I find the guy incredibly fascinating and I think that he should be kept alive rather than put to death. While what he did is horrible, I believe that he is much more useful alive than dead. I also believe that that entire area might have something wrong with it due to the fact that the Columbine shootings happened not too far from there and interestingly enough the creators of South Park also are from that area. In this aspect I believe that there's probably something incredibly unique about that area of Colorado.
"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan
And it's not a very powerful rifle anyway. I would never take that piece of **** M4 hunting. I know you folks like to toss around buzz-words like "military style" rifle, but in actuality this rifle is a piece of ****. When you say things like "military style" or "military grade" you sound like a midnight infomercial tossing around terms like "space-aged technology" or "information super-highway" or "surgical grade steel" (surgical steel is not good for a knifes at all because it's high chromium content makes for a duller edge and doesn't keep sharp for long. High chromium steel is preferred for medical uses due to the greater ease of keeping it clean, whereas high carbon steel is more prone to collecting dirt, rust, bacteria and is harder to make sterile).
So what if the assailant had 6,000 rounds, there's no possible way that rifle would have survived firing nearly that many. The barrol would have literally melted off long before he fired that much, and unlike my issued M249 his rifle isn't made so the barrel can be replaced quickly.
I apologize for having worded my post with an air of hostility, I got worked up a bit because you folks want to sound like you know what your talking about but you don't actually know a damn thing and should just STFU.
The best solution to this situation would have been a theater full of concealed weapons firing in the assistance's general direction.
Last edited by Jerry; 07-24-12 at 01:24 AM.
If the private business does not want guns on their property for whatever reason, your right to possess a gun does not supercede theirs.Likewise, my carrying a concealed gun into your business doesn't otherwise brake any other law, nor does it disrupt your business. therefore, I argue, a 'no-gun' rule is unconstitutional, exactly as if you were to ban gays from using your cinema. If I were gay and wanted to see a movie at your cinema, but you had a 'no-faggot' rule, I might go anyway and just keep my mouth shut. You would never be any the wiser.
The number of gun owning victims far out numbers the use of guns used in a crime. That suggests that majority of legal gun owners don't use guns in self defense of a crime but rather they're ownership of a gun is main cause most injuries and deaths from guns. If they didn't own a gun then it stands to reason there would be less gun injury and deaths.The worst-case-scenario of needing a gun and not having one far out weighs the worst-case-scenario of getting caught by the property owner.
I'm sure pro-choicers who would help women have an abortion in the event of an abortion ban would agree with my general sentiment here.
If most guns start out as legally bought and owned and include a background check, then where are criminals getting their guns?
What exactly was your point in bringing abortion into the topic, Jerry? Because as one of the few females that participates in these political discussions, I find your comment to be provoking and flame baiting as well as "hostile, arrogant and condescending."
You linked to "Assault rifle".
Weapon...rifle...weapon...rifle...weapon...rifle.. .notice how the words are spelled differently, this is generally a clue that they are not the same word.
And as noted, an assault rifle is automatic, but the rifle used by the assailant was not automatic, thus it was not an assault rifle.
"There are 19 guns considered to be "assault weapons" and they are all semi-automatic firearms."
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The difference between an assault rifle and a rifle you ask? Assault rifles have a selector switch, they can be used in semi-automatic, burst fire, and some fully automatic but every single assault rifle has select fire capability. Semi-automatic rifles may have similar characteristics such as shortened barrels, pistol grips, folding stocks, and other cosmetic appearances which do not effect the performance of the gun or the efficiency of delivery but somehow they are magically "assault weapons" because some jackass with no credibility says they are. Now, a word to the wise about wikipedia on this topic, that they want to define cosmetic firearms as "assault weapons" is irrelevant, it is an open code source, so basically if enough people actually think that "assault weapon" is proper terminology then of course it will have a page, frankly they do a disservice to the subject by even letting that term survive with any credibility.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
As for businesses per-se, it depends on the reason. If they have hazardous chemicals on the premises, then no, my right does not supersede. If it's just a movie theater, then my right supersedes. Simply "I have a right" isn't good enough. You ave to have a "need" or your no-gun policy is bull****.
The AWB was the silliest law ever put on the books.