Anonymous wrote:

that armor does not protect you 100%. trust me, you get shot in the arm or the leg, you may not die, but you are going down. this is not the "movies", pardon the pun.

No, it's not the movies--so for every one qualified, sane, and able shooter who might halt a shooter such as the Aurora guy, there are 100+ idiots who have none of those qualities.

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder about the fact that this pp is so confident that s/he could have shot this guy and taken him out. That certainty about his/her performance in a chaotic and dark environment makes me wonder whether s/he is as "able" as s/he thinks.

that armor does not protect you 100%. trust me, you get shot in the arm or the leg, you may not die, but you are going down. this is not the "movies", pardon the pun.

No, it's not the movies--so for every one qualified, sane, and able shooter who might halt a shooter such as the Aurora guy, there are 100+ idiots who have none of those qualities.

Anonymous wrote:
So, PP, you would tell the man who fought off the armed robbers that, rather than being able to defend himself, he must submit to whatever those criminals choose to do to him? You may want to live in that world, but I don't.

You assume that the people like James Holmes will still have access to - what - assualt weapons and that the rest of us won't? That makes no sense. Surely you must understand that while some handguns will be purchased underground, just like the are today, that having stricter gun control laws would likely have made it such that James Holmes would never have had access to the guns/ammunition that he had, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you, but I'm sure the "swine flu pandemic crew" will be out wringing their hands over this.

Nonsense! We are very danger-specific in our concern.

The theater shooting doesn't cause us much concern at all, although we might continue to avoid crowded theaters during a pandemic of a communicable decease spread through person to person contact by air transmission in close quarters.

OK Chicken Little. Go take some more Paxil.

Anonymous wrote:
well better than letting the murderer walk around the theater shooting people in the head! Jesus, don't be dense. If I were there with my gun, I would have saved many lives. Simple as that.

You seem to expect all of us to simply trust your word on this. We don't know you any more than we know the crazy kid who did this. The problem with our current gun control laws is that they are utter FAILURES in distinguishing between the sane and the insane. The people who you profess to be versus the ones who this guy was, and the VA Tech shooter was and the snipers were.

Some of us feel safer knowing that NOBODY has access to guns (other than at shooting ranges, for hunting and maybe some other limited purposes) rather than letting the current system exist. Of course, this would probably just encourage people to go underground and purchase guns, but that will just make it that much harder for the likes of James Holmes to purchase the SERIOUS assualt weaponry that he had. Geez...how can anybody argue that everyday citizens should have access to ASSAULT WEAPONS that fire 50+ rounds a minute. I mean, WTF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are worried about this stuff, then you need to get a concealed carry permit. One person with a handgun could have saved a ton of lives.

Actually, this argument doesn't work in this situation.

1. It was a dark movie theater.
2. The shooter set off tear gas.
3. The shooter was wearing a gas mask, ballistic helmet, tactical vest, ballistic leggings, and armored boots (see illustration from the Denver Post at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AZVraqpZtVU/UAsBAaZKh-I/AAAAAAAAFIE/mD6ZPrqSQtc/s1600/20120720__cd21shootmain_3%7Ep1.jpg).

So, all those threats of concealed weapons to use in self defense have only made for better dressed mass murderers.

that armor does not protect you 100%. trust me, you get shot in the arm or the leg, you may not die, but you are going down. this is not the "movies", pardon the pun.

Anonymous wrote:

So, all those threats of concealed weapons to use in self defense have only made for better dressed mass murderers.

yup

Anonymous wrote:if you are worried about this stuff, then you need to get a concealed carry permit. One person with a handgun could have saved a ton of lives.

Actually, this argument doesn't work in this situation.

1. It was a dark movie theater.
2. The shooter set off tear gas.
3. The shooter was wearing a gas mask, ballistic helmet, tactical vest, ballistic leggings, and armored boots (see illustration from the Denver Post at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AZVraqpZtVU/UAsBAaZKh-I/AAAAAAAAFIE/mD6ZPrqSQtc/s1600/20120720__cd21shootmain_3%7Ep1.jpg).

So, all those threats of concealed weapons to use in self defense have only made for better dressed mass murderers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, no one said take away all guns. Hunting and protection is fine by me.

I'm all for banning assault weapons which allow people to cause this much damage, frankly. There is no argument that makes any sense to allow people to buy and use assault weapons.

I don't disagree with you in principle. In practice, however, bans on such weapons have extended well beyond this category, and many of the people advocating such bans are working towards banning concealed carry and private possession of handguns---and you aren't being honest if you don't think this is the end game of gun control advocacy organizations or people like Mayor Bloomberg---so compromising on anything only makes that outcome more likely. Under DC law, this incident would have a successful armed robbery with many innocent victims. What is the justification for that?

I understand your concern about this. The way I read your post, you are saying that it seems unfair that you would be legally prevented from being able to defend yourself with a gun. But here's my point. As an innocent bystander, don't I deserve some protection in case you're an irresponsible gun owner, a terrible shot, and react without thinking? What's my guarantee that you will know what you're doing in a dangerous situation like this? It seems unfair to me that I should be at the mercy of your possibly poor judgment. Nothing personal, pp. You may be great in a crisis but I don't know you and I don't know why I should have to hope that an albeit well-intentioned total stranger will not shoot me by accident.

I appreciate your honesty -- and to the other posters, this is precisely the reason gun rights activists act the way they do. There are many people who seek to deprive others of the right to self-defense because they are afraid of guns. There is no reasonable compromise with such people, as any concession merely become the baseline and the fight just becomes about the next portion of the right that must be surrendered. It will never stop, and so must be opposed relentlessly.

So, PP, you would tell the man who fought off the armed robbers that, rather than being able to defend himself, he must submit to whatever those criminals choose to do to him? You may want to live in that world, but I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, no one said take away all guns. Hunting and protection is fine by me.

I'm all for banning assault weapons which allow people to cause this much damage, frankly. There is no argument that makes any sense to allow people to buy and use assault weapons.

I don't disagree with you in principle. In practice, however, bans on such weapons have extended well beyond this category, and many of the people advocating such bans are working towards banning concealed carry and private possession of handguns---and you aren't being honest if you don't think this is the end game of gun control advocacy organizations or people like Mayor Bloomberg---so compromising on anything only makes that outcome more likely. Under DC law, this incident would have a successful armed robbery with many innocent victims. What is the justification for that?

I understand your concern about this. The way I read your post, you are saying that it seems unfair that you would be legally prevented from being able to defend yourself with a gun. But here's my point. As an innocent bystander, don't I deserve some protection in case you're an irresponsible gun owner, a terrible shot, and react without thinking? What's my guarantee that you will know what you're doing in a dangerous situation like this? It seems unfair to me that I should be at the mercy of your possibly poor judgment. Nothing personal, pp. You may be great in a crisis but I don't know you and I don't know why I should have to hope that an albeit well-intentioned total stranger will not shoot me by accident.

well better than letting the murderer walk around the theater shooting people in the head! Jesus, don't be dense. If I were there with my gun, I would have saved many lives. Simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, no one said take away all guns. Hunting and protection is fine by me.

I'm all for banning assault weapons which allow people to cause this much damage, frankly. There is no argument that makes any sense to allow people to buy and use assault weapons.

I don't disagree with you in principle. In practice, however, bans on such weapons have extended well beyond this category, and many of the people advocating such bans are working towards banning concealed carry and private possession of handguns---and you aren't being honest if you don't think this is the end game of gun control advocacy organizations or people like Mayor Bloomberg---so compromising on anything only makes that outcome more likely. Under DC law, this incident would have a successful armed robbery with many innocent victims. What is the justification for that?

I understand your concern about this. The way I read your post, you are saying that it seems unfair that you would be legally prevented from being able to defend yourself with a gun. But here's my point. As an innocent bystander, don't I deserve some protection in case you're an irresponsible gun owner, a terrible shot, and react without thinking? What's my guarantee that you will know what you're doing in a dangerous situation like this? It seems unfair to me that I should be at the mercy of your possibly poor judgment. Nothing personal, pp. You may be great in a crisis but I don't know you and I don't know why I should have to hope that an albeit well-intentioned total stranger will not shoot me by accident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood that this happened in was the Denver equivalent of SE DC. Will I ever go to a theater in Camden, Compton, or Anacostia? HELL NO. However, that has nothing to do with the shooting.

Uh...I can't stand attitudes like this. Please move back to your backwoods hometown ASAP. You probably have never even been in any of the neighborhoods you're talking bad about. Such a cowardly loser.

Yeah, there is no movie theater in Anacostia. That pp is a fool.

not to mention these mass type shootings are commited mostly by white, educated social outcasts. Columbine, Az shooting, Va tech (asian but socioeconomic same), Norway camp shooter etc. this is not a gang, drug-related street violence. Don't fool yourself.

Exactly. I am not understanding all the wanting to know what type of area the shooting took place in, etc, etc like it depends on that, yeah right!

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, no one said take away all guns. Hunting and protection is fine by me.

I'm all for banning assault weapons which allow people to cause this much damage, frankly. There is no argument that makes any sense to allow people to buy and use assault weapons.

I don't disagree with you in principle. In practice, however, bans on such weapons have extended well beyond this category, and many of the people advocating such bans are working towards banning concealed carry and private possession of handguns---and you aren't being honest if you don't think this is the end game of gun control advocacy organizations or people like Mayor Bloomberg---so compromising on anything only makes that outcome more likely. Under DC law, this incident would have a successful armed robbery with many innocent victims. What is the justification for that?

I can understand the way some can feel after a tragedy or incident and the fear it brings out, but I for some reason didn't feel like this at all. I saw DKR on Friday night and was never thinking about anyone pulling a similar scenario.

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention, no one said take away all guns. Hunting and protection is fine by me.

I'm all for banning assault weapons which allow people to cause this much damage, frankly. There is no argument that makes any sense to allow people to buy and use assault weapons.

Exactly. I mean where does it stop? Couldn't folks say they should have a right to own a bazooka or a tank in order to defend themselves? Who needs a friggin' assault weapon for self-defense?