PDA

View Full Version : Breaking--Mass shooting at Batman midnight premiere in Denver, 12 dead, 50 injured


Pages : [1] 2

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:24 AM
:eek:

At least 10 confirmed killed at Dark Knight Rises premiere shooting in Colorado movie theater


http://www.rt.com/files/news/shooting-dark-knight-rises-batman-denver-aurora-654/video-wwwabcnetau-still.n.jpg



At least 10 moviegoers were killed and 39 injured at a cinema in the Colorado city of Aurora in the Denver suburbs. They were attending a midnight showing of the new Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises.

The theater was packed with a lot of people, many of them young fans, at the time the shooting started, 9news reports. The violence erupted some 15 minutes after the movie started, witnesses said.
Some say that when they first heard the shooting, they thought it was some new type of special effect.

Local media reports that two gunmen were involved in the rampage. An explosive device was set off during the shooting, injuring several people.

Witnesses said the gunmen were probably wearing body armor and gas masks and used some kind of a tear gas bomb in the attack.

Some reports say police have apprehended one of the assailants while the second one is still at large.
Police have cleared people from the scene over fears that another explosive device might be on the premises.

Aurora medical services were alerted to attend to the large number of injured.

Details to follow.

http://www.rt.com/news/shooting-dark-knight-rises-batman-denver-aurora-654/

Elwin.
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:28 AM
Crazy. Watching it on CNN
Death toll obviously is gonna rise :sad:
Poor people :hug:

EDIT: 14 people killed and 50 wounded

Kəv.
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:38 AM
:sad: They just had a 50k tournament there a few weeks ago. Luckily it wasn't this week and none of the girls decided to see the movie.

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:42 AM
Updated total. Scary stuff.

Simugna Help
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:48 AM
Bane is not happy with his portrayal in the movie?

But seriously, why would anyone do something like that?

duhcity
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:04 AM
An INFANT was supposedly shot at close range.
It's actually completely unbelievable.

Just Do It
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:05 AM
:O Crazy maniacs again? Awful
But I giggled at people thinking it was special effect :sobbing:

John.
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:06 AM
What the actual fuck? That's just awful

ALIEN
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:20 AM
Marvel fans? :lol:

Mynarco
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:35 AM
:help: so fucked up

Halepsova
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:38 AM
An INFANT was supposedly shot at close range.
It's actually completely unbelievable.

Ugh what kinda stupid parents is that? Bringing their baby to the cinema. :rolleyes:

BTW this is a total nightmare. You wouldn't think someone plan a shooting rampage in there when you are enjoying the movie. :sad:

RenaSlam.
Jul 20th, 2012, 12:09 PM
What the fuck?

Dani12
Jul 20th, 2012, 12:28 PM
What the hell...

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 20th, 2012, 12:50 PM
Someone watched Scream 2 too many times? :help:

Fantasy Hero
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:01 PM
i've just read the news...i have no words, just the wish for people from Colorado to stay strong.

JN
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:12 PM
Devastating.

I wonder if there'll be a Rush Limbaugh connection. Colorado is ripe with militia types.

ElusiveChanteuse
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:24 PM
Oh no! So tragic. :o Nowadays you'd never know what to expect when going out for fun.:scared:

Super Dave
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:33 PM
Utter shock. So many lives ruined, at a movie theater no less.

Jane Lane
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:39 PM
They just wanted to see a movie.

I've been to so many midnight premieres, so to even think about what those people experienced is heart-wrenching. This hit me pretty hard, and I live on the other side of the country.

Dani12
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Reports I've read have said 12 dead btw.

Mynarco
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:44 PM
I am not familiar with the US affairs - but is it easy to have guns in Colorado?

Tripp
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?

JN
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:54 PM
I am not familiar with the US affairs - but is it easy to have guns in Colorado?

Yes. Colorado is part of what's known as the "Wild Wild West" and has concealed carry laws.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf

Sammo
Jul 20th, 2012, 01:56 PM
Oh my God...


Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?

Yes :sobbing:

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/3857950_o.gif

Olórin
Jul 20th, 2012, 02:00 PM
This is so horrible.

The other day it was just my partner and myself in the cinema for a late night showing of Spiderman - and for a few seconds the thought ran through my head "what if a crazy person ran in right about now - what would I do". Then I thought "what a waste of thought what are the odds of that happening at all, in a cinema of all places".

I guess in a country/state which legalises firearms the chances are that bit higher. But this makes it no less freakish and no less unbelievable.

CrossCourt~Rally
Jul 20th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Wow, I'm just waking up to all this now and shocked and saddened at what I'm seeing on Good Morning Anerica ;(

Vlover
Jul 20th, 2012, 02:16 PM
Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?
This is due to the total control of the National Rifle Association (NRA) of our politicians. Like every thing else in America making money is the primary goal of some people therefore principles, ethics and even common sense goes out the window. The goal of the NRA is that everyone will own multiple guns therefore don't be surprised if you hear that the solution to this problem is the audience should get guns themselves.:devil:

The easy access to guns is not only affecting the US but also nearby Latin American countries and Mexico where unsavory people from these countries pay US traffickers to buy their guns and take them across the borders. Expect more shootings also in the future because the elected officials are so scared of the NRA as they use this as a political issue to quiet any opposition.:tape: My question though is how many of these random shootings are people willing to accept before they start demanding that the NRA be more responsible and stop fighting against banning high powered semi-automatic guns.

Elwin.
Jul 20th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?

Finland has had plenty of shooting incidents also. Other countries that come to mind are Germany,Belgium, The Netherlands

Archaeo
Jul 20th, 2012, 02:34 PM
This is such a horrific story. :sad: I can't even imagine why someone would be motivated to do something like this.

Milito22
Jul 20th, 2012, 03:45 PM
:facepalm:

cglnvXzitOQ

Sally Struthers
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:00 PM
I don't go to moves anymore just because I don't like to deal with crowds, kids, and crazies.

plantman
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:11 PM
I am not familiar with the US affairs - but is it easy to have guns in Colorado?

Yes it is, thanks to the US second amendment which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You should look up Fast & Furious. We have a president who is alledged to have participated in what is known as 'GunWalking'....Intentionally allowing weapons to fall into the hands of the Mexican Drug Cartel.

One has to remember, people kill people. Guns can't do it themselves!

Chris 84
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:26 PM
Ugh what kinda stupid parents is that? Bringing their baby to the cinema. :rolleyes:

what? how is it stupid to bring an infant to the cinema? it isn't like stuff like this ever happens. i can't even begin to fathom how you can call the parrents "stupid" for that :unsure:

Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?

Finland has had plenty of shooting incidents also. Other countries that come to mind are Germany,Belgium, The Netherlands

yes, they happen in several places. scotland even had one such event in dunblane at the school, where, as i'm sure everyone is aware by now, andy murray attended. however, a hugely disproportionate amount take place in the usa.

This is due to the total control of the National Rifle Association (NRA) of our politicians. Like every thing else in America making money is the primary goal of some people therefore principles, ethics and even common sense goes out the window. The goal of the NRA is that everyone will own multiple guns therefore don't be surprised if you hear that the solution to this problem is the audience should get guns themselves.:devil:

The easy access to guns is not only affecting the US but also nearby Latin American countries and Mexico where unsavory people from these countries pay US traffickers to buy their guns and take them across the borders. Expect more shootings also in the future because the elected officials are so scared of the NRA as they use this as a political issue to quiet any opposition.:tape: My question though is how many of these random shootings are people willing to accept before they start demanding that the NRA be more responsible and stop fighting against banning high powered semi-automatic guns.

agreed.


Yes it is, thanks to the US second amendment which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You should look up Fast & Furious. We have a president who is alledged to have participated in what is known as 'GunWalking'....Intentionally allowing weapons to fall into the hands of the Mexican Drug Cartel.

One has to remember, people kill people. Guns can't do it themselves!

oh yes, the wonderful US constitution, which was written by a bunch of slave-owning racists. of course, what that amendment sought to do was to protect the right of people to an armed insurrection against the government, where that government was corrupt, acting outwith its powers, etc.

and yes, the old guns don't kill people nonsense. sure, people kill people, and as such, they are punished for it. however, guns make it far easier for maniacs to commit mass murder in a matter of seconds. nobody armed with a baseball bat or a crowbar or even a knife would have any hope of killing and injuring such a substantial number of people in such a short space of time.

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:38 PM
Suspect has been identified as James Holmes, a 24 y.o. medical school dropout at the University of Colorado Denver Medical Campus...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAl5vSLwG_E

Temperenka
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:41 PM
This is horrific. :sobbing: My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

Super Dave
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:43 PM
what? how is it stupid to bring an infant to the cinema? it isn't like stuff like this ever happens. i can't even begin to fathom how you can call the parrents "stupid" for that :unsure:

May have been referring to the fact that it was a midnight screening, late for an infant. But you never know the circumstances...maybe the kid slept all day and he'd be up all night anyway :lol: But overall, I wouldn't take an infant to a midnight movie, either. :shrug:

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:48 PM
First victim named: Jessica Ghawi, a hockey blogger :awww:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/7/20/1342787910066/Jessica-Ghawi-008.jpg

Jessica Ghawi, 24, is the first to be named of those slain during a late-night showing of The Dark Knight Rises in a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/colorado). Ghawi, who wrote under the pen name Jessica Redfield, was a Denver-based blogger who covered hockey.

KSAT news in Ghawi's hometown of San Antonio reported Friday morning Ghawi's parents had confirmed the death. The news station said Ghawi had recently moved from San Antonio to Denver.
The Denver sports station where Ghawi worked tweeted Friday morning (https://twitter.com/1043TheFan/status/226305692015923200) that Ghawi had been killed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/20/aurora-shooting-the-victims-jessica-ghawi?intcmp=239

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Her Twitter is still up: https://twitter.com/JessicaRedfield?tw_i=226305692015923200&tw_p=tweetembed

Her last Tweets were a convo with someone who was missing out on the movie... She said the movie to start in 20 minutes...

Halepsova
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:08 PM
May have been referring to the fact that it was a midnight screening, late for an infant. But you never know the circumstances...maybe the kid slept all day and he'd be up all night anyway :lol: But overall, I wouldn't take an infant to a midnight movie, either. :shrug:

Also the fact that the infant's cry will only annoy people at the cinema. I know a lot of family do it on a regular basis. Still, it's stupid. If you can't afford the babysitter while you wanna see a movie, rent a DVD.

Tennis Fool
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:19 PM
Not funny, but Jessica Ghawi (Redfield) seemed to living something out of Final Destination. She just missed getting shot at Eaton Centre shootings in Toronto last month, and wrote about the experience: http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/late-night-thoughts-on-the-eaton-center-shooting/

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/colorado-shooting-victim-survived-toronto-eaton-centre-shooting-1.886613

JN
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:27 PM
Yes it is, thanks to the US second amendment which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You should look up Fast & Furious. We have a president who is alledged to have participated in what is known as 'GunWalking'....Intentionally allowing weapons to fall into the hands of the Mexican Drug Cartel.

One has to remember, people kill people. Guns can't do it themselves!

Yes, and his name is George W Bush. Congratulations on being honest for maybe the 1st time in your adult life.

MaBaker
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Just too horrible..
and yes, the old guns don't kill people nonsense. sure, people kill people, and as such, they are punished for it. however, guns make it far easier for maniacs to commit mass murder in a matter of seconds. nobody armed with a baseball bat or a crowbar or even a knife would have any hope of killing and injuring such a substantial number of people in such a short space of time.
Exactly.

RenaSlam.
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:40 PM
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/aurora-colorado-mall-shooting-town-center-century-16/

I quite like Mayor Bloomberg's sentiments:

Bloomberg also had strong words for both men running for the office of President of the United States: “You know, soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg said, “[U]But maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”[/U

Horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and everyone involved.

Pump-it-UP
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:43 PM
They just wanted to see a movie.

I've been to so many midnight premieres, so to even think about what those people experienced is heart-wrenching. This hit me pretty hard, and I live on the other side of the country.

+1. :sad:

ptkten
Jul 20th, 2012, 05:49 PM
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/aurora-colorado-mall-shooting-town-center-century-16/

I quite like Mayor Bloomberg's sentiments:

Bloomberg also had strong words for both men running for the office of President of the United States: “You know, soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg said, “[U]But maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”[/U

Horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and everyone involved.

Yep, Bloomberg has always been spot on on the issue of gun control. There's no ignoring the fact that we have the highest gun crime rate in the Western world. The sad thing is these gun nuts will just say it could have been prevented if everyone in the theater had a gun. I don't know how they rationally think that but they do.

I'm not sure gun control would have worked in this instance when you have an absolute crazy person but there's still a trend that can't be denied.

Sad and scary day for the country, my thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

Mynarco
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:08 PM
I just don't understand why second amendment still stands in the US. It should be repealed like 50 years ago.

Monzanator
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:08 PM
The price of freedom is very high indeed. I never find it surprising that 8 of 10 random mass shootings happens in the USA :shrug:

Halepsova
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:16 PM
Not funny, but Jessica Ghawi (Redfield) seemed to living something out of Final Destination. She just missed getting shot at Eaton Centre shootings in Toronto last month, and wrote about the experience: http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/late-night-thoughts-on-the-eaton-center-shooting/

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/colorado-shooting-victim-survived-toronto-eaton-centre-shooting-1.886613

That's just sad. To think about how she was thinking last night. :sad:

tennisrules
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:22 PM
Sickening tragedy. Nothing but hugs and support to the victims' families and friends. The thought of being in a theater with only two or three ways out and some maniac is standing at the front spraying bullets is utterly terrifying. I honestly don't know how I would have reacted.

Sadly, nothing would have prevented this loon from getting a gun. He only had a couple of minor traffic violations on his record and he probably would have passed all background checks. What's more troubling is where he got the gas mask and tear gas from. Where in the world do you get tear gas and a gas mask from? Also, the explosives (unless he knew how to build them himself).

Also, his mother told ABC News that she wasn't surprised her son was involved. So, obviously, there is more going on here than what we know.

Monica_Rules
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:28 PM
This is shocking. Why would somebody do this?

I have on occasion been in the cinema and thought 'Oh what if someone came in here and started shooting' and brushed it off as a silly comment.

Hurley
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:30 PM
I just don't understand why second amendment still stands in the US. It should be repealed like 50 years ago.

See plantman's post (I obviously have him on Ignore but it was quoted) and multiply him times a bajillion people in the US. Most slightly smarter than him.

tennis-insomniac
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:31 PM
These kind of things have happened too regularly in US. It's shocking and very sad, especially for the lives that had lost.

Guns should be outlawed and this confirms why. I wish everyone will take actions together and stop this things from happening again.

King Halep
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:44 PM
oh please, not another gun debate. all the lizards from political thread will come in and spam their links to pro-gun websites

Mynarco
Jul 20th, 2012, 06:49 PM
See plantman's post (I obviously have him on Ignore but it was quoted) and multiply him times a bajillion people in the US. Most slightly smarter than him.

These people disgust me, I know I am wrong, but...

delicatecutter
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:13 PM
I have seen it all. :help:

edificio
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:15 PM
Why do these things always happen in the U.S.? I mean, aside from Oslo, all the massacres have been there. Is it really that easy to get a gun and explosives?

Ever heard of Dunblane, the École Polytechnique in Montreal, the Moscow Theatre hostage attack?

-------------

Tragedy. Hard to say anything else.

Monzanator
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:25 PM
Any country with proper snowfalls fills that criteria ;) I guess you've never heard of Finland? :sobbing: And I bet living in Minnesota can feel like living in Finland sometimes? :lol:

Jane Lane
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:29 PM
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/20/aurora-colorado-mall-shooting-town-center-century-16/

I quite like Mayor Bloomberg's sentiments:

Bloomberg also had strong words for both men running for the office of President of the United States: “You know, soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg said, “[U]But maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”[/U

Horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and everyone involved.

Get it, Bloomie. :worship: NY, especially the city, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I wish I could say the same for other areas.

Vlover
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:31 PM
One has to remember, people kill people. Guns can't do it themselves!
I see it didn't take long for the Obama haters to blame him for this. I'm very interested in ditto heads conspiracy theory so please explain.

So it is ok for all psychopaths to buy semi-automatic weapons if they choose.:rolleyes: Let's hope a psychopath doesn't show up with his semi-automatic at the GOP convention and shoot people considering Scott said it is ok to bring your guns.:( How many mass shootings do we need to have before you idiot like you realiaze there is a problem and allowing gun manufactures (NRA)to increase their profits under the disguise of the 2nd amendment is not the solution.

Optima
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:42 PM
^ For the love of God, please, someone turn that thing off.

Heartbroken for the victims and their families... :sad:

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 20th, 2012, 07:55 PM
I see someone has decided to prove beyond all doubt that gun people are whack jobs in a thread about a whack job with a gun murdering people. Nice.


Sympathies and prayers with victims and their families.

mykarma
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:03 PM
:O Crazy maniacs again? Awful
But I giggled at people thinking it was special effect :sobbing:
DAMN

M.S.F
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:06 PM
The alleged shooter, James Eagan Holmes (born December 13, 1987), was taken into police custody at the scene. He was found next to his car in the theater parking lot with his weapons, and did not resist arrest.

Holmes was raised in San Diego, California. He graduated from San Diego-based Westview High School in 2006 and obtained an undergraduate degree in neuroscience from University of California, Riverside in 2010. Holmes had difficulty finding a job after obtaining his masters. He then tried to obtain a PhD in neuroscience from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora but dropped out in June 2012.

Acquaintances described Holmes as a generally pleasant person and as a "really smart" student who showed no signs of violence. He was also described as an introverted and shy person, and as strongly involved in his local church.

So scary and that girl on twitter :sad:
Time for the US to change gun laws in every state?

Viktymise
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:08 PM
Trust a thread like this to bring out the resident TF crazies. :facepalm:

Such a horrible, scary tragedy, and how guns are still legal in the US is one of life's great absurdities.

mykarma
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Trust a thread like this to bring out the resident TF crazies. :facepalm:

Such a horrible, scary tragedy, and how guns are still legal in the US is one of life's great absurdities.
Thank goodness the terrorist wasn't a Muslim. 71 people shot and people still attempting to defend these stupid gun laws. Anything to make a dollar.

Certinfy
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:40 PM
Absolutely sickening.

Craig.
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:45 PM
They just wanted to see a movie...

I legit wanna cry.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:51 PM
My heart goes out to all the victims man...very very sad. Its a shame people can't even enjoy going to the movies because some disturbed asshole wants to take the lives of innocent victims because their life if F'ed up. This is a sign that there needs to be better monitoring and a strict process of buying guns in this country. Its way too easy for just some ANYBODY to get a gun now.

M.S.F
Jul 20th, 2012, 11:57 PM
I hope the decision makers in the US don't think like saint2 :tape:

Doully
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:44 AM
Trust a thread like this to bring out the resident TF crazies. :facepalm:

Such a horrible, scary tragedy, and how guns are still legal in the US is one of life's great absurdities.

Ditto. A horrible and frankly terrifying incident. Guns legit scare me and I'm so glad I live in a country where gun-related crime is very scarce these days.

Saint2 has broken my ignore list virginity. Cannot even begin to deal with people like that.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:12 AM
Ditto. A horrible and frankly terrifying incident. Guns legit scare me and I'm so glad I live in a country where gun-related crime is very scarce these days.

Saint2 has broken my ignore list virginity. Cannot even begin to deal with people like that.

You are so lucky..unfortunately as you can see from the thread, its some people who just GOTTA have em....if not jeopardizing too much of their "rights" :rolleyes:

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:14 AM
If you want to talk about the evils of cars, start a thread. This is about a horrible tragedy as a result of gun violence.

Anyone know how to ignore someone using the App?

Charlatan
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:25 AM
The price of freedom is very high indeed. I never find it surprising that 8 of 10 random mass shootings happens in the USA :shrug:

Right...:sad: Heart and Prayers to the victims and their family

saint2, please change your name to freak2 :facepalm:

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:32 AM
If you want to talk about the evils of cars, start a thread. This is about a horrible tragedy as a result of gun violence.

Anyone know how to ignore someone using the App?
Thank you, saint is an idiot.

Expat
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:38 AM
Gun rights are needed. When there is a riot in the city and the police is fielding 1000 calls per minute you better have guns when your daughter's safety is on the line.

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:05 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html

The murders—it dignifies them to call them a “tragedy”—in Aurora, Colorado, have hit us all hard, though the grief of the friends and families of the victims is unimaginable. Still, it hits home, or someplace worse than home, for any parent who (as I did, as so many did) had a kid at one of the many midnight screenings of the new Batman movie last night, they having gone to see it the moment it opened. Once again, as so often before, the unthinkable news is disassembled, piece by piece, into its heartbreaking parts. After the Virginia Tech shooting, the horrifying detail, as I wrote at the time, was that the cell phones were still ringing in the pockets of the dead children as their parents tried to call them. In Colorado, you can’t expunge the knowledge of the sudden turn from pleasure to horror that those children experienced. As the smoke bomb went off, some of the kids inside apparently thought that it was a special effect, part of the fun, until they began to see “people holding themselves.” According to the Aurora police, the suspect, James Holmes, who is twenty-four, was carrying both a rifle and a handgun. The bullets were fired so freely that they penetrated the wall separating one movie theatre in a multiplex to devastate people in the next one.

The truth is made worse by the reality that no one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.

The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue. Does anyone even remember any longer last July’s gun massacre, those birthday-party killings in Texas, when an estranged husband murdered his wife and most of her family, leaving six dead?

But nothing changes: the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. (Jill Lepore wrote about the history of the Second Amendment in The New Yorker recently.) Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed. For all the good work the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence tries to do, nothing changes. On the last episode of Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom,” Jeff Daniels’s character, in a scene set shortly before the Gabrielle Giffords gun massacre, was thought to display political courage by showing, accurately enough, that it’s a lie to say that Barack Obama is in any way in favor of gun control. This was said in Obama’s defense.

Only in America. Every country has, along with its core civilities and traditions, some kind of inner madness, a belief so irrational that even death and destruction cannot alter it. In Europe not long ago it was the belief that “honor” of the nation was so important that any insult to it had to be avenged by millions of lives. In America, it has been, for so long now, the belief that guns designed to kill people indifferently and in great numbers can be widely available and not have it end with people being killed, indifferently and in great numbers. The argument has gotten dully repetitive: How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom to have guns, or rather to have guns that make us feel free? You can only shake your head and maybe cry a little. “Gun Crazy” is the title of one the best films about the American romance with violence. And gun-crazy we remain.

The horror is touched, inflected, by the way that the killings now intertwine with the everyday details of our lives. The killings will go on; the cell phones in the pockets of dead children will continue to ring; and now parents can be a little frightened every time their kids go to a midnight screening of a movie designed to show them what stylized fun violence can be, in the hands of the right American moviemaker. Of course, there have been shootings at school, too. We’re a nation of special effects.

Tennis Fool
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:23 AM
Apparently the shooter had dyed his hair red and thought of himself as The Joker:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-joker

His apartment was also booby trapped:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/20/theater-shooting-gunman-just-firing-picking-random-people/?on.cnn=3

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:46 AM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/07/the_body_count.html

I've never held a handgun in my life. I did some rifle target shooting with the ROTC in college. That's it with me and firearms. Does this make me less of an American? I think handguns are dangerous, and the more people who walk around carrying them the more dangerous they are. I also don't understand why civilians need to possess AR-15 assault rifles, such as the one used by James Holmes in Colorado. They fire 10 shots at a time, and are intended for combat use. In civilian hands, they are by definition weapons of slaughter. Do you need one in your home?

About 47% of the American population has a gun in their home. About 49% support the right to own guns, and 46% support restricting gun ownership. We all know the arguments on both sides. Debate gets us nowhere. After James Holmes opened fire in Aurora, the discussion started all over again. I couldn't even bring myself to tune in cable news. It would be the usual assortment of talking heads, repeating the usual arguments. Blah, blah, blah.

The theory is that gun ownership makes us safer. That doesn't seem to be working out for us. The body count rises. In Chicago we have a murder wave going on. Gun ownership doesn't bring safety when both sides are shooting at each other. Nationally, most guns fired in homes kill people who live there, including children, and do not kill home invaders. The death toll in Aurora only represented half the daily U.S. average in deaths by gunfire. In a year, guns murdered 468 people in Australia, England, Germany and in Canada put together, and 9,484 in the United States.

Here is a record of mass shootings in the United States since 2005. It is 62 pages long. It was compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. I went to university with Jim Brady, and we were friends. He's spent the years since 1981 in a wheelchair. He was shot by John Hinckley, Jr., the flywheel who thought assassinating President Reagan would impress Jodie Foster. Of course he was crazy. I'll go out on a limb here and say James Holmes must have been crazy, too. When you think it is necessary for you to open fire and murder innocent people in a movie theater, what else does that make you?

True, there is no way we can defend ourselves against insane shooters. But I suspect Australia, England, Germany and Canada have about the same percentage of crazy people that we do. It's just that they can't get their hands on firearms so easily. Nor do they sell assault rifles over the counter in those nations.

You know what? The hell with it. I'm tired of repeating the obvious. I know with a dread certainty that I will change nobody's mind. I will hear conspiracy theories from those who fear the government, I will hear about the need to raise a militia, and I will hear nothing about how 9,484 corpses in a year has helped anything. That is a high price to pay. What depresses me is that half of my fellow countrymen are prepared to pay it.

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:49 AM
Both of the articles I posted make the point that the defense to our "right to bear arms" comes at the cost of all of the victims of the litany of mass school shootings.

If everyone else can see it...why can't morons (i.e. plantman IQ and one standard deviation in either direction)? :scratch:

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:54 AM
Both of the articles I posted make the point that the defense to our "right to bear arms" comes at the cost of all of the victims of the litany of mass school shootings.

If everyone else can see it...why can't morons (i.e. plantman IQ and one standard deviation in either direction)? :scratch:

Are you drinking again?:lol:

Who's this everyone else you speak of. Jjust posted this....

About 47% of the American population has a gun in their home. About 49% support the right to own guns, and 46% support restricting gun ownership.

That's a lot of proud gun owners. Deal with it!

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:03 AM
Are you drinking again?:lol:

Who's this everyone else you speak of. Just posted this....

About 47% of the American population has a gun in their home. About 49% support the right to own guns, and 46% support restricting gun ownership.

That's a lot of proud gun owners. Deal with it!

Once upon a time you'd find the same % of people against abolishing slavery. Also gun ownership has increased by over 6,000% since 1980, as gun manufacturers so love to brag. Historically the US was one of the least armed countries in which owning guns was legal by genpap, and the original big gun people were (and still are) white supremacists. If it weren't for gun manufacturers (one branch of the Merchants of Death) all but hunting rifles would have been outlawed after Hinkley.

You deal with the fact that you're a puppet of gun companies and the Klan.

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:07 AM
Once upon a time you'd find the same % of people against abolishing slavery. Also gun ownership has increased by over 6,000% since 1980, as gun manufacturers so love to brag. Historically the US was one of the least armed countries in which owning guns was legal by genpap, and the original big gun people were (and still are) white supremacists. If it weren't for gun manufacturers (one branch of the Merchants of Death) all but hunting rifles would have been outlawed after Hinkley.

You deal with the fact that you're a puppet of gun companies and the Klan.

Running to the ol' slavery argument! PRICELESS:lol:

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:08 AM
How many people have died from someone brandishing a Sunday newspaper? Talk about an absurd comparison!

Someone getting drunk and getting behind the wheel may very well be defined as an accident. In that ACCIDENT where someone is killed, the individual faces consequences as well.

Again...Sunday paper....OMFG!:lol:

The original argument was made simply regarding cars.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is ILLEGAL. If you kill someone will doing so, it's manslaughter.

So you're arguing that because something that is ILLEGAL can result in death, guns shouldn't be illegal.

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:14 AM
The original argument was made simply regarding cars.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is ILLEGAL. If you kill someone will doing so, it's manslaughter.

So you're arguing that because something that is ILLEGAL can result in death, guns shouldn't be illegal.

You're arguing that something that isn't illegal, but can result in a death, should be made illegal because of some crazed lunatic.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:24 AM
Bane is not happy with his portrayal in the movie?

But seriously, why would anyone do something like that?


A pathology expert was interviewed on tv - he said criminals like that are at war with the world because of personal failings in themselves that they cannot accept. Here, the suspect graduated from school, supposedly could only find a job at McDonald's, was underemployed, and felt like a complete failure. Therefore, he ''raises'' himself by attacking vulnerable people like minorities, women, and young children and sees himself elevated in this fashion. Then, when armed cops appear he surrenders like a puppy with his tail between his legs. Obviously, the guy has a sick mind and terribly low self esteem.

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:31 AM
Get it, Bloomie. :worship: NY, especially the city, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I wish I could say the same for other areas.

Those strict gun laws are really working well for the folks of New York.

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map/

Average homicides per year...494 :eek:

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:38 AM
He wasn't remotely reasonable, and the comparison between cars and guns is as absurd as it's tiresome. Based on this argument, because technically, if you're really committed, you can beat someone to death with the Sunday paper, in order to justify banning guns, you have to ban the Sunday paper.

The fact that the purpose of guns is to kill things, and they appeal predominantly to people that like the idea of killing things (no matter their hero fantasies only having them kill "bad" guys), negates the argument. The # of people that die in car accidents is irrelevant because they were ACCIDENTS. Someone walking into a theater with a gun and opening fire on unsuspecting people was not an accident.

By the way, brass knuckles are illegal.

Plantman and reasonable is an oxymoron.

Expat
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:42 AM
Once upon a time you'd find the same % of people against abolishing slavery. Also gun ownership has increased by over 6,000% since 1980, as gun manufacturers so love to brag. Historically the US was one of the least armed countries in which owning guns was legal by genpap, and the original big gun people were (and still are) white supremacists. If it weren't for gun manufacturers (one branch of the Merchants of Death) all but hunting rifles would have been outlawed after Hinkley.

You deal with the fact that you're a puppet of gun companies and the Klan.

You do realize that the first gun control laws in the US were brought about so as to ensure that blacks could not own guns and defend themselves after being freed from slavery.

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 05:07 AM
Plantman [...] is a[...]moron.

Another excellent point. :oh:

Number19
Jul 21st, 2012, 05:07 AM
That's a lot of proud gun owners asshole. Deal with it!

Proud. It seems like an odd word to use in this context. If the context is that gun ownership is about self-defense. Why is there pride in that? Do women feel proud that they have to walk with mace in their purse? Seems more likely the use of the word is to compensate for what it really is - fearful. But that is a word of weakness while proud is a word of strength. That of course is if gun ownership is only about self-defense. But the "deal with it" somehow makes me think not.

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 05:10 AM
Once upon a time you'd find the same % of people against abolishing slavery. Also gun ownership has increased by over 6,000% since 1980, as gun manufacturers so love to brag. Historically the US was one of the least armed countries in which owning guns was legal by genpap, and the original big gun people were (and still are) white supremacists. If it weren't for gun manufacturers (one branch of the Merchants of Death) all but hunting rifles would have been outlawed after Hinkley.

You deal with the fact that you're a puppet of gun companies and the Klan.

Unfortunately you quoted him :sobbing: but his response just underscores how he has no reading comprehension. So X% support guns or whatever. Whoopee. Too bad that has nothing to do with if "everyone else" can see "the point that the defense to our 'right to bear arms' comes at the cost of all of the victims of the litany of mass school shootings." The answer for gun supporters, apparently, is YES and THEY DON'T CARE. Which is why plantman and the rest of his ilk, most of whom are more logical (sadly), are dicks.

So, again, plantman answering questions no one asked. If he tried to actually respond to people, he really wouldn't like what he'd have to say. :oh:

Hurley
Jul 21st, 2012, 05:22 AM
Dont feed the troll

Don't quote the trolls!

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 05:29 AM
Don't quote the trolls!

I'll try to remember your advice when I consider quoting you next time!:lol:

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 06:14 AM
Both of the articles I posted make the point that the defense to our "right to bear arms" comes at the cost of all of the victims of the litany of mass school shootings.

If everyone else can see it...why can't morons (i.e. plantman IQ and one standard deviation in either direction)? :scratch:

What can I say....I hear you're lurking and hungry!

Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to say Friday whether Obama would call for a further review of gun-safety laws, saying only that the president “believes that we need to take common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them.”

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/07/20/2265421/obama-romney-suspend-campaigning.html#storylink=cpy

Barry and I agree on something.

MaBaker
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:45 AM
It's amazing how some people can make a mockery out of '12 dead, 50 injured' thread. Well done.

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 21st, 2012, 11:53 AM
You do realize that the first gun control laws in the US were brought about so as to ensure that blacks could not own guns and defend themselves after being freed from slavery.

Yes, I do. The National Rifle Association, and have no doubt today their clinging to their guns now is still deeply entrenched in racism. Hence my mentioning the Klan.

Kon.
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:16 PM
This is horrible and disgusting.
I'm thinking they just wanted to watch the movie and it makes it all the more tragic.

Cajka
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:23 PM
Proud. It seems like an odd word to use in this context.

It's the mindset of a six years old boy. He still believes that guns are toys.

CrossCourt~Rally
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:24 PM
It's amazing how some people can make a mockery out of '12 dead, 50 injured' thread. Well done.

I agree, and it's 58 injured.

And people wonder why the "political" section of this site was shut down. :help:

Simugna Help
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:32 PM
Eh, saint2 is inherently right. Environmental and health costs of everyone having access to cars are too high in the long run. He is too radical with expressing his opinions though.

Of course, car and oil industries would never allow for cars to be banned, so any discussion about the subject is moot.

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:39 PM
Eh, saint2 is inherently right. Environmental and health costs of everyone having access to cars are too high in the long run. He is too radical with expressing his opinions though.

Of course, car and oil industries would never allow for cars to be banned, so any discussion about the subject is moot.



Then open a thread about it. His entire diatribe in this thread was to derail open discussions on gun issues, not because he gives a damn about the negative impact of cars.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 21st, 2012, 12:40 PM
Gun rights are needed. When there is a riot in the city and the police is fielding 1000 calls per minute you better have guns when your daughter's safety is on the line.

Ok and when was the last time a citizen needed a gun due to a riot????? lol wow

JN
Jul 21st, 2012, 01:48 PM
I agree, and it's 58 injured.

And people wonder why the "political" section of this site was shut down. :help:

We're doing such a good job of marginalizing Plantman over in the US Political thread, that he's had no choice but to branch out with his exclusive brand of stupid. Sorry for leaving the gate open. :hug:

Monzanator
Jul 21st, 2012, 02:34 PM
So, this Homes guy used a combat rifle which quite frankly should be never available to any individual, but yeah, USA is a different country after all. I suspect half of the US population will shoot themselves down along the years. Unless a group of lunatics walks on the street and shoots thousands of innocent people nothing will change. Or perhaps one can target the NRA rednecks to finally open some eyes :lol: Sorry, but no one is to blame but for the Americans themselves, there's no need for crying and praying for the victims. If a country allows a random guy to buy four guns without a single permission including a combat rifle and 6,000 cartridges without any monitoring, then I'm sorry. You may as well shoot yourselves all over the place. And this is supposedly the biggest powerhouse in the world? Gimme a break!

I've read about the AR-15 rifle and whoever voted against Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act should be given a taste of this rifle. USA needs another Waco, a tragedy brought upon the country by it's own people.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:08 PM
So, this Homes guy used a combat rifle which quite frankly should be never available to any individual, but yeah, USA is a different country after all. I suspect half of the US population will shoot themselves down along the years. Unless a group of lunatics walks on the street and shoots thousands of innocent people nothing will change. Or perhaps one can target the NRA rednecks to finally open some eyes :lol: Sorry, but no one is to blame but for the Americans themselves, there's no need for crying and praying for the victims. If a country allows a random guy to buy four guns without a single permission including a combat rifle and 6,000 cartridges without any monitoring, then I'm sorry. You may as well shoot yourselves all over the place. And this is supposedly the biggest powerhouse in the world? Gimme a break!

I've read about the AR-15 rifle and whoever voted against Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act should be given a taste of this rifle. USA needs another Waco, a tragedy brought upon the country by it's own people.
So true and if a Muslim kills one person the same people want to blame all Muslims.

Good old boy Williamser would have been in here posting the article immediately but because it was a white American no signs of him.

Raiden
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:22 PM
Ok and when was the last time a citizen needed a gun due to a riot?????1992, Los Angeles.

The riot was spreading upwards unhindered until it stopped dead on it's tracks around in the area around Koreatown. The government failed to do it's job of protecting the people of the city (the cops had abandoned the city except rich areas like Hollywood). It was the civilian-but-armed citizenry of Koreatown who succeeded in stopping the spread of the riot. And that was only because the Koreans had armed themselves en-masse (distributed guns to each other on short notice)
.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:27 PM
1992, Los Angeles.

The riot was spreading upwards unhindered until it stopped dead on it's tracks around the area south of Koreatown. The government failed to do it's job of protecting (the cops had abandoned the city except rich areas like Hollywood). Nevertheless it was the civilian citizenry of Koreatown who succeeded in stopping the spread of the riot. And that was only because the Koreans had armed themselves en-masse (distributed guns to each other on short notice).
What a bunch of bullshit and I know you don't actually believe that.

Raiden
Jul 21st, 2012, 03:38 PM
^ Well I'm sure Arsenio Hall's and others' call for calm must have helped also, no doubt.

In any case, what remains undeniable is that it wasn't stopped by the only side that you want to be armed. Whether you accept it or not the LAPD were part of the problem only (not part of the solution).

Raiden
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:05 PM
By the way since too many of these instances involve perpetrators who are rather young, so why not impose (not a total ban but) an age-restriction when buying firearms. Make the limit around 25 years old. That way the 2nd amendment is preserved and at the same time safety is increased. And age discrimination for such circumstance is legit (just like alcohol and driving permits). That won't guarantee that a gun won't fall in the hands of a boy, but it nevertheless would make it harder to play Rambo, or in this case Batman.

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:19 PM
Such a shame. RIP :sad: That makes me weep for humanity.
They were innocent FFS !

Seriously, I can't believe how it's easy to get a gun in America. Plantman :weirdo: He must be a troll, I can't explain it otherwise.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:24 PM
^ Well I'm sure Arsenio Hall's and others' call for calm must have helped also, no doubt.

In any case, what remains undeniable is that it wasn't stopped by the only side that you want to be armed. Whether you accept it or not the LAPD were part of the problem only (not part of the solution).
Which is quite different from your initial post that claimed you being armed would have protected your daughter during a riot. The riots ended because of community leaders and dialogue.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:26 PM
Such a shame. RIP :sad: That makes me weep for humanity.
They were innocent FFS !

Seriously, I can't believe how it's easy to get a gun in America. Plantman :weirdo: He must be a troll, I can't explain it otherwise.
This is Plantman's standard MO.

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:31 PM
This is Plantman's standard MO.

Exactly ! His beliefs and opinions are scary tbh. :o

Ugh I just read one of the victims' twitter (Jessica)... her last tweet :sad: it breaks my heart.

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:40 PM
Such a shame. RIP :sad: That makes me weep for humanity.
They were innocent FFS !

Seriously, I can't believe how it's easy to get a gun in America. Plantman :weirdo: He must be a troll, I can't explain it otherwise.

For your reading pleasure.......

Gun control or carry permits won't stop mass murder

If one thing is predictable about mass shootings, however, is that they will spark arguments from gun control advocates and gun rights groups alike. Both sides of the gun issue will probably view this tragedy as one more example of why more or less gun control is the answer ... and both sides will be wrong.

Tighter restrictions on gun purchasing -- for example, eliminating multiple gun sales and closing the gun-show loophole -- may help reduce America's gun violence problem generally, but mass murder is unlike most other forms of violent conflict.

News: Shooting turns theater into surreal horror -- 'This is real'

Mass killers are determined, deliberate and dead-set on murder. They plan methodically to execute their victims, finding the means no matter what laws or other impediments the state attempts to place in their way. To them, the will to kill cannot be denied.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/fox-mass-murder/index.html

plantman
Jul 21st, 2012, 04:44 PM
This is Plantman's standard MO.

This type of comment from you is your typical MO.

Carry on Boo

JN
Jul 21st, 2012, 06:06 PM
Such a shame. RIP :sad: That makes me weep for humanity.
They were innocent FFS !

Seriously, I can't believe how it's easy to get a gun in America. Plantman :weirdo: He must be a troll, I can't explain it otherwise.

And a failed one, at that. They no longer invite him to conventions for fear he'll destroy a way of life that's taken decades to perfect. Vikapower even avoids making eye contact with him. :help:

tennisrules
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:00 PM
Out of all this carnage, a heroic story:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981488017

A 19-year-old man stepped up when he saw a young mother and her children in danger the night of the Batman premier theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Jarell Brooks is by all accounts a hero, but he doesn't want you to think of him that way. However, he very possibly saved three lives early Friday morning, and for that, he deserves the highest praise one can get.

Brooks and Patricia Legarreta, the woman whose life he saved, reunited on Good Morning America yesterday to talk about their experiences. Legarreta said she doesn't remember everything that happened but is aware that without Brooks, she and her children would not be alive today.


Brooks said that he didn't know that James Eagan Holmes had entered the theater until he saw and heard the gunshots because he was just six rows from back of the theater. He obviously didn't realize that Legarreta's boyfriend (now fiancé), Jamie Rohrs, had run out after leaving four-month-old Ethan on the floor after panicking. All he saw during the chaos and the smoke was a woman struggling to get her scared children out of harm's way.

Legarreta's four-year-old daughter, Azeria, was asleep when the shooting began, so when she woke up, she was disoriented. She fell in the process of trying to escape because of that, and Legarreta described tearfully how she did what she could to get her out. "Just blocking her, shoving her, just making sure she's not getting hurt," she said, obviously distraught and shaken at the thought of how close she came to losing her children that night.

Brooks was on his way out the door and was at the end of the aisle when he saw her. "My kids!" she yelled, and the teenager knew what he had to do.

"My goal was to get this family out, without getting hit myself. I managed to do one." Both he and Legarreta were hit by the gunman's bullets.

Meanwhile, Jamie Rohrs, Legarretas' boyfriend, was nowhere to be found. He fled the scene after hiding the baby under a seat near his girlfriend after jumping over the balcony and running around. He told TV cameras that when Ethan began crying, his first thought was that the gunman would come and get him, so he put his child on the floor and left the three people he loves the most to be saved by a total and complete stranger.

Jarell Brooks is a true hero. He did the right thing, risked his life to save someone else's and he should be commended for it. Like all of the victims, he is struggling with the reality of what happened and how close he came to dying that night.

"I'm not the kind of person who would let them be in that situation and me selfishly trying to get myself out of the equation," he told TV reporters, "All she's trying to do is protect her kids, so I felt like if I could get her out, then maybe, I would have gotten out maybe I wouldn't, as long as I knew she was OK I was alright."

Her boyfriend had jumped in a car after fleeing the chaos, supposedly to drive back there to pick them up to take them to the hospital, according to a person named Jesse Rohrs, who identified himself as his brother. However, that story simply doesn't wash because Rohrs had left the building before she got injured. In one comment on a previous story, Jesse said, "He went to get the truck to take her to the hospital."

The question here is, why leave her side to begin with? Why leave his family to go running outside to get the truck if she wasn't even injured at the time he left? She did not become injured until Brooks had come to her aid and both got hit near the door.

In the heat of the moment, Patricia Legarreta depended on a total stranger to save her life during a fatal theater shooting, and not the man she now intends to marry.

Jarell Brooks, the world commends you for your selfless bravery.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:29 PM
Out of all this carnage, a heroic story:

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981488017
That makes sense because I was listening to the boy friend today on an interview and he was emotional and crying while the woman just sat there saying nothing. I came in on the middle of the interview and couldn't figure out what was going on but knew something was weird about the interview and was wondering how the man got out of the theater and got in his truck while the rest of the family was still in the theater. He was talking about how he wouldn't have been able to live if his family didn't make it. Now it makes sense the fvcking coward left his fiance and babies to save his own life. If I'm not mistaken the women got shot in the leg and was still trying to save her babies. I hope she gives him the boot never to see him again.

After going online this is same guy that I saw this morning holding his baby while being interviewed. :rolleyes: Here's a total stranger that gets shot trying to save his children. thank goodness all of them survived.

gentenaire
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:30 PM
^
why bring a 4 year old to see an adult movie at midnight?

tennisrules
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:35 PM
That makes sense because I was listening to the boy friend today on an interview and he was emotional and crying while the woman just sat there saying nothing. I came in on the middle of the interview and couldn't figure out what was going on but knew something was weird about the interview and was wondering how the man got out of the theater and got in his truck while the rest of the family was still in the theater. He was talking about how he wouldn't have been able to live if his family didn't make it. How it makes sense the fvcking coward left his fiance and babies to save his own life. If I'm not mistaken the women got shot in the leg and was still trying to save her babies. I hope she gives him the boot never to see him again.

I think he proposed to her in the hospital and she said yes. :facepalm:

She should marry Jarell instead - he almost gave up his life to save a total stranger.

Too bad the cowardly fiance is getting more press than Jarell Brooks.

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:36 PM
That makes sense because I was listening to the boy friend today on an interview and he was emotional and crying while the woman just sat there saying nothing. I came in on the middle of the interview and couldn't figure out what was going on but knew something was weird about the interview and was wondering how the man got out of the theater and got in his truck while the rest of the family was still in the theater. He was talking about how he wouldn't have been able to live if his family didn't make it. How it makes sense the fvcking coward left his fiance and babies to save his own life. If I'm not mistaken the women got shot in the leg and was still trying to save her babies. I hope she gives him the boot never to see him again.

Not to excuse him at all (I mean it was his family... christ), but in these moments, you can't even comprehend what's happening and your body just moves, and you don't even realize it. Sometimes you are a coward, sometimes you are just reckless. It's really extreme, I guess it was the survival instinct.

I have witnessed an attempted murder right in front of me, and I don't even know what the hell happened, that poor woman's scream is impossible to forget, anyway I saw/heard it, and the dude was running away, and.. I suddenly put my bag on the ground and ran after him without even thinking. He was armed, I was not. I have never been more thankful in my life that I was actually out of shape.
It was totally reckless.

But yeah, like I said, it was still his family so.... maybe his body acted before he actually thought? But then some parents actually protect their kids before even thinking too.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:46 PM
Not to excuse him at all (I mean it was his family... christ), but in these moments, you can't even comprehend what's happening and your body just moves, and you don't even realize it. Sometimes you are a coward, sometimes you are just reckless. It's really extreme, I guess it was the survival instinct.

I have witnessed an attempted murder right in front of me, and I don't even know what the hell happened, that poor woman's scream is impossible to forget, anyway I saw/heard it, and the dude was running away, and.. I suddenly put my bag on the ground and ran after him without even thinking. He was armed, I was not. I have never been more thankful in my life that I was actually out of shape.
It was totally reckless.

But yeah, like I said, it was still his family so.... maybe his body acted before he actually thought? But then some parents actually protect their kids before even thinking too.
Sorry Debby but he's a fvcking coward. What man has the know it all to put baby under the seat and leaves. Parental instinct for a parent is to save a child and he did just the opposite of what you did. His ass remembered where his truck was so he was thinking. He said something to the effect that if his kids made it he didn't want them to be orphans. Here's a young kid that doesn't even know them that was more humanistic than than the father. I don't know a man that wouldn't try to save his family. I saw many interviews of boyfriends, brothers, uncles taking about how the laid on top of the women to shield them and at the right time got them all to safety. Sorry Debby but that guy is scum. The mom was shot but kept pulling both her children to save their lives and if I knew him I'd never ever speak to him again.

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:50 PM
Sorry Debby but he's a fvcking coward. What man has the know it all to put baby under the seat and leaves. Parental instinct for a parent is to save a child and he did just the opposite of what you did. His ass remembered where his truck was so he was thinking. He said something to the effect that if his kids made it he didn't want them to be orphans. He's a young kid that doesn't even know them that more humanistic than than the father. I don't know a man that wouldn't try to save his family. I saw many interviews of boyfriends, brothers, uncles taking about how the laid on top of the women to shield them and at the right time got them all to safety. Sorry Debby but that guy is scum.

No but yes I agree you know :lol:
I am just trying to understand what the hell went through his head. I think rescuing himself before his own kids is a horrible thing.

"He said something to the effect that if his kids made it he didn't want them to be orphans."
really? :spit: oh my god.... I have no words....

Inger67
Jul 21st, 2012, 07:53 PM
This is such a sad story :sobbing:

Why do shootings like this happen in Colorado? :unsure:

tennisrules
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:05 PM
Not to excuse him at all (I mean it was his family... christ), but in these moments, you can't even comprehend what's happening and your body just moves, and you don't even realize it. Sometimes you are a coward, sometimes you are just reckless. It's really extreme, I guess it was the survival instinct.

I have witnessed an attempted murder right in front of me, and I don't even know what the hell happened, that poor woman's scream is impossible to forget, anyway I saw/heard it, and the dude was running away, and.. I suddenly put my bag on the ground and ran after him without even thinking. He was armed, I was not. I have never been more thankful in my life that I was actually out of shape.
It was totally reckless.

But yeah, like I said, it was still his family so.... maybe his body acted before he actually thought? But then some parents actually protect their kids before even thinking too.

I know that people behave differently, and I know this guy panicked, but shouldn't he have made sure that his g-f didn't have to fend for herself with a 4-month-old and a 4-year-old?

A few of the victims who died, including Alex Sullivan and Matt McQuinn, died because they were shielding their wives (Sullivan's case) or girlfriends (McQuinn's case).

Jarell Brooks was almost out of the theater and went back because he heard the woman screaming for help and screaming for her kids.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:30 PM
I know that people behave differently, and I know this guy panicked, but shouldn't he have made sure that his g-f didn't have to fend for herself with a 4-month-old and a 4-year-old?

A few of the victims who died, including Alex Sullivan and Matt McQuinn, died because they were shielding their wives (Sullivan's case) or girlfriends (McQuinn's case).

Jarell Brooks was almost out of the theater and went back because he heard the woman screaming for help and screaming for her kids.
Not only that but Jarell got shot trying to save this cowards children. What got me is when he said that he put the baby under the seat because he thought the shooter would hear him and come shoot them. Then the mfer jumps over the balcony and leaves them. The mom was shot and still trying to save her babies. No way in hell I could ever be with him again.

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:34 PM
Not only that but Jarell got shot trying to save this cowards children. What got me is when he said that he put the baby under the seat because he thought the shooter would hear him and come shoot them. Then the mfer jumps over the balcony and leaves them. The mom was shot and still trying to save her babies. No way in hell I could ever be with him again.

sorry but I didn't understand that part of the story??? what does it mean? sorry I am a mess today, I didn't understand well some parts of that story :o

but god yes I totally agree about the rest. I would not even be able to ever look at him again.

JN
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:49 PM
I think he proposed to her in the hospital and she said yes. :facepalm:

She should marry Jarell instead - he almost gave up his life to save a total stranger.

Too bad the cowardly fiance is getting more press than Jarell Brooks.

Agreed. Let's put this into perspective:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_jarrell_brooks_kb_120720_wg.jpg
Hero


http://starcasm.net/wp-content/themes/vanity/thumbnail.php?src=http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Jamie_Rohrs_tn.jpg
Coward

debby
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:51 PM
I think he proposed to her in the hospital and she said yes. :facepalm:

She should marry Jarell instead - he almost gave up his life to save a total stranger.

Too bad the cowardly fiance is getting more press than Jarell Brooks.

:speakles: No way. NO WAY.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:52 PM
sorry but I didn't understand that part of the story??? what does it mean? sorry I am a mess today, I didn't understand well some parts of that story :o

but god yes I totally agree about the rest. I would not even be able to ever look at him again.
That part wasn't in the article I saw him on television holding the baby lying and talking about how much he couldn't have lived if it's family hadn't made it. Like I said I didn't see the beginning of the interview I just knew something was weird that way the mom just sat there saying nothing and not responding at all.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:55 PM
I think he proposed to her in the hospital and she said yes. :facepalm:

She should marry Jarell instead - he almost gave up his life to save a total stranger.

Too bad the cowardly fiance is getting more press than Jarell Brooks.
Yeah trying to help him with his guilt and whether they get married or not she'll never forget it and he's shown her who he is.

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:58 PM
Agreed. Let's put this into perspective:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_jarrell_brooks_kb_120720_wg.jpg
Hero


http://starcasm.net/wp-content/themes/vanity/thumbnail.php?src=http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Jamie_Rohrs_tn.jpg
Coward

Damn, Jarrell can be my hero.

tennisrules
Jul 21st, 2012, 09:01 PM
:speakles: No way. NO WAY.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-theater-shooting-victim-engaged-hours-surviving-tragedy/story?id=16827235#.UAsKVqOWySo

A young Colorado mother who survived the mass shooting at a movie theater Friday became engaged to her boyfriend hours after the incident, which left 12 people dead and 58 injured.

"I'm estatic, extremely excited, but at the same time, you have this tragedy, this sadness hanging over," Patricia Legarreta told "Good Morning America" this morning.

Legarreta was attending the sold-out midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" at a mall in Aurora, Colo., with her fiance, her 4-year-old daughter and infant son when suspected gunman James Holmes opened fire on the packed movie theater.

The young mother was hit and was taken to the hospital for treatment, where her boyfriend Jamie Rohrs proposed.

When Holmes, 24, allegedly unloaded four weapons' full of ammunition into the unsuspecting crowd, sheer chaos erupted and people scrambled for the exits.

Legarreta said her daughter fell while they were trying to flee because she had fallen asleep during the movie and was disoriented. Legarreta said she attempted to shield her daughter from the spray of bullets.

"Just blocking her, just shoving her, just making sure she's not getting hurt, just trying to keep her down," Legarreta said, through tears. "Just trying to keep calm so she didn't start freaking out even more. It was just so scary."

Legarreta said she doesn't really remember what happened but credits 19-year-old Jarell Brooks with saving her and her two young children. Legarreta and Brooks were reunited for the first time since the shooting on "Good Morning America" this morning.

"I don't know where I would be," Legarreta said. "I thank him because having him there next to me, knowing that there was somebody there, just, it's comforting, knowing that somebody was willing to help."

Brooks said he was sitting six rows from the back of the theater when the gunman appeared in front of the movie screen and started shooting.

"The only reason I saw him was from the flashes of the gunshots," Brooks said. "My life definitely flashed before my eyes in that moment."

While trying to get out of the theater, Brooks saw a woman, later identified as Legarreta, struggling to get herself and her two children out. He said he attempted to guide her and the kids to the door, but in the process, Brooks was shot in the thigh.

"It felt like a sharp pain," he said. "When I tried to move my left leg, I went down. I looked at my hand and I noticed there was bleeding. That's when I knew it was real."

"I remember hearing him scream and saying 'oh god' when he got hit," Legarreta said.

Brooks said he was just doing what he thought was best in the situation and doesn't consider himself a hero.

"I saw someone in distress," he said. "I'm not the kind of person who would let them be in that situation and me selfishly trying to get myself out of the equation... all she's trying to do is protect her kids, so I felt like if I could get her out, then maybe I would have gotten out, maybe I wouldn't. As long as I knew she was OK I was alright."

mykarma
Jul 21st, 2012, 09:17 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-theater-shooting-victim-engaged-hours-surviving-tragedy/story?id=16827235#.UAsKVqOWySo
This is the part that got me.
"I saw someone in distress," he said. "I'm not the kind of person who would let them be in that situation and me selfishly trying to get myself out of the equation... all she's trying to do is protect her kids, so I felt like if I could get her out, then maybe I would have gotten out, maybe I wouldn't. As long as I knew she was OK I was alright."

Halardfan
Jul 21st, 2012, 11:43 PM
It's staggering that as extreme a group as the NRA can have such a hold on American politics, where even good men like President Obama don't have the will or political courage to truly take them on.

The NRA's solution is always more guns...arm the teachers, arm the ushers, if everyone went to the movies armed, everywhere armed, things would be safer...it is madness, but incredibly influential madness. Little will change as a result of this.

Vlover
Jul 22nd, 2012, 12:37 AM
It's staggering that as extreme a group as the NRA can have such a hold on American politics, where even good men like President Obama don't have the will or political courage to truly take them on.
The NRA's solution is always more guns...arm the teachers, arm the ushers, if everyone went to the movies armed, everywhere armed, things would be safer...it is madness, but incredibly influential madness. Little will change as a result of this.
It is more complicated than that. When you have a right wing Supreme Court ruling like this and you have Republican Governors signing legislated ridiculous laws as you mentioned, then it is like fighting a losing battle. The outcry will have to come from the people in the states who are accepting shootings as the norm these days.:tape: Also since that ruling Obama has not mentioned anything about gun control and yet the NRA and Republicans in congress have been concocting conspiracy theories how Obama is going to take away their guns and the idiots believe them.:help:


High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights
June 28, 2010 - 10:07 AM | by: Lee Ross

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying “the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.”

The ruling builds upon the Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation’s capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today’s ruling also invalidates Chicago’s handgun ban.



Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/#ixzz21IonB0B8

doni1212
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:47 AM
I think he proposed to her in the hospital and she said yes. :facepalm:

She should marry Jarell instead - he almost gave up his life to save a total stranger.

Too bad the cowardly fiance is getting more press than Jarell Brooks.

Even though I know she was coping with the shooting, I watched her talk about the proposal on GMA this morning and she didn't seem happy or excited at all. I don't think she'll go through with it. I think she'll see him for who he really is after she really reflects on that night and change her mind. I hope so anyway...

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:52 AM
Even though I know she was coping with the shooting, I watched her talk about the proposal on GMA this morning and she didn't seem happy or excited at all. I don't think she'll go through with it. I think she'll see him for who he really is after she really reflects on that night and change her mind. I hope so anyway...
I agree and if they do get married I don't think she can get over that.

JN
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:00 AM
I agree and if they do get married I don't think she can get over that.

Not to mention when the baby is old enough to understand how daddy tried to "protect" her by shoving her under a seat and running. http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8284/smh2.gif Dude's life is screwed no matter the outcome.

Cajka
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:16 AM
I'm still confused. Is it really possible that almost 50% of USA citizens own a gun? :confused:

I've never met anyone who owns a gun and I would never ever buy one.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:20 AM
I'm still confused. Is it really possible that almost 50% of USA citizens own a gun? :confused:

I've never met anyone who owns a gun and I would never ever buy one.
Also seems high to me.

miffedmax
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:41 AM
Also seems high to me.

The numbers are all over the map, as far as I can tell. A Gallup poll says 47%, but the National Opinion Research Center says it's closer to 33%.

Either way, it's down from the 1970s, when a majority of US homes had guns.

My experience with guns is that they are 0 for 3 on protecting homes and 3 for 3 on getting burglarized while the homeowner wasn't there. One of my best friends who is a cop says your better off with a loud dog in your house and a fully charged cell phone within reach at all times. (Unless you are highly, highly trained in the use of firearms and physically subduing dangerous people, like a cop or special forces or something).

Cajka
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:53 AM
A Gallup poll says 47%, but the National Opinion Research Center says it's closer to 33%.


It makes more sense, but it's still a very high %. And, of course, the number must be higher. For example, this guy wasn't registered.

ptkten
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:53 AM
I don't think anyone can know what they would do in this situation. I'd like to think I'd be a "hero" but who knows what happens when you're in a state of shock.

tennisbear7
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:39 AM
Seriously, people in the States still arguing about whether one should have firearms at home. :haha: I'd be incredibly scared if I lived there. The presence of fanatics is astounding, and what's worse is that they have the means to act out on their fantasies.

Monzanator
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:49 AM
The proporsal was done in the heat of the moment, once it all settles down she will probably call off the engagement (or divorce him if they do somehow get married). No big deal IMO especially that the guy made national TV and everyone knows he's basically a useless coward :shrug:

Raiden
Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:47 AM
^
why bring a 4 year old to see an adult movie at midnight?Maybe it's too early to bring up that issue when bodies are lying around warm, but sooner or later that issue cannot be ignored. In theory there should be outrage that multiples of adults have brought their children to a midnight movie, never mind that the movie itself is probably rated as such that those children are not supposed to watch it even in broad daylight!

But of course to top it off we have these two schmucks, who thought it was OK to drag along a 4 year old AND a 4 MONTHS old :facepalm:

When one is willing to do something like that - then it more or less comes with the territory that one also does other stupendous things (like panicking and losing track of each other..


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/20/article-2176718-14262915000005DC-607_634x349.jpg

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:12 AM
I'm still confused. Is it really possible that almost 50% of USA citizens own a gun? :confused:

I've never met anyone who owns a gun and I would never ever buy one.

that does not even count the millions of illegal guns. the mexican drug dealers will find ways to bring even more guns in. it will take a high profile shooting, probably at the republican convention or at a tea party to get the politicians to even talk about it. glad i dont live there

:smash:

njnetswill
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:17 AM
This country will never change. I'm so calloused that I'm not even as shocked by this tragedy as I should be.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:19 AM
Maybe it's too early to bring up that issue when bodies are lying around warm, but sooner or later that issue cannot be ignored. In theory there should be outrage that multiples of adults have brought their children to a midnight movie, never mind that the movie itself is probably rated as such that those children are not supposed to watch it even in broad daylight!

But of course to top it off we have these two schmucks, who thought it was OK to drag along a 4 year old AND a 4 MONTHS old :facepalm:

When one is willing to do something like that - then it more or less comes with the territory that one also does other stupendous things (like panicking and losing track of each other..


[Iailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/20/article-2176718-14262915000005DC-607_634x349.jpg[/IMG]

its Colorado :)

njnetswill
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:19 AM
that does not even count the millions of illegal guns. the mexican drug dealers will find ways to bring even more guns in. it will take a high profile shooting, probably at the republican convention or at a tea party to get the politicians to even talk about it. glad i dont live there

:smash:

You have it completely backward. The flow of guns is mostly from the direction of the US INTO Mexico, not Mexicans bringing guns into the US. There are dozens of gun stores that line the US-Mexican border (on the US side), offering easy access for drug cartels to sophisticated weaponry. Over 80% of the guns that drug cartels use originated in the United States.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:27 AM
You have it completely backward. The flow of guns is mostly from the direction of the US INTO Mexico, not Mexicans bringing guns into the US. There are dozens of gun stores that line the US-Mexican border (on the US side), offering easy access for drug cartels to sophisticated weaponry. Over 80% of the guns that drug cartels use originated in the United States.

i misread that to mean that mexicans were paying americans to move guns into USA

This is due to the total control of the National Rifle Association (NRA) of our politicians. Like every thing else in America making money is the primary goal of some people therefore principles, ethics and even common sense goes out the window. The goal of the NRA is that everyone will own multiple guns therefore don't be surprised if you hear that the solution to this problem is the audience should get guns themselves.:devil:

The easy access to guns is not only affecting the US but also nearby Latin American countries and Mexico where unsavory people from these countries pay US traffickers to buy their guns and take them across the borders. Expect more shootings also in the future because the elected officials are so scared of the NRA as they use this as a political issue to quiet any opposition.:tape: My question though is how many of these random shootings are people willing to accept before they start demanding that the NRA be more responsible and stop fighting against banning high powered semi-automatic guns.

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 09:59 AM
people need guns to protect themselves from the government or other criminals. that's why it's in the constitution.

it's really sad that some people are using this tragedy to advance their political agenda.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 10:41 AM
yeah it's really sad

debby
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:13 AM
people need guns to protect themselves from the government or other criminals. that's why it's in the constitution.

it's really sad that some people are using this tragedy to advance their political agenda.

Well, in France, we don't have it, and we are still a safe country. Actually you have to ask for a weapon/gun license in France.. and it's quite complicated to get. Of course there are illegal guns owners but yeah it's not as easily available here than in the US, and I am glad of that.

If people need to protect themselves from the government, they are not going to go far with "only" a gun.
From other criminals, I can understand but then it becomes tricky as these criminals have more access to weapons thanks to that law.

debby
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:18 AM
I don't think anyone can know what they would do in this situation. I'd like to think I'd be a "hero" but who knows what happens when you're in a state of shock.

Well I think some can, and in that case, I do... And really, after that, you don't think of yourself like a hero, but like you are someone lucky and you did the right thing. I mean, it's different when you are inside :shrug:
Some people can't move out of shock, some do the reckless thing, some protect the victim, etc...

but it does seem weird a guy doesn't protect his future wife and his kids.... I don't hate him, but I am sorry for his relatives who will have to cope with that forever.

gentenaire
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:28 AM
people need guns to protect themselves from the government or other criminals. that's why it's in the constitution.

it's really sad that some people are using this tragedy to advance their political agenda.

A gun isn't going to protect me, I want a nuclear bomb to protect me against the government. Should I get it?

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:35 AM
Well, in France, we don't have it, and we are still a safe country. Actually you have to ask for a weapon/gun license in France.. and it's quite complicated to get. Of course there are illegal guns owners but yeah it's not as easily available here than in the US, and I am glad of that.

If people need to protect themselves from the government, they are not going to go far with "only" a gun.
From other criminals, I can understand but then it becomes tricky as these criminals have more access to weapons thanks to that law.

strict gun laws are definitely good for france but the usa is different ;)

the problem is that with legislation you can only disarm obedient people (the ones that probably won't cause problems anyway). so it's a bit too late when the country is already full of weapons.....

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 11:39 AM
A gun isn't going to protect me, I want a nuclear bomb to protect me against the government. Should I get it?

you sound like iran ;) they want a nuclear bomb to protect themselves from the us government...

JN
Jul 22nd, 2012, 01:32 PM
that does not even count the millions of illegal guns. the mexican drug dealers will find ways to bring even more guns in. it will take a high profile shooting, probably at the republican convention or at a tea party to get the politicians to even talk about it. glad i dont live there

:smash:

Like an assassination attempt on a sitting Republicon president?

N1Jid5uRFo4

Been there, done that.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 01:50 PM
people need guns to protect themselves from the government or other criminals. that's why it's in the constitution.

it's really sad that some people are using this tragedy to advance their political agenda.

When was the last time "the government" attacked an innocent person and that person SUCCESSFULLY defended themselves with a gun?

And for the love of god, "the government" is not some moster criminal. Lastly "the government" has fucking nukes, only an idiot would even think you can fight them off with an AK 47

You wanna have guns, fine find some other reason, but don't bullshit and say its to defend yourself from "the government"

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:09 PM
When was the last time "the government" attacked an innocent person and that person SUCCESSFULLY defended themselves with a gun?

And for the love of god, "the government" is not some moster criminal. Lastly "the government" has fucking nukes, only an idiot would even think you can fight them off with an AK 47

You wanna have guns, fine find some other reason, but don't bullshit and say its to defend yourself from "the government"

aren't you forgetting that the us troops kill people daily in unconstitutional wars?
nukes are deterrent, not offensive weapons...
i was more like referring to the history when the ability to legally own a gun protected americans from tyranny. it still does to some extend.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:25 PM
Dont need to look anywhere. This thread alone shows there are plenty of crazies who buy that second amendment bullshit and actually try to make arguments out of it.



:weirdo:

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:29 PM
Like an assassination attempt on a sitting Republicon president?

N1Jid5uRFo4

Been there, done that.

It worked for a while. That's when ou had the Brady campaign that banned regular people from getting AK 47 (I believe the shooter here used a similar gun)

But now you have gun makers and their cronies at the NRA, using fear and hate to get stupid people to think "the government" is out to get them. Go to the NRA website, they are not selling guns, they are selling fear and hate.

Being filled with fear and hate, is one thing. But if you give people like that clown and GZimmerman, guns to go with that fear and hate. The outcome is as clear as day, and sooo predictable. In fact there is an old video of Cornell West predicting the first mass school shooting years before it happened.

Now to be clear I don't believe in getting rid of all guns, in fact I think reasonable people should be able to get guns. But there have to be some reasonable limits. Purchases of large amounts of ammo should be limited if not banned, ak-47 and other military grade weapons need to be banned from consumer purchase. All gun sales should require a background check. People on the terrorism watch list should be limited from buying guns at all. Just like a drives license, all gun sales should require a license and all gun licenses should require gun safety and common sense testing and training.

It's really not too much to ask. And in that you will catch a lot of crazies like this dude, and prevent a lot of accidental gun deaths. But because the gun makers lobby, the NRA controls gun laws in America that will never happened.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:40 PM
Well, in France, we don't have it, and we are still a safe country. Actually you have to ask for a weapon/gun license in France.. and it's quite complicated to get. Of course there are illegal guns owners but yeah it's not as easily available here than in the US, and I am glad of that.

If people need to protect themselves from the government, they are not going to go far with "only" a gun.
From other criminals, I can understand but then it becomes tricky as these criminals have more access to weapons thanks to that law.
These people act like the constitution can't and has never been changed. It's not as though the forefathers were squeaky clean. As a matter of fact that came to this country and not only stole the land but committed genocide on the inhabitants that saved their lives that first winter. Enslaved and brutalized a whole race of people to toil the land for their own wealth and the gun owners are using their words as though it was the gospel. This is the 21st century and that interpretation needs to be modified. I truly doubt that the forefathers would have written that in the same way if they envisioned automatic weapons killing theaters full of it's own citizens. That's just stupid reasoning.

You then have these bimbos using this tragedy to say that everyone needs a gun. What type of scene would that have been with everyone shooting even if they were trying to shoot that crazy terrorist. How many more people would be dead? Just plain crazy.

JN
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:41 PM
It worked for a while. That's when ou had the Brady campaign that banned regular people from getting AK 47 (I believe the shooter here used a similar gun)

But now you have gun makers and their cronies at the NRA, using fear and hate to get stupid people to think "the government" is out to get them. Go to the NRA website, they are not selling guns, they are selling fear and hate.

Being filled with fear and hate, is one thing. But if you give people like that clown and GZimmerman, guns to go with that fear and hate. The outcome is as clear as day, and sooo predictable. In fact there is an old video of Cornell West predicting the first mass school shooting years before it happened.

Now to be clear I don't believe in getting rid of all guns, in fact I think reasonable people should be able to get guns. But there have to be some reasonable limits. Purchases of large amounts of ammo should be limited if not banned, ak-47 and other military grade weapons need to be banned from consumer purchase. All gun sales should require a background check. People on the terrorism watch list should be limited from buying guns at all. Just like a drives license, all gun sales should require a license and all gun licenses should require gun safety and common sense testing and training.

It's really not too much to ask. And in that you will catch a lot of crazies like this dude, and prevent a lot of accidental gun deaths. But because the gun makers lobby, the NRA controls gun laws in America that will never happened.

Exactly. After going thru marksmanship training in the US Air Force I always wondered why this same training wasn't a requirement for gun ownership/operation.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:42 PM
aren't you forgetting that the us troops kill people daily in unconstitutional wars?
nukes are deterrent, not offensive weapons...
i was more like referring to the history when the ability to legally own a gun protected americans from tyranny. it still does to some extend.

No it doesn't. "the government" has bigger and badder weapons. Even in your crazy world, "the government" "kills" people, even in your mind, people still don't actually defeat "the government" with a handgun. Use your brain!

What DOES happen is that in cases of REAL tyranny when the government really does control the people with an iron fist THEY DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS. So, no, handguns have not in living memory protected the people from tyranny. In the Arab spring, what did people use? Not guns. They used sticks, rocks, and sheer numbers. If your government lets you have guns you are not living in a state of tyranny, you need to get your head out of your ass and read a book. Because even a kid in junior high can tell you that real tyrants don't let their subjects have any sort of weapons ever, they don't even let you think about it. So if you can talk about it, and have a few hang guns, you ain't in a tyrant state.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:47 PM
It worked for a while. That's when ou had the Brady campaign that banned regular people from getting AK 47 (I believe the shooter here used a similar gun)

But now you have gun makers and their cronies at the NRA, using fear and hate to get stupid people to think "the government" is out to get them. Go to the NRA website, they are not selling guns, they are selling fear and hate.

Being filled with fear and hate, is one thing. But if you give people like that clown and GZimmerman, guns to go with that fear and hate. The outcome is as clear as day, and sooo predictable. In fact there is an old video of Cornell West predicting the first mass school shooting years before it happened.

Now to be clear I don't believe in getting rid of all guns, in fact I think reasonable people should be able to get guns. But there have to be some reasonable limits. Purchases of large amounts of ammo should be limited if not banned, ak-47 and other military grade weapons need to be banned from consumer purchase. All gun sales should require a background check. People on the terrorism watch list should be limited from buying guns at all. Just like a drives license, all gun sales should require a license and all gun licenses should require gun safety and common sense testing and training.

It's really not too much to ask. And in that you will catch a lot of crazies like this dude, and prevent a lot of accidental gun deaths. But because the gun makers lobby, the NRA controls gun laws in America that will never happened.
The voice of reason.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:49 PM
Exactly. After going thru marksmanship training in the US Air Force I always wondered why this same training wasn't a requirement for gun ownership/operation.

It's really not a lot to ask. At all. But you have people acting like asking for some safety training, is the same as living in north Korea.

And that's the thing about that sort of training. Normal, reasonable people will have no problem, going through and getting it. But it's criminals and crazies that won't do it.

Oh I also hate when people say "well criminals are going to get guns anyway and gun control only hurts regular people". Yes criminals are going to get guns anyway, but that doesn't mean you should let every crazy person, like this batman shooter walking into a Walmart and buy an ak-47 and 6,000 rounds of ammo! What's next, child molesters are going to get child porn anyway so Walmart should be able to sell it? come ON

MPierce
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:53 PM
Exactly. After going thru marksmanship training in the US Air Force I always wondered why this same training wasn't a requirement for gun ownership/operation.

Talking about shooting, don't you just hate it when you're watching 'Are You Smarter Than A 10-year-old' and the picture cuts back to the contestant just as you shoot your load?

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:55 PM
The voice of reason.

And when *I'M* the voice of reason, shit has gotten out of hand. :help: :help: :sad: :help:

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:58 PM
And when *I'M* the voice of reason, shit has gotten out of hand. :help: :help: :sad: :help:
:lol:

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:00 PM
What DOES happen is that in cases of REAL tyranny when the government really does control the people with an iron fist THEY DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE GUNS. So, no, handguns have not in living memory protected the people from tyranny.

please try some logic for a change: guns do protect people from tyranny, that's why tyrants disarm people and ban guns.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:19 PM
please try some logic for a change: guns do protect people from tyranny, that's why tyrants disarm people and ban guns.

Oh lord. If you have guns, you are not living in tyranny. If you are living in tyranny, you don't have guns. To say that one protects you from the other is like saying day protects you from night. Which admittedly is LESS crazy than saying a handgun will protect you from harm if "the big bad government" wants to kill you. Ask Osama bin laden how much guns protect you if the government wants you dead.

As an aside, if the us government wants you dead you are

1- dead
2- on death row
3- in hiding.

A handgun won't save you. An ak-47 won't save you. :wavey: :wavey:

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:39 PM
Oh lord. If you have guns, you are not living in tyranny. If you are living in tyranny, you don't have guns. To say that one protects you from the other is like saying day protects you from night. Which admittedly is LESS crazy than saying a handgun will protect you from harm if "the big bad government" wants to kill you. Ask Osama bin laden how much guns protect you if the government wants you dead.

As an aside, if the us government wants you dead you are

1- dead
2- on death row
3- in hiding.

A handgun won't save you. An ak-47 won't save you. :wavey: :wavey:

i don't even own a gun. but other good people owning guns protects me too. governments or criminal gangs are less likely to piss off populations that own guns.

harloo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:04 PM
It's really not a lot to ask. At all. But you have people acting like asking for some safety training, is the same as living in north Korea.

And that's the thing about that sort of training. Normal, reasonable people will have no problem, going through and getting it. But it's criminals and crazies that won't do it.

Oh I also hate when people say "well criminals are going to get guns anyway and gun control only hurts regular people". Yes criminals are going to get guns anyway, but that doesn't mean you should let every crazy person, like this batman shooter walking into a Walmart and buy an ak-47 and 6,000 rounds of ammo! What's next, child molesters are going to get child porn anyway so Walmart should be able to sell it? come ON

What really baffles me is how the shooter purchased a semi-automatic rifle from a local gun store. The pistol and handgun doesn't surprise me considering they sell them in just about every Walmart.smh. I thought military style guns with the ability to kill multiple people were banned from the public?

Every last one of those guns were registered, even the semi-automatic. Then he was able to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition and protective gear reserved for military personal from the internet? It's like these people are making it easy for mentally disturbed individuals to kill large groups of people all in the name of profit.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment now, it's simply about greed and profiteering. I believe hard-working/honest Americans should be able to protect themselves. However, like anything their must be an extensive screening process and required training before a permit is granted to own a gun. I think it's quite ridiculous how anyone can just walk in a local store or shop and buy a weapon without any mental evaluation or background check.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:29 PM
This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment now, it's simply about greed and profiteering. I believe hard-working/honest Americans should be able to protect themselves. However, like anything their must be an extensive screening process and required training before a permit is granted to own a gun. I think it's quite ridiculous how anyone can just walk in a local store or shop and buy a weapon without any mental evaluation or background check.

Protect themselves from what? Most of the time if the guns are used, they are used on family members and friends.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:31 PM
i don't even own a gun. but other good people owning guns protects me too. governments or criminal gangs are less likely to piss off populations that own guns.
Ummh.

harloo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:31 PM
Not to excuse him at all (I mean it was his family... christ), but in these moments, you can't even comprehend what's happening and your body just moves, and you don't even realize it. Sometimes you are a coward, sometimes you are just reckless. It's really extreme, I guess it was the survival instinct.

I have witnessed an attempted murder right in front of me, and I don't even know what the hell happened, that poor woman's scream is impossible to forget, anyway I saw/heard it, and the dude was running away, and.. I suddenly put my bag on the ground and ran after him without even thinking. He was armed, I was not. I have never been more thankful in my life that I was actually out of shape.
It was totally reckless.

But yeah, like I said, it was still his family so.... maybe his body acted before he actually thought? But then some parents actually protect their kids before even thinking too.

In some ways I agree that when faced with opposition or a dangerous situation people react differently regardless of gender. In most cases men become the protector because it's a natural instinct especially when it involves women and children.

Some would expect every man to shield his wife/girlfriend or child from harm but if a man doesn't have that protector mentality I can easily see him thinking only about getting himself to safety in that moment. It's really a tough call because while this man should have protected his girlfriend and child nobody outside of that situation could possible know what it felt like to be actually faced with a masked shooter who opened fire on a studio full of movie goers.

I did read that a man lost his life by diving in front of his girlfriend and brother shielding them from gunfire. He was brave and willing to risk his life to save his girlfriend. The vast majority of men would have done that but I understand not every guy has that type of fearlessness.

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:35 PM
Protect themselves from what? Most of the time if the guns are used, they are used on family members and friends.

more often than hunting or target shooting? i don't believe you. don't forget that guns are also deterrent against burglars etc.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:37 PM
In some ways I agree that when faced with opposition or a dangerous situation people react differently regardless of gender. In most cases men become the protector because it's a natural instinct especially when it involves women and children.

Some would expect every man to shield his wife/girlfriend or child from harm but if a man doesn't have that protector mentality I can easily see him thinking only about getting himself to safety in that moment. It's really a tough call because while this man should have protected his girlfriend and child nobody outside of that situation could possible know what it felt like to be actually faced with a masked shooter who opened fire on a studio full of movie goers.

I did read that a man lost his life by diving in front of his girlfriend and brother shielding them from gunfire. He was brave and willing to risk his life to save his girlfriend. The vast majority of men would have done that but I understand not every guy has that type of fearlessness.
The mother stayed and protected her children. No respect for this guy, he was only thinking of himself. I guess he would have left his mother to die also. Pathetic

harloo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:46 PM
Protect themselves from what? Most of the time if the guns are used, they are used on family members and friends.

I don't own a gun or care to own one. However, I think law-abiding citizens who are properly screened(mental evaluation, background check, and trained for safety) should be able to own a non-automatic gun to protect themselves from intruders, people who trespass their property, etc.

The right to bare arms isn't an issue for me. It's the rampant abuse of the 2nd amendment and reckless behavior of the NRA. This has allowed gun suppliers to sell weapons without any restrictions. In some states citizens can attend a gun show and buy a handgun with just an I.D. Even when I worked at Walmart in high school they would sell guns and ammunition and all that was required was SSN and identification.

King Halep
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:52 PM
Glad i live in a place where you can still feel safe without arming yourself to the teeth

harloo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:01 PM
The mother stayed and protected her children. No respect for this guy, he was only thinking of himself. I guess he would have left his mother to die also. Pathetic

More than likely he was frightened and panicked while the mother stayed calm and manned up taking his role in the situation. For most women that would probably be a deal breaker but this woman probably will still marry this guy. I was watching the interview and she wasn't even phased at all.

My father taught me a long time ago that most women hates a man who can't protect her. I wondered why he told me this was the most important thing about being in any relationship/marriage but later learned why it was so important.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:13 PM
Protect themselves from what? Most of the time if the guns are used, they are used on family members and friends.

It might be mean, but I don't believe it's the governments job to protect you from your own stupidity. But I do think gun safety courses should be required to protect others from your studity and your rage. So guns being used to harm you or even your friends from accidental shooting is not reason enough to ban guns. I know it's wrong but I'm being honest here.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:15 PM
I don't own a gun or care to own one. However, I think law-abiding citizens who are properly screened(mental evaluation, background check, and trained for safety) should be able to own a non-automatic gun to protect themselves from intruders, people who trespass their property, etc.

The right to bare arms isn't an issue for me. It's the rampant abuse of the 2nd amendment and reckless behavior of the NRA. This has allowed gun suppliers to sell weapons without any restrictions. In some states citizens can attend a gun show and buy a handgun with just an I.D. Even when I worked at Walmart in high school they would sell guns and ammunition and all that was required was SSN and identification.

Wow, that's so scary. I believe every gun this monster had was purchased LEGALLY that's the scariest part.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:18 PM
more often than hunting or target shooting? i don't believe you. don't forget that guns are also deterrent against burglars etc.

No they are not,because they don't know if you have a gun.

ADT is a deterrent. Guns are not.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:24 PM
I'm, not PRO gun, but I'm not as anti gun as I once was. As I got older I realized you can't unstopper the genie. What you can and should do is have reasonable regulations that allows sane people to get guns for reasonable uses. For example, there is no sane or reasonable or legal need for armor Crushing bullets. None. There is no safe of legal reason for ak 47 or 6000 rounds of ammo. No reason for a person to have assault weapons, a regulat gun will disarm and hinder a robber.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:33 PM
more often than hunting or target shooting? i don't believe you. don't forget that guns are also deterrent against burglars etc.
Since most burglaries happen when the residents aren't home all they've done is give the thief a free weapon.

fantic
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:34 PM
It all started from Samuel Colt, gun manufacturer. The gov allowed his company to sell it to the public.

njnetswill
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:53 PM
Since most burglars happen when the residents aren't home all they've done is give the thief a free weapon.

Exactly. 100 times more weapons are stolen DURING burglaries than used to actually deter the robber when in the house. Home burglars purposely pick times when the home will be empty to rob the home. People need to stop deluding themselves into thinking that the houseowner pointing a gun at the robber is actually a common scenario,

Tennis Fool
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:53 PM
I However, I think law-abiding citizens who are properly screened(mental evaluation, background check, and trained for safety) should be able to own a non-automatic gun to protect themselves from intruders, people who trespass their property, etc.
I think many Americans have it in our minds that if the time comes when confronted with danger, we'll pull out our inner Dirty Harry/Chuck Norris/John Wayne and become a crack shot with a gun :unsure:

Mynarco
Jul 22nd, 2012, 06:43 PM
What you can and should do is have reasonable regulations that allows sane people to get guns for reasonable uses.

James Holmes could still get guns this way (I mean, it's still possible that he could pretend to be sane).

M.S.F
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:07 PM
Glad i live in a place where you can still feel safe without arming yourself to the teeth

This.

plantman
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:36 PM
I'm, not PRO gun, but I'm not as anti gun as I once was. As I got older I realized you can't unstopper the genie. What you can and should do is have reasonable regulations that allows sane people to get guns for reasonable uses. For example, there is no sane or reasonable or legal need for armor Crushing bullets. None. There is no safe of legal reason for ak 47 or 6000 rounds of ammo. No reason for a person to have assault weapons, a regulat gun will disarm and hinder a robber.

I agree with you Wigglytuff on almost your entire post. However.....there are folks who are legit gun collectors who probably would like to add an ak 47 to their collection. IMO there should be an exception in these type of instances. The only problem being, how does one decipher who really is the legit gun collector, or one who's planning some sinister plot.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:52 PM
James Holmes could still get guns this way (I mean, it's still possible that he could pretend to be sane).

Child molesters can still get children, it doesn't mean we should do nothing, it let them run amok without laws, or ban people from having kids.

Mynarco
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:55 PM
Child molesters can still get children, it doesn't mean we should do nothing, it let them run amok without laws, or ban people from having kids.

I am on your side, but I am more leaning towards disallowing civilians the right to have gun (I know it's really un-American but I just don't feel safe living with the omnipresence of guns in my neighbourhood)

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:55 PM
More than likely he was frightened and panicked while the mother stayed calm and manned up taking his role in the situation. For most women that would probably be a deal breaker but this woman probably will still marry this guy. I was watching the interview and she wasn't even phased at all.

My father taught me a long time ago that most women hates a man who can't protect her. I wondered why he told me this was the most important thing about being in any relationship/marriage but later learned why it was so important.

Do you have a link to this story people have mentioned people who ran and left their children behind, I haven't been watching tv so I haven't heard that story.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:57 PM
I am on your side, but I am more leaning to phase out the concept where civilians have the rights to have gun (I know it's really un-American but I just don't feel safe living with the possibility of guns around me)

I don't either. But it's one of those things where if you ban something you can make it work than just strong regulations. So as much as I would like to see all guns gone, I think "a well regulated" path is the way to go.

Mikey.
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:57 PM
Talking about shooting, don't you just hate it when you're watching 'Are You Smarter Than A 10-year-old' and the picture cuts back to the contestant just as you shoot your load?

DEADDDDD

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:01 PM
I agree with you Wigglytuff on almost your entire post. However.....there are folks who are legit gun collectors who probably would like to add an ak 47 to their collection. IMO there should be an exception in these type of instances. The only problem being, how does one decipher who really is the legit gun collector, or one who's planning some sinister plot.

Nope, even for collection reasons, I still no reason for an AK 47. Reason for this is, right now, the collector loophole is some big you could drop a few nukes on it. There no real limits on what "collectors" can get and who they cn sell them too.

I might be willing to change my mind if say a collector had to put up a full $1,000,000 in escrow to ensure that it didn't end up in the wrong hands, than I would reconsider.

mykarma
Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:06 PM
Do you have a link to this story people have mentioned people who ran and left their children behind, I haven't been watching tv so I haven't heard that story.
Not people one guy and part of the story has already posted in this thread.

plantman
Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:16 PM
Nope, even for collection reasons, I still no reason for an AK 47. Reason for this is, right now, the collector loophole is some big you could drop a few nukes on it. There no real limits on what "collectors" can get and who they cn sell them too.

I might be willing to change my mind if say a collector had to put up a full $1,000,000 in escrow to ensure that it didn't end up in the wrong hands, than I would reconsider.

Loopholes can be closed, and I find it hard to believe that a true collector would sell to just anyone.

Wigglytuff
Jul 22nd, 2012, 08:56 PM
Loopholes can be closed, and I find it hard to believe that a true collector would sell to just anyone.

I think you are right to a degree but I would still like to see some other proof. Yes we can trust, but I'm big on "trust but verify". Either an escrow or something else. I don't want to just trust someone with an ak 47, even if they are a "collector". But at the same time I think if we are at the point where we agree on almost everything and have only a few points of discussion, than I really don't get why we can't have sensible gun control laws. I mean you and I agree on very little, we don't even agree that the sky is the same color, and if you and I can agree than there has to be a way to get it done.

And I think that most members of the NRA would agree with us, I just don't think the NRA represents its members as much as it represents gun makers.

Root
Jul 22nd, 2012, 10:43 PM
James Holmes could still get guns this way (I mean, it's still possible that he could pretend to be sane).

What makes you assume he was not sane? Or are you implying only a mentally ill person would carry out such attacks?

Barktra
Jul 23rd, 2012, 12:49 AM
This is really creepy :scared:

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhH82Oq9133r94Sa78

ranfurly
Jul 23rd, 2012, 02:03 AM
I went on a hunting trip with some Yanks,

Honestly, the couldn't fucking shoot an elephant if they saw it standing 5m ahead of them, terrible attitude with their firearms, didn't even have the basics of gun safety around people.

You're a great bunch to get on the chop with, but a bit too trigger happy with your toys.

Tennis Fool
Jul 23rd, 2012, 04:41 AM
^ And these are people who can claim "experience" in hunting. Now imagine the guy with a concealed handgun bought from a Walmart store http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=handguns&ic=16_0&Find=Find&search_constraint=0 in 40 minutes, thinking he's Rambo "gonna be a hero" in a dark, crowded movie theater.

Halardfan
Jul 23rd, 2012, 04:43 AM
It is more complicated than that. When you have a right wing Supreme Court ruling like this and you have Republican Governors signing legislated ridiculous laws as you mentioned, then it is like fighting a losing battle. The outcry will have to come from the people in the states who are accepting shootings as the norm these days.:tape: Also since that ruling Obama has not mentioned anything about gun control and yet the NRA and Republicans in congress have been concocting conspiracy theories how Obama is going to take away their guns and the idiots believe them.:help:






Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/28/high-courts-big-ruling-for-gun-rights/#ixzz21IonB0B8


Absolutely the gun lobby is powerful hysterical, and tough to overcome.

But it would be good at least if Obama had a real try. He is a good man, I absolutely believe that, and I'm sure he knows the gun lobby has long been out of control. I want him to take a stand, to take a position that may be unpopular but which is right: that increased gun control is the way to go, that the NRA is an extreme destructive force.

King Halep
Jul 23rd, 2012, 07:38 AM
Obama has a lot of more important issues than gun control. Its quite obvious that a lot of his own party wont support him on it. Sometimes I wonder whether you actually think about these things before you write your wishful thinking, like that Luis Suarez case.

Halardfan
Jul 23rd, 2012, 09:20 AM
Obama has a lot of more important issues than gun control. Its quite obvious that a lot of his own party wont support him on it. Sometimes I wonder whether you actually think about these things before you write your wishful thinking, like that Luis Suarez case.

Persuading the Republicans may indeed be wishful thinking...fighting to influence public opinion doesn't have to be. At least put the case forward, even if the chance of success is slim, fight for what you believe to be right. Otherwise there is no point to anything.

Plenty of noble causes looked long shots once upon a time, it takes the courage of decent people to fight for change.

Timariot
Jul 23rd, 2012, 10:15 AM
I think you are right to a degree but I would still like to see some other proof. Yes we can trust, but I'm big on "trust but verify". Either an escrow or something else. I don't want to just trust someone with an ak 47, even if they are a "collector". But at the same time I think if we are at the point where we agree on almost everything and have only a few points of discussion, than I really don't get why we can't have sensible gun control laws. I mean you and I agree on very little, we don't even agree that the sky is the same color, and if you and I can agree than there has to be a way to get it done.

And I think that most members of the NRA would agree with us, I just don't think the NRA represents its members as much as it represents gun makers.

Although it is popular to believe gun manufacturers are huge corporations with tentacles and paid lobbyists everywhere, most of the famous gun makers are small companies. It's not comparable to defence giants like Lockmart etc.

Getting hysterical over someone owning "AK-47" is pointless, when just as effective guns can be found from civilian hunting weapon manufacturers' catalogy. That was seen when Assault Weapon Ban was in effect.

fifiricci
Jul 23rd, 2012, 12:27 PM
It's sad, but these things happen in countries where people can freely buy guns that can cause mass destruction in seconds, so I don't have a lot of sympathy. If Americans still feel the need to carry guns in this day and age, why not limit the avaialability to something small and friendly, so they would only maybe manage to kill one or two innocent bystanders if they go on a rampage? Also, what on earth was a six year old girl doing at a midnight premiere of this film?!
:)

Vlover
Jul 23rd, 2012, 03:29 PM
Persuading the Republicans may indeed be wishful thinking...fighting to influence public opinion doesn't have to be. At least put the case forward, even if the chance of success is slim, fight for what you believe to be right. Otherwise there is no point to anything.

Plenty of noble causes looked long shots once upon a time, it takes the courage of decent people to fight for change.
Yea, all that sounds good to rational people but you have no idea who irrational right wingers here get if you mention restricting guns in any way here. As you noticed Obama has been very careful not to mention the word because he knows that the NRA with Republicans are just gleefully awaiting for him to just mention the word in any capacity to add to their already conspiracy theories that he is going to take their guns.

Why give the Republicans the ammunition to blow up your campaign in this toxic atmosphere when chances are Congress is not going to act on this. Even a member of Congress was shot in the head and that didn't move them therefore I doubt any of this will. The only way I see this changing is if those who have been hurt by gun violence get together and start demanding the change. There was a ban on assault weapons but it expired in 2004 because the NRA galvanized against politicians who supported it and they lost their re-election bids.


updated 9/13/2004 8:28:49 PM ET 2004-09-14T00:28:49
Print Font: + - BOISE, Idaho — The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought — a development that has critics upset and gun owners pleased.

The 1994 ban, signed by then President Clinton, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.Studies done by pro- and anti-gun groups as well as the Justice Department show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime. Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories.

Similar models already sold
Gun shop owners said the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns and accessories that are typically sold and traded across their counters every day.

At the Boise Gun Co., gunsmith Justin Davis last week grabbed up a black plastic rifle resembling the U.S. military’s standard issue M-16 from a row of more than a dozen similar weapons stacked against a wall.

The civilian version of the gun, a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week. “It shoots exactly the same ammo at exactly the same rate of fire,” said Davis.

Many states — including California, Massachusetts, New York and Hawaii — have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more stringent than the federal ban.

U.S. Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, trumpeted the end of the federal law. “President Clinton’s so-called ’assault weapons’ ban was nothing more than a sop to antigun liberals,” Otter said in a written statement. “It provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties.”

In March, the Senate voted to add the ban to a bill that would have immunized gun manufacturers from liability suits stemming from violent gun crimes. But the Senate voted 90-8 against the final bill after the National Rifle Association urged its defeat.

National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said supporters of the ban could not muster the support needed to bring it to a vote in the House because several Democrats attribute losing their majority in the House in 1994 over votes then in favor of the ban.

Those in favor of ban
But advocates for the ban, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, point to some particularly vicious shootings in which military-style weapons were used — including the 10 killings in the sniper shooting spree that terrorized residents in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in 2002.


Idaho State Police spokesman Rick Ohnsman said troopers have had no significant problems with assault style weapons and his agency has not taken a position for or against the federal legislation.

“Of course, the legitimate owners of guns register them. Unfortunately, whether there is a ban or not, some individuals will find ways to get weapons that are illegal.”

Background checks continue
The expiration of the assault weapons ban does not mean the end of federal background checks. The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is separate legislation from the assault weapons ban, said Daniel Wells, chief of the FBI unit charged with overseeing the background checks system.

“The change in law relating to assault weapons has no impact on the Brady Law,” Wells said.

Davis predicted the biggest change in his business will be the ability of manufacturers and importers to market higher capacity ammunition magazines — the removable “clip” that holds and feeds bullets through guns.
Under the 1994 ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. That sent the price of high-capacity magazines through the roof, Davis said, even though magazines manufactured before the ban were protected by a “grandfather” provision and could still be sold.

Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
8

Timariot
Jul 23rd, 2012, 06:42 PM
Assault Weapon Ban was completely pointless. It literally had no useful effect whatsoever. All it did was to control how the guns LOOKED. But nobody has ever been killed just because a gun looked menacing.

It likely helped US gun manufacturers, because it banned sales of foreign made surplus military weapons. But that's pretty much all.

Magazine capacity restriction is another piece of idiocy which does nothing. Aurora shooter had a 100-round drum. That kind of magazines are notoriously unreliable. If he had used 10-round magazine, his rifle probably would not have jammed and he would have shot more people...

ivanban
Jul 24th, 2012, 09:24 AM
what? how is it stupid to bring an infant to the cinema? it isn't like stuff like this ever happens. i can't even begin to fathom how you can call the parrents "stupid" for that :unsure:

For you it's normal to bring a baby or a toddler to a MIDNIGHT screening?!? It's normal to bring a baby at all to a cinema?!? :help:

Raiden
Jul 24th, 2012, 12:24 PM
For you it's normal to bring a baby or a toddler to a MIDNIGHT screening?!? It's normal to bring a baby at all to a cinema?!? :help:It's utterly absurd, isn't it?

And by the way do they pay for them as well? How does that go... like "and one more midnight ticket for the baby please" :happy:

Tennis Fool
Jul 24th, 2012, 01:27 PM
I think discussing children at the movies is not really appropriate for this thread, but just my quick two cents: a midnight premiere of a highly anticipated superhero movie, which is going to have a raucous crowd of movie goers anyway, many dressed in costume, the sound of babies crying is probably not going to be much of a distraction. The parents also obviously couldn't afford a babysitter, so they have no options if they want to see the movie.

Raiden
Jul 24th, 2012, 01:47 PM
I think discussing children at the movies is not really appropriate for this thread, but just my quick two cents: a midnight premiere of a highly anticipated superhero movie, which is going to have a raucous crowd of movie goers anyway, many dressed in costume, the sound of babies crying is probably not going to be much of a distraction. The parents also obviously couldn't afford a babysitter, so they have no options if they want to see the movie.Dude, it's fucking midnight :lol:

So unless you are rich bitch willing to pay a fortune per hour, there are no babysitters available anyway and you have no business looking for them in the first place.

King Halep
Jul 24th, 2012, 02:16 PM
its so important for parents to go to a premiere of a highly anticipated superhero movie

mykarma
Jul 24th, 2012, 02:35 PM
I think discussing children at the movies is not really appropriate for this thread, but just my quick two cents: a midnight premiere of a highly anticipated superhero movie, which is going to have a raucous crowd of movie goers anyway, many dressed in costume, the sound of babies crying is probably not going to be much of a distraction. The parents also obviously couldn't afford a babysitter, so they have no options if they want to see the movie.
Most babies are sleep at that time of night so I don't see where they'd make that much of a disturbance and to blame the parents in anyway of this tragedy is crazy. Secondly why does it matter whether they have to pay for child or not, the average young parent can't afford to pay for a baby sitter everytime they choose to go out.

plantman
Jul 24th, 2012, 03:42 PM
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8108/lawbreakers.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/lawbreakers.png/)

ptkten
Jul 24th, 2012, 04:03 PM
Most babies are sleep at that time of night so I don't see where they'd make that much of a disturbance and to blame the parents in anyway of this tragedy is crazy. Secondly why does it matter whether they have to pay for child or not, the average young parent can't afford to pay for a baby sitter everytime they choose to go out.

I don't blame the parents at all for their baby being shot at but it isn't great parenting to have a child at a movie at midnight. I don't care what movie it is, you can wait until one day later or wait until family members or a baby sitter can watch the baby.

As for Obama and gun control, this is one of those issues that he should really wait to address until after the campaign is over. I don't think people from outside the U.S. realize how much of an influence the NRA has over U.S. politics. If he spoke out on gun control, I really think it would severely jeopardize his chances at re-election.

Mary Cherry.
Jul 24th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Here's a thought

PezlFNTGWv4

ivanban
Jul 24th, 2012, 04:40 PM
I think discussing children at the movies is not really appropriate for this thread, but just my quick two cents: a midnight premiere of a highly anticipated superhero movie, which is going to have a raucous crowd of movie goers anyway, many dressed in costume, the sound of babies crying is probably not going to be much of a distraction. The parents also obviously couldn't afford a babysitter, so they have no options if they want to see the movie.

So, it's not appropriate to point out the absurdity of taking young kids to a midnight movie screening but it's perfectly fine to say the bolded part?!? :tape: One should take a baby to a cinema even though he\she knows baby will 99% cry due to 180 decibels in the theater?! :tape: If one can't afford a babysitter, is it really that important to go to cinema?!? :help:

Most babies are sleep at that time of night so I don't see where they'd make that much of a disturbance and to blame the parents in anyway of this tragedy is crazy. Secondly why does it matter whether they have to pay for child or not, the average young parent can't afford to pay for a baby sitter everytime they choose to go out.

If most babies are asleep at midnight, isn't that one more reason not to take them to a cinema and that late?! :unsure: OTOH, no one is blaming parents for this tragedy :scratch:

wta_zuperfann
Jul 24th, 2012, 04:44 PM
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8108/lawbreakers.png



^ this coming from someone who supported the Contra terrorists

wta_zuperfann
Jul 24th, 2012, 04:46 PM
shot during the Colorado massacre - now faces a $ 2 million dollar bill:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57478303/aurora-shooting-may-ruin-one-victims-finances/


Isn't RepubliCONcare just grand?

King Halep
Jul 24th, 2012, 05:22 PM
I don't blame the parents at all for their baby being shot at but it isn't great parenting to have a child at a movie at midnight. I don't care what movie it is, you can wait until one day later or wait until family members or a baby sitter can watch the baby.

As for Obama and gun control, this is one of those issues that he should really wait to address until after the campaign is over. I don't think people from outside the U.S. realize how much of an influence the NRA has over U.S. politics. If he spoke out on gun control, I really think it would severely jeopardize his chances at re-election.

if i were him i wouldnt bother trying to do anything. the right wing has answers for every argument. let them shoot at each other until society decides there is too much violence. if americans really want a change, complaining on a forum wont do anything, they need to contact their congressman and make it known.

mykarma
Jul 24th, 2012, 06:04 PM
I don't blame the parents at all for their baby being shot at but it isn't great parenting to have a child at a movie at midnight. I don't care what movie it is, you can wait until one day later or wait until family members or a baby sitter can watch the baby.

As for Obama and gun control, this is one of those issues that he should really wait to address until after the campaign is over. I don't think people from outside the U.S. realize how much of an influence the NRA has over U.S. politics. If he spoke out on gun control, I really think it would severely jeopardize his chances at re-election.
You're making assumptions and I don't see how taking a child to a movie is bad parenting? There are plenty of people that don't live near any family members and what's the harm if the child was going to be sleep.

Wigglytuff
Jul 24th, 2012, 06:35 PM
Can I say that if fuckin pisses me off when the same people who say that showing an id to get an ak-47 violates your 2nd amend. rights, but then they say that being forced to show an id to vote doesn't violate any rights?

Fucking hypocrites

Wigglytuff
Jul 24th, 2012, 06:50 PM
You're making assumptions and I don't see how taking a child to a movie is bad parenting? There are plenty of people that don't live near any family members and what's the harm if the child was going to be sleep.

Taking a baby to a midnight anything is bad parenting. Maybe the exception would be a midnight Xmas mass at church, even at a midnight Harry potter launch, if you ain't old enough to read it, you need to be at home sleep.

In fact, about a month ago I signed a petition that asked movie theaters to not allow anyone under 13 to any pg-13 or r rated movies that start after 7pm.

And the worst thing about bring a baby to anything after midnight is that other people trying to have a good time have to hear your ugly baby screaming when they just wanted to have a good time,

So in short,

Babies or really young children at midnight anythings are

Bad parenting
Rude to the other people there
Bad for the children, at movies for example the noise levels can be insane,
Really inexcusable,

I don't care if you can't find a sitter, when you decided you wanted to have a baby, you decided to give up some things. And frankly going out at midnight anything when you can't find a sitter is one of them.

King Halep
Jul 24th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Riddle me this. How do they expect a baby to sleep through the noise levels in an action movie.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 24th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Riddle me this. How do they expect a baby to sleep through the noise levels in an action movie.


I was at an ASA race at the Minnesota State Fair with very loud noise coming from those old stock cars. Not too far away, amazingly, a cute little baby slept through the entire proceedings.

mykarma
Jul 25th, 2012, 12:26 AM
[QUOTE]Taking a baby to a midnight anything is bad parenting.
A baby doesn't know whether it's 12am or 12pm. All the baby wants is to be cleaned and fed and whether a child is disruptive has nothing to do with whether someone is a bad parent. Leaving a child at home alone is bad parenting.

Maybe the exception would be a midnight Xmas mass at church, even at a midnight Harry potter launch, if you ain't old enough to read it, you need to be at home sleep.
The time doesn't change because the place is acceptable to you.
In fact, about a month ago I signed a petition that asked movie theaters to not allow anyone under 13 to any pg-13 or r rated movies that start after 7pm.
Has nothing to do with bad parenting.
And the worst thing about bring a baby to anything after midnight is that other people trying to have a good time have to hear your ugly baby screaming when they just wanted to have a good time.

So in short,

Babies or really young children at midnight anythings are

Bad parenting
Rude to the other people there
Bad for the children, at movies for example the noise levels can be insane,
Really inexcusable,
Has nothing to do with bad parenting. Until the laws/rules are changed they have that right. My friend is a nurse that gets off at 11:30pm and then picks up her baby at the sitters. I guess she's a bad parent when she takes the baby that's asleep to the grocery store. In this country movie theaters have always been safe places to go so I must disagree with you. It seems as though you're talking about kids aggravating you. A parent should always take the baby out of a public place if the child is being disruptive and if they don't it's not child abuse it's being rude and insensitive.

I don't care if you can't find a sitter, when you decided you wanted to have a baby, you decided to give up some things. And frankly going out at midnight anything when you can't find a sitter is one of them.

Why? Like I said everyone's schedule isn't the same as yours. You don't have to like it but I don't see it as bad parenting.

mykarma
Jul 25th, 2012, 12:28 AM
I was at an ASA race at the Minnesota State Fair with very loud noise coming from those old stock cars. Not too far away, amazingly, a cute little baby slept through the entire proceedings.
I know kids sleep through anything especially when they're accustom to hear hearing noise at home. When I was young my parents always had music playing and people dropping by, I slept through it all.

ptkten
Jul 25th, 2012, 12:36 AM
Can I say that if fuckin pisses me off when the same people who say that showing an id to get an ak-47 violates your 2nd amend. rights, but then they say that being forced to show an id to vote doesn't violate any rights?

Fucking hypocrites

Agree 100%. It's a sad day when people think gun rights are more important than voting rights.

Halardfan
Jul 25th, 2012, 01:13 AM
Yea, all that sounds good to rational people but you have no idea who irrational right wingers here get if you mention restricting guns in any way here. As you noticed Obama has been very careful not to mention the word because he knows that the NRA with Republicans are just gleefully awaiting for him to just mention the word in any capacity to add to their already conspiracy theories that he is going to take their guns.

Why give the Republicans the ammunition to blow up your campaign in this toxic atmosphere when chances are Congress is not going to act on this. Even a member of Congress was shot in the head and that didn't move them therefore I doubt any of this will. The only way I see this changing is if those who have been hurt by gun violence get together and start demanding the change. There was a ban on assault weapons but it expired in 2004 because the NRA galvanized against politicians who supported it and they lost their re-election bids.



8

I read an article that suggested that the power of the NRA is overestimated, and that it is possible to take them on and win...it cited Clinton as an example.

Obama's words following the tragedy have been noble and heartfelt, and yet without even a whisper of anything real being done, they are empty.

Of course it would be a formidable task to get anything done, risky, towering. But what are people in politics for, to win elections or to try to get good things done.

The article suggested a tactic that Clinton used...at anti-gun events surround yourself with Policemen, who are no friends of the gun culture. Make gun control the patriotic choice fight for what is right.

Tennis Fool
Jul 25th, 2012, 05:40 AM
Christian Bale made an unannounced visit to Aurora to meet several of the gunshot victims. Very cool of him. The photos were posted by them.

http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bale3__120724230445.jpg (http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bale3__120724230445.jpg)

Rocketta
Jul 25th, 2012, 07:18 AM
Such a sad sad tragedy.. :help:

Btw, I'm with MyKarma.... taking a young baby to the theatre is no big deal especially if it's normally the time they sleep. Being insensitive to others by not taking your noisy kid out of the theatre because you want to watch the movie has nothing to do with bad parenting.

There's a difference between something not being the preferred choice and something being 'bad'... I'm sure all the parents who took children to the movie would've preferred not to have them with them so they could enjoy the movie free.... but the reality is with movie ticket prices, food and drink prices sky high a lot of people can not afford to go to the movies and hire a babysitter. Some people would chose to wait for the DVD and others will choose not to wait.... I don't think it has much to do with parenting and more to with how badly they wanted to see the movie?? BTW, I don't think anyone would ask why were babies in the theatre if it was Ice Age and was the 10pm show when this tragedy happened... however, that movie is loud and isn't for a baby (under 1) either but I don't think anyone would question their parenting...

BTW, some babies will sleep through ANYTHING! Unfortunately, not my baby she wakes up at the smallest sound. :banghead:

mykarma
Jul 25th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Such a sad sad tragedy.. :help:

Btw, I'm with MyKarma.... taking a young baby to the theatre is no big deal especially if it's normally the time they sleep. Being insensitive to others by not taking your noisy kid out of the theatre because you want to watch the movie has nothing to do with bad parenting.

There's a difference between something not being the preferred choice and something being 'bad'... I'm sure all the parents who took children to the movie would've preferred not to have them with them so they could enjoy the movie free.... but the reality is with movie ticket prices, food and drink prices sky high a lot of people can not afford to go to the movies and hire a babysitter. Some people would chose to wait for the DVD and others will choose not to wait.... I don't think it has much to do with parenting and more to with how badly they wanted to see the movie?? BTW, I don't think anyone would ask why were babies in the theatre if it was Ice Age and was the 10pm show when this tragedy happened... however, that movie is loud and isn't for a baby (under 1) either but I don't think anyone would question their parenting...

BTW, some babies will sleep through ANYTHING! Unfortunately, not my baby she wakes up at the smallest sound. :banghead:

You probably were to quiet during your pregnancy, they'll show you.

Tennis Fool
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:26 PM
Gun sales surge in US following Colorado shooting :facepalm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/gun-sales-surge-in-us

Mynarco
Jul 25th, 2012, 02:31 PM
:facepalm: No.

harloo
Jul 25th, 2012, 04:13 PM
I agree with you Wigglytuff on almost your entire post. However.....there are folks who are legit gun collectors who probably would like to add an ak 47 to their collection. IMO there should be an exception in these type of instances. The only problem being, how does one decipher who really is the legit gun collector, or one who's planning some sinister plot.


How would you determine who is a collector or not? That would probably require extensive investigation which leads me to believe nobody outside of military personnel or law enforcement should have access to automatic weapons. These type of guns are extremely dangerous if they land in the wrong hands.

Number19
Jul 25th, 2012, 04:28 PM
Gun sales surge in US following Colorado shooting :facepalm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/gun-sales-surge-in-us

Of course. People think having a gun will protect them and that their "magic" bullets will hit the intended target and not another innocent person, and it will lower the possibility to nil they could be still be shot. Y'know just like in the movies - hero: safe and alive, bad guy: wasted or wounded and going to jail.

Just like the movies.

King Halep
Jul 25th, 2012, 04:43 PM
little for NRA to worry about, business is guaranteed :yeah:

King Halep
Jul 25th, 2012, 04:46 PM
Of course. People think having a gun will protect them and that their "magic" bullets will hit the intended target and not another innocent person, and it will lower the possibility to nil they could be still be shot. Y'know just like in the movies - hero: safe and alive, bad guy: wasted or wounded and going to jail.

Just like the movies.

gun shops should start selling a coolass utility belt :)

delicatecutter
Jul 25th, 2012, 05:36 PM
Gun sales are soaring in Nebraska too. This is why I'm afraid to go out in public.

Vlover
Jul 25th, 2012, 06:06 PM
I read an article that suggested that the power of the NRA is overestimated...
If that was correct, then how do you explain the above. This is not an automatic, logical reaction anywhere else on the planet. This is the result of a deliberately orchestrated campaign to get this desired result. As expected they have successfully manipulate the 2nd amendment and prey on vulnerable people's fear for monetary gains. As I said before, this will continue until more people wake up to the reality that the NRA is just happy to benefit from their tragedies.
Gun sales surge in US following Colorado shooting :facepalm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/gun-sales-surge-in-us

Gun sales are soaring in Nebraska too. This is why I'm afraid to go out in public.

ivanban
Jul 25th, 2012, 09:37 PM
Gun sales surge in US following Colorado shooting :facepalm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/gun-sales-surge-in-us

:facepalm: Typical :help:

Timariot
Jul 25th, 2012, 10:08 PM
How would you determine who is a collector or not? That would probably require extensive investigation which leads me to believe nobody outside of military personnel or law enforcement should have access to automatic weapons. These type of guns are extremely dangerous if they land in the wrong hands.

Probably with same kind of background check like is done with current Full auto licenses in most Western countries (including USA) at the moment. Very, very few crimes are made with collector weapons.

Now, your post exposes a typical logical fallacy: that it's safer to have those weapons only with military, police and security companies. But why? People applying to those jobs go through far less intensive background checks than your civilian collectors. Typically, they are also not very well paid jobs. And those people DO commit crimes, including homicides. I can't think of a single instance over last 30 years in any Western country where a licensed collector has gone nuts and killed people with legally owned full automatic gun (doesn't mean it has not happened, just can't think any). By contrast, I can think multiple instances where member of military has done such thing.

Regarding Aurora shooting, it's of course completely irrelevant as none of the guns used were automatic weapons.