Batman Shooting

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

I do admit that past a certain point -when pandora’s gunbox has been opened wide- you cannot simply go back.
Israel, probably the US, paperstates like Afghanistan for sure.[/quote]

Yeah, pretty sure we are on the same page with what I was intending to say.

[quote]

Again, are there MORE scenarios where a concealed carry sheriff shoots a psycho preemptively?
My uneducated guess is that at least ten shootings happen for every single “NRA hero saves the day”.[/quote]

We’ll never really know. I mean you can’t ever know if the thought of guns has preemptively stopped someone.

Interesting story in New Hampshire, a small northeastern state in the US, who’s state motto is “live free or die”. Great place. You can buy and own an AK47. It is little Texas.

So these 3 teenagers, take some machete’s and break into a family’s house and chopped up a mother and her kids in their sleep. Then went to school a couple hours later like nothing happened. The woman’s arm was cleaved in half, according to the article I had read. She put her arm up to shield the blow and this kid slicked right though it.

These kids didn’t need guns to be horrid scum, and the fact the house might have a gun didn’t stop them. (As far as I know they didn’t case the place before hand, but I’m not 100%)

Taking away the law abiding citizen’s right to buy the same rifle used by people that are making bad choices, not necessarily crazy people, only makes the bad guys stronger, and forces you to be a victim by removing your chance to defend.

Crazy is always going to be crazy. But if Tony Tough Guy comes into Starbucks pistol whipping old people and threatening to shoot someone, that isn’t crazy, that is someone who can’t use their brain. Those are the people citizens with guns prevent.

I have, purposely, stayed ignorant on the incident. Much like the Casey Anthony thing, and the Penn State debacle.

42

American gun laws, no thanks!

43

[quote]whatever2k wrote:

American gun laws, no thanks![/quote]

That survey was published in 2002. 1992 was the beginning of a sustained decline in the murder rate that has lasted almost two decades.

“SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)”

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia

“In 2009 America’s crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969”

That survey was also done before many states enacted shall issue laws for concealed carry permits. So it has no relevance to our laws today which are not as strict.

Another major problem with such comparisons to small countries is the US is huge with drastic disparities between regions. ie Honolulu Hawaii has 1 murder per 100,000 which is about as good as it gets anywhere in the world. Detroit has about 49 per 100,000. It only takes a handful of really bad areas like Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans to push the averaged murder rates much higher than they are in the vast majority of cities and towns, which are quite safe.

Plano Texas has just a little over 1 murder per 100,000 and the Texans have a lot of guns. In Mexico which borders Texas they have very strict gun control and a much higher murder rate than Texas. I could go on. But if I haven’t proven my point by now I.m wasting my time.

44

Good post, and yes the US murder rate has fallen steadily. It is still very high though, compared to other western countries.

2008 numbers.

Mexico having strict gun laws doesent really help though, when most of the guns come across the border from the US.

"The U.S. was the source of at least 70% of 29,284 firearms recovered by authorities in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, according to new U.S. government figures.

The statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are expected to add to controversy over the U.S. role in fueling drug-cartel violence in Mexico, which has killed more than 40,000 people since 2006."

45

[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all I have a great amount of empathy for the families of the many who were killed in this horrible incident.

Secondly, I’ll take the contrary view to the liberals on this board. I think that more people should be carrying guns if so one of them would have cut this lunatic down before he did as much damage as he did. There were not these types of mass style shootings when gun toting was more popular in the 19th century. If you pulled out your gun with bad intentions you would have multiple guns pointed at you within seconds. [/quote]

This makes no sense. The assumption is that there were people in the theater who wanted to carry weapons and couldn’t for some reason and that if those individuals were carrying they would somehow know how to use them under those conditions. So it’s not about more people carrying but the right people carrying. People always say, “if only someone had a gun then…” The problem is not everyone actually wants a gun and not everyone who has one knows how to use it properly, especially under what is basically a combat situation.

I’m in the military and I’ve seen soldiers, who obviously should know better, handling weapons like complete idiots. I do believe however, and I probably fall under the liberal category, that we might be better off if more of the right people were allowed to carry weapons. I lived in NJ and despite being an MP I couldn’t get a permit.

46

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
ZEB wrote:
First of all I have a great amount of empathy for the families of the many who were killed in this horrible incident.

Secondly, I’ll take the contrary view to the liberals on this board. I think that more people should be carrying guns if so one of them would have cut this lunatic down before he did as much damage as he did. There were not these types of mass style shootings when gun toting was more popular in the 19th century. If you pulled out your gun with bad intentions you would have multiple guns pointed at you within seconds.

This makes no sense. The assumption is that there were people in the theater who wanted to carry weapons and couldn’t for some reason[/quote]

That’s not my assumption is it yours?

My claim is that gun laws are too strict and a free populace should be encouraged to carry guns (and learn how to use them). This will lead to less gun violence not more.

I don’t know how many people were in the theater for argument sake I’ll say 100. If half of those people were armed one of them would have certainly been able to take out the lunatic. Unless you are saying that out of 50 gun carrying adults not one of them knows how to use his weapon. You’re not saying something so silly are you? No of course not.

No, it’s about more people carrying which ends up giving you the right people carrying.

[quote]
I’m in the military and I’ve seen soldiers, who obviously should know better, handling weapons like complete idiots.[/quote]

But you’ve seen most solders handle guns properly so what’s your point? That some people can’t handle a gun? You don’t have to debate that point. We only needed ONE person who was carrying who could have reacted properly. And that one person could have saved many lives.

And THAT is what’s wrong with our country’s gun laws. They throw obstacles in front of you instead of encouraging you to own a gun and learn to use it properly. Bully’s prey on the weak, not the strong. A well armed society would not only cause crime to drop, but deter these nut jobs from attacking an unarmed group of people. I can only refer back to my original point, these types of crimes did not take place as frequently when most Americans were armed more than a century ago.

47

Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?

48

600×545 61.7 KB

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

GREAT point, sufiandy!

I think that they would be MORE likely to be carrying phasers, light-sabers and Klingon Pain Sticks!

Mufasa

49

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

Are you claiming that adults who attend such a movie are not able to purchase a hand gun and learn how to use it properly?

50

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

GREAT point, sufiandy!

I think that they would be MORE likely to be carrying phasers, light-sabers and Klingon Pain Sticks!

Mufasa[/quote]

He has no point Mufasa, and I hardly think that the killling of 12 people and wounding of many more is a laughing matter. There are ways to combat these lunatics that liberals need to embrace.

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

Are you claiming that adults who attend such a movie are not able to purchase a hand gun and learn how to use it properly? [/quote]

People are able to do a lot of things they choose not to do.

52

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

Are you claiming that adults who attend such a movie are not able to purchase a hand gun and learn how to use it properly? [/quote]

People are able to do a lot of things they choose not to do.[/quote]

That is NOT the point. You said:

And the answer is a resounding YES!

The majority of those killed were males between the ages of 18 and 30. The very demographic that fights our wars!

You say a lot of half ass comments Sufiandy and usually I don’t bother with them. But you should really know what the hell you’re talking about before you put hands to keyboard on a matter like this.

53

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

GREAT point, sufiandy!

I think that they would be MORE likely to be carrying phasers, light-sabers and Klingon Pain Sticks!

Mufasa[/quote]

He has no point Mufasa, and I hardly think that the killling of 12 people and wounding of many more is a laughing matter. There are ways to combat these lunatics that liberals need to embrace.[/quote]

Get off your High Horse, Zeb.

People who go to initial Midnight showings of Sci-Fi/Fantasy Movies will often wear and carry the paraphernalia of their favorite characters.

And it’s you who is debasing the tragedy of this event by making it some kind of “Lib/Conservative” issue.

Mufasa

54

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The majority of those killed were males between the ages of 18 and 30. The very demographic that fights our wars!
[/quote]

My mistake, I didn’t realize everyone there was military personnel from the military base down the street who went to see the batman movie. If only the liberals didn’t make them check their guns at the door this would have all been prevented.

55

The larger debate aside, in this particular instance it is impossible to say whether armed citizens would have helped or hurt. Maybe one of them is an ex-marine, or is lucky enough to be sitting directly behind this psycho and stands up and puts one in the back of his head. Alternatively, and just as likely, maybe five weekend-warrior shooters–we’re talking accountants here–blinded by dark and tear gas end up killing another 12 innocents.

All you can really say is that it’s disgusting and tragic and difficult both to understand and to combat.

56

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Zeb, have you been to a midnight showing of a comic book based movie before? Are you saying 50% of those people are the type who would carry guns if it were legal for properly trained people to carry guns at all times?[/quote]

GREAT point, sufiandy!

I think that they would be MORE likely to be carrying phasers, light-sabers and Klingon Pain Sticks!

Mufasa[/quote]

He has no point Mufasa, and I hardly think that the killling of 12 people and wounding of many more is a laughing matter. There are ways to combat these lunatics that liberals need to embrace.[/quote]

Get off your High Horse, Zeb.

People who go to initial Midnight showings of Sci-Fi/Fantasy Movies will often wear and carry the paraphernalia of their favorite characters.

And it’s you who is debasing the tragedy of this event by making it some kind of “Lib/Conservative” issue.

Mufasa
[/quote]

I’m not the one who posted a picture of a Star Trek phaser and mocked the idea of innocent people defending themselves.

But at least this time you’re showing your true liberal colors I hate it when you pretend.

57

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The majority of those killed were males between the ages of 18 and 30. The very demographic that fights our wars!
[/quote]

My mistake, I didn’t realize everyone there was military personnel from the military base down the street who went to see the batman movie. If only the liberals didn’t make them check their guns at the door this would have all been prevented.[/quote]

Many of them were military personnel. I read an article that stated one of the Navy men killed was attempting to get into the Seal program but what good could he, and the other men between the ages of 18 & 30 have done if they were armed? Right? RIGHT?

An armed populace deters senseless violence like this.

Liberals like you and Mufasa don’t get it and you never will.

58

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
It’s a crappy way to live, but we live in dangerous times.[/quote]

Which is different than any other times exactly how?

59

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
A shooter will always have an advantage you cannot nullify.
You cannot preemptivly shoot him.
So he will always kill first.
[/quote]

For whatever reason I feel like your use of absolute language makes this a false statement.

And people need to understand, America isn’t Europe. Our cultures are different. Europe doesn’t understand why we understand we need guns.

It has nothing to do with propaganda.[/quote]

I do admit that past a certain point -when pandora’s gunbox has been opened wide- you cannot simply go back.
Israel, probably the US, paperstates like Afghanistan for sure.
If overnight, Florida gunlaws would apply here in Germany, I’d have to move for sure. The neighbourhood would become too dangerous.

The biggest issue I had was scumbag teengangster brandishing (what was probably) a gasgun over some teenager dipute about 100 yards from me.
Apart from that it’s knives, so not really different from the stone age.

Thus we only had a small handful of school shootings in Germany (three or four in the last hundred years, the first happened ~1912), although it’d be probably an even better candidate, cultural-wise.

Again, are there MORE scenarios where a concealed carry sheriff shoots a psycho preemptively?
My uneducated guess is that at least ten shootings happen for every single “NRA hero saves the day”.
Also, what is your stance on the Zimmerman-Martin case?[/quote]

So basically you trade one propaganda for the other - that of our own guns protecting us versus the government’s guns.

I am not sure which has a better track record…

60

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The majority of those killed were males between the ages of 18 and 30. The very demographic that fights our wars!
[/quote]

My mistake, I didn’t realize everyone there was military personnel from the military base down the street who went to see the batman movie. If only the liberals didn’t make them check their guns at the door this would have all been prevented.[/quote]

Many of them were military personnel. I read an article that stated one of the Navy men killed was attempting to get into the Seal program but what good could he, and the other men between the ages of 18 & 30 have done if they were armed? Right? RIGHT?

An armed populace deters senseless violence like this.

Liberals like you and Mufasa don’t get it and you never will.[/quote]

It was just inaccurate to say 18-30 would be more likely to be armed than the 30-42 age range. I wouldn’t expect you to realize this since you are a bit out touch with the 18-30 generation, probably even the 30-42 if your as people say.

Also it is a bit immature and bigoted that you have to say “liberal” in every post you make.