• 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.
zgoldsmith23 said:
Yes they do. If someone tries to rob me, I can shoot them, or the police can shoot him. It's the same person and same result.
Click to expand...

actually if you shoot them the chances of you hitting the bad guy and NOT HITTING an innocent bystander are much higher
 
Paratrooper said:
I don't personally need a 100 round magazine, on the other-hand, that doesn't seem justification to me to ban them. What % of people are killed in America by guns with 30 round magazines or larger?
Click to expand...
THE most common gun used in murder is a cheap handgun, I remember running across an article with it not too long ago, it's a .38, piece of ****, jams half the time and has I think an 8 round box magazine.
 
Thunder said:
got any evidence for this, or it another baseless claim?



silliest thing I've read all day.
Click to expand...

well given your well known expertise in civil rights, the laws of self defense and police protocol tell us where cops have a greater right to use deadly force than OTHER civilians.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Yes they do. If someone tries to rob me, I can shoot them, or the police can shoot him. It's the same person and same result.
Click to expand...

u can't shoot someone that tries to rob someone.

cops can.

u can't shoot someone that tries to steal your car. cops can.
 
Saw the clip of the little worm at the court hearing.
The goofy orange hair along with his attempt to look dazed I think is his work to go for the insanity plea. Am not fricking buying his cute little act.

I just visualize taking a 2x4 and striking the side of his face. That dazed look would vanish quickly if he saw a 2 X 4 coming his way.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given your well known expertise in civil rights, the laws of self defense and police protocol tell us where cops have a greater right to use deadly force than OTHER civilians.
Click to expand...

um..you're the lawyer, not I. This info should flow right from your finger tips.

plus its your claim, not mine.
 
Thunder said:
u can't shoot someone that tries to rob someone.

cops can.

u can't shoot someone that tries to steal your car. cops can.
Click to expand...

If they are using force (which they undoubtedly would have to), I certainly can.
 
Thunder said:
u can't shoot someone that tries to rob someone.

cops can.

u can't shoot someone that tries to steal your car. cops can.
Click to expand...

cops cant shoot someone for robbing someone or stealing a car unless they are armed and threatening with a weapon.

which then any civilian can view it as a threat and shoot as well,learn your laws.
 
Moot said:
Maybe you should take it with TurtleDude since I was responding to his comment....
NTL, I believe we were talking about gun homicides in particular and the Wiki article that you posted says...

Property crime does happen everywhere and most people know that you don't need a gun to steal someones property. So your point is moot.

Yes, we all know who is commiting the most gun homicides which is why many large metropolitan cities want to ban guns, not add more. Since Mayor Bloomberg started implementing his search and seizure policy (which also violates the constitution), gun homicide has gone down so significantly that it lowered the entire nationial homicide and crime rate. Removing guns did that, not adding them.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude is correct, violent crime has increased in GB since they banned guns, a trend counter to the global trend of a reduction in violent crime. It was actually Giuliani who initiated the pat downs, and I guarantee you there were more guns in NY after the ban than before.
 
Thunder said:
u can't shoot someone that tries to rob someone.

cops can.

u can't shoot someone that tries to steal your car. cops can.
Click to expand...

BS on both counts

you are wrong as usual. I can shoot someone who tries to rob me (I have) and I can shoot someone i see robbing someone else

and a cop cannot shoot someone stealing my car

try again

I defended a major Law enforcement agency for several years because my firm had the insurance for this agency. every time a LEO shot someone, there was almost always a lawsuit and I had to deal with that
 
Thunder said:
u can't shoot someone that tries to rob someone.

cops can.

u can't shoot someone that tries to steal your car. cops can.
Click to expand...

Either one can if it is a matter of self defense.
If it isn't, then neither one can.

A cop that shoots a fleeing suspect is in deep doo doo.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The current standard is involuntary commission to a mental facility, felony conviction, or dishonorable discharge. I am almost okay with that, I would take DD off of the table, allow someone who kept their nose clean for about 5-10 years to apply for full clemency and be fully reinstated, and have a "must be cleared" rule for involuntary commission to a facility. Then I would add the affadavit system, I think allowing for a flag based on a judicial order could serve that purpose satisfactorily without putting an undue burden on those who have no issues.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm missing something, that seems reasonable enough.
 
To those who think that magazine limits or other some such nonsense will help, you are fooling yourself. The very nature of the event in question, IE the shooting in Aurora CO, was planned. Think about that for a moment. In this case it was planned by an amatuer, a phd student. It seems to have been planned somewhat meticulously. He however was an amatuer with NO formal training of any kind that we know of. He also surrendered without a fight, and told the police his apartment was booby trapped. He very well could have fought and NOT told the police about the booby trap. How many more would have died then? Now extrapolate to a person with military training or paramilitary training. Do we honestly think that magazine size or weopon bans is going to limit the damage they would be able to do? I have NOT been in the military or the police, but I do have training in this type of warfare, and that is what this is, make no mistake about it. One can quite readily make a bomb out of bisquick, or pretty much anything else common. Any household items can be turned into weapons with just a bit of ingenuity. The man could have walked into that theater with a bloody sword or really big knife and killed as many people. Think about this. Lets say that all guns except for the police and military are banned. Whats to prevent someone bent on destruction from taking them from the police or the military and then using them on the population at large. Before you say thats not possible, let me remind you that it is being done as we speak somewhere in this world right now. You cannot prevent someone who is bent on destruction from doing it, they WILL find a way. Laws will not slow them down let alone deter them. We should be thanking our lucky stars it wasnt worse because it very well could have been. Easily. An armed populus will not stop the tragedy, but it may limit the damage. The reason he was able to do as much as he did was because frankly no one in that theater was armed. They were ,sad to say, but true, sheep being slaughtered by a wolf.
 
Romulus said:
Nope. I was refrencing your comparison of gun crimes in the US vs GB. Even in GB where "assault" weapons are illegal massacres still occur.



So you're cool with the open carry of firearms, just as long as it's not in "towns"?
Click to expand...
You were referencing my comment to TD.

Yes, I am quite comfortable with guns in rural areas, but not in cities and towns.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Yes, I am quite comfortable with guns in rural areas, but not in cities and towns.
Click to expand...

that is why it is legal to shoot weapons in unincorporated townships and other similar rural areas but not on times square or Cincinnati's Fountain square.

those are sensible restrictions. but if I live in NYC and have a place upstate its idiotic to say I have no right to EVEN possess a gun

its like saying I should not posses a golf club in a Manhattan flat because I cannot play golf in that building
 
Moot said:
You were referencing my comment to TD.

Yes, I am quite comfortable with guns in rural areas, but not in cities and towns.
Click to expand...

Even those "assault" weapons with fancy do-dads like bayonet lugs, lasers, optics and pistol grips? Well, at least you're rhetorically consistent while being logically inconsistent.
 
Let me add this. The worlds best military is being tested by a bunch of people with noting more than AK-47s and outdated rpg's and anything else they can get their hands on. If you see some of the ways they come up with to fight us you would be quite frankly be amazed. Lets just say a couple of tires some plastic tubing and some other things can make for a very bad day for someone. Guns are a tool. You and I, we ARE the weapons.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
that is why it is legal to shoot weapons in unincorporated townships and other similar rural areas but not on times square or Cincinnati's Fountain square.

those are sensible restrictions. but if I live in NYC and have a place upstate its idiotic to say I have no right to EVEN possess a gun

its like saying I should not posses a golf club in a Manhattan flat because I cannot play golf in that building
Click to expand...

I think you do have a right to possess a gun, but I question whether you have right to own assault weapons and I question whether you have a right to carry a concealed weapon in a city or town. I also question whether you have a right to possess a loaded gun unlocked in a home where children are present.

It might surprise you to know that you can get arrested for having a baseball bat hidden behind the seat of your car especially if there are no baseballs or mitts present. It happened to a friend of mine.

Jack Nickelson was arrested for using a golf club on the windshield of another motorist.

I don't see either the baseball bat or the golf club getting banned because they serve more than one purpose and you stand a better chance of using self defense and surviving from a bat or golf club beating than you do a gun because of the close proximity needed to use them. Whereas a gun can be used from far away and you have no chance of self defense and little or no chance of surviving after you are shot.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Unless I'm missing something, that seems reasonable enough.
Click to expand...
I think there are reasonable ways to increase public safety without attacking rights, but those involve going after the criminals and the insane without banning the tools they use from innocent hands. For instance I have no problem with a CCW requirement as it gives officers a tool to take the criminals off the streets if they find a weapon on their person without a permit, the classes and permit cost money though, I think a competency test should be issued and the fee if any should be very low, if one can't pass the competency test then there are classes available. I don't like that we live in a world where a CCW requirement needs to exist, but that's the nature of illicit v. legal intent. I don't have a problem with certain people being restricted from purchase, but they must be proved to be dangerous or very close to that borderline.
 
rocket88 said:
I think that private property should be able to ban whatever they want to. Including guns.

It wouldn't have made a difference here, but if it's your property, you should be able to ban guns, cigarettes...hell, red t-shirts. I know there's a ban in my house against anything with a Miami Dolphins logo on it.
Click to expand...
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.

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 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.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And for all these years I have been told that it is the left that does not respect private property rights. :shock:
Click to expand...
And the left doesn't, this doesn't change anything. Both sides of the isle have their hands dirty. The left will force all manor of bull**** environmental laws into your home, and the right will straight-up take your home away to put a pipeline there. The left and the right are both part of the same overbearing government.

What distinguishes me from all of that is I'm a private citizen and I'm not trying to take anything from you. I just want to remain secure in my person and be able to defend myself from crime while doing business with you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom