Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5885 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



619 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM  
In other news, the NRA today introduced their new spokesman...

mojoimage.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-24 11:15:57 AM  
Looking forward to some of the upcoming gun shows myself

/Colorado
 
2012-07-24 11:34:57 AM  
Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:06 AM  
i253.photobucket.comView Full Size


Insane, Earthlings are. Never learn, they will. Hmmmmmm.
 
2012-07-24 12:16:46 PM  
So the NRA financed and aided Sideshow Bob with the cunning intention of convincing everyone to buy and carry a gun.
 
M-G
2012-07-24 12:21:02 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: So the NRA financed and aided Sideshow Bob with the cunning intention of convincing everyone to buy and carry a gun.


That's actually less insane than the NRA's argument that Obama will take their guns in his second term because he didn't in his first...
 
2012-07-24 12:21:11 PM  
Have you been reading Huffington Post or any Fark thread about Aurora, CO? The antis aren't just pressing for a renewed AWB, they want registration, confiscation, etc.

Never mind that his AR jammed and that he switched to his shotgun. We need to ban babby-killing assault weapons with extended clip magazines!
 
2012-07-24 12:21:36 PM  
Any publicity is good publicity, I suppose.
 
2012-07-24 12:22:15 PM  
extras.mnginteractive.comView Full Size


Why did they choose ribbons the same color as the shooter's hair?
 
2012-07-24 12:22:25 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-24 12:23:15 PM  
If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million will!
 
2012-07-24 12:23:23 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:23:29 PM  
Buy them cheap in Colorado, then move somewhere like Texas or Georgia, where guns will pretty much never be banned.
 
2012-07-24 12:23:32 PM  
Where's that picture with the caption:

Must go to gun store before Muslin make illagal?
 
2012-07-24 12:24:04 PM  
This is great, because the next time there's an insane gunman in a darkened, smoke-filled theater, there will be that many more people shooting randomly and the number of people not shot will be greater.

Or something.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:14 PM  
Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:26 PM  

Fark It: Never mind that his AR jammed and that he switched to his shotgun. We need to ban babby-killing assault weapons with extended clip magazines!


Don't forget barrel shrouds.
 
2012-07-24 12:24:52 PM  
Are people not aware that the perpetrator has been incarcerated?
 
2012-07-24 12:25:43 PM  
And batman was number 1 in theatres. COINCIDENCE????
 
2012-07-24 12:25:47 PM  
Just curious - would it make any difference in debating the application of stricter gun laws in this context to know whether the shooter had a concealed carry permit?
 
2012-07-24 12:26:16 PM  
redstatevirginia.comView Full Size

Faith in action. Bolt action, that is.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:18 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:20 PM  

MyNameIsMofuga: [extras.mnginteractive.com image 600x458]

Why did they choose ribbons the same color as the shooter's hair?


must....not....giggle....at....this.

dam you Mofuga! dam you right to hell for making me have to book a window seat!
 
2012-07-24 12:26:38 PM  
This is 'Merica baby!
 
2012-07-24 12:26:47 PM  
farkityfarker Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:24:52 PM


Are people not aware that the perpetrator has been incarcerated?


So there's nothing to worry about then?
Then why the call for more gun control? C'mon, it's over, man.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:55 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


this.
 
2012-07-24 12:27:04 PM  
That's it, I'm investing in Smith and Wesson.


/SWHC
 
2012-07-24 12:28:23 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:28:26 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.


ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:46 PM  

uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.
 
2012-07-24 12:30:08 PM  
yeah because now everyone knows how easy it is to get a gun there since most of the news on the story was centered around that fact.
 
2012-07-24 12:30:22 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:25 PM  

Nil Tu Aris: Just curious - would it make any difference in debating the application of stricter gun laws in this context to know whether the shooter had a concealed carry permit?


pretty sure his shotgun and AW were not concealed...jus sayin
 
2012-07-24 12:32:52 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.



except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:01 PM  

MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.


FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

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


In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.
 
2012-07-24 12:33:57 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.


I came here to say this. I mean, sure some are probably foaming at the mouth to be the hero in a future attack, but most are watching tv thinking, "Crap, better get grandfathered in before I have to jump through more hoops"
 
2012-07-24 12:34:15 PM  
Jesus, does that mean more psychos are planning attacks?
 
2012-07-24 12:34:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 12:34:49 PM  

MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.


This!

Suggesting that the NRA had anything to do with Sideshow Bob going nuts in CO is just pathetic.

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. If Dumb Dumb the Red had been unable to acquire the firearms he used, he would likely have created a bomb instead of smoke grenades. Greater Carnage, more loss of life, and for what? Noteriety.

When Loonatics, and Criminals try to drag You back into the wild west, You strap on, Draw, and send them back alone.
 
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.
 
2012-07-24 12:36:06 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:36:07 PM  
Fark, but people are stupid.
 
2012-07-24 12:36:20 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


You are nuts and you probably would have shot someone else. If you were a superhero, you would be Aquaman.
 
2012-07-24 12:36:27 PM  

Monongahela Misfit: When Loonatics, and Criminals try to drag You back into the wild west, You strap on, Draw, and send them back alone.


Yah, I saw that episode of cops, too...
 
2012-07-24 12:36:39 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.


Ironically that theatre used to be gang central back in the crips v. Bloods days. I blame the mexican cartels for making the predominantly black gangs obsolete.
 
2012-07-24 12:36:55 PM  
I want to know when the gun owning community will start policing themselves to prevent nutjobs from getting guns and killing innocent people.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:09 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 12:37:41 PM  
There is no problem a gun can't solve. Thanks NRA!
 
2012-07-24 12:37:55 PM  

uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


Bingo. Panicking crowd effect, plus the darkness, plus the teargas, plus his body armor means not a chance in hell of getting the shot off, and probably resulting in you killing a few innocence in the crossfire yourself.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:08 PM  

elffster: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

You are nuts and you probably would have shot someone else. If you were a superhero, you would be Aquaman.


Please. He wouldn't have even gotten his gun out of its holster. He would have been laying on the ground curled up in a fetal position crying "Why is this happening to me?"
 
2012-07-24 12:38:19 PM  

Dr.Knockboots: Looking forward to some of the upcoming gun shows myself

/Colorado


I would imagine though the prices have also jumped massively in response. Those high demand times are an awesome way to up the prices and rake in the cash.
 
2012-07-24 12:38:39 PM  

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.

Self-defense: Not relying on someone who's probably not there, and won't be for a while, to save your butt.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:49 PM  
So James the red is a jobs creator. Better than congress.
 
2012-07-24 12:40:02 PM  
Freakin morons! It's a .44 caliber, not a .43, and it only has a 15 bullet clip, not a 14. Its not as powerful as the .357, with the double bolt action revolver stock scope sight.

How any idiot can compare an AR-15 to a sawed off shotgun, with a .22, Smith and Wesson chrome plated soft targets with tear gas, and a jammed .432 Glock 9 with a pistol bird shot, is beyond me.

Guns are never the problem, but they are always the answer.
 
2012-07-24 12:40:25 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.


It's so easy in Modern Warfare 3! You're like 4th Prestige, right? You got this!
 
2012-07-24 12:40:36 PM  
Galloping Galoshes Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM


Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.


Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.
 
2012-07-24 12:40:43 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:40:47 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.


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.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:04 PM  

jayhawk88: Galloping Galoshes: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.

It's so easy in Modern Warfare 3! You're like 4th Prestige, right? You got this!


No, I'd probably crap my pants. But I'd still act. Better than being shot in the back.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:18 PM  
Yeah, the gun control argument is weak. With the amount of planning this dipshiat did, far worse could be accomplished under similar pretenses using regular old gasoline in the exits and a barricaded emergency exit door.
 
2012-07-24 12:42:50 PM  
So in other words, there's been a 41 percent increase in vigilante "hero" fantasies since Friday.

As others have already pointed out to anyone who will actually listen, even if there were people carrying in that theater it would have been incredibly irresponsible to begin firing back at the shooter and in the chaos they would have been more likely to hit an innocent victim rather than the intended target. Plus, do you really think your little pea shooter pistol would even make a dent in the guy's body armor?

/I own a gun and hope to hell I never have to even point it at another human, much less pull the trigger.
 
2012-07-24 12:43:31 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.


Oddly enough, some folks were randomly murdered during their meals by a maniac in a Denny's near me, and CCW permit in my neck of the woods is damned near impossible ... so come on and move over here, you'll probably think it's Paradise.
 
2012-07-24 12:43:54 PM  

uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:16 PM  

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.

Self-defense: Not relying on someone who's probably not there, and won't be for a while, to save your butt.


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.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:12 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


Most of the theories of the extreme pro/anti - gun people seem to be based on fantasy scenarios - it's nothing new.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:16 PM  

elffster: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

You are nuts and you probably would have shot someone else. If you were a superhero, you would be Aquaman.


Some of you people are terrifyingly delusional. A dark theatre, people crowded into seats, a gas bomb goes off, people running everywhere, and you think that an armed civilian would have the skill and clarity of thought to somehow take out the madman with an automatic weapon? Not going to happen. It's these delusional thoughts of perceived heroism that keep real talk on gun control from progressing in this country. 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.

I'm not saying that we need to ban guns entirely, nor are many pro-gun-control advocates. Instead, why don't we learn a thing from countries like Switzerland or Norway (sure, bring up the Norway mass killer, but he was an anomaly), where rates of gun possession are very high, yet rates of gun-related violence are very low. Require training and course refreshers, ban automatic weapons, require disassembly when in a private home - these are steps that can help cut back on gun violence while still giving you trigger-happy nuts that sense of security you crave.
 
2012-07-24 12:45:17 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:01 PM  
I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:06 PM  
Since the Declaration of Inderpendance was written in the 17th century, I think 2nd amendment should apply only to weapons available at that time. Wanna bear arms? Here's your bow, your arrows, your sword, and your catapult. Now fark off.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:13 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.


As I've stated elsewhere, the price of Freedom™ is the occasional massacre. The gun nuts will concede nothing.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:16 PM  

brap: [i253.photobucket.com image 600x438]

Insane, Earthlings are. Never learn, they will. Hmmmmmm.


Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
 
2012-07-24 12:46:18 PM  
Look at it this way, he was a regular responsible gun owner until he shot 13 people and injured another 50-odd.
 
2012-07-24 12:47:41 PM  

Antimatter: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Bingo. Panicking crowd effect, plus the darkness, plus the teargas, plus his body armor means not a chance in hell of getting the shot off, and probably resulting in you killing a few innocence in the crossfire yourself.


Well fark, I can see his head!
 
2012-07-24 12:47:42 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


but we don't have gun control, and yet here we are, yet again. funny that

excellent strawman tho
 
2012-07-24 12:48:32 PM  

doubled99: Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.



I refuse to believe that there are any average farkers.
 
2012-07-24 12:48:47 PM  

Al_Ed: I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.


Yeah, but what if he respawns a minute later with a flamethrower?
 
2012-07-24 12:49:02 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.


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.

Nil Tu Aris: Just curious - would it make any difference in debating the application of stricter gun laws in this context to know whether the shooter had a concealed carry permit?


Probably not. The incidence of folks who go through all the work and effort to get permits committing crimes is so low as to be negligible. Also, shooter appeared to be a nutbar.

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.


How about a voter education quiz prior to casting a vote? Or a poll tax?
 
2012-07-24 12:49:02 PM  

ongbok: 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.

Self-defense: Not relying on someone who's probably not there, and won't be for a while, to save your butt.

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 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.
 
2012-07-24 12:49:42 PM  
Me? I'm always packing with my 9 in my pants. I'd all ninja behind him, crawl slowly. I always got my trusty gas mask with me too. Bam bam bam. Head shot. COD. Achievement unlocked mass murderer.
 
2012-07-24 12:50:08 PM  

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


So have I. You can't see shiat. And it hurts like hell.
 
2012-07-24 12:50:47 PM  

uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


Not what you would have done, He means someone with balls... and welcome to the retard list.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:12 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.


Well, in the fantasy you mention, i guess it would be worth it if you were able to stop the shooter from killing innocent people.
 
2012-07-24 12:51:26 PM  
I see the 101st Chairborne Division is out in full force.

pursuingholiness.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-24 12:52:05 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.

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.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:28 PM  

wookiee cookie: Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.

but we don't have gun control, and yet here we are, yet again. funny that

excellent strawman tho


Norway has gun control, and yet there they are.

Schools are gun-free zones, and yet they regularly have higher-count spree killings than almost any other location.

We have traffic laws, and yet our farmer's markets still aren't safe from old people.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:47 PM  
ahh yes.. because the direct counter action to a 'former' law abiding citizen who legally purchase guns and then massacre a bunch of folks is to have even more citizens buy even more guns arming themselves to the teeth... yes makes perfect sense!!!
 
2012-07-24 12:52:53 PM  

uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


I agree with that last one. I carry, and I've experienced tear gas. If I were in the theatre, the LAST thing I would've done would be to draw and fire. It's dark, there's confusing light sources (the screen), confusion, people darting this way and that. Add to this mix an incapacitating agent, and all someone'd do is add to the body count. Maybe if the dude were within spitting distance, I may have attempted, but other than that, I'd have been @ssh0les and elbows getting out of there too.

And yes, I consider myself well-trained, I have taken the FBI equivalent course and am an alternate on my club's PPC league, so I am not spewing ITG nonsense here.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:59 PM  

GladGirl: Require training and course refreshers, ban automatic weapons, require disassembly when in a private home - these are steps that can help cut back on gun violence while still giving you trigger-happy nuts that sense of security you crave.


Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since the NFA, and effectively outlawed since the 1986 FOPA.

If you don't know either of those two acronyms and what they do, then you should probably shut up.
 
2012-07-24 12:53:34 PM  

Pockafrusta: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Not what you would have done, He means someone with balls... and welcome to the retard list.


You know, from a debating point of view, that isn't a terribly convincing response. Are you asserting that a person blinded by teargas can see through their testicles? That would be cool - but my balls can't see a damn thing - blind as bats, they are.
 
2012-07-24 12:54:05 PM  

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
 
2012-07-24 12:54:42 PM  

Fark It: GladGirl: Require training and course refreshers, ban automatic weapons, require disassembly when in a private home - these are steps that can help cut back on gun violence while still giving you trigger-happy nuts that sense of security you crave.

Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since the NFA, and effectively outlawed since the 1986 FOPA.

If you don't know either of those two acronyms and what they do, then you should probably shut up.


I know! It's a .44 caliber, not a .43, and it only has a 15 bullet clip, not a 14. Its not as powerful as the .357, with the double bolt action revolver stock scope sight.

How any idiot can compare an AR-15 to a sawed off shotgun, with a .22, Smith and Wesson chrome plated soft targets with tear gas, and a jammed .432 Glock 9 with a pistol bird shot, is beyond me.
 
2012-07-24 12:54:59 PM  

Pockafrusta: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Not what you would have done, He means someone with balls... and welcome to the retard list.


A truly tough and determined person with a CCW would have been able to draw and fire and possibly realize that the shooter was wearing body armor before he died.

Really, these idiotic ITG posts just confirm every bad stereotype about gun owners. Stop making normal people look bad you childish morons.
 
2012-07-24 12:55:11 PM  

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
 
2012-07-24 12:56:14 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.


which is an even more ridicuous notion,.. the odds of this world running out of firearms or companies stop manufacturing them is about as good as roaches going extinct.
 
2012-07-24 12:56:28 PM  
I carry a gun because cops are too heavy.

/Former LEO
//Expert marksmen
 
2012-07-24 12:56:32 PM  

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


How does law-abiding, gun-carrying, return-firing citizen #1 know that law-abiding, gun-carrying, return-firing citizen #2 isn't an accomplice in a crowded, dark, smoke-filled movie theater? Seems you are better off having exactly one law-abiding citizen in any room with a gun.
 
2012-07-24 12:57:01 PM  

uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


Screw that. I'd have shiat on someone else' panties. Because you know the gunman will stop, think to himself, 'what the fark is that sick pervert doing to that girl?' and then I'd escape in the confusion.
 
2012-07-24 12:57:02 PM  

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


He may not even be opposed to them. I am not opposed to CCWs. But I don't think they would have helped in this scenario. I don't think it's an argument for or against them.
 
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.
 
2012-07-24 12:57:27 PM  
We need more George Zimmermans
 
2012-07-24 12:57:34 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


If only Colorado were so enlightened to be considered a "gun-friendly" state, this never would have happened...

oh, wait...

/Gun supporter, but this whole idea of "more guns fixes the problem" is a farce...
 
2012-07-24 12:58:40 PM  
If you really wanted to save lives, you'd walk around with a defibrillator.
 
2012-07-24 12:58:43 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: ahh yes.. because the direct counter action to a 'former' law abiding citizen who legally purchase guns and then massacre a bunch of folks is to have even more citizens buy even more guns arming themselves to the teeth... yes makes perfect sense!!!


Your status quo just ended up with a bunch of dead folks. Chicago has strict gun laws and lots of bodies in the street.
If you can't defend yourself, you are at the mercy of anyone who wants to take advantage of you. It was true in the schoolyard and it's true everywhere else in every situation. In law, your lawyer, your "hired gun," protects you from being taken advantage of. He's trained in that kind of conflict. If you can't protect yourself physically, you can be taken advantage of. People making the choice to defend themselves makes sense. I don't advocate anyone just picking up a gun; I would recommend continual training so as not to be more of a danger, but I do think it's a good idea.
 
2012-07-24 12:58:56 PM  

Antimatter: Bingo. Panicking crowd effect, plus the darkness, plus the teargas, plus his body armor means not a chance in hell of getting the shot off, and probably resulting in you killing a few innocence in the crossfire yourself.


He wasn't actually wearing body armor. Apparently someone straps on a tac-vest, and the media reports it as body armor.
 
2012-07-24 12:59:06 PM  
i.huffpost.comView Full Size


Or maybe, just maybe, they learned their lesson from this guy, Samuel Williams, bent knees, two handed grip and I'm going to bet both eyes open and squeezing the trigger.
 
2012-07-24 12:59:31 PM  

ongbok: 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.

Self-defense: Not relying on someone who's probably not there, and won't be for a while, to save your butt.

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.


I guess I'm just not a pessimist. I know how to handle a firearm correctly, with both respect for it, and for Life. Am I the only one who has a sense of civic responsibility in my generation? Say it isn't so.
I do honestly believe that in our Nation, people with sound judgement still outnumber the dumb people. Despite Media focus on the latter.
 
2012-07-24 12:59:43 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.


in other words, america is playing out one of its favorite kabuki performances: "reactionary paranoia and batshiat delusions"
 
2012-07-24 01:00:20 PM  

toraque: Screw that. I'd have shiat on someone else' panties. Because you know the gunman will stop, think to himself, 'what the fark is that sick pervert doing to that girl?' and then I'd escape in the confusion.


Now that¨s super funny.... and quite smrt. :-D
 
2012-07-24 01:01:59 PM  
Let's once again discuss the concept of "just because I have the gun, does not mean i should use the gun..."
 
2012-07-24 01:02:02 PM  

uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


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.
 
2012-07-24 01:02:03 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 01:02:34 PM  

GladGirl: madman with an automatic weapon?


Wut?
 
2012-07-24 01:02:56 PM  
Why wouldn't they? Darkie's gonna try to come take away their guns fer sure now.
 
2012-07-24 01:03:09 PM  
I don't think, in this instance, gun control would have mattered much either way. By far most people prefer not to carry weapons even when they can legally.

I have no problem with people owning and even carrying guns.

It would be nice if the people allowed to do so could be regulated.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of fanatics out there that would use ANY regulation as a foot in the door to abolish guns. So, unfortunately they have left pro gun people with few options.

Stuff like this happens, no matter what you do.
 
2012-07-24 01:04:22 PM  

redlegrick: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.


except, IRL: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

I agree with that last one. I carry, and I've experienced tear gas. If I were in the theatre, the LAST thing I would've done would be to draw and fire. It's dark, there's confusing light sources (the screen), confusion, people darting this way and that. Add to this mix an incapacitating agent, and all someone'd do is add to the body count. Maybe if the dude were within spitting distance, I may have attempted, but other than that, I'd have been @ssh0les and elbows getting out of there too.

And yes, I consider myself well-trained, I have taken the FBI equivalent course and am an alternate on my club's PPC league, so I am not spewing ITG nonsense here.


amen, although one FBI equivalent course does not make one "Well-trained"...I've taken several dozen law enforcement training courses, and shoot competition regularly, that still doesn't make me "well trained", just someone interested in being good with the tools he chooses to carry, since i have a lot of textbook experience, little actual street experience in shooting at things or getting shot at...
 
2012-07-24 01:04:25 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


There would be a strong possibility for confusion if someone didn't see the killer enter.
Helmets don't protect well from bullets, they're primarily for shrapnel protection. You hit him in the head, he knows it.
I'd still like a chance at a guy who's shooting at me, even if he's armored. The alternative is to die.
 
2012-07-24 01:04:53 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

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

In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.


You sound frightened.
 
2012-07-24 01:05:11 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 01:05:27 PM  

doubled99: Galloping Galoshes Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM


Bit'O'Gristle: /yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

I endorse this message. I like the ones that suggest you run. Last time I checked, you can't outrun a bullet.
I was always taught: run away from a knife, run toward a gun. If you can get inside of about 6 feet, you have a good chance. And throw anything you can reach in the gunman's face.

Of course, if you have a weapon and training, just pop him. From cover.

Please. The average Farker is offended by the thought that anyone would ever do anything in a violent situation. "You're dreaming, internet tough guy!"
Faking Bruce Lee could be in a thread here and all he'd get are "ITG" hurled at him.


bruce lee didn't use guns nor advocate gun ownership saturation of the public

/the more you know
 
2012-07-24 01:05:33 PM  

GladGirl: Some of you people are terrifyingly delusional. A dark theatre, people crowded into seats, a gas bomb goes off, people running everywhere, and you think that an armed civilian would have the skill and clarity of thought to somehow take out the madman with an automatic weapon?

Who had an automatic weapon? Actually, I wish the guy did, he would have shot maybe one person and then unloaded the rest of his rounds into the ceiling.


I'm not saying that we need to ban guns entirely, nor are many pro-gun-control advocates. Instead, why don't we learn a thing from countries like Switzerland or Norway (sure, bring up the Norway mass killer, but he was an anomaly),

And so was the guy here. He was an anomaly, but I like how you can ignore one while suggesting the other is a result of our laws.


where rates of gun possession are very high, yet rates of gun-related violence are very low. Require training and course refreshers, ban automatic weapons, require disassembly when in a private home - these are steps that can help cut back on gun violence while still giving you trigger-happy nuts that sense of security you crave.

You have no idea what you're talking about. But we have to DO SOMETHING, amirite?
 
2012-07-24 01:05:39 PM  
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?
 
2012-07-24 01:05:45 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.


Every emergency door I've seen in Louisiana has an Alarm. Is it not a requirement in CO?
 
2012-07-24 01:06:28 PM  
This incident is a terrible example to base arguments on. It is highly unlikely that either restrictive gun laws or armed citizens could have prevented this - and it's a vanishingly rare event - never a good basis for policy-making.
 
2012-07-24 01:06:29 PM  

jso2897: He may not even be opposed to them. I am not opposed to CCWs. But I don't think they would have helped in this scenario. I don't think it's an argument for or against them.


Maybe. I don't want to go down without a fight. And I don't want to wait until I'm backed into a corner.
 
2012-07-24 01:06:33 PM  

ronaprhys: 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.

How about a voter education quiz prior to casting a vote? Or a poll tax?


OK, so you're equating voting to the right to bear arms. Got it.

So let's allow anyone to own a tank. Or a RPG. Or a nuke. Since "arms" as written in the 18th century clearly was meant to cover every single possible future weapon. Oh, and even though they didn't have any real understanding of people with mental problems back then, we should just not worry about if that guy buying a few automatic rifles, handguns, and a shotgun or two is crazy.

In fact, let's do nothing since people die all the time anyway. Gotta let real 'Muricans play with their toys.
 
2012-07-24 01:06:44 PM  

odinsposse: Pockafrusta: you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

Not what you would have done, He means someone with balls... and welcome to the retard list.

A truly tough and determined person with a CCW would have been able to draw and fire and possibly realize that the shooter was wearing body armor before he died.

Really, these idiotic ITG posts just confirm every bad stereotype about gun owners. Stop making normal people look bad you childish morons.


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
 
2012-07-24 01:06:45 PM  

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?
 
2012-07-24 01:06:51 PM  
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.
 
2012-07-24 01:07:04 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Galloping Galoshes: MasterThief: Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

FTFY. Just upping the sarcasm a notch.

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

In most situations, you have to rely on yourself for defense. The cops won't be there in time.
If you have to depend on someone else to defend you, you are defenseless. You might get to pick the predator that gets you, but that's the extent of your power.

You sound frightened.


Wary.
 
2012-07-24 01:07:09 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: So in other words, there's been a 41 percent increase in vigilante "hero" fantasies since Friday.

As others have already pointed out to anyone who will actually listen, even if there were people carrying in that theater it would have been incredibly irresponsible to begin firing back at the shooter and in the chaos they would have been more likely to hit an innocent victim rather than the intended target. Plus, do you really think your little pea shooter pistol would even make a dent in the guy's body armor?
/I own a gun and hope to hell I never have to even point it at another human, much less pull the trigger.


Ask any cop who's body armor stopped a bullet. The retired state trooper is asked said he was in the hospital for days with internal injuries, and laid up for weeks with broken ribs after getting shot twice. The armor keeps the bullet from penetrating, but it only spreads the energy instead of absorbing it.
 
2012-07-24 01:07:09 PM  

The Loaf: Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.

If only Colorado were so enlightened to be considered a "gun-friendly" state, this never would have happened...

oh, wait...

/Gun supporter, but this whole idea of "more guns fixes the problem" is a farce...


Colorado is very lax on gun ownership. There is no permit needed to get a gun. You don't have to register your firearm. Castle Law and the "Make My Day" Law are allowed in Colorado. You may need a permit to conceal carry, though.

The problem isn't that the people in the theatre were restricted from ever getting a gun. It was more that they either didn't want one or felt comfortable that nothing was going to go wrong. As liberal as some of Colorado is, they're pretty much cool with gun ownership. So the "If had gun, would never happen" argument just goes up in smoke.
 
2012-07-24 01:07:17 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.


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
 
2012-07-24 01:07:53 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.


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.
 
2012-07-24 01:08:03 PM  
So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun? 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 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 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 then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets 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.
 
2012-07-24 01:08:25 PM  
horrornews.netView Full Size


The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken.
 
2012-07-24 01:08:29 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 01:08:56 PM  
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...
 
2012-07-24 01:08:58 PM  

GladGirl: elffster: Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: 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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

You are nuts and you probably would have shot someone else. If you were a superhero, you would be Aquaman.

Some of you people are terrifyingly delusional. A dark theatre, people crowded into seats, a gas bomb goes off, people running everywhere, and you think that an armed civilian would have the skill and clarity of thought to somehow take out the madman with an automatic weapon? Not going to happen. It's these delusional thoughts of perceived heroism that keep real talk on gun control from progressing in this country. 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.

I'm not saying that we need to ban guns entirely, nor are many pro-gun-control advocates. Instead, why don't we learn a thing from countries like Switzerland or Norway (sure, bring up the Norway mass killer, but he was an anomaly), where rates of gun possession are very high, yet rates of gun-related violence are very low. Require training and course refreshers, ban autom ...


First of all, he did not have an automatic weapon. an AR-15 is nothing more than a scary looking hunting rifle that can hold more ammo. Having a disassembled wepaon in your house is no better than having nothing. what are you going to do, put it together while the bad guy waits for you?
 
2012-07-24 01:09:20 PM  

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?
 
2012-07-24 01:09:45 PM  
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?
 
2012-07-24 01:10:11 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.


THIS.

Do any of these pieces of macho bullshiat think that far? Even if someone managed to take this guy down, he's now the 'second shooter' accomplice and would likely be arrested and convicted, if the police or ANOTHER lone wolf CCW holder didn't kill him first.
 
2012-07-24 01:10:20 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.


You know this is Colorado, right? You honestly think no one was carrying in that theater? Hundreds of people congregated in a room for the express purpose of watching crap blow up, and you don't think a single guy was packing? There were several other guns in that room, I'm sure. It's just that the guys carrying knew that if they shot back, 1) they were going to hit an innocent person, and 2) someone was going to think they were perps too and start shooting at them.

They just arent talking about it now, because they don't want the Internet to call them pussies.
 
2012-07-24 01:10:44 PM  
If Obama doesn't watch out, Sideshow might just take his title of "Salesman of the Year" from him in the gun manuf. inudstry.
 
2012-07-24 01:10:45 PM  
Note that it was illegal to carry firearms into that theater in Aurora according to laws passed in that community.

If only there were some way we could go all socialist and use taxpayer money to hire a group of people who would be allowed to carry weapons with them and deter criminals. They could wear uniforms identifying themselves, too. The could have the power of arrest. If only that were possible. If only...
 
2012-07-24 01:11:12 PM  
uttertosh

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.

ITG


you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.


Why is it that many Farkers project their inadequacies on other people.

I guess if someone would have taken this guy out, you would be deploring the lack of a trial (innocent until proven guilty) and been mocking the guy as bootstrappy for taking care of the problem.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:29 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:31 PM  
I don't think more gun laws are necessarily the answer, but to all of the Doc Holidays in this thread, I'm wondering about a couple of things:

1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

2) How do you keep from getting lit up by the SWAT team when they arrive?
 
2012-07-24 01:11:43 PM  

Bendal: His body armor stops your rounds unless you get incredibly lucky and shoot him under the helmet or arm.


A. No body armor in this situation.
B. He would get knocked down at the very least. It's not a video game; bullets have a great deal of energy and it has to go somewhere.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:46 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:51 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: jso2897: He may not even be opposed to them. I am not opposed to CCWs. But I don't think they would have helped in this scenario. I don't think it's an argument for or against them.

Maybe. I don't want to go down without a fight. And I don't want to wait until I'm backed into a corner.


Well, fine. Whatever. The point is that the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon their being useful in this, or any other situation. And, therefore - why make the argument?
 
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.comView Full Size

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.
 
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.comView Full Size


/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.
 
2012-07-24 01:45:40 PM  

MoveZig: 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.


That's it.
Walk it back, Mister Plenty of Stopping Power.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:09 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.


I guess you can go with that logic, but every round of yours found lodged in someones body nets you a negligent homicide/attempted homicide charge. Even very highly trained cops accuracy is awful from more than a few feet away in comparatively clear conditions. Im not anti gun. I do have a CCW license. I probably would not have opened fire on this guy unless he was right next to me and I felt I had no choice. Gun ownership/responsibility extends to every round you fire and everything they strike.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:28 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

--

2006 Traffic Fatalities: 42,708
2007 Traffic Fatalities: 41,259
2008 Traffic Fatalities: 37,423
2009 Traffic Fatalities: 33,808
2010 Traffic Fatalities: 32,885

Total Traffic Fatalities, 2006-2010: 188,083

--

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
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
 
2012-07-24 01:46:30 PM  
Not saying that I want to see innocents die.. but when a CCW holder gets shot in a business that had the "No concealed weapons" sign in the window, I want to see a huge lawsuit for that company not allowing someone with a legal license the avenue to protect themselves.
 
2012-07-24 01:46:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.
 
2012-07-24 01:47:11 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.


Except the voting part. That's why we need voter ID laws. To prevent NRA members from voting.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:06 PM  

Al_Ed: I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.


Dude, you obviously stole my pitch for "Duke Nukem Forever 2: Murderlicious Boogaloo." Expect a call from my lawyer, who works for the firm of Kalashnikov, Browning, Smith & Wesson.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:11 PM  

Forced Perspective: Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


That is the single most intelligent thing I have read on Fark today. (No sarcasm mode). Thank you.

Me explaining how James Homles got shot:
"He was being a douche"
 
2012-07-24 01:49:42 PM  

MoveZig: But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.


Same here.
Any sane person, even if carrying, would have seen the impossibility of that scenario.
Dark, teargas, chaotic, the frigging stupid move still playing on the screen and making noise, a shooter at crowd-level. Impossible.

Plus, I'd bet most of the people were completely psychologically flummoxed since they were off in movie fantasy land in their heads.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.



Tell that to all the people in the countries that just had a successful uprising. I can think of what.. three.. four in the last year.

You sound like a pussy who piddles in the corner at the first sign of any trouble.
 
2012-07-24 01:50:06 PM  

Blue_Blazer: 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.

THIS.

Do any of these pieces of macho bullshiat think that far? Even if someone managed to take this guy down, he's now the 'second shooter' accomplice and would likely be arrested and convicted, if the police or ANOTHER lone wolf CCW holder didn't kill him first.


Some of us don't think only of ourselves. Small price to pay for my fellow humans, whose lives I value as much as my own.
 
2012-07-24 01:50:23 PM  

Ned Stark: 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.


Ok, so you think psychology is "crap science." Sure... alright, let's not do anything then. Whatever.

We'll just have to live with mass shootings every year or more. It's such a small statistic anyway, so who cares?
 
2012-07-24 01:50:34 PM  

soup: 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?


An irrelevant question. Here's one relevant to your previous statements: Do you think the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should be limited to the technology available in the late 18th century?
 
2012-07-24 01:51:52 PM  

master_dman: Not saying that I want to see innocents die.. but when a CCW holder gets shot in a business that had the "No concealed weapons" sign in the window, I want to see a huge lawsuit for that company not allowing someone with a legal license the avenue to protect themselves.


MoveZig: HotIgneous Intruder: 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.

But I do agree with some of the other posters here. Disorienting environment, disabling agent, and the risk of hitting innocent people. Definitely taking cover and trying to get out.


Rule 1 is Take Cover.
This guy had little chance of being stopped by any means in that environment in the time expired.
Just not enough time, a very effective tactic.
Lesson, crappy AR15 is crappy.
 
2012-07-24 01:52:07 PM  

jso2897: Al_Ed: I woulda been all, like, firing at this clown with my concealed M60 from the hip, friggin' belts of ammo across my bare chest making Rambo look like a straight up pussy, yo! And the after the head shot and he's down? Yup...tea baggin' him...once for every person he harmed. Then I'd whip out my cock and piss into the smoking holes of his body left by my tracers lest the theater burn down and hurt anyone else.

Only because that's how I roll.

Yeah, but what if he respawns a minute later with a flamethrower?


farm4.staticflickr.comView Full Size


He takes out his whole team?