PDA

View Full Version : Mass Shooting at CO Dark Knight Rises Premiere



CallMeDaddy
07-20-2012, 06:02 AM
http://www.9news.com/news/article/278707/71/Shooting-at-Aurora-movie-theater


AURORA - Ten people are dead after a shooting at the Century 16 Movie Theaters at the Aurora Town Center.

There were at least 39 people injured to Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates.

Nicole Williams, with Swedish Medical Center, says the hospital was allerted to a mass casualty incident at 1:15 a.m. Friday.

Williams says the hospital was told to prepare for at least 20 patients.

According to witnesses, the shooter kicked in the emergency exit door in theater 9, threw some sort of disorienting smoke bombs and started shooting.

ABC News is now saying 14 are dead, 50 injured. 100 FBI agents are on the scene. Police are searching the gunman's apartment for explosives. The story keeps getting crazier as more details are released.

DisturbedShifty
07-20-2012, 06:14 AM
I'm just glad he didn't get away. I am thinking he is going to be like that looney that shot Sen. Gifford.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

CallMeDaddy
07-20-2012, 06:46 AM
I'm just glad he didn't get away. I am thinking he is going to be like that looney that shot Sen. Gifford.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.


The guy was trying to be like Bane, came in with a shotgun and a handgun. Had goggles with a gas mask on as-well as a bulletproof vest.

A young girl had a bullet in her back, so shooter had no limitations in regards to targeting children.

---------- Post added at 05:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 AM ----------

Apparently the death rate is now at 15, the youngest victim was 6 years old.

DisturbedShifty
07-20-2012, 06:56 AM
The guy was trying to be like Bane, came in with a shotgun and a handgun. Had goggles with a gas mask on as-well as a bulletproof vest.

A young girl had a bullet in her back, so shooter had no limitations in regards to targeting children.

---------- Post added at 05:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 AM ----------

Apparently the death rate is now at 15, the youngest victim was 6 years old.

Sometimes I wish public stoning was still allowed.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

CallMeDaddy
07-20-2012, 06:57 AM
Sometimes I wish public stoning was still allowed.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

I hope that SOB gets butt-raped by a broken off pipe in prison everyday for the rest of his life.

CalDolFan10x14
07-20-2012, 07:24 AM
:bobdole: Gotta wonder what possesses someone to pull something off like this especially when children are included among the victims!!! So thoughtless! I hope he gets what's coming to him.

Phinatic8u
07-20-2012, 08:05 AM
This is such a sad story.

He'll get his due, he'll have a miserable rest of his life.

Tunaphish429
07-20-2012, 08:13 AM
Really messed up...Ppl cant go see a movie..I am sure he will say that Nolan or Batman told him to do it...

I hope no one from our board has been injured.

DisturbedShifty
07-20-2012, 08:27 AM
Another sad fact is there is a good chance none of these people will ever be able to watch this movie again just because it will remind them of this incident.

Also I really hope Warner Bros does the classy thing and donates a chunk of the movie profits to these families. It only seems right.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Nublar7
07-20-2012, 09:08 AM
This is such a sad story.

He'll get his due, he'll have a miserable rest of his life.He shouldn't have a rest of his life. This is the type of crime that should end with lethal injection. I know the court process will take some time, but this should be the outcome.

When I was younger and didn't have to worry about getting up for work early the next day I loved to go to these midnight showings of movies. It is a completely different atmosphere than going during normal hours. Never was one of the geeks that would dress up, but still it was a lot of fun. The last movie I got to go to a midnight showing of was Star Trek back in 2009, so it has been some time for me. It is a shame these people didn't get to enjoy the experience and it is really a sickening incident to hear about.

Talk about messed up and scary, did you guys see the twitter page for Jessica Redfield? She was tweeting about her excitement to see the movie up to 20 minutes before it started. Almost an hour later she is dead. Scary.

Spesh
07-20-2012, 10:09 AM
A San Diego woman who identified herself as James Holmes' mother told ABC News she had awoken unaware of the shooting and had not yet been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.
"You have the right person," she said, apparently speaking on gut instinct. "I need to call the police... I need to fly out to Colorado."


http://news.yahoo.com/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes-115717096--abc-news-topstories.html

Looking more and more like the guy was a wackjob.
He also planted a explosive device in the theater, though law enforcement agents are unsure about when he planted it(if it was before the shooting or tossed in during). Absolutely sickening.

Willing to bet this goes down like the Norway situation. Clearly unstable man latches onto a absurd message and it compels him towards violence, in this case some sort of social revolution. He wont apologize for it. Scumbag.

Gonzo
07-20-2012, 10:17 AM
Unbelievable. What's also ****ed up is that it's already coming out that there were warning signs and nobody did anything about it. His own mother came out saying they have the right person:

http://news.yahoo.com/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes-115717096--abc-news-topstories.html

How noble of you to come out now bitch. "Gut instinct" my ass; that's just another way of saying, "my kid is a psycho, but I wouldn't do anything about it earlier because he's mah boy!"

Remember all the warning signs about Jared Lee Loughner that nobody did anything about? This will be the same way. You don't amass weapons, bulletproof vests, etc. or develop the kind of mindset it takes to do something like this without somebody noticing and choosing to do nothing.

DisturbedShifty
07-20-2012, 10:18 AM
Willing to bet this goes down like the Norway situation. Clearly unstable man latches onto a absurd message and it compels him towards violence, in this case some sort of social revolution. He wont apologize for it. Scumbag.

Pretty much my line of thinking. Can't wait to see the mug shot. Wonder if he will look as nutty as Gifford's shooter.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

SpurzN703
07-20-2012, 10:24 AM
Eye for an eye. Kill him the same way he murdered the dozen people.

Bumpus
07-20-2012, 10:46 AM
It's **** like this that makes me want to get my concealed carry permit.



Side note: WTF was a six year old doing in a movie theater at 1:15 am???

Ilovemyfins4eva
07-20-2012, 10:53 AM
Eye for an eye. Kill him the same way he murdered the dozen people.i wish this was the way it was, then people may think again before carrying out there plan.

it would not eliminate violence fully because there are many sick people out their who don't care, but it may reduce crime rate if people knew that they would die the exact same way they carried out their act.

COphinphan89
07-20-2012, 10:55 AM
It's **** like this that makes me want to get my concealed carry permit.



Side note: WTF was a six year old doing in a movie theater at 1:15 am???

I live in Colorado and have a gun and have taken the class. Just need to get off my ass and turn in an application.

DphinBillkiller
07-20-2012, 10:55 AM
The guy is a very dangerous and disturbed individual with a long future behind bars.

Ilovemyfins4eva
07-20-2012, 10:56 AM
He shouldn't have a rest of his life. This is the type of crime that should end with lethal injection. I know the court process will take some time, but this should be the outcome.

When I was younger and didn't have to worry about getting up for work early the next day I loved to go to these midnight showings of movies. It is a completely different atmosphere than going during normal hours. Never was one of the geeks that would dress up, but still it was a lot of fun. The last movie I got to go to a midnight showing of was Star Trek back in 2009, so it has been some time for me. It is a shame these people didn't get to enjoy the experience and it is really a sickening incident to hear about.

Talk about messed up and scary, did you guys see the twitter page for Jessica Redfield? She was tweeting about her excitement to see the movie up to 20 minutes before it started. Almost an hour later she is dead. Scary.
he deff deserves to die and will, but i rather him be shot by someone in the head, or beat to death, or some painful other way rather than just getting injected.

i really wish every state had the electric chair, watching him get electrocuted to death would be nice, but a needle is way to easy and painless.

im happy he didn't kill himself at least, now hopefully he suffers.

Nublar7
07-20-2012, 10:59 AM
Wow, check this out. Jessica Redfield, who was shot to death at the movie theater this morning, just missed being being involved in another public shooting in June. It is like a real life Final Destination.

http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/late-night-thoughts-on-the-eaton-center-shooting/

NY8123
07-20-2012, 11:36 AM
He shouldn't have a rest of his life. This is the type of crime that should end with lethal injection. I know the court process will take some time, but this should be the outcome.

When I was younger and didn't have to worry about getting up for work early the next day I loved to go to these midnight showings of movies. It is a completely different atmosphere than going during normal hours. Never was one of the geeks that would dress up, but still it was a lot of fun. The last movie I got to go to a midnight showing of was Star Trek back in 2009, so it has been some time for me. It is a shame these people didn't get to enjoy the experience and it is really a sickening incident to hear about.

Talk about messed up and scary, did you guys see the twitter page for Jessica Redfield? She was tweeting about her excitement to see the movie up to 20 minutes before it started. Almost an hour later she is dead. Scary.

You are right Nubs this ****er shouldn't be allowed to live for the rest of his life but I wouldn't be so humane to execute him via lethal injection.

In heinous crimes of a proportion of this size anyone who watched the Immortals or knows about medieval times knows about the Brazen Bull. Below is an image for those who don't know how I would like to see this ****er executed, I'll light the ****ing fire and drink beer by it.



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/tumblr_m30p89qhUi1r8uumzo1_400-1.jpg

Nublar7
07-20-2012, 11:42 AM
You are right Nubs this ****er shouldn't be allowed to live for the rest of his life but I wouldn't be so humane to execute him via lethal injection.

In heinous crimes of a proportion of this size anyone who watched the Immortals or knows about medieval times knows about the Brazen Bull. Below is an image for those who don't know how I would like to see this ****er executed, I'll light the ****ing fire and drink beer by it.



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/tumblr_m30p89qhUi1r8uumzo1_400-1.jpg

Saw 3D

dreday
07-20-2012, 12:28 PM
statement from NYPD: 'As a precaution against copycats and to raise the comfort levels among movie patrons in the wake of the horrendous shooting in Colorado, the New York City Police Department is providing coverage at theaters where the 'The Dark Knight Rises' is playing in the five boroughs.' - via @NBCNews

TSA coming soon to a theater/mall near you!!!

CedarPhin
07-20-2012, 01:50 PM
Reminds me of the Discovery Zone shooting that happened there a ways back.

tylerdolphin
07-20-2012, 02:15 PM
You are right Nubs this ****er shouldn't be allowed to live for the rest of his life but I wouldn't be so humane to execute him via lethal injection.

In heinous crimes of a proportion of this size anyone who watched the Immortals or knows about medieval times knows about the Brazen Bull. Below is an image for those who don't know how I would like to see this ****er executed, I'll light the ****ing fire and drink beer by it.



http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/tumblr_m30p89qhUi1r8uumzo1_400-1.jpg

In general Im not a huge fan of the death penalty, but in cut and dry cases like this I would have no objection to whatever ****ed up medieval torture device someone decided to use on him.

COphinphan89
07-20-2012, 02:36 PM
Wow, check this out. Jessica Redfield, who was shot to death at the movie theater this morning, just missed being being involved in another public shooting in June. It is like a real life Final Destination.

http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/late-night-thoughts-on-the-eaton-center-shooting/
She was an intern at an FM sports talk station in Denver. I was listening to the station when they announced that she was among the dead and the hosts were just shocked.

Spesh
07-20-2012, 02:47 PM
The man in custody for allegedly killing 12 people at the screening of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado told authorities after the shooting that he "was The Joker," NYPD police commissioner Ray Kelly said today.
Kelly told reporters the suspect, identified by federal officials as 24-year-old James Holmes, had dyed his hair like The Joker. The Joker is a well-known villain in the fictional Batman universe. The attack took place at a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises," the final movie in a Batman trilogy, following "The Dark Knight" in which The Joker was the principal villain.


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-suspect-joker-cops/story?id=16822251

Well, pretty much confirms hes a nutjob.

dreday
07-20-2012, 03:29 PM
Reminds me of the Discovery Zone shooting that happened there a ways back.

ya that was in 1993...at that exact same mall.


On December 14, 1993 in Aurora, Colorado, Nathan Dunlap, 19, entered a Chuck-E-Cheese
restaurant with the intent to rob and to murder; to allegedly seek revenge for being fired from the
organization months earlier. Mr. Dunlap armed himself with a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol and
went to the restaurant where he ordered a ham and cheese sandwich. Upon completing his meal, Mr.
Dunlap hid in the restroom until the customers left, and the restaurant closed. Shortly after 10:00
p.m., Mr. Dunlap calmly proceeded through the restaurant and systematically shot all five employees
in the head at point-blank range. Sylvia., 19, Ben., 17, and Colleen, 17, were killed in the main area
of the restaurant. Manager Marge Kohlberg, 50, was in the office and was ordered by Mr. Dunlap to
open the office safe. When she did, Mr. Dunlap shot her in the ear. He then proceeded to dump the
contents of Marge’s purse over her body and placed the cash from the safe in her purse. As he was
leaving, Mr. Dunlap shot Marge again, this time in her other ear. Sylvia, Ben, Colleen and Marge all
died as a result of their injuries. The one survivor of the shooting, Bobby, 19, pretended to be dead
and was able to escape and call the police. None of the victims knew Mr. Dunlap, or had anything to
do with his firing. Mr. Dunlap was able to steal only $1,200 from the restaurant. In 1996, Nathan
Dunlap was subsequently convicted on four counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted
first degree murder, first degree assault, burglary, theft, and numerous other charges. Mr. Dunlap is
currently on Death Row in Canon City, Colorado. Almost 13 years after the murders, his appeals
continue.


One of the three men on Colorado's death row asked a federal court Tuesday to overturn his death sentence citing mental illness.

Nathan Dunlap, 37, was sentenced to death after killing four people at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant 19 years ago. Three of his victims were teenagers and the fourth was a mother of two. At the time of the murders, Dunlap himself was 19 and he has consequently spent about half of his life awaiting his own execution on death row.

Nublar7
07-20-2012, 03:34 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-suspect-joker-cops/story?id=16822251

Well, pretty much confirms hes a nutjob.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6OifhQ64EM

Spesh
07-20-2012, 03:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6OifhQ64EM

First thing i did when i saw that was laugh.........then get very depressed.

DisturbedShifty
07-20-2012, 04:04 PM
First thing i did when i saw that was laugh.........then get very depressed.

When I saw that seen in the theater that **** gave me the chills. It was the weird little ticks that Ledger used that made his Joker super scary.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Nublar7
07-20-2012, 04:21 PM
When I saw that seen in the theater that **** gave me the chills. It was the weird little ticks that Ledger used that made his Joker super scary.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.Some say he won an oscar for that role only because he had died before the movie hit theaters. I totally disagree, he EARNED that Oscar. Such an amazing job he did as the Joker, and I bet if he was still alive, the Joker would be a big part of the 3rd movie.

Flip Tanneflop
07-20-2012, 04:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeo_Ypmba70

SkapePhin
07-20-2012, 05:44 PM
It is so sad that there are people out there who hate themselves and the world so much that they wish to inflict a great deal of pain on innocent, defenseless strangers just trying to enjoy a good time...

That is a scary scenario to imagine, but the truth is, even if anyone was armed in the crowd, the results would have been the same. This guy shot teargas into a dark theatre during a movie where many in the crowd might have thought it was a prank or stunt initially. After the realization came, it was too late. Tear gas + darkness + chaos all around would have made it very difficult to successfully shoot this guy, especially considering he had SWAT gear on.

I think the larger problem hear, other than the fact that these kind of solitary sociopaths are never identified and helped before it reaches this point, is that this loon was able to obtain all these weapons and gear legally at Bass Pro Shop and local gun store. Honestly, what business does a regular citizen have with full on SWAT gear and automatic rifles? That should have been a serious red flag for the people selling the guns.

I think all automatic weapons should be banned. That's not a matter of personal safety or leisure activity. People with assault rifles aren't looking to hunt animals or protect themselves... They are looking to kill mass quantities of people or show off, no other reason to have one. (unless you are a paranoid who believes you need to protect yourself from a government takeover, in which case, an assault rifle wouldn't help... you would need a tank in your backyard.)

Locke
07-20-2012, 06:19 PM
It is so sad that there are people out there who hate themselves and the world so much that they wish to inflict a great deal of pain on innocent, defenseless strangers just trying to enjoy a good time...

That is a scary scenario to imagine, but the truth is, even if anyone was armed in the crowd, the results would have been the same. This guy shot teargas into a dark theatre during a movie where many in the crowd might have thought it was a prank or stunt initially. After the realization came, it was too late. Tear gas + darkness + chaos all around would have made it very difficult to successfully shoot this guy, especially considering he had SWAT gear on.

I think the larger problem hear, other than the fact that these kind of solitary sociopaths are never identified and helped before it reaches this point, is that this loon was able to obtain all these weapons and gear legally at Bass Pro Shop and local gun store. Honestly, what business does a regular citizen have with full on SWAT gear and automatic rifles? That should have been a serious red flag for the people selling the guns.

I think all automatic weapons should be banned. That's not a matter of personal safety or leisure activity. People with assault rifles aren't looking to hunt animals or protect themselves... They are looking to kill mass quantities of people or show off, no other reason to have one. (unless you are a paranoid who believes you need to protect yourself from a government takeover, in which case, an assault rifle wouldn't help... you would need a tank in your backyard.)

I can agree with you. Automatic weapons are for war, and for nothing else.

The devil's advocate would then ask, where does it stop? If the government bans automatic weapons, are semi-automatic next? And then if so, why would anyone anything more powerful than a .22? It's a dangerous precedent to set because lines blur pretty quickly. When things are black and white, there is no room for interpretation and no misunderstandings. When you create that gray area, like banning a certain gun but not others, then it gets murky and things get complicated.

Personally, I think the constitution was misinterpreted and I think the second amendment was meant to never outlaw a militia, not grant every citizen a gun. However, the widely accepted interpretation is anyone can own weapons. As such, we have to uphold that and let all weapons be legal, regardless of the occasional lunatic that pops up. And trust me, it pains me to say that. I personally don't think there is any reason for anyone to own anything besides a rifle for hunting and maybe a small handgun for self-defense. It's not my place to push my ideology on others though...

NY8123
07-20-2012, 06:23 PM
Some say he won an oscar for that role only because he had died before the movie hit theaters. I totally disagree, he EARNED that Oscar. Such an amazing job he did as the Joker, and I bet if he was still alive, the Joker would be a big part of the 3rd movie.

Your damn right he earned it. The only other superhero or villain that was remotely close to playing a character as good as Heath did was Robert Downey Jr playing Tony Stark. But even as good as Jr's performance was with Stark it was no Ledger playing the Joker, what an out-****ing-standing performance in that movie.

Spesh
07-20-2012, 06:47 PM
I can agree with you. Automatic weapons are for war, and for nothing else.

The devil's advocate would then ask, where does it stop? If the government bans automatic weapons, are semi-automatic next? And then if so, why would anyone anything more powerful than a .22? It's a dangerous precedent to set because lines blur pretty quickly. When things are black and white, there is no room for interpretation and no misunderstandings. When you create that gray area, like banning a certain gun but not others, then it gets murky and things get complicated.

Personally, I think the constitution was misinterpreted and I think the second amendment was meant to never outlaw a militia, not grant every citizen a gun. However, the widely accepted interpretation is anyone can own weapons. As such, we have to uphold that and let all weapons be legal, regardless of the occasional lunatic that pops up. And trust me, it pains me to say that. I personally don't think there is any reason for anyone to own anything besides a rifle for hunting and maybe a small handgun for self-defense. It's not my place to push my ideology on others though...

Probably not the right thread for this heavy a discussion, so ill keep this post brief and tinged with humor.

We, as citizens, are allowed to drink beer and use tobacco but it is illegal to smoke weed(HOLD ON ROB! I never said its a good or bad thing just thats its illegal, please dont blow me up with paragraphs and youtube!). There are easily ways to regulate weapons. Its not like we can have biological weapons laying around our household. Why? Because they would be a danger to everyone around us. Sounds like the logic behind banning assualt rifles to me. As you acknowledged, automatic weapons are for war. I would add that automatic weapons are for criminal actions as well. Neither of which we want on American soil.
Ban weapons that have no logical reason for use of personal protection or hunting. Ban magazines(ammo holder, not sports illustrated) that carry an absurd number of rounds(the weapon used in the Gifford shooting had a 33 bullet magazine, if i recall correctly).

The world isnt black and white. Its not "if you ban one, you have to ban them all". We have the ability to regulate what people buy in this country. Hell, we already do in many areas, weapons included.

As for the 2nd amendment, didnt the Supreme Court rule in 2008 that it meant individuals had the rights outside of militia use? District of Columbia v. Heller? Even then it took until 2010 to clean up that interpretation. So, technically if not in practice, weve only had that right for a few years now.

MDphinfan02
07-20-2012, 06:56 PM
One crazy person out of millions and everyone wants to take away a constitutional right..... some ppl are just sad how they react

Spesh
07-20-2012, 06:58 PM
When I saw that seen in the theater that **** gave me the chills. It was the weird little ticks that Ledger used that made his Joker super scary.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Dont quote me on this, but apparently alot of those "ticks" came from Ledger. His tongue darting out, his mouth constantly moving around, were supposedly developed by Ledger as he was getting used to the make-up. He and Nolan talked it out and agreed it was suitably creepy.

As for Nublar, found a description of an article concerning the original plot for the third film, but the article has since been removed. Personally, i suspect that Ledger's death was the reason why it took 4 years to pop out this new movie, as they had to go back and rewrite the script almost from scratch. Apparently David Goyer was a screenwriter attached to the series.


Writer David Goyer talks about possible sequels and says (spoilers ahead), "The next one would have Batman enlisting the aid of Gordon and [Harvey] Dent [aka Two-Face] in bringing down the Joker... but not killing him, which is a mistake they made in the first one." The article then says that "In the third, the Joker would go on trial, scarring Dent in the process."


http://m.superherohype.com/features/articles/88561-premiere-features-batman-begins

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------


One crazy person out of millions and everyone wants to take away a constitutional right..... some ppl are just sad how they react

.............And theres the black and white view. That didnt take long.

NY8123
07-20-2012, 06:59 PM
It is so sad that there are people out there who hate themselves and the world so much that they wish to inflict a great deal of pain on innocent, defenseless strangers just trying to enjoy a good time...

That is a scary scenario to imagine, but the truth is, even if anyone was armed in the crowd, the results would have been the same. This guy shot teargas into a dark theatre during a movie where many in the crowd might have thought it was a prank or stunt initially. After the realization came, it was too late. Tear gas + darkness + chaos all around would have made it very difficult to successfully shoot this guy, especially considering he had SWAT gear on.

I think the larger problem hear, other than the fact that these kind of solitary sociopaths are never identified and helped before it reaches this point, is that this loon was able to obtain all these weapons and gear legally at Bass Pro Shop and local gun store. Honestly, what business does a regular citizen have with full on SWAT gear and automatic rifles? That should have been a serious red flag for the people selling the guns.

I think all automatic weapons should be banned. That's not a matter of personal safety or leisure activity. People with assault rifles aren't looking to hunt animals or protect themselves... They are looking to kill mass quantities of people or show off, no other reason to have one. (unless you are a paranoid who believes you need to protect yourself from a government takeover, in which case, an assault rifle wouldn't help... you would need a tank in your backyard.)

Completely false statement there. Don't lump law abiding citizens who use and respect firearms into this ****ing nut cases bucket. There is no way to determine a persons metal state of mind, look at Junior Seau everyone around him said he seemed happy and perfectly fine, difference is Seau only took his own life. Automatic weapons are banned, it takes a federal license to own or sell them and this weapon was semi auto.

The tear gas and high capacity drum mags, I agree with you on, there is no need for the average citizen to own those but truth be told you could dp just as much damage with a 10 shot mag loaded rife of any caliber. It would take less than 2 minutes to discharge 10 - 10 shot clips.

People have been killing people long before assault weapons became available to the general public, what the problem is and always will be are the mentally unstable, you cannot and will not ever be able to identify and help all of them.

I have a lot of friends will kinds of different firearms including myself, my dad and my son. None of us view them as a "who's got the bigger dick" or "let's all go out and play Rambo". I hunt, I fish and I enjoy my right to bear arms as well as my right to free speech (as this message board will attest) and never have though about using any weapon to take a life. Once you cross that line you are beyond reason, once a person decides to take a life without provocation they are going to use any and all means necessary to accomplish their task, the only thing you can hope for is to stop them before they succeed.

As I said in two or three other threads about similar things, violent crime is near an all time low in the US. It is lower than it has been in over 40 years, how can you tell me that gun control and regulation is the problem?

MDphinfan02
07-20-2012, 07:05 PM
Take away the guns criminals will use knives then ban knives criminals will use sticks.... no one is saying denver is a ccw state yet the movie theater has a no gun policy... criminals/crazies/terrorists target unarmed citizens

MDphinfan02
07-20-2012, 07:12 PM
All the second amendment arguing aside of you want to stop this kinda behavior and these horrible events they needs to publicly torture ppl i mean hardcore torture so the next crazy guy goes crazy in the privacy of his own home....thats a solution

Spesh
07-20-2012, 07:19 PM
All the second amendment arguing aside of you want to stop this kinda behavior and these horrible events they needs to publicly torture ppl i mean hardcore torture so the next crazy guy goes crazy in the privacy of his own home....thats a solution

Because thats worked so well for the governments in the Middle East. They've never had any problems with civil rights movements.

So, gist of your argument: Go go weapons that can kill in high numbers because its hopeless to stop people from hurting others, go go public torture because its not hopeless to stop people from hurting others. Gotcha.

MDphinfan02
07-20-2012, 07:29 PM
Because thats worked so well for the governments in the Middle East. They've never had any problems with civil rights movements.

So, gist of your argument: Go go weapons that can kill in high numbers because its hopeless to stop people from hurting others, go go public torture because its not hopeless to stop people from hurting others. Gotcha.

No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

CedarPhin
07-20-2012, 07:41 PM
Crazy people aren't going to be intimidated by public executions or anything. Rational people might be, but crazy people aren't going to be, because well, they're crazy.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------


No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

Do you fear a day when the black helicopters will come and you'll be accused of "knowing too much"?

Spesh
07-20-2012, 07:44 PM
No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

Will i have to be publically tortured first before i can play with your toys?

And yes, actually, we do live in a society in which criminals go to jail and those we can be rehabilitated are given a second chance, not that this psycho will get that chance. Depressing we cant just throw them in a lake and wait to see if they float or not to see if their guilty like the good 'ole days, amirite?

So, just to be clear:
Constitutional rights for large guns: awesome. Constitutional rights for those accused of crimes: bad. Go United State of America Constitution when it involves kickass guns and bling, Boo United States of America Consitution when it involves those who commit crimes!

And im sure we could argue all day, i would imagine you have alot of free time hiding in your underground bunker waiting for the fall of America and democracy.

Valandui
07-20-2012, 08:42 PM
Probably not the right thread for this heavy a discussion, so ill keep this post brief and tinged with humor.

We, as citizens, are allowed to drink beer and use tobacco but it is illegal to smoke weed(HOLD ON ROB! I never said its a good or bad thing just thats its illegal, please dont blow me up with paragraphs and youtube!). There are easily ways to regulate weapons. Its not like we can have biological weapons laying around our household. Why? Because they would be a danger to everyone around us. Sounds like the logic behind banning assualt rifles to me. As you acknowledged, automatic weapons are for war. I would add that automatic weapons are for criminal actions as well. Neither of which we want on American soil.
Ban weapons that have no logical reason for use of personal protection or hunting. Ban magazines(ammo holder, not sports illustrated) that carry an absurd number of rounds(the weapon used in the Gifford shooting had a 33 bullet magazine, if i recall correctly).

The world isnt black and white. Its not "if you ban one, you have to ban them all". We have the ability to regulate what people buy in this country. Hell, we already do in many areas, weapons included.

As for the 2nd amendment, didnt the Supreme Court rule in 2008 that it meant individuals had the rights outside of militia use? District of Columbia v. Heller? Even then it took until 2010 to clean up that interpretation. So, technically if not in practice, weve only had that right for a few years now.

I respectfully disagree. The second amendment was intended to protect citizens from the government becoming too oppressive. It was combined with the fact that we had no standing army that this was a very effective policy. It's not quite as effective when you take into account that we have by far the strongest military in the world now, but it wasn't just for hunting or personal protection. Having said that, those are very legitimate purposes for gun ownership. Another thing to take into account is the fact that the dude broke numerous gun laws when he did this. He's a criminal. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. If he was that intent on doing this, he would have found a way no matter how many gun laws you threw in his way.

Spesh
07-20-2012, 10:17 PM
I respectfully disagree. The second amendment was intended to protect citizens from the government becoming too oppressive. It was combined with the fact that we had no standing army that this was a very effective policy. It's not quite as effective when you take into account that we have by far the strongest military in the world now, but it wasn't just for hunting or personal protection. Having said that, those are very legitimate purposes for gun ownership. Another thing to take into account is the fact that the dude broke numerous gun laws when he did this. He's a criminal. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. If he was that intent on doing this, he would have found a way no matter how many gun laws you threw in his way.

Not totally certain which part you disagree with. If you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, the '08 and '10 rulings were considered landmark rulings in many ways. Admittedly, im not certain of every single ruling in the history of America concerning gun rights, but from '08 onward its been considered "official" that the right to bear arms is not limited to militia use.

Now if you disagree about the intention behind the second ammendment, well, im not really sure what to say to that. I didnt say my personal opinion on that, but ill say it now that i agree more with Locke's suggestion that it was misinterpreted. That being said, the Supreme Court ruled on it. The situation is what it is and its not something i feel strongly enough about to fight the system over. Ill respectfully disagree with it while still differing to their judgement on the matter. Also, our laws are interpreted based on our currently society. The founding fathers simply couldnt imagine what our nation has become(and its to their credit they created a system that allows us to adapt and adjust the constitution based on our current lifestyle). Even the current interpretation of "the right to bear arms" will probably change 50 years from now.

Now, and i believe this is what you were addressing, for my stance on the ban of assualt rifles: i do believe they should be banned. Im not suggesting that all weapons should be taken away, but assualt rifles have no use to those not trying to injury citizens of this country. There are weapons adequate for our protection and weapons adequate for use of hunting allowed, by law, already. I believe you can outlaw assualt rifles while still allowing hunting rifles. I simply dont consider that big of a obstacle(other then people being upset). If you need 33 bullets to kill an animal you are hunting, either you plain suck at hunting or you are hunting something your not suppose to...like people.
Again, i dont think all weapons should be outlawed. They have legitimate reasons for existing and law abiding citizens with no interest in commiting crimes have real reasons for owning them. I also dont believe cars should be outlawed. As im currently drinking a beer, i sure as hell dont believe booze should be outlawed. Yet, i agree that if you are driving drunk you should be arrested. There is direction and degrees. I agree with the direction of banning overly dangerous weapons, but i dont agree with the degree of completely banning all weapons.

As for the criminal aspect, i dont believe anyone has disagreed in any thread about this subject that criminals are still going to commit crimes if they have their mind set on it. This particular case involved someone who is apparently deranged and was determined to hurt people. That being said, if he had a bow and arrow 70 plus people wouldnt be injured or dead at the moment.
I once knew a guy who was determined to drive home one night after drinking heavily. A friend took his keys, pointing out he was in no condition, but the guy was absolutely determined to drive home. He fought my friend, wrestled with him, even tried running to his car after reaquiring his keys with my friend holding onto his leg. As you might imagine, he drove himself straight into a tree(notice how i said "knew" and not know). Now, ive had many other occasions in which a drunk persons keys are taken and they go to sleep or sober up. Thats one reason why i support a ban on assualt rifles. Sure, if someone someone is determined to commit crimes they will, but sometimes the difficulty in which it takes to acquire the resources is enough to dissuade people. Id rather make it that much harder to commit crime in a (sometimes vain) hope that it will convince people not to even try.

Dolfan3773
07-20-2012, 10:34 PM
Sad sad news...people are ****ed up. Thoughts and prayers go out to all those in CO

NY8123
07-20-2012, 10:59 PM
The last thing I will say about gun control, constitutional rights etc...at one time in history people viewed the freedom of speech as a bigger problem than anything else in the world.

COphinphan89
07-20-2012, 11:06 PM
Damn man, this poor state can't catch a break. We've had a pretty ****ty summer with the fires here where I live and now this. The radio hosts on 104.3 where that girl worked all sounded completely devastated today.

As for banning guns, we didn't ban planes after 9/11. We didn't ban roofing nails, gasoline, and fertilizer after Oklahoma City. This was a single lunatic who wanted to go on a rampage and likely would have carried it out by any means necessary.

JCane
07-20-2012, 11:06 PM
Dumb people gonna do dumb things with or without guns.

LOL @ Anyone who thinks that gun control will prevent future shootings. It's about the same as speed limit signs. I still do 10-15MPH over. Bad people will still get guns and do bad things.

How about we work on some dumb control.

Bumpus
07-20-2012, 11:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuPh6TfK4iY&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I think we should all have a doomsday machine. Problem solved. :)

Noodle Arm
07-21-2012, 10:39 AM
Even after many, many years of being on the internet, every once in awhile I'll see a stupid post that'll take my breath away. Just when I think I've seen the highest level of stupidity, somebody will raise the bar. I saw this post on another board and thought I'd share it with you. I think everybody should see this special level of idiocy.


People in the USA are blessed to live in a country that gives them the opportunity to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families. But for some reason these people did not take advantage of that opportunity, and their recklessness and arrogance cost them their lives and the lives of their loved ones. This is a tragedy that could have easily been avoided if the victims had taken the proper preventative measures, but they didn't and that was their choice and no one else's.

There you have it folks.

Wildbill3
07-21-2012, 11:04 AM
Even after many, many years of being on the internet, every once in awhile I'll see a stupid post that'll take my breath away. Just when I think I've seen the highest level of stupidity, somebody will raise the bar. I saw this post on another board and thought I'd share it with you. I think everybody should see this special level of idiocy.



There you have it folks.nothing like blaming the victims for being victims. I don't think many of us ever see a need to bring a gun into a movie theatre.

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------


Damn man, this poor state can't catch a break. We've had a pretty ****ty summer with the fires here where I live and now this. The radio hosts on 104.3 where that girl worked all sounded completely devastated today.

As for banning guns, we didn't ban planes after 9/11. We didn't ban roofing nails, gasoline, and fertilizer after Oklahoma City. This was a single lunatic who wanted to go on a rampage and likely would have carried it out by any means necessary.idk have they done any studies of the atmosphere on the brain in Colorado?

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------


Take away the guns criminals will use knives then ban knives criminals will use sticks.... no one is saying denver is a ccw state yet the movie theater has a no gun policy... criminals/crazies/terrorists target unarmed citizensyou're very close to the truth. take away guns and criminals will still use guns.

SkapePhin
07-21-2012, 11:54 AM
Completely false statement there. Don't lump law abiding citizens who use and respect firearms into this ****ing nut cases bucket. There is no way to determine a persons metal state of mind, look at Junior Seau everyone around him said he seemed happy and perfectly fine, difference is Seau only took his own life. Automatic weapons are banned, it takes a federal license to own or sell them and this weapon was semi auto.

The tear gas and high capacity drum mags, I agree with you on, there is no need for the average citizen to own those but truth be told you could dp just as much damage with a 10 shot mag loaded rife of any caliber. It would take less than 2 minutes to discharge 10 - 10 shot clips.

People have been killing people long before assault weapons became available to the general public, what the problem is and always will be are the mentally unstable, you cannot and will not ever be able to identify and help all of them.

I have a lot of friends will kinds of different firearms including myself, my dad and my son. None of us view them as a "who's got the bigger dick" or "let's all go out and play Rambo". I hunt, I fish and I enjoy my right to bear arms as well as my right to free speech (as this message board will attest) and never have though about using any weapon to take a life. Once you cross that line you are beyond reason, once a person decides to take a life without provocation they are going to use any and all means necessary to accomplish their task, the only thing you can hope for is to stop them before they succeed.

As I said in two or three other threads about similar things, violent crime is near an all time low in the US. It is lower than it has been in over 40 years, how can you tell me that gun control and regulation is the problem?

If you can offer a valid reason why an ordinary citizen might own an assault rifle, please post it.

CedarPhin
07-21-2012, 12:59 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/Capture25-1.jpg

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/JokerCat_o_93950-1.jpg

Nublar7
07-21-2012, 03:56 PM
Just saw the Dark Knight Rises, best movie of the year by far. I thought the Avengers was great, but this was epic.

DisturbedShifty
07-21-2012, 04:24 PM
Just saw the Dark Knight Rises, best movie of the year by far. I thought the Avengers was great, but this was epic.

No offense Nub, but this isn't the thread for impressions of the movie.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

CedarPhin
07-21-2012, 04:31 PM
Well, it's pretty obvious from this whole incident that the guy was pretty batty.

tylerdolphin
07-21-2012, 04:35 PM
If you can offer a valid reason why an ordinary citizen might own an assault rifle, please post it.

If you can offer a valid reason why anyone should own a samurai sword, please post it.

I see where youre coming from with the assault rifle thing. I dont own one and highly doubt I ever will. I just dont see where making it illegal will change anything except ruining some fun that a law abiding citizen might have out in the woods or something. Hand guns are illegal in the Bahamas. I know a number of people that own them and a good percentage of them arent even particularly bright. They really arent that hard to get if you really want one. Hell, I can probably go to the Nassau Guardian's site right now and find an article about somebody getting shot to death, most likely via hand gun.

End of the day, criminals dont give a **** about the law. They will find a way to do what they do. Even if that kid couldnt get an assault rifle for whatever reason, you really think he wouldnt have killed a bunch of people? If anyone is so inclined they can freely waltz into a crowded place with a glock and a **** ton of clips and kill 12 people. Nutjobs gonna nutjob and there nothing we can do about it except hope we arent the ones with ****ty enough luck to be caught in it. All a law does in these cases is add one more charge onto a mass murderers rap sheet. Yay?

Nublar7
07-21-2012, 04:35 PM
No offense Nub, but this isn't the thread for impressions of the movie.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.
No offense to you Distrurbed but even you talked about the movie series itself in regards to Heath Ledger and his character. In a thread that ranges from the constitution, 9/11, driving over the speed limit, Heath Ledger, George Carlin, cats dressed like the joker, I am a little offended you called out my post and no other ones. This is a message board, not Fox News or CNN.

tylerdolphin
07-21-2012, 04:37 PM
Just saw the Dark Knight Rises, best movie of the year by far. I thought the Avengers was great, but this was epic.

Glad to see youre still with us.

CedarPhin
07-21-2012, 04:50 PM
I'm just glad it wasn't an Arab or something that did it. We'd be bombarded by "ZOMG sleeper cells!1!!!" over and over then hear from the NRA how we need to round them all up and put them into camps for "their own protection". Now we're just subjected to mind-numbing claims about how the liberals are coming to take our guns away.

Nublar7
07-21-2012, 05:00 PM
Glad to see youre still with us.
Yes, I was not going to have an isolated incident of one nut job alter the way I live my life. Yesterday there was some talk on CNN and Fox News that Warner Brothers should pull the movie from the theaters out of respect. I know they canceled the Paris premiere and I get that. You don't want to have a big red carpet event with media, cast and crew after a tragedy like this. But the fact that people are avoiding theaters across the country this weekend and you have people calling for the film to be pulled show how ridiculous some overact to situations. It seems that for some the main story is not enough and they want to just create more and add to it. Did I think of the victims and feel sad for them when I went to the movies today? Yes I did, it is a very shocking and disturbing event. Was I looking over my shoulder and worrying that the person next to me might shoot up the place? Heck no, you can't live in fear or isolate yourself because of something that happened almost 2,000 miles away.

People who want to see the movie shouldn't be afraid or change their plans of seeing the movie this weekend. The guy is in jail, it is horrible for the victims and their families, but you are not disrespecting them or in danger if you go to see it this weekend. I shouldn't be embarrassed or afraid to talk about the movie itself because it might offend someone. If it offends you, grow up and stop looking for things to complain about. There are more important things going on with this situation than whether the movie is still playing in the other 4,000+ theaters in the country.

CedarPhin
07-21-2012, 05:03 PM
Yes, I was not going to have an isolated incident of one nut job alter the way I live my life. Yesterday there was some talk on CNN and Fox News that Warner Brothers should pull the movie from the theaters out of respect. I know they canceled the Paris premiere and I get that. You don't want to have a big red carpet event with media, cast and crew after a tragedy like this. But the fact that people are avoiding theaters across the country this weekend and you have people calling for the film to be pulled show how ridiculous some overact to situations. It seems that for some the main story is not enough and they want to just create more and add to it. Did I think of the victims and feel sad for them when I went to the movies today? Yes I did, it is a very shocking and disturbing event. Was I looking over my shoulder and worrying that the person next to me might shoot up the place? Heck no, you can't live in fear or isolate yourself because of something that happened almost 2,000 miles away.

People who want to see the movie shouldn't be afraid or change their plans of seeing the movie this weekend. The guy is in jail, it is horrible for the victims and their families, but you are not disrespecting them or in danger if you go to see it this weekend. I shouldn't be embarrassed or afraid to talk about the movie itself because it might offend someone. If it offends you, grow up and stop looking for things to complain about. There are more important things going on with this situation than whether the movie is still playing in the other 4,000+ theaters in the country.

Very well said.

tylerdolphin
07-21-2012, 05:06 PM
I shouldn't be embarrassed or afraid to talk about the movie itself because it might offend someone. If it offends you, grow up and stop looking for things to complain about. There are more important things going on with this situation than whether the movie is still playing in the other 4,000+ theaters in the country.

Not sure if its directed at me, but Im not offended at all :idk:

Just making a crappy "OMGZ!! Nubs didnt get shot!!11!" joke.

Nublar7
07-21-2012, 05:12 PM
Not sure if its directed at me, but Im not offended at all :idk:

Just making a crappy "OMGZ!! Nubs didnt get shot!!11!" joke.
Just to be clear Tyler, wasn't directed at you at all. Also rereading it, I hope Disturbed doesn't think it was directed to him either. Wasn't directed to anyone in this thread or on this forum. My little rant was more about the way people act in general. I just roll my eyes when I see news reports on the CNN, Fox News, etc. about how Warner Brothers should pull the movie completely out of the theater. There are many stories in the news and over the years where people just love to dig into it and make it worse than what it really is. I know in the end it sells more newspapers and gets more people's attention on TV. Also gets people talking. But take the Tannehill negotiations for example. PFT pumps out a story with "sources" that Miami wants offset language in the contract and so far is holding firm. Even says that Tannehill might hold out. A situation that come the start of training camp might not even be a situation at all. Yet now people are yelling at the Dolphins, saying Ireland and/or Aponte should be fired. Speculating whether this means the team thinks he is a bust or have completely written him off in the QB competition. Things get overexerted every day and it is annoying.

CedarPhin
07-21-2012, 06:02 PM
Just to be clear Tyler, wasn't directed at you at all. Also rereading it, I hope Disturbed doesn't think it was directed to him either. Wasn't directed to anyone in this thread or on this forum. My little rant was more about the way people act in general. I just roll my eyes when I see news reports on the CNN, Fox News, etc. about how Warner Brothers should pull the movie completely out of the theater. There are many stories in the news and over the years where people just love to dig into it and make it worse than what it really is. I know in the end it sells more newspapers and gets more people's attention on TV. Also gets people talking. But take the Tannehill negotiations for example. PFT pumps out a story with "sources" that Miami wants offset language in the contract and so far is holding firm. Even says that Tannehill might hold out. A situation that come the start of training camp might not even be a situation at all. Yet now people are yelling at the Dolphins, saying Ireland and/or Aponte should be fired. Speculating whether this means the team thinks he is a bust or have completely written him off in the QB competition. Things get overexerted every day and it is annoying.

Wow. Nail on the head here. Way too many people overreact about dumb things anymore.

Some crazy guy, who is bat**** crazy mind you, goes in a crowded theatre and shoots 12 people. Instead of just accepting the fact that yes, the guy is nucking futs, people go "OH MY GOD!!! Get rid of big guns!! People are going to use them to shoot people!", when most people should realize that gun control or not, if you're crazy enough, nothings going to stop you from meeting your end goal, other than a bullet to the back of the brain, or locked up in an asylum for years and years.

It's pretty much the same with Penn State. Was it ****ed up what happened there? Absolutely. But to advocate ending the football program there for the rest of time just because one guy was a Pederast and his buddies covered it up? Everyone who was involved in that scandal is either dead or in jail, so why punish the kids on that team now? It's just another overreaction to everything.

After 9/11? We got the Patriot Act and a war without end.

It's the same with some of the **** you saw this offseason. I didn't like that we traded Brandon Marshall, and I admit, I was on the ledge for a few days, but I eventually realized there was nothing that was going to change it, so I moved on from it.

You can't control crazy people. That's why they're considered "crazy". There are signs with people you can watch for, but nothing's going to stop it. Not an assault rifle ban, not a bunch of profiling. There's too many people in this country to keep track of, and some of them are going to fall through the cracks. The best thing anyone can do is go out and live their lives and just be sort of vigilant and always be prepared for when **** hits the fan.

Nublar7
07-21-2012, 06:12 PM
Wow. Nail on the head here. Way too many people overreact about dumb things anymore.

Some crazy guy, who is bat**** crazy mind you, goes in a crowded theatre and shoots 12 people. Instead of just accepting the fact that yes, the guy is nucking futs, people go "OH MY GOD!!! Get rid of big guns!! People are going to use them to shoot people!", when most people should realize that gun control or not, if you're crazy enough, nothings going to stop you from meeting your end goal, other than a bullet to the back of the brain, or locked up in an asylum for years and years.

It's pretty much the same with Penn State. Was it ****ed up what happened there? Absolutely. But to advocate ending the football program there for the rest of time just because one guy was a Pederast and his buddies covered it up? Everyone who was involved in that scandal is either dead or in jail, so why punish the kids on that team now? It's just another overreaction to everything.

After 9/11? We got the Patriot Act and a war without end.

It's the same with some of the **** you saw this offseason. I didn't like that we traded Brandon Marshall, and I admit, I was on the ledge for a few days, but I eventually realized there was nothing that was going to change it, so I moved on from it.

You can't control crazy people. That's why they're considered "crazy". There are signs with people you can watch for, but nothing's going to stop it. Not an assault rifle ban, not a bunch of profiling. There's too many people in this country to keep track of, and some of them are going to fall through the cracks. The best thing anyone can do is go out and live their lives and just be sort of vigilant and always be prepared for when **** hits the fan.
Warner Brothers didn't pull the Dark Knight Rises out of the theaters!!!!! OUTRAGE! They don't care about the victims! The Bugs Bunny Statue on the Warner Brothers lot must come down!

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/20111111_0012a-1.jpg

DisturbedShifty
07-21-2012, 09:39 PM
No offense to you Distrurbed but even you talked about the movie series itself in regards to Heath Ledger and his character. In a thread that ranges from the constitution, 9/11, driving over the speed limit, Heath Ledger, George Carlin, cats dressed like the joker, I am a little offended you called out my post and no other ones. This is a message board, not Fox News or CNN.

True. But the shooter also said he was The Joker. It was also a comparison of how Ledger's Joker came off as very disturbing in the way that he made your skin crawl with his acting, my fault for not making that clear. And the fact that the shooter rigged his home with explosives is very true to the character of The Joker. While he is commenting a crime at point A he has another plan over at point B. His mistake was telling the cops about it.



I do offer my apologies for calling you out. It just seemed more out of place to me than the other posts, that is all. Hell this entire thread seems like it belongs more in the political forum than in the lounge.

Also do I agree with everything else that you posted after what I quoted. I myself will go see the movie as soon as I have some money, he'll be would have been at a midnight showing I would have had the money.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 01:24 AM
So he's even acting like the Joker while in jail, spitting on guards and other things. What if he's got this whole thing planned out, and there's even more to come? This guy's allegedly a genius in science, so who knows what **** is up his sleeve. People better be on the lookout around Aurora.

Flip Tanneflop
07-22-2012, 01:50 AM
Warner Brothers didn't pull the Dark Knight Rises out of the theaters!!!!! OUTRAGE! They don't care about the victims! The Bugs Bunny Statue on the Warner Brothers lot must come down!

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/20111111_0012a-1.jpg

Slightly apples and oranges. Warner bros. didnt supply this lunatic with all the weapons and other materials he needed, show him the layout of the theatre and how to pull it off, then whisk him off and hide him from authorities. All they did was supply the ****ty movie and sell it to nimrods who find that kind of thing entertaining. Seriously, a rich dude who dresses in a rubber bat suit and fights crime. GET REAL. If youre over 12 years old and find that type of thing entertaining...... well.

DisturbedShifty
07-22-2012, 02:04 AM
Slightly apples and oranges. Warner bros. didnt supply this lunatic with all the weapons and other materials he needed, show him the layout of the theatre and how to pull it off, then whisk him off and hide him from authorities. All they did was supply the ****ty movie and sell it to nimrods who find that kind of thing entertaining. Seriously, a rich dude who dresses in a rubber bat suit and fights crime. GET REAL. If youre over 12 years old and find that type of thing entertaining...... well.
Then I am a nerd. And proud of it.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 08:33 AM
Why is it that every time something like this happens the first question that gets brought up is "Was he on drugs?" "Bath salts?!?!?" What ever happened to crazy?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOmb3Rp1pcU

Nublar7
07-22-2012, 10:23 AM
Slightly apples and oranges. Warner bros. didnt supply this lunatic with all the weapons and other materials he needed, show him the layout of the theatre and how to pull it off, then whisk him off and hide him from authorities. All they did was supply the ****ty movie and sell it to nimrods who find that kind of thing entertaining. Seriously, a rich dude who dresses in a rubber bat suit and fights crime. GET REAL. If youre over 12 years old and find that type of thing entertaining...... well.
It was a joke buddy. If you read my posts you will know I find it ridiculous that people are targeting Warner Brothers and making stupid demands. It seems to me you haven't seen the new movie or probably even the past two films, the movies a great.

DisturbedShifty
07-22-2012, 10:54 AM
If anything Warner Brothers should donate a portion of the movies earnings to the effected families. At least the ones that lost someone that night. But saying the movie should be yanked, as already stated, is just stupid.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 11:25 AM
If anything Warner Brothers should donate a portion of the movies earnings to the effected families. At least the ones that lost someone that night. But saying the movie should be yanked, as already stated, is just stupid.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Crazy gonna crazy. Im surprised people are even discussing pulling the movie(anywhere i mean, not on this forum). People couldnt blame Jodie Foster when John Hinckley shot Reagan.

Warner Bros did the classy thing and stopped the red carpet event. Personally, i wouldnt have blamed them if they had decided to keep it, but pulling it sent the message that they werent going to be spiking the football while people are recovering from gunshot wounds. The actors and directors have spoken about it and expressed their condolences. Anyone expecting Warner to do more is expecting to much. Enough has been done.

SkapePhin
07-22-2012, 01:46 PM
If you can offer a valid reason why anyone should own a samurai sword, please post it.

I see where youre coming from with the assault rifle thing. I dont own one and highly doubt I ever will. I just dont see where making it illegal will change anything except ruining some fun that a law abiding citizen might have out in the woods or something. Hand guns are illegal in the Bahamas. I know a number of people that own them and a good percentage of them arent even particularly bright. They really arent that hard to get if you really want one. Hell, I can probably go to the Nassau Guardian's site right now and find an article about somebody getting shot to death, most likely via hand gun.

End of the day, criminals dont give a **** about the law. They will find a way to do what they do. Even if that kid couldnt get an assault rifle for whatever reason, you really think he wouldnt have killed a bunch of people? If anyone is so inclined they can freely waltz into a crowded place with a glock and a **** ton of clips and kill 12 people. Nutjobs gonna nutjob and there nothing we can do about it except hope we arent the ones with ****ty enough luck to be caught in it. All a law does in these cases is add one more charge onto a mass murderers rap sheet. Yay?

A samurai sword isn't even in the same ballpark as an assault rifle. Any joe shcmoe couldn't go on a killing spree with a sword.

There is no hobbyist activity that involves using an assault rifle, unless you get off on firepower.

I can't speak for every case, but for this particular case, I don't think James Holmes would have been able to purchase an assault rifle off the black market. For one, it would likely have been out of his price range considering he was a broke college student. Its amazing he was able to afford 8k worth of weapons and ammo, but on the black market, that would have been considerably more, and in CASH, not credit. He probably couldn't have bought 8k of weapons without credit either.

Additionally, this kind of guy probably isn't one that would be good with dealing with thugs and gangbangers. You think a 24 white kid with red hair is going to go walk into a ghetto to make illegal gun purchases? Maybe, but likely not.

The thing is, we shouldn't make it so EASY for psychopaths to acquire weapons of mass murder.

tylerdolphin
07-22-2012, 02:18 PM
A samurai sword isn't even in the same ballpark as an assault rifle. Any joe shcmoe couldn't go on a killing spree with a sword.

There is no hobbyist activity that involves using an assault rifle, unless you get off on firepower.

I can't speak for every case, but for this particular case, I don't think James Holmes would have been able to purchase an assault rifle off the black market. For one, it would likely have been out of his price range considering he was a broke college student. Its amazing he was able to afford 8k worth of weapons and ammo, but on the black market, that would have been considerably more, and in CASH, not credit. He probably couldn't have bought 8k of weapons without credit either.

Additionally, this kind of guy probably isn't one that would be good with dealing with thugs and gangbangers. You think a 24 white kid with red hair is going to go walk into a ghetto to make illegal gun purchases? Maybe, but likely not.

The thing is, we shouldn't make it so EASY for psychopaths to acquire weapons of mass murder.

Some people do just get off on firepower...thats why tons of people own those guns and so few go off and kill random people.

IMO, it still comes back to this...if assault rifles were illegal, who really thinks it would have mad a big difference there? Either he would have just brought a ton of clips for his handgun or busted out a shotgun or made a bomb or something. Crazy is as crazy does.

Also, youre making black market transactions sound harder than they really are. Im white with blonde hair and blue eyes and I can get my hands on damn near anything I want bad enough. I dont have a ton of money,but if Im planning to shoot up a bunch of people, money is no object. I dont really need it anymore. Its not hard to come up with a good chunk of money when you dont have to worry about paying the bills anymore.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 02:27 PM
Why is it that every time something like this happens the first question that gets brought up is "Was he on drugs?" "Bath salts?!?!?" What ever happened to crazy?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOmb3Rp1pcU

It's either that or he's got to be affiliated with some political group. People aren't crazy, c'mon guys, everyone knows they're either influenced by marijuana, crack, violent TV and video games, or they're brainwashed by Occupy or the Tea Party.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 02:32 PM
Having explosives is banned I believe, at least the ones the Joker had in his faux batcave. Didn't seem to stop him from building any.

COphinphan89
07-22-2012, 03:24 PM
On a side note, I saw this movie last night and it's pretty damn good.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 03:49 PM
Some people do just get off on firepower...thats why tons of people own those guns and so few go off and kill random people.

IMO, it still comes back to this...if assault rifles were illegal, who really thinks it would have mad a big difference there? Either he would have just brought a ton of clips for his handgun or busted out a shotgun or made a bomb or something. Crazy is as crazy does.

Also, youre making black market transactions sound harder than they really are. Im white with blonde hair and blue eyes and I can get my hands on damn near anything I want bad enough. I dont have a ton of money,but if Im planning to shoot up a bunch of people, money is no object. I dont really need it anymore. Its not hard to come up with a good chunk of money when you dont have to worry about paying the bills anymore.

He had clips with 100 rounds in them. It he was forced to fire a slower weapon with less ammo per clip, then not as many people would have been hurt. When tragedy is unavoidable, the best we can do is limit the damage.

And bombs are illegal in America. He did make some and wired his entire apartment with them. Should we legalize explosive devices just because criminals can get their hands on them anyway?

tylerdolphin
07-22-2012, 04:16 PM
And bombs are illegal in America. He did make some and wired his entire apartment with them. Should we legalize explosive devices just because criminals can get their hands on them anyway?

It honestly probably doesnt matter either way as far as safety. And people collect guns. They shoot them for fun. I dont. I dont get the appeal, but some people enjoy it. Im not gonna say that assault rifles have to be banned because it might save a few people a year. I guess thats where our difference of opinion really lies. A few lives might be saved, but IMO its not worth the price of giving some freedom and it sets a bad precedent that whenever something bad happens, we need to ban something.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 04:25 PM
A samurai sword isn't even in the same ballpark as an assault rifle. Any joe shcmoe couldn't go on a killing spree with a sword.

There is no hobbyist activity that involves using an assault rifle, unless you get off on firepower.

I can't speak for every case, but for this particular case, I don't think James Holmes would have been able to purchase an assault rifle off the black market. For one, it would likely have been out of his price range considering he was a broke college student. Its amazing he was able to afford 8k worth of weapons and ammo, but on the black market, that would have been considerably more, and in CASH, not credit. He probably couldn't have bought 8k of weapons without credit either.

Additionally, this kind of guy probably isn't one that would be good with dealing with thugs and gangbangers. You think a 24 white kid with red hair is going to go walk into a ghetto to make illegal gun purchases? Maybe, but likely not.

The thing is, we shouldn't make it so EASY for psychopaths to acquire weapons of mass murder.

Then he would of used a handgun or shotgun, which wouldn't of made any difference whatsoever. Guess we should ban those too.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 04:30 PM
He had clips with 100 rounds in them. It he was forced to fire a slower weapon with less ammo per clip, then not as many people would have been hurt. When tragedy is unavoidable, the best we can do is limit the damage.

And bombs are illegal in America. He did make some and wired his entire apartment with them. Should we legalize explosive devices just because criminals can get their hands on them anyway?

So because one crazy person uses an assault rifle for mass murder, we should ban the thousands that have them legally and don't use them for mass murder. Seems legit. Banning high capacity magazine is one thing, banning the weapons is liberal lunacy.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 05:26 PM
He had clips with 100 rounds in them. It he was forced to fire a slower weapon with less ammo per clip, then not as many people would have been hurt. When tragedy is unavoidable, the best we can do is limit the damage.

And bombs are illegal in America. He did make some and wired his entire apartment with them. Should we legalize explosive devices just because criminals can get their hands on them anyway?

It sounds like he made his bomb out of common household chemicals and a few other assorted things. I put the fault on this not on the weapons themselves, but people for not realizing there were more than a few red flags popping up all over.

If people were more vigilant and paid attention to stuff instead of being afraid of every little thing that goes bump in the night and cowering away, we'd have less of these things. Some guy mails away for some devices and it's pretty clear he's not a contractor or someone who'd need those sorts of things, you'd think that someone would go "Hey, wait a minute...", but no, they just send it right on its merry way.

Blame guns and assault weapons all you want, but they're just inanimate objects. If a person is going to use something to kill a bunch of people, especially a demented and mad genius like this guy supposedly was, they're going to have more than a few options to move forward with their plans in case one option doesn't work. You can't control against crazy people. You can take everything away from someone, but if they have a homicidal streak, there's nothing that can be done to stop it, short of giving them a post-birth abortion.

I don't own any assault rifles, but I know people that do, and by and large, even though they have crazy conspiracy thoughts, they're not really a danger to anybody else. If you can own a gun responsibly, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to have one. Taking guns away from people as an overreaction to an isolated incident is not the way things should precede. It would be like banning all Chinese made toys because a kid chokes on one of them.

**** happens. The solution isn't more laws and regulations, the solution is to be vigilant and if something doesn't add up, figure out a way to handle it, and if you can't handle it, then find someone else who can assist you.

SpurzN703
07-22-2012, 06:27 PM
i wish this was the way it was, then people may think again before carrying out there plan.

it would not eliminate violence fully because there are many sick people out their who don't care, but it may reduce crime rate if people knew that they would die the exact same way they carried out their act.

Violence will never been eliminated. Killing him though would guarantee he'd never hurt anyone again and that's all I care about right now.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 06:37 PM
Violence will never been eliminated. Killing him though would guarantee he'd never hurt anyone again and that's all I care about right now.

And he's certainly not worth the the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars that it will cost to keep his ass behind bars for the rest of his life.

SpurzN703
07-22-2012, 06:51 PM
And he's certainly not worth the the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars that it will cost to keep his ass behind bars for the rest of his life.

Exactly.

I'm not really going to get into the talk about guns. I don't own one. I've only ever shot a BB gun as a teen if you can believe it. I don't need a gun now nor have I ever. I do think it's easier for people on forums such as this one to comment about whether banning guns should or shouldn't happen. Maybe the conversation would flow a little different had we known or been related to a victim of gun violence.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 06:56 PM
Exactly.

I'm not really going to get into the talk about guns. I don't own one. I've only ever shot a BB gun as a teen if you can believe it. I don't need a gun now nor have I ever. I do think it's easier for people on forums such as this one to comment about whether banning guns should or shouldn't happen. Maybe the conversation would flow a little different had we known or been related to a victim of gun violence.

While I don't know any victims of gun violence, coming from an Army family, I know lots of people, myself included who use guns, including "assault rifles" responsibly. Banning something that 99% of people who own legally use responsibly over a few isolated incidents is just mind-numbingly dumb. How someone can go online and legally purchase a 100 round drum without any papers or background checks is a far bigger problem. As someone who shoots guns as a hobby, even I realize 100 round drums is excessive for anyone who doesn't use guns professionally, or for sport.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 07:19 PM
It honestly probably doesnt matter either way as far as safety. And people collect guns. They shoot them for fun. I dont. I dont get the appeal, but some people enjoy it. Im not gonna say that assault rifles have to be banned because it might save a few people a year. I guess thats where our difference of opinion really lies. A few lives might be saved, but IMO its not worth the price of giving some freedom and it sets a bad precedent that whenever something bad happens, we need to ban something.

Fair enough.
For the record, i dont believe we should knee jerk a bill through Congress simply because of one isolated event about one guy who was out of his mind. But my stance has remained the same before this event and i havent seen anything to suggest that my stance will differ long after it.

People can collect all sorts of guns they want, so long as they are handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles or something else along those lines. Assualt rifles should be banned for the same reason explosives and other high damage weapons, they can commit mass murder very quickly and very easily.

Ilovemyfins4eva
07-22-2012, 07:28 PM
Violence will never been eliminated. Killing him though would guarantee he'd never hurt anyone again and that's all I care about right now.ya i deff understand u. i was just saying how i feel like just having a needle injected into him and killing him easily would be to painless considering the hell he caused on all those people, killing 12, injuring 50 plus, and all the family members who are alive who now will have to live for the rest of their lives with the anger and pain of not being able to wake up and hug their children, father/mother, etc forever.

i feel this way for any murderer though, i feel that if they are going to be put to death, it should at least be a painful death such as hanging, being burnt in a fire, beheading, electrocuted, etc. these ways at least they will feel pain before dying, especially being burnt alive, thats my number one .

i deff do understand though its not worth spending our tax payers money on keeping these guys alive behind bars, but at least kill them in a painful way, because when people are murdered in all types pf ways, for the ultimate punishment for the convict to be just an injection is way to easy of a way to go imo.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 07:30 PM
Just channel your inner Caesar and bring back Gladiatorial Combat, put it on PPV.

Deficit solved.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

Would anyone object to a mental health exam before buying an assault weapon?

Ilovemyfins4eva
07-22-2012, 07:34 PM
Fair enough.
For the record, i dont believe we should knee jerk a bill through Congress simply because of one isolated event about one guy who was out of his mind. But my stance has remained the same before this event and i havent seen anything to suggest that my stance will differ long after it.

People can collect all sorts of guns they want, so long as they are handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles or something else along those lines. Assualt rifles should be banned for the same reason explosives and other high damage weapons, they can commit mass murder very quickly and very easily.
exactly, banning rifles, or whatever guns u can think of because of isolated incidents would be ridiculous. bad guys will always get there hands on weapons if they are hell bent on doing something, just because they ban it, does not mean everyone will be safe.

i personally own guns, and i go shooting often, but i honestly wouldn't hurt fly, let alone a human. i am a very calm person, but i feel that if god forbid i am ever in that one situation where i am up against the wall, having a weapon can save my life. all it takes is 1 time for that weapon to be totally worth it, although i hope the only time i ever have to pull the trigger is when i go to the shooting range.

not saying everyone must go out and buy a gun, but i believe in the world we live in today, although the odds are against you that you would have to actually use it of course, it cant hurt to own one responsibly, because that one time you are ever in danger god forbid, it can be the difference between life and death.

Valandui
07-22-2012, 07:38 PM
Just channel your inner Caesar and bring back Gladiatorial Combat, put it on PPV.

Deficit solved.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

Would anyone object to a mental health exam before buying an assault weapon?
In theory, I agree. Who is deciding what qualifies and mentally fit, though?

Spesh
07-22-2012, 07:43 PM
It sounds like he made his bomb out of common household chemicals and a few other assorted things. I put the fault on this not on the weapons themselves, but people for not realizing there were more than a few red flags popping up all over.

If people were more vigilant and paid attention to stuff instead of being afraid of every little thing that goes bump in the night and cowering away, we'd have less of these things. Some guy mails away for some devices and it's pretty clear he's not a contractor or someone who'd need those sorts of things, you'd think that someone would go "Hey, wait a minute...", but no, they just send it right on its merry way.

Blame guns and assault weapons all you want, but they're just inanimate objects. If a person is going to use something to kill a bunch of people, especially a demented and mad genius like this guy supposedly was, they're going to have more than a few options to move forward with their plans in case one option doesn't work. You can't control against crazy people. You can take everything away from someone, but if they have a homicidal streak, there's nothing that can be done to stop it, short of giving them a post-birth abortion.

I don't own any assault rifles, but I know people that do, and by and large, even though they have crazy conspiracy thoughts, they're not really a danger to anybody else. If you can own a gun responsibly, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to have one. Taking guns away from people as an overreaction to an isolated incident is not the way things should precede. It would be like banning all Chinese made toys because a kid chokes on one of them.

**** happens. The solution isn't more laws and regulations, the solution is to be vigilant and if something doesn't add up, figure out a way to handle it, and if you can't handle it, then find someone else who can assist you.

We dont live in an ideal world. If someone gets paid money to send seemingly innocent material through the mail and not think about it again: they most likely will. Yes, it would be nice if everyone remained vigilant against criminals and wackjobs. But they dont, which is one of the reasons we have law enforcement. Your saying people should watch out for stuff like this, but at the same time you dont want more people watching out for this so long as they are paid to watch out for it.

And yes, assualt rifles are inanimate objects and lots of law abiding citizens enjoy collecting their bling with not desire to commit crimes. Then again, many people think it would be badass make explosives. That isnt allowed. I think every guy alive has at one point said "man, i wish i could have a nuke, that would give me an erection". That sure as hell isnt allowed. We have many weapons that are banned in the United State of America. We have a relatively free society, yet many things are outlawed due to danger(to the person, but more importantly others). There are some mass murdering weapons we shouldnt be allowed to collect around the house.
Sometimes crime is unavoidable. Seemingly normal people snap and the killing begins. And i dont think ive seen anyone seriously suggest that "Oh, this all could have been avoided if only he didnt have weapons". People have, correctly, pointed out that the causalties would have been reduced, possible drastically. If i have to read about murders in the paper the next morning, i sure as hell would want it to read "6 dead, 35 injured" instead of "12 dead, 70 injured".

And the guy did use household chemicals to make his explosives devices, none of which are illegal(i assume). Doesnt mean he shouldnt have been arrested the minute he starting mixing those chemicals together. He shouldnt get reduced charges because his explosives were made with over the counter items.

And i keep getting accused of some knee jerk reaction wanting to rip away peoples guns because of an isolated event. I mentioned earlier in this thread that i disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 and, again, in 2010. I mentioned in another thread that this was a horrible example for gun control advocates because this was a unique event(guy being nuts, having the ability to wear riot gear without attention, and being in a dark controlled room). I'll say it again to hopefully put this down: i dont believe this topic should spawn cries for gun control. I am for a ban on assualt rifles for many other reasons. Anyone screaming for gun control because of this event mistaken. Just like anyone arguing for more people to have guns to supposedly stop this heavily armed and armored man in a tear gased saturated room is also mistaken.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 07:45 PM
In theory, I agree. Who is deciding what qualifies and mentally fit, though?
A licensed psychiatrist. It's no different than having to get medical marijuana recommendation from a licensed physician.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 07:48 PM
Just channel your inner Caesar and bring back Gladiatorial Combat, put it on PPV.

Deficit solved.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

Would anyone object to a mental health exam before buying an assault weapon?

As ive been advocating the ban of assualt rifles, my stance is probably apparent, but: i certainly wouldnt object. I wouldnt see it that much different then people getting tested to see if they can drive. Before owning something that can be harmful to others, they should be tested to see if they can use it in a responsible manner(and mental health would certainly fit that bill).

Clipse
07-22-2012, 07:55 PM
In theory, I agree. Who is deciding what qualifies and mentally fit, though?

Many states already do mental health background checks for forearms purchases. Though I suppose making people take a mental health exam wouldn't be a bad thing.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 08:00 PM
We dont live in an ideal world. If someone gets paid money to send seemingly innocent material through the mail and not think about it again: they most likely will. Yes, it would be nice if everyone remained vigilant against criminals and wackjobs. But they dont, which is one of the reasons we have law enforcement. Your saying people should watch out for stuff like this, but at the same time you dont want more people watching out for this so long as they are paid to watch out for it.

And yes, assualt rifles are inanimate objects and lots of law abiding citizens enjoy collecting their bling with not desire to commit crimes. Then again, many people think it would be badass make explosives. That isnt allowed. I think every guy alive has at one point said "man, i wish i could have a nuke, that would give me an erection". That sure as hell isnt allowed. We have many weapons that are banned in the United State of America. We have a relatively free society, yet many things are outlawed due to danger(to the person, but more importantly others). There are some mass murdering weapons we shouldnt be allowed to collect around the house.
Sometimes crime is unavoidable. Seemingly normal people snap and the killing begins. And i dont think ive seen anyone seriously suggest that "Oh, this all could have been avoided if only he didnt have weapons". People have, correctly, pointed out that the causalties would have been reduced, possible drastically. If i have to read about murders in the paper the next morning, i sure as hell would want it to read "6 dead, 35 injured" instead of "12 dead, 70 injured".

And the guy did use household chemicals to make his explosives devices, none of which are illegal(i assume). Doesnt mean he shouldnt have been arrested the minute he starting mixing those chemicals together. He shouldnt get reduced charges because his explosives were made with over the counter items.

And i keep getting accused of some knee jerk reaction wanting to rip away peoples guns because of an isolated event. I mentioned earlier in this thread that i disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 and, again, in 2010. I mentioned in another thread that this was a horrible example for gun control advocates because this was a unique event(guy being nuts, having the ability to wear riot gear without attention, and being in a dark controlled room). I'll say it again to hopefully put this down: i dont believe this topic should spawn cries for gun control. I am for a ban on assualt rifles for many other reasons. Anyone screaming for gun control because of this event mistaken. Just like anyone arguing for more people to have guns to supposedly stop this heavily armed and armored man in a tear gased saturated room is also mistaken.

Guns really don't bother me. It's really not something I'm exactly passionate about, pretty indifferent actually.

All I'm saying is, blaming the weapons the guy used isn't going to fix any problems. It sounds like he'd have used something like explosives or something anyway. Just stop selling guns to crazy people, make sure people are mentally fit before they own a dangerous item. It's no different than having to get a driver's license. You don't have to say what types of guns you're buying and why you're buying them, but make sure that you're mentally competent and aren't going to unload a round on your neighbor because you have bad Vietnam flashbacks and your neighbor happens to be squinting from the sun.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 08:13 PM
Guns really don't bother me. It's really not something I'm exactly passionate about, pretty indifferent actually.

All I'm saying is, blaming the weapons the guy used isn't going to fix any problems. It sounds like he'd have used something like explosives or something anyway. Just stop selling guns to crazy people, make sure people are mentally fit before they own a dangerous item. It's no different than having to get a driver's license. You don't have to say what types of guns you're buying and why you're buying them, but make sure that you're mentally competent and aren't going to unload a round on your neighbor because you have bad Vietnam flashbacks and your neighbor happens to be squinting from the sun.

I certainly wouldnt be upset over having steps in place to help identify those who need help and preventing them from gaining tools that can easily hurt others.

Im fairly vocal about gun rights concerning handguns and the like. I just dont see any need for assualt rifles other then dick measuring, war, or crime. None of which strikes me as legitimate reasons for owning one. At the end of the day no one will see me rioting in front of a courthouse about this. The Supreme Court made a call on this, i dont like it but its not something im upset enough over to fight the system about. Put it on a ballot and id vote for a ban, but other then that(and occassionally debating it in a discussion) im fairly apathetic towards the situation.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 08:24 PM
I certainly wouldnt be upset over having steps in place to help identify those who need help and preventing them from gaining tools that can easily hurt others.

Im fairly vocal about gun rights concerning handguns and the like. I just dont see any need for assualt rifles other then dick measuring, war, or crime. None of which strikes me as legitimate reasons for owning one. At the end of the day no one will see me rioting in front of a courthouse about this. The Supreme Court made a call on this, i dont like it but its not something im upset enough over to fight the system about. Put it on a ballot and id vote for a ban, but other then that(and occassionally debating it in a discussion) im fairly apathetic towards the situation.

I don't think there should be too many restrictions on handguns, either, nor do I see the need for assault weapons, unless you live in a high crime area where you might be robbed by 10s of people at once, or you're a drug dealer like Tony Montana. I guess if you live in an area that's isolated and full of animals like bears and moose, maybe you want some protection from the bear army...but living in a house in the middle of the burbs and owning a bunch of assault rifles is kind of retarded. I don't hate on people for buying them, but if you're buying them for show, it's just like driving the jacked up, muffler-less diesel F350 around, everyone knows why you really have them.

I'm pretty apathetic towards it too, I just think that blaming the weapon itself is like blaming the dollar because a few dozen banks used it irresponsibly.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 08:28 PM
Mitt Romney banned assault rifles in 2004 in MA:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assault-weapons-ban/

Clipse
07-22-2012, 09:33 PM
I certainly wouldnt be upset over having steps in place to help identify those who need help and preventing them from gaining tools that can easily hurt others.

Im fairly vocal about gun rights concerning handguns and the like. I just dont see any need for assualt rifles other then dick measuring, war, or crime. None of which strikes me as legitimate reasons for owning one. At the end of the day no one will see me rioting in front of a courthouse about this. The Supreme Court made a call on this, i dont like it but its not something im upset enough over to fight the system about. Put it on a ballot and id vote for a ban, but other then that(and occassionally debating it in a discussion) im fairly apathetic towards the situation.

This is the part I fail to understand. What makes shooting guns as a hobby or sport any different than someone who wants to throw a ball into a hoop, kick a ball into a net, or carry a ball across a goalline. Shooting as a very popular sport and hobby has been around for a long time, with archery before it, and still here. Both being Olympic sports as well. Or how ocllecting firearms is any different than collecting sports cards, seashells, rocks, or whatever else dumb **** people collect. You also claim to be just fine with handguns. There are legal handguns that will do far more damage than an AR-15. And drum magazines are available for pistols as well. And for the record, assault rifle is an incorrect term for a semi-automatic only rifle.

justbgreen
07-22-2012, 10:02 PM
He had clips with 100 rounds in them. It he was forced to fire a slower weapon with less ammo per clip, then not as many people would have been hurt. When tragedy is unavoidable, the best we can do is limit the damage.

And bombs are illegal in America. He did make some and wired his entire apartment with them. Should we legalize explosive devices just because criminals can get their hands on them anyway?

Okay I have to way in on this........first off their not clips, their magazines. If you're going to "shoot your mouth off", know what your talking about. You seem to be very harsh on people that have guns, owe you still will hide behind the fact that everyone should be allowed to own one, just not assault rifles. Well I own two assault rifles and so far I haven't assaulted anybody with them. As many people around our country, I enjoy going to the range and "pulling the trigger"!!!! The only thing I've assaulted was the target at the end of the range. What you don't seem to realize is, if someone wants to do something bad enough, they will find the means to do it. I think I'm correct in that car accidents kill more people everyday than any other other thing, so I guess we should outlaw cars!!! And yes, you can say that unlike a car a gun has no other value than to kill, well I'll give you that, that's what they were built for, however I collect them and enjoy shooting all my guns. So before you throw everyone under the bus for owning an assault rifle, we're not all bad guy's, maybe one day we may save your life. And speaking of that, its to bad someone wasn't carrying (legally), and this may not have gone on as long as it did.

CedarPhin
07-22-2012, 10:06 PM
There were a couple of CCL holders in the theatre, IIRC. They just couldn't see between the gas and darkness.

justbgreen
07-22-2012, 10:11 PM
There were a couple of CCL holders in the theatre, IIRC. They just couldn't see between the gas and darkness.

Glad to know they were there, maybe next time.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 10:14 PM
This is the part I fail to understand. What makes shooting guns as a hobby or sport any different than someone who wants to throw a ball into a hoop, kick a ball into a net, or carry a ball across a goalline. Shooting as a very popular sport and hobby has been around for a long time, with archery before it, and still here. Both being Olympic sports as well. Or how ocllecting firearms is any different than collecting sports cards, seashells, rocks, or whatever else dumb **** people collect. You also claim to be just fine with handguns. There are legal handguns that will do far more damage than an AR-15. And drum magazines are available for pistols as well. And for the record, assault rifle is an incorrect term for a semi-automatic only rifle.

Very, very, few, if any, deaths are caused by ball carrying or kicking. Fighting to the death used to be a common sporting event, we no longer allow that.

There are non assault rifles that can be used for sport shooting. As well, if push came to shove, i dont see why a system couldnt be set up for those that can prove they need special weapons for sporting purposes. We have similar precendent for it. We currently allow police officers to use and carry various types of weaponary, we also allow people to use various weapons at entertainment events. We could figure out something similar to those instances. It honestly isnt that difficult.

Collecting bling bling rifles falls into the dick measuring part of my post. And i said it previously, ban absurd magazines for weapons. And ok, im not sure where i said anything resembling that assault rifles are semi-automatic only rifles, but sure, duly noted.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------


Okay I have to way in on this........first off their not clips, their magazines. If you're going to "shoot your mouth off", know what your talking about. You seem to be very harsh on people that have guns, owe you still will hide behind the fact that everyone should be allowed to own one, just not assault rifles. Well I own two assault rifles and so far I haven't assaulted anybody with them. As many people around our country, I enjoy going to the range and "pulling the trigger"!!!! The only thing I've assaulted was the target at the end of the range. What you don't seem to realize is, if someone wants to do something bad enough, they will find the means to do it. I think I'm correct in that car accidents kill more people everyday than any other other thing, so I guess we should outlaw cars!!! And yes, you can say that unlike a car a gun has no other value than to kill, well I'll give you that, that's what they were built for, however I collect them and enjoy shooting all my guns. So before you throw everyone under the bus for owning an assault rifle, we're not all bad guy's, maybe one day we may save your life. And speaking of that, its to bad someone wasn't carrying (legally), and this may not have gone on as long as it did.

:lol:

SkapePhin
07-22-2012, 10:45 PM
Then he would of used a handgun or shotgun, which wouldn't of made any difference whatsoever. Guess we should ban those too.

While handguns and shotguns are dangerous, there is no way 1 shooter using only a handgun or a shotgun would be capable of killing 12 people and injuring 50+ in the span of a few minutes. An assault rifle amplifies the carnage by magnitudes.

SkapePhin
07-22-2012, 10:48 PM
It honestly probably doesnt matter either way as far as safety. And people collect guns. They shoot them for fun. I dont. I dont get the appeal, but some people enjoy it. Im not gonna say that assault rifles have to be banned because it might save a few people a year. I guess thats where our difference of opinion really lies. A few lives might be saved, but IMO its not worth the price of giving some freedom and it sets a bad precedent that whenever something bad happens, we need to ban something.

Then I suppose you are in favor of legalizing drugs?? Because if you follow that logic when it comes to weapons of mass murder, then it would seem all drugs should be legalized too, seeing as how many people can partake in these substances recreationally without ever causing any harm to anyone but themselves.

I always found it interesting how conservatives will fight tooth and nail to have the "freedom" to shoot off killing machines, but are completely unwilling to allow others to have the "freedom" to smoke a doobie in the privacy of their own homes, even those with chronic illnesses.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 11:11 PM
Very, very, few, if any, deaths are caused by ball carrying or kicking. Fighting to the death used to be a common sporting event, we no longer allow that.

There are non assault rifles that can be used for sport shooting. As well, if push came to shove, i dont see why a system couldnt be set up for those that can prove they need special weapons for sporting purposes. We have similar precendent for it. We currently allow police officers to use and carry various types of weaponary, we also allow people to use various weapons at entertainment events. We could figure out something similar to those instances. It honestly isnt that difficult.

Collecting bling bling rifles falls into the dick measuring part of my post. And i said it previously, ban absurd magazines for weapons. And ok, im not sure where i said anything resembling that assault rifles are semi-automatic only rifles, but sure, duly noted.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------



:lol:

You called the AR-15 the shooter used an Assault Rifle. Technically it isn't. Just busting your balls. I'm with you on High Capacity Magazines. There should definitely be stricter laws regarding those. You certainly shouldn't be able to purchase them online without any papers or background checks. I'll never be able to get behind banning even more guns though. I mean, where does it end?

After we ban "assault weapons", do we then ban other rifles which will do far more damage to a human than most of these "assault weapons". You can legally purchase a .50 caliber rifle which would literally dismember a human being. Let's ban those. Shotguns do immense damage to humans. Slugs will go right through pretty much anybody, and 00 Buckshots will put 8-9 holes in you, perhaps even right through you if you're close enough. Semi automatic shotguns that carry 5 shells aren't considered "assault weapons". Should we ban those, or maybe just ban all shotguns? What about higher caliber pistols? .50 caliber pistols/revolvers are legal. Should we ban them?

I like my freedoms. Banning weapons that are used responsibly by 99% of people who own them legally because of an isolated incident of a crazy person is just dumb to me. Requiring a mental health exam to acquire "assault weapons" I have no problem with.

Valandui
07-22-2012, 11:30 PM
Many states already do mental health background checks for forearms purchases. Though I suppose making people take a mental health exam wouldn't be a bad thing.

That's fine on a state level. No federal bureaucrat should be making those calls.

---------- Post added at 11:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------


Mitt Romney banned assault rifles in 2004 in MA:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/20/romney-once-supported-assault-weapons-ban/

He's different now and totally sincere about it.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 11:31 PM
You called the AR-15 the shooter used an Assault Rifle. Technically it isn't. Just busting your balls. I'm with you on High Capacity Magazines. There should definitely be stricter laws regarding those. You certainly shouldn't be able to purchase them online without any papers or background checks. I'll never be able to get behind banning even more guns though. I mean, where does it end?

After we ban "assault weapons", do we then ban other rifles which will do far more damage to a human than most of these "assault weapons". You can legally purchase a .50 caliber rifle which would literally dismember a human being. Let's ban those. Shotguns do immense damage to humans. Slugs will go right through pretty much anybody, and 00 Buckshots will put 8-9 holes in you, perhaps even right through you if you're close enough. Semi automatic shotguns that carry 5 shells aren't considered "assault weapons". Should we ban those, or maybe just ban all shotguns? What about higher caliber pistols? .50 caliber pistols/revolvers are legal. Should we ban them?

I like my freedoms. Banning weapons that are used responsibly by 99% of people who own them legally because of an isolated incident of a crazy person is just dumb to me. Requiring a mental health exam to acquire "assault weapons" I have no problem with.

The flip side to that is: if we can allow assault rifles why cant we allow other weapons? Where does that end?

Explosives? Gases? Should we allow every weapon that can be built to have free access in public places? Should people be allowed to walk to the store carrying a Rpg on their shoulder? Should they be able to successfully argue "personal freedom" as a defense for it? Should we allow people to start cooking things like mustard gas because, hey, only a relatively few people in history have used it on humans? If thats to strong, how about flamethrowers? Should people be allowed to walk into wal-mart with a home-made flamethrower strapped to their back?

We dont allow those things because they pose a direct risk(intentional or not) to others. If those devices were to go off they would directly effect the freedoms of people who didnt make a choice, namely the freedom to live. At some point we say "no, we cant allow that because its to dangerous". Even the people arguing for gun-rights advocate it on the premise of personal protection or hunting. Some weapons have little to no use in those catagories. I say we start there.
But yes, my personal opinion aside, i think a reasonable and responsible move would be a mental health check. And aight, the shooter was using a AR-15, though ive argued for an assault rifle ban based on safety outside of this unique incident.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 11:31 PM
While handguns and shotguns are dangerous, there is no way 1 shooter using only a handgun or a shotgun would be capable of killing 12 people and injuring 50+ in the span of a few minutes. An assault rifle amplifies the carnage by magnitudes.

Then you obviously have no idea whatsoever about firearms. A man can easily do that much damage with a single .45 caliber pistol with a drum magazine. Not to mention using a shotgun with a 20 shell drum magazine.

For the record, his rifle jammed so he did much of the shooting with his other weapon. So let's not sit here and act like he did all of that damage with only a rifle.

Not to mention, when it comes to firearms, it's more about profiency than it is the guns. Someone highly trained in the use of firearms can do considerable damage no matter what gun he's using.

COphinphan89
07-22-2012, 11:38 PM
Then I suppose you are in favor of legalizing drugs?? Because if you follow that logic when it comes to weapons of mass murder, then it would seem all drugs should be legalized too, seeing as how many people can partake in these substances recreationally without ever causing any harm to anyone but themselves.

I always found it interesting how conservatives will fight tooth and nail to have the "freedom" to shoot off killing machines, but are completely unwilling to allow others to have the "freedom" to smoke a doobie in the privacy of their own homes, even those with chronic illnesses.
I agree. It's extremely hypocritical. I've tried to explain this to people who think that way, but they're too ideologically stubborn to acknowledge it. Some people have been told by other political figures/pundits for decades that this is the way they should think, so they do. I own a gun, and I smoke weed. I do not handle both at the same time obviously, just like I don't drink and handle a gun.

Clipse
07-22-2012, 11:43 PM
The flip side to that is: if we can allow assault rifles why cant we allow other weapons? Where does that end?

Explosives? Gases? Should we allow every weapon that can be built to have free access in public places? Should people be allowed to walk to the store carrying a Rpg on their shoulder? Should they be able to successfully argue "personal freedom" as a defense for it? Should we allow people to start cooking things like mustard gas because, hey, only a relatively few people in history have used it on humans? If thats to strong, how about flamethrowers? Should people be allowed to walk into wal-mart with a home-made flamethrower strapped to their back?

We dont allow those things because they pose a direct risk(intentional or not) to others. If those devices were to go off they would directly effect the freedoms of people who didnt make a choice, namely the freedom to live. At some point we say "no, we cant allow that because its to dangerous". Even the people arguing for gun-rights advocate it on the premise of personal protection or hunting. Some weapons have little to no use in those catagories. I say we start there.
But yes, my personal opinion aside, i think a reasonable and responsible move would be a mental health check. And aight, the shooter was using a AR-15, though ive argued for an assault rifle ban based on safety outside of this unique incident.

Comparing rifles to explosives/chemical weapons is comparing apples to dump trucks. Explosives and chemical weapons provide no purpose other than to inflict massive casualties, or destroy objects. The better comparison is since explosives are relatively easy to make with household items, maybe we should start banning, or making it harder to obtain those household items. Obviously that would be ridiculous.

Spesh
07-22-2012, 11:52 PM
Comparing rifles to explosives/chemical weapons is comparing apples to dump trucks. Explosives and chemical weapons provide no purpose other than to inflict massive casualties, or destroy objects. The better comparison is since explosives are relatively easy to make with household items, maybe we should start banning, or making it harder to obtain those household items. Obviously that would be ridiculous.

The minute law enforcement officials learn someone is mixing together household items into dangerous concoctions they should sure as hell arrest the individual, and the matter of "its my personal freedom to make/use dangerous items" shouldnt apply. If the concoction has no legitimate use and are a direct danger to others, it shouldnt be allowed in a persons households, even if they are just collecting it because they think its cool.

tylerdolphin
07-23-2012, 12:01 AM
Then I suppose you are in favor of legalizing drugs?? Because if you follow that logic when it comes to weapons of mass murder, then it would seem all drugs should be legalized too, seeing as how many people can partake in these substances recreationally without ever causing any harm to anyone but themselves.

I always found it interesting how conservatives will fight tooth and nail to have the "freedom" to shoot off killing machines, but are completely unwilling to allow others to have the "freedom" to smoke a doobie in the privacy of their own homes, even those with chronic illnesses.

For the most part, yes. Any drug that doesnt directly cause harm to others probably should be legal. Obviously stuff like bath salts that make people chew faces off should be illegal, but a lot of illegal drugs are basically harmless.

Spesh
07-23-2012, 12:01 AM
For the most part, yes. Any drug that doesnt directly cause harm to others probably should be legal. Obviously stuff like bath salts that make people chew faces off should be illegal, but a lot of illegal drugs are basically harmless.

Thats the only stuff that sounds fun.

tylerdolphin
07-23-2012, 12:04 AM
Thats the only stuff that sounds fun.

We should round up all the gays, build a fence and give them water. But instead of food, we give them bath salts. Boom. No more gays ever. Problem solved.

Spesh
07-23-2012, 12:07 AM
We should round up all the gays, build a fence and give them water. But instead of food, we give them bath salts. Boom. No more gays ever. Problem solved.

I would say they would devour each other....but im pretty sure they do that already.

SkapePhin
07-23-2012, 12:19 AM
Then you obviously have no idea whatsoever about firearms. A man can easily do that much damage with a single .45 caliber pistol with a drum magazine. Not to mention using a shotgun with a 20 shell drum magazine.

For the record, his rifle jammed so he did much of the shooting with his other weapon. So let's not sit here and act like he did all of that damage with only a rifle.

Not to mention, when it comes to firearms, it's more about proficiency than it is the guns. Someone highly trained in the use of firearms can do considerable damage no matter what gun he's using.

I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know more about firearms than you do, because I don't, but it simply does not stand to reason that a gun that shoots off multiple rounds per second is equal to a gun that shoots a bullet at a time. With a weapon that shoots off multiple rounds, you are capable of shooting off several rounds in a shorter timespan, and essentially spray targets and hit them. Accuracy is not needed if you can spray into a crowd. With a pistol or rifle, you need some semblance of accuracy to cause the same damage.

I understand that you can spray a crowd with a shot gun, but you don't have a range that an assault rifle does.

tylerdolphin
07-23-2012, 12:31 AM
There were a couple of CCL holders in the theatre, IIRC. They just couldn't see between the gas and darkness.

In a situation like that, someone trying to be a hero with a CCL is probably counter productive. Put aside the tear gas. They are in a dark room and someone is firing a gun into a crowd. The guy with the CCL returns fire. In this chaos, what is everyone else going to make of this? They will probably assume there are multiple shooters and will panic and try run away from both of them even if they are on opposite sides of the theater. Total chaos. With all those people running around youre more likely to kill an innocent person or cause more deaths indirectly than you are to take out the shooter.

CedarPhin
07-23-2012, 12:32 AM
In a situation like that, someone trying to be a hero with a CCL is probably counter productive. Put aside the tear gas. They are in a dark room and someone is firing a gun into a crowd. The guy with the CCL returns fire. In this chaos, what is everyone else going to make of this? They will probably assume there are multiple shooters and will panic and try run away from both of them even if they are on opposite sides of the theater. Total chaos. With all those people running around youre more likely to kill an innocent person or cause more deaths indirectly than you are to take out the shooter.

My thoughts exactly. I've seen all these people claiming that only if someone had a gun in there, that guy could have been stopped. I tell them, "Hey, more would have been killed in the cross fire, considering it was full of gas and really dark", but they get even more pissed at me for saying that.

:shrug:

SkapePhin
07-23-2012, 02:21 AM
Damn, George Costanza just slays it with this post:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Boom goes the dynamite.

Flip Tanneflop
07-23-2012, 02:57 AM
Damn, George Costanza just slays it with this post:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Boom goes the dynamite.

Nailed it.

Clipse
07-23-2012, 08:46 AM
I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know more about firearms than you do, because I don't, but it simply does not stand to reason that a gun that shoots off multiple rounds per second is equal to a gun that shoots a bullet at a time. With a weapon that shoots off multiple rounds, you are capable of shooting off several rounds in a shorter timespan, and essentially spray targets and hit them. Accuracy is not needed if you can spray into a crowd. With a pistol or rifle, you need some semblance of accuracy to cause the same damage.

I understand that you can spray a crowd with a shot gun, but you don't have a range that an assault rifle does.

First of all, the rifle he used does shoot one bullet at a time. It's very expensive to purchase a fully automatic weapon. Usually $15,000 at the low end for rifles. Hence why you never see legally purchased fully automatic weapons used in crimes. Most semi-automatic pistols will fire bullets in the same amount of time as his rifle. As you said, a rifle does need some resemblance of accuracy to cause damage. What do you think an AR-15 is? As for shotgun range, buck shot is usually effective up to 50 yards, slugs up to 100 yards. More than enough range for a crowded theater.

Clipse
07-23-2012, 09:01 AM
Damn, George Costanza just slays it with this post:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Boom goes the dynamite.

So basically, ban any gun that doesn't require you to reload after one round. And semi-automatic rifles are not military weapons, and are most certainly sporting rifles. A lot of ignorance displayed in that piece for sure. And then of course he goes on to say that gun activists like myself (Which I happen to be a Libertarian) "believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem." Just your typical clueless Hollywood liberal. Not to mention his ignorant statement of 100,000 Americans dieing every year from guns without mentioning it's ILLEGAL firearms that are killing off these people. Oh, and people don't use "assault weapons" to commit crimes. They use handguns. Easy to conceal, easy to handle, easy to aim. I can't take clowns like this seriously.

Spesh
07-23-2012, 09:08 AM
Damn, George Costanza just slays it with this post:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Boom goes the dynamite.

Awesome, absolutely hilarious at parts.

Ok people, man up, step up if your post sounded even remotely like this:


Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the **** up
c. be removed


:lol:

SpurzN703
07-23-2012, 09:56 AM
ya i deff understand u. i was just saying how i feel like just having a needle injected into him and killing him easily would be to painless considering the hell he caused on all those people, killing 12, injuring 50 plus, and all the family members who are alive who now will have to live for the rest of their lives with the anger and pain of not being able to wake up and hug their children, father/mother, etc forever.

i feel this way for any murderer though, i feel that if they are going to be put to death, it should at least be a painful death such as hanging, being burnt in a fire, beheading, electrocuted, etc. these ways at least they will feel pain before dying, especially being burnt alive, thats my number one .

i deff do understand though its not worth spending our tax payers money on keeping these guys alive behind bars, but at least kill them in a painful way, because when people are murdered in all types pf ways, for the ultimate punishment for the convict to be just an injection is way to easy of a way to go imo.

Put a bullet in his head and let's move on. I could care less about torture. Why waste time? End him.

SkapePhin
07-23-2012, 11:26 AM
A great counterpoint to the Jason Alexander essay: http://www.grumpypundit.com/index.php/2012/07/22/we-wont-be-fooled-again-oh-hell-yes-we-will/

I have been calling for such a database (as he mentions at the bottom) for a while. It makes no sense that there are not tools in place to help gun shops and law enforcement to spot potential problems and cross check weapons purchases with other vendors.

NY8123
07-23-2012, 11:32 AM
Damn, George Costanza just slays it with this post:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Boom goes the dynamite.

George Costanza should stick to wearing fluffy coats and talking about jibberish because his facts are greatly exaggerated. You have to dig into the numbers to see what is actually the cause, handguns do far more killing by percentage than any rifle or other weapon, and before you all go telling my to ban all handguns, keep in mind that most handguns used in killing are obtained illegally and most murders are gang or criminal related.


In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state










Year


Handgun

Other
gun

Knife

Blunt
object

Other
weapon



1976

8,651

3,328

3,343

912

2,546



1977

8,563

3,391

3,648

900

2,618



1978

8,879

3,569

3,685

937

2,490



1979

9,858

3,732

4,121

1,039

2,710



1980

10,552

3,834

4,439

1,153

3,061



1981

10,324

3,740

4,364

1,166

2,927



1982

9,137

3,501

4,383

1,032

2,957



1983

8,472

2,794

4,214

1,098

2,731



1984

8,183

2,835

3,956

1,090

2,626



1985

8,165

2,973

3,996

1,051

2,794



1986

9,054

3,126

4,235

1,176

3,018



1987

8,781

3,094

4,076

1,169

2,980



1988

9,375

3,162

3,978

1,296

2,869



1989

10,225

3,197

3,923

1,279

2,877



1990

11,677

3,395

4,077

1,254

3,037



1991

13,101

3,277

3,909

1,252

3,161



1992

13,158

3,043

3,447

1,088

3,024



1993

13,981

3,094

3,140

1,082

3,233



1994

13,496

2,840

2,960

963

3,071



1995

12,050

2,679

2,731

981

3,169



1996

10,731

2,533

2,691

917

2,777



1997

9,705

2,631

2,363

833

2,678



1998

8,844

2,168

2,257

896

2,805



1999

7,943

2,174

2,042

902

2,461



2000

7,985

2,218

2,099

727

2,556



2001

7,900

2,239

2,090

776

3,032



2002

8,286

2,538

2,018

773

2,588



2003

8,830

2,223

2,085

745

2,645



2004

8,304

2,357

2,133

759

2,595



2005

8,478

2,868

2,147

671

2,528





http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

cbreeden
07-23-2012, 12:25 PM
If you can offer a valid reason why an ordinary citizen might own an assault rifle, please post it.

Because a gun, ANY gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is no harm to ANYONE! That's why.

You cannot legislate a tool. We live in a free society and if I decide to own an entire arsenal of weaponry in the privacy of my dwelling that is my perogative. Millions of Americans enjoy gun ownership and NEVER once think of arming themselves; breaking into a crowded theater; throw a tear-gas grenade and start shooting. Bad people do bad things and there's no two ways around it.

Clipse
07-23-2012, 12:50 PM
A great counterpoint to the Jason Alexander essay: http://www.grumpypundit.com/index.php/2012/07/22/we-wont-be-fooled-again-oh-hell-yes-we-will/

I have been calling for such a database (as he mentions at the bottom) for a while. It makes no sense that there are not tools in place to help gun shops and law enforcement to spot potential problems and cross check weapons purchases with other vendors.

Pretty much obliterates Alexander's completely ignorant essay.

cbreeden
07-23-2012, 01:37 PM
While handguns and shotguns are dangerous, there is no way 1 shooter using only a handgun or a shotgun would be capable of killing 12 people and injuring 50+ in the span of a few minutes. An assault rifle amplifies the carnage by magnitudes.

You are absoutely wrong. With just a 9MM or a Glock .40 and standard 15 or 17-round mags just about anyone with the intent on killing another human can do the damage this ***hole did. The fact he was armed as he was and ONLY killed 12 astounds me as he obviously was not trained or didn't remember his training if he was. The simple fact that he was wearing a mask inhibited his sights and the smoke from the tear gas grenade didn't help either. I'm actually thankfull this ***clown wasn't proficient with his weapons or it could have been a lot worse.

Bumpus
07-23-2012, 01:44 PM
:bobdole: @ the ignorance ITT.

Repeat after me: "Crazy people are crazy."


It wasn't the semi-auto weapons used. It wasn't even the high capacity mags. It takes me approximately 2-3 seconds to execute a magazine change in my .45, & I'm not even exceptionally quick. Given enough mags, and a modicum of practice - a simple pistol could have done the same damn thing.

You wanna prevent this type of crime with its massive casualties? Remove ALL firearms from the planet. :lol: Good luck with that.



Again, crazy people are crazy.

Bumpus
07-23-2012, 01:47 PM
You are absoutely wrong. With just a 9MM or a Glock .40 and standard 15 or 17-round mags just about anyone with the intent on killing another human can do the damage this ***hole did. The fact he was armed as he was and ONLY killed 12 astounds me as he obviously was not trained or didn't remember his training if he was. The simple fact that he was wearing a mask inhibited his sights and the smoke from the tear gas grenade didn't help either. I'm actually thankfull this ***clown wasn't proficient with his weapons or it could have been a lot worse.
:hclap:

SkapePhin
07-23-2012, 02:51 PM
George Costanza should stick to wearing fluffy coats and talking about jibberish because his facts are greatly exaggerated. You have to dig into the numbers to see what is actually the cause, handguns do far more killing by percentage than any rifle or other weapon, and before you all go telling my to ban all handguns, keep in mind that most handguns used in killing are obtained illegally and most murders are gang or criminal related.

This data is beside the point. The discussion is centered around instances of mass murder where one shooter is able to kill many people at once, not isolated incidents where a shooter kills 1-2 people with a handgun. While it is understood that handgun-related deaths will be far more in the long run, there is not much that can be done on that front as handguns do have uses as protection for law abiding citizens, whereas an assault rifle does not.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------


Because a gun, ANY gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is no harm to ANYONE! That's why.

You cannot legislate a tool. We live in a free society and if I decide to own an entire arsenal of weaponry in the privacy of my dwelling that is my perogative. Millions of Americans enjoy gun ownership and NEVER once think of arming themselves; breaking into a crowded theater; throw a tear-gas grenade and start shooting. Bad people do bad things and there's no two ways around it.

Really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html


Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

tylerdolphin
07-23-2012, 02:59 PM
This data is beside the point. The discussion is centered around instances of mass murder where one shooter is able to kill many people at once, not isolated incidents where a shooter kills 1-2 people with a handgun. While it is understood that handgun-related deaths will be far more in the long run, there is not much that can be done on that front as handguns do have uses as protection for law abiding citizens, whereas an assault rifle does not.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------



Really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Well no ****. Statistically, not many people get shot and of those that get shot a very high percentage are up to criminal activity. If you have a gun and are a criminal, then yea youre pretty much at a high risk of getting shot.

SkapePhin
07-23-2012, 03:06 PM
Well no ****. Statistically, not many people get shot and of those that get shot a very high percentage are up to criminal activity. If you have a gun and are a criminal, then yea youre pretty much at a high risk of getting shot.


So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood. 111

cbreeden
07-23-2012, 03:27 PM
Really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Yes, really. The statement stands on its own merit. I can come up with studies and numbers to make pigs fly if so inclined. But since you used Branas' lets go with his. Not once in the article did it mention that the study was about law-abiding citizens and I'm willing to bet the overwhelming vast majority of Philly citizens that were studied were the law-breaking idiots who got shot by police or other law breaking idiots. And while there may be studies that show peaceful folk getting shot and/or killed because they carry a firearm...this one ain't it Sherlock. Try again.

Dogbone34
07-23-2012, 03:45 PM
he looks like todd marinovich

Valandui
07-23-2012, 06:52 PM
:bobdole: @ the ignorance ITT.

Repeat after me: "Crazy people are crazy."


It wasn't the semi-auto weapons used. It wasn't even the high capacity mags. It takes me approximately 2-3 seconds to execute a magazine change in my .45, & I'm not even exceptionally quick. Given enough mags, and a modicum of practice - a simple pistol could have done the same damn thing.

You wanna prevent this type of crime with its massive casualties? Remove ALL firearms from the planet. :lol: Good luck with that.



Again, crazy people are crazy.
Or arm everyone.

Locke
07-23-2012, 09:06 PM
This thread got interesting for sure...

NY8123
07-23-2012, 09:47 PM
This thread got interesting for sure...

And you knew it would. I have to say thanks to both sides for keeping the argument civil. You know this subject is right and left for the most part, you're either for or against. I will say this, maybe if more people acted in a manor like our members have in this thread we wouldn't have so many of these issues at the forefront of our society.

It'd be nice if people actually talked about their problems instead of taking their problems out on the innocence.

COphinphan89
07-23-2012, 10:24 PM
The eyes tell the whole story. Nobody's home.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/0723jamesholmestmz1-1.jpg

CedarPhin
07-23-2012, 10:46 PM
In almost every one of his pics, you can see that he is, in fact, a few cans short of a six pack.

Bumpus
07-23-2012, 11:22 PM
And you knew it would. I have to say thanks to both sides for keeping the argument civil. You know this subject is right and left for the most part, you're either for or against. I will say this, maybe if more people acted in a manor like our members have in this thread we wouldn't have so many of these issues at the forefront of our society.

It'd be nice if people actually talked about their problems instead of taking their problems out on the innocence.

:lol: Funny part is - I'm left on most ****. Yet, when it comes to firearms, I sound like a Republican. :lol:

Spesh
07-24-2012, 09:57 AM
Ah, so going with option "B" of the responses Jason Alexander elegantly spoke of:


Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the **** up
c. be removed


Anyway, copycats commence!

A Maine man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," Maine state police said Monday.
Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Maine, had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said.


http://news.yahoo.com/3-arrested-separate-dark-knight-incidents-080930278.html

cbreeden
07-24-2012, 12:02 PM
A gentle cure for the mentally ill who commit crimes was discovered on Finheaven:

Spesh, love the editorial sig.

SkapePhin
07-24-2012, 12:15 PM
Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

Spesh
07-24-2012, 12:38 PM
Spesh, love the editorial sig.

Wouldnt have put it up if the guy hadnt felt the need to make sure we all knew that it wasnt just public torture that was needed, but "hardcore". When he clarified that point it had me rolling :lol:

tylerdolphin
07-24-2012, 12:56 PM
The eyes tell the whole story. Nobody's home.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/0723jamesholmestmz1-1.jpg

Over on the other board I post at, theres a guy that works in the Med School where this guy was at. Although he had never met this guy, he says a few of his other students often jokingly refered to him as "the serial killer." Pretty easy to see why judging by the pics. Crazy how his mom wasnt shocked and everyone at his school knew he was a weirdo...

Clipse
07-24-2012, 12:59 PM
As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

There's 3 million legally owned "assault rifles" in this country. Compare to the amount of people actually getting murdered by them and you make yourself sound quite ignorant with statements like that. Using that ignorant logic, ANY firearm that isn't required to reload after a single round qualifies for that. I think Bumpus has this one right. No idea how someone can form an opinion on something they (admittedly) have no clue about.

Well less than 1% of legal "assault rifles" in this country are used to commit murder. Yet they're only put on this earth to kill a bunch of things in one sitting. Comical.

SkapePhin
07-24-2012, 01:10 PM
There's 3 million legally owned "assault rifles" in this country. Compare to the amount of people actually getting murdered by them and you make yourself sound quite ignorant with statements like that. Using that ignorant logic, ANY firearm that isn't required to reload after a single round qualifies for that. I think Bumpus has this one right. No idea how someone can form an opinion on something they (admittedly) have no clue about.

Well less than 1% of legal "assault rifles" in this country are used to commit murder. Yet they're only put on this earth to kill a bunch of things in one sitting. Comical.

R&R... I am speaking to their FUNCTION, not what people actually do with them. Their FUNCTION is to kill multiple living things. Assault rifles are designed for war. They are designed to kill more efficiently and in larger quantities. While people who legally own them don't often use them for this function, that IS their function. So, what do people who legally own assault rifles do with assault rifles? They shoot paper representations of humans. That's it. They don't protect their homes with them, they don't hunt animals with them, ALL they do with them is shoot pieces of paper. So tell me again, is this a valid reason to keep them legal? So people can get their kicks shooting paper? Meanwhile, the 5% of crazies can still have easy access to them so that they can commit unspeakable atrocities... Is it worth it?

I just don't see the logic in that, sorry.

As I stated, handguns and rifles actually have valid uses other than to kill humans or shoot pieces of paper. Assault rifles do not.

cbreeden
07-24-2012, 01:11 PM
Skape, you're missing the overall point of the posts and it appears confusing "assault rifle" with "automatic weapon". Bottom line: you will not stop this type of violence by legislating a ban on weapons...assault or otherwise. Period. The actual thought of banning weapons to preclude an act like this is a knee-jerk reaction and serves no purpose other than infringing on 2nd Ammendment rights.

Additionally, not all assault rifles are automatic weapons and for those that are gun enthusiasts will agree that many of today's assault rifles are preferred for personal protection within the home. They can also be used for hunting as their range and accuracy are equivalent to traditional hunting rifles.

I do agree with you in part that the weapon purchase process is not perfect and can probably be more inclusive of the data it shares. The problem with having "central databases" is the cost; access; amount and type of data that should be shared within the gun communities. It will take some heated debate within each state to determine what is needed, by whom, how fast and who will maintain the infrastructure to enable the technology.

SkapePhin
07-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Skape, you're missing the overall point of the posts and it appears confusing "assault rifle" with "automatic weapon". Bottom line: you will not stop this type of violence by legislating a ban on weapons...assault or otherwise. Period. The actual thought of banning weapons to preclude an act like this is a knee-jerk reaction and serves no purpose other than infringing on 2nd Ammendment rights.

Additionally, not all assault rifles are automatic weapons and for those that are gun enthusiasts will agree that many of today's assault rifles are preferred for personal protection within the home. They can also be used for hunting as their range and accuracy are equivalent to traditional hunting rifles.

I do agree with you in part that the weapon purchase process is not perfect and can probably be more inclusive of the data it shares. The problem with having "central databases" is the cost; access; amount and type of data that should be shared within the gun communities. It will take some heated debate within each state to determine what is needed, by whom, how fast and who will maintain the infrastructure to enable the technology.

Thank you for a well-reasoned response. That is all I have been asking for. If people use assault weapons in their homes for personal protection, then I can see its use. It still seems like a weapon that is unneccessary for most uses, but I can get behind that perspective. The only thing I will speak to that is why are weapons such as RPGs or miniguns are not protected under the 2nd amendment? It seems like even the 2nd amendment has its limitations in regard to what kinds of weapons are acceptable for citizens.

tylerdolphin
07-24-2012, 01:34 PM
Thank you for a well-reasoned response. That is all I have been asking for. If people use assault weapons in their homes for personal protection, then I can see its use. It still seems like a weapon that is unneccessary for most uses, but I can get behind that perspective. The only thing I will speak to that is why are weapons such as RPGs or miniguns are not protected under the 2nd amendment? It seems like even the 2nd amendment has its limitations in regard to what kinds of weapons are acceptable for citizens.

Obviously youve made it clear you disagree with this, but my opinion is that even if an AR-15 is just essentially a cool toy, it still shouldnt be illegal. Comparing an AR-15 to an RPG is quite a bit of a stretch.

Clipse
07-24-2012, 02:31 PM
R&R... I am speaking to their FUNCTION, not what people actually do with them. Their FUNCTION is to kill multiple living things. Assault rifles are designed for war. They are designed to kill more efficiently and in larger quantities. While people who legally own them don't often use them for this function, that IS their function. So, what do people who legally own assault rifles do with assault rifles? They shoot paper representations of humans. That's it. They don't protect their homes with them, they don't hunt animals with them, ALL they do with them is shoot pieces of paper. So tell me again, is this a valid reason to keep them legal? So people can get their kicks shooting paper? Meanwhile, the 5% of crazies can still have easy access to them so that they can commit unspeakable atrocities... Is it worth it?

I just don't see the logic in that, sorry.

As I stated, handguns and rifles actually have valid uses other than to kill humans or shoot pieces of paper. Assault rifles do not.

We've already had an "assault weapons" ban and it did nothing. So big government coming in and taking more rights away from responsible citizens is certainly not worth something that has already been proven to make little difference. Allowing the government to institute a ban at the expense of them targeting even more guns in the future is not worth something that has already been proven to make little difference. If you want to debate the process in aquiring these weapons, that's one thing. But a ban makes no sense, nor did it in 1994.

NY8123
07-24-2012, 04:37 PM
That's cordial...

Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

I own and use all of the above. I hunt with a bow, I hunt with shotguns, I hunt with rifles and I use everything I kill for food. In fact I don't shoot unless I know with as much certainty as possible that I can hit my mark and kill it.

As for home defense, if you wake me from my slumber and decide to threaten my family and home you will be met with a double barrel loaded with 3" buckshot, so there is really no need to aim. Just point and pull the trigger and everything within a 30' diameter is going down. Right after that I pick up my AR to check on my intruder. The pistol is my last choice given the three options.

Ironically the pistol requires much more regulation and paper work to own because it is so much easier to conceal and carry. You have a far greater chance of getting a pistol pulled on you than an assault weapon of any kind. I can pin a mag to five rounds and hunt with any rifle regardless of its classification, in other states ten shot mags can be used to hunt.

The weapons are not the problem, if they were killings would be at an all time high but they are not they are at historically low levels.

regency
07-25-2012, 02:16 PM
the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

tylerdolphin
07-25-2012, 02:33 PM
the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/aM02J-1.gif

cbreeden
07-25-2012, 02:37 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/aM02J-1.gif

:lol2:

SpurzN703
07-25-2012, 02:38 PM
Listen, I understand why you are so GUNg-Ho about the issue. When it comes to MOST issues, MOST people align themselves with their own interests. That's just the way it is. You enjoy shooting guns, you likely own some, so any form of gun control seems like an affront to your interests. I grok that. Likewise, I don't own guns. Although I have gone to the gun range on a few occasions, I feel no need to own one, nor do I think it makes my home safer or my person safer.

I would rather invest in a home security system and a trusty dog to protect my home, as its more likely these preventative measures would be more effective in thwarting would-be thieves and evil-doers than having a gun under my cushion. Fact is, if someone breaks into my house, they are most likely looking to steal my things, not kill me or my family. However, the second I introduce a gun into that charged situation, its me or them. Do I trust myself, blurry-eyed and ripe from slumber, to shoot an intruder before the alert intruder shoots me? Not enough. The second the intruder feels threatened, its me or them, and in those circumstances, I don't like the odds.

Secondly, I don't enjoy shooting animals for sport. Some people do, and that's all well and good. I understand our evolutionary desire to hunt. It is a holdover from our ancestors, and although all of our food is now available at massive food stores, I understand there is still a primal urge to hunt, which has not been cleansed of our system yet, and likely shouldn't, since I have a suspicion humans will need to go back to their hunter-gatherer ways in order to survive sometime in the future. If hunting is done respectfully, with respect for the dead animals, wherein all parts of the animal are used for some purpose other than human pride, I am all for it. Especially in cases where a certain animal population needs to be culled to maintain a balance. Personally, I think those who hunt with a bow are much more badass than those equipped with a rifle, but that's just my opinion.

As Spesh has also stated, I have never voiced an opinion that handguns or rifles should be banned. I see their purposes, and while they do lead to many unfortunate deaths, I don't believe that banning them outright would have a substantive effect on violent crime in this country. As others have stated, the primary focus should be on finding ways to help reform those who have violent tendencies or come from disadvantaged, desperate environments, or, for those who are sufficiently crazy or hateful, find ways to discover them before they ever purchase weapons to slaughter innocents. A very needed step in regard to that, is to set up central databases where pertinent information regarding a gun-buyer is stored, including mental health history, criminal background and previous weapons purchases.

As for assault rifles, I have still not seen one valid argument why these weapons should be available to anyone on the street. Unlike handguns and rifles, they can't be used for personal protection or hunting, so what purpose does it serve? Being that an assault rifle has no other primary purpose other than to kill mass quantities of organic beings in a single sitting, I see no need to have them around. When people get all upset about an assault rifle ban, it just seems like they are upset about people taking away their favorite toy. That's the gist of it...

Well said man

cbreeden
07-25-2012, 02:43 PM
the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

And your point is?

regency
07-25-2012, 02:48 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/aM02J-1.gif so where in my post did i say anything about jews? you anti semitic or something?

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------


And your point is? its pretty self explanitory. just another false flag attack to push an agenda. a scared and fearful public is one that is easy to manipulate.

tylerdolphin
07-25-2012, 02:48 PM
so where in my post did i say anything about jews?

Where in your post did you say anything about anything?

regency
07-25-2012, 02:56 PM
Where in your post did you say anything about anything?
funny how you didnt answer the question of whether your antisemitic lol. but anyways, i tend to ask questions that arent being asked or pointed out. we can have a debate but it seems your more into posting little pictures and lame comebacks. keep watching the tele tho, thats obviously your only source of information.

tylerdolphin
07-25-2012, 02:59 PM
funny how you didnt answer the question of whether your antisemitic lol. but anyways, i tend to ask questions that arent being asked or pointed out. we can have a debate but it seems your more into posting little pictures and lame comebacks. keep watching the tele tho, thats obviously your only source of information.

I didnt answer because there was no need to.

As far as debating your topic, what is there to debate? Its pure lunacy. Yeah, Obama totally drugged out a kid and made him shoot up a theatre. Totally.

regency
07-25-2012, 03:10 PM
I didnt answer because there was no need to.

As far as debating your topic, what is there to debate? Its pure lunacy. Yeah, Obama totally drugged out a kid and made him shoot up a theatre. Totally.
oh i see what you did there. i say how obama was going to sign a UK smalls arms treaty that will limit our second amendment law and from that you deduce that i think obama personally drugged this kid up. no i dont think that, interesting thought process though. if you watch the intial witness interviews, they dont coincide with the official story. you dont have to believe that everything is a conspiracy, but you dont have to believe what your told either. who seeks to benefit from this? a college student going for his PhD who just recently bought a new car, or the anti 2nd amendment elite who were waiting for a quote unquote "tradegy" for their plan to work.

tylerdolphin
07-25-2012, 03:16 PM
oh i see what you did there. i say how obama was going to sign a UK smalls arms treaty that will limit our second amendment law and from that you deduce that i think obama personally drugged this kid up. no i dont think that, interesting thought process though. if you watch the intial witness interviews, they dont coincide with the official story. you dont have to believe that everything is a conspiracy, but you dont have to believe what your told either. who seeks to benefit from this? a college student going for his PhD who just recently bought a new car, or the anti 2nd amendment elite who were waiting for a quote unquote "tradegy" for their plan to work.

:bobdole:

You implied it. You at least suggested that some influential people were involved. And yeah, it makes total sense to pull of something like this on the off chance it might push an agenda. THEYRE COMIN FOR YOUR GUNS!

And whats your point about the witness stories not being the same? You saying they werent actually there or something? Of course some people "saw" different things. A dude walked into a dark place and started shooting into a crowd. Hard to imagine total chaos ensuing after that.

Flip Tanneflop
07-25-2012, 03:20 PM
This is still going on? Jesus.

regency
07-25-2012, 03:30 PM
:bobdole:

You implied it. You at least suggested that some influential people were involved. And yeah, it makes total sense to pull of something like this on the off chance it might push an agenda. THEYRE COMIN FOR YOUR GUNS!


oh okay, so you do think its a possiblity. you just post anti semitic quotes to anyone who brings it up. well okay, this was just one big misunderstanding. im off to work later.

tylerdolphin
07-25-2012, 03:50 PM
oh okay, so you do think its a possiblity. you just post anti semitic quotes to anyone who brings it up. well okay, this was just one big misunderstanding. im off to work later.

It was sarcasm. And yes, I post anti-semitic things to posts I dont agree with on Wednesdays. You should see me on Fridays.

CedarPhin
07-25-2012, 04:00 PM
the media is concerned about turning this into a political issue then looking at the facts of the actual shooting. too many witness contradictions. moments after the shooting happened witnesses said they saw more than one shooter. then the morning after, a bunch of people who look like actors trying to force cry themselves to win an oscar go out of their way to say that there was only one shooter. then he shows up in court drugged up out of his mind, and now the judge bans any more footage. this all smells like ****. oh and guess what, obama signs the UN smalls arms treaty in two days.

Pretty sure that once Obama signs that treaty, the Chinese will come waltzin' right in, let in by their UN overlords.

Clipse
07-25-2012, 05:08 PM
oh i see what you did there. i say how obama was going to sign a UK smalls arms treaty that will limit our second amendment law and from that you deduce that i think obama personally drugged this kid up. no i dont think that, interesting thought process though. if you watch the intial witness interviews, they dont coincide with the official story. you dont have to believe that everything is a conspiracy, but you dont have to believe what your told either. who seeks to benefit from this? a college student going for his PhD who just recently bought a new car, or the anti 2nd amendment elite who were waiting for a quote unquote "tradegy" for their plan to work.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/07/obamahillaryjoedancing2-1.gif

Locke
07-25-2012, 05:29 PM
oh i see what you did there. i say how obama was going to sign a UK smalls arms treaty that will limit our second amendment law and from that you deduce that i think obama personally drugged this kid up. no i dont think that, interesting thought process though. if you watch the intial witness interviews, they dont coincide with the official story. you dont have to believe that everything is a conspiracy, but you dont have to believe what your told either. who seeks to benefit from this? a college student going for his PhD who just recently bought a new car, or the anti 2nd amendment elite who were waiting for a quote unquote "tradegy" for their plan to work.

Watch out my friend, the black helicopters are coming for you. By the way, that might be Big Foot hanging around outside your window at night. Also, the illuminati called and they want to know where to send your member's jacket...

Clipse
07-25-2012, 07:55 PM
Is anyone more douchier than ambulance chasers?


Brown's attorney Don Karpel told TMZ (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=12gfunqp8/EXP=1344443156/**http%3A//www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/) he plans to sue the Century 16 theater, which is owned by Cinemark, for having an exit door that was not equipped with an alarm or guarded. (Holmes reportedly left the theater through the exit door, propped it open and returned with his weapons.) Karpel also said he may sue Warner Bros for releasing violent movies that may have inspired the shooter, as well as the suspect's doctors, if he had any, for hypothetically not monitoring James Holmes' mental condition properly.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/wake-tragedies-lawyers-step-colorado-shooting-survivor-plans-172430871.html

cbreeden
07-26-2012, 12:43 PM
its pretty self explanitory. just another false flag attack to push an agenda. a scared and fearful public is one that is easy to manipulate.

If it was so self explanatory I wouldn't have asked....be that as it may,

Do you honestly think members in the house and senate contacted MM to confuse/distort witness testimony just to push anti-gun laws?!? Even better, have MM (ABC News) stretch it to the point the Tea Party did it? That would be even more incredible than the current Fast and Furious debacle the State Dep and ATF ran over a year ago to incite public outrage over gun control. Dude, I don't trust the govt any further than I could throw it but I have serious doubts as to the credibility of your line of thinking that the tragedy in Aurora was staged or that the media is making the public fearful for manipulation. In fact, I think the exact opposite has already happened. Gun license applications/sales have spiked along with ammo purchases since this has happened. Me thinks your conspiracies are misplaced.

Flip Tanneflop
07-26-2012, 12:51 PM
Is anyone more douchier than ambulance chasers?



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/wake-tragedies-lawyers-step-colorado-shooting-survivor-plans-172430871.html

Better call Saul!!!