Anonymous wrote:This view that making it harder for people to get guns will legislate away these kinds of attacks is looking at it through a wrong lens. THis guy had planned for months and months and he was fully aware of his actions. Extra steps and waiting periods only deter regular ordinary citizens but the crazies and those who plan harm will continue to work around those rules. If one or 2 people in that theater were CC who knows that may have checked the shooter because he would have known that there would be resistance. Right now we're all sitting ducks. A gun is a TOOL. it can be used for protection, hunting or it can be used for harm. A car is a tool, it can be used for transport or to place bombs in the trunk. Should we ban all cars?

I don't know what your experience is with gun, but no one needs a semi-automatic rifle or an extended magazine for either hunting or self protection. I agree that guns are tools. I hunt and use a Browning A-Bolt. I don't need a drum of 100 rounds and a semi-automatic rifle to take down a deer. I have a M9 Beretta pistol for home protection, again, I don't need an extended clip for that task either. If this nut's access to guns, clips and ammo, had been limited to those tools that regular ordinary citizens use, the amount of people harmed would have been much lower. As for someone being able to take him down if they were armed. Please. The average Joe who is carrying a gun is not likely to be able to hit a target that is shooting at him, that is wearing black in a dark theater, while all hell is breaking loose around him.

There is simply no reason that private citizens need the types of weapon / clips he had. Gun collectors may want to own such weapons, so they can shoot them at a range, but you know what? That person's right to bear arms is not greater than my God given right to life.

How do you know there weren't people in the theater audience who were armed, but were too busy pissing their pants and are now embarrassed to discuss it?

As I mentioned in another thread, there was a guy at the Gabby Giffords shooting that was armed. He almost shot the man who had disarmed the shooter and taken possession of his gun.

Also, James Holmes was wearing body armor. He was prepared for people to shoot back.

Because if he's crazy, then he's sure to decide not to shoot people if he thinks someone in the audience might have a gun, right? And nothing could go wrong if someone does decide to shoot back, right?

I understand that guns aren't intrinically evil, but making a tool more easily available does make it more likely to be used.

This view that making it harder for people to get guns will legislate away these kinds of attacks is looking at it through a wrong lens. THis guy had planned for months and months and he was fully aware of his actions. Extra steps and waiting periods only deter regular ordinary citizens but the crazies and those who plan harm will continue to work around those rules. If one or 2 people in that theater were CC who knows that may have checked the shooter because he would have known that there would be resistance. Right now we're all sitting ducks. A gun is a TOOL. it can be used for protection, hunting or it can be used for harm. A car is a tool, it can be used for transport or to place bombs in the trunk. Should we ban all cars?