Honest Bender: another guy who forced a mom and her children out from cover into the aisle where he and the mom were shot.


But only after Jarrell climbed on top of her for a bit.

BigNumber12: Honest Bender: another guy who forced a mom and her children out from cover into the aisle where he and the mom were shot.


But only after Jarrell climbed on top of her for a bit.

Superman's dad is kind of a perv...

HotIgneous Intruder: /LC "christian" is intentional.


How brave and profound. You sound oppressed. Keep fighting the good fight there with your shift key boycott.

Here's my questions for all the gun nuts and white knights here...

1. Should we be concerned that this guy in the span of two months bought $6k worth of guns, ammo and body armor... including an AR-15 rifle with a 100 round mag, and no one selling him the guns in the state of CO thought that MAYBE it was potentially suspicious behavior?

2. Even if you're a gun nut, is it really hard to argue that had he not had the AR-15... I dunno... maybe less people would have died?

Anyone going through the proper channels can still buy an assault weapon in this country. I still haven't heard a single valid reason for a civilian to own one. If you're gonna tell me 'because it's fun to shoot', well congratulations; you have something in common with the shooter.

Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

quiotu: and no one selling him the guns in the state of CO thought that MAYBE it was potentially suspicious behavior?

You might have had a point if he just walked up with a fat armfull of weapons and just plopped them down at the register. Was that the case? Did he buy all the weapons at the same time? Did he even buy them all from the same retailer?

2. Even if you're a gun nut, is it really hard to argue that had he not had the AR-15... I dunno... maybe less people would have died?

The point is moot. If he didn't have the AR, maybe he would have had some other, similarly deadly weapon. While we're at it, let's discuss what may have happened if he didn't have any weapons at all. Then, we'll move on to discussing what may have happened if he had a suit of Ironman armor.

I still haven't heard a single valid reason for a civilian to own one.
What would you consider to be a valid reason? I've been considering picking up a little .22 rifle for range/target shooting as a hobby. Would buying a gun for hobby shooting be considered a valid reason to own a gun?

Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK.

Is that a flat rate of deaths or per capita?

So some other dude helped save that woman who's fiance left her and the kids there and drove away? Ha.

Honest Bender: quiotu: and no one selling him the guns in the state of CO thought that MAYBE it was potentially suspicious behavior?

You might have had a point if he just walked up with a fat armfull of weapons and just plopped them down at the register. Was that the case? Did he buy all the weapons at the same time? Did he even buy them all from the same retailer?

So the fact that he outsmarted the system is supposed to make me feel better? The fact that your answer to 'why no suspicion' is effectively 'lax gun restrictions' kinda proves my point.

2. Even if you're a gun nut, is it really hard to argue that had he not had the AR-15... I dunno... maybe less people would have died?

The point is moot. If he didn't have the AR, maybe he would have had some other, similarly deadly weapon. While we're at it, let's discuss what may have happened if he didn't have any weapons at all. Then, we'll move on to discussing what may have happened if he had a suit of Ironman armor.

We're talking about accessibility. But go on, name a weapon civilians can buy with the lethality and speed of a semi-automatic rifle. You keep saying 'he would've bought something else'. Like what exactly?

I still haven't heard a single valid reason for a civilian to own one. If you're gonna tell me 'because it's fun to shoot', well congratulations; you have something in common with the shooter.
What would you consider to be a valid reason? I've been considering picking up a little .22 rifle for range/target shooting as a hobby. Would buying a gun for hobby shooting be considered a valid reason to own a gun?

You conveniently left out my next sentence, which I added in and bolded. That answers your 'I shoot semi-automatic rifles as a hobby' offer. Isn't it funny how most who own assault rifles have them for protection against guys like James Holmes because he can own assault rifles? Ain't it odd how the solution is also the problem? I can't take you seriously if your justification is a logical paradox.

Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK.

Is that a flat rate of deaths or per capita?

Per capita, why wouldn't it be? Seriously, there isn't a single survey I've found showing the US wasn't way ahead in firearm deaths compared to any country with strict firearm regulations.

quiotu: So the fact that he outsmarted the system is supposed to make me feel better?

Your original question had nothing to do with your feelings. It was a question about why his purchases didn't raise any red flags. I pointed out why it may not have raised any red flags. If you want to talk about your feelings we can, but that's separate to what I was talking about with my comment.

We're talking about accessibility. But go on, name a weapon civilians can buy with the lethality and speed of a semi-automatic rifle.

I thought we were talking about the availability of a specific weapon. I mean, that's the question you posed. But, ok. If you want to talk about general weapon availability, he could have bought an AA-12. A recoil-less semi/full auto shotgun. They sell a drum magazine for it, too. Or he could have bought any of the plethora of available semi auto weapons, an extended magazine, and a cheap but effective full auto conversion kit. Accessibility is trivial.

I can't take you seriously if your justification is a logical paradox.

My justification of wanting to own a gun for hobby shooting is a paradox because some people buy guns to protect themselves from other people with guns? Diagram that logic for me :-)
And you forgot to address my other questions:
1. Would you consider owning a gun for hobby target practice a valid reason to own a gun?
2. What would you consider a valid reason to own a gun?

Per capita, why wouldn't it be?
I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. To address your original question, I don't think there is a simple answer as to why we have a higher (per capita) fire arm death rate. My bet would be on it being a fairly complex sociological issue. Guns are just a means to a end. If someone is determined to commit violent offenses, they'll find/make a weapon.

Now, that sort of side steps the original issue, so let me follow up by saying that the reason such a large percentage of our violent deaths are caused by guns is probably because they're more readily available in our country Vs. other countries. But violent crime is violent crime. It seems sort of disingenuous to blame guns for those deaths. You should be blaming the people operating those guns.

Honest Bender: quiotu: and no one selling him the guns in the state of CO thought that MAYBE it was potentially suspicious behavior?

You might have had a point if he just walked up with a fat armfull of weapons and just plopped them down at the register. Was that the case? Did he buy all the weapons at the same time? Did he even buy them all from the same retailer?

2. Even if you're a gun nut, is it really hard to argue that had he not had the AR-15... I dunno... maybe less people would have died?

The point is moot. If he didn't have the AR, maybe he would have had some other, similarly deadly weapon. While we're at it, let's discuss what may have happened if he didn't have any weapons at all. Then, we'll move on to discussing what may have happened if he had a suit of Ironman armor.

I still haven't heard a single valid reason for a civilian to own one.
What would you consider to be a valid reason? I've been considering picking up a little .22 rifle for range/target shooting as a hobby. Would buying a gun for hobby shooting be considered a valid reason to own a gun?

Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK.

Is that a flat rate of deaths or per capita?

A guy who buys a gun and shoots people is a killer....a guy who buys a gun and waits a month to kill people is a patient killer.

quiotu: Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

Can you explain why you even have gun deaths if subjects of the crown are not allowed to have them?

What about alchohol related deaths like a drunk who runs over a baby....why haven't you banned alchohol yet....well you didn't run over the baby so it's not a problem right?

Honest Bender: quiotu:
Your original question had nothing to do with your feelings. It was a question about why his purchases didn't raise any red flags. I pointed out why it may not have raised any red flags. If you want to talk about your feelings we can, but that's separate to what I was talking about with my comment.

Your reasoning was because weapon sales aren't restricted or tracked. So you proved my point. Thanks.

I thought we were talking about the availability of a specific weapon. I mean, that's the question you posed. But, ok. If you want to talk about general weapon availability, he could have bought an AA-12. A recoil-less semi/full auto shotgun. They sell a drum magazine for it, too. Or he could have bought any of the plethora of available semi auto weapons, an extended magazine, and a cheap but effective full auto conversion kit. Accessibility is trivial.

Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle. If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps. Nothing nearly as powerful or fast. BTW, that AA-12 is only sold to military and law enforcement... how would he get it?

My justification of wanting to own a gun for hobby shooting is a paradox because some people buy guns to protect themselves from other people with guns? Diagram that logic for me :-)
And you forgot to address my other questions:
1. Would you consider owning a gun for hobby target practice a valid reason to own a gun?
2. What would you consider a valid reason to own a gun?

Sure, own a gun for hobby target practice. Pistol, shotgun, hunting rifle... I don't have an issue with those. Assault rifles? They have no civilian purpose whatsoever. They are strictly designed for use in military combat. Too powerful, too easily abused, and obviously too easy to obtain.

I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. To address your original question, I don't think there is a simple answer as to why we have a higher (per capita) fire arm death rate. My bet would be on it being a fairly complex sociological issue. Guns are just a means to a end. If someone is determined to commit violent offenses, they'll find/make a weapon.

It's still about access. None of what you said makes a valid point. Sure, a bullet from a pistol or an assault rifle still kills someone, but assault rifles are much more proficient at it. Giving crazies easy access because some people want to hobby shoot looks rather bad after 50 people including a baby are shot by one and 12 people die, huh?

Giltric: quiotu: Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

Can you explain why you even have gun deaths if subjects of the crown are not allowed to have them?

What about alchohol related deaths like a drunk who runs over a baby....why haven't you banned alchohol yet....well you didn't run over the baby so it's not a problem right?

You're right, we should totally make it illegal to drink and drive... oh wait...

quiotu: Giltric: quiotu: Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

Can you explain why you even have gun deaths if subjects of the crown are not allowed to have them?

What about alchohol related deaths like a drunk who runs over a baby....why haven't you banned alchohol yet....well you didn't run over the baby so it's not a problem right?

You're right, we should totally make it illegal to drink and drive... oh wait...

Driving while drunk is just a symptom of having easy access to alchohol.

Ban alchohol(my original statement). Why would you not be in favor of that?

Giltric: quiotu: Giltric: quiotu: Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

Can you explain why you even have gun deaths if subjects of the crown are not allowed to have them?

What about alchohol related deaths like a drunk who runs over a baby....why haven't you banned alchohol yet....well you didn't run over the baby so it's not a problem right?

You're right, we should totally make it illegal to drink and drive... oh wait...

Driving while drunk is just a symptom of having easy access to alchohol.

Ban alchohol(my original statement). Why would you not be in favor of that?

Nowhere in any of my posts did I mentioned banning ALL guns. Just assault rifles... the guns which are the most dangerous and also have no civilian practical use. Linking it to alcohol would be the equivalent of banning Everclear. Whoop-dee-doo...

quiotu: Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle. If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps. Nothing nearly as powerful or fast. BTW, that AA-12 is only sold to military and law enforcement... how would he get it?

If an assault rifle was not available......

Maybe a Browning(sporting) in .270 or .308?

there are plenty of rifles more powerful then an AR-15(non-sporting).

If the guy went in there with a Ruger 10/22 he would be just as successful as he was with the ar-15
Probably would be successful if he used a chainsaw or brush axe or a baseball bat.

quiotu: Giltric: quiotu: Giltric: quiotu: Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

Can you explain why you even have gun deaths if subjects of the crown are not allowed to have them?

What about alchohol related deaths like a drunk who runs over a baby....why haven't you banned alchohol yet....well you didn't run over the baby so it's not a problem right?

You're right, we should totally make it illegal to drink and drive... oh wait...

Driving while drunk is just a symptom of having easy access to alchohol.

Ban alchohol(my original statement). Why would you not be in favor of that?

Nowhere in any of my posts did I mentioned banning ALL guns. Just assault rifles... the guns which are the most dangerous and also have no civilian practical use. Linking it to alcohol would be the equivalent of banning Everclear. Whoop-dee-doo...

But odds are the drunk drivers are driving after drinking easily accessable beer that has 5 or 6% alchohol.

Everclear would be the equivlant of a Dillon Aero 134....which civies can't own anyway.

Giltric: quiotu: Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle. If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps. Nothing nearly as powerful or fast. BTW, that AA-12 is only sold to military and law enforcement... how would he get it?

If an assault rifle was not available......

Maybe a Browning(sporting) in .270 or .308?

there are plenty of rifles more powerful then an AR-15(non-sporting).

If the guy went in there with a Ruger 10/22 he would be just as successful as he was with the ar-15
Probably would be successful if he used a chainsaw or brush axe or a baseball bat.

A hunting rifle or a baseball bat is just as lethal and dangerous as a civilian M-16? You have officially gone full retard. It's time to stop posting.

quiotu: Giltric: quiotu: Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle. If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps. Nothing nearly as powerful or fast. BTW, that AA-12 is only sold to military and law enforcement... how would he get it?

If an assault rifle was not available......

Maybe a Browning(sporting) in .270 or .308?

there are plenty of rifles more powerful then an AR-15(non-sporting).

If the guy went in there with a Ruger 10/22 he would be just as successful as he was with the ar-15
Probably would be successful if he used a chainsaw or brush axe or a baseball bat.

A hunting rifle or a baseball bat is just as lethal and dangerous as a civilian M-16? You have officially gone full retard. It's time to stop posting.

what makes a civillian m16 more powerful then a hunting rilfe .270 or .308.?

prove you know what you are talking about and are not a troll or some girl using emotion instead of logic in a discussion.

dinch: bim1154: What a Fark hero looks like.

Heh, that's how I pictured the poster up thread that said he'd have used his "bladed weapons" to take this guy out. "You don't know me man! I've TRAINED and sh/t! I know how to put a throwing star through BODY ARMOR!!!"

I could be wrong about this, but Im pretty sure he *wasn't* wearing body armor. The reciept of his weapons purchases shows he bought a 'tactical vest' for something like 60 bucks.
A tactical vest *isnt* body armor. It's just a vest that has pouched for magazines and straps to hang equipment off of. Bullets go right through them. Bodyarmor starts around 300 bucks or so.

AbbeySomeone: So his premeditated frenzy will now cause problems for people answering their phones or using the emergency exit. Nice.
What a dick.

Worse. The f*cker has given in-movie texters, callers, mill-abouts, talkers, screamers, and dickheads carte blanche to run wild with impunity.

AbbeySomeone: Quasar: thamike: I mean come on, this little sh*t ruined Batman. Don't you think at least a little national outrage is justified?

Yeah, I actually heard them on the radio (on NPR, no less) discussing how this situation might affect Batman's record opening weekend.

Just about made me ill.

I'm sure there are numerous lawyers spending the weekend preparing to offer comfort to all those injured in this situation.

I wasn't talking about financial ruin. I was talking about tainting one of the few film franchises that is all about what going to the movies is supposed to feel like. It's grinchy and sinister what that little bastard did. Where was he when Sex and the City 2 came out?

quiotu: Your reasoning was because weapon sales aren't restricted or tracked. So you proved my point. Thanks.

My reasoning was that no cashier raised the alarm because the dude didn't walk up to the register and buy $6000 worth of weapons at one time. Because you asked why no one raised the alarm that this guy bought $6000 worth of weapons.

Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle.

confused_dog.jpg "It's trivial" = it's so easy to do that it's not worth mentioning. I think we're saying the same thing here.

If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps.

I'm pretty sure he'd just buy a machine pistol with an extended magazine. The stopping power isn't really a selling point when your target is the average man on the street. What's the armor rating on a T-shirt?

Sure, own a gun for hobby target practice. Pistol, shotgun, hunting rifle... I don't have an issue with those. Assault rifles? They have no civilian purpose whatsoever. They are strictly designed for use in military combat. Too powerful, too easily abused, and obviously too easy to obtain.

Your original comment was that there's no valid reason to own a firearm. When I pointed out a valid reason to own a firearm, all of a sudden it became, "No no, there's no reason to own an assault rifle!" Well, we can discuss the merits of owning an assault rifle if you want, but that's not what we were discussing.

It's still about access. None of what you said makes a valid point. Sure, a bullet from a pistol or an assault rifle still kills someone, but assault rifles are much more proficient at it. Giving crazies easy access because some people want to hobby shoot looks rather bad after 50 people including a baby are shot by one and 12 people die, huh?

Access is irreverent. When a person decides they are going to kill people they will find a way to kill people. Guns make it easier but getting all bent out of shape about guns misses the point entirely. Why are there more gun deaths in the US vs other countries? Because we have a higher number of violent offenses and easier access to guns. If you take away the guns, we'd still have a higher rate of violent crimes. I'd bet the number of deaths would be largely unchanged.

Giving people access to rifles for hobby shooting only looks bad in a situation like this if you're unable to see the forest for the trees. The assault rifle didn't kill those people. The whack job with the assault rifle did. If you took away the assault riffle, you'd still have a whack job hellbent on killing people. And you'd still have a bunch of dead people.

This might surprise you, but people managed to kill each other long before guns were invented.

bim1154: Giltric: quiotu: Actually it isn't trivial. He went into several gun shops and easily bought himself an assault rifle. If assault rifles were banned, what would he buy? A machine pistol with less rounds and stopping power, perhaps. Nothing nearly as powerful or fast. BTW, that AA-12 is only sold to military and law enforcement... how would he get it?

If an assault rifle was not available......

Maybe a Browning(sporting) in .270 or .308?

there are plenty of rifles more powerful then an AR-15(non-sporting).

If the guy went in there with a Ruger 10/22 he would be just as successful as he was with the ar-15
Probably would be successful if he used a chainsaw or brush axe or a baseball bat.

I just got back from a family thing with the in-laws at Olive Garden.. (wasn't my choice of places to go). This subject came up and the two other son in laws, both anti-gun folks, questioned why someone would have an AR-15. I just cut to the chase and raised up my butter knife in a stabbing position and in a serious tone told them that "if I were to lose my shiat right this instant, do you realize I could stab at least 5 people at this table in the neck before any of you knew what was going on and then move on to the next table keeping the wall at my back and probably before being stopped, stab an addition half dozen or so people?" Any weapon will do if you do it right. The guy who did the shooting knew he wasn't going to get away with it... I don't think he planned on getting caught as fast as he did, but none the less, the right plan, the right timing, create the right pandemonium and one can do a lot of damage pretty quick with the simplest of weapons or tools or anything.

Never underestimate the power and lethality of an intent individual.

Meh, I got people cycling the same justifications about this. I actually do respect everyone's opinions despite the debate. So here's mine without the added fluff of the shooting in question.

Guns aren't inherently bad. Most guns usually serve some sort of purpose. Pistols are used for self defense, shotguns and rifles are used for hunting mostly, and anything bigger is typically used for military and law enforcement.

Assault rifles and pretty much anything semi-automatic or automatic have no business being in civilian hands. Excuses for owning one usually fall under either hobby shooting, self defense, or some childish commie invasion or zombie apocalypse prep. So in my opinion people want these guns basically for power wank fantasies. These people tend to be shameless about it, even when one of their own goes psycho and turns their power wank fantasy into reality.

If you want an assault rifle in your collection to 'play' with it, then you're the problem. Agree or disagree, that's fine. I don't want your petty justifications though.

And I'm done, I got shiat to do.

quiotu: If you want an assault rifle in your collection to 'play' with it, then you're the problem. Agree or disagree, that's fine. I don't want your petty justifications though.

I agree. If you can't defend yourself with this



you need to change your lifestyle and find a new crowd to hang out with.

quiotu: you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys

Thanks. Don't mind if we do.

octopied: thamike: Uchiha_Cycliste: but it's football! football is more important than massacres. Football is more important than kiddy rape. Football is more important than education. Football!

[static.sportressofblogitude.com image 500x239]

what's with the football players in coffins? i've seen it before, not sure where it's from.

Heathers

quiotu: Here's my questions for all the gun nuts and white knights here...

1. Should we be concerned that this guy in the span of two months bought $6k worth of guns, ammo and body armor... including an AR-15 rifle with a 100 round mag, and no one selling him the guns in the state of CO thought that MAYBE it was potentially suspicious behavior?

2. Even if you're a gun nut, is it really hard to argue that had he not had the AR-15... I dunno... maybe less people would have died?

Anyone going through the proper channels can still buy an assault weapon in this country. I still haven't heard a single valid reason for a civilian to own one. If you're gonna tell me 'because it's fun to shoot', well congratulations; you have something in common with the shooter.

Gun nuts also can't explain away that the US has about 4 times the shooting deaths of places like Canada and the UK. But you guys go ahead and enjoy your toys, because as long as YOU didn't shoot the baby it's not a problem, right?

VaTech shooter had a .22 caliber handgun and a 9mm Glock, he killed 32.

quiotu: If you want an assault rifle in your collection to 'play' with it, then you're the problem. Agree or disagree, that's fine. I don't want your petty justifications though.

I want one, so f*ck you.

That about sums up my argument.