that so unlikely.”

    Which is just your (unprofessional) opinion, which doesn’t have any more weight than anyone else’s, really.

    You can now merrily piss off.

  18. #18 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Leon: what the fuck are you talking about?

    I think you got confused somewhere along the way.

  19. #19 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    No, it’s a simple question, which has a very direct bearing on this. You’re trying to evading answering it.

  20. #20 |  Miroker | 

    Opinions are like bungholes, everybody has at least one, some more than others. I personally do not care whether you own a gun or not. Unless you have been in an up close and personal situation like that, you cannot say what your attempt to bring down the shooter would result in. Or even if you would actually have the intestinal fortitude to do more than talk about it. Even if you had been in a firefight before, you still are going to be nervous when you point the barrel and pull the trigger, no matter what you want to believe.

    I think they call that Monday morning quarterbacking.

    I have actually shot a person in the chest, so I do have some personal experience in this area. Have you?

    @95, good way to put it, but some people just cannot accept any version of unfolding events that deports from their world view.

  21. #21 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “No, it’s a simple question, which has a very direct bearing on this. You’re trying to evading answering it.”

    No, you think you’re being clever, when you’re really just being an asshole by adding random changes to the situation.

    There is no answer because nobody can know for sure what they’d actually do or 100% what would actually happen, it’s hypothetical. Life is uncertain, WHO KNEW?

    Are you trying to imply that if we can’t answer your hypothetical question with a positive outcome we must err on the side of what is, in your opinion, caution? Because re: your opinion, who cares?

    What we do know for certain:

    1. It’s not practical or even possible to make guns cease to exist or prevent people who might misuse them from having them. The advance of technology is making that even more certain as time goes by, not less. Minifacturing and a Maker in every home is getting closer, not farther, away. Get used to this concept, unless you plan on turning the entire U.S. into Amish country.

    2. Lying there being bullet-absorbent isn’t helping.

    So no, Leon, it’s not a simple question. It’s just you /thinking/ you’re clever, when really you’re just showing yourself to be the opposite.

  22. #22 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Asshole? I’m not the one trying to get people killed.

    You won’t answer because you know it won’t end well for you.

  23. #23 |  John Spragge | 

    @117: When faced with an argument you cannot answer, trying to redefine it to one you can never works. Case in point: I compared the calls for ever more police armament to the calls for more patrons with guns in the theatre at Aurora. Evidence and experience that tells us more shooters in that place and under those circumstances would simply have made things worse. The argument that at least another shooter would have done something, avoiding the passive approach of not making things worse, has a lot in common with the mindset that calls for ever more aggressive policing. Maybe an answer exists for my argument; however, Christopher Swing clearly doesn’t have one. So instead, he tries to redefine my argument to, and I quote, “‘violence is always avoidable and never necessary.'” I guess he thinks of that as an argument he can win, but I never said what he claims I said. For the record: given the right circumstances, yes, a controlled violent response can stop a violent person from perpetrating a violent act, and can save lives and restore freedom. I doubt anyone would argue with that. I also say this: whatever our wishes, the right circumstances do not always apply. A trained professional in a well lit and relatively empty front hall may succeed in bringing down a guman. That does not mean a confused shooting melee in a dark theatre, or as actually happened in my city, a block party, will not end very badly indeed for innocent people. It depends on the circumstances. Police can save people’s lives, sometimes by stopping those who would do us harm with violence. That does not mean we need ever more aggressive policing, regardless of the circumstances. Sometimes an armed civilian can deter or stop an attack. That does not mean we can look at every massacre and console ourselves with a fantasy that someone with a gun could have “smoked” the perpetrator and stopped it. Sometimes a gun battle just means twice as many bullets in the air.

    @121: Having the courage to face the consequences of your beliefs means not consoling yourself with a magical outcome when you don’t like a particular consequence. As Leslie Charteris once put it, “those who believe the game is worth the candle should be prepared for an accident with the candle.” In this case, affirming the inevitability of the general availability of guns means some people who don’t care about their own lives or the lives of anyone else will abuse their freedoms to kill. And no magic solution will always apply. In fact, in some situations, where bold action would make things worse, we may have an obligation to do nothing. to stay still and simply hope we survive. If you vote for the general availability of guns, you inevitably vote for circumstances to emerge where decent people have no other choices, where magic solutions simply don’t exist, where in order to save as many people as possible, to use Swing’s sneering phrase, being “bullet absorbent” is the only possible choice. A belief in magic, the construction of elaborate fantasies in which an ubermensch with a concealed carry permit emerges from the smoke and saves the day has no dignity; it amounts to giving in to your fears.

  24. #24 |  the other alan | 

    so everyone knows the Doctor’s Plot was itself completely fabricated, yes? Just making sure. Carry on.

  25. #25 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “Evidence and experience that tells John Spragge keeps telling us more shooters in that place and under those circumstances would simply have made things worse.”

    FTFY

    We don’t know if it would have been much better or worse. People can have the opinion that there’s a good chance it would have been better/worse with fightback, but it’s by no means settled.

    No John, you keep trying to control the argument. And that’s amusing, because you already lost it. Or at least it’s rendered pointless. XD

    Because it doesn’t matter what you think. I, and people like me, are going to keep making the tech available that makes the practicality of gun control futile. And we’re going to keep improving it.

    You want us to believe that no one can act to save themselves and others without risking making things worse, and that means no one should act; I refuse to believe that. I should hope anyone that aspires to improve anything in any way should believe that.

    You choose to be (and I say this laughingly, not sneeringly, get it right) one of the bullet-absorbent. You choose to surrender. You choose to offer no resistance to someone that would do you harm. That’s your choice to make. Fortunately, you only get to make that choice for yourself, and not anyone else. And that’s as it should be.

  26. #26 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “Asshole? I’m not the one trying to get people killed.

    “You won’t answer because you know it won’t end well for you.”

    I’m sorry, was “go fuck yourself, smartass” not an acceptable answer for you?

    Sorry, if you want to make a point, just come out and make it. Don’t try and play cute games.

  27. #27 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @125 – Yes, at this point I’m pleased I’m not in America, so you can’t shoot me. Given that’s your argument style.

    Moreover, I’d support people prosecuted as accessories if they opened fire in that kind of situation, even if they DIDN’T murder any bystanders.

  28. #28 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “Yes, at this point I’m pleased I’m not in America, so you can’t shoot me. Given that’s your argument style.”

    What, I fail to comply with your attempted “gotcha” demand, and now I’m the bad guy? Ha! U mad bro?

    “Moreover, I’d support people prosecuted as accessories if they opened fire in that kind of situation, even if they DIDN’T murder any bystanders.”

    But you don’t live in this country, so who cares? And apparently this can’t ever happen in yours, so once again, who cares?

  29. #29 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @128 – It’s a gotcha because you backed yourself in the corner. You came out “I WILL GET YOU”.

    And right, because guns are MAGIC in America!

  30. #30 |  Matt | 

    @113

    I don’t see any evidence of self-defense shooting going awry in what you posted. You didn’t give any links, for one, so you might have been making everything up. Even if you weren’t you haven’t posted any evidence of legitimate CCW holders attempting to defend themselves and then blowing away innocents, its just “some people were shooting at each other and some bystanders got hurt”. Were they gang members? Why were they shooting? Who knows? I don’t know, you haven’t posted any evidence that any of these incidents. And you haven’t given any evidence that a CCW in the theater wouldn’t have been able to easily take this guy down, especially as we now know he was unarmored (save for a helmet).

  31. #31 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Really, Leon? Can’t admit your attempt at a leading question failed? What a sore loser you are.

  32. #32 |  John Spragge | 

    @125: True crime story. About twenty years ago, an outfit called Plastic Engine Technology Corporation started up in the city where I used to live. They claimed they could make completely plastic engines. The local economy could have used the boost, and we all wanted this start-up to work. The mech. engineers at the local university took a more cautious approach: they said the company would need at least some metal. The company, however, claimed they had a secret design and could do it all in plastic. Well, business hype and the laws of physics collided with the usual results, and in the ensuing bankruptcy at least one person went to jail.

    So, frankly, I neither believe the people who claim they can make a working semi-automatic weapon using anything like current 3-D printer technology, nor do I worry that this technology will effectively undermine gun control regimes. Until a 3-D printer can produce a substance with all the qualities of forged steel, it cannot produce a complete working gun capable of serious mayhem. And that would take a technological leap. So… innovate away. I’ll continue to work on more effective and more life-affirming technology. And I won’t have to console myself that an ubermensch with a concealed carry permit will rise up with a concealed weapons permit to rescue innocent people from the effects of my work. I would suggest that people who resort to such fantasies consider finding something more positively productive to do. But in any case, in this case, I think the laws of physics will do a pretty good job of protecting us from guns produced completely by 3-D printers.

    @113: I don’t post links in comment threads. Learn to Google. Plenty of public libraries run free courses for Internet beginners. Start with a search for “Jane Creba” or “”danzig blocko”. And no, none of the people in the incidents I refer to had concealed carry permits; in the American sense, such permits don’t exist where I live. I must have missed the guidance systems in bullets that detect a concealed carry permit, and veer off to hit innocent bystanders if the shooter doesn’t have one.

    OK, this has gone far enough, guys. You may find this kind of fatuous argument amusing, but I don’t. Too many people have died. Go ahead an drivel on about fantasy worlds in which die ubermensch shows up with a concealed carry permit, perfect aim in darkness and smoke, and smokes the bad guy. I’ve met too many parents of murdered children, talked to too many angry and violent people, spent too much time in the sights of automatic weapons to want to laugh.

  33. #33 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @131 – No, it succeeded extremely well indeed. Big man needs his comfort guns, but can’t admit what they’re for.

  34. #34 |  Christopher Swing | 

    “So, frankly, I neither believe the people who claim they can make a working semi-automatic weapon using anything like current 3-D printer technology, nor do I worry that this technology will effectively undermine gun control regimes.”

    Herf Derf because no one could ever improve the tech and it’s not improving herf derf…

    Continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes, John. I’m sure the world will stop if you scream you’re not listening enough. XD

    “I’ll continue to work on more effective and more life-affirming technology.”

    3D printers *and other minifacturing tech* (apparently you missed the CNC aspects, or don’t understand them) can be used to make parts of about anything now, and maybe the entire anything in the not-too-distant future. Fuck you and your high horse, John. Just because you don’t want to acknowledge reality doesn’t mean everyone else should do the same.

    “Until a 3-D printer can produce a substance with all the qualities of forged steel, it cannot produce a complete working gun capable of serious mayhem.”

    Yeah, once again, you didn’t get what was linked to. CNC maker units aren’t just 3D printers, nor is the workshop only one thing. And you don’t need to make an entire anything, unless you’re making something entirely new.

    “I don’t post links in comment threads.”

    That lazy a fuck, eh?

    “Learn to Google.”

    Fuck you, learn to cite when you allege evidence. I’m not here to research your point for you.

    “OK, this has gone far enough, guys. You may find this kind of fatuous argument amusing, but I don’t. Too many people have died.”

    Well hell. I’m not dragging the fainting couch over here for you. And if you’re that butthurt, just shut up and leave.

    “I’ve met too many parents of murdered children, talked to too many angry and violent people, spent too much time in the sights of automatic weapons to want to laugh.”

    Don’t worry, I’m happy to laugh at you from here.

    And oh, Leon. Now you’re just calling names and making insults. It’s terrible to see you melt down like that after your argument failed. You should go take a nap or something.

    Cheers! ;)

  35. #35 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @135 – No, it’s called accuracy. That you can’t admit that you’d get innocent people killed is typical of a gun nut.

  36. #36 |  John Spragge | 

    Three top refuges for someone who’s lost the argument:

    1) Technological determinism.
    2) Inventing your own netiquette
    3) Profanity

    Well, Christopher Swing, you hit the trifecta in one post.

  37. #37 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Freedom gets innocent people killed all the time, all sorts of ways, Leon. The rewards of freedom generally outweigh the risks.

    But seriously, you’re crying with John here and you’re already down to insults and screaming in Maggie’s thread, too. You’ve certainly got a lot of time to devote to this.

    John, I thought you were busy crying about dead people or something and weren’t participating anymore? Coming up with a list of things like that just to make a case that you didn’t really lose, cry about it, and then threaten to go home, is still participating. XD

  38. #38 |  John Spragge | 

    @137: This started off with the nonsensical claim that ubermensch with a gun concealed carry permit could have stopped the killings at Aurora. You’ve produced profanity, tangents, and claimed to be laughing dozens of times. You have still not produced any specific evidence that anyone in that situation with a gun could have accomplished anything but add to the casualty rate. So: get it through your head that for me this has little to do with gun control, which I don’t care about either way. I don’t think gun ownership accomplishes anything but the ownership of guns. Have one if you want, having a gun does not make you you a heroic defender of freedom or an effective enforcer of the peace. You can swear all you want, laugh all you want, make whatever you want on your 3-D printer or computer controlled lathe. Still doesn’t change the facts.

  39. #39 |  Christopher Swing | 

    Aw man, did you come back just to tell me you’re going to fail me for the class, John?

    (And sanctimonious pricks that get all bent out of shape by “swearing” are always worth laughing at.) ;D

  40. #40 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @137 – The odd moment to point out you’re trying to murder people? Yea, you keep up your defense of “it’s a conspiracy” then. You keep pretending that thinking stopping dangerous nuts like you from owning automatic weapons is always bad.