• 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.
This event is a perfectly good reason why I always wait until a movie is out on DVD before watching it.... but that's just me.
 
Higgins86 said:
but Turtle when does it stop? Should I start training my son how to use a semi-auto and then when hes 6-7 send him to school armed just in case **** goes down? Do I arm myself for Church? Do I arm myself to go out to the bar with my freinds? I dont think that as a soceity we are capable to continue along those kind of rules. From what I gather your a good shot, your respect guns and so do your family but you are in a minority! Unless we can starting teaching guns in School I do not see how it will work!
Click to expand...


A good and thoughtful post. There is a question at the center of discussions like this and it is a profound one with wide implications for our nation: to what extent do we want to be an armed society where individual citizens take it upon themselves to dispense justice through the use of those weapons?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't even reply to people who would use a tragedy as an agenda item anymore, I can't remain civil enough.
Click to expand...

A serious question for you and other who feel this way: if one is not suppose to "use" actual real events that have occurred in our society to foster discussion and put forth suggestions and ideas as how to avoid such things, what is suppose to help drive and motivate the national discourse on this topic?

What is so inherently wrong with adding this movie theater massacre to the long and growing list of firearm massacres that have occurred and then asking relevant questions about it?

This has happened before.

This will happen again.

We have a nation where guns are widespread and readily available. We have the Constitution which protects the right to bear arms. I believe this is mostly a good and positive thing in which the benefits out weigh the negatives. However, there are negatives. There is a downside. And a dozen movie goers were simply the latest to pay the ultimate price as part of that downside.

So what is so inherently wrong with having an honest discussion when these thing occur?
 
haymarket said:
A good and thoughtful post. There is a question at the center of discussions like this and it is a profound one with wide implications for our nation: to what extent do we want to be an armed society where individual citizens take it upon themselves to dispense justice through the use of those weapons?
Click to expand...


The entire problem with an unarmed society is that only the good guys would be unarmed. Thats the way its always been. This nutcase kid would have gotten the means to do what he did if there were strict and enforced gun laws.
You people always use Prohibition as an example to legalize weed...the same applies to guns, ban them and theres going to be alot of people getting rich off importing them illegally and selling them. YOU CANT STOP THE BAD GUYS from getting guns..
If there were of people armed in that theatre...death and injuries wouldnt have been prevented because of him having the jump on everyone the element of surprise and the initial shock and fear of everyone...but a 40 caliber glock, 9mil or +P rounds bouncing off a kevlar vest if not knocking him on his ass and disabling him ..would certainly stop him from continuing to fire and if there was anyone trained and realized he was wearing a vest, could have went for leg or head shots...VESTS only protect the largest target area on your person...your chest...there would be no dead cops if they did any more.
If the No guns folks have their way...every nut like this knows any group of people are defenseless easy pickins...and they are easy pickins for any nutjob hellbent on killing people..
 
No amount of gun control that is realistically possible in the US would have stopped this. There are simply too many guns existing in the country for making it harder to buy them to have much affect on a criminal's ability to get a gun. Look at automatic weapons for an example. It's been illegal to buy newly manufactured ones for almost 30 years, and you can sill buy them relatively easily. The price is 4-5 times what it used to be, but they're available. You could ban gun sales to civilians completely, and unless you went around taking away the guns that people already own, it would not make it significantly harder for someone to get access to a gun, even if it was illegal. And taking people's guns away is realistically never going to happen in this country. Guns really aren't the issue here though. You could take away every gun in America, and things like this would still happen. That's because crazy people don't need guns to do things like this. Just look at Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Benjamin Atkins, etc.

Hopefully the wounded recover okay, and the guy that did it gets the death penalty.
 
lpast said:
If there were of people armed in that theatre...death and injuries wouldnt have been prevented because of him having the jump on everyone the element of surprise and the initial shock and fear of everyone...but a 40 caliber glock, 9mil or +P rounds bouncing off a kevlar vest if not knocking him on his ass and disabling him ..would certainly stop him from continuing to fire and if there was anyone trained and realized he was wearing a vest, could have went for leg or head shots...VESTS only protect the largest target area on your person...your chest...there would be no dead cops if they did any more.
Click to expand...

While I think that using this to advance a gun control agenda is despicable, I also think it's ridiculous to state categorically that armed citizens in the theater would have stopped the attack sooner. We have no idea what would have happened if people in the theater had been armed. There may have BEEN armed people in the theater.
 
Guns are not really the issue, are they?

Some people like nervous chicken hearted Barneys probably shoudn't carry and can't be taught judgment and restraint. People who are marginally sane or taking lots of medication probably shouldn't carry.

Those who drink and drug.. probably shouldn't carry.

Of course we don't want those with criminal records to carry.. or those with domestic violence records.

Uhhhh.. If you carry, you take on a huge responsibility.............
 
molten_dragon said:
While I think that using this to advance a gun control agenda is despicable, I also think it's ridiculous to state categorically that armed citizens in the theater would have stopped the attack sooner. We have no idea what would have happened if people in the theater had been armed. There may have BEEN armed people in the theater.
Click to expand...

Life has no guarantees....but no one with a gun they had ZERO chance...one or more with a gun there was a c hance to save some or many of the people
 
molten_dragon said:
No amount of gun control that is realistically possible in the US would have stopped this. There are simply too many guns existing in the country for making it harder to buy them to have much affect on a criminal's ability to get a gun.
Click to expand...

agreed..
the same for alcohol and drug laws... the proverbial genie is out of the bottle..
until a drunk person causes an accident they should have a right to drive until they harm another.. drinkers will drink..
someone should have the personal freedom to smoke weed, snort lines or whatever until it harms another.. druggies will get their buzz..

pretty much as it applies to guns.. until a crime is commited, anyone can have a gun..
 
AdamT said:
Seems like a pretty damned good reason to reinstate stricter limits on assault-style weapons and especially oversized clips. Could happen if Romney wins. ;)

According to the Aurora police chief the shooter had at least one 100-round, barrel-type magazine.
Click to expand...

that of course is the emotobabble response

the federal bans on booby traps and explosives worked to prevent acquisition of those items

100 round barrel type magazine-what idiocy. drum magazine is the correct term btw

disarmed victims in gun free zones-the ARC wet dream
 
lpast said:
Life has no guarantees....but no one with a gun they had ZERO chance...one or more with a gun there was a c hance to save some or many of the people
Click to expand...

Zero chance? Really? You should tell that to the unarmed church members who stopped Jim Adkisson who walked in and began shooting during a play of Annie.
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, just 12 collateral casualties in the quest to have absolute guns rights.

Funny, we have less than a handful of people voting that should not be so we have to rush to implement all kinds of voter ID laws so it never happens again; but God forbid that someone should suggest a little bit of tightening on the availability of assault weapons, after half a dozen or so of shooting rampages where lots of people actually died and we have to waive the Constitution and say "hell no" we will give NOTHING. Sorry, but the Regressives have no sense of reality or humanity.

You can pry this gun from my cold dead hands.... cold because that is the temperature of blood that circulates in the Regressive blood system.
Click to expand...

more emotobabble-the far left gun haters never figure out that if the war on drugs cannot stop people from getting a one time use product why the proposed war on drugs is going to stop people getting guns
 
haymarket said:
A serious question for you and other who feel this way: if one is not suppose to "use" actual real events that have occurred in our society to foster discussion and put forth suggestions and ideas as how to avoid such things, what is suppose to help drive and motivate the national discourse on this topic?

What is so inherently wrong with adding this movie theater massacre to the long and growing list of firearm massacres that have occurred and then asking relevant questions about it?

This has happened before.

This will happen again.

We have a nation where guns are widespread and readily available. We have the Constitution which protects the right to bear arms. I believe this is mostly a good and positive thing in which the benefits out weigh the negatives. However, there are negatives. There is a downside. And a dozen movie goers were simply the latest to pay the ultimate price as part of that downside.

So what is so inherently wrong with having an honest discussion when these thing occur?
Click to expand...

the problem is we on the right understand the limits of a free society and the fact that nuts will always be able to kill while some on the left want to stop honest people from being able to defend themselves and that is why an "honest" debate is often not possible because the gun restrictionists are dishonest as to their true motivations
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem is we on the right understand the limits of a free society and the fact that nuts will always be able to kill while some on the left want to stop honest people from being able to defend themselves and that is why an "honest" debate is often not possible because the gun restrictionists are dishonest as to their true motivations
Click to expand...

my problem is the right and left focus only on the guns. There is no honest dialogue on why this epidemic is occurring. You can't use the crazy people approach because other first world nations with similar cultures and guns are not experiencing this kind of terrorism on the same frequency.
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem is we on the right understand the limits of a free society and the fact that nuts will always be able to kill while some on the left want to stop honest people from being able to defend themselves and that is why an "honest" debate is often not possible because the gun restrictionists are dishonest as to their true motivations
Click to expand...
There is a lot of truth to this. When the left wants an "honest debate" about these things, it's just a catchy phrase to mean "honest discussion about furthering the agenda about gun control." If a guy in his 20s with no criminal history has the left looking at him and saying he shouldn't be able to own a gun, that's not honest discussion. That's pushing the leftist anti-gun agenda. More people were killed with cars last year than killed with guns. Why doesn't the left push for car-control?
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem is we on the right understand the limits of a free society and the fact that nuts will always be able to kill while some on the left want to stop honest people from being able to defend themselves and that is why an "honest" debate is often not possible because the gun restrictionists are dishonest as to their true motivations
Click to expand...

Your assessment is both overly broad and far too simplistic. I used to carry a firearm until I stopped. In certain areas a firearm is is necessary, such as the wilderness where human population is low. In a crowded metropolitan area a firearm is can be a danger, especially when law enforcement is readily available. Moreover, there are two type of people that should not carry at all; those who are crazy and those who act irresponsibly. I do not wish to make gun control an issue, but, when firearms are made available too easily the crazy and irresponsible ones seem to the ones who are committing heinous acts with these weapons.

I never heard of a crazed killer ask someone if they were "on the right" or "on the left" before shooting them. Perhaps political perspectives are a non issue here and public safety is the issue at hand.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
There is a lot of truth to this. When the left wants an "honest debate" about these things, it's just a catchy phrase to mean "honest discussion about furthering the agenda about gun control." If a guy in his 20s with no criminal history has the left looking at him and saying he shouldn't be able to own a gun, that's not honest discussion. That's pushing the leftist anti-gun agenda. More people were killed with cars last year than killed with guns. Why doesn't the left push for car-control?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting stat. Do you have a link?
 
Furiounova said:
That's an interesting stat. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) early projections, the number of traffic fatalities fell three percent between 2009 and 2010, from 33,808 to 32,788
Click to expand...

Traffic Fatalities in 2010 Drop to Lowest Level in Recorded History | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)


The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]
Click to expand...

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were more total traffic fatalities than gun deaths, and if we exclude suicides (since most of them would have used another method if guns weren't available to them) there were more than twice as many traffic fatalities as non-suicide gun deaths... and some of those gun deaths were self-defense or police action.
 
There are car "controls" though, and stricter road rules are lobbied for all the time, so what's the point being made?
 
lpast said:
Life has no guarantees....but no one with a gun they had ZERO chance
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people who took down Jared Loughner. None of them had guns.

My point though, is that it's just as despicable to use this as an excuse to campaign for getting rid of gun free zones as it is to use it to campaign for more gun control.
 
Goshin said:
Traffic Fatalities in 2010 Drop to Lowest Level in Recorded History | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)




Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were more total traffic fatalities than gun deaths, and if we exclude suicides (since most of them would have used another method if guns weren't available to them) there were more than twice as many traffic fatalities as non-suicide gun deaths... and some of those gun deaths were self-defense or police action.
Click to expand...

maybe we should reduce the highway speed limit back to 55 rather than 65.

I bet that would save a few lives.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
The entire problem with an unarmed society is that only the good guys would be unarmed. Thats the way its always been. This nutcase kid would have gotten the means to do what he did if there were strict and enforced gun laws.
You people always use Prohibition as an example to legalize weed...the same applies to guns, ban them and theres going to be alot of people getting rich off importing them illegally and selling them. YOU CANT STOP THE BAD GUYS from getting guns..
If there were of people armed in that theatre...death and injuries wouldnt have been prevented because of him having the jump on everyone the element of surprise and the initial shock and fear of everyone...but a 40 caliber glock, 9mil or +P rounds bouncing off a kevlar vest if not knocking him on his ass and disabling him ..would certainly stop him from continuing to fire and if there was anyone trained and realized he was wearing a vest, could have went for leg or head shots...VESTS only protect the largest target area on your person...your chest...there would be no dead cops if they did any more.
If the No guns folks have their way...every nut like this knows any group of people are defenseless easy pickins...and they are easy pickins for any nutjob hellbent on killing people..
Click to expand...

I am not advocating an unarmed society. I am not advocating that we all be armed and carry.

I am not a person who wants to ban guns or ammunition and take away the guns of current owners.
I am not a NRA member who puts up centerfolds of the latest and greatest high powered rifle.

Is there not some place in the middle where people can advocate for responsible gun ownership but yet have reasonable laws which protect society from turning into Deadwood?
 
Thunder said:
maybe we should reduce the highway speed limit back to 55 rather than 65.

I bet that would save a few lives.
Click to expand...

And if we reduced it to 15mph we'd save tens of thousands of lives.... and it would be worth it right? After all, whats' inconveniencing tens of millions of people compared to saving lives? :mrgreen:

Of course, groceries would get expensive if those big trucks could only drive 15mph from Maine to California on the highway, but saving lives is the only thing that matters! :doh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom