Mass Shootings, Guns, and the US

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ComeFindMe


That's fair enough, but then YOU come across as a rational person. Whether we like it or not, there are plenty of irrational people in society. I disagree with your point that "(the) only time people get shot over looking at someone the wrong way, is when that someone is crimeboss or gang-banger". we both know that is simply not true and my original point was that the threat of danger or violence is, to a degree, subjective - as proven by the Zimmerman episode. Furthermore, the determining of whether someone was right or wrong in their actions can only really take place after the event - so that is still no different to the system we have now.

Remember, it doesn't matter how well armed you are - if someone walks up behind you and sticks the barrel of a gun in your back, you are still relatively defenceless.

In a society of rational people, guns could be carried with with no fears over their misuse. Unfortunately, we don't live in a rational society.

Originally posted by kman420
As far as im concerned, AMERICA gunned down those people.

Each and everyone of you are to blame.

Ridiculous notion.

Sweeping generalisations and accusations are the hallmark of a fool, i'm afraid.

reply to post by ComeFindMe

Remember, it doesn't matter how well armed you are - if someone walks up behind you and sticks the barrel of a gun in your back, you are still relatively defenceless.

In a society of rational people, guns could be carried with with no fears over their misuse. Unfortunately, we don't live in a rational society.

I was having this discussion just a few moments ago with a co-worker of mine.

It is paramount to gun carriers that they get training, and they learn the pros and cons of carrying a gun, and they learn when a gun can be useful, and when a gun is not going to be useful. I agree with you 100% that a gun is a terrible first line of defense. If someone walks up to you and demands your wallet, you do not have time to reach for a gun. If someone is going to carry a concealed weapon, they should learn de-escalation tactics, and basic hand to hand combat and safety. A gun is very useful if you have distance from your attacker, you are stranded, you are behind cover, etc. I carry my gun for situations exactly like this Colorado shooting. I don't carry it for muggers.

So, even though I am a HUGE pro-gun advocate, I also agree that the population is not rational, and even the trained gun enthusiasts are often inadequately trained and sometimes their guns get them killed quicker instead of protecting them.

reply to post by getreadyalready


It's a shame your opinion isn't shared by more people

I think if there was a little more common sense in the world, there would be a considerably bigger pro-gun support base.

I know this last one they loved pushing the point that he just bought them legally, but I want to see stats on all of these and how many of these types of crimes are carried out with legally bought guns compared to non registered ones...stop the crusade to disarm law abiding citizens, they are not the issue here...

And just because you can carry doesnt mean you can carry any place, you cant carry in alot of public places, so anyone that carried in the theater would be breaking the law, right or wrong that is why nobody had a gun in there, same at schools, etc.

I bought a gun in the parking lot of a gunshop from the owner of the gunshops son one time. Its not registered. It doesnt even have a serial number. But its legal.....

Originally posted by Troofseeker

Remember that is COMEDY for a reason, it is made to be funny, not make an accurate point.

The UK is number two in the world for highest number of assaults at 2.8%.

The US is tied with sweden and belgium at 1.2%...

Jaden

Originally posted by phroziac
I bought a gun in the parking lot of a gunshop from the owner of the gunshops son one time. Its not registered. It doesnt even have a serial number. But its legal.....

There's no such thing as an illegal firearm... Any lawyer worth half their ass will tell you the same. A 120mm anti aircraft machine gun is legal, it's just illegal to not pay the tax on it.

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Troofseeker

Remember that is COMEDY for a reason, it is made to be funny, not make an accurate point.

The UK is number two in the world for highest number of assaults at 2.8%.

The US is tied with sweden and belgium at 1.2%...

Jaden

Bill Hicks was well-known for making incisive commentary THROUGH his comedy, genius. He's making accurate points THROUGH his comedy.

Had there been a registered gun owner there, who had a concealed weapons permit, and who was also carrying a gun, they could've killed this nut before he killed as many as he did. This, kiddies, is why I always have a gun on me, no matter where I go, so that I can defend my life if I need to. If not, then noone is none the wiser that I had a gun on me

reply to post by Wiz4769


Wrong, there is nothing in the law that says you cannot carry in a theater. The person would of been breaking the POLICY of the theater.

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by phroziac
I bought a gun in the parking lot of a gunshop from the owner of the gunshops son one time. Its not registered. It doesnt even have a serial number. But its legal.....

There's no such thing as an illegal firearm... Any lawyer worth half their ass will tell you the same. A 120mm anti aircraft machine gun is legal, it's just illegal to not pay the tax on it.

Jaden

Point is, i legally bought it. No tax either. just a private sale of an old sears & roebuck shotgun.

If you try to pay the tax to buy a brand new full auto assault rifle, the payment will be refused. So that must be legal too, eh?

Originally posted by JayFlores
reply to post by Wiz4769

 

Wrong, there is nothing in the law that says you cannot carry in a theater. The person would of been breaking the POLICY of the theater.

Michigan isnt colorado, but regardless... In michigan, an "entertainment facility with seating capacity over 2500 people" is a pistol free zone. Further reading into this law finds that this applies if its "obvious" it seats more than 2500 people. Theres a local movie theatre here that quite probably does have such a seating capacity.

More generally speaking though, in michigan the stand your ground law is only valid if you are somewhere you are legally allowed to be. If you ignore a no gun sign, this is allegedly trespassing. I bet this is the case in most states.

#ty laws, eh?

reply to post by phroziac


Upon further review, you are correct. I thought the law was phrased differently. I thought the seating capacity was meant as each individual showing "room" so to speak. Never the less, it is still better to be judged by twelve than carried by 6....

Originally posted by JayFlores
reply to post by phroziac

 

Upon further review, you are correct. I thought the law was phrased differently. I thought the seating capacity was meant as each individual showing "room" so to speak. Never the less, it is still better to be judged by twelve than carried by 6....

This is why they make pistols chambered in 22lr... of course, the law doesnt say anything as far as rooms go. Of course, if soneone had shot james holmes theres no way in hell theyd be convicte, stand your ground or not.

Im fairly sure that law here is intended for sports arenas. No need for drunk people to shoot eachother cause their team is better. I dont know why the lawyers have to add stupid crap to laws.

reply to post by phroziac

When you figure out lawyers and their stupidity, please let us know. The masses are waiting...

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The first thing I thought when I read about this is; isn't Colorado a pretty liberal concealed carry state? Where were the people carrying when this happened? Why didn't even one patron in that theater have a gun?

One person carrying could have stopped this situation in its tracks. Its a shame more people don't exercise their right to self defense.

The guy was suited up in body armor and had tear gas. Trying to take him on with a handgun would not have been a good idea.

Body armor is not the end all be all. Someone engaging him may not have fully penetrated his armor, but it could have changed the outcome on his ability to engage other targets, or any targets all together.
It is about mindset. With the report that after a single jam in his rifle, he did not try to clear it shows he knew just to point and pull the trigger. Kind of automatic at that point. If someone were to engage him with the same action he is dishing out, I would bet lunch his mindset would be of flight, not fight. He was caught by LE cowering behind a vehicle, when he had at least an equipment valued good fight to take to them.
His goal was slaughter of unarmed, freaked out people, not of armed people ready to fight back.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Yes and no. CO as a whole has decent gun rights. The theater in question is one of many wildly successful "Gun Free Zones".

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by antonia

 

I disagree. You might not have won, might have even been killed, but how many would have escaped and survived while you distracted him?

Unless you can conceal a shotgun in your pants you are wasting your time. You could have jumped on him to cause a distraction too.

Go study results of Level II body armor with repeat strikes from a 40sw hollow point round, then come back.
Or, study results of repeat strikes of 40sw on any body armor and/or ballistic vest.
The armor can stop a single strike to an area, but not repeated strikes.

reply to post by macman


Those of us who live in the real world know this.Some people just watch too many action movies. Any strike from a medium caliber weapon at that range would not only of hurt like the dickens, but probably would of put him on his butt. If only for a second or two while he regained his breath. But I doubt an armed citizen with any sense would of only fired 1 round. I know I wouldnt of fired only one round. Body armor is resistant to bullets, not "bullet proof" The average citizen isnt aware of that.

Originally posted by JayFlores
reply to post by macman

 

Those of us who live in the real world know this.Some people just watch too many action movies. Any strike from a medium caliber weapon at that range would not only of hurt like the dickens, but probably would of put him on his butt. If only for a second or two while he regained his breath. But I doubt an armed citizen with any sense would of only fired 1 round. I know I wouldnt of fired only one round. Body armor is resistant to bullets, not "bullet proof" The average citizen isnt aware of that.

Yep.

At the very, very least, even if he was armored up like those Hollywood Heist guys, even then the shot would have distracted and disoriented him, and that might have allowed one or two extra people to escape.

An armed person in that theatre, that took their time and put a couple of careful shots on him would have saved some lives. Maybe they don't kill him, maybe they don't completely stop him, but they certainly change his focus, hurt him, redirect him, and allow a few more people to escape while he is thinking about being shot at.

In reality, a couple of careful shots would probably have stopped him completely, but even if we look at it from a novice movie watching standpoint, it would have at least helped a couple of people escape. If there were 11 dead instead of 12, that is well worth the effort.