Colorado Batman Shooting - More to the story?

Be armed with everything you want, EXCEPT assault weapons. A lot of people are too stupid to have access to these weapons, even legally. If bad guys started using grenades or RPG's, would you make an excuse to own those as well? Where does it stop, nuclear weapons?

pakalolo said:

If "they" were trying to set up something to help destroy second amendment gun rights then boy howdy, they sure fucked that up. Support for gun control has dropped and the purchase of guns has gone up according to the news stories I've seen.

Sometimes a nut is just a nut.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's a whole lot more people that now feel that much stronger about those laws to. Colorado gun sales have shot through the roof. I'm one of those that believes... an armed society, is a polite society. That shooting could have gone down a LOT differently, with one person carrying and a well-placed shot.

t-dub, that genocide chart is a bit... inflammatory isn't it?
No guns =/= Genocide

I was reading the actual Control bits, and they mostly seem fairly reasonable...

Registration, Licenses, etc. I see nothing wrong with that...

I don't agree with banning guns outright, but they do need to be regulated (IMO)...

Also, pretty much everything I've read about gun control says that good restriction/regulation does lower gun crime...

It seems any time I see gun control mentioned though, Americans get all uppity (EDIT: uppity is the wrong word, it sounds condescending, which isn't my intention...) about needing guns...

Vicki said:

Be armed with everything you want, EXCEPT assault weapons. A lot of people are too stupid to have access to these weapons, even legally. If bad guys started using grenades or RPG's, would you make an excuse to own those as well? Where does it stop, nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

Not going to argue this point, but what you consider an assault weapon, more than likely... isn't. CA feels its anything that can hold more than 10 rnds, for the most part. Why can't I have a 16 rnd clip for my 9mm?

The "assault gun" control is a joke. Go look at the list sometime and see what asinine stuff falls under it. Funny thing is, those "RPGs" and other weapons, typically whomever got it... got it from some government. No one is walking into a store and buying one.

Frederick McGuire said:

t-dub, that genocide chart is a bit... inflammatory isn't it?
No guns =/= Genocide

I was reading the actual Control bits, and they mostly seem fairly reasonable...

Registration, Licenses, etc. I see nothing wrong with that...

I don't agree with banning guns outright, but they do need to be regulated (IMO)...

Also, pretty much everything I've read about gun control says that good restriction/regulation does lower gun crime...

It seems any time I see gun control mentioned though, Americans get all uppity about needing guns...

Click to expand...

Yeah, because its a pretty big deal. So big a deal, its the very second RIGHT given us. The UN doesn't have any fucking right, nor business in OUR rights. They can fuck off and die, far as I'm concerned. I wholeheartedly support kicking the UN, the fuck out of the United States and leaving the asinine corrupt entity.

There already are regulations, licenses, background checks and ALL that. This isn't about regulations. Its about taking people's guns away. Period.

Someone ask Chicago and Washington DC residents about "gun control" and "regulations".

it's not an easy problem whether to ban guns or not and many clever arguments have been made for and against it, but how about the US would ban hollywood trash movies?

^^^ I'd argue far stronger in favour of gun control than artistic censorship (although it's being generous IMO to Hollywood to call that 'art'!)

The "right" to be ready and able to kill people is outdated IMO and doesn't really have a place in a peaceful society. It's time for the USA to seriously reconsider that if it does want to be a peaceful society. There are too many people shooting each other and this kind of thing is no surprise whatsoever, and it will happen again and again and again. Unless you're going to radically change human emotional behaviour, which is highly unlikely, then the ONLY way to affected this is going to be through increased gun control. Otherwise you've just got to accept the consequences of a high gun murder rate and not be such a peaceful place to live (and I think many there are willing to accept that, as long as they get to keep their guns).

I don't subscribe to the link between armed civilians and reduced government genocide at all. I think that's fearmongering at its worst. Maybe if the USA were part of the International Criminal Court then some of this fear might be lessened? That's a stretch of the imagination!, but it's a far more sensible approach to this kind of potential problem than the proliferation of guns. I'm sure Ghandi would agree on that.

I also don't really think governments care all that much nowadays from a control point of view as to whether their citizens are armed with small arms or not- they haven't really prevented such atrocities in the past, and I'd question what use guns were against a military armed with today's technologically advanced weaponry that can make you shit your pants or 'turn you gay' at 10'000 yards. 200 years ago small arms perhaps were a leveller against government, but nowadays you might as well be waving sticks. In truth guns are scant protection against a corrupt government and they seldom try to do things by force anyway.

I think Americans should at least be open to the suggestion that you CAN live safer, freely and in peace WITHOUT the means to easily kill someone at your fingertips. You can get bogged down forever in the theory of why that might not be true and why you NEED a proliferation of guns, as has happened, but I say just broaden your horizons and look at all the real places where it is true for inspiration.

I can't even consider the fact that this was a conspiracy... I mean to me this was a conspiracy like Fort Hood was...

This guy is clearly a highly-intelligent guy with sociopathic tendencies who decided to take out his problems on the world rather than deal with them like a proper balanced human being would. He seemingly never really had much failure in his life until recently (so he blew up) and everything he does is planned out perfectly in order to make himself look nuts (even more evidence that he went nuts when his perfectly planned life went off course). You can't go out and buy guns and ammo and armor and tear gas over the course of months without knowing exactly what you are doing... if this guy doesn't get the death penalty our country is a joke.

Some people just deserve to die for what they have done...look at the Homolka case in Canada...they really need the death penalty up there for some people. If you don't respect human life that much then seriously why should anyone respect yours?

---
and as for the gun control debate... I'm still on that side of the fence that says "the can of worms has been opened, you have to deal with it as such".

IMO we can't go around letting criminals be the only ones with guns.

I mean Tyler said we can't radically change human behaviour so we must enact harsh gun laws. Does enacting laws against owning things (prohibition) ever work? Has prohibition of drugs/mind altering substances worked? Nope...cause they are easy enough to find and make...

There are so many guns in the world now if you take away the legal right to own one...then the only people that own them are the people that want to cause harm to others. No one other than police (or military?) can have safety against someone coming at them with a firearm. I honestly don't want to live in a world where the criminals have the most power...thats the idea behind these laws.

The Virginia Tech massacre is a good example...before the incident they had actually recently voted to create a "no gun zone" at Vtech similar to many other colleges around the country. What they really did was enact a "no guns for anyone but the mass murderer" zone where this guy could effectively kill 30+ people before he could be taken down.

It's honestly a really tough debate but I mean we live in a dangerous world... I mean there are a lot of places in the world right now where its probably dangerous not to own a gun. There's no way we can round up all the guns in the world and have them regulated by governments so no criminals can get their hands on them...just like how we are all vaping away anyway and we will no matter if its legal or not.

MarcellusWiley said:

The Virginia Tech massacre is a good example...before the incident they had actually recently voted to create a "no gun zone" at Vtech similar to many other colleges around the country. What they really did was enact a "no guns for anyone but the mass murderer" zone where this guy could effectively kill 30+ people before he could be taken down.

Click to expand...

I've been trying to stay out of this because like debates over abortion and the death penalty, it is counter-productive, never changes anyone's opinion, and serves just to inflame; however, I'm fed up with this nonsense that "if only everyone were armed the guy wouldn't have been able to massacre".

How many incidents can you name where someone intended to kill a bunch of people but was taken out by someone carrying a concealed weapon? Good luck finding an example. Meanwhile, no one who advocates this idea has been able to explain to me how, in a crowd of people with multiple people shooting, the good citizen with a gun can identify who the bad guy is. Do they all wear black hats in your world? Do you really want a bunch of untrained shooters pulling out their guns and firing in a crowd? What do you think will happen when the cops arrive and there are multiple people firing guns at each other?

Oh wait, I'm sure the fact that the killer knows that other people might be armed will really stop the nut case. Never mind.

I think what you are summing up is the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' - It tends to be a defense mechanism for those who are scared shitless of the prospect that they truly were helpless and at the mercy of this fuckstick. IMO...

pakalolo said:

I've been trying to stay out of this because like debates over abortion and the death penalty, it is counter-productive, never changes anyone's opinion, and serves just to inflame; however, I'm fed up with this nonsense that "if only everyone were armed the guy wouldn't have been able to massacre".

How many incidents can you name where someone intended to kill a bunch of people but was taken out by someone carrying a concealed weapon? Good luck finding an example. Meanwhile, no one who advocates this idea has been able to explain to me how, in a crowd of people with multiple people shooting, the good citizen with a gun can identify who the bad guy is. Do they all wear black hats in your world? Do you really want a bunch of untrained shooters pulling out their guns and firing in a crowd? What do you think will happen when the cops arrive and there are multiple people firing guns at each other?

Oh wait, I'm sure the fact that the killer knows that other people might be armed will really stop the nut case. Never mind.

Click to expand...

Look man I am all for gun rights but I am in no way saying that the Aurora massacre could have been stopped by an armed citizen. We are talking about a packed theater, people running, screaming, smoke, tear gas, automatic weapon with a drum, its dark, etc there was a lot of factors making this very very unlikely to be stopped by a citizen. That certainly doesn't mean no one should own a gun. I heard of a man in the bay area stopped a robbery at his store just the other week. I talked with someone the other day who prevented a car jacking in chicago. I used to work in some of the worst cities in the bay area Oakland, Vallejo, Richmond, etc there we're definitely times I would have felt safer packing. I am not saying owning guns prevents all crime but to say it doesn't prevent any is a bit preposterous.....

Puffers said:

Look man I am all for gun rights but I am in no way saying that the Aurora massacre could have been stopped by an armed citizen. We are talking about a packed theater, people running, screaming, smoke, tear gas, automatic weapon with a drum, its dark, etc there was a lot of factors making this very very unlikely to be stopped by a citizen. That certainly doesn't mean no one should own a gun. I heard of a man in the bay area stopped a robbery at his store just the other week. I talked with someone the other day who prevented a car jacking in chicago. I used to work in some of the worst cities in the bay area Oakland, Vallejo, Richmond, etc there we're definitely times I would have felt safer packing. I am not saying owning guns prevents all crime but to say it doesn't prevent any is a bit preposterous.....

Click to expand...

Don't read into my post what isn't there. Where did I say no one should own a gun? I was specifically dealing with the silly argument that mass shootings could be prevented if everyone (or many more at least) carried guns. Of course people with guns have prevented crimes. I wanted an example where an Aurora-style incident had been prevented or mitigated by someone with a gun.

Well I also never really said in my post that any massacre would be prevented if anyone else had a gun... I just said that criminals who want guns and want to kill people will find ways because so many people like using guns and guns have existed so long that there will always be guns you can't stop them from existing. It's a prohibition argument plain and simple... If guns didn't exist and we were arguing against the creation of them, then the gun control argument would be valid.

I only used V Tech as an example because that was a campus with tens of thousand of people, broad daylight, a place that is labeled a "no gun zone" as well. Not some crowded teargassed movie theater.

pakalolo said:

I wanted an example where an Aurora-style incident had been prevented or mitigated by someone with a gun.

Click to expand...

Pak, trying to prove a negative is tough. If someone prevents a mass shooting then its not reported as a mass shooting is it? I found this in about 3 minutes . . . and these examples just concern schools.


"Guns Have Already Saved Lives at School

Luke Woodham was a student at Pearl High School in Mississippi. When he brought his gun to school one day in 1997, he wanted to kill as many people as possible. Happily, he was only able to kill two people. The reason was Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. He retrieved a handgun from his truck, blocked the road as Woodham was on his way to kill some other students, and ordered him to the ground at gunpoint until police arrived. Myrick has said he has no doubt Woodham would have killed more people if he had not been stopped since he had 36 rounds of ammo in his pocket when he was finally subdued.

A year later, a shooting at a school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania was ended abruptly by James Strand, who owned a nearby restaurant. Strand used his shotgun to disarm the shooter until the police arrived 11 minutes later. After Strand arrived on the scene with his shotgun, no one else was killed.

In 2002, two law school students at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia used their own personal guns to stop Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage. The students held the shooter until the police arrived.

Schools are generally gun free zones by law. There are exceptions, the biggest being all of Utah’s state-run universities. No school shootings have occurred in that state. But the multiple killings that have occurred at various schools around the country have all taken place in areas which have been legally rendered as gun free zones.

The idea of firearms for self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction, however. A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans deem it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of students” in stopping a massacre."

I would say the situations were at least "mitigated"

Plenty of anecdotal evidence here: http://thearmedcitizen.com/

Damn those are some facts, t-dub. Good reads man! saving that!

t-dub said:

Pak, trying to prove a negative is tough. If someone prevents a mass shooting then its not reported as a mass shooting is it? I found this in about 3 minutes . . . and these examples just concern schools.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I asked for examples like the ones you provided. Point to you. It doesn't negate my other points, e.g. how do you know who the bad guy is if there are several people firing, or even just brandishing guns.

pakalolo said:

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I asked for examples like the ones you provided. Point to you. It doesn't negate my other points, e.g. how do you know who the bad guy is if there are several people firing, or even just brandishing guns.

Click to expand...

I'd just think that normally everyone wouldn't start brandishing guns in one of these situations...it seems that they normally happen by relative surprise and the shooter has killed/wounded many people within seconds, as that is nature of guns. In most of these situations it took a few moments for the person to get the shooter, and in both situations mentioned by t-dub the person didn't even shoot at the shooter and just made him give himself up by threatening his life. In some of these cases im sure the shooters are scared themselves and don't want to die, a gun doesn't have to kill them, just deter them.

I kind of wanted to avoid the whole gun control stat debate since it can be twisted so many ways. John Lott author of "More Guns Less Crime" is the current leader in this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime and is doing a very convincing job.

I linked the book I did, "Death by Gun Control" by the JPFO because it deals with the truth about mass murder, tough to cover up all those bodies though the tyrants do try, the truth you won't be taught in school. It shows who the real killers are and deals with gun/rock/weapon control as an idea. Really breaks it down to its naked concepts using real world examples. Its important history to understand at the very least because we are talking about hundreds of millions of lives in the 20th century alone.

They say history is written by the winners, well there is another story as well. The stories of the victims.

guns don't kill people - rappers do
ask any politician and they'll tell you it's true

Interesting... Anyone remember this?

Well, when you have to go thru life, after this reality.



TYVM, but this is the ONLY way I have to defend myself now.



When I say, they can have my gun, when they pry it from my dead, cold fingers... I mean it.

EDIT: Oh yeah... at the house, this is last line of defense. The shotgun comes out first. Interesting thing is... every LEO I know (which is many, a good portion SWAT), tells everyone they know, CCW or not... they should ALWAYS carry. Cops, telling their friends and family the cliche "its better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6."

Hey BDV could you check the recycle code on the bottom of that? (payback jk)

Vicki said:

They should ban assault weapons and armor piercing bullets, ONLY.

Click to expand...

Define assault weapon.


Also this kid got a $26,000 federal grant for the program he was in. Also it is not that hard to get credit cards these days. The gear he had amounted to around $6,000.




Also the government is now trying to limit people to 10 round mags which is fucking bullshit.

WatTyler said:

I think Americans should at least be open to the suggestion that you CAN live safer, freely and in peace WITHOUT the means to easily kill someone at your fingertips. You can get bogged down forever in the theory of why that might not be true and why you NEED a proliferation of guns, as has happened, but I say just broaden your horizons and look at all the real places where it is true for inspiration.

Click to expand...

Nope sorry this is America, we like guns, we're going to keep them.


It's funny as Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the country. About every weekend 12 or so people are shot and killed in chicago, the city with soem of the strongest anti gun laws.

AGBeer said:

Interesting... Anyone remember this?

Click to expand...

In the second picture he is smiling. When you smile it makes your nose flare.

Vicki said:

Be armed with everything you want, EXCEPT assault weapons.

Click to expand...

If you don't like them, don't buy them.

I can get a 33rd magazine for a glock.

mod note: FOUR back-to-back posts merged. You have been around long enough to know better, warning issued

Tea Party said:

Define assault weapon.


Also this kid got a $26,000 federal grant for the program he was in. Also it is not that hard to get credit cards these days. The gear he had amounted to around $6,000.




Also the government is now trying to limit people to 10 round mags which is fucking bullshit.




Nope sorry this is America, we like guns, we're going to keep them.


It's funny as Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the country. About every weekend 12 or so people are shot and killed in chicago, the city with soem of the strongest anti gun laws.




In the second picture he is smiling. When you smile it makes your nose flare.




If you don't like them, don't buy them.

I can get a 33rd magazine for a glock.

mod note: FOUR back-to-back posts merged. You have been around long enough to know better, warning issued

Click to expand...

Nothing you said disputed anything I said. You just got pissed off. I know people do not need assault weapons. What do you want next? An RPG or a grenade that you don't need too?

Stop with the silly hyperbole, Vicki. It completely destroys any point you're trying to make. Drop the talk about bombs, grenades, RPGs, etc. Its obvious you really don't know anything about firearms. Its been pointed out twice and you've run away from it twice.

Define an assault weapon, Vicki and explain to me, exactly why I'm not allowed to own one. I let it go, on healthcare... I know how important it is to you. Well, now you're treading in something that means a lot to me. So, please... rather than being embarrassed by a lack ofknowledge about firearms, just admit, you don't know anything about them and assault weapon is just the cliche scary word description, you hear on the evening news and some politician's mouth.

Again... define and show us a list of what constitutes an assault weapon. Not a RPG, bazooka, tank, etc. Honestly, no one here is talking about those things, so please quit evading the question, or just admit you don't know and drop out of the debate on that note.

I do not like guns
I do not like the violence in America
Gun control is useless
That crazy fuck would have brought
explosives if he had no access to guns
I do not know why citizens would need
armour piercing rounds
And yes I understand the American
gun culture

Evil Knievil or Elvis said:
God made Men equal and
Colt's 45 keeps them that way
or something like that

Assault weapon- any automatic rifle currently used in warfare ? AK47, UZI, M16 as in all
of today's video games