• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
apdst said:
It's a good thing that this wacko didn't fire bomb the place with homade napalm made from Tide, vasoline and gas. We would't be able to wash our clothes.
Click to expand...

Yup, and it is good we decided to run our cars with something other than an explosive material ;D...
 
Zyphlin said:
It's cute when you try to answer a question with a question...it shows you can't actually answer the original question.

Owning a gun, any gun, is not what "allowed" this to happen.

An individual choosing to BREAK THE LAW allowed this to happen.
Click to expand...

I have this question: if a guy wants to rob a bank, and he has a .38 police revolver to help him carry it out, and he decides that he wants to "scare" the public and bank employees into submission first, and he has in front of him and M-80 and a hand grenade; which one should he choose?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
While I don't disagree, the average citizen - at a Batman premiere nonetheless - isn't trained like a Green Beret or Ranger.
Click to expand...

And that would make them just as dangerous as the shooter.
 
CriticalThought said:
I don't get the gun politics in this at all.

He was dressed in body armor so it isn't likely that other people having guns would have helped. So using this situation to argue against gun control makes no sense.

If he hadn't been able to buy guns then he would have simply used explosives. He apparently had the know-how given that he booby trapped his apartment. So using this situation to argue for gun control makes no sense.

Making this a gun control debate is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...
If you had read the thread, you would have learned that body armor doesn't make someone invicible.
 
apdst said:
It's a good thing that this wacko didn't fire bomb the place with homade napalm made from Tide, vasoline and gas. We would't be able to wash our clothes.
Click to expand...

don't forget a handful of #2 B F Goodrich rubber bands.
 
Goshin said:
It originally referred to "The Unorganized Militia", meaning all able-bodied armed free men. In the context of the time, in military terms "well regulated" meant properly armed, trained, disciplined and ready for combat.

Today it is assumed to refer to the citizenry in general.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the founders could even imagine the can of worms they were opening for years to come, they must be having a good laugh at us from up above lol.
 
apdst said:
If you had read the thread, you would have learned that body armor doesn't make someone invicible.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the thread to know that someone carrying a concealed hand gun is going to be at a serious disadvantage to a surprise attack by a body armored man shooting an A-15 through a cloud of tear gas.

Give it up. Making this a debate on gun policy is about as retarded as it gets.
 
TurtleDude said:
that really is not responsive

our freedoms had nothing to do with this

its a sick whacko who killed people and btw it is highly illegal to even obtain explosives let alone booby trap your apartment

so you can pretend that the freedom to own guns caused this as you have inanely claimed in the past but that is just plain stupid.

that this place was a gun free zone is the only law that is really relevant-I doubt this guy would have picked a place where people were more likely to be armed
Click to expand...

Are you a rational person? It would seem otherwise.

We have the second amendment which allows the USA to be a place where over a hundred million fire arms exist and they are not hard to obtain just like this fellow did.

For you to make a really stupid comment like OR FREEDOMS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS is to deny the reality of what happened.

This goes back to your absurd belief that guns are some sort of holy good with no downside.

On this subject you are simply not a rational person.
 
Zyphlin said:
Please...tell us which of our "freedoms" allowed for this to happen.

Is there a constitutional right to murder people utilizing a gun that I somehow missed?
Click to expand...

Is that a sincere question or are you pretending to be utterly and completely clueless for some sort of faux dramatic effect?
 
mayor bloomturd is whining about this tragedy-NYC-despite its massive gun control efforts has had a massive spike of gun violence. Bloomturd is one of the biggest pimps in the USA. along with him is another gun nut-Congressthing McCarthy who also was wetting herself on this.

the more people like these assholes want to restrict our rights more people will want to obtain guns and rightfully so

on the other hand the NRA only says its only comment today is that the thoughts of the membership is with those who were harmed or killed

the gun control nuts like Bloomturd welcome this sort of massacre to advance his agenda.

what a disgusting puke that moron is
 
TurtleDude said:
mayor bloomturd is whining about this tragedy-NYC-despite its massive gun control efforts has had a massive spike of gun violence. Bloomturd is one of the biggest pimps in the USA. along with him is another gun nut-Congressthing McCarthy who also was wetting herself on this.

the more people like these assholes want to restrict our rights more people will want to obtain guns and rightfully so

on the other hand the NRA only says its only comment today is that the thoughts of the membership is with those who were harmed or killed

the gun control nuts like Bloomturd welcome this sort of massacre to advance his agenda.

what a disgusting puke that moron is
Click to expand...

Both sides are trying to use this situation to advance their agenda. They are all sick. This is not a situation that would have been solved by more or less guns. People need to stop pretending that they can legislate themselves in security by restricting or advancing gun use.
 
CriticalThought said:
I don't need to read the thread to know that someone carrying a concealed hand gun is going to be at a serious disadvantage to a surprise attack by a body armored man shooting an A-15 through a cloud of tear gas.

Give it up. Making this a debate on gun policy is about as retarded as it gets.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that armed citizen in the theater couldn't have saved lives.
 
CriticalThought said:
Both sides are trying to use this situation to advance their agenda. They are all sick. This is not a situation that would have been solved by more or less guns. People need to stop pretending that they can legislate themselves in security by restricting or advancing gun use.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the NRA or GOA making any hay out of this-just the gun control nut cases.

we know that a gun control law would not have stopped this sort of massacre

would armed citizens have stopped this? maybe yes, maybe not

we won't know

but I know armed victims are more likely to survive than unarmed ones

and we also know it was a gun free zone meaning only active shooters have weapons
 
apdst said:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that armed citizen in the theater couldn't have saved lives.
Click to expand...

there is also no evidence to say an armed citizen could not of accidently shot a innocent in a dark, smokey cinema. Its all speculation!
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I have this question: if a guy wants to rob a bank, and he has a .38 police revolver to help him carry it out, and he decides that he wants to "scare" the public and bank employees into submission first, and he has in front of him and M-80 and a hand grenade; which one should he choose?
Click to expand...

First and foremost, he'd be an idiot to use an M-80 for anything other than blowing out commodes, which probably wouldn't scare anybody not sitting on one. He'd be an idiot to use a grenade; loud, messy, overkill, chaos. Depending on the bank and the location of the people in the bank a grenade my not be that effective.

IMHO his best move, assuming the dumbass is going use one of the three, would be to walk in and point blank shoot someone. He'll have everyone's attention and no one will doubt that he is willing to shot people. Would the crime be worth the time? Not likely, but most professional bank robbers these days don't stick up banks.
 
pbrauer said:
Is there a Constitutional right to own an AK-47?
Click to expand...

If your argument is that guns, not people, kill people, then I will push for a law to take away your silverware, because I don't want you getting fat. It wouldn't be good for you, and besides, it's not all your fault anyways. It's those nasty silverware manufacturers. There oughta be a law.
 
apdst said:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that armed citizen in the theater couldn't have saved lives.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence that an armed citizen in the theater couldn't have led to the loss of even more lives. It is not hard to imagine how someone shooting at the suspect in a dark theater could have accidentally hit people trying to escape.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. Stop playing semantic games to push an agenda. This has nothing to do with gun politics.
 
apdst said:
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that armed citizen in the theater couldn't have saved lives.
Click to expand...

I don't believe we know enough to know. The shooter may have had a near-perfect kill zone. In addition, he decreased his risk by using smoke.
 
Risky Thicket said:
First and foremost, he'd be an idiot to use an M-80 for anything other than blowing out commodes, which probably wouldn't scare anybody not sitting on one. He'd be an idiot to use a grenade; loud, messy, overkill, chaos. Depending on the bank and the location of the people in the bank a grenade my not be that effective.

IMHO his best move, assuming the dumbass is going use one of the three, would be to walk in and point blank shoot someone. He'll have everyone's attention and no one will doubt that he is willing to shot people. Would the crime be worth the time? Not likely, but most professional bank robbers these days don't stick up banks.
Click to expand...


of all crimes to commit bank robbery is the one that garners the most time

true murder is a longer sentence but far less murders are solved. bank robbery means the FBI and lots of federal resources. I think murder averages out to 7 years, bank robbery 18

banks are really good at training their people what to do. bank robbery has the highest rate of solving the crime of any major felony.

i think poaching is the least solved federal crime
 
apdst said:
Dangerous to the shooter and that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

No, dangerous to others. In fact, maybe we would be looking at 100 victims instead of 71.
 
danarhea said:
No, dangerous to others. In fact, maybe we would be looking at 100 victims instead of 71.
Click to expand...

no one knows. what we do know is that in most cases of active shooters-if there had been more armed potential victims the body count would have been less. here-don't know

too many variables-but I'd rather be armed than unarmed in such a situation
 
Higgins86 said:
there is also no evidence to say an armed citizen could of accidently shot a innocent in a dark, smokey cinema. Its all speculation!
Click to expand...

By that logic let's tell the cops to sit back and wait for the bad guy to run out of ammo.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's cute when you try to answer a question with a question...it shows you can't actually answer the original question.

Owning a gun, any gun, is not what "allowed" this to happen.

An individual choosing to BREAK THE LAW allowed this to happen.
Click to expand...
And that really is the crux of the argument. This sick freak had no regard for human life, and if the motive for this slaughter was to reenact a movie, as if this was a game that makes this all the more disgusting. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to kill, self defense, defense of others, basically when life or safety are in imminent danger, but NEVER for some twisted idea of pleasure.
 
Higgins86 said:
there is also no evidence to say an armed citizen could of accidently shot a innocent in a dark, smokey cinema. Its all speculation!
Click to expand...

There is certainly some truth in that... but then again, people were already being shot so it couldn't have made things much worse now could it?

There are tricks to shooting in the dark. One thing is you look for the other guy's muzzle flash... dead giveaway at night or in the dark. In the dark, he who shoots first is just giving away his position to shooters on the other side. I learned this from a Vietnam vet who wore a camoflage beret.... some folks will know what that means.

Yes it is all speculation.... there are no certainties in life, no guarantees you'll live until tomorrow. You could run into a looney, or have a heart attack, or slip in the bathtub and break your neck.

Well.... I put no-skid stickers on the floor of my bathtub, see my doctor annually and carry a gun I'm very adept in using. :mrgreen: None of these things are guarantees you'll live out the day, but they do improve your odds a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom