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.

(Westword)   Coloradoan decides to test the state's open-carry firearm law, apparently not realizing the law does not allow carrying in an establishment where liquor is served. Yes, it's a theatre   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 331
    More: Dumbass, James Mapes, firearms, establishments, Thornton Police Department  
•       •       •

9773 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 04:20:16 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.


And I do. I mean for times when you come upon a situation that requires intervention, like rape rape or something, in which case I'd probably open my mouth regardless of whether or not I was packing.
 
2012-07-30 04:20:35 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.


In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.
 
2012-07-30 04:22:52 PM

ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.


Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If you were there during any of those incidents, you would either be;

a) first one out the door like the coward you are
b) dead

There's no option c. You are not rambo. You have zero chance vs someone armed, armored, ready to die, with automatic expanded clip weapons with a plan.

Please, please, please, stop pretending like you or anyone else could make a difference. The only thing that stops gun related crime is preventing people from having guns. Nothing else.
 
2012-07-30 04:23:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?


No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:38 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


That's why I was turned down. I thought it was because I'm crazy.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:45 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


You don't have to do it this way. If you're looking for WIE, just ask.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: joonyer: Gyrfalcon: When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

Are you saying that someone legally carrying a firearm is infringing on someone else's rights? How?

I didn't say that, now did I? What I said was, your "rights" have become more important than being halfway decent to other people. But if you must: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces? Why is legally carrying a firearm so goddamn important that it trumps other people's RIGHTS not to have it around?

Why is it so horribly wrong to consider other people once in a while? Because "I got my rights! F*ck you!" seems to be everyone's answer these days.


OK fair enough. I won't argue that seeing that guy's pistol could bring back some nasty feelings.

But now what you're saying is that people have the RIGHT to ....not be reminded of something? Or the RIGHT to...feel good? Or the RIGHT to NOT have a legal firearm within a certain distance of them?

Again, I agree that it can be a shiatty reminder for people, but so was wearing a black trenchcoat after Columbine.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:43 PM
I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead
 
2012-07-30 04:26:51 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.
 
2012-07-30 04:27:26 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Actually, when I went to get mine I whipped it right out and slapped my instructor right upside the head. I should have kept it up, because once he recovered from the shock of being slapped in the face with a penis, he beat me bloody senseless. It's about that point that I realized having an unusually large penis is fine and dandy for slapping unsuspecting people upside the head, by sucks for self defense.
 
2012-07-30 04:27:48 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Male genitals are entirely irrelevant to the current discussion and are not a part of any concealed weapons application purpose. For what reason have you introduced this subject into the current discussion? Do you suffer from a psychological obsession with male genitalia that compels you to attempt to introduce the subject of male genitalia into any conversation, even when entirely inappropriate?
 
2012-07-30 04:28:39 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


He didn't really have body armor. It was a tactical vest (ie vest with tons of pockets) and some "bullet-resistant" pads that likely would not have shielded from much (not many people aim for legs or shins). He also didn't have any automatic weapons.
 
2012-07-30 04:28:40 PM
www.clarkprosecutor.org
Would laugh at your silly gun debate.

/Jeese, can't imagine WHY someone would want a little extra protection at a movie in Colorado?
//Non-firearm owning liberal.
 
2012-07-30 04:28:52 PM

LaraAmber: ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?

Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.


an awesome awesome tiny penis.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:18 PM

justtray: Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If you were there during any of those incidents, you would either be;

a) first one out the door like the coward you are
b) dead

There's no option c. You are not rambo. You have zero chance vs someone armed, armored, ready to die, with automatic expanded clip weapons with a plan.

Please, please, please, stop pretending like you or anyone else could make a difference. The only thing that stops gun related crime is preventing people from having guns. Nothing else.


Now this is the way to DERP a thread!

Good jorb.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:58 PM

PanzerPants: Now if you open carry you can then open yourself up to a disorderly conduct ticket or causing a riot infraction, but


Not true. Open carry is 100 percent legal with out a license to carry throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania. However since Philadelphia is a city of the first class, they are allowed to require a license for open carry. But, they may just shoot you anyways. Or give you $25,000. You never know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

http://pennrecord.com/news/philly-open-carry-case-ends-with-not-guilt y -verdict-civil-rights-claim-expected-to-follow/

http://lansdale.patch.com/articles/lansdale-gun-rights-advocate-gets- 2 5k-settlement-from-philly
 
2012-07-30 04:30:08 PM

This text is now purple: PanzerPants: Philadelphia can suck it on that note, but I can see why they would want to discourage as many guns there as possible being so close and getting the overflow from that cesspool of human garbage that floats over from NJ, more specifically Camden. Cant they just make a REAAAAALLY long bridge to bypass that whole area.

Considering that I-95 is elevated from Center City out to the Betsy Ross Bridge, which crosses into Cinnaminson, not Camden, you could argue that they already have.


true, but it isn't long enough and there are exits that allow the locals to go over to Philadelphia to do their killin, and get right back under their rocks, and vice versa. Don't get me wrong, there is trash on both sides, there just seems to be more of it on the Joysey side due to what seems to be the abandonment of effort to provide their citizens with a full and adequately equipped police force to combat the crime problems. Budget cuts have turned that place into a slum and then they want to try and suck the regional police into their problems with a county police force. You really think the Cinnaminson police want to try to clean up the Camden problems? If they wanted to dodge bullets every shift they wouldn't have signed on to a markedly more affluent police force than Camden in the first place.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:16 PM

redmid17: He didn't really have body armor. It was a tactical vest (ie vest with tons of pockets) and some "bullet-resistant" pads that likely would not have shielded from much (not many people aim for legs or shins). He also didn't have any automatic weapons.


Be aware that justtray is a known liar and an open advocate of a fascist, totalitarian police state. Claims issued by him are not credible.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:18 PM
1) Derp was Derping political, derpatastic statement.
2) There's not a large enough mass-murderer sample group from which gun toters nor anyone else can infer the efficacy of a carry. Mass murders include OK City, Pentagon, etc. Take out the one where a gun couldn't work, take out the ones where you can't divine whether a criminal is there to execute 1 or hundreds, and you have a number sufficiently close to squat as to make any assertions worthless.
3), Golly, I hope you pixies feel all safe and stuff with your guns on ya makin' you feel all manly and stuff; got a lift kit and truck nuts on your vehicle too?

\saw Dark Knight, didn't bring a gun, didn't look... y'all need to grow a pair.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:38 PM

Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead


You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:38 PM

umad: Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.

If they are killed before they get the chance to mass murder, then they aren't mass murderers now are they?


THIS!

Thank you.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:47 PM

justtray: ...


Now who's trollin?
 
2012-07-30 04:31:01 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.


So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.
 
2012-07-30 04:31:16 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


Maybe some states are different, but you are not flat-out barred from entering a place just because they serve alcohol. You could go to a Chili's or similar that serves alcohol, and as long as you aren't at the bar, you are fine.
 
2012-07-30 04:31:57 PM

Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.


I exercise my second amendment rights when i carry a firearm for self defense. What right of yours am i stepping on exactly?
 
2012-07-30 04:32:55 PM

T.M.S.: No harm done. Just take all his toys away and make sure he is never allowed anywhere near a gun for the rest of his life.

Anyone incapable of following a few simple rules should be trusted with nothing more than a water pistol.

Easy


And what where those rules that he was unable to follow?
 
2012-07-30 04:34:20 PM

Grimm2785: Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

I exercise my second amendment rights when i carry a firearm for self defense. What right of yours am i stepping on exactly?


You are infringing upon his right to infringe upon your rights.
 
2012-07-30 04:34:45 PM

Gyrfalcon: JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.

So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


Drinking and driving puts other people's lives in danger. Open carrying does not.

How about we make it illegal to show violent sex scenes in movies? I know several rape victims who have severe emotional reactions to those scenes in movies and really hate it when they show up in films unexpectedly. How about their rights to not be reminded of their trauma? Does that supersede the studio's right to make the movie as they see fit? Are those movie makers self-righteous dicks?
 
2012-07-30 04:36:53 PM
Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."
 
2012-07-30 04:37:00 PM

Gyrfalcon: JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.

So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


You don't have a constitutionally enumerated right to drive. Now getting drunk and walking down the street or sidewalk would be more akin.
 
2012-07-30 04:37:23 PM

Gyrfalcon:
So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life.


I have consideration for others, but as far as the legalities are concerned nobody has any right to not have their feelings hurt.

You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


That's the dumbest false equivalency I've ever read.

Are you really that stupid, or do you just pretend on the internet? Is there ultimately any difference?
 
2012-07-30 04:37:30 PM
Edit - Bringing rambo wanna-be gun nuts [to reality] is "Trolling"...
 
2012-07-30 04:37:41 PM

Grimm2785: PanzerPants: Now if you open carry you can then open yourself up to a disorderly conduct ticket or causing a riot infraction, but

Not true. Open carry is 100 percent legal with out a license to carry throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania. However since Philadelphia is a city of the first class, they are allowed to require a license for open carry. But, they may just shoot you anyways. Or give you $25,000. You never know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

http://pennrecord.com/news/philly-open-carry-case-ends-with-not-guilt y -verdict-civil-rights-claim-expected-to-follow/

http://lansdale.patch.com/articles/lansdale-gun-rights-advocate-gets- 2 5k-settlement-from-philly


Yeah it's legal to open carry, they just don't like it. They've been known to screw with people as you pointed out, so I wouldn't want to get their attention personally. I guess that was their goal all along then, huh?
 
2012-07-30 04:37:53 PM

justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."


You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.
 
2012-07-30 04:38:29 PM
Wow, the smug index for Fark has gotten out of control lately.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-30 04:40:06 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon:
So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life.

I have consideration for others, but as far as the legalities are concerned nobody has any right to not have their feelings hurt.

You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.

That's the dumbest false equivalency I've ever read.


You have evidently read few comments from civilian disarmament advocates.
 
2012-07-30 04:40:09 PM

PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


Some students have to walk to and from their cars or apartments late at night.

Also, I as a graduate student have spent probably less than 1% of my academic tenure in a classroom. The same is true of most professors and staff members. Unless some student I've formerly TAed decides he hates my guts, or a crazy person randomly decides to start his rampage with the occupants of my office, I think I'm going to have quite a bit of advanced warning that mischief is afoot.

An active shooter suddenly bursting into a classroom (and shooting specifically at the armed person, to boot) is only one scenario. Even if we generously grant that the Nightline simulation proved that concealed carry wouldn't help one classroom full of students, that is really all it proved.
 
2012-07-30 04:41:05 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


Your absolutely right. if someone comes bursting in and starts shooting up the place. Im just going to say "yup, ya got me" and give up my life. Your a freaking idiot. And just because someone decides to walk into a movie theatre or any other place where large groups of people gather and open fire, that doesn't mean he is a trained assassin that has planned everything out to the point of perfection and has no chance of being stopped. I am not saying that having a gun in every situation will help. Would it have help in Colorado? I wasn't there so i don't know. Honestly, im leaning towards no considering the lack of lighting, the gas, and the mass confusion. But no two situations are the same. Maybe an armed citizen would not have stopped it this time, but maybe next time they will. Just because you have a firearm, that does not mean you have to pull it out. I think i'll just keep carrying as i like to keep my options open.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:04 PM
So glad I live in Arizona now. I am a bit surprised about Colorado serving booze in movie theaters. +1 to Colorado.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:09 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead

You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.


That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:58 PM

redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.


I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.
 
2012-07-30 04:43:00 PM

Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead

You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.

That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.


So you blame all the Aurora victims for getting themselves shot?
 
2012-07-30 04:44:23 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


Nice to turn that into a personal attack on me.

In the three mass killings I listed, everyone hid and hoped, or ran.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link


And I said resistance, not shooting wildly like an idiot into a crowd. That's why cops are trained now to confront school or mass shooters immediately, to enter a building immediately, to confront the threat, and delay or stop it.

I'd say you missed the point pretty badly.
 
2012-07-30 04:44:24 PM

LaraAmber: Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.

In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.


Well, I guess that makes it all better, right? So someone angry with a gun is less likely to be a d_ck? Dream on. It just makes them a dangerous, inescapable d_ck.

Gun=dick replacement.
 
2012-07-30 04:44:38 PM

justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


What exactly is it about your apparently larger penis that deters crime?
 
2012-07-30 04:46:05 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Appalachian State School shooting, guy shot three people before surrendering to two students who had run out to retrieve guns from their vehicles when the shooting started.

In 2007 a man armed with a rifle and two pistols shot several people in a Colorado church and was only stopped when concealed carrier Jeanne Assam returned fire, wounding him.

During the Charles Whitman shooting armed civilians showed up with rifles to supplement police (most armed only with shotguns or revolvers) and managed to pin him down in the clock tower in the one small area with cover, this allowed police to enter and take him down.

Plenty of factual situations come to mind, but I'm sure they won't change your well reasoned, sagacious opinion...
 
2012-07-30 04:46:06 PM

ddelorm: justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a ...


As I have noted previously, justtray is a liar. He also advocates a totalitarian fascist police state; he believes that only law enforcement should be permitted any means of defense against aggressors.
 
2012-07-30 04:46:07 PM

joonyer: justtray: ...

Now who's trollin?


Dangit, I bit, didn't I?
 
2012-07-30 04:46:59 PM

thetubameister: LaraAmber: Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.

In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.

Well, I guess that makes it all better, right? So someone angry with a gun is less likely to be a d_ck? Dream on. It just makes them a dangerous, inescapable d_ck.

Gun=dick replacement.


Are you referring to Dick Cheney, to Dick Clark or to another individual named "Richard"? Additionally, please substantiate your assertion.
 
2012-07-30 04:47:13 PM

redmid17: Some types of handgun cartridges legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett


I am disappoint that the .500 S&W isn't on that list.
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report