quote:

Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

No matter what you ban, some nutcase will find a way

...and that's why nothing should be illegal, because some nutcase will find a way.

[8|]

It works so well in Somalia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives?

Quick note about this -- relative to other major nations, we don't really have much in the way of gun control, and so it would be silly to say it's costing lives, with the ready availability of firearms in the U.S.

It will always be only a hypothetical here.

We should try some. It works elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
the earlier post detailing the folly of return fire from citizen/s in a dark crowded theater.......allow me to add in most crowded environments,especially when one considers the possibilities of multiple armed citizens unaware of each other and unaware of each others benign intentions.

Situational awareness and target identification would seem to be appropriate.

quote:

we should pass legislation that fines anyone who goes out in public and is caught without a fire arm on their person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The point that hasn't been adressed yet is that this took place in a concealed carry state, and nobody tried to take a shot at the tooled up cretin while he was murdering people with impunity.

Given that the self defence argument is the standard justification for concealed carry, that's an argument for more stringent gun control in itself, isn't it?

How so? First, what are the odds of a CC even being in the theater? Second, does the theater have a no guns policy? Third, is there state law in CO prohibiting carry in a ticketed venue?

So, is it an argument for more stringent gun control in itself or is it an argument about theater policy (or law stating guns are not allowed anywhere where one buys a ticket for admittance), both being forms of gun control?

If a concealed carry might have made a difference, and had such been present but for policy or law, the fault lies with gun control itself.

Because, whenever something like this happens, there's immediately a few internet tough guys like yourself insisting that if it wasn't for all of these evil liberals and their gun control, then somebody else would have slotted the tosser before they killed anybody.
In this case that obviously didn't happen.

quote:

lets amputate everyones hands and feet to make sure that there is no possible way that one person can harm another.

quote:

Because, whenever something like this happens, there's immediately a few internet tough guys like yourself insisting that if it wasn't for all of these evil liberals and their gun control, then somebody else would have slotted the tosser before they killed anybody.

In this case that obviously didn't happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

lets amputate everyones hands and feet to make sure that there is no possible way that one person can harm another.

Maybe you're recognize there are other uses for hands and feet.

It's hard to take you hard pro-gun folks seriously when your go-to arguments are so silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The point that hasn't been adressed yet is that this took place in a concealed carry state, and nobody tried to take a shot at the tooled up cretin while he was murdering people with impunity.

Given that the self defence argument is the standard justification for concealed carry, that's an argument for more stringent gun control in itself, isn't it?

How so? First, what are the odds of a CC even being in the theater? Second, does the theater have a no guns policy? Third, is there state law in CO prohibiting carry in a ticketed venue?

So, is it an argument for more stringent gun control in itself or is it an argument about theater policy (or law stating guns are not allowed anywhere where one buys a ticket for admittance), both being forms of gun control?

If a concealed carry might have made a difference, and had such been present but for policy or law, the fault lies with gun control itself.

Because, whenever something like this happens, there's immediately a few internet tough guys like yourself insisting that if it wasn't for all of these evil liberals and their gun control, then somebody else would have slotted the tosser before they killed anybody.
In this case that obviously didn't happen.

Might a concealed carry have made a difference? Who the fuck knows! Why wasn't there a CC there? Theater policy? State law? Just wasn't one?

Who the fuck says I'm an internet tough guy except you? STOP being an asshole. You're falling all over yourself to try and score some personal point. It's disgusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I agree, we should pass legislation that fines anyone who goes out in public and is caught without a fire arm on their person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

No matter what you ban, some nutcase will find a way

...and that's why nothing should be illegal, because some nutcase will find a way.

[8|]

It works so well in Somalia.

quote:

we just happen to have the cognitive ability to see that end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Look, if you guys want to let someone as dishonest as Ken define the conditions of the engagement, and the terms of the argument, ya'll have fun with that, but considering the events (as presented in the press conference yesterday) involved this guy popping off 50-60 rounds in a minute, I'd say it was pretty easy to figure out who was doing the shooting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever.

And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public.

If someone was close enough and level headed enough to draw and shoot the shooter without hitting anyone else or getting killed themselves they were close enough to tackle and bring down the shooter as well, which after all would have been the safer approach.

Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed.

Watch the vid I linked to.

Ok, lets get you post. Your response to there is absolutely no success if one is unarmed whether the venue is lit, dark, whatever is And that is why 99%+ of people have no business ever touching a firearm much less carrying a loaded weapon in public.

I do not see the link between what you quoted and what you state. You have two unrelated issues there. One does not follow from the other.

What is close enough? Would 12 feet do? Again, watch the vid. Her dad did just what you said should be done. He died.

Now Success in these situations, defined as stopping the shooter, is never incumbent on people being armed is partially correct. Defense is not incumbent on being armed, but being armed is way more preferable than not. Would you prefer rushing an armed man?

No link is in the post I responded to.

The link is firearms give people, dumb people, foolish bravery. Drawing down and shooting at the shooter in a dark chaotic theater with people trying to escape is just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Anyone who thinks it would have been the right thing to do should permanently be prevented from ever touching a firearm.

Preferable in these situations is being level headed and brave. Consider for instance the case of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church and Jim Adkisson. A man with a shotgun intent on killing everyone in the church was stopped by completely unarmed pacifists. Greg Mckendry stood between his friends and the gun and paid the ultimate price but it gave time for 4 of his friends to tackle and restrain the shooter. None of them needed a gun to do what had to be done.

Bravery does not flow from the barrel of a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I agree, we should pass legislation that fines anyone who goes out in public and is caught without a fire arm on their person.

Sorry but that's a violation of personal property rights. I have a right to decide what does and does not occur on my property. If I don't wish firearms on my property, I have a right to demand that with the exception of law enforcement performing their duties.

The NRA is presently trying to change that in TN and our Republican Governor along with the Republican leaders of the state house and senate are telling them to go pound sand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

we should pass legislation that fines anyone who goes out in public and is caught without a fire arm on their person.

Then we can be the Wild West again. Or Afghanistan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

we just happen to have the cognitive ability to see that end.

You're living in that end today.

Unlike several movie fans.