Skip to comments.The gun madness continues
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 ...
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.
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.
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.