The Dark Knight's Dark Night (Shooting in Aurora)

ppssshhh and singapore gets called stupid for having a no-gun law.

They should exile him. Lets see how he likes the ice.

Well, I'm not American but IMHO the government should make the fact of having a gun a total pain in the ass, for example if a guy from the army loses his gun, he'd probably be castigated for that in a hard way, whereas civilian just don't say a thing and act normally. We could evade this with a presentation regime (they show the authorities the guns) and if a gun is lost, the person should be punished with x years of jail and if there were some crimes committed with that gun, he should receive the same punishment the killer receives. And a lot of laws like that....

That is retarded.

Well, I'm not American but IMHO the government should make the fact of having a gun a total pain in the ass, for example if a guy from the army loses his gun, he'd probably be castigated for that in a hard way, whereas civilian just don't say a thing and act normally. We could evade this with a presentation regime (they show the authorities the guns) and if a gun is lost, the person should be punished with x years of jail and if there were some crimes committed with that gun, he should receive the same punishment the killer receives. And a lot of laws like that....

The punishment thing is just dumb. Yes, i agree they should report the gun stolen or missing, but why should they get punished? SO if i buy a gun and some one steals it I should go to jail? Why not have the same thing with cars? they can kill people too. And lets say i stole your gun and when on a mass murder spree, would you wnat to be sentenced to life in jail or death because someone stole your gun?

It's your responsibility if the gun disappears or not, because you wanted one to protect yourself, so If someone steals your gun and you don't report it then you should receive jail because it was your responsibility and if the gun was used to kill people even more punishment because all of that is caused by your own negligence.

It's your responsibility if the gun disappears or not, because you wanted one to protect yourself, so If someone steals your gun and you don't report it then you should receive jail because it was your responsibility and if the gun was used to kill people even more punishment because all of that is caused by your own negligence.

The federal government's ONLY job is to protect us from other countries. That's it. Everything else, LITERALLY, everything else, is in the hands of the citizens, in a free society. You might say that it's their job to build up infrastructure for the country, but until the 1950s, THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT. Small business owners and on rare occasions local government funded road projects up to that point. You might say it is their job to stabilize society if there is an imbalance, and that doesn't even need comments from me, just look at the past decade; every single thing they do to try and make things better, invariably makes things worse. In some (read:all) cases, MUCH worse. You might say it is their job to keep us healthy, and I'm not going to comment any more on that either, there are several pages of that already, but to simplify things, no, definitely not. You might say it is their job to protect us from ourselves, which I would also disagree with; people need to learn to protect themselves. I would be perfectly fine with the government hosting self-defense seminars and clearly explaining that, you need to think things through before you buy a gun, then you need to think things through even more before you actually use it.

Do you know why nobody stood up and shot that man the second he walked in? Because bars, theatres, restaurants, hell, most places of that sort, restrict guns even if you have a concealed carry permit. Do you know who that hurts? The people that follow the law. The people that don't follow the law don't give a pomegranate because they will do what they want regardless; you think a sign would have stopped him when he had the resolve to kill dozens of people and rig his home with explosives to wipe out the local law enforcement? The only proper answer is, "I don't think so, Tim". Someone in that theatre may have had a license and the training to stop that man, so I would go so far as to say, whoever passed the law restricting people from carrying concealed weapons in certain public places is around half responsible for this terrible event, the other half obviously being the gunman. People go crazy from time to time, it's just the way of the world, and no amount of regulation is going to stop that.

Just wanted to say that I have mad respect for christian bale for going and visiting the hospitals on his own accord*. And also how people are retarded enough to suggest that he should have gone in costume.

It's your responsibility if the gun disappears or not, because you wanted one to protect yourself, so If someone steals your gun and you don't report it then you should receive jail because it was your responsibility and if the gun was used to kill people even more punishment because all of that is caused by your own negligence.

Here in the Army, if I were to lose my weapon, all hell and more would break lose. I would be in some crazy serious pomegranate. My M4 is my third arm. I go nowhere ( Except shower) without it.


I read an article the other day on the Stars & Stripes ( Military newspaper) and it had an article written by some snob (Probably civilian) who said that Had someone in the theater been carrying concealed it would of not made any difference at all. That was literally the title of the article. I wanted to flip the fucking dining table. It made me rage.

I read an article the other day on the Stars & Stripes ( Military newspaper) and it had an article written by some snob (Probably civilian) who said that Had someone in the theater been carrying concealed it would of not made any difference at all. That was literally the title of the article. I wanted to flip the pineappleing dining table. It made me rage.

It wouldn't have and I don't know how a civilian is considered a snob. The guy had a bullet proof vest and it wasn't until after blood was flying did anyone realize what was going on. But yeah, having a huge shoot out in an open theater, smart bro, smart.

Here in the Army, if I were to lose my weapon, all hell and more would break lose. I would be in some crazy serious pomegranate. My M4 is my third arm. I go nowhere ( Except shower) without it.

Which is absolutely correct. The people in this thread arguing that you shouldn't even have to take care of your weapon, what the pineapple is wrong with you? Yes that means you Flonne.

I read an article the other day on the Stars & Stripes ( Military newspaper) and it had an article written by some snob (Probably civilian) who said that Had someone in the theater been carrying concealed it would of not made any difference at all. That was literally the title of the article. I wanted to flip the pineappleing dining table. It made me rage.

Barring some extreme luck, in most cases like this, It would not. The man was supposedly wearing body armour and was absolutely prepared for what he was going to do. Do you really think a random civilian starting shooting back at the person in the middle of a crowded cinema would have improved the situation? Even for a moment assuming that the theoretical person was a military employee, would that even be enough to make it a good idea in the middle of what I can only logically assume would be a massive panic?

Body armor isn't an invincible barrier.

Body armor isn't an invincible barrier.

Okay let's say someone has a pistol, a .45 DX. The position of your target is at the front of the room, on the right aisle, shooting directly into the crowd, while everyone is running to the left to get to the exit. You pull out your gun and yell down. You bring attention to yourself along with the followed gunfire. You end up with two circumstances;

1) Both you and your opponents adranline is flowing, so any pain would be easily masked over initially. Assuming you end up hitting him, he has more fire power than you, he's also in the midst of gas and the most you can leave him is a heavy bruise, depending on the distance, hopefully not hitting anyone below you in error from a richochet or what have you.

2) You headshot and kill him, thus leaving a dead sack of meat, who has already killed a few people (he did instantly upon arrival) and leave a lot of familes, a lot of media, and the whole world going "Why did he do that". Lesser than the evil that we have now? Perhaps, but that's the best case circumstance you're going to get.

This doesn't include the fact it's dark, there's people constantly moving around you, and there's f`ucking tear gas.

You want an actual solution? Have f`ucking security at the back entrance, or at least lock it so someone can't waltz in.

edit:Unfortunately the A 3D digital reconstruction of the Colorado Theater shooting
was taken down recently because of the courte case I assume, so you'll have to take my word for it.

You want an actual solution? Have f`ucking security at the back entrance, or at least lock it so someone can't waltz in.

All valid points, but especially this one. I'm not going to argue with that, the theatre dropped the ball bigtime by not even noticing a back door propped open. Still, a scenario in which where he dies to a headshot is still better because less people get hurt overall. Even if a person stood up and drew attention by firing on the gunner...that person would probably still die, but that would be a few seconds in which he was focused on a single person instead of groups of people. Still less people would die.

More guns is always the best solution, of course.

More guns is always the best solution, of course.

It isn't always the solution, but in this case it is.

Based on the amount of preparation he put in to not only survive but to escape, he was not only not willing to die, but more importantly, is a perfectionist to an extent and afraid of uncontrollable variables. Had concealed weapons been legally allowed in this situation, he may not have even attempted this because there aren't many bigger "uncontrollable variables" than a guy with a gun.

This would not work for someone who was planning on killing everyone then killing himself. It would not work on someone who had not done any planning since they wouldn't think about or even care if other people would fight back. But in this particular situation, it may have been a key deterrent to the situation ever occurring.

Guns are never the solution, especially in civilian hands. South-US and idiot gun nuts need to stop thinking more guns will solve the gun problem, and equally as bad, that the number of guns already out there can't be decreased so it's an unsolvable issue. It's not.

Step 1: STOP SELLING GUNS
Step 2: Put a harsher penalty on those found selling guns. Have agents using the internet more to bust illegal gun salesmen.
Step 3: Destroy any existing guns that are confiscated, found, or otherwise obtained.

Slowly but surely the number of guns will go down and your gun problem will be solved. Look at every other nation with gun control laws in place as an example of how gun control is REALLY FUCKING EFFECTIVE. Much more effective than giving civilians free shots at one another.

Much like people will always do drugs, people will always have guns. Restricting gun usage for civilians doesn't harm the "bad guys" because the "bad guys" will always get guns one way or another.

All valid points, but especially this one. I'm not going to argue with that, the theatre dropped the ball bigtime by not even noticing a back door propped open. Still, a scenario in which where he dies to a headshot is still better because less people get hurt overall. Even if a person stood up and drew attention by firing on the gunner...that person would probably still die, but that would be a few seconds in which he was focused on a single person instead of groups of people. Still less people would die.

Depends, which is why I said perhaps. Majority of the wounded be gone, but if you saw the position majority of the death toll would still be in the same. He came into the theater from the right, surprised two rows of people and unloaded. The wounded were the ones who ran away or were farther up in the seats. There's als the perspective of the victims families who would not feel vindicated by simply watching him die. It's too good for him as it strips away all responsbility he had.

Much like people will always do drugs, people will always have guns. Restricting gun usage for civilians doesn't harm the "bad guys" because the "bad guys" will always get guns one way or another.

Are you playing devils advocate or agree with this reasoning? Less restrictions would just cause more instances like this to happen. A gun is a weapon, it's designed for no other purpose than to kill, a proper defense isn't "I kill you first".

Much like people will always do drugs, people will always have guns. Restricting gun usage for civilians doesn't harm the "bad guys" because the "bad guys" will always get guns one way or another.

Not even kind of true. You stop putting guns on the streets and start destroying those that remain and tah-dah, guns become a rarity. Sure, gangs and pomegranate will probably still have guns but that's not the kind of person that civilians usually have to deal with, and certainly not the type of person people are worried about. People are far more frightened by nutjobs like this guy, who probably would've had a much, much more difficult time pulling this off with stricter gun laws in place.

Obviously removing guns is not an immediate solution as it would take a decade or longer to fix the terrible situation your country has put itself in but the sooner it starts being worked at the better off you'll be. I don't understand this compulsion for civilians to want to a own a gun in the first place. It doesn't make you safer. More often than not if you pull a gun on someone you're going to escalate the situation.

Are you playing devils advocate or agree with this reasoning? Less restrictions would just cause more instances like this to happen. A gun is a weapon, it's designed for no other purpose than to kill, a proper defense isn't "I kill you first".

I'm saying, if someone wants to do something with a gun, like this guy, and has it planned out then he will get a gun somehow.