Posted on 07/20/2012 6:33:20 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
... A reasonable country would have taken steps to curb these tragedies years ago. Strong federal gun control laws wouldn't stop every murder in the United States, but they would surely make it far more difficult to have a world where a 24-year-old can easily purchase assault-style rifles and shotguns and walk into a dark, crowded theater. (And no, arming more people wouldn't have saved the victims in this massacre - imagine how many more deaths there would have been with multiple people shooting in a dark, crowded theater.) But such is the strength of the gun lobby in Washington that members of Congress won't discuss, much less pass, any gun control legislation.
Our elected officials refuse to stand up to a powerful and dogmatic lobby that fails to distinguish between weapons of war (such as the AR-15 assault weapons the suspect reportedly purchased legally) and guns designed for hunting or self defense.
Until our leaders find the courage to do what's right, the massacres will keep happening. And that is the most senseless tragedy of all.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
(And no, arming more people wouldn’t have saved the victims in this massacre - imagine how many more deaths there would have been with multiple people shooting in a dark, crowded theater.)
Typical liberal “thinking”. Some armed citizens might have actually kept this from being a massacre.
Of course he legally purchased it. His only run-in with the police was a speeding ticket last year.
So, ban "assault weapons." Guess what? Get a 33 round magazine for your Glock handgun. Swap it out three times and you've got the same capacity that his AR-15 had. And, since he wasn't up against anyone concealed carrying (thanks, Cinemark!), he's got all the time in the world to reload.
Ooh, we can magazines above 10 rounds! Just like in '94! Except... there's the pesky little problem of pre-ban magazines. Are you going to turn legal owners into criminals, or 'grandfather' them in and understand that they will forever be available, albeit at a higher price than now?
What is your real solution, gun grabbing morons? Notice I'm not calling you liberal, because I took some pepto bismol and headed over to DU, and even they are (mostly) denouncing gun-grabbers. The issue is settled, and Americans, red and blue, agree - freedom has its costs.
By all means, when in a firefight, surrender. Fracking morons.
Samuel Williams.
You may notice my post, I'm (personally, do this at your own risk) trying something new. I'm inviting the new-age liberals on this issue to join us and turn it into a bipartisan pushback against the authoritarians of all political persuasions. There are a lot of pro-gun liberals out there who are denouncing this. Heck, see for yourself. In my opinion, the best way to stop this faux-outrage (remember, never let a good crisis go to waste) is to join forces against these retreads, Democrat and Republican alike.
GO BACK TO CANADA, PIERS! RETIRE ALREADY, BLOOMBERG! STFU, FAST EDDIE!
Some times shit happens. Ban guns, the bad guy brings a sword, ban swords, bad guy makes one from a board and glass slivers. The beat goes on and will go on until most ppeople regain self respect and respect for others. It will go on until most people will not tolerate such crime. A bunch of shop keepers and farmers put the James gang out of operation for keeps. A bunch of armed and innocent persons will some day have enough and put a stop to “it.”
Funny they do not mention the woman only parking lots in German Theaters because of rapes... but that is a “grab-a$$” San Francisco paper doing the editorial there.
I can easily imagine there would have been far less carnage. The author makes the mistake of assuming that since he is an incompetent coward, everyone else must be too.
“A reasonable country would have taken steps to curb these tragedies years ago. Strong federal gun control laws wouldn’t stop every murder in the United States”
They always couch it in “reasonable” terms but it’s NEVER reasonable.
Also, my guess is that “strong federal gun control laws” wouldn’t stop a single murder.
Barrage the competition of outlets printing this “logic” EVERYTIME you see it. Mock them relentlessly and question their journalistic integrity. Not that they have any.
MOCK, MOCK and MOCK MORE. They do not respond to reason or fact.
I worked in media for over a decade. Trust me. They hate mockery. Especially from ‘fellow’ journos. They blow a lot of it off, but it eats at them. I have in my past career, seen a few reporters spaz in the office after reading a letter to the ed mocking their coverage of some event.
MOCK THEM.
Did I really say Canada. I meant the other side of the pond :)
“A bunch of shop keepers and farmers put the James gang out of operation for keeps.”
Guess “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” is one of those timeless truisms...
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with keeping tyrannical government in check. Any arms issued to “military” should be equally available to the public.
A gun owning society is a secure society. But, ALL have to own guns. And carry them. And use them.
If only the moviegoers were armed, they would have killed the perp, but they were sitting ducks at his mercy.
A gunless utopia is not possible here. The culture is a warrior culture with individualistic and tribal mentality. So, the attempts at disarming the society will mean disarming of the lawabiding while the criminals are embolden.
The only solution is to predict and prevent the perps. The socio and psychopaths need to be profiled. There are less than 5% of these psychos in the population. There has to be active crime prevention program aimed at these.
My carry permit was issued in 1791
Citizens with no criminal record should be able, at will, to carry, concealed or open, any firearm they please, hand gun or long gun, anywhere they please without let or hindrance by government authorities.
When my body reaches ambient temperature then you may take my weapons.
Perhaps there would have been more; likely not though. In such a situation the movie-goer's eyes will likely be fairly well adapted to the low-light levels. But this is ignoring that these sort of people seek out no-gun zones, which this theater is due the theater-chain's policies, and that if the general population were armed then this area would likely not have happened.
I believe Norway would be considered a “reasonble” country by the libs. Didn’t stop that nut from killing five times as many young people on that island as in Aurora.
WHAT makes anyone think to ban guns would have kept this guy from getting guns illegally?
I am sure the gangs and all the chicago thugs buy ALL their guns legally. ha.
better yet, just wait and the govt will create another “Fast and F..d up” project and then we will make SURe the bad guys have plenty of guns!
Just last week we had an armed citizen stop an armed robbery by two thugs with guns and bats in an internet cafe.
And no one was hurt except the creeps.
I was wondering - when was the last time we had a mass killing/shooting like this in FL, outside of perhaps a courthouse or school where they disarm people?
“...where a 24-year-old can easily purchase assault-style rifles and shotguns...”
So, is he quibbling about the age? I think 24 is legal for just about everything except some public offices. I mean, I’m all for raising the gun-purchase age to 25 if they raise the drinking and voting age, too..../semi-sarc
(And no, arming more people wouldn’t have saved the victims in this massacre - imagine how many more deaths there would have been with multiple people shooting in a dark, crowded theater.)
Actually, had members of the audience been armed, there would have been far fewer casualties and killed, for purely logical, tactical reasons.
To start with, the gunman is intending to shoot many people, so his attention is distributed in many directions to those who *attract* his attention, such as those running away, those closest to him, whatever. He is shooting for “quantity”, not “quality”.
However, an armed citizen has only one target. The gunman. If you can imagine yourself in their shoes, this armed citizen is able to actually *aim* his weapon at the gunman. He can choose when to shoot, more or less, and what part of the gunman to shoot at.
In this case, the gunman was wearing body armor and a gas mask. Gas masks do not stop bullets, so that is where you aim. Even if the gunman’s body armor is not obvious, the citizen still has big advantages.
Say the gunman is hit twice on his body armor. He has no idea *where* the shots came from, and has a distracted second or two trying to figure out, while that aimed gun is still shooting at him.
The journalist figures, incorrectly, that an armed citizen would also be firing into a crowd. But there is *no* crowd around the gunman, because everybody is trying to get away from him.
Things like this start to add up in a hurry in the advantage of the armed citizen. Seconds are very long increments of time in a gunfight. Concealment in a crowd or situation is also an enormous advantage. And focus on a target really matters.
I always take gun speculation and advice about what would happen with guns, from people who don’t own any, don’t know the first thing about using them, and actually believe that disarming law abiding people will stop anyone with the intent to do bad thing to others, is the right solution.
The cinema in question disarms its patrons. This is what happens when law abiding people have nothing. Criminals and thugs and unstable drug users intent on hurting others will use whatever weapons they can get.
I have taught more than a few libs to shoot. Many of them went on to get a CC permit, and a few are now active members of my gun club. Make it a non partisan position, and you win.
Quite honestly, in a dark, packed, crowded theater full of unarmed people, he could have easily killed more than 12 people with a chainsaw.
I guess we should ban those too, just to be safe.
What it all boils down to is this:
Liberals believe that our fellow humans are good, and if laws are in place, they will be followed and all will be well.
Conservatives believe that evil exists, laws don’t stop evil, and people should assume personal responsibility in protecting themselves and their families.
Hey IDIOTS: “Why not ban gas cans and paper matches”
All these IDIOTS FORGOT that the biggest MASS MURDER of people in a theater/nightclub happened in NEW YORK.
Over 60 people were BURNED TO DEATH by a guy who was a JILTED boyfriend of someone in the club at the time!!
Hundreds were burned and injured.
No call to BAN GAS CANS (Michael Savage thinks drum magazines are the culprits, IDIOT)
Think about it, more people were killed and injured by a disgruntled illegal with a CAN OF GAS AND A PAPER MATCH than were killed last night.
(Now, before I get flamed, I HATE what happened in that theater. BUT, the THEATER PREVENTED CCW HOLDERS FROM CARRYING ON THEIR PROPERTY! If I was there, and left my piece in the car to comply with that rule, I WOULD SUE THOSE IDIOTS FOR DELIBERATELY COMPROMISING MY SAFETY.)
When you say that I cannot take my own safety onto myself, by implication, you say that you take RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY SAFETY! Since you FAILED, I can now sue you out of existence.
/R
You are correct. And from what I have read even if you are wearing body armor, a hit from a large caliber round is quite noticeable, and would likely interrupt the shooter’s actions, and maybe even knock them off balance. A hit in any other place would likely stop the attack. Trained personnel keep fighting after they are wounded, lunatics and criminals usually don’t.
Yes, by refusing to watch, and perhaps make the kind of movies that glorify and apparently cause violent behavior.
Why don't the liberals pick on the 1st amendment the same way they pick on the 2nd amendment? Why aren't they calling for Hollywood to stop making movies that set off lunatics? Wouldn't that be "reasonable"?
Ownership of firearms by citizens provides a vital benefit to all of society. What benefit does the Batman movie series provide?
Tell that to the ATF who sold 2200 type automatic weapons to the Drug Cartels.
Automobile kill 40,000 people a year let’s ban cars. They are deadly!
What is great about America is if you do not want guns, you can choose not to have them. It is very simple. Typical liberals want to ban things they don’t like. That is disgusting. As others have mentioned, if there were armed people at the movie, they could have shot this sick bast%^d and saved many lives.
Avoid places that reach around 98 degress. People will be tempted to take your firearms.
None, jackass. An armed citizen would have been the functional equivelant of a cop in this situation.
Do you think a cop would not have returned fire?
The batman series provides a good benefit actually. It shows perseverance against overwhelming odds. It shows that just one man with no super powers of any kind can be a hero. It demonstrates that heroism is about sacrifice and responsibility and that sometimes even those with pure motivations can be misunderstood. It also shows that no matter what we do, how much we sacrifice, how hard we try, we can still fail but that true heroism is about getting back up and trying again after we have failed.
But if you aren't into it that's cool with me. Just don't play liberal games with the 1st amendment.
A reasonable country wouldn't let a criminally insane individual walk the streets without a chaperon if he is not going to be held accountable for this actions. It's been said that his mom told the FBI it was definitely him. If he was on meds/counseling for his anger/depression/etc, they didn't "fix" him, they made him "pass" for functional in society but clearly he malfunctioned.
In Louisiana too.
No need for the derogatory “jacka$$”. It is a real consideration. Imagine if you will, an armed citizen fighting back and not hitting the target, but causing collateral damage.
Who would have a field day with that?
IMHO, an armed citizen is not trained. Anything can happen. But I would rather have an untrained armed citizen taking action, than NO ACTION AT ALL!
Just last week, an old 71 year old dude took matters to hand and things turned out right. They COULD have turned out all wrong. Watch that vid, the old boy was brave as hell, but his skills left a whole lot to be desired! (lol)
Anyway, the insult here was not warranted. Nuff said.
I’m old, and I can’t remember. But I think it was the 9th circus that said that when purchasing a firearm, questions about a person’s mental health background were an invasion of privacy, and therefore off limits.
Someone more informed might correct me on this. But mental health is an issue.
If you were committed by a court, it counts. If you were voluntarily committed, no one can know, or something idiotic like that.
buy your 30 round magazines soon...
And yes, armed citizens in that theater could have indeed stopped this lunatic. People saw him. People could have shot him. Other theaters place armed policemen around the entrances to protect citizens. Could those policemen stop a killer? This stuff is nonsense, and the people who are jumping on this to cut a chunk out of the 2nd Amendment are sick punks. If anything, this incident proves that people need to be able to defend themselves and their families, no one else can do it, especially politicians who see this as a way to further turn free men into serfs. If we cave to the calls for more gun control, we will be playing right into the hands of Holmes and the gun grabbing radicals who helped pollute his mind.
Guns didn't do this. The NRA didn't do it. The Second Amendment didn't do it. John Holmes, the "prepetual student" from California did. Check with the Aurora P.D. They can confirm that.
Who are you?
How I express myself is my business. If you don’t like it, take it up with the owner.
Furthermore, your “O” isn’t very “H” when you assume (incorrectly) armed citizens aren’t “trained.”
Pray tell, what is your qualification to even render an opinion with regard to the use of arms?
It is “imagination” such as you have exhibited that allows liberals to have a “field day” with such tragedies. You have no more reason to assume an armed citizen would cause collateral damage, rather than save the day, than a liberal has for dismissing the “Laffer Curve.”
Bull shit. Where does it say all that in the second amendment?
If you've done your time, all your Constitutional rights should be reinstated, no ifs ands or buts.
I know a guy that does exactly that, and he is a damn good shot.
Wow, you really need to take chill pill.
I don’t know why you launched on me, but I guess its a personal thing.
Reread my whole post. Go back and look at the vid of the old coot shoot AT PEOPLE LAYING ON THE GROUND RUNNING AWAY.
I don’t know what you think, but the THREAT WAS NEUTRALIZED.
He’s lucky he wasn’t held over for attempted manslaughter.
And no, your calling another poster a JackA@@. Who the HELL are YOU to make such A JUDGMENT?
Drunken keyboarding can get you in a world of trouble. Just saying.
Have a good evening. Call me in the morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.