Disgusted?

[drg]

Someone brought up something interesting the other day, while he did acquire the firearms legally, THERE IS ALSO A LAW AGAINST CAPITOL MURDER, BUT HE BROKE THAT ONE TOO, what makes you, or anyone, think that a law against owning guns is the one he would follow?

Logic doesn't really follow here, as the shop was unlikely to cooperate in him illegally buying the guns. Most likely he would have bought legal weapons, for the same reason he bought legal weapons this time around -- he had no intention to break the law at that time. And the truth is, very likely his firepower would have been limited compared to what it was.

In order to have mature discussions about guns, you need to acknowledge the realities of the issue, not fantasies. Some regulation is good, necessary and completely constitutional. Discussing that regulation can only be done among rational people, and unfortunately all too often the gun lobby and its zealous supporters act with a near pathological mentality.

That's a problem, because it's going to be hard to keep guns out of the hands of truly insane people if so many gun owners keep skirting the edges of sanity.

Where were the police when the Trayvon Martin thing went down?
Where were the police when Aurora movie theatre got shot up?
Where were the police at Columbine HS?
Where were the police at VT?
Where were the police at the killing spree in Norway? (Another WoW player by the way)
Where were the police at xxx?

This is not a valid point without considering the number of successful police interventions that have happened during the same time period. It was far more than 5. You can start listing them any time.

[OPBN]

Too soon

The real issue there is the gun laws, it is illegal to carry open or concealed firearms within Aurora Colorado. if even one of those people had been carrying, I guarantee it would have gone down differently.

While he did have body armor, hes a D-bag nerd kid who plays world of warcraft. The rounds may hit the armor, but putting fire on someone out in the open (like the front of a movie theatre) will definitely make him run, or duck and cover etc.. slowing potentially stopping his attack. .[/B]

I think your logic is a little flawed here. I'm pretty sure CCC classes are designed to teach people how to handle a gun safely, not tactical training. What makes you think that Joe Moviegoer is going to be any more cool under pressure when some psycho throws a smoke grenade into a crowded movie theater and opens fire? I would put money that with or without a gun most people would just piss themselves and hide when being shot at. And how good of a shot are these guys going to be? Again, CCC carrierss arent exactly SWAT team members. So now instead of one guy shooting, we have 5 or 6 civilians with little beyond basic training trading fire in a dark, crowded, smoky theater.

[Frizzle Fry]

Logic doesn't really follow here, as the shop was unlikely to cooperate in him illegally buying the guns. Most likely he would have bought legal weapons, for the same reason he bought legal weapons this time around -- he had no intention to break the law at that time. And the truth is, very likely his firepower would have been limited compared to what it was

I have to disagree.

This guy lived in the PRK (specifically San Diego) until fall of 2011, which makes it highly unlikely that he owned weapons during that period (he was there until he was 23, and lived on a college campus). The weapons used were purchased after the move to Colorado. He bought his weapons in late May, dropped out of school in early June, and murdered a large number of people in mid July. It's pretty clear why he bought them.

He had no record - in fact his charity work, doctorate-in-progress and any other number of factors made him a prime candidate for licensing, even in a state that wipes its ass with the constitution like Massachusetts or New York. What element of gun control would have helped here? Banning guns all together? He had no record, and didn't buy anything unusual.

The media will point to his "6000rds of ammunition" like it's some sign that he's deranged, but when you own a few guns in different calibers you buy a few hundred rounds at a time, it's cheaper and it saves on trips to the store (especially if you're a plinker). Do you know how big a box of fifty 22s is? Miniscule.

People can talk about the AR15 he used being an "assault weapon" but it's a hunting rifle. Semi automatic, detachable magazine, the same results could have been achieved with a BAR or a Mini 14 or a Remington 750. Being inspired by the movie (he told the police he was "The Joker") he probably picked the AR15 because it LOOKS so similar to the M4s being toted by many of the villains (or because it looks "cool"). What differentiates it from those as far as function goes is that it's still just a semi-automatic rifle; no burst or FA.

Some regulation is good, necessary and completely constitutional.

Some regulation exists... Legal gun owners are all state licensed and background-checked, and legal owners of automatic weapons and explosives are all state and federally licensed. You can't buy a cannon, you can't buy a hand grenade, and you can't buy a machinegun. If you're a felon, or on antipsychotics, you can't even buy grandpas HR single-break .410 let alone a handgun.

Regulations exist and are extremely effective. Very few violent gun crimes are committed with legally owned firearms; most are committed with stolen or smuggled weapons (not weapons purchased by a shill). Most non-violent gun crimes are committed by legal owners, because the tangled web of conflicting and irrational state and federal gun laws that have existed since the early 90s were written by people who know about as much about guns as they do about life on mars, so much so that the police and lawyers and judges can barely make sense of them.

It gets very unconstitutional when you start telling people who have committed no crime and have no mental illeness why they can own guns (people love to talk about "hunting") and why they can't. The constitution says it and the supreme court backs it up - we can own guns for personal and home defense. Why not be able to own guns that are designed for just that, rather than antiques and outdated designs that are a struggle to operate and maintain? Technically a Springfield 1903 is an "assault weapon" as it was made for the military, but no judge or lawmaker would make that assertion now as it's outdated technology. When you start telling people they can't have handguns, or they can't have adjustable stocks, or they can't have pistol grips on a rifle or a carry handle, it's just an attempt to battle the "look" of a military weapon not the key elements of functionality, and it's just another way of making something like gun ownership inaccessible because you can't make it illegal.

Where were the police when the Trayvon Martin thing went down?

At the police station trying to figure out who the 14 pieces of womens jewelry belonged to, the ones they found in his backback along with a big screwdriver the first time the six foot two 17.75 year old varsity football player got kicked out of school last fall? Either that or trying to lift some prints off the drug residue filled plastic baggie they took out of his backpack the second time he was kicked out of school this spring.

[MANN]

Question...

Where were the police when the Trayvon Martin thing went down?
Where were the police when Aurora movie theatre got shot up?
Where were the police at Columbine HS?
Where were the police at VT?
Where were the police at the killing spree in Norway? (Another WoW player by the way)
Where were the police at xxx?

I know exactly where they were. They were busy pulling me over because I did not have my seatbelt on. They were fighting the "real" crimes.

[hill160881]

There are so many holes in this story I dont trust any of it. Looks like a staged event or it was allowed to happen with prior knowledge to me. The official story so far is TOTALLY different from the accounts of the bystanders and the police radio records. Nothing adds up.

[death594]

I think your logic is a little flawed here. I'm pretty sure CCC classes are designed to teach people how to handle a gun safely, not tactical training. What makes you think that Joe Moviegoer is going to be any more cool under pressure when some psycho throws a smoke grenade into a crowded movie theater and opens fire? I would put money that with or without a gun most people would just piss themselves and hide when being shot at.

I agree with this statement. Even if you had a gun in that confusion with the movie going on in the background along with him shooting threw smoke good luck identifying your target quickly. Also you would have to hit him with your first bullet to hopefully knock the wind out of him hope you have a large caliber and not a 9mm like alot of people carry. so then you hopefully could close the distance and finish it. If you miss now you might get a second shot but by then he is onto you and will start concentrating fire on you and more than likely the people you went to go see the movie with. Now back to scenario one you hit him and nobody else miraculously. You start closing in to finish it but he is down on the ground now with this smoke/tear gas what ever he threw (first reports i heard it was tear gas) and a flashing movie behind you. Somebody else decided they were going to attempt to be the hero now remember he is on the ground and you are standing who do you think he is going to put a few rounds at? and this is all assuming that you don't miss and injure another innocent person. But never the less remember when seconds count the police are minutes away.

[OPBN]

There are so many holes in this story I dont trust any of it. Looks like a staged event or it was allowed to happen with prior knowledge to me. The official story so far is TOTALLY different from the accounts of the bystanders and the police radio records. Nothing adds up.

You may be proof positive that pot makes you paranoid.

You've been reported to the overlords.

[hill160881]

So asking WTF with all the inconsistencies and implausible scenarios in this story make me paranoid? How? I want to know what happened and not have it spun for a political agenda. Asking questions when something is out of place is not paranoia. Its vigilance.

[hill160881]

-How many shooters were there?
-How did an unemployed grad student get 30 grand in hard to acquire weapons and gear? What money? How in such a short time?
-Why with his armaments did he wait at his car to be taken into custody? He could have taken many cops with him.
-Did the door of the theater get blown off like the official account says or or was it opened by an accomplice like many bystanders stated?
-Why does the police radio records clearly show they were looking for two described shooters/assailants when the official story is he did it alone?
-Why did he send a plan of the shooting to a teacher before the shooting? Makes no sense.
-Why do this then tell the cops you rigged the apartment to blow? What, he now decides not to kill?
-Why does he know so little about the joker if he is imitating him? Red hair? Its green.
-Why is he so messed up he cant speak and shows all the signs of being druged out of his mind?
-Why did they have a scripted story of the whole event to tell the public when it had not yet been investigated? Big one here! You dont give details out until the investigation is finished, unless you want a media trial.
Is it a coincidence that the UN gun ban treaty is set to be signed by Obummer and this happens or is it not letting a good tragedy go to waste? This would make semi autos and hand guns illegal.

[OPBN]

So asking WTF with all the inconsistencies and implausible scenarios in this story make me paranoid? How? I want to know what happened and not have it spun for a political agenda. Asking questions when something is out of place is not paranoia. Its vigilance.

Keep telling yourself that. I think that you would find there are inconsistencies in nearly every story reported. Stories are reported by humans. Humans make mistakes. Humans make mistakes. It's not a hiccup in the matrix, it's just innacurate reporting.

[hill160881]

Keep telling yourself that. I think that you would find there are inconsistencies in nearly every story reported. Stories are reported by humans. Humans make mistakes. Humans make mistakes. It's not a hiccup in the matrix, it's just innacurate reporting.

The OFFICIAL report is full of holes. Not what is reported.

[OPBN]

The OFFICIAL report is full of holes. Not what is reported.

Or maybe as usual the conspiracy theory nuts are nitpicking every single detail to find some tiny discrepancy that they feel supports their crazy idea that everyone is out to get them.

Doing a quick google search revealed several blogs discussing the current conspiracy theories that are floating around and most of what I see isnt really even discrepancies, but baseless nonsense. But I'm sure these guys are just government puppets hired to calm tha cattle down while the evil UN takes our guns away.

[hill160881]

Or maybe as usual the conspiracy theory nuts are nitpicking every single detail to find some tiny discrepancy that they feel supports their crazy idea that everyone is out to get them.

Doing a quick google search revealed several blogs discussing the current conspiracy theories that are floating around and most of what I see isnt really even discrepancies, but baseless nonsense. But I'm sure these guys are just government puppets hired to calm tha cattle down while the evil UN takes our guns away.

Can you argue the points or answer the very clear questions, or is back handed mud slinging all you got? Its not a conspiracy theory, i am asking questions about the OFFICIAL narrative not matching the eye witness accounts and there own records. But go ahead, use that label "conspiracy theorist" like that is all you need to discredit others when they ask a question or point out the obvious. If there are answers that make sense then great and it was just as they said.

[mostpeople]

Logic doesn't really follow here, as the shop was unlikely to cooperate in him illegally buying the guns. Most likely he would have bought legal weapons, for the same reason he bought legal weapons this time around -- he had no intention to break the law at that time. And the truth is, very likely his firepower would have been limited compared to what it was.

wut? My point is that he broke multiple laws, so gun control laws wouldn't have stopped him

In order to have mature discussions about guns, you need to acknowledge the realities of the issue, not fantasies. Some regulation is good, necessary and completely constitutional. Discussing that regulation can only be done among rational people, and unfortunately all too often the gun lobby and its zealous supporters act with a near pathological mentality.

I dont think I broached that subject, but I suppose I should. Firearms for everyone, except felons, mass murderers etc.. Anyone else who wants one sure, only if you don't limit my guns (F.A. high cap etc..). You know 50%+ of swiss citizens own firearms? Their crime rate is much lower.


That's a problem, because it's going to be hard to keep guns out of the hands of truly insane people if so many gun owners keep skirting the edges of sanity.

lolwut?

This is not a valid point without considering the number of successful police interventions that have happened during the same time period. It was far more than 5. You can start listing them any time.

This statement tells me two things: First that my argument is lost on someone like you, and two that you do not understand what I was trying to say, be it my fault or not, idc.

[mostpeople]

I think your logic is a little flawed here. I'm pretty sure CCC classes are designed to teach people how to handle a gun safely, not tactical training. What makes you think that Joe Moviegoer is going to be any more cool under pressure when some psycho throws a smoke grenade into a crowded movie theater and opens fire? I would put money that with or without a gun most people would just piss themselves and hide when being shot at. And how good of a shot are these guys going to be? Again, CCC carrierss arent exactly SWAT team members. So now instead of one guy shooting, we have 5 or 6 civilians with little beyond basic training trading fire in a dark, crowded, smoky theater.

You know you're right, we don't know the status of every individual in that theatre, and every state has different CCL requirements, so its hard to say what that said individual would have done had they theoretically been carrying a firearm.

Also, I assumed theoretically that they would use said theoretical firearm, which may also be flawed. But you tell me - if you were being shot at wouldn't you defend yourself against that?

What if we all carried firearms more often, and were more comfortable with them? Perhaps people would be less inclined to do things like this if they knew that joe blow might be packing?