• Movie massacre proves need for armed citizens, says gun law expert
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nivek;36963703]I'm not saying I don't agree with you - nobody could know how they would react in this situation so I won't further speculate how I would. But this statement is pretty ignorant. - I understand the basis of the statement but It's just not true entirely.[/QUOTE] Sure. But we're talking of averages, of possibilities and chances. You yourself admit sitting in front of a computer, that you are willing to shoot at the general direction of the shooter who is obscured by smoke. Just imagine how much more damage you could do. That is enouh to tell me you are an irresponsible shooter. And a person I would definitely not want in the same place with a lot of people and an armed madman.
I think the big problem people are missing here is that to get a CCW permit you need to have a spotless record and take various gun safety/operation courses, and have had a firearms license for a certain number of years. It's not like every Joe Redneck takes his freshly bought .357 to the theater with him to start blasting people, CCW permit holders are by and large very responsible gun owners.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36958402]uh this has happened before in the UK, it was called the irish civil war it didn't take hours[/QUOTE] But Northern Ireland (yay) Is the only part of Ireland in the UK, and even then the battle was over the Irish Free State You know The part that isn't in the UK
Why does everyone need to use buzzwords like bulleproof for these arguments Anyways, I seem to notice a lot of people bringing up civilians being "Untrained" with firearms out in public. You do know, that if you are carrying a concealed firearm you actually need to get training for your license, right? Also as much as I'm against gun control, these people in the theater couldn't even discern from a gun going off inside a theater and someone merely clapping
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36963807]I think the big problem people are missing here is that to get a CCW permit you need to have a spotless record and take various gun safety/operation courses, and have had a firearms license for a certain number of years. It's not like every Joe Redneck takes his freshly bought .357 to the theater with him to start blasting people, CCW permit holders are by and large very responsible gun owners.[/QUOTE] And they are still people. People who have some training, but by and far not enough. We aren't saying that they aren't responsible most of the time. BUt this is a situation were even trained personell errs often enough. Or doesn't perform as well as expected.
i just wanna keep my fuckin' guns [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gra;36962418]this movie massacre proved we need to provide universal access to mental health care and put in place laws that don't make it so easy to get guns, especially assault rifles and pistols. it's imbecilic to think that a theater where everyone has a gun is safer than a theater where no one has one.[/QUOTE] assault rifles made past '86 are illegal, and no-one can afford pre 86 assault rifles (they go for upwards of 100k) seriously, learn about the subject before you form an opinion on it
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36957576]I hate it when people use a tragedy to boost their own agendas. That said, unless this guy can somehow prove to me that the tragedy could have been prevented/lessened if some of the other moviegoers had firearms of their own, this guy is COMPLETELY wrong. This is all a "what-if" scenario rather than anything based on hard evidence.[/QUOTE] Well in the same exact town, a guy was about to shoot up a church and a guy with a weapon prevented it, so only two people died, one of which was the gunman. Weapons aren't going away in this country, ever. Far too late. The only thing you can do is give people the ability to defend themselves. Most people already have that ability with Concealed Carry or Open Carry, but not many use it. In a theater with the guy decked out in kevelar, which is a very isolated incident when it comes to gun crimes, You may not have killed him or put him down, but any fire on him would've probably prevented a few people from being hit or killed minimum Almost any horrible shooting like this could've been prevented or lessened if you had just one [b]law abiding citizen[/b] with a gun on scene This particular one and maybe the North Hollywood Shootout are the only incidents I can really think of where it might not have helped, and this one only because it's a dark theater
so basically they're saying more people need guns to fight off the bad people with guns?
[QUOTE=Kaihong;36967324]so basically they're saying more people need guns to fight off the bad people with guns?[/QUOTE] yes because banning guns won't make guns disappear, it only takes them away from the law abiding citizens. a criminal doesn't care if his gun is illegal, but i care if mine is.
[QUOTE=Neat!;36966240] assault rifles made past '86 are illegal, and no-one can afford pre 86 assault rifles (they go for upwards of 100k) seriously, learn about the subject before you form an opinion on it[/QUOTE] if you're talking about the gun control act of 1986, rifles made in the usa were still legal even if they were made after 86. and also, how would he get an ar-15 if they were illegal? [url]http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/assault-weapons[/url] [quote] Does the City of Denver have an Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)? YES. Section 38-130 of Denver’s Revised Municipal Code was amended in 2007 and is titled “Assault Weapons” Denver's Assault Weapon ordinance (as well as other firearms ordinances) can be viewed here. That ban, however, only applies to firearms with magazines that hold more than 20 rounds. [B]NOTE: This means it is legal to own an AR-15, FNFAL, HK91, MAK90, etc, as long as you do not insert a 21+ round magazine.[/B] [/quote]
[QUOTE=gra;36967526]if you're talking about the gun control act of 1986, rifles made in the usa were still legal even if they were made after 86. and also, how would he get an ar-15 if they were illegal? [url]http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/assault-weapons[/url][/QUOTE] semi-autos are by definition, NOT assault rifles assault rifles have 3 or more positions on the fire selector. The inconsistency with the definition of an "assault rifle" is so fucking crazy, you'd be hard-pressed to find two groups that agree on the same definition. by the definition you gave, my 10/22 is an assault rifle
[QUOTE=gra;36967526]if you're talking about the gun control act of 1986, rifles made in the usa were still legal even if they were made after 86. and also, how would he get an ar-15 if they were illegal? [url]http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/assault-weapons[/url][/QUOTE] Fully automatic weapons made after 86' can only be transferred as dealer samples and require a FFL IIRC.
[QUOTE=iFail;36967724]Fully automatic weapons made after 86' can only be transferred as dealer samples and require a FFL IIRC.[/QUOTE] correct
[QUOTE=gra;36967526]if you're talking about the gun control act of 1986, rifles made in the usa were still legal even if they were made after 86. and also, how would he get an ar-15 if they were illegal? [url]http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/assault-weapons[/url][/QUOTE] Though I want to point out that the hi cap magazine ban only applies to the city and county of Denver. Aurora is in neither.
we just need to have more background checks and more firearms training, universal mental and physical health care would certainly help the background checks have more red flags to be raised, given the event of an unstable person attempting to purchase a firearm. gun laws are too lax in some areas, and too restrictive in others. if we REALLY want to have common sense laws, we need to regulate the unregulated and legalize some of the illegal slightly relevant and still interesting copypasta from a post i made way back when [quote]Washington DC outlawed handguns in 1976. Through 1991 the murder rate rose 201% (though given the time between the banning and the raise, the cause of said raise is up to question. I have yet to find non-biased statistics regarding that span of time). Switzerland requires every household to own a gun and be trained to use it. they have the lowest crime rate in the civilized world. "Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms." Regarding the domestic violence, that shit happens anyway, except with guns instead of a toaster or a cleaver.[/quote] Switzerland has some incredibly relaxed gun laws, except only relaxed in the right places. The mandatory military service helps, too. I wish we could implement something like that.
If there were one or two people in there with a concealed carry, that might have stopped him. Even if he was wearing a bullet proof vest, they could have held him up until police came or innocent bystanders could evacuate.
[QUOTE=Neat!;36968593]we just need to have more background checks and more firearms training, universal mental and physical health care would certainly help the background checks have more red flags to be raised, given the event of an unstable person attempting to purchase a firearm. gun laws are too lax in some areas, and too restrictive in others. if we REALLY want to have common sense laws, we need to regulate the unregulated and legalize some of the illegal slightly relevant and still interesting copypasta from a post i made way back when Switzerland has some incredibly relaxed gun laws, except only relaxed in the right places. The mandatory military service helps, too. I wish we could implement something like that.[/QUOTE] The problem aren't as much lax gun laws but the spread of firearms in a way. Most weapons the swiss have are in evidence and controlled, which makes it fairly simple to track them all the time. A lot of weapons in the US are essentially gray, or out of evidence. Hard to track and similar. Which creates issues, and allows the spread of firearms to people you'd prefer not to have weapons.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36968699]The problem aren't as much lax gun laws but the spread of firearms in a way. Most weapons the swiss have are in evidence and controlled, which makes it fairly simple to track them all the time. A lot of weapons in the US are essentially gray, or out of evidence. Hard to track and similar. Which creates issues, and allows the spread of firearms to people you'd prefer not to have weapons.[/QUOTE] Tracking them only matters if you recover the weapon and the owner hasn't reported it stolen. Contrary to popular belief, police ballistics can match the bullet fired to what rifle TYPE fired it, but not actually the rifle itself. So if someone were to go ballistic with a SIG rifle in switzerland and escape capture, they would have an entire nation of people equipped with rifles that match the ballistics of the weapon. Registering guns does basically nothing. Even if you want to use your own weapon in a crime, you can. Just report it stolen first.
[QUOTE=Smartuy;36968698]If there were one or two people in there with a concealed carry, that might have stopped him. Even if he was wearing a bullet proof vest, they could have held him up until police came or innocent bystanders could evacuate.[/QUOTE] MAYBE. As someone who carries, that theater would have been my worst nightmare if I were going to attempt to stop an active shooter. Lots of bright flashing lights on screen in an otherwise dark room. Heavy smoke in the air. People running in every which direction. A CC person probably would not opt to take the shot, unless the shooter was within 15 or 20 feet of him.
the best way to combat a maniac with a gun is to have a theater full of people shoot wildly in his general direction
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;36957980]Absolute nightmare scenario from a police officer's perspective I imagine. From my German perspective I never quite got why so many Americans want to be the cowboy vigilante that doesn't even <i>want</i> to rely on the police.[/QUOTE] The thinking is that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Or at least, that's what is said. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KingKombat;36970046]the best way to combat a maniac with a gun is to have a theater full of people shoot wildly in his general direction[/QUOTE] If he was walking up and down the rows, I would imagine someone would be just biding their time waiting for him to walk past while looking dead, and then jump and shoot him in the back/head as he walked past. Especially if they were close enough to the main row.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;36970382]The thinking is that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Or at least, that's what is said.[/QUOTE] I live two blocks from the theater in Aurora, which is only a block and a half away from the police station. A couple years ago some guys showed up in front of my neighbor's house with sledge hammers and a fire axe and tried to get in. I called 911 and ran out there to stop them with my rifle. I was able to disarm them and hold them until the cops showed up over 10 minutes later. You can't expect the police to be johnny-on-the-spot when you need them. The US Supreme Court has even ruled that the police have no duty to protect you from criminals. That their purpose is to document and investigate the crimes after the fact.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.