[quote]roybot wrote:
It’s not a hypothetical possibility. It’s what would happen if your “solution” took effect.[/quote]
You think that it would however it is only your speculation.
You claimed that it would escalate the situation and I claim that it would deter future attacks.
You already have my answer.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
It’s not a hypothetical possibility. It’s what would happen if your “solution” took effect.[/quote]
You think that it would however it is only your speculation.
You claimed that it would escalate the situation and I claim that it would deter future attacks.
You already have my answer.
[/quote]
If everyone was armed it would be more like trying to carry out one of these attacks on something like a military base, which never happens, or if it did happen surely less than 12 people would die before it was stopped.
[quote]anonym wrote:
As far as the “if more people carried guns…” comment:
Assuming several people WERE carrying guns for “self-defense” purposes – and were, say, recreational shooters who hit the range every so often to keep the rust off but have no actual experience operating in sudden, shocking, adrenaline-flooding combat situations… do we REALLY want them firing their weapons in a dark, crowded, panicked room?
[/quote]
Is the only other option to take a bullet from a sicko hellbent on massacre?
More guns in peaceful people’s hands would go a long way to securing peace.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[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]
In a cinema at midnight filled with tear gas, against a man in a gas mark with a bulletproof vest?
Wouldn’t matter if citizens were armed (perhaps if there were some soldiers off duty there but that’s outside your point) or not this man was going to kill some people and he did.
If you want to kill people that badly, you will, regardless of gun laws.
CountingBeans said it best in his post and I agree entirely with him. The thread should end there. But it won’t.[/quote]
Smoke bombs and he was not wearing anything even remotely bulletproof – he was trying to look bulletproof to scare his victims even more. He also chose a theater that explicitly bans firearms (one of the few in Colorado). He then surrendered peacefully to the police. This guy wanted to shoot fish in a barrel and he did. He had no interest in anything like getting hurt. Not even remotely.
Compare this to an almost robbery at a MacDonald’s in Florrisant AL a couple of decades ago: Guy walks in and pulls out his weapon to find something like 12 out of 14 people are packing heat. That ended pretty fast with no casualties to boot.
Also, in the UK they have a real problem with knifings. Why? because that is the only weapon people can get their hands on. If someone pisses you off well and truly, you’ll find something to given you an advantage. There have been calls to ban kitchen cutlery too in the UK.
“It is fear, not kindness, that stays the hand of the wicked”
– Publilius Syrianus (ca. 50 BC)
Full o’ shit as always,
– jj
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
and he was not wearing anything even remotely bulletproof – he was trying to look bulletproof to scare his victims even more. [/quote]
Interesting. Msnbc is making it sound like he had Kilgon Grade Military armor on.
Where did you find this?
I did not know this either.
Also, interesting.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
and he was not wearing anything even remotely bulletproof – he was trying to look bulletproof to scare his victims even more. [/quote]
Interesting. Msnbc is making it sound like he had Kilgon Grade Military armor on.
Where did you find this?
I did not know this either.
Also, interesting.
[/quote]
Massad Ayoob wrote an op ed piece on this (he is law enforcement and would know, if anyone) forwarded to me by a friend. The guy had a tactical vest on which looks pretty scary to people who don’t know what one is. Easily obtainable.
– jj
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
It’s not a hypothetical possibility. It’s what would happen if your “solution” took effect.[/quote]
You think that it would however it is only your speculation.
You claimed that it would escalate the situation and I claim that it would deter future attacks.
You already have my answer.
[/quote]
Marvelous. Instead of answering my question, you’ve decided to split my last post into two to dodge a reference you didn’t get:
People do not go to the movies to engage in a good old fashioned shoot out. Not even people who like guns. They go to enjoy movies. What’s more, if your “hypothetical possibility” that Holmes would’ve been taken down sooner if more people carried guns in a state that’s already been criticized for lax gun regulations played out in real life, then innocent people would’ve died or been injured as a result of the people trying to bring him down.
That’s what happens when you mindlessly chase a political stance with no regard for the real life consequences.
any word on the bomb in the theater?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]theBird wrote:
Let go off your guns America!
tweet[/quote]
No thank you, because of:
[quote]orion wrote:
every government in the history of mankind has spiraled into a tyranny.
Well, except for those who were wiped out by tyrannies.
[/quote]
Now I know I stand no chance against the tanks and bombs and better weapons and training. But at least I will go down as a free man, and not bent over with no choice but to be a victim.
[/quote]
Seriously?
The Vietnamese could.
The Iraqis can.
The Afghans could and can still.
[quote]theBird wrote:
In Australia we changed the laws and made it almost impossible for people to own a gun. Even proffesional sport shooters need to jump through alot of hoops before they get to have their own gun.
IMO, it has made the country a safer place. We havent had a mass shooting since the laws have changed. The last mass shooting we had was in Tasmania, atleast 10 years ago now, before the laws changed.
Yes, by making guns illegal wont stop people killing people. But it does make it alot harder.
Let go off your guns America!
tweet[/quote]
That is the homicide rate of Australia?
Care to show how the gun bans made a lick of difference?
[quote]theBird wrote:
In Australia we changed the laws and made it almost impossible for people to own a gun. Even proffesional sport shooters need to jump through alot of hoops before they get to have their own gun.
IMO, it has made the country a safer place. We havent had a mass shooting since the laws have changed. The last mass shooting we had was in Tasmania, atleast 10 years ago now, before the laws changed.
Yes, by making guns illegal wont stop people killing people. But it does make it alot harder.
Let go off your guns America!
tweet[/quote]
Too different. Different cultures, different availability of guns BEFORE the gun law changes, different amount of guns in the country. What did you have in the entire country before the gun laws changed, approximately 800 000 guns? In America we have over 40 MILLION. And those are just the ones we know about. Good luck disarming that many without a Prohibition like storage and black market popping up and even MORE crime.
The big point is different cultures anyway (that was made a couple pages ago, even some of the left leaning European posters we have understand that fundamental difference), and not just recently, but traditionally.
Personally I don’t want to give up my freedom for the (vague and not-well-proportioned chance at) increased security. Freedom, risks and all, is a better richer life than the alternative in my view.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now I know I stand no chance against the tanks and bombs and better weapons and training. But at least I will go down as a free man, and not bent over with no choice but to be a victim.
[/quote]
Tanks and machine guns, etc, are only so devestating when one projects force onto other continents (say, USA vs. Iraq).
If the USA became a tyranny, the small arms of civilians would be of great help because those tanks and guns are made in the USA, the means of production vulnerable, and generals and soldiers have loved ones attempting to live their lives.
This was recognized by the Union and the Confederacy in the US Civil War, with he Union deciding on liberal terms of surrender in no small part to prevent a guerilla war that would have brought the nation to its knees.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
It’s not a hypothetical possibility. It’s what would happen if your “solution” took effect.[/quote]
You think that it would however it is only your speculation.
You claimed that it would escalate the situation and I claim that it would deter future attacks.
You already have my answer.
[/quote]
Marvelous. Instead of answering my question, you’ve decided to split my last post into two to dodge a reference you didn’t get:[/quote]
Wrong, you know how I feel on the topic I’ve posted many times. You are asking me to post it again? Don’t be lazy just read what I’ve written.
No one goes on a picnic, or attends a political rally, or goes anywhere for a good old fashioned shoot out. No one walks down the street and expects to be mugged either, but things like that do happen. That’s why an armed populace is necessary. You’re imagined outcome of more people being killed if those people were armed is ludicrous!
And by the way you’ve offered no good alternative, did you notice that?
I’ll take a shot (no pun intended) at your answer:
“Just take your bullet like a man, and fall down and die…there’s nothing you can do.”
See…that’s not acceptable to me and a good many others!
Then why do you do it? Your “great prediction” of more people dying has no basis in fact. And it leans so far left that it can’t stand on it’s own merit.
I’d like to say good try but you missed the mark by such a wide margin that I can only say better luck next time.
I just can’t wrap my head around someone like this lunatic. He was by all definitions a normal guy, appearently up until several months ago I guess. What was it that caused him to do this? I do believe in God, and by default that there is evil in the world. So there is an easy explanation for me. I believe he was possessed by an evil spirit to do this. When someone opens those channels, either by video games or movies, they allow themselves to be manipulated by them. It’s not that video games or movies cause them, but initiate spiritual channels that dial in certain behavior.
For those of you who take more of a secular view at this, what would cause someone to do this? There doesn’t seem to be any motive. It wasn’t a moment of rage, or revenge, or an act of political terror. For those who go as far as an atheist worldview, what sort of evolutionary glitch, if you will, would cause something like this? Why are humans the only species that seem to do this? If you think the idea of possession or spiritual explanations in general is silly, what is the cause? This doesn’t seem like the Arizona shooting where the guy was clearly " crazy" and had a history of that type of behavior.
What is the motive for getting rid of guns and making them illegal? Is it to prevent people from dying? Is it to prevent people from dying tragic deaths? If the answer is yes, I just don’t get that line of thinking. Automobiles kill an average of about 100 people in the U.S. every DAY. NSAIDs used for arthritis kill an average of around 15,000 people every single year. Every year, double that amount of people kill themselves by suicide. Where is the outrage?
This is why gun advocates get so irritated with people acting do emotionally when events like this occur. I can’t imagine having to go through something like what happened on Friday, and I feel for the families involved. I know that energy and anger over what happened needs to be channeled into acting in a manner that will make the victims feel as though something is being done to “prevent” another tragedy like this from occurring again. However, this is is not the way to go about it. It is not going to prevent people from dying, it will not heal those deranged individuals, it will not rid the world of death, suffering and pain.
Taking away rights, creating and enforcing more laws, and building a police state so rigid that no action goes unnoticed will not prevent death. It will only make things worse in the end. It will only consolidate the power, it will only strip away more freedom. Luckily enough people in this country seem to think with their brain and realize this. Ice T gave a great interview and I hope more people speak up about utilizing a crises to mask real intentions and hidden agendas.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What is the motive for getting rid of guns and making them illegal? Is it to prevent people from dying? Is it to prevent people from dying tragic deaths? If the answer is yes, I just don’t get that line of thinking. Automobiles kill an average of about 100 people in the U.S. every DAY. NSAIDs used for arthritis kill an average of around 15,000 people every single year. Every year, double that amount of people kill themselves by suicide. Where is the outrage?
This is why gun advocates get so irritated with people acting do emotionally when events like this occur. I can’t imagine having to go through something like what happened on Friday, and I feel for the families involved. I know that energy and anger over what happened needs to be channeled into acting in a manner that will make the victims feel as though something is being done to “prevent” another tragedy like this from occurring again. However, this is is not the way to go about it. It is not going to prevent people from dying, it will not heal those deranged individuals, it will not rid the world of death, suffering and pain.
Taking away rights, creating and enforcing more laws, and building a police state so rigid that no action goes unnoticed will not prevent death. It will only make things worse in the end. It will only consolidate the power, it will only strip away more freedom. Luckily enough people in this country seem to think with their brain and realize this. Ice T gave a great interview and I hope more people speak up about utilizing a crises to mask real intentions and hidden agendas. [/quote]
I love rifles and shooting as much as anybody. Problem is these companies are in it for profit, they are in business to produce weapons and get people to purchase them. Not saying they have it in mind to sell firearms to unstable people, but it is an inevitability with so many weapons being in circulation and being produced along with the ease of purchase.
The companies did this to themselves, they should have done more to try to keep arms out of the hands of crazy people.
Here’s another thing. Certain psychological disorders tend to just sort of pop up in people at certain ages. I know for men, early to mid 20’s certain people simply develop schizophrenia, it actually happened to a classmate and friend of mine. It’s not an easy thing to make sense of, I can’t say that the guy responsible for the heinous acts in Colorado was schizophrenic, but mental disorders and how they come about is another thing that makes this problem complicated.
I believe that law abiding citizens packing guns are the least of our problems, but more so the brutality that the nuts are willing to use today.
Why are bombs the preferred weapon of the terrorist? Quite easy to answer: easy to conceal and more bang (casualties) for the buck. The reason we have less people killed by bombs as by guns in the US is because of the massive restrictions placed on obtaining explosive materials.
However someone with the criminal intent, determination and energy, can also get his hands on explosives. What scares the hell out of me is the combination of increasing brutality, coupled with an insane desire to access, acquire and use explosives.
If this clown had used a simple time bomb, and don’t try to tell me that your average theater is searched for bombs before a showing, he would have caused an even larger blood bath.
So now to my point.
Why is it that we define such a “killing spree” as “running amok” while a bombing is an “act of terrorism”? Again in my eyes the answer is quite simple: If mass slayings with handguns would correctly be labeled as acts of terrorism, we would probably have to rethink the 2nd amendment, and by definition think about outlawing handguns.
Or could you imagine the US further allowing the sale of handguns, which would be used (at least by definintion), in domestic terrorist attacks?
Edit: Timothy McVeigh was labeled a domestic terrorist, as opposed to just a crazy who ran amok.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What is the motive for getting rid of guns and making them illegal? Is it to prevent people from dying? Is it to prevent people from dying tragic deaths? If the answer is yes, I just don’t get that line of thinking. Automobiles kill an average of about 100 people in the U.S. every DAY. NSAIDs used for arthritis kill an average of around 15,000 people every single year. Every year, double that amount of people kill themselves by suicide. Where is the outrage?
This is why gun advocates get so irritated with people acting do emotionally when events like this occur. I can’t imagine having to go through something like what happened on Friday, and I feel for the families involved. I know that energy and anger over what happened needs to be channeled into acting in a manner that will make the victims feel as though something is being done to “prevent” another tragedy like this from occurring again. However, this is is not the way to go about it. It is not going to prevent people from dying, it will not heal those deranged individuals, it will not rid the world of death, suffering and pain.
Taking away rights, creating and enforcing more laws, and building a police state so rigid that no action goes unnoticed will not prevent death. It will only make things worse in the end. It will only consolidate the power, it will only strip away more freedom. Luckily enough people in this country seem to think with their brain and realize this. Ice T gave a great interview and I hope more people speak up about utilizing a crises to mask real intentions and hidden agendas. [/quote]
I love rifles and shooting as much as anybody. Problem is these companies are in it for profit, they are in business to produce weapons and get people to purchase them. Not saying they have it in mind to sell firearms to unstable people, but it is an inevitability with so many weapons being in circulation and being produced along with the ease of purchase.
[/quote]
Talking about using something like that to ram home an agenda.
You know what weapon killed more people in the 20th century than just about anything else?
Well except maybe non profit, aka socialist agriculture induced famines?
The Awtomat Kalaschnikowa, obrasza 47.
Those terrible capitalist pigs.
[quote]Cuso wrote:
I believe that law abiding citizens packing guns are the least of our problems, but more so the brutality that the nuts are willing to use today.
Why are bombs the preferred weapon of the terrorist? Quite easy to answer: easy to conceal and more bang (casualties) for the buck. The reason we have less people killed by bombs as by guns in the US is because of the massive restrictions placed on obtaining explosive materials.
[/quote]
Those “massive restrictions” are really just a bandaid.
You can make things that go boom out of just about anything, the most convenient probably being ammonium nitrate and diesel, which is what McVeigh used.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Cuso wrote:
I believe that law abiding citizens packing guns are the least of our problems, but more so the brutality that the nuts are willing to use today.
Why are bombs the preferred weapon of the terrorist? Quite easy to answer: easy to conceal and more bang (casualties) for the buck. The reason we have less people killed by bombs as by guns in the US is because of the massive restrictions placed on obtaining explosive materials.
[/quote]
Those “massive restrictions” are really just a bandaid.
You can make things that go boom out of just about anything, the most convenient probably being ammonium nitrate and diesel, which is what McVeigh used.[/quote]
Molotov cocktails and large firecrackers also go boom.
Maybe I should have used “high explosives” such as TNT in my post to make my point clearer. However the point of my post still hasn’t changed, and remains the difference of definition between terror attacks and running amok.