guns

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
.

The problem with your perspective SOBER, is that its generated out of the John Wayne Syndrome where guys like you want to be a "hero" so bad with your guns as if you are the cowboy in the white hat.

But in reality, guys like you are not heros because you carry a gun, you are the kind of person the public should fear.

What a bigoted statement.

You dont know me, you've never met me, yet you would arrogantly presume to analyze my mental state and ascribe "John Wayne" fantasies to me based solely on the fact that I...like 150 million other law-abiding citizens....choose to own a gun.

If you want to "fear" me, go ahead. My entire criminal record consists of one speeding ticket dating back 27 yrs ago when I was 18. Ive been in one fight my entire life, in 4th grade. I have undergone a complete NCIS criminal background and fingerprint check...twice. I have taken multiple gun training and safety classes. Same employer (UPS) for 25 yrs. I obey the law, I dont drink or do drugs, and am a peaceful and nonviolent person.

Its not me that fuels your fear and paranoia, its the inantimate object I own and carry that fuels your fear and paranoia.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
In the cities of Compton, Bell Gardens, South Central, East Los Angeles, San Fernando ( all in southern california ) are cities where most of the population is ARMED, would you call all these men in these cities "heros"??

No, unless they are law-abiding people like me I would call them "criminals".

I dont want to be a "hero." Nor do I want to be the dead victim of an armed criminal.



 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Really, Sober, I think you know the mindset that TOS is talking about. I agree that he has incorrectly put you in that camp, but the mindset is not that foreign in society or here on BC. Aj referencing the video of Grandpa firing at two thugs is a perfect example.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
What i find odd is your claim that we are UNARMED and HELPLESS while the ARMED LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS have their way with us.... how do you define LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS??

TOS

Im not a doctor, but when a guy walks into a crowded theater and starts opening up on people with an AR-15 I would go out on a limb and classify him as a LUNATIC and a PSYCHOPATH.

My preference...if I should be ever unfortunate enough to find myself in a situation like that with no ready means of escape...would be to at least have some means of defending myself. Your preference...apparently...would be to cower on your knees and scream for help like a little bitch. Its a free country, and to each their own.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Really, Sober, I think you know the mindset that TOS is talking about. I agree that he has incorrectly put you in that camp, but the mindset is not that foreign in society or here on BC. Aj referencing the video of Grandpa firing at two thugs is a perfect example.

Ive seen that video.

I wasnt there, so it would be ignorant of me to judge "Grandpas" actions from a tactical perspective...but from a legal standpoint at least his actions were certainly justified. Violent criminals were in the act of committing a violent felony armed with deadly weapons, and he used lethal force to stop them. Whats the problem?
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
No problem whatsoever with the video. But posting it in this discussion as a parallel to what happened in Colorado? Yeah, that's a jump I would say and I think you have agreed.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
In this shooting, every right wing kook on the radio keeps repeating the claim that "if only" one person had a gun in that theatre, the outcome would have been different.

But what if there were more than ONE person armed in that theatre??

Lets say there were 5 armed persons in there, and the gas canisters go off and the shooter begins his rampage and the first person takes out his gun and starts shooting, then the other 4 persons who do not know who each other are, take out guns, who are they going to shoot other than each other??

Its the stupid suggestions that make me laugh the best. Now you would have 6 shooters firing inside the theatre and NONE of them would know who the other was or why they were shooting. In the dark, in a panic, in chaos, in the smoke and with all the loudness of the movie sound, it would be a free-for-all and many more people would have been killed.


TOS

The reality is that it is impossible to say what might have happened in that theater had one or more movie-goers been armed. Your little "scenario" is every bit as presumptuous and ignorant as the John Wayne types who claim they would have head-shot the guy from the back of a dark theater. For all we know, there were armed civilians there (certainly plausible in a "shall issue" state like CO) who never had a chance to draw their weapons or who (prudently, I might add) fled the theater rather than attempting to engage a shooter wearing body armor and armed with a rifle.

What we do know at this point...is that an ARMED lunatic walked in and gunned down a buinch of UNARMED victims. I dont want to be an unarmed victim. I respect your right to choose otherwise.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
Clearly, restricting access to assault weapons and magazines that limit rounds is the answer.

I have very little personal experience with the AR-15 platform, but what I do know is that a shooter with any level of proficiency can drop an empty mag out and have a fresh one inserted before the empty hits the floor.

Had the Aurora shooter been equipped with "assault weapon ban" compliant 10 round mags, the outcome of this tragedy would have been the same. Remember that he had multiple weapons on his person, as well as the element of surprise on his side and a panicked and helpless crowd.

There is also a school of thought that the aftermarket 100 round drum magazine he used may have actually saved lives since these mags are notorious for jamming and causing the weapon to overheat and become unfireable. The rifle was never intended to be used with such a magazine.

My personal theory (and thats all it is at this point) is that he gave up because (a) his weapon malfunctioned and (b) firing multiple rounds from such a rifle indoors without hearing protection will quite literally rupture a persons eardrums and cause them to become disoriented from the concussion and muzzle blast.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I have very little personal experience with the AR-15 platform, but what I do know is that a shooter with any level of proficiency can drop an empty mag out and have a fresh one inserted before the empty hits the floor.

Had the Aurora shooter been equipped with "assault weapon ban" compliant 10 round mags, the outcome of this tragedy would have been the same. Remember that he had multiple weapons on his person, as well as the element of surprise on his side and a panicked and helpless crowd.

There is also a school of thought that the aftermarket 100 round drum magazine he used may have actually saved lives since these mags are notorious for jamming and causing the weapon to overheat and become unfireable. The rifle was never intended to be used with such a magazine.

My personal theory (and thats all it is at this point) is that he gave up because (a) his weapon malfunctioned and (b) firing multiple rounds from such a rifle indoors without hearing protection will quite literally rupture a persons eardrums and cause them to become disoriented from the concussion and muzzle blast.

Excuse me sober but presenting a logical argument is useless with TOS.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
When Gov Romney was in office, HE BANNED all the guns used by this shooter and the magazines he had.

When CLINTON was in office, he also BANNED all the guns used by the shooter. IT was BUSH and the GOP controlled house and senate that UNDID the bans on those weapons and THEY should be held partially responsible for thier contribution to this massacre.

Peace

TOS

Incorrect.

The so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994-2004 NEVER BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS.

What it did...all it did...was to ban the import or manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Unless you lived in a nanny-state like California, it was still perfectly legal to own, use or buy hi cap mags. I know, I bought them myself during that time frame. They were simply more expensive.

The AR-15 rifle the shooter used was and still is even legally available in California of all places, albiet with a 10 round limit on the magazine and no pistol grip allowed on it. Neither of these restrictions would have had any effect on the outcome of the massacre.

What we are dealing with here is a lunatic who carefully planned this massacre over a period of several months. He spent several thousand dollars on guns and ammo. He meticulously booby-trapped his apartment with explosives. No amount of "feel good" legislation or phony "bans" on scary looking guns would have changed the outcome. He was going to do what he was going to do regardless of the law and the only way to have stopped him was to kill him first.
 
Last edited:

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
I have very little personal experience with the AR-15 platform, but what I do know is that a shooter with any level of proficiency can drop an empty mag out and have a fresh one inserted before the empty hits the floor.

Had the Aurora shooter been equipped with "assault weapon ban" compliant 10 round mags, the outcome of this tragedy would have been the same. Remember that he had multiple weapons on his person, as well as the element of surprise on his side and a panicked and helpless crowd.

There is also a school of thought that the aftermarket 100 round drum magazine he used may have actually saved lives since these mags are notorious for jamming and causing the weapon to overheat and become unfireable. The rifle was never intended to be used with such a magazine.

My personal theory (and thats all it is at this point) is that he gave up because (a) his weapon malfunctioned and (b) firing multiple rounds from such a rifle indoors without hearing protection will quite literally rupture a persons eardrums and cause them to become disoriented from the concussion and muzzle blast.

Looks like I hit a nerve, so lets go from there.

I agree that something stopped the shooter from creating more deaths, but I attribute that to his faulty use of the gas canisters and his gas mask. IF he did not securely affix the mask to his own face, and by that I mean, pretest for leaks...(something a total amatuer would do) then its quite possible that his own gas incapacitated him and he could no longer breathe or see clearly.

The jam was the biggest factor in the shooting, as in his planning, he must have believed that with all that armor and that AR15 with all those rounds, he could battle it out, but once the AR jammed, he discarded it on the floor going to his secondary weapons.

Once the gas started affecting his own person, his ability to fight was weakened, and he walked out like the little Bitch that HE was. A BIG man walked in with several guns and a little coward walked out rubbing his eyes.

This would explain why he did not confront the police, as he was unable to and his primary weapon was still on the ground inside the theatre.

If he could have seen clearly, and his AR15 was still operating, he probably would have continued to shoot at the police. Upon conclusion of the investigation, we will have some ideas how many shots he actually fired and from what weapons.

Additionally, I agree with the point that the sound may have also affected his ability to concentrate.

Further, without him having been trained with the AR, its quite possible that he was just overwhelmed with the power and functionality of the rifle and he then panicked.

My real issue is HOW did and WHY would this country allow ANYBODY to buy that many guns and ammo in such a short period of time and NOT one RED FLAG been raised.

Why is it always after a person legally buys guns and commits crimes do any of you call them KOOKS??

At what point did they become KOOKS?

If gun owners become KOOKS at some point after they buy the guns, why cant we assume all gun owners will become KOOKS? The majority of gun deaths are a result of domestic violence and that shows us how easy it is for a gun owner to become a KOOK.

Weak Emotions and GUNs do not mix. Weak Emotions, drugs and/or alcohol also do not mix. Weak Emotions, drugs, Alcohol and GUNS are deadly.

But how do we figure this out before a guy like this shooter walk into a gun shop and buy enough weapons to kill hundreds?

Peace

TOS
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
I have heard that all that body armor he was wearing was not for someone shooting at him, but to be used as a means of escape. He planned to blend in with all the responding officers and walk away, just as the joker did in the movie.
His flaw was the he was using a different style of gas mask then the real officers had on.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
At what point did they become KOOKS?

If gun owners become KOOKS at some point after they buy the guns, why cant we assume all gun owners will become KOOKS? The majority of gun deaths are a result of domestic violence and that shows us how easy it is for a gun owner to become a KOOK.

Because at least 150 million gun owners didnt kill anyone or commit any sort of crime today.

There is a knee-jerk assumption on your part which is typical of people who hate guns. That assumption...is that otherwise stable and well-adjusted and law-abiding people will automatically become bloodthirsty psychotics the moment a firearm is placed into their hands.

This assumption is not true. A gun is an inantimate object that is incapable of acting on its own. It does not somehow impart evil tendencies or malicious intent upon the person who holds it. It does not cause crime and it does not cause domestic violence. It is merely a tool.

I dont know if the majority of gun deaths are related to domestic violence or not. What I do know...is that the majority of gun deaths and incidents of domestic violence are also drug and alcohol related. And as I have stated before, alcohol abuse causes far more deaths than firearms do, yet if you tried to impose the same sorts of restrictions and background checks and general nanny-state foolishness on American drinkers, the public outcry would be deafening.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
In the 1.5 minutes that it took the police to respond, the lunatic killed 12 and wounded 58.

The massacre was over before any sort of armed response arrived...which is sadly typical for these situations.

Your assertion that the people in that theater were somehow safer because they were unarmed and incapable of fighting back in any way...is the most utterly ridiculous drivel that I have ever heard.






Well, according to you then, they need to allow the right to carry everywhere then.
And I mean everywhere - cinemas, schools, work place, sporting events, bars, librairies, campuses, etc.
Because otherwise people could find themselves in the same boat as those movie goers, unaremd and helpless.

You should get a national petetion going so new laws can be put in place so no one should ever feel unsafe and helpless, again.
 
Top