View Single Post
      07-23-2012, 04:14 PM   #39
Top Droppin'
Draven's Avatar

Drives: '10 e93
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Merrimack, NH

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by BMWinNorthdakota View Post
they should ban all guns because of this. How could they allow him to buy those guns?
Originally Posted by Sara504 View Post
Is this sarcasm?
Originally Posted by sjk9671 View Post
God, I hope so.
That thinking is the exact problem. Lets say out of a theater full of what, 200 people, that 1% of that sample population was responsibly armed and relatively proficient. Suddenly the shooter has 2 people in the theater also armed and able to return fire. Sure, he was wearing body armor, but you get hit by a JHP round in a protected area and it's going to have some kinetic energy behind it and you're not going to be standing afterwards. Suddenly the shooter might not want to continue his engagement and withdraws, and you potentially save lives.

Now lets pretend that on average, 5% of the population carries concealed, and you have 10 people who carry a concealed weapon in that senario. What are the chances the shooter walks into a theater in the first place, knowing more likely than not that people who are armed will be able to defend themselves. What do you think that's going to do to the average criminal, or worse, a guy like this one who isn't your average criminal?

Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
6 year old shouldn't have been in the movie, nor the infant.
I couldn't believe it when I read those reports. School out or not, 3am is not a reasonable time for infants and 6 year olds to be at the movies.

Originally Posted by PINeely View Post
Not in a lot of theaters because people use them to get to their cars faster or leave for phone calls- the same ruse employed by the shooter.
Hopefully this practice stops as well.

Originally Posted by ericruiz911 View Post
OMG YES! Lets make it illegal for people to buy guns! Fuck it, lets make drugs illegal too.....oh wait they are and yet they are all around us. Half the guns on the street are not registered anyways so there will continue to be a black market for it. This guy purchased the guns like a regular civilian would. 6,000 rounds IS alot but there are plenty of people that can run through 6,000 round at a gun range between them and their friends. My personal opinion; the sentencing of convicted 1st degree murders should be death penalty. We kill alligators and sharks when we catch humans feeding them or whenever they attack us and why? because they are not afraid of us and could do it again. Why shouldn't we treat people who have mass murdered the exact same way. Im sorry if i sound irrational but its BS. We spend so much money to put scums in jail for life.....WHY?!??! they are going to rot in there anyways so just give it up. Sorry

You need to give them something to think about....Would taking a life be worth your own? Im sure people would think twice before they thought about killing innocent people or for $20 of weed. Its like someone asking you if you want to do a 20 roll but theres a cop behind you....camon, you're not going to do it because you know the consequences are severe.
On the one hand, I agree with your points at the beginning completely. Gun control laws will only affect those concerned with abiding by them. If someone really wants a firearm, they're going to get one, legally or otherwise. The only people affected are the responsible owners attempting to abide by the law.

On the other hand, your point about the consequences needing to be severe is incorrect. Studies have shown that an increase in severity on punishment does not correlate to a statistically significant decrease in perpetration. I'm not saying not to increase the scope of the death penalty, because I agree that we're too lenient on our criminals in general. However, the hope that it would deter people is incorrect. You're just as likely to drive without a seatbelt if the fine is $100 or $200. People only think about the severity of the consequence when faced with it (ie caught). Before that, it's a potential risk.

Originally Posted by sjk9671 View Post
I have to respectfully disagree with you. That’s exactly why it was written. Look what our founding fathers did. They used their weapons to overthrow their tyrannical government.

They then placed the clause in the 2nd amendment so that the people will always be armed, to keep the government in check. That is the original purpose
I agree. The right to bear arms was afforded to us so that we had the right to defend ourselves from danger and oppression, either foreign or domestic. Militia being the foreign aspect of that, and crime being the domestic. As citizens, it's our right and frankly our duty to arm ourselves if we're willing and able to.

I've had my CC permit for two years, and I'm at the range at least once a month or more. I used to carry everywhere it was legal... Grocery store, movies, dinners. My ex used to give me crap, asked why. This event reminded me that you never know where you might be when the situation arises and you might need your weapon. I've been a lot more proactive in having it with me again since I read about what happened. I saw the movie last night, and guess what, I had it right at my side.

So, that's my .02. People need to stop blaming the weapon, and need to start blaming the person. We don't blame the car when it kills someone in a car crash, we don't blame a bat or a knife or a brick or a bottle or a lead pipe when used to harm a person. Stop blaming the tool, start blaming the person. He easily could've chosen another way and set the entire building on fire instead, which likely could've cost a lot more people their lives.