truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Really? Someone would had the wherewithal to preempively shoot someone in a darkened noisy theatre before anyone knew what he was up to and before he even got a shot off? WOW talk about presumptuous. What we do know is if he hadnt had guns in the first place the toll would have been 0. Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Really? Someone would had the wherewidthal to preempively shoot someone in a darkened theatre before anyone knew what he was up to and before he even got a shot off? WOW talk about presumptuous. What we do know is if he hadnt had guns in the first place the toll would have been 0. But reality is here, and she says: STFU, and stop denying me....because we do have guns, and, there's lots of ways to kill people. Perhaps he would have gone with explosives instead? Of course, a lot more people would have died if he did....but you are OK with that....because at least a gun wouldn't have been involved, right?. If you're so inclined, perhaps you should invent a time machine, go back, and try to un-invent the gun. Of course, there's a good chance that when you come back you will have expended all this effort and wonderful technical ability....and changed nothing....because....those bastards will have invented the gun the year after. But don't let me stop you. By all means go ahead and build it. When you're done with it, I want to use it to go and see, once and for all, exactly what Catherine the Great did with horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Really? Someone would had the wherewithal to preempively shoot someone in a darkened noisy theatre before anyone knew what he was up to and before he even got a shot off? WOW talk about presumptuous. What we do know is if he hadnt had guns in the first place the toll would have been 0. Yes, if only we had gun control, the Valentines Day Massacre could have been avoided. Casaulties certainly could have been reduced if other people had weapons. Are you on a mission to out stupid each and every one of you previous posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Really? Someone would had the wherewithal to preempively shoot someone in a darkened noisy theatre before anyone knew what he was up to and before he even got a shot off? WOW talk about presumptuous. What we do know is if he hadnt had guns in the first place the toll would have been 0. Unless he went in there with an explosive device that worked! If you shoot(which I do) you would recognize the sound of gunfire, so you would know what is going on and react accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) But reality is here, and she says: STFU, and stop denying me....because we do have guns, and, there's lots of ways to kill people. Perhaps he would have gone with explosives instead? Of course, a lot more people would have died if he did....but you are OK with that....because at least a gun wouldn't have been involved, right?. If you're so inclined, perhaps you should invent a time machine, go back, and try to un-invent the gun. Of course, there's a good chance that when you come back you will have expended all this effort and wonderful technical ability....and changed nothing....because....those bastards will have invented the gun the year after. But don't let me stop you. By all means go ahead and build it. When you're done with it, I want to use it to go and see, once and for all, exactly what Catherine the Great did with horses. Futher illogical and downright creepy speculation from the big gun loving, small-knob compensation crowd. It's been established Holmes was an intelligent and organized individual, albeit downright evil and demented (the latter items, something he shares with you to some degree, fortunately not the former.) Intent on causing the greatest amount of death to the innocents as possible, given the constraints he was subjected to. And what was his primary weapon of choice to achieve this? Well the gun of course, 4 LEGAL ones to be exact. . Think clearly for a moment (I know how agonizingly difficult that is for you), but just try for a moment to ponder the outright, unparalleled stupidity for you and orhers to suggest that providing villians with access to these proven highly lethal common weapons of choice, that somehow makes us all safer on the rationale that eliminating access to them would to lead to their acquisition of even more destructive ones. That simple algorithm would argue for giving villains access to ever increasing destructive weapons stopping only at the 2nd most worst known to man, because removing it would drive them to worst of them all, nukes. So what's 2nd worst (overall best per your "logic") weapon to give the bad guys? chemical, biological? You know, SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE F#CKING TOWN WITH! God lord, the creeps like you and your buds who dominate this thread have really opened my eyes to a deeply disturbing combination of bizarre ignorance and morality vacuum thats out there. No wonder you're afraid and paranoid of the dark side, it stares at you in the mirror every morning. Where is this from, the impotent little man with the small pecker complex? Whatever the source, it's wrong, literally DEAD WRONG (RIP to yesterday's innocent victims.) After seeing this I don't know how any even marginally sane and responsible person could ever support any form of legal firearms. NONE, ZERO for you ... not even BB guns. You belong in solitary confinement in a padded cell in a mental institution for the criminally insane. Down the hall from the likes of James Holmes. Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Futher illogical and downright creepy speculation from the big gun loving, small-knob compensation crowd. It's been established Holmes was an intelligent and organized individual, albeit downright evil and demented (the latter items, something he shares with you to some degree, fortunately not the former.) Intent on causing the greatest amount of the death of innocents possible, given the constraints he was subjected to. And what was his primary weapon of choice to achieve this? Well the gun of course, several of them. Think clearly for a moment (I know how agonizingly difficult that is for you), but just try for a moment to ponder the outright, unparalleled stupidy of thinking that providing villians with access to weapons of ever increasing capacity for death and destruction, somehow makes us all safer because eliminating access to these worst weapons only drives them to even more destructive ones. That simple algorithm would argue for giving villains access to ever increasing destructive weapons stopping only at the 2nd most worst known to man, because removing it would drive them to worst of them all, nukes. So what's 2nd best, chemical, biological, neutron bomnbs? You know, SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE F#CKING TOWN WITH! God lord, the creeps like you and your buds who dominate this thread have really opened my eyes to a deeply disturbing combination of your bizarre ignorance and morality vacuum thats out there. No wonder you're afraid of the dark, it stares at you in the mirror every morning. Where is this from, the impotent little man with the small pecker complex? Whatever the source, it's wrong, literally DEAD WRONG (RIP to the yesterday's innocent victims.) After seeing this I don't see how any even marginally sane and responsible person could ever support any form of legal firearms. NONE, ZERO for you ... not even BB guns. You belong in solitary confinement in a padded cell in a mental institution for the criminally insane. Down the hall from the likes of James Holmes. This has to be one of the best parodies of unabashed liberal no-think I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Don't worry, I won't be visiting this thread any longer. The garbage from you and others both saddens and sickens me. I truly feel the presentation of warped pro-gun arguments in the wake of this tragedy is further insult to the victims and their families. My only hope is the mods shut it down. You and your kind don't deserve a vehicle of expression at this time. Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Don't worry, I won't be visiting this thread any longer. The garbage from you and others both saddens and sickens me. I truly feel the making of warped pro-gun arguments in the wake of this tragedy is further insult to the victims and their families. My only hope is the mods shut it down. You and your kind don't deserve a vehicle of expression at this time. Really? But its ok to use this tragedy to push more gun control right ? Because liberals have good intentions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Really? Someone would had the wherewithal to preempively shoot someone in a darkened noisy theatre before anyone knew what he was up to and before he even got a shot off? WOW talk about presumptuous. What we do know is if he hadnt had guns in the first place the toll would have been 0. http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10742-second-amendment-victory-71-year-old-saves-the-day-as-two-men-try-to-rob-internet-cafe/ http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/09/sunday-horror-church-shootings-in-colorado-gunman-reportedly-killed-by-armed-female-church-security-staffer/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts Edited July 21, 2012 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 It would be like arguing which chick on "The Five" is the hottest. Andrea Tantaros FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) So now I see the WAPO editorial staff and leftist political hacks like EJ Dionne now calling for gun control. I wish they were more consistent and calling for more gun control when we found Brian Terry dead. But no. Fast and Furious isn't about guns. It's a witch hunt driven purely by the fact that our AG is black, right Dionne? Note to progressives like Dionne; if you have a problem with gun control, you should start asking what Holder did with F&F. Or, y'know, STFU about gun control you hypocritical turds. Edited July 21, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 So, would you prefer that crazy uses an ax or a chainsaw on his victims, because he can't buy a gun? Yeah, you solved crazy by taking away a tool. Great job! The guy has wired up his apartment with chemicals and tripwires....should we ban chemicals and wire now? He was quite educated, especially in chemistry. Should we ban the teaching of chemistry now? This guy was trying to be like the bad guy in Batman(I saw a preview and the bad guy has tactical gear...and a gas mask on...sooner or later somebody will get this)...should we ban all bad guys in Batman? Should we ban all Batman movies? Should we just get it over with, and ban the Bat? (Yeah you are the joker....but not the way you think) The fact is that there's a hell of a lot more to gain in the US, than in Norway, in general. Even crime can pay, and therefore, so can murder. There's no reason to kill anybody if they don't have any more than you do, we are all half-assing at jobs that don't pay much, and our economy relies solely on selling our natural resources = Norway That's why Norway's murder rate is what it is. It has NOTHING to do with guns. I don't know about you but I'd prefer to take my chances with someone with an axe or a chainsaw rather than multiple firearms. I think I'd have a far better chance of getting away from someone armed with something that he needs to get up close and personal to use rather than something that can drop me from a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 This is just going to keep happening. Nothing is going to stop this. Its just a way of life now, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Yeah...tell that to the cops that got shot in LA, and the others who had to beg for an armored car to get to their people, because they lost the fire superiority battle immediately. Why then did they start issuing assault rifles, in LA, to "regular cops"...and this problem has NEVER occurred again....if "regular cops" don't carry the stuff? Ridiculous. Why has crime, nation-wide, gone down, year after year, ever since gun control efforts have been defeated, and gun sales have gone up? Is this just a coincidence? Look, gun control became a political liability for most serious Democrats, and they dumped it, years ago. The only people who are still trying to push it, are, interestingly, the same people who are still butthurt about losing that battle, and refuse to recognize the facts and statistical evidence that has accrued consistently ever since they lost. Eric Holder is one of these people, and the Fast and Furious F up was a lame, politically driven, attempt to have gun control re-emerge as an issue. Naive? Maybe. But, ignorance isn't your fault. However, now that you've been given new(to you), valid information, continuing forward with this approach = choosing stupidity. Yes. Here's the deal: sooner or later you are going to come to point in your life where you accept the world as it is....and stop believing in wishful perceptions, and therefore believe you can change it with simplistic, centralized solutions. For all your knowledge and ability(I assume) there are some problems that you can't solve, or, that you can't solve by talking. But you can't accept that...yet. This is the unfortunate trait that most liberals share. There's a reason for the saying "a liberal is somebody who has never been mugged". Sooner or later, you are going to accept that evil really does exist, and the only way for it to succeed is for good people to do nothing. And, that more often that not, doing something...dammit, as much as we hate it....requires returning fire. Or, that we must, yeah, start, fight and win, a war to defeat evil. The nonsense in Florida is the exception that proves the rule. Sooner or later, you are going to realize that evil isn't selective. As in: the Wall Street Investment Banker who doesn't care about other people, and purposely and illegally Fs them over for personal gain...you correctly identify as evil. I can see that too. The trouble is: you can't see that the drug dealer who sprays and prays at his rivals, and hits an 11 year old as a result....is just as evil. Instead, you try to tell us that racism, and his lack of education and lack of options as a result, is at fault. Wrong. He is evil personified. After all, he hasn't even taken the time to learn how to use his weapon properly, because he doesn't care if he hits the 11 year old. How is that not evil? We must go after both men with equal vigor, and bring them to justice. But we can't, as long as you think that such a thing as moral relativity exists, and that evil doesn't, or only exists in the people you don't like or work with. Sure mitigating circumstances exist...that's why our existing law accounts for them. However, guns....and the Wall Street guy's lawyers...are merely the tools that these evil people use to get away with what they do. You won't stop evil by F'ing about with tools. Anybody familiar with tactics will tell you: denying the enemy use of one tool, when he can get a replacement, is pointless. You may cause them temporary harassment, but it is never worth the cost.They will also tell you that bringing the battle to the enemy is how you win. Denying the gun, or the lawyer, does nothing. You have to attack the source of the evil....and that is the person who commits it. I have to accept that evil exists? Ok. Fine. No arguments there. LOL. Stop assuming I justify every behavior just b/c you think that's what anyone that isn't voting Romney does. What I don't have to accept is that deranged people can easily get weapons that shoot 100 rounds a minute. POLICE don't use these weapons b/c they're too dangerous. We don't need people buying military grade weapons. Gun purchases have dropped, so the industry needs to sell more guns and more expensive guns and expand the market to more heavy guns to a smaller group of people. I don't care about hand guns. I care about mass killing machines that can turn evil into "super-evil" very easily. I don't think we're going to stop super evil either...but we can make semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammo mags a bad thing and that will help. And as I've said earlier...if you have a gun and a concealed permit for protection you still aren't going to be equal to crazy people with that kind of heat. It's called common sense. It has nothing to do with "gun rights." It's not "naive" to say "these guns are bad and used for 1 thing only." It's logic. And btw I have been mugged. When I was 20 some Chicago bum pulled a knife on me and wanted my cash. Since he clearly picked the wrong guy to mug, he got the $8 I had on me w/ out a fight. That has nothing to do with guns. But since you asked. I guess I looked "evil" in the face outside the red line downtown and paid it $8 to go away. lol There's no reason people need to able to legally buy guns that can easily shoot a ton of people in minutes. It's just common sense. Sensible gun regulation is not bad. Get with the program. Edited July 21, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Futher illogical and downright creepy speculation from the big gun loving, small-knob compensation crowd. It's been established Holmes was an intelligent and organized individual, albeit downright evil and demented (the latter items, something he shares with you to some degree, fortunately not the former.) Intent on causing the greatest amount of death to the innocents as possible, given the constraints he was subjected to. And what was his primary weapon of choice to achieve this? Well the gun of course, 4 LEGAL ones to be exact. . Think clearly for a moment (I know how agonizingly difficult that is for you), but just try for a moment to ponder the outright, unparalleled stupidity for you and orhers to suggest that providing villians with access to weapons of ever increasing capacity for death and destruction, that somehow makes us all safer on the rationale that eliminating access to these worst weapons only drives them to even more destructive ones. That simple algorithm would argue for giving villains access to ever increasing destructive weapons stopping only at the 2nd most worst known to man, because removing it would drive them to worst of them all, nukes. So what's 2nd worst (overall best per your "logic") weapon to give the bad guys? chemical, biological? You know, SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE F#CKING TOWN WITH! God lord, the creeps like you and your buds who dominate this thread have really opened my eyes to a deeply disturbing combination of bizarre ignorance and morality vacuum thats out there. No wonder you're afraid and paranoid of the dark side, it stares at you in the mirror every morning. Where is this from, the impotent little man with the small pecker complex? Whatever the source, it's wrong, literally DEAD WRONG (RIP to yesterday's innocent victims.) After seeing this I don't know how any even marginally sane and responsible person could ever support any form of legal firearms. NONE, ZERO for you ... not even BB guns. You belong in solitary confinement in a padded cell in a mental institution for the criminally insane. Down the hall from the likes of James Holmes. By extension, not just computers but even typewriters should be illegal because you post stupid **** on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I have to accept that evil exists? Ok. Fine. No arguments there. LOL. Stop assuming I justify every behavior just b/c you think that's what anyone that isn't voting Romney does. What I don't have to accept is that deranged people can easily get weapons that shoot 100 rounds a minute. POLICE don't use these weapons b/c they're too dangerous. We don't need people buying military grade weapons. Gun purchases have dropped, so the industry needs to sell more guns and more expensive guns and expand the market to more heavy guns to a smaller group of people. I don't care about hand guns. I care about mass killing machines that can turn evil into "super-evil" very easily. I don't think we're going to stop super evil either...but we can make semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammo mags a bad thing and that will help. And as I've said earlier...if you have a gun and a concealed permit for protection you still aren't going to be equal to crazy people with that kind of heat. It's called common sense. It has nothing to do with "gun rights." It's not "naive" to say "these guns are bad and used for 1 thing only." It's logic. And btw I have been mugged. When I was 20 some Chicago bum pulled a knife on me and wanted my cash. Since he clearly picked the wrong guy to mug, he got the $8 I had on me w/ out a fight. That has nothing to do with guns. But since you asked. I guess I looked "evil" in the face outside the red line downtown and paid it $8 to go away. lol There's no reason people need to able to legally buy guns that can easily shoot a ton of people in minutes. It's just common sense. Sensible gun regulation is not bad. Get with the program. not really. Evil is a convenient, but false man made paradigm. It really doesn't make sense. Nothing more than a tool to make people fall in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales. Are you against that 3rd? Not saying you can't have your hunting gun. Or even a handgun in the home...both after a background check. Or that you can't even acquire a concealed weapons permit. But assault weapons gone, and background checks on all guns sold. Are there problems with that as you see it? And this isn't saying this will prevent all tragedies or would have impacted this incident one way or the other. This is just gun policy in America talk. What is an assault weapon & what is the benefit of banning it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Futher illogical and downright creepy speculation from the big gun loving, small-knob compensation crowd. It's been established Holmes was an intelligent and organized individual, albeit downright evil and demented (the latter items, something he shares with you to some degree, fortunately not the former.) Intent on causing the greatest amount of death to the innocents as possible, given the constraints he was subjected to. And what was his primary weapon of choice to achieve this? Well the gun of course, 4 LEGAL ones to be exact. . Think clearly for a moment (I know how agonizingly difficult that is for you), but just try for a moment to ponder the outright, unparalleled stupidity for you and orhers to suggest that providing villians with access to weapons of ever increasing capacity for death and destruction, that somehow makes us all safer on the rationale that eliminating access to these worst weapons only drives them to even more destructive ones. That simple algorithm would argue for giving villains access to ever increasing destructive weapons stopping only at the 2nd most worst known to man, because removing it would drive them to worst of them all, nukes. So what's 2nd worst (overall best per your "logic") weapon to give the bad guys? chemical, biological? You know, SOMETHING HE COULD HAVE KILLED THE WHOLE F#CKING TOWN WITH! God lord, the creeps like you and your buds who dominate this thread have really opened my eyes to a deeply disturbing combination of bizarre ignorance and morality vacuum thats out there. No wonder you're afraid and paranoid of the dark side, it stares at you in the mirror every morning. Where is this from, the impotent little man with the small pecker complex? Whatever the source, it's wrong, literally DEAD WRONG (RIP to yesterday's innocent victims.) After seeing this I don't know how any even marginally sane and responsible person could ever support any form of legal firearms. NONE, ZERO for you ... not even BB guns. You belong in solitary confinement in a padded cell in a mental institution for the criminally insane. Down the hall from the likes of James Holmes. Wow, I haven't seen this side of you. The irony is you don't really get the argument you're denigrating others for making. The truth is that there is nothing about guns or ammo that makes them terribly difficult for an amateur to construct with relatively inexpensive materials. You can't make them go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 What is an assault weapon & what is the benefit of banning it? You're asking Sarah Brady what a assault weapon is? The weapon so powerful the cop's won't use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Sad, so sad. Hope my family never experiences anything like this. my prayers go out to the families. I feel so bad for the parents that lost children. I wonder How many shots this guy got of. What type of clip did he use to have so many bullets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts