Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
If no one can stop it then why doesn't it happen all the time elsewhere in 1st world countries? It's almost always America that this shit happens in.
Four comparable killing sprees in germany in the last 10 years, given that you have three times the population.. these incidents are no us problem and, in my opinion, are not related to your gun laws.
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols...
yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great
Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more.
Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations.
This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can.
With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
...What?
No really.
The hell did I just read?
Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man.
Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile.
Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man.
You're talking about a society that has civilian law-enforcers (possibly self-proclaimed) who carries a gun at all times. I'm sorry, but what country are you talking about again? You're saying that you are backing the current gun policies in USA, but your reasons for doing so has no foundation on how the american society actually works. You're painting up a fantasy story of ppl carrying guns when going to the cinemy. A few of the ppl in that cinema probably had, or could get access to a gun, but still they didn't bring a gun to the cinema. How do you suppose that these ppl should be convinced into always carry their firearms (to fit your reality)? And is that honestly the society that you want?, a society where 1 out of 20 or so walks around with a gun at all times (to protect society). Can't you see how ridiculous and dangerous that sounds? What if one of them misuses their power? What if their weapon gets stolen? Policemen pretty much always work in pairs in order to protect themselves, and to prevent their weapons from falling into the wrong hands. A civilian enforcer is much more vulnerable. Anyway, if you want more ppl protecting society and acting as heroes, wouldn't it be much more effective to increase the presence of the police? I mean, that's pretty much their job.
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
If no one can stop it then why doesn't it happen all the time elsewhere in 1st world countries? It's almost always America that this shit happens in.
Four comparable killing sprees in germany in the last 10 years, given that you have three times the population.. these incidents are no us problem and, in my opinion, are not related to your gun laws.
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols...
They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ...
It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence.
The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004.
Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily.
I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science.
More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence.
Violence happens. All. The. Time.
A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence.
Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right?
That's the point I'm trying to make.
You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks.
The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts.
Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous.
I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle.
A 24 year old med student?
Take a minute and consider how stupid that is.
Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons.
My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used.
I guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns)
Dude, three massacres over the past century? You're proving my point for me.
No one is suggesting banning all things. I'm just suggesting we use common sense.
I do not think I could stab 91 people in a crowded movie theatre before I got caught, shot, or the shit kicked out of me. You can barely do that in most videogames.
And affordable cars have revolutionized the design of cities and industries, altered all aspects of life and have contributed trillions of dollars to the economy over the past 70 years. Selling a car is NOT the same as selling a military grade assault rifle to someone with not credentials or training.
"This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."
I never claimed the link I gave was exhaustive. So I'm not exactly proving your point..
Maybe with a small knife it would be hard to kill a lot of people, but an axe, sword, baseball bat, etc. It doesn't have to 1v 100 people. You can isolate individuals and kill them one at a time MGS style. You can go to a school, creep around houses, etc.
Cars are great, I agree. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here.
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
I just can't believe you can get a high-ammunition clip for it. It's not exactly the kind of rifle you go shooting deer with.
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
If no one can stop it then why doesn't it happen all the time elsewhere in 1st world countries? It's almost always America that this shit happens in.
Four comparable killing sprees in germany in the last 10 years, given that you have three times the population.. these incidents are no us problem and, in my opinion, are not related to your gun laws.
It would have been easier if he just googled molotov cocktail, walked in the theater and threw them at random. You can't stop this shit, but it's better to be prepared for it than plug your ears and think something as simple as outlawing guns would prevent it.
If no one can stop it then why doesn't it happen all the time elsewhere in 1st world countries? It's almost always America that this shit happens in.
Four comparable killing sprees in germany in the last 10 years, given that you have three times the population.. these incidents are no us problem and, in my opinion, are not related to your gun laws.
It isn't really just about mass murder. It seems every day I turn on the news there is some piece on some family getting shot up, or a husband murdering his cheating wife. I don't know how people can defend the total lack of oversight and regulation when so often people who shouldn't have easy access to firearms do, and then commit atrocities with them.
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols...
yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great
Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more.
Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations.
This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can.
With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shootr who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
...What?
No really.
The hell did I just read?
Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man.
Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile.
Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man.
You're talking about a society that has civilian law-enforcers (possibly self-proclaimed) who carries a gun at all times. I'm sorry, but what country are you talking about again? You're saying that you are backing the current gun policies in USA, but your reasons for doing so has no foundation on how the american society actually works. You're painting up a fantasy story of ppl carrying guns when going to the cinemy. A few of the ppl in that cinema probably had, or could get access to a gun, but still they didn't bring a gun to the cinema. How do you suppose that these ppl should be convinced into always carry their firearms (to fit your reality)? And is that honestly the society that you want?, a society where 1 out of 20 or so walks around with a gun at all times (to protect society). Can't you see how ridiculous and dangerous that sounds? What if one of them misuses their power? What if their weapon gets stolen? Policemen pretty much always work in pairs in order to protect themselves, and to prevent their weapons from falling into the wrong hands. A civilian enforcer is much more vulnerable. Anyway, if you want more ppl protecting society and acting as heroes, wouldn't it be much more effective to increase the presence of the police? I mean, that's pretty much their job.
Truth is many places such as malls theatres and what not prohibit firearms inside. And in many states you have to comply. It's likely a reason these cowards pick crowded places that do not allow firearms.
On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote: Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols...
yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great
Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more.
Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations.
This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can.
With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
...What?
No really.
The hell did I just read?
Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man.
Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile.
Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man.
Real life is not some fucking comic/book action movie. I don't care how good with a gun you are, you are not trained or experienced in using it in a panic situation. Which is what the post I was replying to was implying. "Some hero with a gun could have saved everyone!!!" Maybe. Very likely not though. Get off it.
It's not just "some hero". As someone else mentioned, what if there were 5 of the armed citizens? You don't need to be military trained to know that as soon as someone takes a shot, he will turn to deal with it, and that is your opportunity. It's simple wolfpack instinct.
The guy chose correctly walking into a movie which was probably 80% 22 and below. Who knows what his chances wouldv'e been in a movie with a few older heatpackers sitting above him.
What if...-scenario's are strawmen to the umphf degree. What if everyone wore bulletproof vests and gas masks at all times? This would obviously lead to less cases where the entire audience would get gassed and the allow people to escape with less injuries. Having untrained, triggerhappy citizen carry guns would provide much better chances for fellow innocents? Because that IS what you are claiming with "You dpn't need to be military trained to know ..."
Getting shot by concealing citizens is not better than getting shot by a maniac. Guess what? You still bleed red.
STRAWMAN is using words like untrained or triggerhappy to describe competent gun owners and what ifs like "what if everyone who carried was a complete idiot who had no training at all and blind fired into crowds of people hoping to hit a bad guy"
Attempting to put a crazed gunman on the ground at the risk of hitting innocent civilians or getting sprayed yourself is better than saying "well, since I'm not military or swat trained, I'll just roll over and hope he doesn't shoot me or hope his gun gets jammed or just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ". Again, I'm not going to play those odds, and I would suggest that any one with a calm disposition and 20/20 vision... get a permit and start carrying. Carrying is not high risk high reward situation. It's low risk (accidental discharge is highly uncommon in concealed carry permit holders) and even though the risk of ever running into a situation where you need it is extremely low, you'll always know that you have the best chance of coming out alive or saving people around you.... if you have put in the time to know how to react in this situation. You can believe they have and know, or you can say they are full of shit and won't be of any help when the time comes. Those of us who have.... we know who we are.
You are exactly the type of person who should not be trusted with a firearm.
Also your argument is bordering insanity and unless there is an alien invasion or another one of those hill-billy apocalypse scenarios, there is no reason for anyone to be armed, as it just provokes panic and far far more violence.
Perhaps also read up on Human psychology and physiology when under extreme stress and anxiety, the last thing anyone is going to be in a situation that warrants having a concealed firearm is calm and collected.
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
I just can't believe you can get a high-ammunition clip for it. It's not exactly the kind of rifle you go shooting deer with.
Yeah...the high capacity mags are kinda weird. They were banned at a federal level for a while, and after the ban expired a lot of states banned them at the state level.
I don't particularly think they should be banned as there are firearm collectors and enthusiasts that collect firearms the same way people collect other stuff, but, still, I can definitely understand the criticism on the dude having a C mag.
Cars are great. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here.
Assault rifles are great, too. But you can't deny selling one to 24 year old Med student without a license or credentials seems like a bad idea, even if they are squeaky clean. Let's not be ridiculous here.
The benefit of cars far outweighs the risks they pose to society. I'm not saying that you should ban the sale of guns, it just that maybe it's time to raise the requirements of purchasing guns like these, instead of just selling them to any schmoe off the street.
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone...
On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote: i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
The problem is ... guns are legitimately cool.
The first time I ever shot a gun at a range before, I immediately understood why people collect guns. They are amazing pieces of machinery.
I just think the gun laws in the US are simply too lax. They don't protect society, nor do they protect responsible, law-abiding gun owners. They just make it easier for any retard to get a gun.
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
I thought the SPAS-12 was banned in most countries for being a semi-auto shotgun?
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
I thought the SPAS-12 was banned in most countries for being a semi-auto shotgun?
Semi auto shotties are legal in USA but are plugged just like pumps. Spas is a hi capacity i think. Then again I think home def shotties can have a 8 shell clip. So dunno
On July 21 2012 11:02 m4inbrain wrote: That actually looks more martial than the gun i used in the military. Quite scary, and frankly, i would not want to see my neighbor with that thing.
Apparentlyin Colorado, you do not need a licence or permit to purchase this gun, nor do you need to register it.
That's because it's just a rifle. "Looking bad" is the same logic that got things like the SPAS-12 banned for being a pretty shotgun.
I thought the SPAS-12 was banned in most countries for being a semi-auto shotgun?
"The appearance and intended purpose of the SPAS-12 initially led to its 'combat' arrangement, including a unique folding stock, being banned from import to the United States due to a lack of "sporting purpose".
On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote: i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone...
A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine
Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me.
EPT
