If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Gun sales in Colorado have jumped more than 41 percent since Friday   (denverpost.com) divider line 619
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5855 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



619 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 01:12:26 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.


"Since that dude's killin' folk, it won't make no difference if I take out a couple myself when I shoot back at him."

/this is what NRA members really think
 
2012-07-24 01:12:42 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.


Normally I think pretty much along this line too, but in this case the guy was wearing tactical body armor and other protective shiat. Not sure a movie patron with a gun would have had a great impact on the situation. Maybe a big enough gun...
 
2012-07-24 01:12:51 PM

Galloping Galoshes: jayhawk88: OK, you know what? You want to pack heat at the library or supermarket? Fine. Go pass an FBI weapons training course. The same one they give to agents. You do it at your own cost too. If it's that damn important to you, if you really feel like your life is in danger every time you enter a Denny's, this should be no problem for you.

Fine. You miss the point, though. You don't need a firearm until you REALLY NEED IT.
I would be in favor of an annual training requirement. I don't want a bunch of folks running around with tools they don't know how to use, or are no longer proficient with.


You also don't need a fire extinguisher until you REALLY NEED IT. And you never know you need it until you actually need it. Solution? Having it in advance and being trained on how to use it correctly.
 
2012-07-24 01:12:57 PM
It's a seller's market right now....I picked up an AR-15 last month for $600, just sold it for $900. What other investment can you make 50% in a month??
 
2012-07-24 01:13:05 PM
I'm starting to feel a little sorry for some of these gun nuts who are so scared they have to have a gun on them at all times. Just because some psycho shoots up a random place every few years doesn't mean everyone should be fully-strapped at all times and places.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:06 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.


But in the dark theatre with the tear gas going off, someone mistakes YOU as the shooter! So they pull out their weapon and shoot you dead. But don't worry, someone saw him shoot you and assumed that he was the shooter, so he pulls out a weapon and shoots him dead. Meanwhile, another person sees all this gunfire from a corner in the theatre, and thinks it is a bunch of people shooting innocent people in the theatre, so he pulls out his gun and aims at all the people in this corner. Someone sees him shooting rapidly and...

Of course, killing a person based on mistaken intentions never, ever happens. Just ask that Zimmerman guy in Florida.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:20 PM

Pockafrusta: Funny you said childish moron. So you admit that you have no idea how body armor works and how to defeat it. There was nothing spectacular about this shooter that a couple of FMJ rounds would not have taken care of... The kinetic energy from being shot from MY pistol, regardless of his armor would have been enough to drop him. And welcome to the retard list... You only thing you proved is that you don't have a clue.

/Former LEO


Because there was no need to get high powered rifles to stop the armored assailants in the North Hollywood Shootout, the go-to example of criminals in body armor.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:21 PM

Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.


Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:29 PM

Sultan Of Herf: Just because your response to danger is to load your drawers, dont assume its everyones response. Hell, there was an article on Fark (yesterday IIRC) about a 70-something year old man who drew down and fired upon 2 robbers, one of whom had a gun.


in a dark room with hundreds of screaming people, whilst inhaling tear gas?

No? Well, STFU then.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:40 PM

Tawnos: eatsnackysmores: An alarm on the emergency exit door the guy propped open to go outside and gear up then re-enter would have been more useful than more people carrying in the theater.

It wasn't actually an emergency exit, though it could serve as one if needed. The exit was merely a theater exit, like people often leave from after the movie is over, so they don't have to walk all the way around the building at night.


The articles I read suggested that it was an emergency exit rather than the standard "everybody get out as quickly as possible once the movie is done" door. That being said, even those exits shouldn't be able to be propped open for any period of time. Security aside, it leaves things wide open for all sorts of people to sneak into the theater.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:43 PM

ongbok: Did I say anything about limiting it? I said that the response to 2 or 3 people returning fire at the shooter in a dark movie, smoke filled theater with people running around, and killing even more people with friendly fire, would be a call to further limit guns and CCW permits because it would be argued that civilians don't know how to handle themselves in these situations.

Do you think if there would have been 2 or 3 armed cops in that theater that they would have returned fire in that situation?


Every time a situation occurs where there were no private citizens able to defend themselves, this specter of an argument is brought up. Yet in every case where a concealed carrier successfully defends themselves, you either hear crickets or "but WHAT IF he messed up." Why is it never "see, I told you so, look, the concealed carry guy shot four bystanders, three more than the original attacker!"?

Add to it the argument that "oh, the person carrying would just get shot first" and I have to wonder if those who are against citizens defending themselves are just reactionary and incapable of thought. You see, a guy enters a room with a helmet and starts firing randomly into a crowd: he has many targets, most of which are heading towards between two and four common exits. A person returning fire has one target, and would not be filing towards the exits. It strikes me as ludicrous to think a person who is shooting into a crowd, even in broad daylight, would be able to find, identify, and take out a person responding to the threat they pose.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:43 PM

nacarter: I just love the ITG NRA cowboys that are coming out of the woodwork.

As a police officer, I'll tell you that the TACTICAL SQUAD doesn't want to go into that situation because the only thing harder than a dark movie theatre with 100+ panicking innocents in your arc of fire, an assailant in body armour, and teargas just for fun, is an airplane hijacking. Even if 10 people in that theatre had a weapon, 7 never even draw, and with visibility down to near zero, what the hell are the other three going to do with a Saturday Night Special? It looks real good when you have to explain to CNN that half a dozen kids also got caught in the crossfire - Anything to make the NRA newsletter, I guess.

NONE of you weekend warriors have any experience shooting while under the effects of tear gas, hell most of you haven't even done a night shoot. While it may look easy in Call of Duty, real life is a whole different game. What happens if things go sideways and you wind up with a hostage situation or barricaded subject? Are you cowboys negotiators as well?

Leave the heroics to the experts.


Dude, I'm fourth level prestige...might wanna step off.
 
2012-07-24 01:14:16 PM

Galloping Galoshes: ongbok: Galloping Galoshes: ongbok: Two or three citizens returning fire in a dark, smoke filled room with dozens of people running scared would have resulted in more people dead. And once everything was over and they found out how many people were either wounded or killed as a result of friendly fire from "Real Men", there would be an even bigger call to restrict gun sells and CCW permits because this incident would have shown that regular citizens don't know how to properly handle themselves with guns in these situations.

So is your opposition limited to this incident or all CCW in general? Link

Did I say anything about limiting it? I said that the response to 2 or 3 people returning fire at the shooter in a dark movie, smoke filled theater with people running around, and killing even more people with friendly fire, would be a call to further limit guns and CCW permits because it would be argued that civilians don't know how to handle themselves in these situations.

Do you think if there would have been 2 or 3 armed cops in that theater that they would have returned fire in that situation?

I am not a cop, so I don't know what they would do. If someone is trying to kill me, however, I'm going to object strenuously, with anything at hand.


Even if you can't see the person, and there are 20 people running between you and where you think you see muzzle flashes coming from, you are still going to just fire blindly into the crowd in the general direction of where you think you see muzzle flashes coming from? That is the situation you would have been in.
 
2012-07-24 01:15:28 PM
So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

source.
 
2012-07-24 01:15:49 PM

Carousel Beast: IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.


Voting cannot be used to go on a killing spree by a crazy person.

If you want to talk about "bearing arms" as being your right, then please stick to muskets, bows, arrows, and swords. Thanks.
 
2012-07-24 01:16:02 PM

mallorn: People aren't buying guns because they suddenly think they could protect everyone in a situation like Aurora.

They're buying guns because they like guns and are worried that the fallout will limit accessibility. Stock up before it's illegal.


Well, that's an even dumber reason.
 
2012-07-24 01:16:03 PM

SupplySideJesus: Muta: I want to know when the gun owning community will start policing themselves to prevent nutjobs from getting guns and killing innocent people.

As I've stated elsewhere, the price of Freedom™ is the occasional massacre. The gun nuts will concede nothing.


not only will they concede nothing, they've so dominated the public debate that they've snookered otherwise somewhat reasonable and moderate people into believing that it's a "all or nothing" debate where even sensible proposals from the gun control side are characterized as utopian, un-american, authoritarian, collectivist, etc.

all reasonable discussion about guns is smothered under a flurry of 2nd amendment frothing and tearing apart of "no guns for anybody" strawmen

doesn't look like this will change anytime soon
 
2012-07-24 01:16:15 PM
Okay, everybody here stand up.

Please remain standing if you have ever had a gun pointed at you, or in your general direction. Everyone else sit.

For those of you left, please remain standing if you have ever had a weapon actively fired at or near your general direction. Everyone else have a seat.

If anyone remains, please stay standing if the weapon that was fired at you was done so by a gunman dressed better than most SWAT. Everyone else sit.

For anybody still standing, if teargas wasn't involved, please have a seat.


Any Farker left standing may continue this discussion. Everyone else, we have a nice Beiber thread waiting for you in the queue
 
2012-07-24 01:16:38 PM

SuperNinjaToad: That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.


That's the sum of it. You're more scared of honest people with guns than you are of criminals with guns.
 
2012-07-24 01:17:05 PM

doubled99: uttertosh Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:57:14 PM


Pockafrusta: and welcome to the retard list.

Welcome to the ITG spastik list of "Hey If I had been there at that place at that time, that shiat'd have gone down soooooooooooooooo freaking different, fo shizzle, dawg" self deluding total farking liars.



I know there's "ignore" and others, but I didn't see that list in the options. Is that only on totalfark?


umm, I guess it's just below the 'retard' list.
 
2012-07-24 01:17:30 PM
The standard argument against gun control is that it would only hinder law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still get them illegally, because they're criminals.

My question is, why are gun-related crimes like 100 to 1000 times more common in the US than they are in every country where guns are illegal?

Funny thing is, I don't want a total gun ban, just much tighter restrictions so that nuts like this guy can't get one.

Furthermore, the nature of guns available needs to be restricted. We don't need assault rifles readily for sale in this country. And again, for that "criminals would still have illegal guns" argument, I'm pretty sure the simple laws of supply and demand would drive the cost of those illegal guns through the roof. That means the number of criminals in possession of them would go down significantly. Again, look at the civilized countries with ith gun control and you have multiple case studies showing this to be true.
 
2012-07-24 01:17:44 PM

DeusInnomen: You also don't need a fire extinguisher until you REALLY NEED IT. And you never know you need it until you actually need it. Solution? Having it in advance and being trained on how to use it correctly.


I fully endorse your sentiment. I also have a number of fire extinguishers around the house.
 
2012-07-24 01:17:55 PM

Ned Stark: I'm right there with you gun dudes, relentless do-gooder liberals shouldn't be allowed to politicized this tragedy and start stripping rights, but is it nessecary to take a stand at "I could have got off the shot in a dark room full of panic and tear gas?" Really?


Anyone who says that they would or even could have is delusional. If they weren't there, they forfeit the right to speak about it. It's really that simple.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue, as the whores at the NRA would have you believe. The past week's buying frenzy is no different than in '08; it's not the fear of crime that motivates it... It's the fear of scarcity and/or bannination.

/picked the wrong week to run low on ammo
 
2012-07-24 01:18:07 PM

Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

Colorado movie theater shooting (friday):
-- months or years of preparation
-- loads of expensive armaments
-- body count: 12
-- collateral damage: maybe some people will rethink visiting the theater for the next couple weeks

Coyote crash on highway 59 (sunday):
-- five seconds of negligence
-- single beat-up f150 worth about 500$
-- body count:14
-- collateral damage: shut down major shipping highway for several hours


Sideshow Bob wasn't even the most destructive individual criminal this weekend, and the other guy didn't need a gun or free time to top the body count. Real criminals are apparently more dangerous even without intending to be.

I guess no one cares, though. Maybe the victims don't count on account of being brown and looking for work.

//Alternate moral: obviously, we need to ban the use of automobiles by all non-law-enforcement personnel.


fantastic perspective sir & worthy of
farm3.static.flickr.com
also, your newsletter sounds intriguing
 
2012-07-24 01:18:15 PM
elguerodiablo: So what happens in this fantasy when the cops finally burst in and see you holding a gun with a smile on your face and a bunch of dead bodies on the ground? Are they going to assume you handled the situation or that you and the other vigilanties are perps #2-5.

During the Giffords shooting, a citizen did say he had his gun on him at the time but didn't draw it out because 1) In all the chaos he couldn't tell who or where the shooter was. 2) He was worried that people would see HIM as the shooter with his gun drawn out.

People have to face that not everyone is John McClaine or Jack Bauer perfect.
 
2012-07-24 01:18:34 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

source.


+1 internets to you, sir!

/thread
 
2012-07-24 01:18:39 PM

ongbok: Even if you can't see the person, and there are 20 people running between you and where you think you see muzzle flashes coming from, you are still going to just fire blindly into the crowd in the general direction of where you think you see muzzle flashes coming from? That is the situation you would have been in.


I hope I wouldn't fire until I was sure of my target. That's how I've trained, anyway.
 
2012-07-24 01:18:41 PM
In other news;
TSA will be starting security screening at theatres.
Just "spot checking" at first, but nationwide hiring will commence right after November elections.
Job openings for armed Theatre Marshals to randomly attend and protect.
Many openings to provide Security Theatre at the Theatre.
 
2012-07-24 01:18:49 PM

Muta: I want to know when the gun owning community will start policing themselves to prevent nutjobs from getting guns and killing innocent people.


And what evidence should have tipped off the gun owning community the sideshow bob should not be allowed to exercise his constitutional right to own a firearm?
 
2012-07-24 01:18:56 PM

cubic_spleen: "Since that dude's killin' folk, it won't make no difference if I take out a couple myself when I shoot back at him."

/this is what NRA members really think



Gee Whiz mister, didn't know you could read my mind like that. I always thought the NRA encouraged people to own guns AND learn how to use them safely. I always thought that they provided the template many states use for required CCW training. I always thought they helped fund programs to educate young shooters so they could become responsible gun owners. So glad someone who knows so much about it could educate me.

/I have a CCW permit. I have completed a few training courses educating me on laws and refreshing me on safe firearms practices. I have donated to and attended NRA sponsored training and shooting events and attended others that used their templates for course work. I not only believe in gun ownership, but in responsible gun ownership. Not all members of the NRA may feel that way, but the organization sure does. It feels that ignorant gun owners provide ammo for anti-gun groups and legislation.
 
2012-07-24 01:19:21 PM
Well sure, now that the demo was such a success.
 
2012-07-24 01:19:35 PM

Bendal: Galloping Galoshes: Monongahela Misfit: If Dumb Dumb the Red had been unable to acquire the firearms he used,

Illegal guns are always available. They're just illegal. They'll still kill you just as dead.

Two or three citizens returning fire would have terminated this incident very quickly.

I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark, smoke filled theater means inaccuracy, hitting other citizens, perhaps even firing at each other thinking there are two or more gunmen, and attracting the attention of the gunman to yourself. Unless you're 5' from him and he doesn't see you (doubtful since you're choking on tear gas and he isn't), you are a target. His body armor stops your rounds unless you get incredibly lucky and shoot him under the helmet or arm.

/all more guns in the theater would have done is up the body count


At least by ONE!*


*The style and content of this message have been approved by the ITG National Council
 
2012-07-24 01:21:10 PM

vitamink619: I'm starting to feel a little sorry for some of these gun nuts who are so scared they have to have a gun on them at all times. Just because some psycho shoots up a random place every few years doesn't mean everyone should be fully-strapped at all times and places.


People are free to believe whatever they want - but that's why I don't have much patience with either extreme in this argument. One side holds that i cannot be allowed to have a gun, the other that I am somehow deficient if I don't tote one everywhere I go. How about i make those decisions for myself, and y'all respect them?
 
2012-07-24 01:21:17 PM

Carousel Beast:
How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.


Hardly. Because we *do this already* to other rights. We recognize that there are limits in certain situations. Particularly where public safety clearly trump certain individual rights. I don't hear you arguing that the person shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is being oppressed, or that certain inmates cannot vote, or that there are even inmates at all, etc. are being stripped of their guaranteed rights.

Any reasonable person realizes that an individual taking the absolutist position is the one whose argument is a failure. But I am sooo happy to see the paid folks of the NRA earning their $ today posting on Fark.
 
2012-07-24 01:21:38 PM

ronaprhys: jayhawk88: OK, you know what? You want to pack heat at the library or supermarket? Fine. Go pass an FBI weapons training course. The same one they give to agents. You do it at your own cost too. If it's that damn important to you, if you really feel like your life is in danger every time you enter a Denny's, this should be no problem for you.

Which of our other specifically-enumerated Constitutional rights should come with a similar requirement? Freedom of speech? Only if you take a government-sponsored and controlled course to teach you how to properly speak so as not to offend anyone. Right to vote? Only if you can demonstrate to a public authority that you've properly researched all of the relevant facts from approved sources.

Fact: one is free to act as one would like, but one must also pay the consequences if that injures another party.


Just out of curiousity, can you site a single incident where the use a Freedom of Speech ended with 15 people dead? How about people voting? Can't come up with one? If you can't then your argument is both stupid and invalid.

As for all the CCW fans who thing they would have shot James Holmes and stopped this tragedy, Something to actually think about. Most of you, if you have any training at all, have been trained at center mass shots. Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down. Oh and turned yourself (unprotected as you would have been in a theater, unless you wear body armor everywhere you go) into the next target/victim. You wouldn't have stopped him...you would have died or been severly injured at best. And that is assuming you HIT him, and not a fellow citizen who was running through the tear gas to try and get out themselves. And if you hit a fellow citizen and killed them...YOU would also be up on charges for manslaughter at the very least, because under the circumstances YOU opening fire on the nutjob could and would be consider depraved indifference for the lives of others in the line of fire from both YOU and the nutjob. But if you are ever in this situation, please feel free to open fire if you can, getting you off the streets is just as important as getting Holmes off the streets. because YOU are just as crazy.
 
2012-07-24 01:21:53 PM

El Morro: From my interactions with other drivers, people's behavior at fast food restaurants, news interviews with the "man on the street", and the editorial pages of newspapers, I'd be happy if they made sure NONE of these morons is allowed to carry.


Get shot at a lot, do you?

Telos: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

Normally I think pretty much along this line too, but in this case the guy was wearing tactical body armor and other protective shiat. Not sure a movie patron with a gun would have had a great impact on the situation. Maybe a big enough gun...


That's the argument that I keep seeing advanced, but I think people are missing the point. If this asshat hadn't known that he was going to have a captive and unarmed crowd*, he may have just stayed home. Having more people willing and able to defend themselves (and more important, making sure criminals know that their potential victims are willing to defend themselves) isn't just about stopping attacks once they happen, it's about deterring criminals from attacking in the first place.

/*That particular theater (and more generally, the local PD) wasn't shy about letting people know that guns weren't welcome.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:02 PM

scout48: soup: Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.

I think he was referring to those things being protected in the bill of rights as well... Study history and you will see many "free" societies loose their rights a little at a time through justifications like this. Some take longer than others, but it usually ends with a dictator or other oppressive government getting overthrown in a bloody revolution. Theoretically, you could just protect your rights up front and avoid all of the abuse and bloodshed later. That is, at least as I understand it, the argument he was hinting at.

/our founding fathers really believed gun ownership is essential to protect the rights of the public. I'm with them.
//the owner of the company I work for is a German immigrant. He remembers everyone's guns being taken away. He remembers the chants they were taught in the Nazi youth programs. He swears he will never be without a gun again. He is now a VERY PROUD American citizen and owns a manufacturing company doing about $6,000,000 a year in sales.
///anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal, even when provided by someone as awesome as me.


I don't think anyone is talking about "taking your guns away."

I just think we shouldn't be selling weapons to people with mental disorders. Not sure how that's such a controversial idea. Make it so you have to get a note from a psychologist saying you're mentally stable, then you can buy whatever guns you want.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:19 PM

Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.


I have an Ruger LC9. Plenty of stopping power. Great for conceal carry.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:37 PM
Lookout!
The Internet Tactical Typers are all up in here!

So one heroic CCW permit holder could have saved the day, right?
If he had done so, he would have broken the law.

Oh bother. What a cunundrum, these pesky "laws."
"Laws" are just for the sheeple, right?
 
2012-07-24 01:23:26 PM

soup: Carousel Beast: IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

Voting cannot be used to go on a killing spree by a crazy person.

If you want to talk about "bearing arms" as being your right, then please stick to muskets, bows, arrows, and swords. Thanks.


No, voting can do a hell of a lot worse than a shooting spree. I'd certainly be in favor of curtailing your voting rights based on the drooling stupidity of your reply.
 
2012-07-24 01:25:15 PM

MoveZig: I have an Ruger LC9. Plenty of stopping power. Great for conceal carry.


And you know that the first time you shoot a person, that round is going to cost you and the taxpayers at least $150,000 dollars, right?

/Boasting about your weapon on the internet really puts you into a different zone of premeditation should you ever have to use that weapon.
//Zealous much?
///Heaven help you should the opposing attorney ever find your fark postings.
 
2012-07-24 01:25:19 PM
This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.
 
2012-07-24 01:25:21 PM
GladGirl
Situations in which a gun-carrying civilian saves the day from a madman are far, FAR outpaced by situations in which small children shoot themselves with their parents guns, or in which young males shoot up their schools or families.

While your statement is true, it does not get the heart of the matter. People don't carry to stop madman and massacres, they carry to stop the one man whose is a threat to your own personal safety. And it that case, CCW prevents more crime and violence than small children shooting themselves.

Truthfully it is your attitude that leads to children shooting themselves. The "I don't want a loaded gun in my house or near me" attitude, children are curious or who don't know about the threat are more likely to play with guns and harm themselves. Funny, you probably educate you child about the dangers that strangers can present to them when they are alone but then hide you head in the sand about the threat that guns can present to them by denying their existance to the child (and I am not talking about 3 year olds.)
 
2012-07-24 01:25:45 PM

Wolf_Cub: ronaprhys: jayhawk88: OK, you know what? You want to pack heat at the library or supermarket? Fine. Go pass an FBI weapons training course. The same one they give to agents. You do it at your own cost too. If it's that damn important to you, if you really feel like your life is in danger every time you enter a Denny's, this should be no problem for you.

Which of our other specifically-enumerated Constitutional rights should come with a similar requirement? Freedom of speech? Only if you take a government-sponsored and controlled course to teach you how to properly speak so as not to offend anyone. Right to vote? Only if you can demonstrate to a public authority that you've properly researched all of the relevant facts from approved sources.

Fact: one is free to act as one would like, but one must also pay the consequences if that injures another party.

Just out of curiousity, can you site a single incident where the use a Freedom of Speech ended with 15 people dead? How about people voting? Can't come up with one? If you can't then your argument is both stupid and invalid.

As for all the CCW fans who thing they would have shot James Holmes and stopped this tragedy, Something to actually think about. Most of you, if you have any training at all, have been trained at center mass shots. Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down. Oh and turned yourself (unprotected as you would have been in a theater, unless you wear body armor everywhere you go) into the next target/victim. You wouldn't have stopped him...you would have died or been severly injured at best. And that is assuming you HIT him, and not a fellow citizen who was running through the tear gas to try and get out themselves. And if you hit a fellow citizen and killed them...YOU would also be up on charges for manslaughter at the very least, because under the circumstances YOU opening fire on the nutjob could and would be consider depraved indifferen ...


Hmm, never been in a gunfight and full of opinions.
This is fark, so you go.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:21 PM

Sultan Of Herf: Just because your response to danger is to load your drawers, dont assume its everyones response. Hell, there was an article on Fark (yesterday IIRC) about a 70-something year old man who drew down and fired upon 2 robbers, one of whom had a gun.


In a well lit, well ventilated room, where the intent of the person with the gun wasn't to commit mass murder.

The problem is that people don't see that these were two completely different situations.

I have been professionally trained in CQB, there are maybe a handful of Americans that could take that shot and all of them would still require that the environment fall into perfect place for them to take it.

This means that they weren't incapacitated by the tear gas, were sitting in the right spot to be close enough to the target, all the civilians were fleeing away from them and the target, the pistol I was using had tritium sites on it, and I haven't been shot dead yet. But keep believing that there is a large swath of the American public that could take that shot.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:26 PM

eatsnackysmores: Tawnos: eatsnackysmores: An alarm on the emergency exit door the guy propped open to go outside and gear up then re-enter would have been more useful than more people carrying in the theater.

It wasn't actually an emergency exit, though it could serve as one if needed. The exit was merely a theater exit, like people often leave from after the movie is over, so they don't have to walk all the way around the building at night.

The articles I read suggested that it was an emergency exit rather than the standard "everybody get out as quickly as possible once the movie is done" door. That being said, even those exits shouldn't be able to be propped open for any period of time. Security aside, it leaves things wide open for all sorts of people to sneak into the theater.


You can prop open a door while it's "closed" with a credit card or a wad of paper. Even so, I saw research a few years ago (I believe wired commented on it, but I'd have to go searching) that suggests alarms shouldn't be put on emergency exit doors, as it discourages their use during a real emergency. More than that, exit routes should be the ones people are used to using, not a "special" route.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:33 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

source.


Your source is kinda wrong. Not that they laws aren't on the books, but with the exception of Denver the city laws are preempted by state laws. The only reason that's not true in Denver is that their law has been on the books for so long, and they can afford lots of lawyers. And even with all that, their law is close to going away.
 
2012-07-24 01:26:46 PM

Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

Colorado movie theater shooting (friday):
-- months or years of preparation
-- loads of expensive armaments
-- body count: 12
-- collateral damage: maybe some people will rethink visiting the theater for the next couple weeks

Coyote crash on highway 59 (sunday):
-- five seconds of negligence
-- single beat-up f150 worth about 500$
-- body count:14
-- collateral damage: shut down major shipping highway for several hours


Sideshow Bob wasn't even the most destructive individual criminal this weekend, and the other guy didn't need a gun or free time to top the body count. Real criminals are apparently more dangerous even without intending to be.

I guess no one cares, though. Maybe the victims don't count on account of being brown and looking for work.

//Alternate moral: obviously, we need to ban the use of automobiles by all non-law-enforcement personnel.


Just wait and see how the left reacts when you try to ban illegal immigrants. If the right wasn't so dumb I'd probably vote for 'em. *sighs* Knee-jerking, illogical, reactionaries vs. Bible thumping, social regressive, angry pricks. Ah well, that's a topic for another day I suppose. Either way, someone wants to trample on our rights.
 
2012-07-24 01:27:02 PM

soup: i.r.id10t: soup: How about a mental health assessment for anyone looking to buy a firearm? Is that too much to ask? Background checks don't pick up crazy if crazy was never diagnosed.

Right after you complete a mental health assessment before speaking, publishing, voting, gathering, holding church services, etc.

Except none of those things can be used to go on a killing spree in a crowded place.


A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.
 
2012-07-24 01:27:16 PM

uttertosh: Galloping Galoshes: Two or three citizens returning fire choking on tear gas, puking because of it, whilst not being able to see, would have terminated this incident their lives very quickly.

fixed for realism.

None of you responding with this ITG shiat have ever been subjected to tear gas, EVAR.

I have. The thing you are 'pulling' is your shirt over your mouth, nose and eyes. Trust me.


Wasit actual tear gas or a smoke canister that also happened to make peoples eyes water.

So hard to get details when you aren't witness yourself. Even when journalists and the police are the ones giving the details....imagine that.
 
Displayed 50 of 619 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report