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 (1 year 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 01:27:28 PM

spacelord321: This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.


And in every case, the room was full of wannabe Rambos who could have completely altered the outcomes except that their hands were tied by strict local gun laws that would have criminalized them for stopping a criminal in the act of a crime.
IT'S THE LAWS THAT ARE THE ENEMY!
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, herpa-DERPA, DERP.
 
2012-07-24 01:27:36 PM

Carousel Beast: 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.


Nice reply - deflect from my comment and call me a drooling idiot. Certainly makes me think better of gun rights advocates.
 
2012-07-24 01:28:03 PM
Knee jerk dumb shiats. If you already have some, you don't need more. If you didn't have one before it doesn't matter, because you still can't take it to the most dangerous place of all...the movie theater.
 
2012-07-24 01:28:14 PM

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.


What if we go to the people that the FBI goes to for additional training....does that count?
 
2012-07-24 01:28:29 PM

IQof20: 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.


Taking the rights of convicted criminals is fine under the constitution. Your rights can be taken away with DUE PROCESS. Not saying anything you said is false, just saying you picked a piss poor example to prove your point. Loss of rights as punishment for crime has never been honestly contested in this country.

Quit making generalizations about NRA members. I am one and do not feel we all need full autos. I feel we should be able to buy, carry, and use firearms with very little restriction as long as we don't cause property damage or infringe upon the rights of others while doing so. I also support VERY HARSH punishment when people do mess up with firearms because of the potential for harm they do posses. Don't take away rights. Severely punish those who try to take away the rights of others. Make it expensive/painful to be stupid and people are less likely to do it.
 
2012-07-24 01:28:30 PM

domino324: 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.


http://www.usa.gov/Contact.shtml

Get crackin'

Amendments don't write or pass themselves.
 
2012-07-24 01:28:58 PM

Wolf_Cub: s 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.


If he was hit once, he would have at least have been stopped for a while. He may have even fallen. With multiple hits, he likely would have fallen. That's a chance to disarm, or kill, or escape.

Your way worked fine on hijacked airplanes until 9-11. Now anybody who tries something gets the shiat kicked out of him. The willingness of people to defend themselves is a strong deterrent against aggression.

This guy obviously planned this for a while. He was counting on people reacting the way they did. How might things have changed if a couple of people had reacted differently?

I do agree that there will be tragic mistakes.
 
2012-07-24 01:29:01 PM

italie: 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


Took me a couple of those to finally sit down. Thanks for noticing that I still didn't lose control of myself in that one situation. I was 11, he was 13, it was a .22 revolver, and no one got hurt.
/csb
 
2012-07-24 01:30:18 PM

jso2897: 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?


I'm actually pro-gun or whatever you want to call it(I choose not to own one but that's just me), I just think it's really sad that some people out there are that paranoid.
 
2012-07-24 01:30:32 PM

Ned Stark: 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.


Look, more hyperbole.

I'm not saying voting isn't important. I'm saying one mentally deficient person cannot use a single vote to go on a murderous rampage.

Again, I ask, why is it such a point of contention to require a mental health check before letting someone own deadly weapons? Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to buy guns?
 
2012-07-24 01:31:15 PM

IQof20: 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.


And we have limits on arms in certain situations now. What we don't do, though, is decide someone is "crazy" and start taking away their rights in a blanket manner. We don't do this because it's a bad idea - because the proposal is arguably reasonable - but because it's not hard to insert bias into the discussion of what "crazy" is, and make it go from something clinical to something unpopular. "Only someone insane would vote for Ron Paul, quick take his gun away!" And if you think that's unlikely, then you're lying or stupid, because the mere fact that you're here means you read Fark. Hell, screaming racial epitaphs at people can get you arrested for a hate crime in some places. Not because there's any intrinsic harm in exercising your 1st Amendment rights, but because what you're saying is currently unpopular, so the definition of assault has been changed accordingly.

/I am not defending screaming racial epitaphs at anyone
 
2012-07-24 01:31:27 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: 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?


You are remembereed for the rules you break, not the rules you follow.~~~~~~General Douglas MacArthur (maybe)

Just like Brad Manning....an obvious hero to the left.
 
2012-07-24 01:31:43 PM

Wolf_Cub: Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down.


No, he wasn't. He was wearing a Initial reports were wrong.

Even if he were, my friends who have been shot in body armor say it's not something where "oh, just a broken rib". They say, generally, one round takes you out of the fight for a minute or more while the wind is knocked out of you and you're bent over in pain. More than that and you're well out of it.
 
2012-07-24 01:32:13 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.


Then kindly get off this online forum and limit your screeds to those produced by quill pens and a hand operated printing press. Thanks
 
2012-07-24 01:32:32 PM
Link fail.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/07/james_holes_tactica l _gear_assault_vest_threats.php

Blackhawk tactical vest
 
2012-07-24 01:32:53 PM

dlp211: 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.


incapacitated by the tear gas: A real problem.
all the civilians were fleeing away from them and the target: Depends on where you sat.
the pistol I was using had tritium sites on it: Check.
I haven't been shot dead yet: If I am, I don't care anymore.

Most likely I miss. I've never fired while being fired at. But practice makes perfect.
 
2012-07-24 01:32:54 PM
snocone
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.


Yeah, I already have a .357 for home defense and Ruger Millenium PT145 for personal (Although I am not happy with it, yet). Just want something to shoot at range that is farily cheap to shoot (9mm).
 
2012-07-24 01:33:01 PM
Imagine how stupid the average American is, especially compared to you.

Now, imagine allowing them to carry a gun.

/You think they're going to keep it well-maintained or they're going to make sure their trained how to shoot?
 
2012-07-24 01:33:25 PM

Pockafrusta: 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.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and uses it to turn off the lights, open cans, etc.

Not surprising that your immediate reaction is to think about cartoons.


Yes. A cartoon that shows a stupid person doing stupid things with a deadly weapon, which was a humorous illustration on the point I was making. Care to share some more?
 
2012-07-24 01:33:30 PM

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.


This.

/generally pro gun
//generally carries
 
2012-07-24 01:34:11 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: If this asshat hadn't known that he was going to have a captive and unarmed crowd*, he may have just stayed home.


Yes, because he seems so sane and reasonable otherwise.
 
2012-07-24 01:34:20 PM

Tawnos: Wolf_Cub: Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down.

No, he wasn't. He was wearing a Initial reports were wrong.

Even if he were, my friends who have been shot in body armor say it's not something where "oh, just a broken rib". They say, generally, one round takes you out of the fight for a minute or more while the wind is knocked out of you and you're bent over in pain. More than that and you're well out of it.


It is like getting hit with a sledge hammer at full force....even though the bullet does not penetrate the body armor all that energy is disipated against your body. You will get incapacitated for a bit.
 
2012-07-24 01:34:31 PM
Massacres are good for business, that's why the gun lobby wants to create conditions for more.
 
2012-07-24 01:34:52 PM

give me doughnuts: 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.

Then kindly get off this online forum and limit your screeds to those produced by quill pens and a hand operated printing press. Thanks


Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to purchase guns?
 
2012-07-24 01:35:26 PM
Over the past few days I've heard several people say that if the movie goers in Aurora had been armed, Sideshow Bob would not have been able to kill 12 people. I find this notion bull-pucky.

Sideshow Bob was in full body armor: gas mask, ballistic vest, body armor, ballistic helmet, bullet resistant leggings, throat protector, groin protector, and tactical gloves. The accuracy required to shoot someone in full protective gear is not acquired in a CCW class. The courage to shoot back is not found in a book. Instinct is to run away from gunfire, not toward it.

To further complicate matters, Sideshow Bob released tear gas before shooting. Most people do not have firsthand experience with tear gas. Tear gas gives the feeling of suffocating. Tears flow from the eyes, snot from the nose. The effects are instantaneous. There isn't a second or two to prepare.

Sixty shots were fired in sixty seconds in a dark movie theatre filled with tear gas on a group of people who were watching a movie they had been waiting months to see. Even armed, they would not have been equipped to handle this attack.

I have no problem with an armed populace, but an armed populace does not create a populace of Navy SEALs. This could not have been prevented by an armed group of movie goers.

/my two cents
 
2012-07-24 01:35:42 PM

italie: 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


Just for fun,
Still standing?

Machine guns?
Grenades?
Rockets or those little ole' RPGs?
Mortars?
Short round 105s?
And, for the few, 1,000lb blockbusters?

Thank you!
Thank you very much!
 
2012-07-24 01:36:01 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: If this asshat hadn't known that he was going to have a captive and unarmed crowd*, he may have just stayed home.


He went prepared for return fire.
 
2012-07-24 01:36:28 PM
suhaimiramly.files.wordpress.com

/will end well.....
//link is hot like gasoline burning your severed ear....
 
2012-07-24 01:37:54 PM

uttertosh: 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.


You do realize in the teargas doesnt fill a room the size of a movie theater instantly right? Unless you were in the first few rows, there would have been ample time to respond.
 
2012-07-24 01:37:58 PM

Galloping Galoshes: 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.


Although I don't doubt that there was tremendous chaos, one of the shooting victims was reported saying that the perp was walking around and specifically targeting people. He was picking people up by the shirt and shooting them point blank. If you are this close to the perp, then I don't think it is unreasonable to get off a clean shot.

And those that keep saying that he was wearing body armor and therefore he it wouldn't matter if you shot him, you have to realize, the armor doesn't make him a robot. I bet you if he starts taking fire, he is going to retreat as well.
 
2012-07-24 01:38:17 PM
I'm all for guns but having been exposed to tear gas in the past, at night, and then trying to shoot? Yeah, pretty low chance of success of hitting anything other than your own foot.
 
2012-07-24 01:38:21 PM

Buffalo77: snocone
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.

Yeah, I already have a .357 for home defense and Ruger Millenium PT145 for personal (Although I am not happy with it, yet). Just want something to shoot at range that is farily cheap to shoot (9mm).


I believe that is what I said.
I don't consider 9mm cheap.
"Cheap" will eat your piece.
 
2012-07-24 01:38:40 PM
Perspective:

2006 Firearm murders: 10,225
2007 Firearm murders: 10,129
2008 Firearm murders: 9,528
2009 Firearm murders: 9,199
2010 Firearm murders: 8,775

Total Firearm murders 2006-2010: 47,836

--

Annual iatrogenic deaths, various studies, mainstream estimate: 225,000 - 284,000
5 year estimate: 1,125,000 - 1,420,000

--

Annual iatrogenic deaths, various studies, non-mainstream estimate: 783,936 - 999,936
5 year estimate: 3,919,680 - 4,999,680

--

Refs:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
http://www.avaresearch.com/ava-main-website/files/20100401061256.pdf ?p age=files/20100401061256.pdf
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
 
2012-07-24 01:38:46 PM

snocone: Electrify: 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.

Perhaps because cars are designed for transportation, while guns are designed for killing people? Car operation requires training, registration and licensing. Also pretty sure that more people own cars than guns, and certainly use them more frequently.

/make it harder to get a gun than a car and warning labels on guns to NOT aim them at other people, and we can talk

Question, please.
Harder for whom?


Everybody. To get your driver's license in Ontario, first you have to write a written test which allows you to drive with an accompanying driver and not on expressways. 12 months later, you can take your road test at a for profit test facility where they will fail you if you so much as blink the wrong way. Once you pass this test, you are not out of the woods yet. While this license gives you all the freedom of your regular license, you have to take ANOTHER road test within 1-5 years at the same for profit facility with the same level of strictness. If you don't pass within this time frame, you have to start over with the written test.

There were even talks about adding yet ANOTHER road test, however backlash silenced this idea very quickly.

Once you have passed all of these steps and purchase a car, you have to pay an annual fee of $37-$74, depending if you are in Northern or Southern Ontario. It was $134 in Toronto until very recently. On top of this, every two years you need to perform a Drive Clean test of $40 to ensure that the car is in good condition and is not releasing too many pollutants before renewing.

I don't know what the steps are to purchase a gun here, but I am certain it is far more difficult.
 
2012-07-24 01:39:43 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: 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.


A few of us here had the same thought, but hindsight is 20/20. It's hard to say what the situation seemed like to someone there to be able to make that decision.

There is also the issue that I'm now hearing that the theater had up "no concealed firearms" signage. If so, we need this to go the route of Wisconsin and businesses that ban concealed carry need to be held liable for the safety of their patrons.

The main thing that concerns me is that nobody dogpiled this guy. Again, hindsight is 20/20, and maybe the fog from the tear gas grenade was too thick to really see the shooter much, or maybe he really didn't get his back turned to any of the audience as reports would seem to indicate.
 
2012-07-24 01:39:45 PM

spacelord321: This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.


The dark and tear gas are the least of it. It's a _mass_ shooting. The worst part about the situation is a hundred panicked homo sapiens bouncing around. It could be 72 degrees and sunny and you'd still be farked.
 
2012-07-24 01:40:10 PM

scout48: Taking the rights of convicted criminals is fine under the constitution. Your rights can be taken away with DUE PROCESS.


But the rhetoric used to defend vs. any laws restricting gun ownership don't recognize the legitimacy of such laws and therefore denying the ability for DUE PROCESS to exist. Soooo...

Quit making generalizations about NRA members.

And quite making generalizations about non-NRA members. I've owned a shotgun for years. Taught riflery to kids and occasionally hunted when I was younger. I don't advocate complete removal of guns from your hands on any particular point or issue. I'd feel just as strongly against the gov't coming in to remove guns from your home as I would your right to vote w/o any further reasonable justification (and most of the rights to vote denial reasons seem fairly flimsy to me).

However, the NRA AS AN ORGANIZATION specifically attacks anyone who even opens the door to the premise that any form of restriction of "gun rights" might exist. I know you see yourself as separate from the NRA's positions yet still claim membership. On that point I think you've got some work to do.

You support reasonable restrictions on guns and I just put forth the extremely basic premise that some form of restriction of blanket gun rights exists, so let's just work from there, shall we?
 
2012-07-24 01:40:26 PM

Monongahela Misfit: Had anyone in the Theater been armed, this would in my opinion been a shorter, and less costly firefight between a Citizen, and a complete Looney.


Do you honestly think there were no armed people in the theater? If it was representative of the broad Colorado population, there were maybe 10-12 CCW permit holders in the room. If they're anything like the CCW holders I know, they don't really pay attention to door signs (if you're going to be a big damn hero no one cares, otherwise no one should know). Possibly another gun or two held by non-CCW registrants.

Obviously we won't know. No one is going to say "I was carrying (against theater policy), but ran like hell". But, I'd put the over/under on number of concealed weapons in the room at 5. Like any night at any other large full movie theater.
 
2012-07-24 01:40:28 PM

Myrl_Redding: Over the past few days I've heard several people say that if the movie goers in Aurora had been armed, Sideshow Bob would not have been able to kill 12 people. I find this notion bull-pucky.

Sideshow Bob was in full body armor: gas mask, ballistic vest, body armor, ballistic helmet, bullet resistant leggings, throat protector, groin protector, and tactical gloves. The accuracy required to shoot someone in full protective gear is not acquired in a CCW class. The courage to shoot back is not found in a book. Instinct is to run away from gunfire, not toward it.

To further complicate matters, Sideshow Bob released tear gas before shooting. Most people do not have firsthand experience with tear gas. Tear gas gives the feeling of suffocating. Tears flow from the eyes, snot from the nose. The effects are instantaneous. There isn't a second or two to prepare.

Sixty shots were fired in sixty seconds in a dark movie theatre filled with tear gas on a group of people who were watching a movie they had been waiting months to see. Even armed, they would not have been equipped to handle this attack.

I have no problem with an armed populace, but an armed populace does not create a populace of Navy SEALs. This could not have been prevented by an armed group of movie goers.

/my two cents


Link

Probably not body armor....probably not tear gas either but a smoke canister.
 
2012-07-24 01:40:36 PM

soup: Ned Stark: 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.

Look, more hyperbole.

I'm not saying voting isn't important. I'm saying one mentally deficient person cannot use a single vote to go on a murderous rampage.

Again, I ask, why is it such a point of contention to require a mental health check before letting someone own deadly weapons? Do you think mentally disabled people should be able to buy guns?


Because the pre-purchase evals would abruptly be politicized. California man likes to hunt? Torturing animals is a sure sign of craziness. No gun for him. Texas woman covers every wall of we house with warnings amour "them" written in her own blood? She's such a creative decorator! Sell her a howitzer. It would be utterly pointless and contaminate the already janky field or psychology with even more crap science.
 
2012-07-24 01:41:22 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.


Cool story, bro.
 
2012-07-24 01:41:48 PM

Buffalo77: Yeah, I already have a .357 for home defense and Ruger Millenium PT145 for personal (Although I am not happy with it, yet). Just want something to shoot at range that is farily cheap to shoot (9mm).


I wouldn't be happy with having an imaginary pistol for personal defense either.

Read the slide again?
 
2012-07-24 01:41:53 PM
People just don't seem to get it.

The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.

The only people who want to get rid of guns are the government, or people who are woefully ignorant.
 
2012-07-24 01:41:54 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


Regular citizens can afford tons of lawyers and so are compelled to follow the local laws.
Especially ho-ha law-and-order gun-toters.
Therefore they did.
 
2012-07-24 01:42:34 PM
/cannot afford.
 
2012-07-24 01:43:24 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


That' why I hope it never happens.

/Researching what weapon fits your requirements and ensuring competency with said weapon is called responsible ownership, not boasting.
//No
///Kind of a huge jump from stating ownership benefits to opposing attorney talk. Not everyone that carries looks for a reason to shoot someone. Personally, I'd rather stick to paper targets.
 
2012-07-24 01:43:42 PM

Jim_Callahan:

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


Which man-made object was designed to kill people?

Guns were originally created for warfare. Cannons to breach castle walls, then shoulder and hand held versions for close quarter attack. War means killing people.
It would take the average person less than three seconds to draw, aim and kill someone with a gun from ten feet away. The majority of gun deaths are on purpose.

Automobiles and trucks were designed to transport people and goods from point A to point B, replacing horses, mules, oxen and carts.
By the time you got into your car and tried to run me over with it I could be several hundred yards away. If I were to stay put I could simply walk over and climb onto the hood of your car as you tried to start it, or off to one side. The majority of automobile deaths are accidental.

That is no "perspective". These two things are nothing alike. And you are a moron for even thinking about making such a f*ck-stupid analogy.
 
2012-07-24 01:44:14 PM

master_dman: The 2nd amendment was created so we can protect ourselves from the government.


But you can't.
That's what you don't seem to get.

It's impossible, no matter what weapons you have.
Not to mention incredibly stupid to even try.
 
2012-07-24 01:44:31 PM

SuperNinjaToad: the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.
Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!
That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...


WTF am I reading? I don't even...
 
2012-07-24 01:45:39 PM

Electrify: snocone: Electrify: 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.

Perhaps because cars are designed for transportation, while guns are designed for killing people? Car operation requires training, registration and licensing. Also pretty sure that more people own cars than guns, and certainly use them more frequently.

/make it harder to get a gun than a car and warning labels on guns to NOT aim them at other people, and we can talk

Question, please.
Harder for whom?

Everybody. To get your driver's license in Ontario, first you have to write a written test which allows you to drive with an accompanying driver and not on expressways. 12 months later, you can take your road test at a for profit test facility where they will fail you if you so much as blink the wrong way. Once you pass this test, you are not out of the woods yet. While this license gives you all the freedom of your regular license, you have to take ANOTHER road test within 1-5 years at the same for profit facility with the same level of strictness. If you don't pass within this time frame, you have to start over with the written test ...


All you recommend is expense and inconvience for citizens.
Enforcement? Who pays?
Any reasonably motivated killer laughs at your feeble "laws".
You do understand that a murderous human really does not exist within the rules of polite society.
No, I guess you don't.

"Gun Control" is simply a political agenda that many well meaning concientious people are sucked into.
The seductive story and play on emotions is classic and very successful.
 
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