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

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

5859 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM  
In other news, the NRA today introduced their new spokesman...

mojoimage.com
 
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.com

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.com

Why did they choose ribbons the same color as the shooter's hair?
 
2012-07-24 12:22:25 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
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.com
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 fu(k, 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.

www.pursuingholiness.com
 
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.com

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.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

source.


+1 internets to you, sir!

/thread
 
2012-07-24 01:18:39 PM  

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


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

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


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

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

/this is what NRA members really think



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


At least by ONE!*


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Get shot at a lot, do you?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

source.


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

Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

fixed for realism.

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

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


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

So hard to get details when you aren't witness yourself. Even when journalists and the police are the ones giving the details....imagine that.
 
2012-07-24 01:27:28 PM  

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, voting can do a hell of a lot worse than a shooting spree. I'd certainly be in favor of curtailing your voting rights based on the drooling stupidity of your reply.


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

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


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

IQof20: Hardly. Because we *do this already* to other rights. We recognize that there are limits in certain situations. Particularly where public safety clearly trump certain individual rights. I don't hear you arguing that the person shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is being oppressed, or that certain inmates cannot vote, or that there are even inmates at all, etc. are being stripped of their guaranteed rights.


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

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

domino324: The standard argument against gun control is that it would only hinder law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still get them illegally, because they're criminals.

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

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

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


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

Get crackin'

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

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


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

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

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

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

italie: Okay, everybody here stand up.

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

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

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

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


Any Farker left standing may continue this discussion. Everyone else, we have a nice Beiber thread waiting for you in the queue


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

jso2897: vitamink619: I'm starting to feel a little sorry for some of these gun nuts who are so scared they have to have a gun on them at all times. Just because some psycho shoots up a random place every few years doesn't mean everyone should be fully-strapped at all times and places.

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


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

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

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

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

A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.


Look, more hyperbole.

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

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

IQof20: Carousel Beast:
How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

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

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


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

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

HotIgneous Intruder: Lookout!
The Internet Tactical Typers are all up in here!

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

Oh bother. What a cunundrum, these pesky "laws."
"Laws" are just for the sheeple, right?


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

dlp211: This means that they weren't incapacitated by the tear gas, were sitting in the right spot to be close enough to the target, all the civilians were fleeing away from them and the target, the pistol I was using had tritium sites on it, and I haven't been shot dead yet. But keep believing that there is a large swath of the American public that could take that shot.


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

Most likely I miss. I've never fired while being fired at. But practice makes perfect.
 
2012-07-24 01:32:54 PM  
snocone
Buffalo77: I going today. I am going to get a 9MM with 15 round mags and with buy couple extra mags. I was thinking Ruger or Berretta.

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.


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

Now, imagine allowing them to carry a gun.

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

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

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

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


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

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


This.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

italie: Okay, everybody here stand up.

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

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

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

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


Any Farker left standing may continue this discussion. Everyone else, we have a nice Beiber thread waiting for you in the queue


Just for fun,
Still standing?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

No? Well, STFU then.


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

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

I hope I wouldn't fire until I was sure of my target. That's how I've trained, anyway.


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

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

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

Get a revolver. Not an expensive one, no larger than .38.
Practice, practice, practice.
Automatics are secondary pistols.
15 rounds are heavy.

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


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

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

Total Firearm murders 2006-2010: 47,836

--

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

--

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

--

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

snocone: Electrify: Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Question, please.
Harder for whom?


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

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

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

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

Bit'O'Gristle: The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too.


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Quit making generalizations about NRA members.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/my two cents


Link

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

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

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

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

A million or so Iraqis may have strong opinions about your assertion that American votes don't kill anyone.

Look, more hyperbole.

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Noticeably F.A.T.: HotIgneous Intruder: So, if there had been a Rambo shooter in that theater, he would have been arrested immediately for violating Aurora's gun laws.

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

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

source.

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


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

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

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

/Boasting about your weapon on the internet really puts you into a different zone of premeditation should you ever have to use that weapon.
//Zealous much?
///Heaven help you should the opposing attorney ever find your fark postings.


That' why I hope it never happens.

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

Jim_Callahan:

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


Which man-made object was designed to kill people?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Electrify: snocone: Electrify: Jim_Callahan: On a slightly different "perspective" note:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Question, please.
Harder for whom?

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


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

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

He takes out his whole team?
 
2012-07-24 01:52:24 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.


Once the shooter is down, you dont continue walking around with your gun still in your hand...you holster it and do what you can to either help the wounded or make sure the police (and medics) are on their way. As soon as the police arrive you calmly disclose your weapon and allow them to take it from you. Do not reach for it yourself.
 
2012-07-24 01:52:27 PM  

gopher321: In other news, the NRA today introduced their new spokesman...

[mojoimage.com image 700x600]


You're stupid farty pants
 
2012-07-24 01:52:39 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.


Ok and I guess the first amendement should only cover printing presses right? You can has a fail.

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.


I used to run our battalion gas house at Ft. Carson with my NBC Sgt. We got to take our masks off when it was nice and saturated. Yeah gas sucks, IF you've delt with it before it's not nearly as bad.

I don't mind someone who's never met me before calling me an ITG. If that's what you think cool thats your deal. But be openminded enough to know that there are some legit badasses that still can't lawfully carry in a place that displays a no concealed weapons sign.

For those that want to do a google or two while reading fark search USPSA match videos. See what your average competitive shooter can do.
Would you be ok with them being armed in a theater?

If not consider this: Your average police officer only shoots a yearly or bi anual qualification, gets no dept. ammo for training, and MAY have cleaned their gun after their last qualification (probably not it's a glock right?). Factor in the last time they had any firearms instruction was at the academy and they are required to carry everywhere. If you're not concerned maybe you are that trusting soul I can distribute my dead uncles Nigerian treasure to...
 
2012-07-24 01:53:14 PM  

soup: 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?


Care all you want, but don't go all batchit and fall for political agendas.
 
2012-07-24 01:53:24 PM  

master_dman: 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.


How do you think they would fare against the American military?
 
2012-07-24 01:54:01 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.


Uhh, unless it's black market sales, I'm pretty sure having someone come by to confiscate your now illegal gun from the registered database wouldn't be that hard.
 
2012-07-24 01:54:34 PM  

Wolf_Cub: 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.


I don't need to do so. The fact is that when one uses their freedom to break a law, one pays the consequences when they're caught. That's all that needs to be said. The penalties for using freedom of speech poorly, or tampering with votes, are scaled appropriately due to their impact on society and the freedom of the victims. Same with misusing firearms. As such, the arguments are equally valid when attempting to pass restrictions on legal usage.

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.

No, in no instance could someone defending themselves be legitimately construed as depraved indifference, assuming they didn't just shut their eyes and open fire wildly. I don't make the argument that I, if I was in the theatre and carrying concealed (or openly) that I would've been able to stop Sideshow Bob. I don't even necessarily make the argument that I would've tried. It all depends on a number of factors that aren't actually worth arguing. What can be argued, however, is that without the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms there's no chance to even try.

soup:
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.


See the above response for how one can equate the two.

I don't think the Founders had any real issue with someone owning a mortar or cannon. I see no real issue with someone owning a tank. Nukes are, for all practical purposes, unobtainable simply due to their cost.

As for the crazy portion, if someone has been legitimately diagnosed as mentally unstable for purposes other than firearm control, then they have legitimate restrictions placed on them already. Freedom of movement may be constrained (institutionalized), they may not be able to get a driver's license, and in many areas they're unable to purchase a firearm from a business. In some instances, depending on the severity, it may even be legal to seize their firearms or other bits of property. However, to institute a mandatory sanity test (which is what you're asking for) prior to purchase is really not different than a poll tax. It's something that can be artificially manipulated to restrict a right. If you're unaware, that's unconstitutional.
 
2012-07-24 01:54:58 PM  

master_dman: 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.


And you sound like an idiot.

But you go ahead and fight the full force of the government and all its weapons head-on
Let me know how that works out for you.
Or let me see it on the news.

/I have icepicks, a warm plate of food, and a smile for any hostiles who should turn up at my house.
[All you need is an icepick to stick in an ear to get an assault rifle and ammunition if it comes down to that, but I digress.]
 
2012-07-24 01:55:18 PM  

Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark




Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
www.blackhawk.com
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).
 
2012-07-24 01:57:25 PM  

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


You're not the first person to make that claim. You know that they are regulated already, right? So why are you being dishonest?

It's not as bad as the folks claiming that it was an automatic weapon... *sighs*
 
2012-07-24 01:57:27 PM  

Carousel Beast: Carousel Beast:
And we have limits on arms in certain situations now.


Thanks. Now say that the State has the right to determine reasonable guidelines on usage and practice of said rights within the boundaries expressed within the Constitution. ;)

What we don't do, though, is decide someone is "crazy" and start taking away their rights in a blanket manner.

Which isn't what I said. I simply stated that the NRA (the organization - not every member) is promoting that you can't trust anyone to tell you that you're crazy so here's a gun.

...[slippery slope argument condensed for space]...

There's always a legitimate concern for laws falling outside of the realm of what's reasonable. Which is why we have a system where laws are dynamic in some regards and can move w/ society. Hopefully in small ways, but that's the nature of our system.

The issue is that the slope is waaaaay on the other side at this point. As I stated originally, you yourself are not easily allowing a discussion on someone who is "crazy" not getting a weapon. I'm all for starting to lay out what constitutes "crazy". But you've already jumped the shark to me taking *RON PAUL!!!!* supporters rights away. If anybody's doing that BTW, it's the Republican Party, not me.

I accept the concerns for "what is crazy", but let's define it instead of just throwing ye' olde slippery slope argument out there w/o some real tied down concerns short of Nazi Germany.
 
2012-07-24 01:57:43 PM  

MythDragon: Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?



People are poorly informed and stupid?
 
2012-07-24 01:57:52 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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?


How is my question irrelevant? I've been asking it for the past hour, and no gun rights advocates have tried to answer it. Again - do you think mentally disabled people should be allowed to own guns?

And no, the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should evolve as the country and technology evolves. That's pretty clear. So saying that we should control who can own 21st century "arms' and also saying that the internet is a useful form of free speech that should be protected for everyone isn't a contradictory statement, as much as you're trying to portray it as one.

By the way, do you believe anyone should be able to purchase a RPG or tank if they have the means? If not, isn't that a form of "arms" control?
 
2012-07-24 01:57:58 PM  

fonebone77: 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.


The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:45 PM  

MythDragon: Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?


Because the media said it at the beginning of all of this, now try getting those worms back in the can.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:50 PM  
Any honest brass count yet?
 
2012-07-24 01:58:59 PM  

soup: 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?


Psychology is pretty janky----->all of psychology ice crap.
Hurrdurr keep smacking that strawman.

But to explicitly answer your question, no I don't think people with diagnosed mental disorders should be able to purchase firearms but you shouldn't have to undergo screening specifically to purchase them.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:59 PM  

Iranoobie: [redstatevirginia.com image 675x450]
Faith in action. Bolt action, that is.


Guns on the nun.
 
2012-07-24 01:59:30 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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.


WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-07-24 02:00:48 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: 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.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?


Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch
 
2012-07-24 02:00:57 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.


Jim Callahan's World: Where 58 injured people are not collateral damage.
 
2012-07-24 02:01:46 PM  

give me doughnuts: give me doughnuts: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?


Actually the question of mental capacity is a VERY relevant question here and specifically to the situation at hand.

However, it is pleasant that you chose to recognize the fellow's position was a knock on the "original intent" argument yet now appear to be attempting literal translation to obfuscate. Kudos on your internet argument skills.
 
2012-07-24 02:01:47 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.


Favorited: Reasonable gun guy!
 
2012-07-24 02:01:59 PM  

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


The gun community has a responsibility to police their own.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:12 PM  

Giltric: You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch


That's why those vehicles are, ya know, armored.

Assymetrical brains and eyeballs are a summabiatch, aren't they?
 
2012-07-24 02:02:22 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.


Well said sir.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:31 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


Huh? I'm not walking back anything. You're the troll that immediately goes into full derp, "You're gonna cost taxpayers $$, you boaster!" Just because you own a weapon for conceal carry means you're looking for a reason to actually use it.

No matter what the weapon, 12 ga. for skeet or sport shooting, .30-30 for hunting, or 9mm for self/home defense: research, education, training and proficiency are all components of responsible ownership.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:40 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.



This.

Given the amount of people who have recently come back from the armed forces with both training and experience, I'm not sure I'd just be throwing ITG around willy nilly myself.

Also the basic fact that everyone reacts differently. *Some* people may curl up and do nothing, but not everyone will do that when presented with this sort of situation. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a few people would attack him right back if they had the means.

/That's just nature.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:42 PM  

master_dman: 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.


And how would this work exactly? Shoot cops? FBI? Senators? On who's approval? This is what the constitution provides for? Shootin' Presidents? Sounds like Oswald should've gotten a medal for constitutional bravery! Am I allowed to start blowing away TSA agents because of the 2nd Amendment? Hooray (kidding, DHS... making a point... I know you're readin' this too...)!

Fark wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting if everyone had to pass basic logic courses before participating. It allows massive derp-fests like this one. Woo Hoo!

\thinks that "militia" part might not have referred to blowing away your gub'mint.
 
2012-07-24 02:02:56 PM  

PsyLord: fonebone77: 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.

The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.


Cops have to prove themselves once a year....and from what I hear they are given an unlimited amount of time and ammo to prove themself qualified.

On average we go through 1000 rounds a month shooting paper....recreationally.
 
2012-07-24 02:03:13 PM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: 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.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?

Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch


There was also a squid that did more damage to a battleship than battle.
People are scary dangerous all by themselves.
 
2012-07-24 02:03:50 PM  
wookiee cookie Smartest
Funniest
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




Hey! Thanks for that important piece of information!
 
2012-07-24 02:05:39 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.


I have a friend who thoroughly believes this: She packs heat every where she goes, because she is convinced that one crazy is just waiting to jump her and attack. NO....she's not particularly hot. She's pretty average, but god help you if you even slightly insinuate that her guns might not be the constant necessity she needs at her side. (No, she's never been in a situation where she'd have to fire it.) She's a middle aged, large woman who knows that she's the next target on a crazy's list.

How she manages to muster up the courage to leave the house is beyond me.

/Why yes, she is a tea party member...why do you ask?
//all I've heard is how she's ready to protect her life if this ever happens in a theater she's in. I sprained my eye rolling at that one.
 
2012-07-24 02:05:59 PM  
From reading various articles from the past several days, allow me to group everyone into one fo two categories.
(This is a generalization, and just two categories for the sake of simplicity. I know there are variables that don't fit, but that's not what I am addressing)

Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.

Anti-Gun Nuts
-Hates guns
-Knows fark-all about guns
-Can tell you that an automatic Glock-47 takes a high capacity clip and shoots cop killer bullets through 8 feet of brick wall, 4 miles way.
-Has no experience with guns, other than the time they saw their kid playing Call of Honor:Bloody Warfare and grounded him for a month.
-Was given a BB when he was 7. Promptly shot his sister in the eye with the evil thing. Hasn't touched a gun since.

I think there was some sort of correlation I was trying to make, but I forgot where I was going with this.
 
2012-07-24 02:07:20 PM  

Giltric: HotWingConspiracy: master_dman: 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.

How do you think they would fare against the American military?

Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.


That scenario assumes you've got an army with a command structure. I don't see that playing out when the Hoverround revolution commences.

You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

Approaching a base would be the last thing I'd want to do in that situation.

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch

Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.
 
2012-07-24 02:07:47 PM  

scout48: 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.


Horse shiat.

If the NRA was REALLY concerned with responsible gun ownership, they would be spending more time publicly berating irresponsible gun owners, and less time convincing cowards that the Muslin-in-chief is gunna git theyer guhns. They would call out the paranoid crazies as the REAL threat to the right to bear arms.

But they will never do that. "Responsible gun ownership" is an empty phrase the NRA uses to try to convince slightly less bloodthirsty gun owners to send them money.

The NRA firmly believes that it is better that 10,000 psychos have free access to assault weapons, than that a single law-abiding citizen have to wait ten days before making a legal purchase.

And until they spend as much time and money publicly advocating responsible gun use as they do fanning the flames of bigotry and paranoia, they deserve to be treated as a hate group.
 
2012-07-24 02:08:17 PM  

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

The gun community has a responsibility to police their own.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/22/aurora-james-holmes-gun-c l ub?newsfeed=true

Denied membership in a gun club. Not as good as it could have been but he was unable to clear a jam that someone probably would have shown him how to do at the club.
 
2012-07-24 02:11:30 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: That scenario assumes you've got an army with a command structure


I don;t think a large command structure would work well....especially if peopleget caught and know who else to point the finger at under duress.

I think a small group of people could pull off much more spectacular feats....like a lone gunman in a theatre...or 19 people hijacking planes.

How well is it going in Iraq and Asfghanistan....isn;t it more difficult then we imagined with so many smaller groups not tied to eachother hassling us?
 
2012-07-24 02:12:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.


Hellfire missiles and AC-130 gunships can be a pesky nuisance.
And smart bombs.

But most of all would the the anti-insurgency doctrine that the entire military has been developing for the past 12 years. Those trailer park neighbors will be flipping like pancakes once a few special forces operators offer them a fist-full of gold coins to sing like a bird. [See also: Robin Sage exercises. Managing exactly this scenario is how the special forces guys qualify to wear their patches.]
 
2012-07-24 02:13:51 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.


Or: been forced to leave your guns in the car (as a law-abiding gun owner) because the theater didn't want any guns inside.

You're all law-abiding gun owners, right?
 
2012-07-24 02:14:33 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.


Did they go out for ice cream after?
 
2012-07-24 02:14:56 PM  
Shorter uttertosh: I'm a gigantic baby who can't defend himself, therefore nobody should be able to engage in self-defense and we should keep wagging our fingers at murderers in the hope they see the error of their ways.
 
2012-07-24 02:15:10 PM  

chandler_vt: 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.


Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)
 
2012-07-24 02:15:45 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


Heh. Yep. You understand me perfectly.
 
2012-07-24 02:16:45 PM  
I'm astounded by the "OMG DONT DEFEND YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY " crowd here. Looks like most of you would just cuddle up under the seats and pray someone else gets shot. Get some farking balls. Jesus. And yes, i have years of gun training, am a expert at shooting my guns, and no, it wouldnt be easy in that situation, but fark, at least you could try to defend yourself, not just lay there and get gunned down with no way to defend yourself.

Link

yes, this was in the day, but the police had a man point a gun at them, and they were armed and had a chance to defend themselves. Effectively btw,....why should i get no way to defend myself and my family and just the police should? You can't depend on the police to defend you, they show up AFTER an incident when it's all said and done.
 
2012-07-24 02:16:54 PM  

Fark It: 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!


Of course there will always be people who 'want to take your guns'. The gun nuts and the NRA run around like their hair is on fire screaming about the gubmmit takin my guns!1!OMG!!

Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things. None

No.

None.

Stop it. Take your meds.

No.
 
2012-07-24 02:18:09 PM  

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


Like this:
www.budsgunshop.com and home.wanadoo.nl
 
2012-07-24 02:18:14 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: HotWingConspiracy: Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.

Hellfire missiles and AC-130 gunships can be a pesky nuisance.
And smart bombs.

But most of all would the the anti-insurgency doctrine that the entire military has been developing for the past 12 years. Those trailer park neighbors will be flipping like pancakes once a few special forces operators offer them a fist-full of gold coins to sing like a bird. [See also: Robin Sage exercises. Managing exactly this scenario is how the special forces guys qualify to wear their patches.]


And those who earned their patches who are retired? What happens when a smart bomb takes out one of their family members or friends through collateral damage?

You just created more insurgents.....who happen to be trained.

Isn;t that part of the argument in reagrds to the war on terror? We keep creating more terrorists based on our actions.... Why does that not hold true in an American insurgency?

Didn't the HSA claim the returning troops are a danger to the republic not so long ago?
 
2012-07-24 02:18:21 PM  

HazMatt: 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.


With that attitude, yes you would.
 
2012-07-24 02:18:34 PM  

andersoncouncil42: Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things. None

No.

None.

Stop it. Take your meds.

No.


Precisely.
No. Rational. Reason. To have them.
 
2012-07-24 02:18:47 PM  
Nice guns


...sorry about your penis, though...


But hey, the next time the king of England comes over here to tax our tea I'll be sure to beg to hide in your basement.


Oh wait, never mind. You're an idiot.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-24 02:21:27 PM  

spacelord321: HazMatt: 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.

With that attitude, yes you would.


Whoa. Lookout!
We got us a Fark Stone Cold Killa ® all up in heah!
 
2012-07-24 02:21:32 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.


THIS
 
2012-07-24 02:21:43 PM  

Giltric: PsyLord: fonebone77: 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.

The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.

Cops have to prove themselves once a year....and from what I hear they are given an unlimited amount of time and ammo to prove themself qualified.

On average we go through 1000 rounds a month shooting paper....recreationally.


On a clear range. With no one shooting back. With no other potential backstops running around screaming their heads off. If you want to discount cops, thats fine, well move on to the military. The active guys in combat roles do fire thousands of rounds per year in practice. They still rarely hit their targets in combat situations. Even the special ops forces main strategy in a gun fight is to put as many rounds down field as possible because most of them miss. Im not saying there arent dead shots out there that can drop a target on a quick draw at 25 yards on the range all day. Im saying the likely consequences for missing in a high pressure situation with large crowds are more dead people, and those dead people are on your conscience, and more importantly will be on your criminal record.

The sucky truth is, that there isnt much that can be done overall to prevent people from killing other people, and sometimes a lot of them at once. We are fortunate enough that its a pretty rare individual who is willing to go all out and do these kinds of things.

Im not advocating for more gun control by any means. This guy could just as easily have brought the home made bombs he made and tossed em into the crowd causing even more damage. Im saying I dont believe less gun control would have made any positive difference in this situation.
 
2012-07-24 02:22:11 PM  

spacelord321: 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...


This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.
 
2012-07-24 02:22:34 PM  

Giltric: Didn't the HSA claim the returning troops are a danger to the republic not so long ago?


McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?

/Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
 
2012-07-24 02:22:41 PM  

cuzsis: chandler_vt: 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.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)


W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.
Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.
 
2012-07-24 02:23:05 PM  
After the last presidential election, everyone was so afraid that Obama was "GONNA'TAKE AR GUNS!!" the nutjobs stocked up on guns and ammo to the point that finding anything but the crappiest guns at the local GunMart was impossible.
 
2012-07-24 02:23:28 PM  

MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
[www.budsgunshop.com image 500x376] and [home.wanadoo.nl image 368x261]


Or if you want to be legal, like this:
www.aimsurplus.com
 
2012-07-24 02:23:30 PM  

andersoncouncil42: Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things.


Wouldn't do any good. Consider: one guy with six guns.

images.wikia.com
 
2012-07-24 02:24:04 PM  

thetubameister: This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.


Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?
Did the police come? Did you call them?
If not, why not?
 
2012-07-24 02:24:58 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.


Sorry, most gun owners are law abiding citizens, and that theater is a gun free zone. Therefor, out of respect for the law, most gun owning citizens would not have their guns there.
 
2012-07-24 02:25:29 PM  

thetubameister: spacelord321: 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...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.


So what happened after that? Call the cops on him since he was brandishing his weapon?
 
2012-07-24 02:25:51 PM  

jso2897: 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.


But that doesn't stop anyone.
 
2012-07-24 02:25:51 PM  
The second amendment was not written simply for protection against robbers.
It's also to protect yourself against the government.
With the defense spending our government has, I think you absolutely need much more serious firepower, including rockets and missiles if need be.
 
2012-07-24 02:26:20 PM  

ph0rk: Or: been forced to leave your guns in the car (as a law-abiding gun owner) because the theater didn't want any guns inside.


Seriously? Do you know any regularly concealed-carriers? Do you seriously think there weren't at least 4-5 concealed guns in the theater (sign or no sign)?
 
2012-07-24 02:26:24 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm astounded by the "OMG DONT DEFEND YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY " crowd here. Looks like most of you would just cuddle up under the seats and pray someone else gets shot. Get


No, I want you gun owners to get yourseves under control so others don't have to worry that one of you guys are going to storm in and shoot up a movie theater or classroom.
 
2012-07-24 02:27:22 PM  

Itstoearly: Sorry, most gun owners are law abiding citizens, and that theater is a gun free zone. Therefor, out of respect for the law, most gun owning citizens would not have their guns there.


Oh gawd, this. A thousand times THIS.
 
2012-07-24 02:27:35 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Giltric: Didn't the HSA claim the returning troops are a danger to the republic not so long ago?

McVeigh? McVeigh? McVeigh?

/Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?


McVeigh used a bomb, not a gun. And McVeigh possibly had help, but thats all tinfoil hat stuff cooked up by Jayna Davis....or is it?
 
2012-07-24 02:27:47 PM  

andersoncouncil42: Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?)


I wasn't aware that the AWB had anything to do with automatic weapons.
 
2012-07-24 02:28:37 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


Somuchwin.gif
 
2012-07-24 02:29:13 PM  

MythDragon: Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.

Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.
Feels naked when not strapped.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

Just had to add a few to even things out for ya.
 
2012-07-24 02:29:26 PM  

Tawnos: 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.


This does make me wonder if there's any camera footage of that exit door, though - not for any sort of life-saving security purposes but just for regular old money purposes, you'd think the theater might worry about people opening that door to let non-paying friends in to see movies for free. One guy buys a ticket, lets two guys in... particularly considering how these days everyone knows there's around 20 minutes of commercials running with the lights off before the actual show starts, so you can wait to let your friends in in the dark, when most people are watching the screen and the sound is already turned way up.

Ned Stark: But to explicitly answer your question, no I don't think people with diagnosed mental disorders should be able to purchase firearms but you shouldn't have to undergo screening specifically to purchase them.


Either way, it seems this was this guy's first crime. As far as I know a few people close to him have now said (with hindsight!) that he perhaps seemed a bit off, but of course out of 1341987 people who seem "a bit off" the vast majority will never do anything - this is pure hindsight talking.

As for the concealed carry argument that "he maybe wouldn't go to the theater if he thought people would be packing" - he seemed to be prepared for at least some potential resistance, not to mention that odds are he's nutty as a loon.
 
2012-07-24 02:29:59 PM  
How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? Or Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer?
 
2012-07-24 02:30:15 PM  

Lawnchair: ph0rk: Or: been forced to leave your guns in the car (as a law-abiding gun owner) because the theater didn't want any guns inside.

Seriously? Do you know any regularly concealed-carriers? Do you seriously think there weren't at least 4-5 concealed guns in the theater (sign or no sign)?


Most CC permit holders are pretty scrupulous when it comes to following the law, so NO.
In the event, nobody used a weapon against the red haired lunatic.
Mostly because he achieved perfect tactical surprise.
All the CC permit holders were rubbing themselves down there to the gun porn on the movie screen.
 
2012-07-24 02:31:11 PM  

NightOwl2255: MythDragon: Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.
Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.
Feels naked when not strapped.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

Just had to add a few to even things out for ya.


Now with the right! Pin him down! Don't let that strawman get away!
 
2012-07-24 02:32:31 PM  

soup: 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.


And, of course, "arms", being a broad term refering to weapons in general, should only be construed in the manner that you want it to, right?

The founding fathers clearly used the term "arms", as the standard of the day that the average private citizen owned equivalent arms to the average soldier. This continued pretty much up until korea or viet nam when soldiers were issued fully automatic weapons.

But yes, let's not stop that from getting our panties in a twist over those scary guns because no one was ever killed with anything else...
 
2012-07-24 02:33:22 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?
Did the police come? Did you call them?
If not, why not?


I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.
 
2012-07-24 02:34:34 PM  

itazurakko: Either way, it seems this was this guy's first crime. As far as I know a few people close to him have now said (with hindsight!) that he perhaps seemed a bit off, but of course out of 1341987 people who seem "a bit off" the vast majority will never do anything - this is pure hindsight talking.

As for the concealed carry argument that "he maybe wouldn't go to the theater if he thought people would be packing" - he seemed to be prepared for at least some potential resistance, not to mention that odds are he's nutty as a loon.


His mother is a psychiatric nurse. I'd bet that she knew.
I'd also bet he's already diagnosed and was off his meds, but when we saw him in court he was back on them, and how.
 
2012-07-24 02:34:44 PM  

Fark It: 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.


Right, because according to the wired article pointing to one of several internet arms bazaars for illegal weapons indicating the price of full auto chinese and russian weapons for sub500 per gun, will disappear when those legal semi autos go away, right?
 
2012-07-24 02:34:44 PM  

fonebone77: Im not advocating for more gun control by any means. This guy could just as easily have brought the home made bombs he made and tossed em into the crowd causing even more damage. Im saying I dont believe less gun control would have made any positive difference in this situation.


Pretty much my take on it.

It's interesting we don't see more... inventive mass murders. Firebombs, poisons... I mean you have people mixing up H2S to kill themselves at home in the bathroom, after all. Granted there have been some car rundowns in recent years. And of course that little sarin thing...
 
2012-07-24 02:35:26 PM  

thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.


How do you know he had a CC permit?
 
2012-07-24 02:36:07 PM  

uttertosh: 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


I'm a firm believer in not letting tragedy stop you from doing what you'd be doing normally anyway.
 
2012-07-24 02:36:41 PM  
Well, this has gone pretty much the same way as usual. A handful saying some sort of restrictions would be good, a groundswell of ITG whargarbl in response, and an excess of testosterone throughout.

So we come back to this; despite several recent high-profile shootings resulting in a grand total of zero new restrictions on gun ownership, gun sales still spike severely in the wake of tragedies like this. It's the same cycle, over and over, with some people saying restrictions would be good and others wholly convinced that those restrictions are already legislated and going into force in a month, necessitating an orgy of gun sales. The echo chambers of the right do very well in encouraging gun purchases in the immediate aftermath of these shootings. From what I can tell, the echo chambers of the left get bogged down discussing how to do anything about it. In a couple of weeks, shooting magazines will have a complete rundown on how to avoid high cap magazine jams, the NRA will send out a release telling their members about Obama's next anti-gun threat (based on statements from 1999), and those advocating gun control will likely be off fighting cuts to education.

That is, until the next shooting like this. We all know there will be a next time, and all the same stories, ITGs and firearms AWs will be out again flogging their ideals of a gun in every pocket, a marksman in every theatre, advocating for more civilians shooting more criminals, regardless of circumstances or the impacts of an ever-growing group of firearms owners, most of whom can't be trusted to operate a blender safely.
 
2012-07-24 02:36:47 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.


Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?
 
2012-07-24 02:37:13 PM  

farkityfarker: Are people not aware that the perpetrator has been incarcerated?


The Assault weapons ban nuts have not been incarcerated.

People are buying all the guns they need to complete their collection before it becomes even more impossible for people to legally buy anything but Red Rider BB guns.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:15 PM  

Kit Fister: But yes, let's not stop that from getting our panties in a twist over those scary guns because no one was ever killed with anything else...


True that!
Last year there were 6353 people killed with knives, 2952 with clubs, 9800 with arrows (most shot with bows, but some were just plunged into victims) and over 25000 with harsh words. Note, all figures are POA.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:39 PM  
 
2012-07-24 02:37:47 PM  

POO_FLINGA: How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? Or Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer?


Serial killer != mass murderer. Timothy McVeigh is a relevant example, Ted Bundy and Jeff Dahmer not so much. But yeah, if you want to kill a truly large amount of people at once it seems there's more efficient ways.

Bottom line is people don't like to think about the fact that there are no guarantees in life, you can die suddenly for completely farking random reasons.
 
2012-07-24 02:37:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


I'm pretty sure the police can't disclose to a third party that someone has a carry license, especially through a license plate. And besides, that would only give them the registered owner, not the person driving the car.

I'm gonna go ahead and safely call bullshiat on this one.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Most CC permit holders are pretty scrupulous when it comes to following the law, so NO.


See, this is where my own immediate experience disagrees. Out of my friends, I know at least three habitual carriers who don't give the slightest gotdamn about signage. Carry at church, sporting events, bars, college campuses, whatever, signs be damned, unless they're likely to be searched. "Better in jail than dead" (or presumably out of a job, since one is in corrections). But, I don't know how common that really is across all gun-carriers, and I would even tend to be wary of most surveys in that vein.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:06 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.
 
2012-07-24 02:38:07 PM  

soup: 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.


Now you're for expanding the rights to arm yourself? Hmm... Maybe you're getting smarter...

Just because you're a coward doesn't mean that you need to remove freedoms. Your cowardice for a vanishingly small risk is not justification for removing rights. (It is also not an acceptable excuse to broaden them either.)

You know that, right?
 
2012-07-24 02:38:46 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?


Why are the police telling someone about someone elses CCW....what if the guy who called the police was casing a house hoping the picked a house that contained firearms.

smells like one of those bullscat stories people use to make other people into some sort of criminal.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:08 PM  

Giltric: Fairly well actually......Wasn;t there a Marine who devastated the technologically unmatched US war machine in an excercise where he was severely limited as far as arms and weapon systems....I think the left used that excercise against the hawks in a thread or two dozen here calling for an invasion of Iran.


Yeah, it was in one of Malcolm Gladwell's books. Interesting story.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:23 PM  

Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?


Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.
 
2012-07-24 02:39:42 PM  

soup: 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.


Well, by you argument "voting can not be used to go on a killing spree.........."

Cars can, gasoline can, baseball bats can, most household chemicals can....

While I agree his response turned more ad hominen, he did raise a good point. If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.

Right to own firearms has been upheld by scotus several times. Dont like it, move or campaign for a constitutional ammendment.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:16 PM  

soup: give me doughnuts: 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?

How is my question irrelevant? I've been asking it for the past hour, and no gun rights advocates have tried to answer it. Again - do you think mentally disabled people should be allowed to own guns?

And no, the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights should evolve as the country and technology evolves. That's prett ...


Actually, it was your earlier statement of limiting "bearing arms" to muskets and such that prompted my response. You seemed to be implying that certain rights should be limited, temporally speaking.

As far as private citizens owning advanced weaponry, let me ask you this: Have you ever been to a machine-gun shoot? These events take place periodically at large outdoor shooting ranges. Loud, but fun. And no, the weapons systems are not being displayed by military personnel. These are private citizens firing off their M-2 .50 caliber machine guns and 3000 rounds per minute mini-guns.
What I favor are reasonable restrictions. Just what is, and is not reaonable is the core argument in all gun-control disputes.

Is keeping guns away from individuals who have been judged mentally disturbed and a danger to themselves and others by medical authorities and the courts reasonable? Yes, it is.
Is requiring every potential gun-owner to pass a "mental stability evaluation" reasonable? No, not in the least.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:45 PM  

MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and


Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.
 
2012-07-24 02:40:56 PM  

thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.



Ahh he is a troll making things up. thats how he knew the guy had a ccw..."the police told him"
 
2012-07-24 02:41:25 PM  

thetubameister: See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.


So you called the cops after he left?
You should have pressed charges.
 
2012-07-24 02:42:15 PM  

Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?


Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.
 
2012-07-24 02:42:31 PM  
Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.

My question is: Does anyone yet know precisely what type of 'body armor' he had?

It makes a huge difference between whether he had just plain riot gear (maybe mitigate some damage from a .32acp or smaller or a weak .380), or if he had plates (something like 9mm for Type I, 45 ACP for Type II, .308 rifles for Type IIIa, etc, though that's a rough guess from memory).

If he just had 'riot gear' or a plate carrier rig most CCW calibers would have gone through it. If he was actually using armor plates then that's a whole other story.
 
2012-07-24 02:43:35 PM  

Draskuul: Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.

My question is: Does anyone yet know precisely what type of 'body armor' he had?

It makes a huge difference between whether he had just plain riot gear (maybe mitigate some damage from a .32acp or smaller or a weak .380), or if he had plates (something like 9mm for Type I, 45 ACP for Type II, .308 rifles for Type IIIa, etc, though that's a rough guess from memory).

If he just had 'riot gear' or a plate carrier rig most CCW calibers would have gone through it. If he was actually using armor plates then that's a whole other story.


I think the only real armor he had was the kevlar helmet, if that.
 
2012-07-24 02:44:02 PM  

Fark It: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

I'm pretty sure the police can't disclose to a third party that someone has a carry license, especially through a license plate. And besides, that would only give them the registered owner, not the person driving the car.

I'm gonna go ahead and safely call bullshiat on this one.


Suit yourself. I'm not sure I've seen any signs of police perfection here on fark... or anywhere. They simply advised me he had a carry license and brandishing it or threatening with it would get that license removed. But, your choice... cops are perfect in your world. So are gun owners too, I'll wager.
 
2012-07-24 02:44:06 PM  

thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.


Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins
 
2012-07-24 02:44:30 PM  

MythDragon: Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark



Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 620x461]
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
[www.blackhawk.com image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).


Maybe they said he was wearing body armor because that's what the police say he was wearing. And I'll take their word on this over your word any day. They say he was wearing a ballistic vest and ballistic helmet and ballistic limb protection.

You provide a receipt that proves nothing other than he bought one item and then argue he wasn't wearing a ballistic vest because it's not on that one receipt. This is specious reasoning at best, but more likely you're intentionally being deceptive and defensive.
 
2012-07-24 02:45:06 PM  

Draskuul: Okay, people keep bringing up body armor as a reason why a CCW defense would have been pointless.


No reason to distribute free condoms because they don't protect against rape.

/chimp logic
 
2012-07-24 02:45:19 PM  

thetubameister: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.


You sound like a poll-eese man, what with your sorta fake story about the CC permit bully and now this.
 
2012-07-24 02:45:24 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.


And, pretty much THIS... Well, except the whole LEO bit. I spent eight years in the service. I can't say what I'd have done during this if I had been there but I can say that it would be extremely unlikely that a firearm would have been my tool of choice for that situation. Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.

I, honestly, probably would have done what I could to cover me and mine and gotten them to safety as quickly as possible -- if possible. Other than my family/friends I don't think I'd have done anything else but that's mostly because I don't like people that much and the assholes were probably talking in the theater anyhow.
 
2012-07-24 02:46:30 PM  
In threads like this I'm not sure who to be amused by more, the ITG's, or the people who assume that everyone wets their pants as soon as they do when confronted with danger.
 
2012-07-24 02:47:07 PM  

Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.


5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.
 
2012-07-24 02:47:12 PM  

thetubameister: spacelord321: 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...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.


So, because one person has done this to you, you assume we all act this way?
 
2012-07-24 02:48:39 PM  

Source4leko: In threads like this I'm not sure who to be amused by more, the ITG's, or the people who assume that everyone wets their pants as soon as they do when confronted with danger.


Well this IS the internet. It's a pretty bipolar place. Nuance is seen as weakness.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:09 PM  

slarti0001: MythDragon: Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark



Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 620x461]
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
[www.blackhawk.com image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).

Maybe they said he was wearing body armor because that's what the police say he was wearing. And I'll take their word on this over your word any day. They say he was wearing a ballistic vest and ballistic helmet and ballistic limb protection.

You provide a receipt that proves nothing other than he bought one item and then argue he wasn't wearing a ballistic vest because it's not on that one receipt. This is specious reasoning at best, but more likely you're intentionally being deceptive and defensive.


Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:17 PM  

ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins


HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:28 PM  
Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:54 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Jesus, does that mean more psychos are planning attacks?


Goddamnit, I lulz'd.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:59 PM  

snocone: cuzsis: chandler_vt: 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.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.
Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.


You're basing this statement on what exactly?
 
2012-07-24 02:51:02 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.


Especially is the attacker is completely up inside your OODA loop and you didn't even see him arrive there.
Perfect tactical surprise, out of the blue.
 
2012-07-24 02:51:13 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: His mother is a psychiatric nurse. I'd bet that she knew.
I'd also bet he's already diagnosed and was off his meds, but when we saw him in court he was back on them, and how.


That would explain her not being surprised to hear he was involved (as they imply in the news - but I've not seen any direct quotes of how that conversation went down). Of course I suppose it's possible he wasn't diagnosed with anything officially yet either but his mom was suspecting he needed to be, too...

If he was officially diagnosed, then I suppose the question is, was it in another state and so the information wasn't known? How exactly do such lookups happen, and were they done?

Completely apart from that I have to admit I'm curious if there are any photos of his apartment taken through the window or whatever. From the bare snippets of descriptions I've heard it probably looked pretty interesting.
 
2012-07-24 02:51:31 PM  

spacelord321: thetubameister: spacelord321: 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...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

So, because one person has done this to you, you assume we all act this way?


Oy. One example means one example. Sheesh. Merely proves it can happen. Untwist thy knickers.
 
2012-07-24 02:52:43 PM  

Giltric: Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.


Maybe they were rocket-equipped.

!!!
 
2012-07-24 02:53:26 PM  
MyNameIsMofuga: Why did they choose ribbons the same color as the shooter's hair?

can't stand memorial ribbons; they make me want to fly off in a fit of rage and go on a rampage or something
 
2012-07-24 02:54:37 PM  

thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.


You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.
 
2012-07-24 02:55:48 PM  
Overheard: "Why carry a gun? Because carrying a cop is too heavy."
 
2012-07-24 02:55:59 PM  

ronaprhys: However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens.


In some states the crime rate amongst CCW holders is less than the police.
 
2012-07-24 02:57:06 PM  
thetubameister Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 02:42:15 PM


Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation




No, realistic and correct interpretation.
While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.
The other "rights" are useless without the ability to defend them.
And who is most likely to try to take away your rights?

If you really want to be pragmatic about it, with Patriot Act and dozens of other similar legislations, you really don't have any right to privacy, due process or free speech at all.
But that doesn't mean we should just abolish the rest of the Constitution.
Leave us our illusions!
 
2012-07-24 02:57:13 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?
Did the police come? Did you call them?
If not, why not?


Stop talking rationally. It makes it hard to lable you with stereotypes. If you understand such a thing...
 
2012-07-24 02:57:44 PM  

DORMAMU: If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.


WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.

This isn't about banning guns. I'm no more for an outright ban than I am for mandatory firearms at conception with in-womb training.

The issue is that there are some reasonable restrictions on certain rights that are much more necessary for a properly functioning democracy. But the NRA (the organization) is vehemently, through completely unreasonable position, fighting any sane discussion on this.

As others and myself have asked, is it reasonable to consider restrictions for individuals who have been determined inadequate mentally to be sold a firearm? And is it a better use of our time to actually start working through how that framework might operate vs. just assuming it is all about taking your guns?

Yes a person could get it elsewhere (although a perhaps illegal elsewhere), but isn't this a better direction for the conversation given that other rights have reasonable (and yes admitted unreasonable in some cases) restrictions placed upon them by the State?
 
2012-07-24 02:58:48 PM  

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


Did you vote for Bush?

/you're not very good at this
//perhaps you should stop kneejerking before you hurt yourself
/really - you're not helping
 
2012-07-24 02:59:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Giltric: Maybe they were made of ballistic nylon.....like a watch band or a back pack.

Maybe they were rocket-equipped.

!!!


We believe the police when it fits our pre concieved notions......

Those kids at UC Davis could have been blocking the path....right?
 
2012-07-24 03:00:02 PM  

thetubameister: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Advocating an overthrow of the US Gov't are we? We really think that's what the 2nd is for? It's the "in case you stop liking this document, start blowing away said document and all folks serving thereof" clause?

Unique interpretation.


Ah, I see your ability to restrict meaning wo what's written is lacking.


The poster I responded to seemed to be suggesting that owning guns and/or attempting to throw off a government was impossible, so no reason to try.

I was pointing out that it was a patently false assertion.

However, please feel free to beat off to whatever you wanted my post to say.
 
2012-07-24 03:05:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.


Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.
 
2012-07-24 03:05:15 PM  

doubled99: While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.


My belly button was originally used for attaching me to my mom with a placenta.
I don't use it any more.
 
2012-07-24 03:07:18 PM  

IQof20:
WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.


And is also something that many groups fight against. Personally, any restriction of freedom of speech, the ability to vote, etc., is something I argue against just as much as I do restrictions on private firearm ownership. There are differences in each so the restrictions have to be considered unique to each, but the general burden of proof revolves around whether or not the suggested restriction provides significant value to society.

This isn't about banning guns. I'm no more for an outright ban than I am for mandatory firearms at conception with in-womb training.

I don't believe that, when we explore it, your position will be reasonable.

The issue is that there are some reasonable restrictions on certain rights that are much more necessary for a properly functioning democracy. But the NRA (the organization) is vehemently, through completely unreasonable position, fighting any sane discussion on this.

Can you demonstrate how a restriction on firearms is necessary to have a properly functioning democracy (though we live in a republic. Maybe society is a better word)

As others and myself have asked, is it reasonable to consider restrictions for individuals who have been determined inadequate mentally to be sold a firearm? And is it a better use of our time to actually start working through how that framework might operate vs. just assuming it is all about taking your guns?

That's already been answered. Several times. Short answer: sure, but not by the means of requiring a sanity check at time of purchase. Only as part of the background check if the person had been so diagnosed for some reason other than firearm ownership. There's nuances to that, but conceptually pretty close.

Yes a person could get it elsewhere (although a perhaps illegal elsewhere), but isn't this a better direction for the conversation given that other rights have reasonable (and yes admitted unreasonable in some cases) restrictions placed upon them by the State?

In most states, this already exists. In this particular tragedy, it would've not impacted the outcome in the slightest. So, in essence, you're using an example that has no bearing to try and advance your agenda.

And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis prior to purchasing, then would you be comfortable with that same restriction on being allowed to speak or vote?
 
2012-07-24 03:07:26 PM  

give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.


Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.
 
2012-07-24 03:07:53 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.


I like wheelguns, but you might want to shoot a Taurus PT-809. Love mine, it has an actual hammer, and 17-round mags. I prefer my PT-709 for CC, though - about as thick as a deck of cards, but only 6-round mag.

/C'mon, Taurus-haters!
//They are pretty damn good nowadays (clean them well first - the ones shipped from Brazil have a ton of grease in them)
//Under $350.00 at Academy.
 
2012-07-24 03:08:20 PM  

ronaprhys: And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis prior to purchasing, then would you be comfortable with that same restriction on being allowed to speak or vote?


Conflate, conflate, conflate.

Shooting does not equate to voting.
 
2012-07-24 03:08:34 PM  
I'm just so happy to see that our government has pretty much done exactly what it has set out to do.

Make the general population so scared and dependent on them that most of you would curl up into a ball, piddle yourselves, and scream and cry for the government to come protect you.

This has become a nation of spineless pussies. YOU are to blame.
 
2012-07-24 03:09:59 PM  

ronaprhys: thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.

You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.


No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. Some in my own family think it lunacy, but truly... I'm afraid of my community, and my nation of guns. But I'm brave enough to face it without a portable murder device.

Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.

The aforementioned douche, however, was used as an agreement that one person's speculation (guy with CCW could have a bad day and use his weapon in anger) can be another's reality (mine).

Let the shiat flinging continue.
 
2012-07-24 03:10:21 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: ronaprhys: And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis prior to purchasing, then would you be comfortable with that same restriction on being allowed to speak or vote?

Conflate, conflate, conflate.

Shooting does not equate to voting.


I've already addressed your point. See below. Respond to that, why don't you?
 
2012-07-24 03:10:35 PM  
What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?
 
2012-07-24 03:11:11 PM  

Kit Fister: The poster I responded to seemed to be suggesting that owning guns and/or attempting to throw off a government was impossible, so no reason to try.

I was pointing out that it was a patently false assertion.

However, please feel free to beat off to whatever you wanted my post to say.


I'm thinking autism.
But go ahead, Corky.
Throw off that mean old gubmint.
 
2012-07-24 03:11:25 PM  

thetubameister: large clip rifle


go away stupid
 
2012-07-24 03:11:57 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


They're not following the city laws, because they know those laws are BS. They did follow the state law, which says that if a business doesn't want guns on the premises, they have the right to ban them. Trust me, the people around here who carry tend to be well-versed on which laws are legal, and which are just still on the books but unenforceable. Even the cops will only go so far as to discourage you from carrying, they won't tell you it's illegal. I know that from personal experience, the cops who tried to kick me out of that very theater admitted that I was completely legal, but they just didn't want me carrying there.
 
2012-07-24 03:12:17 PM  

JDAT: What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?


There was no tear gas in an enclosed space in Arizona.
Apples and oranges.
 
2012-07-24 03:13:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: give me doughnuts: soup: Is keeping guns away from individuals who have been judged mentally disturbed and a danger to themselves and others by medical authorities and the courts reasonable? Yes, it is.


Then that's where this discussion should be taken. The NRA (the organization) again, however, fights against even such a discussion w/ the rhetoric of "who decides who's crazy and by what metric?" and discussions that while have some minor level of merit, these are items to be done by professionals in a medical discussion vs. a political or firearms one.

That a database of individuals who have some level of reduced medical capacity does not exist and that their status as citizens who might have some certain restrictions on their rights isn't there as well is just ridiculous.

We threw together a Terror Watch List w/ spit and a vague idea of what a database is overnight (and I'm sure it was just some big csv file on somebody's desktop for a number of years). Can't we just start down a road where this is not the biggest assault on freedom every conceived? And the answer of course is: not if the NRA (again...the organization) knows about it.

I mentioned this before, but when I or others say "the NRA" they aren't talking about you or other *members* so please don't take this personally. We're talking about the organization driven by the mouthpiece of LaPierre and those like him who simply cannot let one bit of potential fundraising misinformation get past him without trying to squeeze more money out of members to protect your freedom (...from reasonable discussion).
 
2012-07-24 03:13:27 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: They're not following the city laws, because they know those laws are BS.


If that were true, then why the FARK didn't "they" drop the shooter?
 
2012-07-24 03:13:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: UnspokenVoice: Combat is two things that people don't get. The first? It is scary. The second is that it usually very quick.

Especially is the attacker is completely up inside your OODA loop and you didn't even see him arrive there.
Perfect tactical surprise, out of the blue.


Heh... I never went nor would I have been patient enough (I don't think) but I knew some snipers. One of the things they passed on to me, that has stuck - though I really have no use for it and never will, is that the best time to shoot someone is when he's shooting someone else. A bunch of the driveling goobers in here are advocating civilians responding with a firearm and a good portion is spouting off inaccuracies, assumptions, and advocating stripping my rights. *sighs*

There are more logical fallacies in this thread than there are in most. What's worse is that these people are normally much more logical. I have to wonder why these people think that laws prohibiting firearms are going to be helpful. I know that the weed in my pipe is also prohibited and you can be pretty sure that I don't have a problem getting that. I have access to Uncle Henry's (a local swap/trade magazine) and every last single firearm in there from a private party can be purchased by a felon and the seller isn't obligated to check anything unless they're an actual dealer. There is no way you can take the ones already in homes. There is no valid reason to attempt it.

I don't believe that those who have a history of mental illness (recent) or those who've committed violent felonies should be allowed to own a firearm without some additional labor but I think even they should be allowed to. In Maine I understand that a felon can apply for their right to bear arms back and the governor may permit that on a case-by-case basis. I agree with that. I also think that if you have no recent mental health history you should also be vetted and considered for such.

Anyhow, it is amazing how many stupid people think that they have a valid opinion. What is more amusing is that these same people will complain when judges judge or politicians enact laws concerning the internet because those people don't know anything about the subject. It's funny, really. I don't have much choice but to laugh at some of the comments in these threads though I've avoided responding to most of them until today.
 
2012-07-24 03:14:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


In the US insurgency fantasy/nightmare I would expect even stronger arms to be smuggled in from China, Russia, Iran, etc.
 
2012-07-24 03:14:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: If that were true, then why the FARK didn't "they" drop the shooter?


Did you even bother to read the rest of my comment?
 
2012-07-24 03:15:31 PM  

USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid


Brilliant retort.
 
2012-07-24 03:16:54 PM  

thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.


You need to go to work for the TSA at the very least because you talk just like either a wannabe LEO or a rookie LEO.
 
2012-07-24 03:16:57 PM  

thetubameister: No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. Some in my own family think it lunacy, but truly... I'm afraid of my community, and my nation of guns. But I'm brave enough to face it without a portable murder device.


If you want to hold that opinion, I'm okay with it. It's your opinion. I definitely disagree - but then again, I see a firearm as a tool. I've got bunches of different tools all designed to do different jobs. This allows me to pick the most appropriate tool for the situation at hand, whether it be repairing something on my or my wife's vehicle, our house, fighting a fire, or defending us should the need arise. This in no way means I'm running around looking for a chance to use any of them (okay - I am with my Xterra. I like modifying it to make it more capable for off-roading and serving as a basecamp), just that I recognize their utility and prepare appropriately.

Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.

I also know many and they are very scrupulous about obeying the law. In fact, many of them won't shop at a store that prohibits firearms. Hell, they'll drive out of their way. Part of that is voting with their dollars and part of it is practicality. Who wants to have to leave the firearm out in the car just to go in when they can go somewhere else. Much less chance of it being stolen, etc.

The aforementioned douche, however, was used as an agreement that one person's speculation (guy with CCW could have a bad day and use his weapon in anger) can be another's reality (mine).

Let the shiat flinging continue.


Personally, I think you phrased it poorly but that's just me.
 
2012-07-24 03:17:32 PM  

thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: ronaprhys: thetubameister: HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

How do you know he had a CC permit?

See above... at the scene, they told me after they ran his plates. Right or wrong, that was enough to sour me on the "law abiding registered derp-d-derp." Any idiot can get any gun, and this jackass got a permit intending to use it to replace his needle-d**k.

Good to see that you completely failed any statistics or science class you've ever taken.

/because anecdote isn't the plural of data.
//Could use your same logic to clearly demonstrate all self-confessed liberals are facists.
///Or that all conservatives are a paragon of charity
////Or that all Muslims are kind and loving. Or extremely hateful of all non-muslins

HUH?!? Who's making an argument? Not I... It is only an anecdote. But I'll extrapolate - logically or illogically - from my own experiences as I will. And this douche was a douche.

You've basically stated there that CCW holders aren't law-abiding citizens due to your personal experience. I don't think anyone would argue (assuming that this happened) that dude was anything other than a douche.

However, it still a well-proven fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are law-abiding citizens. You are, by providing this story and your comments, saying that you no longer believe that. That's a form of an argument as you are stating that anyone saying the vast majority are law-abiding is false.

No... I asserted that douche was a douche; we agree. My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious. To me. ...


You're doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
 
2012-07-24 03:18:03 PM  

thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.


banana clip large rifle pants
 
2012-07-24 03:18:32 PM  

thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.


well your entire effort here is pretty much summed up by "I'm ignorant, yet I continue to comment." cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle cliprifle

there's no better way to shoo away a tard than a rolled up newspaper of gtfo
 
2012-07-24 03:19:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: JDAT: What really upset me is that at one point the shooters rifle had jammed and he spent a good 15-20 seconds clearing the malfunction.......and there was no one in the theater with the means to shoot back.


I wonder if the outcome in AZ would have been different?

There was no tear gas in an enclosed space in Arizona.
Apples and oranges.


The canister was not enough to saturate the theater. Had minor effect.
 
2012-07-24 03:20:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.
 
2012-07-24 03:21:35 PM  

thetubameister: Whether most CCW holders are "law-abidin'" is immaterial to me; I know several folks fitting that description. And I quietly hold my opinion that they are cowards... and talk awfully big marking themselves as such. I've not met any CCW that didn't strike me as such. Not an argument, just experience.


I've found that if you treat people respectfully they'll usually reciprocate.
Maybe you're having a mirroring problem.
 
2012-07-24 03:21:42 PM  
"Now, Bob, you already have enough guns, we have to save for back-to-school clothes for the kids."

(insert news of shooting)

"Honey? Can I get the new gun now? Huh? Can I get it now? C'mon, we neeeeeed it!"
 
2012-07-24 03:21:54 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: thetubameister: USP .45: thetubameister: large clip rifle

go away stupid

Brilliant retort.

banana clip large rifle pants


With spaghetti. Don't forget the spaghetti.

(I don't know much about neurology either; but thought one could discern "rifle which can fire numerous rounds without reloading" but it's so much more fun this way.)
 
2012-07-24 03:23:22 PM  
launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

NICS is located at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
 
2012-07-24 03:24:01 PM  

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.

Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.


You remember all the derp about Obama using American assets to "help" with Libya, right?
My general point is that the average fat fark tough guy would last about the amount of time it take for a Hellfire to arrive from a drone at 30K feet.
That is all.

So go ahead. Fight that fight, heroic freedom fighter.
 
2012-07-24 03:24:32 PM  

thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.


You sound urban.

We're not all urban.

If' you think I'm a coward for taking a handgun into bear country, I challenge you to out-do me and go face a brown bear without one.
 
2012-07-24 03:25:46 PM  
Dear everyone who's rushing out to buy a gun in a knee jerk reaction without sufficient and proper training in their use:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-24 03:25:57 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Giltric: You don;t have to actually defeat a tank, or Apache or F 15...you only have to defeat the driver or pilot..I think there may even be maps that show you where the bases are across the country .....

asymmetrical and improvised warfare is a sonuvabiatch

That's why those vehicles are, ya know, armored.

Assymetrical brains and eyeballs are a summabiatch, aren't they?


In iraq, we lost million dollar pieces of armored machinery/vehicles to around maybe a couple hundred bucks worth of chemicals and steel pipes.

If it werent for a couple seconds, my brother would have been killed in his bradley while driving it when it got blown to scrap.

Do I think a armed isurrection is smart or would succeed... No. would the vehicle "armor" be end all be all.... Fark no.
 
2012-07-24 03:26:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Kit Fister: 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.

Oh really? Guess that means no revolution was ever successful then?

Please conflate a bit more until you've gone full pretzel.

Revolt away. I'll use your weapon and ammo after you're atomized.


I think the smart person who wants to go it alone moves himself as far off the grid as possible.

No one man can overthrow a government, but with enough voices in agreement, it can be done. Look back at our own revolutionary war.
 
2012-07-24 03:27:48 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.


Well since the shooter had full body armor on, you'd have to carry around a rocket propelled grenade to take him out.
 
2012-07-24 03:27:59 PM  

Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.


The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.
 
2012-07-24 03:28:11 PM  

Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.


So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.
 
2012-07-24 03:29:39 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.

You sound urban.

We're not all urban.

If' you think I'm a coward for taking a handgun into bear country, I challenge you to out-do me and go face a brown bear without one.


I'm from Montana. You fire a handgun at a bear and you'll piss him off enough to eat your gun and your hand. I don't carry... but I make noise. Could qualify as dinner noises, but I'm alive.

And more wary of moose anyway.
 
2012-07-24 03:30:26 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.


You do know that in each of the countries he named, a large chunk of the government forces fought on the side of the rebels? How do you think soldiers are going to respond when they are told to gun down civilians?
 
2012-07-24 03:30:36 PM  

ChrisDe: If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million 50 million people with two guns will!


FTFY.
 
2012-07-24 03:31:50 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


We are making the assumption that no one in the crowd was packing.
 
2012-07-24 03:32:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: give me doughnuts: Libya, Egypt, Syria. Successful, or at least partially so, revolutions with and against 20th/21st century weapons.

Libya? Yes, made possible by NATO weapons. Guess who supplies NATO with most of their weapons?
Guess.

Pretzels, dude. Pretzels.

Your gonna hurt yourself hauling those goalposts around.

You remember all the derp about Obama using American assets to "help" with Libya, right?
My general point is that the average fat fark tough guy would last about the amount of time it take for a Hellfire to arrive from a drone at 30K feet.
That is all.

So go ahead. Fight that fight, heroic freedom fighter.


The point is to make it politically and/or economically unfeasible. Win a pitched battle against the US military? No. Make life a living hell for service members? Yes. For politicians? Yes.

You've also got the whole issue with whether or not folks in the military would actually even fight citizens.

Really, it boils down to what sparked said revolution. A huge and sudden push from the government that's clearly facist, authoritarian, or otherwise anti-American? That might get it going. A slow and gradual restriction of rights? Probably wouldn't even spark one.

Also, are you ever going to get around to trying to address why I think your argument that restrictions in voting rights and speech aren't equivalent to firearms is patently false?
 
2012-07-24 03:34:24 PM  

thetubameister: Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.

You sound urban.

We're not all urban.

If' you think I'm a coward for taking a handgun into bear country, I challenge you to out-do me and go face a brown bear without one.

I'm from Montana. You fire a handgun at a bear and you'll piss him off enough to eat your gun and your hand. I don't carry... but I make noise. Could qualify as dinner noises, but I'm alive.

And more wary of moose anyway.


I'm from Alaska. Somewhere between round 1 and round 13, that bear will change its mind.
 
2012-07-24 03:34:29 PM  

dk47: We are making the assumption that no one in the crowd was packing.


By the ITG logic here, if they were, they were cowards because they didn't shoot.

/Like I said, if there were there, they were rubbing themselves to the violence porn on the movie screen.
 
2012-07-24 03:35:40 PM  

Verrai: ChrisDe: If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million 50 million people with two guns will!

FTFY.


Agreed.

This is Bubba using the tragedy to convince Maude he needs a new gun out of the household budget.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:22 PM  

ongbok: Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.

So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.


Seconded. I get a kick out of these "BOOM HEADSHOT" ITGs who think it's easy to make an accurate shot quickly in any high stress condition, much less in a room full of teargas with friendlies running about willy-silly.

It's pretty common knowledge (can't find a link online but predates the intertubes) that in WW2 for every enemy KIA our infantry expended around 10,000 rounds of ammo. And that's in a situation where innocent bystanders usually weren't running around in front of you.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:53 PM  

NightOwl2255: MythDragon: Gun Nuts:
-Love Guns
-Knows all about guns.
-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly
-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently
-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.
Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.
Feels naked when not strapped.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

Just had to add a few to even things out for ya.


Fair enough.
Believes Obama is coming to get his guns - Eh, it's possible, but I think he got our message that we won't put up with that.
Feels naked when not strapped. - Um, true. But I also feel the same way when not weaing a watch.
Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills. - A good number of them, anyway.
Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy. - Yes, but we will still do our best to protect you.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:07 PM  

Kit Fister: Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.

The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.


Ah well, I thought the Brady Bunch tested the five-seven and tried to get it banned based on it's AP properties when not using AP ammo.

I guess they lied again.
 
2012-07-24 03:37:31 PM  

Gleeman: Seconded. I get a kick out of these "BOOM HEADSHOT" ITGs who think it's easy to make an accurate shot quickly in any high stress condition, much less in a room full of teargas with friendlies running about willy-silly.


But... But... movies wouldn't lie to me!
 
2012-07-24 03:38:06 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:05:15 PM


doubled99: While I certainly agree that in 2012, it is now impossible to defend yourself from government forces, this is what the amendment was originally for.

My belly button was originally used for attaching me to my mom with a placenta.
I don't use it any more.




Cool! The government wants to cut it out and use it. No problem
 
2012-07-24 03:38:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Verrai: ChrisDe: If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million 50 million people with two guns will!

FTFY.

Agreed.

This is Bubba using the tragedy to convince Maude he needs a new gun out of the household budget.


This reminds me that I have to go purchase another one to stash in my bathroom. Cause you never know when some robber is going to bust in through your bathroom while you are taking a crap.
 
2012-07-24 03:38:32 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: Lenny_da_Hog: thetubameister: My personal feeling, however, is that ownership of a handgun is cowardice, and ownership of any large clip rifle is both cowardly and suspicious.

You sound urban.

We're not all urban.

If' you think I'm a coward for taking a handgun into bear country, I challenge you to out-do me and go face a brown bear without one.

I'm from Montana. You fire a handgun at a bear and you'll piss him off enough to eat your gun and your hand. I don't carry... but I make noise. Could qualify as dinner noises, but I'm alive.

And more wary of moose anyway.

I'm from Alaska. Somewhere between round 1 and round 13, that bear will change its mind.


Good point... "but best block, no be there, Daniel-san". Just bring along someone slower than you.
 
2012-07-24 03:39:27 PM  

Giltric: Kit Fister: Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.

The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.

Ah well, I thought the Brady Bunch tested the five-seven and tried to get it banned based on it's AP properties when not using AP ammo.

I guess they lied again.


No, they offered to shoot somebody at the NRA with it to prove it wasn't armor-piercing.

/this from the same people who claim to be "reasonable" and fighting the extremists.
 
2012-07-24 03:39:48 PM  
Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...
 
2012-07-24 03:42:53 PM  

ongbok: Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.

So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.


And we'll all gather round and sing "kumbaya" and the world will finally know peace.

/And since you mentioned JC, WW(R)JD?
//Not republican
///Not Jesus either
 
2012-07-24 03:43:32 PM  

doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...


Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....
 
2012-07-24 03:44:38 PM  

Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.


armslocker.com
SS190 on left, SS109 on right. (Well the sizes, anyway)
SS190 Armor piercing ammo is only avaliable to LEOs. Were as SS109 AP is civie legal, but is not a pistol round.
Now regular 5.7 commercial ammo is fine, but doesn't have near the power as the SS190 AP round, and is basicly a more expensive .22.
 
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM  

doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...


Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg
 
2012-07-24 03:46:57 PM  

MythDragon: Bendal: I call utter bullshiat on your claim. "Two or three citizens" firing their handguns at an armored gunman in a dark



Why do people keep saying he was wearing body armor?
The reciept:
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 620x461]
Shows he bought a tactical vest. NOT body armor. All a tactical vest is, is a vest with pouches for mags and straps to hang equipment from.
Looks just like this:
[www.blackhawk.com image 450x450]
They don't stop bullets. (unless you catch one in a full magazine....but then you might have other problems).


Vest : Body Armor :: Any Firearm : AK-47
 
2012-07-24 03:46:58 PM  
Are we even sure there weren't people carrying in the theater? Are we sure all the rounds embedded in various people came from the accused gun man and none from some hero wannabe?
 
2012-07-24 03:48:00 PM  
ronaprhys:Personally, any restriction of freedom of speech, the ability to vote, etc., is something I argue against just as much as I do restrictions on private firearm ownership.

So you're also a member of the ACLU then so you can cover all of the rights. Kudos.

But you are not the NRA. And I am not whatever you imagine the anti-NRA to be. I *am* however, a citizen that recognizes that the NRA is the only dog really in this fight and they are fighting primarily to fundraise and drive wedges around that goal and that goal alone. If Obama came out tomorrow demanding mandatory guns, they'd demand the right to cruise missiles. They are an issues organization and they're stopping any reasonable discussion.

I don't believe that, when we explore it, your position will be reasonable.

So despite the evidence of me asking simply to start w/ a position of asking if there is any situation at all when a "pro-gun" individual would recognize that a right to carry would/could be restricted you've decided I'm the boogeyman. I'm not a member of any group against guns and any position I hold is primarily that people are not "out to get your guns" at least not in the way that you think.

Can you demonstrate how a restriction on firearms is necessary to have a properly functioning democracy (though we live in a republic. Maybe society is a better word)

I did not require that restriction on firearms is it, but honest debate is. And the NRA is making that impossible for any public official to even start that discussion.

What *is* required is that while we have rights that are protected, we accept, as a society, that the State has some level of ability to guide and restrict those rights in reasonable terms. If that simple assumption can be agreed upon then it all really gets down to details. This is where the arguments will take place, but it isn't about "banning guns" or "mandatory guns" for 99.9% of the people out there.

I do understand how/why you'd assume I'd be rabidly pro-gun because only a person who has some kind of dog in this fight would dare to stand up and even volunteer to be a part of this discussion. But I'm just some guy who gets tired occasionally of the ridiculous discussions on this and is stuck on conference calls today.

That's already been answered. Several times.

Uh, no. That was only recently answered from the other guy's question here. But at least we're starting at a point of agreement in that we both recognize that the State has the ability to constrain these rights in some basic form. The scope/scale here I think is always the question and one that I believe changes depending upon the society at large in some respects.

In most states, this already exists. In this particular tragedy, it would've not impacted the outcome in the slightest. So, in essence, you're using an example that has no bearing to try and advance your agenda.

Well, you're assuming a State vs. Federal discussion here first off (as the NRA has fought any federal db of this type repeatedly) and you're also dismissing recognizing a cross-border seller having to recognize an individual state's ability to have importers abide by their laws. So I don't get what you're saying.

Plus, your whole agenda paranoia is just feeding my default assumption which is that an individual who strongly fights for gun rights generally believes everyone's "out to get them". Let's not feed stereotypes, shall we?

And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis...

Never said that and wouldn't suggest it. Seems over burdensome let alone likely unconstitutional.

Regardless, welcome to the discussion. But please refrain from assigning boogeymen to me before I've at least shown some evidence of portraying. I know it's easier to argue w/ a caricature than a real person but I have no interest in it and have adjusted some of my points here to clarify any frustration I have is w/ the NRA as an organization vs. individual members.
 
2012-07-24 03:48:37 PM  
Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg




What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg
 
2012-07-24 03:49:49 PM  

Fark It: Giltric: Kit Fister: Giltric: Kit Fister: MythDragon: Uranus Is Huge!: 1) How do you sit comfortably in the theater with a handgun that is powerful enough to penetrate body armor?

Like this:
and

Except the ammo is illegal, and commercial ammo available for it is woefully crappy.

5.7mm is illegal?

Where? I just saw a shelf full at the local store when I went to pick up some CLP. SS109 is available for purchase....I have some mags loaded with it for the AR.

It doesn;t have to be made specially in order to defeat armor...the ballistic properties of the 5.7mm round will penetrate armor..... .17HMR can do it too I believe.

The milspec 5.7mm armor piercing is illegal. You can get the non-ap stuff, but its ballistics from a pistol is worse than a 9mm handgun.

Ah well, I thought the Brady Bunch tested the five-seven and tried to get it banned based on it's AP properties when not using AP ammo.

I guess they lied again.

No, they offered to shoot somebody at the NRA with it to prove it wasn't armor-piercing.

/this from the same people who claim to be "reasonable" and fighting the extremists.


Woah, thats kind of an irresponsible offer to make to someone when regarding firearms. I'm even more convinced that people like the Brady Bunch know they themsleves can't be trusted to not shoot someone in cold blood therefore they are convinced everyone else would shoot someone in cold blood if the situation made itself available..
 
2012-07-24 03:50:08 PM  

thetubameister: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....


Do you work for the FBI or what?
 
2012-07-24 03:51:04 PM  

thetubameister: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Does anyone have any references/citations contemporary with the document's drafting defending this notion of the "2nd Amendment designed to shoot the government" idea? You have my interest... though I'm a little creeped out.

Lot's of rebellion talk 'round these parts....

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens

 
2012-07-24 03:51:44 PM  

doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg


MANPADS = Man Portable Air Defense System.

In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.
 
2012-07-24 03:54:39 PM  

doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg


anti-aircraft weapon used by individual soldiers. It's basically just a more advanced rocket launcher, though I am probably grossly oversimplifying it.

/woohoo military channel
 
2012-07-24 03:54:39 PM  

Gleeman: doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg


The way these winggun nuts talk, I imagine most of them are wearing manpads right now.
 
2012-07-24 03:55:59 PM  
Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:51:44 PM


doubled99: Gleeman Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-24 03:44:54 PM


doubled99: Too bad someone didn't tell those lunatics in Afghanistan only an idiot would think to "fight" the government with inferior weapons.
Bunch of psychos...

Because there's so many citizens in the USA with inferior full auto military rifles, sub-machine guns, C4, RPGs and MANPADS.

roll_eyes.jpg



What are MANPADS and do you have some point?

confused_dog.jpg

MANPADS = Man Portable Air Defense System.

In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.




Geez, that Tom Hanks movie sure painted their struggle with the Russians that way, until we started helping them with billions of dollars of aid.

Then again, everything in Hollywood is bullshiat.

/not even a Shermer, Illinois.
 
2012-07-24 03:59:24 PM  

Gleeman: In other words, go find an Afhanistan or Iraq war vet and ask how inferior the opposition's military issue small arms were. Their answer might not be the same as yours.


And if we were in revolution, advanced arms would be flowing in from all over the world, because we'd be in FARKING REVOLUTION and the government would not have stable policing abilities at its borders.

So what's your point?
 
2012-07-24 03:59:56 PM  

IQof20: DORMAMU: If you curtail on right enumerated in the constitution, you can do it to all of them, like voting or free speech.

WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.

This isn't about banning guns. I'm no more for an outright ban than I am for mandatory firearms at conception with in-womb training.

The issue is that there are some reasonable restrictions on certain rights that are much more necessary for a properly functioning democracy. But the NRA (the organization) is vehemently, through completely unreasonable position, fighting any sane discussion on this.

As others and myself have asked, is it reasonable to consider restrictions for individuals who have been determined inadequate mentally to be sold a firearm? And is it a better use of our time to actually start working through how that framework might operate vs. just assuming it is all about taking your guns?

Yes a person could get it elsewhere (although a perhaps illegal elsewhere), but isn't this a better direction for the conversation given that other rights have reasonable (and yes admitted unreasonable in some cases) restrictions placed upon them by the State?


But in the already in place restrictions, there is a large political diversification of what is reasonable.

Whats worse, there are those that have no problem using said restrictions until it is against themselves, then its wrong.

My take, you are on the right idea, but we have to address the political side of it, particularly political correctness.

Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!

reasonable is so subjective currently.

/mental eval for all purchases, not reasonable
//check of existing medical & criminal records I see okay
///imo, highly subjective of coursee
 
2012-07-24 04:03:19 PM  

DORMAMU: Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!


So you're all for the TSA crotch groping.
Nice to know.
 
2012-07-24 04:07:11 PM  

ongbok: Leeds: Has anyone here pointed out how unlikely it would be that his "body armor" would have protected him from a (boom) headshot?

Because in a crowded movie theater, I suspect there was no way for him to keep tabs on 100% of the people. One carefully aimed shot to the head would have been unlikely but by no means impossible.

The rush on guns is pretty logical and to be expected.

So you are telling me that you or any other person can make that head shot in a dark theater, while choking on teargas and with panicked people between you and the shooter without hitting a innocent? Jesus Christ you "If a CCW carrying person was there" people need to take the Lethal Weapon tape out of the VCR and burn it.


And you are here to tell me that innocent people were just huddling around this guy as he shot at people? Is that honestly what you believe?
 
2012-07-24 04:08:18 PM  

DORMAMU: But in the already in place restrictions, there is a large political diversification of what is reasonable.


Of that I completely agree. :) Of course I also feel that the political process of "sides" have caused part of this. Politicians have to prove they've "done something" this term and are out to show it. That's primarily where my beef w/ the NRA comes in because they're really jamming this down everyone's throats because the politicians can't stand up to them given the current method of election/funding/etc. (don't get me started).

...reasonable is so subjective currently.

I think that's kind of the beauty of the law in some respect. While it can be very frustrating for folks it is a wonderful caveat IMHO for judges and juries to play their part in the system. A way for folks to for once really feel involved "in the process" directly.

What pains me is that w/ education having really been dealt what amounts to a near-critical blow that we keep doubling down on, what is reasonable will now be judged in Desperate Housewives terms.

Ugh. Now I need a drink.
 
2012-07-24 04:12:37 PM  

IQof20: So you're also a member of the ACLU then so you can cover all of the rights. Kudos.


Nope - but I'm not a member of the NRA, either. Nor any other advocacy group.

But you are not the NRA. And I am not whatever you imagine the anti-NRA to be. I *am* however, a citizen that recognizes that the NRA is the only dog really in this fight and they are fighting primarily to fundraise and drive wedges around that goal and that goal alone. If Obama came out tomorrow demanding mandatory guns, they'd demand the right to cruise missiles. They are an issues organization and they're stopping any reasonable discussion.

As is MADD and several other advocacy groups, which is one of the primary reasons I don't join them. The problem with an advocacy group is that without something to rail against, they cease to exist. In the case of the NRA, there's no shortage of folks pushing to restrict private firearm ownership. Hell, even Obama has stated that it's politically unviable for him to pursue additional restrictions on firearms. I don't believe it's because he wouldn't welcome them, just that it's a non-starter so he's not even trying.

So despite the evidence of me asking simply to start w/ a position of asking if there is any situation at all when a "pro-gun" individual would recognize that a right to carry would/could be restricted you've decided I'm the boogeyman. I'm not a member of any group against guns and any position I hold is primarily that people are not "out to get your guns" at least not in the way that you think.

Based on your statements so far, I think my comment was reasonable. Now that you've put more thought into we'll see if it changes. As to the second portion of that, since you're unaware of what firearms I may or may not possess nor what I want to own, I don't think you can clearly state that there aren't people out there aren't out to get my guns.

I did not require that restriction on firearms is it, but honest debate is. And the NRA is making that impossible for any public official to even start that discussion.

I disagree. If a politician were to put forth an actual policy based on any sort of factual evidence that could clearly show a marked benefit to society, then I think it would be up for debate. The NRA may still choose to attack it - just like MADD would attack any position that advocated science in the determination of blood alcohol levels and their differing effects on people. Just like the ACLU would go after anyone proposing some sort of restriction on free speech. The problem is that many, if not most, of the policies I've seen in my lifetime aren't particularly reasonable to start with and need to be pruned.

What *is* required is that while we have rights that are protected, we accept, as a society, that the State has some level of ability to guide and restrict those rights in reasonable terms. If that simple assumption can be agreed upon then it all really gets down to details. This is where the arguments will take place, but it isn't about "banning guns" or "mandatory guns" for 99.9% of the people out there.

I argue that committing a crime with your right is already illegal. As such, very, very few restrictions are necessary. If I libel someone, I've committed a crime. No restriction prevents me from speaking/publishing those words - just that I have to pay the piper if it's shown I committed a crime. Firearms are the same. I should be able to carry anywhere I want, dependent upon the wishes of the property owners (all public property, however, should allow carry). If I commit a crime, then arrest me and prove that I did so in a court of law. If so, then I should be punished according to the law. Until I've committed that crime, though, why bother with restricting me?

I do understand how/why you'd assume I'd be rabidly pro-gun because only a person who has some kind of dog in this fight would dare to stand up and even volunteer to be a part of this discussion. But I'm just some guy who gets tired occasionally of the ridiculous discussions on this and is stuck on conference calls today.

I understand that position. It's mostly an office day here, too.

Uh, no. That was only recently answered from the other guy's question here. But at least we're starting at a point of agreement in that we both recognize that the State has the ability to constrain these rights in some basic form. The scope/scale here I think is always the question and one that I believe changes depending upon the society at large in some respects.

What you're asking for, though, already exists. See USP .45's earlier response. It outlines the background check requirements and restrictions.

Well, you're assuming a State vs. Federal discussion here first off (as the NRA has fought any federal db of this type repeatedly) and you're also dismissing recognizing a cross-border seller having to recognize an individual state's ability to have importers abide by their laws. So I don't get what you're saying.

See above.

Plus, your whole agenda paranoia is just feeding my default assumption which is that an individual who strongly fights for gun rights generally believes everyone's "out to get them". Let's not feed stereotypes, shall we?

Since what you're asking for already exists, I'm failing to see how I'm paranoid. My assumption would be that your pushing for a further restriction of rights. I'm also supplying context that shows what you're asking for wouldn't have helped here, so I'm not sure why you'd be bothering. I wouldn't go into a discussion on cooking steak and start advocating for less steak usage unless I was pushing an agenda.

Never said that and wouldn't suggest it. Seems over burdensome let alone likely unconstitutional.

Fair enough - others have when speaking of the same issue with the mentally deficient. I lumped you in with that group.

Regardless, welcome to the discussion. But please refrain from assigning boogeymen to me before I've at least shown some evidence of portraying. I know it's easier to argue w/ a caricature than a real person but I have no interest in it and have adjusted some of my points here to clarify any frustration I have is w/ the NRA as an organization vs. individual members.
 
2012-07-24 04:12:47 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: ronaprhys: And if your agenda is that everyone who wants to buy a firearm should be forced to undergo some sort of sanity check/behavioral analysis prior to purchasing, then would you be comfortable with that same restriction on being allowed to speak or vote?

Conflate, conflate, conflate.

Shooting does not equate to voting.


Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Btw, shooting is part of responsible gun ownership. Kind of helps to know how to use a tool you own.
 
2012-07-24 04:15:18 PM  

DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.


Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.
 
2012-07-24 04:17:01 PM  

IQof20: What pains me is that w/ education having really been dealt what amounts to a near-critical blow that we keep doubling down on, what is reasonable will now be judged in Desperate Housewives terms.

Ugh. Now I need a drink.


Gahhhh. You said it.
The stupid burns.
 
2012-07-24 04:18:23 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.


Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

Application of said right is implied and you're a moron if you think otherwise.
 
2012-07-24 04:23:20 PM  
Mercenary sensibilities.
For example, when full auto weapons were banned by the Hughes amendment, a gun that was worth 1k on May 19th, 1986 was suddenly worth double that on May 20th, 1986. Now? Even a crappy full auto will fetch 30k! The supply was fixed by the ban, but the demand is steady to increasing.

Right now a 75-100 round drum costs between $75-$200 (depending on brand and what weapon it fits). If they are banned, the cost will double overnight.

/nothing makes a person want something faster than telling them they can't have it.
 
2012-07-24 04:23:55 PM  

redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.


And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.
 
2012-07-24 04:24:24 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Some people are going to be offended. DEAL WITH IT PEEPS!

So you're all for the TSA crotch groping.
Nice to know.


No. I never said that. I find it a violation of the 4th without probable cause/warrant. Another right in the constitution, along with voting and firearms ownership.

What I said is politcal correctness is tainting arguments/discussions. Statements might offend, the the truth meter is tweaked so a group doesnt get whiny. It is an overall issue, not unique to firearms.

I do find it interesting you are selective quoting and injecting additional statements however. You seemed fairly reasonable for the politics tab. I now must question that appearance.
 
2012-07-24 04:26:10 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: redmid17: Right to free speech doesn't mean I can speak whatever I want but cannot write it down.
Right to bear arms doesn't mean I can own a rifle but never shoot it.

And yet there are unchallenged laws all over telling you where and when you can't shoot a firearm.


As well as laws regarding exercising of the first amendment
 
2012-07-24 04:27:21 PM  
Um, I thought we were derpscussing Sideshow Bob.

How did this turn into a WE SHALL KNOCK OVER THE 0BAMAG0VERNMENT WITH OUR SPARKLY INSURGENCY EAGLE JESUS BALLS derpscussion?

And who forgot about the teargas?

Which of you big bad studly ITGs in here is immune to teargas?
 
2012-07-24 04:28:57 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DORMAMU: Umm, they are both rights enumerated in the constitution. As garunteed rights they are exactly the same.

Go back to school.
Shooting is not a right, Corky.


Okay, you have a right to own a dangerous tool, but you dont have a right to practice proficiency using said tool.

/have a right to own property, but not use it

//facepalm
 
2012-07-24 04:31:53 PM