guns

[tourists24]

Today, on the air, SEAN HANNITY IGNORANTLY suggested the same thing! Hannity, suggested that if someone was legally armed in the theatre, that person could have shot the gunman and saved lives.

Here's the problem with this concept.

1) The shooter was wearing a full bullet proof vest, an armored groin protector, armored leg shields, an armored neck shield, tactical gloves and a tactical helmet.

How many shots from ANY handgun would have brought this idiot down with this kind of body protection. Answer?? ZERO.

Instead, the legally armed shooter would probably end up shooting innocent persons with all the smoke in the air and kaos that was happening in the isles. There is NO proof that anyone ARMED could have changed the circumstances in that theatre.

The shooter, planned this event and executed it with serious intentions, and no one with a simple handgun in the theatre could have stopped him. The assault rifle alone would have been turned on the person with the handgun, and just using simple numerics, the rifle would have outshot the person until that person was also dead.

Its LAME to suggest that a person legally armed would have saved the day.

Peace

TOS

and any unarmed person would have?

 

[Babagounj]

Holmes knew the movie chain had a gun-free policy.
He was not expecting anyone to challenge him , but if one or more had he would have retreated.
Notice that when the armed police officers confronted him , he quickly gave up even with all the body protection he was wearing .

 

[The Other Side]

Holmes knew the movie chain had a gun-free policy.
He was not expecting anyone to challenge him , but if one or more had he would have retreated.
Notice that when the armed police officers confronted him , he quickly gave up even with all the body protection he was wearing .

HE IS A COWARD BABA. When the guns do the talking, these types of guys become men, when the magazines are empty and the guns are silent, they become what they really are... COWARDS.

All that armor and he walks out like a little B*t*ch.

Peace

TOS

 

[brett636]

100% ?

Yup. When you take the argument made by bbsam, klein, TOS, etc., and break it down it its ugly, raw core you get the argument that we are simply too free a people. We have too many liberties and because of that this tragedy occurred. Their argument is that if we had less liberties this tragedy would have been prevented, and or future tragedies avoided. So my question to bbsam is since liberties lost is security gained at what point does our security ensure no more tragedies similar to this one occur?

 

[klein]

You know what ?
I'll never forget when I went to Anaheim, Ca, to watch the Oilers and Ducks play in the Stanley Cup playoffs.
You need to go thru a metal detector there, and after the first period, I decided to go outside and have a smoke.
I was right infront of the door, next to the "metal detector" security guard.
I had my few puffs - and got metal detected, again !

I told him, I was right next to you, now why bother ? - He responded it's precedure.
I didn't even bother going out after the 2nd period to smoke - too much hassle !


Well, all I can say, if Americans love their guns - then sure let people pay for extra security.
Now, you'll need it at schools, movies, and probabaly soon grocery stores.

I assume you have the money to pay for extra hired security personal.

And that's a big differnce between a gun-free or gun conrolled country (USA - Canada), - I don't need to go thru metal detectors here to attend a sporting event, or anywhere else, besides the damn airport (after check in), and don't even need to take my shoes off either !

 

[bbsam]

Yup. When you take the argument made by bbsam, klein, TOS, etc., and break it down it its ugly, raw core you get the argument that we are simply too free a people. We have too many liberties and because of that this tragedy occurred. Their argument is that if we had less liberties this tragedy would have been prevented, and or future tragedies avoided. So my question to bbsam is since liberties lost is security gained at what point does our security ensure no more tragedies similar to this one occur?

I don't think it is the gun control side that needs to answer this, it's the NRA. You tell us what enforcement will keep this from happening. Fine. We don't need new laws, we need better enforcement. Ok. Background checks, registration, and then what? Let everyone carry weapons everywhere? Remember the firefight in L.A. about 15 years ago? Couple guys armed to the teeth? Cops blasting away at their body armor to no avail. What good would an "armed citizenry" have done?

Why should the NRA and like minded individuals get to sit on the sidelines and just whine about losing liberty? Time to start thinking it through and figuring out smart enforcement. This isn't about "taking away your guns". And to those suggesting that without guns the psychopaths would just use knives etc., I like my chances against a psycho with a knife far better than one armed like Holmes.

 

[bbsam]

Yup. When you take the argument made by bbsam, klein, TOS, etc., and break it down it its ugly, raw core you get the argument that we are simply too free a people. We have too many liberties and because of that this tragedy occurred. Their argument is that if we had less liberties this tragedy would have been prevented, and or future tragedies avoided. So my question to bbsam is since liberties lost is security gained at what point does our security ensure no more tragedies similar to this one occur?

Count them up for me brett. How many liberties did each dead movie-goer lose for the sake of the liberty Holmes had to own the weapons he unleashed on them?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

How about the loss of liberties the other residents of his apartment complex have had to endure due to their evacuation so that the authorities could try to safely enter his booby-trapped apartment?

 

[cachsux]

You know what ?
I'll never forget when I went to Anaheim, Ca, to watch the Oilers and Ducks play in the Stanley Cup playoffs.
You need to go thru a metal detector there, and after the first period, I decided to go outside and have a smoke.
I was right infront of the door, next to the "metal detector" security guard.
I had my few puffs - and got metal detected, again !

I told him, I was right next to you, now why bother ? - He responded it's precedure.
I didn't even bother going out after the 2nd period to smoke - too much hassle !


Well, all I can say, if Americans love their guns - then sure let people pay for extra security.
Now, you'll need it at schools, movies, and probabaly soon grocery stores.

I assume you have the money to pay for extra hired security personal.

And that's a big differnce between a gun-free or gun conrolled country (USA - Canada), - I don't need to go thru metal detectors here to attend a sporting event, or anywhere else, besides the damn airport (after check in), and don't even need to take my shoes off either !

How much money do I need to send you to get you to stfu and go away?

 

[bbsam]

How much money do I need to send you to get you to stfu and go away?

Now that's brilliant.

 

[Babagounj]

Batman Victim Had Escaped Toronto Shooting Jessica Ghawi was at the Eaton Center mall shooting in Toronto.

 

[tourists24]

I don't think it is the gun control side that needs to answer this, it's the NRA. You tell us what enforcement will keep this from happening. Fine. We don't need new laws, we need better enforcement. Ok. Background checks, registration, and then what? Let everyone carry weapons everywhere? Remember the firefight in L.A. about 15 years ago? Couple guys armed to the teeth? Cops blasting away at their body armor to no avail. What good would an "armed citizenry" have done?

Why should the NRA and like minded individuals get to sit on the sidelines and just whine about losing liberty? Time to start thinking it through and figuring out smart enforcement. This isn't about "taking away your guns". And to those suggesting that without guns the psychopaths would just use knives etc., I like my chances against a psycho with a knife far better than one armed like Holmes.

and my question would again be, what good would an unarmed citizenry have done to prevent this? does that mean this murderer would not have been able to get guns? I agree that we need better enforcement though; but disarming the general public I dont think is the answer

 

[The Other Side]

Yup. When you take the argument made by bbsam, klein, TOS, etc., and break it down it its ugly, raw core you get the argument that we are simply too free a people. We have too many liberties and because of that this tragedy occurred. Their argument is that if we had less liberties this tragedy would have been prevented, and or future tragedies avoided. So my question to bbsam is since liberties lost is security gained at what point does our security ensure no more tragedies similar to this one occur?

Liberties? You want to protect the right of ONE PERSON to buy an ar15 with 223 rounds and a drum magazine that holds more than 100 rounds, 3 glock 40 caliber pistols and a pump shotgun and disregard the rights of hundreds of movie goers who had the RIGHT to watch a movie in PEACE??

Ill say this again, the person who needs a gun in their life to solve problems is a COWARD.

Hiding behind a RIGHT doesnt make that person more of a man, it legitimizes cowardice.

No matter what we do to restrict guns, every gun owner at some point will turn on his family or fellow citizens once he loses his mind. Just last week, the Republicans voted down a bill that would have required bullet makers to serialize bullets in order to trace them. But why? Who are they protecting? The publc? or the NRA's biggest co-op in the war on citizens?

Everyday is a future tragedy with guns. Husbands shooting wives, wives shooting husbands, fathers killing children, workers shooting co workers, boyfriends shooting girlfriends other boyfriends, its all a too familiar story in this country. The GUN owners choose to IGNORE the deaths of its fellow citizens in a selfish way just because "They" havent had the opportunity to kill someone yet.

But do the math. In the last 20 years, 1.8 million citizens have been killed by guns in this country, and those killings were always tagged with "some nut with a gun".

Gee, how did 1.8 million nuts get the guns in the first place?

Oh yeah, it was their right.

peace

TOS

 

[The Other Side]

I prefer Chris Rocks take on GUN CONTROL...

CAUTION... extreme language used in comedy

Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube

Peace

TOS

 

[soberups]

HE IS A COWARD BABA. When the guns do the talking, these types of guys become men, when the magazines are empty and the guns are silent, they become what they really are... COWARDS.

All that armor and he walks out like a little B*t*ch.

Peace

TOS

I will agree with TOS that gunning unarmed people down in a theater while wearing body armor is the act of a coward.

Where I disagree is in his bigoted assumption that such actions represent the mindset of all gun owners.

This was the act of a lunatic plain and simple. It has nothing to do with gun laws, or concealed carry, or the NRA or the 2nd Amendment.

Blaming gun laws for this tragedy is like blaming the Wright Brothers for 9-11. A person whose soul is so poisoned with hate that they would even contemplate such a massacre is not going to be dissuaded from following thru on it by any additional laws or restrictions against gun ownership.

 

[klein]

And most of you think Mexico is bad. Atleast they fight their drug wars among each other.
When was the last time you heard of a Mexican school shooting, or random shootings at resorts, or any other public place, such as a movie theatre, or even work place ?
Answer is : Never or you don't recall !

Or perhaps, Mexico has less lunitics than America, eh ?

 

[island1fox]

I say this with all due respect to Upstate and TOS and any other person that feels that they do not believe that evil can raise its ugly head in their neighborhoods.

I had the opportunity to work and live in many different states and three different countries ( yes Klein, INCLUDING Canada )

Evil can occur anywhere at anytime --gun or no gun --I do not wish harm will come to anyone but to state that "my" neighborhood is safe ---just puts you at more risk. I do not live my life in fear --just face the world with a true sense of reality.


P.s. Klein the sports reporter that was killed in Colorado just narrowly escaped the same fate in Canada last week. Also pay attention to YOUR countries news once in a while ------shooting by evil people with illegal guns seems to be a real problem.

 

[The Other Side]

I will agree with TOS that gunning unarmed people down in a theater while wearing body armor is the act of a coward.

Where I disagree is in his bigoted assumption that such actions represent the mindset of all gun owners.

This was the act of a lunatic plain and simple. It has nothing to do with gun laws, or concealed carry, or the NRA or the 2nd Amendment.

Blaming gun laws for this tragedy is like blaming the Wright Brothers for 9-11. A person whose soul is so poisoned with hate that they would even contemplate such a massacre is not going to be dissuaded from following thru on it by any additional laws or restrictions against gun ownership.

But my friend, you are NOT disagreeing with me. In fact, you are agreeing with me. LUNATICS dont buy guns. Legal purchases by citizens excersizing their rights to do so, as in this case. All guns bought in retail stores, bullets bought online.

At what point do you think the gun owner becomes a LUNATIC?

Before the gun purchase, during the gun purchase or after the gun purchase?

Is there a method to detect the lunatic as they are purchasing guns? Of course not. ALL GUN owners buy guns without the thought of killing their own families or fellow citizens. But when LIFE deals some bad cards, those same gun owners want to pull a miracle out on the river and the GUN overides those bad cards.

In every case, a gun owner makes the decision to solve his problems with the gun, and SOBER, I ask you, "hypothetically", you come home, you catch your wife in bed with a man, you have guns, are you going to tell me your first reaction is going to be a rational "talk out" with both of them? Or are you likely to lose your mind and pull your gun from your holster and shoot both of them?

Realistically, you cant answer that question, because you are not emotionally involved at the moment, but at the moment when your emotions are running rapid, you wont know what you would do, and in most cases, people get shot.

Had it not been for the convenience of the gun, nobody would end up dead.

This shooting, is simply another case of an american Terrorist putting the country into fear. Whatever this persons personal problems were, they manifested themself into a mass shooting on the american public whuch has a right to live in peace.

I would rather take away the ability for a person like this to obtain a gun, vs take away the rights of thousands of citizens who want to watch a movie.

Peace

TOS

 

[brett636]

Liberties? You want to protect the right of ONE PERSON to buy an ar15 with 223 rounds and a drum magazine that holds more than 100 rounds, 3 glock 40 caliber pistols and a pump shotgun and disregard the rights of hundreds of movie goers who had the RIGHT to watch a movie in PEACE??

Ill say this again, the person who needs a gun in their life to solve problems is a COWARD.

Hiding behind a RIGHT doesnt make that person more of a man, it legitimizes cowardice.

No matter what we do to restrict guns, every gun owner at some point will turn on his family or fellow citizens once he loses his mind. Just last week, the Republicans voted down a bill that would have required bullet makers to serialize bullets in order to trace them. But why? Who are they protecting? The publc? or the NRA's biggest co-op in the war on citizens?

Everyday is a future tragedy with guns. Husbands shooting wives, wives shooting husbands, fathers killing children, workers shooting co workers, boyfriends shooting girlfriends other boyfriends, its all a too familiar story in this country. The GUN owners choose to IGNORE the deaths of its fellow citizens in a selfish way just because "They" havent had the opportunity to kill someone yet.

But do the math. In the last 20 years, 1.8 million citizens have been killed by guns in this country, and those killings were always tagged with "some nut with a gun".

Gee, how did 1.8 million nuts get the guns in the first place?

Oh yeah, it was their right.

peace

TOS

You mean to tell me a lunatic crazy enough to commit such a crime would have just thrown his hands up and said "oh well, gotta go back to normal life" if he could not have gotten his hands on a gun? He seems pretty adept at building explosives, and perhaps he would have used that skill instead of firearms and killed many more by blowing up the entire theater. No law can stop someone like this. They have to be stopped before committing the act, and this has no bearing on the how many or few liberties the general population has because liberty cannot be traded for security, it is only lost in the supposed name of it.

 

[klein]

P.s. Klein the sports reporter that was killed in Colorado just narrowly escaped the same fate in Canada last week. Also pay attention to YOUR countries news once in a while ------shooting by evil people with illegal guns seems to be a real problem.

That's the difference.
Your Movie shooter got obtained his guns totally legally ! And his ammo, too.
TO shooting was actually a drug related thingy, he was going after 1 specific person, but had such a bad gun and bad aim that all that crap happned there.
But atleast on 2 died. (I believe 1 of them was his target).