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 137
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5856 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-24 12:24:14 PM
10 votes:
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 12:52:53 PM
8 votes:

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 12:45:16 PM
6 votes:

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 12:23:23 PM
6 votes:
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.
M-G
2012-07-24 12:21:02 PM
5 votes:

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 01:06:51 PM
4 votes:
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 12:55:11 PM
4 votes:

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 12:40:43 PM
4 votes:
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 12:37:55 PM
4 votes:

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 12:28:23 PM
4 votes:
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 12:26:18 PM
4 votes:
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 11:34:57 AM
4 votes:
Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
2012-07-24 01:18:15 PM
3 votes:
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 01:17:30 PM
3 votes:
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 01:16:15 PM
3 votes:
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 01:08:56 PM
3 votes:
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 01:07:09 PM
3 votes:

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 12:59:43 PM
3 votes:

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 12:56:32 PM
3 votes:

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 12:47:42 PM
3 votes:

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 12:44:16 PM
3 votes:

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 12:37:09 PM
3 votes:

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 12:32:52 PM
3 votes:

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 12:28:26 PM
3 votes:

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 12:22:25 PM
3 votes:
i0.kym-cdn.com
2012-07-24 03:46:58 PM
2 votes:
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 02:44:30 PM
2 votes:

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 02:16:45 PM
2 votes:
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 01:52:39 PM
2 votes:

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 01:40:26 PM
2 votes:

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 01:21:53 PM
2 votes:

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 01:17:55 PM
2 votes:

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 01:13:43 PM
2 votes:

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 01:08:58 PM
2 votes:

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 01:08:03 PM
2 votes:
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 01:07:09 PM
2 votes:

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 01:04:25 PM
2 votes:

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 01:02:02 PM
2 votes:

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 12:59:06 PM
2 votes:
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 12:57:34 PM
2 votes:

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 12:57:14 PM
2 votes:

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 12:56:28 PM
2 votes:
I carry a gun because cops are too heavy.

/Former LEO
//Expert marksmen
2012-07-24 12:51:26 PM
2 votes:
I see the 101st Chairborne Division is out in full force.

www.pursuingholiness.com
2012-07-24 12:49:02 PM
2 votes:

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 12:45:12 PM
2 votes:

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 12:43:54 PM
2 votes:

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 12:42:50 PM
2 votes:
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 12:42:04 PM
2 votes:

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 12:40:47 PM
2 votes:

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 12:36:55 PM
2 votes:
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 12:36:20 PM
2 votes:

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 12:36:06 PM
2 votes:
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 12:34:49 PM
2 votes:

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 12:31:25 PM
2 votes:

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 12:26:55 PM
2 votes:

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 12:26:47 PM
2 votes:
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 12:24:04 PM
2 votes:
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 12:23:15 PM
2 votes:
If 50 million people with guns can't stop these shootings, then 51 million will!
2012-07-24 11:47:06 AM
2 votes:
i253.photobucket.com

Insane, Earthlings are. Never learn, they will. Hmmmmmm.
2012-07-25 02:17:01 AM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Second paragraph FTFA:

"It's been insane," Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.

Yup. Concealed carry is.


Yep. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is insane. That sounds like an intelligent way to think.
2012-07-24 06:39:06 PM
1 votes:

Noticeably F.A.T.: a culture that has historically been fairly submissive to its government.



As opposed to America who passes the Patriot Act with flying colors. Not once, not twice, but three times.
2012-07-24 05:02:38 PM
1 votes:

IQof20: 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.


Perhaps that's because you're arguing from a false premise to start with. There are already restrictions, there are quite a few. I'm not sure but I think it also qualifies as reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not "pro-gun" so much as I am pro-freedom. Having said that, I also open-carry and have a CCW though I see no reason to hide it in Maine. I enjoy the sport, I also enjoy hunting (which I don't view as a sport). Why do I carry one? I often have large sums of cash on me but that's not really the reason - I actually enjoy rabbit and other small game. It is very tasty.

Having said that, there are reasonable restrictions in place now. Those saying that mentally ill people shouldn't be able to get firearms are likely intentionally ignoring that those who are recognized by the State as being mentally ill are prohibited persons (as are felons) already. Prohibition doesn't work or you'd not be able to smoke your pot, do your coke, etc... I see no reason to take my freedom away because of the acts of another. Should we take away your right to free speech because of the jackasses that caused harm while OWS was more active? Of course not.

Additional regulation isn't the answer. Healing, moving on, accepting the consequences, learning, and being alert are far better choices than reacting to a statistical outlier. I have yet to see any new legislation being enacted to ban lightening or going out in a storm. We live in a free society, one of the consequences of that choice is that people are free to do harm to others (they aren't at liberty to do so, however), and I have no desire to change that and, deep down, I suspect you don't either.

Fear is a good motivator. It isn't so good for logic though. It doesn't usually result in a good response. When has prohibition worked and what restrictions would you propose? Why do you think those restrictions would help? What education or expertise do you bring to the table?

As I've mentioned, the people here tend to complain about the technologically illiterate making laws about how we use technology. It is funny that the people who are scared of inanimate objects feel that they're capable of determining the freedoms that other people enjoy. Cowardice is not a valid starting point for legislation and every law is a restriction on someones freedoms for better or for worse.

So, yeah, I'm quite willing to have a discussion about firearm legislation and I'll maintain my objectivity and honesty. Where would you like to begin?
2012-07-24 03:35:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:36 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:13:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:15 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:06 PM
1 votes:
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 02:40:16 PM
1 votes:

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 02:37:39 PM
1 votes:
2012-07-24 02:36:07 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:09 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:56 PM
1 votes:
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 02:11:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:07:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:02:40 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:06 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:50 PM
1 votes:

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 01:43:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:36:28 PM
1 votes:
suhaimiramly.files.wordpress.com

/will end well.....
//link is hot like gasoline burning your severed ear....
2012-07-24 01:36:01 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:26 PM
1 votes:
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 01:30:18 PM
1 votes:

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 01:28:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:26:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:22:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:21:38 PM
1 votes:

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 01:21:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:56 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:38 PM
1 votes:

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 01:13:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:13:06 PM
1 votes:

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 01:13:05 PM
1 votes:
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 01:12:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:26 PM
1 votes:

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 01:11:46 PM
1 votes:

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 01:10:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:08:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:07:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:28 PM
1 votes:
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 01:05:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:27 PM
1 votes:

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 01:04:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:09 PM
1 votes:
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 01:01:59 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:31 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:43 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:40 PM
1 votes:
If you really wanted to save lives, you'd walk around with a defibrillator.
2012-07-24 12:54:59 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:12 PM
1 votes:

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 12:50:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:18 PM
1 votes:
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 12:46:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:13 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:06 PM
1 votes:
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 12:45:17 PM
1 votes:

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 12:42:18 PM
1 votes:
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 12:40:36 PM
1 votes:
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 12:40:02 PM
1 votes:
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 12:38:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:36:07 PM
1 votes:
Fark, but people are stupid.
2012-07-24 12:35:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:34:22 PM
1 votes:

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 12:33:57 PM
1 votes:

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 12:33:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:22 PM
1 votes:
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 12:27:04 PM
1 votes:
That's it, I'm investing in Smith and Wesson.


/SWHC
2012-07-24 12:26:20 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:16 PM
1 votes:
redstatevirginia.com
Faith in action. Bolt action, that is.
2012-07-24 12:23:29 PM
1 votes:
Buy them cheap in Colorado, then move somewhere like Texas or Georgia, where guns will pretty much never be banned.
2012-07-24 12:21:11 PM
1 votes:
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 12:16:46 PM
1 votes:
So the NRA financed and aided Sideshow Bob with the cunning intention of convincing everyone to buy and carry a gun.
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM
1 votes:
In other news, the NRA today introduced their new spokesman...

mojoimage.com
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report