(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.
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.
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.
“...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.
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
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!
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?