Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 51    Average: 2.1/5]
155 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12385
Rating: 2.1
Category:
Date: 07/20/12 01:49 PM

155 Responses to 2 Similar Stories, 2 Different Endings [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    Link: 2 Similar Stories, 2 Different Endings - Could last night`s horrible shooting in an Aurora theater during The Dark Knight Rises be an argument for less gun laws?
  2. Profile photo of BlazingBird
    BlazingBird Male 13-17
    98 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    How are they two similar stories?
    One takes place in a internet cafe against robbers, the other in a theater with a random murderer.
  3. Profile photo of deputy
    deputy Male 50-59
    449 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    From every news source you can find that he was also heavily protecting himself by bulletproof clothing and helmet, so I dare say that even more people would have been hurt with less gun laws.
    With less laws people that are even less stable and more pannicking would be able to get guns, and in the panick they would probably make innocent victims themselves.
    This is saying nothing about the gun laws in the state as they are now, since I don`t really have an opinion on american gun laws, but giving everybody access to guns is very dangerous, since you never know how people react.
  4. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    Slippery slope.

    The guy was wearing full riot gear. A gun battle would not have stopped him.

    I do think that if someone there had a gun, and the guy WASN`T wearing 3 soldiers worth of kevlar, the situation would have ended fairly quickly, with less loss of life.
  5. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    point made.
  6. Profile photo of GEoDLeto
    GEoDLeto Male 30-39
    243 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    2 similar stories? really? 2 punk would-be robbers fail at robbing vs a heavily armed insane person whose sole intent it was to shoot people in a movie theater? Yeah real similar.
  7. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    "so I dare say that even more people would have been hurt with less gun laws. "

    That is entirely untrue. IF somebody were to have started shooting at him, then the logical thing for the killer to do would be to focus on the guy that is threatening his life. Thus more people run away while they shoot at each other.
  8. Profile photo of whapitoot
    whapitoot Male 18-29
    81 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm
    That`s bull. Those 2 stories can`t be compared. One assailant was a robber who`s intention was to rob. The other was a gunman who`s intention was to shoot people.

    Aslo the story is wrong. There was a concealed gun in the theatre. It was held by the guy that shot everyone. Wouldn`t stricter gun laws have made it harder for him to have the gun in the first place?
  9. Profile photo of marcus2
    marcus2 Male 13-17
    677 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm
    This is stupid. How did the gunman kill those 12 innocent people? Oh that`s right, with a GUN.

    Oh, and *single.
  10. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    This is low Fancy.
  11. Profile photo of Parasite
    Parasite Male 18-29
    141 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    i second that these are two VERY diffrent stories. The dynamics between a robber and a psychopath are almost opposites, robber gain nothing by killing, thats not to say that no one has ever been killed during a robbery but a "successful" robber has no intention of causing harm, only intimidation.
    a killer on the other had has nothing to gain by showing restraint, his goal is death and it`s very hard to intimidate someone to death.
    to imply that this wouldn`t have happened if the victims were carrying is flawed, the killer may consider these "protectors" as a threat and increase the overall deathtoll, arguing a case of self defence and given the legal system in most countries atm, he`d probably get away with it.
  12. Profile photo of Smithy368
    Smithy368 Male 18-29
    1 post
    July 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    Ah yes more bullets being shot in a confined space; that`s the answer!
  13. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    not really similar at all
  14. Profile photo of mcmals
    mcmals Female 18-29
    146 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    It could also be an argument for more
  15. Profile photo of iamboredtooo
    iamboredtooo Male 18-29
    215 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    In a gun-toting society, several people are dead because of guns. Granted, adding more guns MIGHT have reduced the number of fatalities.

    however, if all four of the people in the above scenarios were unarmed, because they lived in a society where guns were not freely available...then almost certainly, no one would be dead. Surely that is better than adding more guns?
  16. Profile photo of CaptainPabst
    CaptainPabst Male 18-29
    1250 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    give me a f#cking break, people are dead and you want more guns, awesome.
  17. Profile photo of regediT
    regediT Male 18-29
    716 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    Guns caused this in the first place, due to them being freely available. Such a retarded law.
  18. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    This is wrong from the begging, two clearly very different stories from the start
  19. Profile photo of caper454
    caper454 Female 70 & Over
    511 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    The trailer shown just before the shooting started featured a mass shooting inside a movie theater. Anyone believe in coincidences?
  20. Profile photo of megavidiot
    megavidiot Male 30-39
    901 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    How are these related?
  21. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    "because they lived in a society where guns were not freely available."

    Every criminal in every country that bans guns, can easily get a gun if they want it.
  22. Profile photo of FreedomFrie
    FreedomFrie Male 30-39
    243 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    Got me convinced, I`ll go register for a concealed gun license in California and get it in 20 years :P No Sarcasm intended.
  23. Profile photo of putzco
    putzco Male 30-39
    213 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    I`m going to the movie & I`m taking that 71 year old man with me.
  24. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    Did you miss the part where he was wearing bullet proof armor on his torso and legs, fired an AR-15, a shotgun, and a glock, and was tossing smoke grenades? The robbers didn`t want to kill anyone. The guns were for intimidation, the guy at the theater`s only objective was to kill people.
  25. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4886 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    auburnjunky not true. The real difference is there.
    Your country is full of weapons and criminals can get weapon much more easily than here. A law for less gun can`t solve the entire problem, but is a good begin.
  26. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    "Every criminal in every country that bans guns, can easily get a gun if they want it."

    Not true. Criminal covers a wide spectrum including petty theft, speeding etc. Which doesn`t imply they move in the kind of circles were shotguns are readily available, let alone handguns, rifles.

    Getting a gun, regardless of purpose, is easier without gun control, that is beyond debate.

    So if the loony tune couldn`t get a gun legally he would have found another way. Probably. Might have got caught along the way though.
  27. Profile photo of bataleon27
    bataleon27 Male 18-29
    1178 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    yes, but if guns were involved in neither, 12 innocent people would still be alive and some robbers would have made away with cash.... I know which one I would rather
  28. Profile photo of Murdrum
    Murdrum Female 13-17
    1 post
    July 20, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    ElMustache has it right, plus he was wearing a riot helmet and gas mask, a concealed handgun would have done nothing against this guy, plus everyone was hit with tear gas.
  29. Profile photo of Mahaloth
    Mahaloth Male 30-39
    140 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm
    Look up causation vs. correlation.
  30. Profile photo of lindleyns
    lindleyns Female 18-29
    13 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    Most of the theaters in my area have signs that ban guns in the building, so even if it were easier to have conceal and carries, it wouldn`t have mattered here.
  31. Profile photo of jadoig
    jadoig Male 30-39
    434 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    Agree on the difference. GEoD hit it on the head. If people were slated to die, the guy with the concealed weapon would be powerless to stop it. Sure he might be able to avenge the dead if he were lucky and not the first one shot, but he couldn`t have stopped it.
  32. Profile photo of jadoig
    jadoig Male 30-39
    434 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    "Most of the theaters in my area have signs that ban guns in the building"

    Where do you live? Around here, I think it`s assumed that it`s not proper to bring a loaded weapon into a public place. I wonder how well signs work against that. Please bad person, don`t bring your gun in here. Oh, ok. My bad. I`ll leave it in the car.
  33. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    Be that as it may MattPrince the law is not going to stop anyone determined enough to get a gun.
  34. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm
    "Someone shot loads of people in a movie theatre, WE NEED MORE GUNS!" - only in America
  35. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1068 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    It definitely will be an argument, doesn`t mean it will be a good argument with any leverage.
  36. Profile photo of utlanning07
    utlanning07 Male 18-29
    61 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm
    danthew- the more people that conceal carry responsibly, the less likely that poo like that will happen. If everyone is packing, who are you going to intimidate?
  37. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1068 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm
  38. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    One takes place in a internet cafe against robbers...
    @BlazingBird: They were a few trigger-pulls away from a massacre there eh? Happily we`ll never know since a law-abiding citizen sent them running!

    I`m going to the movie & I`m taking that 71 year old man with me.
    Amen @putzco!

    @uatme: There`s been HUNDREDS of cases just in the past few years where someone with a legal gun thwarted robbers and/or murderers.

    The "news" doesn`t like to cover it though since they`re mostly anti-gun liberals... it`s a fact.

    Here at IAB there was a story of 2 killed with a KNIFE, and multiple death knife attacks DO happen.
    The truth is: if someone is determined to kill, they`ll find a way to do it.
  39. Profile photo of SephirothA83
    SephirothA83 Male 18-29
    955 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm
    One also takes place in a well light room, with patrons sitting quietly as two people in masks come in a rob the place, obviously not there to kill people.

    The other takes place in a dark crowded noisy theater, when one person comes in a shoots up the place, while tossing smoke bombs.

    TWO DIFFERENT ENDINGS
  40. Profile photo of Selous
    Selous Male 30-39
    1197 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    "the more people that conceal carry responsibly, the less likely that poo like that will happen. If everyone is packing, who are you going to intimidate?"

    wow, drat living in america
  41. Profile photo of korahn
    korahn Male 30-39
    1249 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    It could`ve resulted in more deaths, person 2 pulls out a weapon and a possible gunfight could have erupted. The problem was not that the patrons didn`t have a gun, it was that the nutcase did have one.
  42. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3142 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Though the comparison isn`t quite right, I support the underlying message.
  43. Profile photo of Idlerlee2
    Idlerlee2 Male 18-29
    135 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    The situations aren`t nearly identical. the OP will also not be privy to information as to wether anyone were actually carrying a gun. It takes more than having a gun on you to be able to shoot and kill a madman with a automatic rife that`s killing everything in sight. The suggest that the comparison is fair is so stupid it shouldn`t even be dignified with a response.

    Society as a whole, American, European, Asian and anywhere else, will not move forward unless we stop being so damned afraid of eachother. And the first step to remedy that would be to not carry something that can kill someone everywhere you go.

    Its easy to jump the "omg lets get armed" bandwagon when disaster strikes, but its a line of thought that will accomplish nothing. A person that wants to kill, doesnt give 2 drats if you are carrying to, if he can shoot you from behind.

    So who`s up for walking around, checking behind them if the friendly guy you just passed is going to kill y
  44. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    Lol at all you Canadians and Europeans suggesting gun control. There are way too many guns in this country. If America tried to ban guns now the 71 year old man would be the only one unarmed...
  45. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Also, I agree that a body-armored, assault rifled wielding nut-job is too much for one law-abiding, movie-watching citizen with a pistol... but what about 10?

    ...

    Or 20?
  46. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1068 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:10 pm
    @5Cats my point was just that these two cases should not be considered similar
  47. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    if someone had a gun in that movie theater other than the shooter this is what would have happened.

    SMOKE BOMB GOES OFF, no one can see anything.

    shooter starts shooting,

    bystander with gun opens fire

    TWICE as many people are killed.

    did you guys miss the part about the DARK ROOM and SMOKE BOMB.

    you know, when you look around at the res of the industrilized world the US is the only country where it almost seems like you need a gun to protect yourself...no other 1st world country even comes close in gun violence. We are just an overly aggressive people that tend to kill each other at a much higher rate.

    and AS A GUN OWNER MYSELF, i will tell you, guns are not the answer to ending violence. they may protect you in the short run but overall there needs to be a cultural shift or things will only get worse, then no amount of guns will save you.
  48. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    btw this guy is obviously very disturbed and had NO FEAR of the police whatsoever and knew they would show up.

    so tell me, how would the idea in his head that some of the people in the movie theater might be carrying guns deterred him?

    it wouldn`t.

    he was out of his mind and did not give two poos about anyone else having a gun.
  49. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    The theater in Aurora is a `gun free zone`, meaning any Concealed Carry Permitted person could not bring his/her weapon in the building. All this talk about what would happen if people in the theater shot back, is kind of moot. Everyone I know that has a Permit knows where they can/can not bring a gun and sticks to what the law says.

    But lets go with the assumption that law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits were allowed into the theater. Some of you say it would of made the situation worse. I think different, I think he felt like a god. There was no one that could offer resistance, so he was able to take aim and kill. Lets say you walked into a room full of kittens with a 9mm pistol. You would be able to kill most of them, cause they can`t do anything to you. Now you walk into the next room and its filled with another type of feline, lets say Indian Tigers. Sure you might get 1 maybe 2, but face it you`re done for once they know you`re a threat to them.
  50. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    slobzs

    the room was DARK and the shooter set off at least one realy large smoke bomb.

    Explain, if you can, how exactly YOU would have been able to ID the shooter in the mass hysteria, through the smoke and been able to kill him without shooting an innocent?


    also, please tell me IF that theater had say, several people that were armed, how any of them, in the dark, in the smoke, would have been able to determine who the enemy was?

    you know as well as I do the drating answer to that and it rules out using a gun.
  51. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    ok I am going to make this simple for all the gun lovers (BTW I am a gun owner).

    this is a challange to see if YOU, carrying a gun could have helped or hurt the situation.
    after you read this most of you will puss out of answering.

    here is the challange.

    1. shooter enters the theater.
    2. sets off a smoke bomb.
    3. people go nuts, running.
    4. you and several others around the theater have guns.
    5. How do you ID the enemy among all the others carrying guns in a smoke filled dark room.
    6. even if you ID the shooter, how do you shot him in a dark, smoke filled room with hundreds of screaming people running every direction without killing some of them as well?

    please, do provide us with an answer. remember, dark, smoke filled, people running everywhere, you cannot kill any of them.

    here is a hint, there is no way to do it but please tell me how I am wrong.
  52. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm
    At the Gabby Giffords shooting, people WERE there with concealed carry weapons. No superhero moment occurred.

    Thank you for your time, this has been the latest episode of "giving people too stupid for stats an anecdote as if it will dislodge 50 years of propaganda".

    The only statistically significant result found with concealed carry laws, is that deregulation increases assaults.

    The only correlation to gun law strictness is a slight increase in gun violence, and suicides. (Look at all 50 states, not just your favourite 3).

    There are far more legal gun accidents, than deaths and injuries in all these mass shooting events combined.

    You go ahead and show one picture of one of the ~500K odd gun crimes in the states and pretend it`s meaningful.
  53. Profile photo of slut_etta
    slut_etta Female 50-59
    3770 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 5:51 pm
    i think there`s an "apples and airplanes" comparison being made here. and any talk of gun control, to which i am fervently opposed, is better discussed at a less emotionally volatile time.
  54. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm
    Also, FYI Americans: A bath mat is 6 times more likely to save your life than a gun (assuming having a gun makes you 100% immune to murder).

    That`s how crazy this level of fervor over your weapons is. That`s why everyone is looking at you funny.
  55. Profile photo of fatex52986
    fatex52986 Male 18-29
    1129 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:18 pm
    Hmmm lets see, Flint michigan, DC, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Highest Murder rates in the country, what do all these cities have in common? GUNS ARE BANNED!!!!!
  56. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    Jamie76
    By no means I`m I saying that I would stand up in my seat, go John Wayne and start firing my gun. That would go against how I was trained, that would be even more dangerous than the gunman himself. Have you ever fired a gun at night or in a dark room? I have, the muzzle flash is pretty bright. In a smoke filled room it would give away his general location. At this point I still wouldn`t fire, without a clear and concise target. Then again, I`ve heard what he threw was a, noxious gas, tear gas or smoke canister. depends on what he used matters. A tear gas canister will produce some smoke, but will rapidly disperse and thin out. the atomized chemicals will do the rest. A smoke canister will produce alot of smoke that will not thin out because the volume it produces.
  57. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    I didn`t get this in my last post, but if I didn`t have a %100 sure shot I would not take it. If he was standing close or next to me and pointing his weapon at me or my family, by golly I will be shooting.

    Jamie76 are you going on the assumption that a Permit person is going to fire blindly in the DARK SMOKEY room? Are the gun owners around you that irresponsible.
  58. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    [quote">At the Gabby Giffords shooting, people WERE there with concealed carry weapons. No superhero moment occurred.[/quote">

    Funny I can cite anecdotal evidence that says otherwise

    There`s even empirical evidence that says guns do deter violent crime.

    [quote">There are far more legal gun accidents, than deaths and injuries in all these mass shooting events combined[/quote">

    So what? The govt should protect us from ourselves. It tried that with 18th Amendment, it didn`t work. It tried that with DEA, it isn`t working.
  59. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    Cont from below

    Many states have tried banning prostitution, they`re not working. Ultimately every single one of these bans have produced opposite results among which resulted in a draconian overreach by the government enforcing them. Ultimately prohibitionism of any sort doesn`t stop anyone from getting the products they want. If anything such regulation would make the products FAR more dangerous exacerbating the "accidental death" issue.

    I`ll come back tomorrow morning.
  60. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    That`s why everyone is looking at you funny.

    Everyone also looks at us funny for our opposition to the Federal Government creating Single-Payer system/Individual Mandate national insurance. Even though the govt doesn`t have such authority in its founding document, the latter is a fundamental contradiction of British/American contract law, and a plurarlty of people are being forced to buy a service they don`t want.

    Okay gotta go to bed.
  61. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4709 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 7:22 pm
    @fancylad - This is the last thing I thought I would ever see posted on IAB. I Had a feeling that IAB would never post a blatent pro gun submission. I was wrong. My new theory is that you`ll post anything that starts a good argument in the thread.
  62. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm
    fatex52986

    those cities also have something else in common. GANGS. yea those murder rates come from gang on gang shootings.

  63. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    slobzs

    there would be no way unless you just happen to be right next to the shooter that you would, in those conditions get a clear, safe shot.

    in a dark room smoke is going to cause the muzzle flash to break up and scater and it would e very hard to tell where it came from. even if you did spot it, again, you have people going crazy in that theater.

    you pull your gun, someone sees you, thinks you are the shooter and jumps you. or you take what is one second a clear, close up shot only to miss and hit someone that runs between you.

    in other words, having a gun in that theater would not help you or anyone else.

    someone else mention the Gifford shooting. In Az getting a concealed permit is easy, many people in the crowd that day had a gun with them. it did not make any difference. people were running and screaming = no safe shot. now imagine that in a dark, smokey room.

  64. Profile photo of AltairWolfe
    AltairWolfe Male 30-39
    20 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm
    Few theatres are going to allow concealed weapons anyway, making your permit pointless in this case.
  65. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    5. How do you ID the enemy among all the others carrying guns in a smoke filled dark room.
    It isn`t "pitch black" @jamie: the film is going, the safety lights are still on, the flash from his weapon is giving his position away.
    How do we identify the target?
    HE`S THE ONE SHOOTING AT US! qed!
    He was standing by the exit, not the middle of the theater. Clear, unobstructed line-of-sight.

    The bystanders closest to him are: running away immediatly OR shot by him already OR down on the ground. We armed folks can freely fire at him: there`s no one behind him to hit, those close to him are out of the way in a few seconds.

    Even with his body armour he hopefully will think better of things as the bullets hit him and clear out before one "sneaks through" a vulnerable spot.

    THUS saving lives, ideally.
  66. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    you pull your gun, someone sees you, thinks you are the shooter...
    Wait, I thought you said it was so dark we couldn`t see anything :-P
    Also: a guy is standing RIGHT THERE blasting away and the person next to me is going to mistake ME for the shooter before I fire?

    Really, you`re going from possibly valid points to rediculous in a hurry here...
  67. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:55 pm
    5Cats if you draw a legal weapon in self defence in a theatre, you`re risking lives unless you have a 100% clear shot, and exposing yourself to being shot by the police or other vigilantes who may think you`re the culprit or his accomplice.

    From Sword of Gideon "What if a bystander pulls a gun?" "Then he`s not a bystander."
  68. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 8:57 pm
    5Cats you`re defending your position like a Pope defending yet more revelations of serial child rape by his priests. Know when to back down.
  69. Profile photo of yeayeayea23
    yeayeayea23 Female 18-29
    142 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    The type of person that would bring a gun to a movie theater is the type that would shoot the people in the movie theater.
  70. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    You`re making outlandish assumptions jamie. The type you couldn`t know unless you`ve been in a fire fight. I don`t know slobz. What I know is if you steel your resolve with a significant (perhaps less) amount of military training, you can find your target. Whether or not you find him in time to make any difference is key, but people suggesting the event took as long as ten minutes tells me ANYONE would`ve eventually figured out where he was, regardless of what was set off in the theater. Ten minutes is PLENTY of time to prep a response, be if fight or flight. That said, it was likely all over long before that.

    I`m not saying ANY vet/active/gangbanger/offduty could`ve ended this with fewer casualties. I`m saying you can`t say NONE of them would`ve been able to.
  71. Profile photo of avail9988
    avail9988 Male 18-29
    700 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:11 pm
    brilliant, more guns please sir
  72. Profile photo of TroyMcClure
    TroyMcClure Male 18-29
    4 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:22 pm
    These two stories are not really similar at all... As someone from Colorado, I can tell you that concealed carry permits are not really that hard to get. The issue is that theaters, and many other places that are private property, do not permit concealed carry. The argument that concealed carry should simply be allowed in these places in order to stop such tragic events from happening is just hindsight.
    Should faculty and even students at high schools and universities be permitted to do the same? Would that have prevented Columbine or the Virginia Tech shooting from happening? I don`t think so. Should people be allowed to purchase pistols, shotguns and AR-15s like the shooter carried at Bass Pro Shop and other stores? What about 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet? These are the more difficult, and ultimately more pertinent questions that should be asked.
  73. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    There is a HUGE different between your average lazy bank robber and a psychopathic murderee. One just wants money and rarely actually hurts anybody, the other won`t be stopped just because he`s scared of getting shot.
  74. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    5Cats you`re defending your position like a Pope
    @Draculya: Ooo! Do I get a fancy hat too? (A miter, eh?)
    Hey! @jamie invited discussion! Go talk to him about Popes and such...

    Would that have prevented Columbine or the Virginia Tech shooting from happening?
    Welcome to IAB @TroyMcClure! The answer is YES and also NO!
    NO it wouldn`t have "prevented" either case, in both the killer(s) were determined to kill others then die.
    YES it would have lowered the body count if the Security Guards had sidearms! In both cases the killings went on for quite a long time. In the V-Tech case the killer stopped many times to re-load his weapons, knowing full well that NO ONE had a gun except for him...
  75. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm
    Without a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the US has occurred in a gun-free zone.

    The solution is simple. Don`t outlaw guns; outlaw gun-free zones.
  76. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2105 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm
    Locate,Engage,Destroy. Yes, I like my gun.What I hate is the need.
  77. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    @5Cats

    Okeydokey



    Meant in the best possible humour. At least you look less like a Bond villain than Mein Pope
  78. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm
    Jamie76
    Your logic is rather confusing. What you`re saying is because the room is dark (never mind the film that is still going) and filled with smoke making impossible for me to see or locate the gunman, but at the same time I would be completely visible for someone else to see I had a gun and jump or shoot me. Bear in mind I can`t see him so I have not fire yet, but he is steady unloading his clips.

    And yes he would have to be right next to me for me to take a shot in those conditions. No way would I try from any farther than 5 feet or so.
  79. Profile photo of TroyMcClure
    TroyMcClure Male 18-29
    4 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm
    @5Cats: That`s a fair point about the security guards; I was talking more about the students and faculty themselves. The elderly man described in the image was just a citizen that happened to have the means and ability to stop a crime in progress, and he should be lauded for doing so. There is, however, a very large difference between these two cases and I am not necessarily convinced that the solution is to simply have no gun-free zones. Universities and other schools tend to frown upon students and faculty going about their day with concealed firearms, and that is perfectly understandable.
  80. Profile photo of Fwoggie2
    Fwoggie2 Male 30-39
    1803 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm
    Let America enact the domestic laws it wants, no matter how crazy they may seem to the rest of us. If they want to continue to keep the right to bear arms despite the threat of an English invasion long being over, that`s their right as a sovereign country.

    Here in Germany it`s very hard to acquire guns, but you can legally drive at speeds that would get you several years in jail in the US. It`s just as mad a law in reality. I think the UK has a good balance. Nobody outside of the military and police needs a gun.
  81. Profile photo of autricia
    autricia Female 18-29
    16 posts
    July 20, 2012 at 11:39 pm
    Stricter gun control in this country would be great. The fact his own mom wasn`t surprised he had done this makes me think the process of buying a gun should include checking with people the customer knows. Not people that he shares but people they find related to the individual after performing a background check. If he bought his guns from a shop and something like this had been in place, his mom could have said he was crazy and to not give him a gun.

    Of course, there`s also the fact he could just buy one illegally off the street, which brings me to another point. It`s too late to really do anything about the gun problem in this country. The criminals have the guns and if they don`t, they know how to get them.

    I`ve been wanting to get a gun for some time now, and reasons like this are why. People are batpoo insane and you never know when the poo will hit the fan.

    RIP victims of this tragedy, especially the 6 year old child.
  82. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 12:01 am
    There`s a difference between a robbery, and an intended shooting. Robbers don`t necessarily mean to kill anyone, and when confronted with a gun are more than likely to back down. Someone going on a shooting rampage has already considered their life forfeit, and will probably continue to shoot regardless of the threat they face. We`re comparing apples to oranges here.
  83. Profile photo of con_uk
    con_uk Male 30-39
    92 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 12:34 am
    Doesn`t really matter.
    If guns don`t kill Americans, their obesity will anyway.
  84. Profile photo of Fortitude
    Fortitude Male 30-39
    255 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 12:50 am
    Only in America would a mass shooting be used as an excuse for LESS gun laws...

    How many mass shootings do you see in the UK?
  85. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 2:53 am
    Fortitude

    It is a very sound argument. Nearly all the major mass killings in the USA occur where guns are banned to the people present: schools, university, Fort Hood. There was another case of an attempt at mass killing in a church stopped by someone with a firearm.

    Why should law-abiding people be banned from carrying a weapon (against the clear wording of the US constitution)?

    Fwoggie

    It is nothing to do with threat of English invasion. Repeating the lies of those opposing hte US Constitution is not a great way to understand the Constitution.
  86. Profile photo of Reignblazer
    Reignblazer Male 18-29
    2334 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 3:07 am
    Sure thing. By all means continue to blow each other away.

    Just make sure you leave your country intact so some more civilized people can move in after the cleanup.
  87. Profile photo of jennykkk
    jennykkk Female 18-29
    8 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 3:38 am

    i am homeless in shanghai,china,my phone: 0086-13636-464-519 email: [email protected]
    i am a fresh college graduate,25 yo.
  88. Profile photo of Hedkwab
    Hedkwab Male 18-29
    340 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 3:55 am
    Most crimes and murders involving firearms are made with ILLEGAL weapons.

    Therefore gun control is not stopping criminals from obtaining weapons - they will get guns one way or the other.
  89. Profile photo of TheOrigin
    TheOrigin Male 18-29
    500 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:18 am
    @Fortitude: Ah yes. And what is the number of violent crimes commited with cold weapons in the GB? Hammers, bats, knives and other sharp or blunt objects?

    What are your rape statistics?

    You do not have problems with violent gangs of mostly third world immigrants, right?

    You do not have rape gangs preying mostly on white girls, right? None of which could have been prevented, if the victim had a..oh, let`s say a gun to blast those bastards balls off, right?

    Just syaing...
  90. Profile photo of TheOrigin
    TheOrigin Male 18-29
    500 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:24 am
    And as stated many times before:

    He who wants to commit a crime with a weapon will get his hands on it anyways. If the society is disarmed of firearms, the potential criminal reaches for cold weapons, knowing he is potentially safe - safer than in an armed society where anyone could blow his head off in retaliation.

    On the other hand, yes I am all for a more strict permit law. In my country, the laws are like this:

    Any person that wants to purchase a gun must first get a license, handed out by the police. He must pass mental and physical exams. He must pass a written and practical test in gun handling and gun carry laws. His criminal and medical record mut be spotless. Everything must be registered and the psychological exams are repeated periodically.

    Gun violence in my country is damn low, by the way.
  91. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:41 am
    Couldn`t even drating wait a day before making this political. Wow.
  92. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:56 am
    You can`t use a one-off experience as a rule to then say guns are good. Ignoring the rest of the gun related incidents that happened before.
  93. Profile photo of daverazor
    daverazor Male 50-59
    198 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 5:39 am
    dumb dumb dumb
  94. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 5:57 am
    Most of the obvious "those are apples and oranges" comments have already been made (though I`d say it`s more apples and brake fluid), but I have to ask the image creator, how exactly is it that you claim to know that no one was carrying a concealed gun for protection?

    OldOllie: "Without a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the US has occurred in a gun-free zone."

    This is, of course, complete BS. The Beltway sniper attacks, for example, took place in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia and killed 10 people, with three other people critically injured.

    Also, when you say "gun-free zone", are you talking about the "Gun-Free School Zones Act" or something else? If the former, then the Aurora shooting we`re talking about here is another, rather obvious, counterexample. (Please, do shift the goalposts in your favor.)
  95. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 6:10 am
    fatex52986: "Hmmm lets see, Flint michigan, DC, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Highest Murder rates in the country, what do all these cities have in common? GUNS ARE BANNED!!!!!"

    Wow, you didn`t even get the cities with the highest murder rates right, not to mention that guns aren`t "banned" any of those places.

    By 2010 statistics, New Orleans, LA has the highest per capita murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate in the US (for cities over 250,000 people), at 49.1 per 100,000 people, beating out the next highest, St. Louis, MO, at 40.5. Both states allow registered concealed carry, and the latter allows open carry and has a mere $35 (or less) penalty for concealed carry without a permit.

    So yeah, let`s blame "banned" guns for the problems in those locations.

    Seriously, get a clue.
  96. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 6:17 am
    @Fortitude: How Quickly You Forget They happen, ok?

    @Draculya: I LOVE it! lolz! Pope Kitty Saz: Eat fish 5 days a week! (not just Friday)

    @TroyMcClure: I`m glad you picked up on the Security Guards being armed, NOT the students! In no way do I advocate Highschoolers carrying weapons! But to dis-arm ALL security too? Invites disaster.

    "Couldn`t even drating wait a day before making this political. Wow."
    @SmagBoy1: One of the FIRST THINGS out of the MSM`s mouth was a political accusation (utterly false) so yeah, the LEFT made it political aweful fast, disgraceful.
  97. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 6:27 am
    An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.

    Blame the shooter,not the responsible gun owner.
  98. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 6:42 am
    only idiots turn a tragedy into a pro-gun issue.
  99. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36170 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:10 am

    OMG! .... TWO pro-gun treads in a week.
    I may faint.
  100. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:14 am
    "Only in America would a mass shooting be used as an excuse for LESS gun laws...
    How many mass shootings do you see in the UK?"

    At least 12 killed in U.K. shootings
    www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ 2010/06/02
  101. Profile photo of Quik2TheStab
    Quik2TheStab Male 18-29
    661 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:17 am
    Yeah, except that everything that is wrong about this.
  102. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    73 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:47 am
    I would like to remind everybody that no mater how restrictive the gun laws are, he would have been able to buy one regardless. Take away the semi-auto, now hes using a bolt action. Take away the bolt action, now hes using a break action. Take away the gun, Now hes using a home made bomb. Even as a ccw holder, with the smoke bombs and panic there would have been nothing I could have done. He was there to kill, nothing was going to stop him.
  103. Profile photo of KitFox
    KitFox Female 30-39
    595 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:51 am
    I bet the people who were killed or injured in that theater would be okay with someone else packing heat besides the crazy guy. This would have been less likely to happen if more people carried guns. The amount of crazy people who shoot others doesn`t increase just because more people carry guns.
  104. Profile photo of frnttrndy
    frnttrndy Male 50-59
    49 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 7:56 am
    Lets keep our freedom over scurety
  105. Profile photo of JoexBro
    JoexBro Male 18-29
    540 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 8:29 am
    Perhaps he would not have had the guns in the first place if there was more restrictive gun laws. He had a semi automatic rifle no? And abrxax makes a good point. He was there to kill, he had some psychotic break. When someone robs a store or bank, their plan typically is not to wound or kill anyone. Oh this world will never make sense.
  106. Profile photo of 8jdb28jdb2
    8jdb28jdb2 Male 30-39
    83 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 8:40 am
    The right to life triumphs over the right to bear arms. The right to be protected from violence triumphs over the right to bear arms even for self-defence. Guns don`t stop bullets.
  107. Profile photo of itsdylanc
    itsdylanc Male 18-29
    9 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 8:58 am
    I disagree! When guns can still be acquired illegally there is no reason to make radical changes to our gun laws. The ones who are going to use them maliciously will find a way to use them. For example, in both Aurora (allegedly) and Columbine shootings, guns were acquired illegally. I don`t own a gun, but I know for sure it would be a giant mistake to take away the ability to use them for other means, may it be for a heroic purpose. The half answer to whether someone shall own a gun or not, needs to be determined by screenings and background checks, which will never even fix the entire problem. As long as guns exist at all, in any local country for that matter, these occurrences may still happen.
  108. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 9:06 am
    People are dangerous too! Let`s ban people! See my point? I vote for freedom, not overreaction. Besides, the worst mass murders aren`t performed with guns; McVeigh killed 168, so let`s ban... fertilizer?
  109. Profile photo of justadiver
    justadiver Male 40-49
    49 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 9:25 am
    If James Holmes didn`t have the guns, he would have used bombs or incendiary devices. I don` t the cops have been able to make entry into his apt. yet. He was going to kill no matter what.

    I know IAB has a lot of atheist/agnostics.

    I said a prayer for the victims, injured,and survivors, also their friends and family.

    If you want to "troll" me for that, go ahead.
  110. Profile photo of brucie222
    brucie222 Male 18-29
    48 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 9:50 am
    Change the constitution right to bare arms. I suggest "Thou shall not be laughed at for having a small penis and `little-man` syndrome"
  111. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 10:27 am
    @brucie222: While I`m certainly not a `little man`, I am of mostly European decent - so the small penis quip may apply.

    All kidding aside though, I think citizens of other countries have a hard time seeing it from our perspective. To quote James Madison, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Arms enable us to protect ourselves from other citizens, invaders, as well as our own government.

    The age-old problem with gun control laws is that they assume criminals will abide by them. In fact, only law-abiding citizens will follow these laws, and therefore, the only people the laws will impact are law-abiding citizens.
  112. Profile photo of g3n3r1k
    g3n3r1k Male 18-29
    250 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 10:47 am
    actually one person had a concealed weapon in the aurora theater, and he killed 12 people.
  113. Profile photo of fmalkemst
    fmalkemst Male 18-29
    3 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 11:38 am
    I thought I read that he had body armor on too, so someone else with a gun in there probably wouldnt have been able to do too much ..
  114. Profile photo of I-Am-Goatse
    I-Am-Goatse Male 18-29
    165 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    Funny thing about body armor, it doesn`t protect your face.
  115. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    "Arms enable us to protect ourselves from other citizens, invaders, as well as our own government."



    vs




    Good luck with that...
  116. Profile photo of Magickrat
    Magickrat Male 40-49
    535 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Yeah, so instead we would`ve had a bunch of toothless, brainless Colorado rednecks in a shootout with a well-armed nutbar in the middle of a crowded movie theater. Someone tell me how that scenario would`ve played out?
  117. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    @MattPrince: "Arms enable us to protect ourselves from other citizens, invaders, as well as our own government."



    vs



    And this is better how? See, when you make a point, and somebody simply flips it on you, then it wasn`t a point; it was propaganda. Points discuss intellectual concepts.
  118. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm
    @HumanAction - you`ve not flipped my point. Not one inch. Spork/Gun vs Tank/Apache. No difference.
  119. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    @MattPrince

    So we shouldn`t have guns in the first place? We should sit wait for someone to come harm us, and not be prepared?
  120. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    They happen, ok?

    1 since the increase in restrictions, yes.

    1.

    Which was carried out with legally held guns.

    So your own example, the only example you could possibly find, is actually an example showing that there should be *more* restrictions, not none. Had guns actually been banned in the UK, that one single killing spree you were able to find probably wouldn`t have happened. Your own example undermines your own argument.

    If someone argues that the relatively free mass ownership of guns is a benefit worth the lives it costs, I can respect that argument for being honest.

    If someone argues that guns massively reduce the number of killings (deliberate and accidental) and supports that argument by making things up and/or using glaringly illogical arguments, I don`t.

    Also, I`m curious as to how innately violent you think the USA is. You think the homicide rate would be far, far higher without all the guns...h
  121. Profile photo of GolfPunk69
    GolfPunk69 Male 30-39
    58 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Actually there was a guy in the theatre with a carry permit - James Holmes.
  122. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    So your own example, the only example you could possibly find, is actually an example showing that there should be *more* restrictions, not none.

    At best such restrictions would`ve only delayed the killings, as prohbition of any form does very little to stop people from getting the products/services they want. In this case, fully automatic weapons.
    The other sad part is tragedies like these that have promoted and promulgated very bad laws as people have pushed for them on impulse and emotion over reason to control the behavoir of other people.
  123. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    Also, I`m curious as to how innately violent you think the USA is. You think the homicide rate would be far, far higher without all the guns...h


    First of all I don`t believe anyone here thinks that my country is full of rampant gun-toting sociopaths, and psychopaths hell-bent on murdering or settling some pointlessly overdue score.
    Secondly, what we`re worried about is that such laws are only going to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In a confrontation where only one person is the sole target, thus to them there is no denying that fact (as opposed to a situation involving multiple targets). So, impulsively the target will either draw their weapon or they`ll attempt to flee. People are more likely to survive unscathed making the former choice.
  124. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    July 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm
    HiEv said, The Beltway sniper attacks, for example, took place in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia and killed 10 people, with three other people critically injured.
    This was not a "multiple-victim public shooting" in that it did not occur at one time in one location. Therefore, this does not qualify as a counter example to the claim that these shootings only occur in gun-free zones. And no, I was not talking about the "Gun-Free School Zones Act" at all. I was talking about ANYPLACE where guns are not allowed. That theater has signs posted clearly stating that guns are not allowed on their premises which makes it a "gun-free zone."

    If we were serious about stopping this kind of mass murder, we would outlaw gun-free zones, because is has been repeatedly demonstrated that they represent a clear, easily avoidable, and totally unnecessary danger.

    Sorry, you just went 0 for 2, but thanks for playing our game.
  125. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 1:25 am
    Ugh I`ve said it before and I really cba to say it again, so I`ll spare the likes of McGovern et al.

    But on topic, the shooting was over very quickly. To pick out one person in a dark panic filled theatre with people running about, and accurately hit him AND ONLY HIM seems very difficult to me. And I won`t believe anyone that says otherwise.
  126. Profile photo of 7eggert
    7eggert Male 30-39
    242 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 3:55 am
    Here in Germany, we have less incidents with guns and less deaths caused by crimes.
  127. Profile photo of alsobored
    alsobored Male 18-29
    347 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 8:42 am
    the second one, he was armoured. I don`t think it would of mattered if people in the theatre had guns.
    there was also some type of tear gas which I`m sure would of made it difficult to see and shoot.

    this is completely ridiculous to compare the situations. honestly, the killer`s aim was to kill, and the robber`s aim was to rob. I hope someone was kidding around when they made this picture.
  128. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 9:02 am
    @MattPrince: In the US we have local, county, and state governments that do not possess that type of military equipment. In addition, we have federal agencies that do not have that type of hardware. Military assets cannot be used against cilivians here, either (although Obama kind of screwed that up - NDAA).

    There was recently an article out of Arizona where a federal agency was attempting to illegally seize property from a citizen. The local sheriffs office threatened to raise a militia, and the federal agency (BLM) backed down. A judge later ruled that the BLM`s actions were unconstitutional.

    So yes, guns help citizens protect ourselves from our government(s).
  129. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:16 am
    Blah-blah-blah it goes again. Look: America has the highest peacetime rate of death by gunshot in the world, and we`re talking multiples of other countries` rates. Each year, gun carriers kill more innocent people accidentally than they do criminals intentionally.
    If you want to argue for the right to pack a concealed deadly weapon anywhere you like, please address these issues first, or have the guts to admit that the body count would skyrocket.
  130. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:21 am
    At best such restrictions would`ve only delayed the killings, as prohbition of any form does very little to stop people from getting the products/services they want. In this case, fully automatic weapons.

    But the only example given in support of that argument shows the opposite. This sort of multiple killing by shooting people simply because they were there (i.e. not shooting chosen individuals for specific reasons) is extremely rare in the UK and the 1 example the person could find was carried out with legally held guns, not illegally obtained guns.

    Very few people could obtain fully automatic weapons in the UK.

    In short, citing the UK as a reason for *reducing* gun control in the USA is wrong. If anyone is going to use the UK as an example for the USA, their conclusion has to be *greatly* increasing gun control. But see my next post.
  131. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:24 am
    I think that using the UK as an example to make any argument about gun control in the USA, or vice versa, is a deeply flawed argument anyway, even if the conclusion logically follows from the evidence. There are many similarities between our countries, but there are also some differences and the carrying of weapons is one of those differences. It`s not "one size fits all".
  132. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:33 am
    But on topic, the shooting was over very quickly. To pick out one person in a dark panic filled theatre with people running about, and accurately hit him AND ONLY HIM seems very difficult to me.

    You`re right. Also, he was apparently wearing body armour as well. So we`re talking about having to shoot him in the head, which increases the difficulty even further.

    Soldiers train repeatedly for that sort of thing because it`s very difficult even for a highly trained and well equipped soldier. A special forces unit in the cinema could have stopped the killing sooner. It`s very unlikely that a disorganised mob of civilians with handguns would have done.
  133. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:40 am
    First of all I don`t believe anyone here thinks that my country is full of rampant gun-toting sociopaths, and psychopaths hell-bent on murdering or settling some pointlessly overdue score.

    Advocates of increased carrying of guns by civilians state that the USA would be a far *more* violent place with far more homicides and far more violence in general if there was less gun ownership. Their clearly stated argument is that there are *many*, and I mean MANY, people in the USA right now who want to kill people and are only prevented from doing so by fear that they might encounter someone who can draw a gun and shoot them before they can pull the trigger of the gun they`re already pointing at their victim.

    So yes, you do think that the USA is "full of rampant gun-toting sociopaths, and psychopaths hell-bent on murdering or settling some pointlessly overdue score." Your argument makes no sense unless you believe that.
  134. Profile photo of dirtysteve00
    dirtysteve00 Male 30-39
    373 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 11:52 am
    Two different situations as well though, one a psychopathic massacre, the other a robbery.
    Nice of the pro/anti gun crowds to get out in front of this with their own agendas though.
  135. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm
    @carmium: Why is it that Europeans and Canadians try to involve themselves so desperately in US affairs and politics?

    By the way, many Midwestern states, such as Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming have lower or comparable homicide rates as Canada. Midwestern states also typically have very relaxed gun laws. The problem isn`t gun laws, it is the culture in various areas.

    Then again, we are a republic. Despite the fact that Lousiana has a homicide rate of 11.2/110k (the highest), since I do not live there, my opinion should have no bearing there. Unlike your countries, our states are sovereign.

    Also, to rebuff your claim, Colorado State University enacted policies allowing students to carry on campus, and saw a 60% reduction of crime. Meanwhile, the University of Colorado banned it, and saw a 35% rise in crime during the same span of time.
  136. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 2:52 pm
    "so we shouldn`t have guns in the first place? We should sit wait for someone to come harm us, and not be prepared?"

    Thats what the police and military are for in a civilised state. You appear to want to tend towards anarchy where its every man for themselves.

    In the end though, I agree with Angillion, what works (better) for us, may not work as well for you. I sincerely hope we do not trend towards your position.

    In terms of your speculation.. I don`t think this guy, with no criminal associations would have found it easy to secure such effective weaponry if local gun laws hadn`t permitted it legally.

    Done something else maybe, but not this.
  137. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31759 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    CNN Just had a spot where they "discussed" gun control.
    They represented BOTH sides of the issue!
    One guest Hates Romney and wants more gun control
    The other guest wants More gun control and love Obama!
    See! Completely UN-Biased!
    They said things like: we don`t want to take people`s guns away (lie)
    We don`t want unreasonable restrictions (lie)
    We want to have an "open dialogue" (lie)

    One ranted about "automatic weapons" while the other decried the NRA`s freedom of speech...

    But HEAVENS NO! The MSM is not biased at all!

    @MattPrince: "No known criminal associations"?? WTF?? All it takes is MONEY! And apparently he had about $10,000 worth of equipment, legally obtained. If he`d have purchased stolen/ illegal items? It might have even cost less... but was certainly "available".

    Give your head a shake bro...
  138. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:09 pm
    ....to kill his brother, lawyer, and the next 35 people.
  139. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:09 pm
    Angilion, in regards to your point of having more gun restrictions would of prevented that one that I listed from happening, I would have to respectfully disagree. At the time of the UK shooting, stringent bans of all handguns and large caliber rifles were in effect. Thus leaving shotguns and .22 rifles available to him. If those were also banned along with black powder firearms, you`re right (in a sense) he could not of gone on his shooting spree with legally owned guns. BUT, who`s to say he could not of bought an illegal firearm off the street to do what he did. Here in the States we have a restriction on fully automatic guns (there are a few citizens that can own one), guess who has possession of them? The criminals, the street gangs, and a couple of backwoods militia nutjobs. Just because an item is banned doesn`t mean people can`t get them. Bird was a man that was going to snap, no matter what. If it wasn`t a gun, it would of been a kitchen knife, a chainsaw or what ever...
  140. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm
    Angilion, that `one and only example I can find` was the result of a 5 second google search and it was on top of the list. It was a response to the question brought up by another poster. I didn`t know I was required to find more than one to validate my point of find mass murder in the UK. Oh, wait the Dunblane massacre, guess what, I found another one. Give me a second I might find more if I really look hard, but that`s not what going to do.
  141. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 11:13 pm
    While I`m on the subject of *more* gun restrictions, lets look at an interesting paper published by the Harvard Journal Law. It cites that in 2003 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found no gun control laws that reduced violent crime(including murder, armed robbery...), suicide, or gun accidents here in the US. The findings were validated by a study of 400 documents, studies, and reports done by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2004. An article I found from The Telegraph (a UK newspaper for those that don`t know) cites in 2007 the UK had 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 vs the US with 466 per 100,00. If there was armed citizens in the UK maybe there wouldn`t be so many crooks eager to commit violent crimes. In the late 1990`s when the UK banned all handguns and most rifles there was an increase in criminal violence, by the year 2000 the UK had surpassed the US in violent crimes. Russia also banned handguns, but yet they have a murder rate 4x higher than the US.
  142. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    While I`m on the subject of *more* gun restrictions, lets look at an interesting paper published by the Harvard Journal Law. It cites that in 2003 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found no gun control laws that reduced violent crime(including murder, armed robbery...), suicide, or gun accidents here in the US. The findings were validated by a study of 400 documents, studies, and reports done by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2004. An article I found from The Telegraph (a UK newspaper for those that don`t know) cites in 2007 the UK had 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 vs the US with 466 per 100,00. If there was armed citizens in the UK maybe there wouldn`t be so many crooks eager to commit violent crimes. In the late 1990`s when the UK banned all handguns and most rifles there was an increase in criminal violence, by the year 2000 the UK had surpassed the US in violent crimes. Russia also banned handguns, but yet they have a murder rate 4x higher than the US.
  143. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 22, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    Ok, last post in this rant of mine. In 2007 of the 50 states, 40 had passed concealed weapon laws. Those 40 states saw a faster fall in violent crimes, than the 10 states that did not have such laws in the same time frame. The crooks are thinking twice now adays from violent crimes. We are seeing an increase in other types of crime, such as identity thief and credit card fraud. A person who engaged James Holmes may not of survived against the body armor and weapons he had, but the 10,20 or 30 seconds he distracted Holmes would allowed that many more people escape to safety and unhurt. And @MattPrince you said "that`s what the police and military are for in a civilised state". Do you really think that a person going on a shooting spree is going to stop from killing you while you call the police because you believe it`s the police and military`s job to protect you? Yeah, Good luck with that...

    Remember: `If they OUTLAW guns, only OUTLAWS will have guns`
  144. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 4:30 am
    5cats said :- "WTF?? All it takes is MONEY! And apparently he had about $10,000 worth of equipment, legally obtained. If he`d have purchased stolen/ illegal items? It might have even cost less... but was certainly "available".

    No, it takes more than money, it takes connections, and I would expect, a certain amount of nous and/or luck, (you dine with cannibals - sooner or later your gonna get eaten).

    This attack (and the British incident you tried to smokescreen with) were carried out with guns obtained legally - you can speculate about what might have happened had they not been available till your blue in the teeth - but that`s all it is, speculation. You can claim all the un-verified statistics you like, but in this one incident, the facts are clearly not in your favour.
  145. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 4:56 am
    Fortunately the police were fairly quick off the mark and arrived within 7 minutes, an eternity to be facing down a gun, but they did put a stop to it. The point is - you can improve that response time and make sure there`s fair coverage of an area with professionals, you can`t rota civilians or expect them to behave well in this situation. (I`m sure there were some examples of the best of bravery in that cinema, just a shame that the coward with the gun will be the one remembered)

    If, by chance any of you concealed carriers are ever in place to put a stop to a situation like this, then I hope (sincerely) that you are ice-calm and your aim is accurate.
  146. Profile photo of slobzs
    slobzs Male 30-39
    37 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 6:14 am
    @MattPrince, I can give verification to the stats I gave. The info is from reliable and respected studies and publication and not from my fantasies. But space is short.

    Yes, I did speculate and yes my teeth are blue. But so are other people with blue teeth in this discussion, when they say stricter laws in the USA would prevented this or if a legal gun owner could of stopped or slowed Holmes from killing. This whole discussion has been based on speculation.

  147. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 6:46 am
    @MattPrince

    Actually that gun vs. Apache happened when Russia invaded Afghanistan it worked. It was also said when the USA revolted again Britian we had no chance and were completely outgunned it also wound up working.

    This guys apartment is all rigged up with pipe bombs and such we should also ban those I guess... Oh wait we did already see how well that works?
  148. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 6:56 am
    But on topic, the shooting was over very quickly. To pick out one person in a dark panic filled theatre with people running about, and accurately hit him AND ONLY HIM seems very difficult to me. And I won`t believe anyone that says otherwise.

    You have zero firearm experience of course you`d find it hard.

    ""A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"-Freud
  149. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 7:02 am
    The UK will arm gaurds to protect the royals but the peons are not offered the same...

    What could ever go wrong with complete blind trust and power being given to the government.....
  150. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 10:01 am
    McGovern what is it with you and this bizarre class struggle you see over here? Carbines are always on display at major airports, protecting chavs as well as monarchy, so I`m not sure quite what you are tilting at there old chap.

    As for guns being required for rebellion against corrupt governments, this is just a sign of your hypocrisy when it comes to this topic. Pipe bomb anyone?
  151. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 10:34 am
    Those are sub machine gun not carbines and pipe bombs are banned meaning they no longer exsist right??? LOL! Keep the blind faith her majesty really does care about you....
  152. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 10:36 am
    Mexico also banned ownership of guns been working great there BTW......
  153. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    July 23, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    Lol you got me. carbine, smg, machine pistol all the same to me. You missed my point about the pipe bomb but no matter. This is obviously a religous matter to some of you.
    Its your country, good luck.
  154. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    July 26, 2012 at 11:06 pm
    OldOllie: "(The Beltway sniper attacks) was not a "multiple-victim public shooting" in that it did not occur at one time in one location."

    Thanks for moving those goalposts, just like I predicted. FYI, 4 people were killed in those attacks within a span of about 2 hrs. in Aspen Hill. I`m not surprised that "doesn`t count" somehow to you.

    Seriously, a simple Google search "shoots down" your absurd claim:
    4 people shot, 2 dead, in multiple shooting in Roselle
    4 Arrested in Quadruple Shooting

    Feel free to move the goalposts again on these, Ollie, I`d expect nothing less of you.

Leave a Reply