Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

Terrible.

 

Gunman kills 12 in Colorado movie theater

 

14-Dead-at-Friday-Screening-of-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-in-Aurora-Colorado.jpg

 

(CNN) -- A heavily armed gunman attacked an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater early Friday, tossing tear gas before opening fire on the terrified audience and killing 12 and wounding 38, authorities said. The theater was showing the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises."

 

Witness recalls chaos after gunman bursts into theater

 

One of the injured was just 3 months old, according to hospital workers.

 

Police arrested a man believed to be the shooter in a rear parking lot of the theater, Frank Fania, a police spokesman, told CNN.

 

More below:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tragic...... but am I the only one wondering what a 3month old baby was doing at a midnight screening of Dark Knight Rises?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to be interesting to see how this obviously mental person got access to the gun(s) used in the massacre

 

How "obviously" was he mental before the incident? 

 

If we're going to continue to take the strictly civil libertarian approach we currently do towards de-institutionalization, are we going to keep having these types of incidents from time to time?

 

If we're not, is the cure worse than the disease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tragic...... but am I the only one wondering what a 3month old baby was doing at a midnight screening of Dark Knight Rises?

poorer people who can't get a overnight babysitter do this.

I went to a movie with an infant once (not mine). I had the same reaction - WTF?

but the kid slept though the whole thing. It was a Chuck Norris movie so it wan't quiet either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

 

Evil murderers or those with extreme mental conditions come from everywhere and all walks of life. I don't think Suburbs had anything to do with it. Killer is from San Diego and that is where he grew up according to news reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My aunt and uncle live on the west side of Denver but I had to wait for someone at this mall just last year. Frightening to know I was there but of course, this could happen anywhere at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Hmm I expected the usual argument about gun control to be the 1st comment, but this, this is just obscene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obscene that the majority of shootings are in the suburbs?? I don't find that obscene at all. Of the last 12 major shootings 10 were in suburban areas with the other two being suburban areas of a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Reports are the nut had an assault rifle capable of holding 30 rounds.  As much as it might annoy you personally, times like these call for a discussion about gun control (note that"control" is not synonymous with "ban") 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Hmm I expected the usual argument about gun control to be the 1st comment, but this, this is just obscene

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obscene that the majority of shootings are in the suburbs?? I don't find that obscene at all. Of the last 12 major shootings 10 were in suburban areas with the other two being suburban areas of a city.

Even if it were true, implying that suburban living was a factor in a tragedy is in poor taste IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obscene that the majority of shootings are in the suburbs?? I don't find that obscene at all. Of the last 12 major shootings 10 were in suburban areas with the other two being suburban areas of a city.

 

Those are the ones that make the national news.  Take a look at what's been going on in Chicago lately.

 

Before you try to assign politics to this, take a look online.  The early indications are that this guy might have been Black Bloc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^How was he trying to assign politics?  I also don't think he was talking about gang-violence, but rather mass shootings of innocent people in isolated incidents.  Lone, nut-job gunmen don't have 'politics' driving them.... only the voices in their head.  Didn't stop you from injecting it into the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Hmm I expected the usual argument about gun control to be the 1st comment, but this, this is just obscene

Agreed.

 

I actually agree with JJames here and I tell you why.  You see more people "snap" in the suburbs than you do in cities.  City crime happens all the time because of drugs, sex, etc.  These massacres and shocking stories typically come from more affluent areas where people are expected to succeed and have the pressure of being better than the next person from peers, parents.  When expectations cannot be met, or perhaps in school shootings cases "cliques" form and people feel inadequate...this type of thing happens.  The worst massacre was Virginia Tech, while that is rural, the shooter was from suburban DC and pretty much hated everything that his community stood for.  Its much easier to be a black sheep in a suburb than it is a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obscene that the majority of shootings are in the suburbs?? I don't find that obscene at all. Of the last 12 major shootings 10 were in suburban areas with the other two being suburban areas of a city.

Even if it were true, implying that suburban living was a factor in a tragedy is in poor taste IMO.

 

I agree. Turning this into a City vs Suburb thing is terrible.

 

And ive heard a report that a six year old was killed. How terrible this whole event is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the witnesses being interviewed made it sound like someone let him in through a fire exit near the movie screen, yet the police are saying that they think he acted alone.  If acting alone, how exactly would he have been able to get into the theater through one of those emergency entrances?  I always assumed that those things were locked tight from the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An early report I read was that he "kicked in" a fire exit door which didn't make sense to me, but reports coming in are this guy was decked out so him having something to quickly circumvent the door isn't far fetched either.

 

A friend of mine (not from Colorado) was posting pics of his daughter and friends dressed up (some modest costuming) for the midnight showing.  Today he is just off the wall lashing out about news coverage and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obscene that the majority of shootings are in the suburbs?? I don't find that obscene at all. Of the last 12 major shootings 10 were in suburban areas with the other two being suburban areas of a city.

 

The odds are in favor of that being the case, greater cincy has what a population of 2.3 Million and only 300,000 live in the city. More people live in the burbs and the burbs are much larger geographically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going on about glorifying the shooter, headlines like "Batman Movie Massacre" that he thinks is inappropriate.  It's just very odd behavior for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when "glorify" is used to descrive media coverage of an event like this.  I get the psychology of it all, but obviously, with this being the largest mass murder in recent American history, the media is absolutely going to and should cover it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see that side of the argument, but the media is going to cover it...and I don't think it's being covered it any differently than other recent major shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point wasn't his actual arguments it was more to point how crazy people get over these things when they feel even the most cursory connection.  Personally I'd agree with him if it just wasn't so out of left field for his normal conversational disposition.

 

Growing up in a maligned social group during the Columbine era what this guy says makes a lot of sense to me.

 

 

Also, the overreaction begins:

 

"AMC Theatres said it will not let any guests in costumes or face-covering masks into the theaters, and issued a ban on fake weapons. The company added that anyone wanting a refund in light of this new policy will be granted one. “We are taking necessary precautions to ensure our guests who wish to enjoy a movie this weekend can do so with as much peace of mind as possible in these circumstances,” AMC Theatres said in a news release.

 

I get this as a matter of company practice, and the ban on fake weapons may even be sensible, both from the perspective of preventing people from walking in the door with the real things disguised as fakes (although as Aurora tells us, that’s hardly the only way to get guns and gas into a theater) and from the question of where they put them once the screening starts. But it does make me pretty sad to think that theaters would start banning costumes altogether. Whatever a lone murderer does, the impulse to play, and dress up, and pay creative homage to culture you love is not the problem here."

 

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/20/560291/fox-proposes-banning-costumes-at-movies-amc-theaters-already-has/?mobile=nc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is a discussion that few want to have, but if this guy is armed with a knife, less people (if any) die in that theater last night.

 

For those that argue for gun rights, and think that the status quo is acceptable (or that rights need to be expanded), are you okay with these types of incidents happening once or twice a year?  Because if nothing changes (or gun rights expand), these incidents WILL continue to happen and they must be considered as de facto collateral damage of the Second Amendment.  Is this collateral damage acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that argue for gun rights, and think that the status quo is acceptable (or that rights need to be expanded), are you okay with these types of incidents happening once or twice a year? 

 

Can you think of a more inflammatory way to debate this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is a discussion that few want to have, but if this guy is armed with a knife, less people (if any) die in that theater last night.

 

For those that argue for gun rights, and think that the status quo is acceptable (or that rights need to be expanded), are you okay with these types of incidents happening once or twice a year?  Because if nothing changes (or gun rights expand), these incidents WILL continue to happen and they must be considered as de facto collateral damage of the Second Amendment.  Is this collateral damage acceptable?

 

Tell me why Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world, even though they one of the highest guns per capita?

 

"Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you think of a more inflammatory way to debate this issue?

 

Probably, but I would need some more time.  :wave:

 

Seriously though, that's pretty much how I see things.  Some people are crazy.  Allow them access to the tools to more efficiently carry out their violent behavior and there will likely be more bloodshed.  Is it really that ridiculous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me why Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world, even though they one of the highest guns per capita?

 

"Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

 

There could be a lot of reasons including differing cultures, or differing demographics, etc.  I don't think it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. 

 

That said, I do find your last line interesting.  While there may be some truth that "criminals will find a way to get a hold of a gun regardless of restrictions," I think the more guns on the market, the easier it will be for them to find one.  As I mentioned earlier, I believe that every illegal gun used in a crime is at some point a legal firearm purchase supposedly for another purpose.

 

This is to say nothing of the need for regular citizens to carry automatic weapons like the one this nutjob had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you think of a more inflammatory way to debate this issue?

 

Probably, but I would need some more time.  :wave:

 

Seriously though, that's pretty much how I see things.  Some people are crazy.  Allow them access to the tools to more efficiently carry out their violent behavior and there will likely be more bloodshed.  Is it really that ridiculous?

 

Put that way, no I don't think your reasoning is ridiculous at all. There's compelling arguments to be made on both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Hmm I expected the usual argument about gun control to be the 1st comment, but this, this is just obscene

 

I'm sorry but the 2nd Amendment is a joke AND you've construed that as an attack on suburbs? If so, maybe your sensibilities aren't a good match for this site. Truth is that there's a widely-held misconception that violent crime is an urban danger, not a suburban danger. These misconceptions cause entire communities to slide into a downhill spiral.

 

I hate that this happened. I would also hate for this to result in a downhill spiral that the entire community Aurora can never recover from. I say that as I drove past a heavily-armed theater today, wondering how anyone can ever again go enjoy a movie at the site of such a tragedy. These shooting massacres are becoming a black eye for the whole country, but especially the Denver area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that argue for gun rights, and think that the status quo is acceptable (or that rights need to be expanded), are you okay with these types of incidents happening once or twice a year? 

 

Can you think of a more inflammatory way to debate this issue?

 

I don't want to burn bridges in this thread with people I agree with in other threads, especially because Clevelander17 already smoothed this over with you, but I really think everyone needs to reexamine their beliefs on gun rights. I used to be a raging neocon kiddo. There are a lot of arguments we all just accept because they're so widely-held. I think we accept those arguments because it's easier than admitting the magnitude of the problems in this country.

 

For example, America has more potential than any country in the world, but right now we're in the dust on almost every index, many of which have us beneath a lot of 3rd world countries. In terms of violence and public health, this is a 3rd world country. I lived in Russia for a short while and was shocked at how Moscow and a select few more cities were far cleaner and nicer than most American inner cities. In Europe, the difference is widescale, and not just because rough areas have been pushed out, but because there is still a sense of safety and a sense of community that no longer exists in the U.S. Russia was surprising because that is a nation that briefly became 3rd world after the collapse in the 90s, and I saw that they have so quickly rebuilt and restored so much that even that country, with its recent problems, has returned to having high quality of life.

 

I'm obviously no longer the raging neocon I was growing up. That's a change that happened just by looking out, touring the world, seeing things for myself, and coming to my own conclusions independently of the mass assumptions that make many issues taboo in the U.S. Gun control is one of those taboo issues that it's time to reevaluate.

 

The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were so slow and inaccurate that gentlemen often challenged e/o to duels expecting nothing exciting to happen, though sometimes they got a good shot. Since that amendment was written, violent movies and video games have fueled a national obsession with weaponry and the military industrial complex has invested a disproportionate amount of our national resources into developing deadly, scary precision weapons that anyone can own. The laws have not kept up with these technological advancements. No other legal situation is marked by such pronounced de jure stagnation. I'll give you road laws for example, which have always changed in relation to not just vehicular technology, but more recently we now have law enforcement technological changes to account for. You can't keep the law as open as possible and simultaneously expand the deadly capabilities of these weapons.

 

I would argue that you definitely have a right to self defense, and for that I would absolutely use precedent of what the 2nd Amendment got you back in 1800. You have the right to own a weapon that is fairly accurate in close range, and not at all accurate beyond that. You do not have the right to own a weapon that can enable you to kill dozens of people in minutes with only reloading once, and you also don't have the right to own a weapon that can kill someone much too far away to be an active threat to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People may say what they want about main cities, but the real newsmaking crazies are in the suburbs.  This is terrible.  I don't know how someone could ever hurt another human, let alone a baby.

Hmm I expected the usual argument about gun control to be the 1st comment, but this, this is just obscene

 

I'm sorry but the 2nd Amendment is a joke AND you've construed that as an attack on suburbs? If so, maybe your sensibilities aren't a good match for this site. Truth is that there's a widely-held misconception that violent crime is an urban danger, not a suburban danger. These misconceptions cause entire communities to slide into a downhill spiral.

 

I hate that this happened. I would also hate for this to result in a downhill spiral that the entire community Aurora can never recover from. I say that as I drove past a heavily-armed theater today, wondering how anyone can ever again go enjoy a movie at the site of such a tragedy. These shooting massacres are becoming a black eye for the whole country, but especially the Denver area.

 

This isnt an attack on the suburbs.  I dont think anyone on here is going after the suburbs.  Its a devastating story...but as i posted earlier...its easier to be a black sheep in a suburb than it is in a city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days the urban/suburban divide is becoming as divisive as the one manifested in national politics. You can barely just say, "I love downtown," without some seeing it as an attack on the suburbs. I was just surprised that anyone on this forum actually wanted to have a debate like that supercede an issue like the topic of this thread. I certainly didn't mean to fuel the ridiculous suburban/urban debate in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that argue for gun rights, and think that the status quo is acceptable (or that rights need to be expanded), are you okay with these types of incidents happening once or twice a year? 

 

Can you think of a more inflammatory way to debate this issue?

 

I don't want to burn bridges in this thread with people I agree with in other threads, especially because Clevelander17 already smoothed this over with you, but I really think everyone needs to reexamine their beliefs on gun rights. I used to be a raging neocon kiddo. There are a lot of arguments we all just accept because they're so widely-held. I think we accept those arguments because it's easier than admitting the magnitude of the problems in this country.

 

For example, America has more potential than any country in the world, but right now we're in the dust on almost every index, many of which have us beneath a lot of 3rd world countries. In terms of violence and public health, this is a 3rd world country. I lived in Russia for a short while and was shocked at how Moscow and a select few more cities were far cleaner and nicer than most American inner cities. In Europe, the difference is widescale, and not just because rough areas have been pushed out, but because there is still a sense of safety and a sense of community that no longer exists in the U.S. Russia was surprising because that is a nation that briefly became 3rd world after the collapse in the 90s, and I saw that they have so quickly rebuilt and restored so much that even that country, with its recent problems, has returned to having high quality of life.

 

I'm obviously no longer the raging neocon I was growing up. That's a change that happened just by looking out, touring the world, seeing things for myself, and coming to my own conclusions independently of the mass assumptions that make many issues taboo in the U.S. Gun control is one of those taboo issues that it's time to reevaluate.

 

The 2nd Amendment was written when guns were so slow and inaccurate that gentlemen often challenged e/o to duels expecting nothing exciting to happen, though sometimes they got a good shot. Since that amendment was written, violent movies and video games have fueled a national obsession with weaponry and the military industrial complex has invested a disproportionate amount of our national resources into developing deadly, scary precision weapons that anyone can own. The laws have not kept up with these technological advancements. No other legal situation is marked by such pronounced de jure stagnation. I'll give you road laws for example, which have always changed in relation to not just vehicular technology, but more recently we now have law enforcement technological changes to account for. You can't keep the law as open as possible and simultaneously expand the deadly capabilities of these weapons.

 

I would argue that you definitely have a right to self defense, and for that I would absolutely use precedent of what the 2nd Amendment got you back in 1800. You have the right to own a weapon that is fairly accurate in close range, and not at all accurate beyond that. You do not have the right to own a weapon that can enable you to kill dozens of people in minutes with only reloading once, and you also don't have the right to own a weapon that can kill someone much too far away to be an active threat to you.

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't taking a position on either side. My point was only that there's much more value here in discussing things in a constructive way vs. an antagonistic one. Good post by the way. I think most people have evolving views, especially given the life experiences gained over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make my point more succinctly...... individuals owning and maintaining assault rifles capable of holding enough rounds to kill a small village without reloading does nothing to promote the ability to maintain a "well-regulated militia".... in fact, it kind of runs contrary to it.  I also am not aware of any recreational sport or hobby which requires such a powerful firearm.

 

Police: Colo. shooting suspect bought guns legally

 

AURORA, Colo. (AP) — James Holmes is accused of carrying out one of the worst mass shootings in recent U.S. history, but police say there was nothing illegal about the guns and ammunition he allegedly used during a Colorado movie theater attack.

 

"All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally," Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said. "And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally."

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Gander Mountain, which sold an AR-15 assault rifle believed to be used in the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, said the company was in compliance with state and federal laws and that it was "fully cooperating with this ongoing investigation."

 

A second federal law enforcement official said Holmes had a high-capacity ammunition magazine in the assault rifle. Oates said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene.

 

The type of ammunition magazine Holmes is accused of using was banned for new production under the old federal assault weapon ban, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

 

When the ban expired in 2004, gun manufacturers flooded the market with the type of high-capacity magazines Holmes used Friday, Vice said.

 

Oates did not specify the type of rifle but said that experts told him "with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute. And as far as we know, it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-083528305.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a ban on the private ownership of guns keep things like this from happening?  Possibly, but maybe not.

 

Would mandatory government psychological evaluation followed up by the confinement of those that this evaluation deems to be "dangerous" keep things like this from happening?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

 

Leaving aside the fact that either would be grossly unconstitutional, I suspect that everyone here, most definitely including me, would agree that in the latter case, the "cure" would be worse than the disease.

 

Gun control opponents also believe that about the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would argue that you definitely have a right to self defense, and for that I would absolutely use precedent of what the 2nd Amendment got you back in 1800. You have the right to own a weapon that is fairly accurate in close range, and not at all accurate beyond that. You do not have the right to own a weapon that can enable you to kill dozens of people in minutes with only reloading once, and you also don't have the right to own a weapon that can kill someone much too far away to be an active threat to you.

At the time, the weapons you refer to were the weapons the military had.  The very intent of the Second Amendment was that the people were as well armed as the government.  Did the Framers realize that this would give the people the capability to resist the government?  Yes, indeed that was intentional.

 

You speak earlier of other nations being ahead of us in various indices.  That may be true, but one of the reasons is that we are a free society that allows its citizens to engage in behaviors which might be self destructive.  This allowance is both de jure. and de facto, the latter inherent in our refusal to violate Constitutional principles to enforce certain laws more effectively.

 

In effect, we place liberty ahead of safety and other considerations.  Whether or not the cure is worse than the disease is often debated, but our tendency is to err on the side of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean I can own my own nuclear armed submarine?  In fact, I would say a fleet of them might be necessary for me to take on the government.

 

And again.... why do people feel there is no distinction between gun control and a firearms ban?  I am in favor of the former..... there are a lot of people who would advocate for an outright ban, but we know that will never happen.  However, banning all firearms is a far cry from restricting civilian access to semi automatic assault rifles with supersized cartridges and armor piercing bullets.  Sure, some will still sneak their way onto the market, but the inevitable massive drop in supply should significantly reduce the likelihood of similar tragedies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the time, the weapons you refer to were the weapons the military had.  The very intent of the Second Amendment was that the people were as well armed as the government.  Did the Framers realize that this would give the people the capability to resist the government?  Yes, indeed that was intentional.

 

But the government now has nukes and neutron bombs and drones and everything else. If the idea is to have an even playing field between the people and the government, the Second Amendment should reasonably be interpreted as the right to bare nukes. Technology has made the original intent obsolete. Holding the second amendment up like it's gospel, without acknowledging that technology has completely changed the ballgame, is delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the other hand, one might make the argument that more law abiding citizens should be carrying...  perhaps if someone in that theater besides the psychopath shooter had been carrying a Glock 9mm, they could've returned fire with deadly force right away and countless lives could've been saved...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy came prepared. He had body armor, gas mask, and lots of guns. He threw a gas canister into the crowd first to disorient everyone. If anyone was going to return fire, they probably would not have hurt him because he was heavily protected and disguised in the smoke/chaos. If someone had shot back, they more than likely would have hit more innocent bystanders or missed the target's vulnerable areas. I really don't think someone with a gun would have solved anything. Of course it's possible, but this guy had thought this act through very carefully. It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Anything beyond hunting rifles and handguns with small cartridges should be illegal. The idea that you need a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon for anything in civilian life is ridiculous IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...