Page 181 of 182 FirstFirst ... 81131171179180181182 LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,810 of 1817

Thread: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

  1. #1801
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Furiounova View Post
    Interesting experiment today. one of my employees got emotional this morning about the shooting and went on a rant about better gun laws. I briefly explained they are a waste of time but she countered with a strange claim: that a baseball bat was good enough for self defense. I dropped it so she could get back to work. Around lunch I stopped at c-store to get ice.....and a shiny new water pistol. (job is residential remodeling)

    After lunch I gave her an extension pole, walked about ten paces away and told her to try and hit me with it. She was perplexed until I showed her the water gun. She then said "that isn't fair" so I said I was uncomfortable with using a real gun for the experiment. I then explained that from that moment until the end of the day, if she could even touch me with the pole (extends to 12 feet long) before I could hit her with water she would get a paid day off tomorrow.

    She made a single attempt about an hour later and she ended up swinging blind because of the water hitting her face. She threw the pole down and stomped off. She did admit the point was made but she is so upset because she feels helpless. I think this is how many people feel and their emotions trump reason.
    Ironically, possessing even a small, modest pistol takes away that feeling of helplessness for most people.

  2. #1802
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    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

  3. #1803
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    That's good but you do know that the Virginia Tech shooter was stopped by the police for irradic behavior , that was before he bought the guns from a licenced gun dealer.
    You're saying background checks don't work.

    Ok, let's get rid of them, then.

    A better solution is a Federal act requiring states to allow CCW holders to carry onto campuses.

  4. #1804
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    It makes no sense that weapon Holmes used in this shooting was legal for him to purchase...
    I don't see why it wouldn't make sense. Could you elaborate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    ...and it makes no sense that we have no system that can trigger red flags when a person suddenly spends thousands of dollars on firearms and ammunition.
    That doesn't make sense, but not for the reason you gave. That's a civilian version of the M4, the weapon most of my company carried in theater today. I heard the assailant brought about 6000 rounds with him. That doesn't make sense for this rifle because the barrel will literally melt at around 1,000 rounds fired. Also, 100 round drums suck. Some of the soldiers in my unit carry the SureFire 60/100rnd mags for that rifle, brand new, and they still have to take the mag apart and put a second new spring inside for the exact same reason. High capacity mags jam because the spring has a lot of trouble feeding the ammunition correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    I'm not saying that gun control would have prevented this tragedy, but I do think that we need to have a system in place to ensure that gun sales are tightly regulated and anybody who chooses to own multiple guns goes through proper training and is using and storing their weapons safely.
    Proper training? So that when the rifle jams, and it did jam during the assault, the criminal knows to use S.P.O.R.T.S.? (Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Squeeze is how to perform 'immediate action' on this rifle). This guy shoots up a theater and your complaint is that he should have received more training first so he could have shot beeter

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    I've seen a lot of responses from people against gun control because they use "semi-automatic" weapons for competitive shooting events and "hunting varmint." Fine, keep your guns, shoot squirrels and make your squirrel pie. But to have those kind of weapons, you should be properly vetted in order to prevent psychotic murderers from being able to obtain the weapons for a mass killing without breaking a single law.
    This guy was clean, he could have still bought this rifle even under your police state.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    When you buy sudafed you have to show your ID and there are red flags when it looks like a person could be manufacturing methamphetamine. That's fine, but it's not ok to track people who have in their possession weapons that can kill hundreds of people? From what I've heard, Holmes had never owned a gun before and over a few months, he had thousands of rounds of ammunition and a semi-automatic rifle. I don't care how much you love squirrel pie, you should not be able to legally do that without any oversight whatsoever.
    See that's another thing, you would not use this rifle for small-game hunting either. This tells me you don't know anything about hunting. This rifle fires a 5.56mm, which would rip a little squirrel to bits. Small-game requires either a .22cal or a shotgun. An AR15 is way to much even if you could hit the squirrel with that short barrel and even if the rifle didn't jam which carbines are known to do.

    ****
    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 03:24 AM.

  5. #1805
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    My position here is not intended to be arrogant, hostile or condescending in any way, so I hope it not read as such. I do not walk around thinking I'm rambo or judge dread. This is a conscience, sober decision I sincerely feel is justified.

    ***
    Your house is not subject to Public Accommodation laws. I note a critical difference between private property you keep to your self, such as a residence, and private property you invite the public onto, such as a mall. Huge difference. If you owned that cinema you would not be able to ban, using your examples, red t-shirts or Miami Dolphin logos, because as-per Public Accommodation laws you have to allow patrons to express their right to dress as they wish while on your private property, as long as doing so doesn't otherwise brake any other law or disrupt your business.
    "No shirt, no shoes, no service. Private business most certainly does have a right to dictate how person dresses in their establishment. But I do agree with you about private residences, to a point. I wouldn't say you had a right to make bombs in your house any more than you have right to turn it into a meth lab. There is point where at what you do on your property effects the safety of others not on your property.

    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.
    If the private business does not want guns on their property for whatever reason, your right to possess a gun does not supercede theirs.

    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.
    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.

    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."

  6. #1806
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    You claim to be an expert on guns. And now you just proved you're lying about that too.

    Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Is anything you yammer on about real?
    TurtleDude said there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

    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.

  7. #1807
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    TurtleDude said there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

    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.
    Then TurtleDude was wrong.

    "There are 19 guns considered to be "assault weapons" and they are all semi-automatic firearms."
    Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  8. #1808
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Then TurtleDude was wrong.

    "There are 19 guns considered to be "assault weapons" and they are all semi-automatic firearms."
    Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    There is no such thing as an assault weapon, it was a legal term created by people associated with the anti-2nd movement. Your firearms come in the varieties of: Handgun, shotgun, rifle, assault rifle, sub-machine gun, and machine gun. People not knowledged in weapons or firearms do not get to create terms, no matter how smart they think they are.

    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.

    LMR

  9. #1809
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    "No shirt, no shoes, no service. Private business most certainly does have a right to dictate how person dresses in their establishment.
    That policy has to do with public health and sanitation. Are you saying, in a serious tone as I don't follow sports at all, that Miami Dolphins logo presents a heath hazard?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    But I do agree with you about private residences, to a point. I wouldn't say you had a right to make bombs in your house any more than you have right to turn it into a meth lab. There is point where at what you do on your property effects the safety of others not on your property.
    You have every right to disallow guns in your residence, which is why I was careful to originally stipulate private property "which is subject to Public Accommodation law". Nice of you to ignore that. Your home is not subject to Public Accommodation so you're free to ban whatever you wish. I qualified my original statement so as to avoid all these tangents about private homes. They are not at all what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If the private business does not want guns on their property for whatever reason, your right to possess a gun does not supercede theirs.
    Look I'm doing my best not to sound caviler or arrogant, but you're making this argument right after a bunch of people were shot in a theater with this policy. I'm pretty sure the public's right to defend themselves from a random nut-ball supersedes the theater's right to ejaculate their liberal preferences allover their costumers.

    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****.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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.
    Are we talking about intentional homicide, because this criminal committed intentional homicide, or are you bringing in all manor of deaths even remotely related to a gun, which is quite off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If most guns start out as legally bought and owned and include a background check, then where are criminals getting their guns?
    A number of places, non which matter since this assailant legally owned his firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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."
    I was making a comparison to demonstrate a trend, that people will ignore laws and policies they genuinely feel are unjust.

  10. #1810
    Advisor Romulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-28-14 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    324

    Re: Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Then TurtleDude was wrong.

    "There are 19 guns considered to be "assault weapons" and they are all semi-automatic firearms."
    Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    As your wiki article notes, it is a term used by anti-gun advocates. As the federal authorities found out, there is no mechanical delineation from an "assault" weapon and a common semi-auto hunting weapon. Manufactures made modest cosmetic adjustments to the design of "assault" weapons to bypass the ban. In other words, "assault" weapons and hunting weapons are the same thing...minus some non-essential cosmetic items. They banned guns, because the gun looked mean...and left guns legal which looked like a nice hunting gun, but functioned the same as an "assault" weapon.

    The AWB was the silliest law ever put on the books.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •