Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

[Mott the Hoople]

if you were literate, you'd be able to read and understand the constitution instead of relying on 9 black robed tyrants to interpret it for you.

Why? According to you, only you are capable of doing that.

 

[blackascoal]

The guy was sure that he had a very high likelihood that nobody would be armed though, and chose a place it would take a while for the guys with guns to get to. One dude with a CCW could have, at the very least, limited the damage. The dude was wearing a bullet proof vest though and did smoke the place as he entered... I suspect he would have focused on the dude with a gun and that itself may have saved some others.

When seconds count the cops are minutes away.

Tell me, you have been very successful without guns. Many people have, but what would you do to defend yourself in this scenario?

You and I can both imagine all kinds of scenarios where this could have turned out differently. I can imagine how a shoot-out with patrons and the shooter could have turned out even worse and many would have been confused as to which way to run.

In a situation like this I would have been looking to stay out of his gunsight and take as many people as I could with me. There is no guarantee that if I had a gun that I may not have shot someone else in the confusion, or that I would have stopped what was happening.

Additionally, I have no imagining of myself walking around everyday with a gun .. waiting for someone to walk into a movie and start shooting.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why did you buy a gun? Are you a collector? Did you break any laws?

How old is the gun?

How are those questions germain to my comments?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've lived in urban environments all my life. I have a duty and responsibility to not only provide for my own security, but also to those around me when required.

I don't own a gun .. never have.

The greatest weapon is the mind.

not even the mind can overcome someone with the intent desire to kill.

Obviously the difference didn't make much difference in this case. The shooter was able to kill and injure as many as he did because he was not firing single shot.

believe it or not, an automatic would have been preferable in this instance as they are much harder to aim in auto mode.

It isn't just the accidents. Murdering someone you know is commonplace. It's the first place the police look.

I can respect whatever means you take to protect yourself, but the cost of a gun society are obvious.

and the framers were aware of this cost, still believing it to be worth preserving freedom from tyranny.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

screed. I live in Florida, there are laws that say you can even prohibit a person from carrying a gun to work(although they have to keep it locked in the car.}

Th concealed carry hasn't stopped but a few crimes, and for everyone it did, chances are someone got killed - maybe Trayvon Martin rings a bell?
If you're trying to say "more guns would equate to less gun deaths" it's an absurdity res ipsa loquitur

brady campaign propaganda

 

[Damocles]

good point. the fact that you have to pose this question shows there is a problem with the abundence of guns.

Yes. 1 person with a CCPermit could have taken ou the shooter - but it was a movie theater, the guy used smoke, and suppose this person with the CCPermit missed?

Start a shoot out in a movie theater, supose other ppl bring out their guns? then you have ppl shooting each other. Mass confusion.

It's a problem with no good solution, i justy don't buy into "everybody get a gun" is going to solve this

I don't believe it is a "solution", and understand that by recognizing this right we take on some risk and I've already stated that I believe that the freedom and rights are worth the risk.

I understand that there is a risk of bad people doing bad things. In this scenario the best defense would be to have been armed. You and I both understand that, I believe it is why you avoided answering the question.

The idea that the solution would be to disarm everybody else is foolish. The bad guys aren't going to give up their weapons because you tell them to, only the good guys would do that.

 

[zappasguitar]

Nobody is shocked. This is America.

Many will profess the solution is more guns.

... truly amazing

Exactly...


I can hear them now...


"If only everyone in that theater had been armed...this never would have happened!"

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Taking away your gun is not taking away your rights. You can buy another gun.

that is just a slippery slope to the same progression.

Even if someone is working politically to curb the proliferation of guns .. does that mean they should be killed?

no, only when they actively and physically attempt to take them is when they should be killed.

A gun is not my best tool to defend myself .. which I've done rather well without a gun.

if you find yourself in a position like those in this theater, you will either call someone with a gun or wish you had one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ya. fine. beleive what you wanna beleive.

it's simple enough to actually look up the facts. do it or not, as you choose.

Ever had a gun pointed at your chest? I have. what good would it do for me to have a gun with me? Am I supposed to "quickdraw" myself out of a fatal shot?

yes, I have, which prompted me to train and increase my situational awareness so that it doesn't have to happen again.

I get SO TIRED OF THE CIRCULAR LOGIC "MORE GUNS EQUAL LESS GUN DEATHS"

that is because you're stuck in the stupid mindset that people with more guns is only going to result in a mad shootout. It's indicative of not trusting people to be responsible, yet you trust government to be responsible despite seeing government irresponsibility every day.

 

[blackascoal]

that is just a slippery slope to the same progression.

Seriously disagree

no, only when they actively and physically attempt to take them is when they should be killed.

That is sick and demented in my opinion.

if you find yourself in a position like those in this theater, you will either call someone with a gun or wish you had one.

I've never found myself in such a situation .. not even close .. and the chances of people finding themselves in such a situation are remote at best.

Feel free to walk around with a gun just in case some gun-lover walks in and starts blasting.

But I don't share your paranoia brother.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is something fundamentall wrong with someone who believes a weapon, any weapon, is the best tool to defend themselves. The reality is, is that it is a tool of last resort and one of the least affective tools to defend oneself.

then take them away from all the cops. If they can prove to me that it's easier and better to defend themselves without guns, I might consider it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why? According to you, only you are capable of doing that.

no, according to me all one has to do is read the actual TEXT of the constitution to understand it instead of letting 9 black robed tyrants tell us what we the people meant when we the people wrote it.

 

[Jarod]

There needs to be some ballance and reasonableness regarding this issue. Disarming everyone is not the answer and giving everyone automatic weapons is not the answer. Clearly some "arms" are just so deadly that it does not make sense to allow the general public access to them. Clearly we should be allowed weapons to defend ourselves, and we have a constitutional right to a well regulated milita.

I dont know what weapon this killer had, but its not a coicidence that these things happen often in Colorado and Arazona and such places. (before you go wacko, I acknoledge that they also happen in Boston and San Fransisco.) But lately its been that they are occuring in the states with the most liberal gun laws.

Lets be reasonable and discuss what can be done to prevent crazy people from getting away with this type of thing. I doubt this killer was the only person in a Colorado theater with a gun. I assume at least 10% are armed.

So, what are some good ideas?

Maybe a mental exam before being allowed to buy an automatic rifle?

 

[Damocles]

You "assume" that 10% of Coloradans are armed? You "assume" wrong. Nobody but the killer was armed in that theater. Not having guns didn't help a single one of them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Exactly...


I can hear them now...


"If only everyone in that theater had been armed...this never would have happened!"

why is that hard to believe?

 

[blackascoal]

You "assume" that 10% of Coloradans are armed? You "assume" wrong. Nobody but the killer was armed in that theater. Not having guns didn't help a single one of them.

You "assume" that having a gun would have helped them. It could have made the situation far more chaotic.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Seriously disagree

so they take my gun, i buy another one. then they take that one, so i buy another one. when does it stop? or do you disagree that they would take any more?

That is sick and demented in my opinion.

how so?

I've never found myself in such a situation .. not even close .. and the chances of people finding themselves in such a situation are remote at best.

it's always 'remote' until it happens....then it's just too late.

Feel free to walk around with a gun just in case some gun-lover walks in and starts blasting.

But I don't share your paranoia brother.

I take serious exception to your tie in with 'gun lover' and 'starts blasting'. it seriously undermines credibility.

 

[blackascoal]

so they take my gun, i buy another one. then they take that one, so i buy another one. when does it stop? or do you disagree that they would take any more?

No amount of gun taking determeines that someone should be killed forit.

how so?

Because you want to kill someone over a gun. That is sick and demented.

it's always 'remote' until it happens....then it's just too late.

So spend your life walking around with a gun because something remote might happen?

That's paranoia.

I take serious exception to your tie in with 'gun lover' and 'starts blasting'. it seriously undermines credibility.

Are you of the opinion that the shooter is not a gun-lover?

Of course he is.

 

[Damocles]

You "assume" that having a gun would have helped them. It could have made the situation far more chaotic.

It "could have" made the situation far shorter as well.

One thing we know, not having a gun didn't help any of them at all. My point was that the idea that 10% of people in CO walk around with guns is flat stupid... He "assumed" that 10% of the people there were armed. That's just crazy. Our gun laws here are stricter than those in his state yet he "assumed" that we are more armed than they?

 

[cancel2 2022]

It "could have" made the situation far shorter. One thing we know, not having a gun didn't help any of them at all.

I thought those sort of venues had metal detectors?