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

Ok, please, stop making arguments based on incorrect economics. Do you have any idea how the United States got out of the Great Depression?

Just because they got poked us out of it doesn't make that the only possible way of getting out. Also, I can link articles too.

They got us into it in the first place and even exacerbated and prolonged it.

Just because they got poked us out of it doesn't make that the only possible way of getting out. Also, I can link articles too.

They got us into it in the first place and even exacerbated and prolonged it.

And how exactly does this refute the fact that the American government had public works projects in place before "the 1950s"?

You don't have to have a headshot to help. Even intentionally missing the guy (e.g., shooting at the ceiling above him) or hitting his bullet proof vest could have caused him to take cover for a sec or two... enough to let a few more innocents escape. There is a huge change in confidence levels when someone is returning fire.

You realize by the time they realized that it was no longer a show he killed two rows of people? You're making up hypothetical situations based on someone who was clearly insane or high on power. The moment the gun would have gone off it just cause even MORE panic. And guess what, he's gonna shoot aimlessly where the sound is coming from.

You never were that logical when it came to these arguments unfortunately....

And how exactly does this refute the fact that the American government had public works projects in place before "the 1950s"?

It...doesn't? I thought your point was that their actions got us out of it, I'm confused what your point was if not.

It...doesn't? I thought your point was that their actions got us out of it, I'm confused what your point was if not.

My point was that you incorrectly thought the government didn't do anything about infrastructure before 1950. This thread isn't about the Great Depression.

EDIT :

The moment the gun would have gone off it just cause even MORE panic. And guess what, he's gonna shoot aimlessly where the sound is coming from.

have experience in this area from playing Batman; confirming

My point was that you incorrectly thought the government didn't do anything about infrastructure before 1950. This thread isn't about the Great Depression.

Fair enough, then; you threw me off with your link text mentioning it. Very well, I was wrong in this instance.

I would just like to point out that a few of the people who died in the incident were certified U.S. army personnel, so they COULD have made the shot if they were armed. But no one brings their firearm into a movie theater because they're law abiding citizens who were going to the movie to have a good time.

As for gun control laws, I don't think it's actually feasible in the United States solely because they have had the "right to bear arms" for their entire history; hell it was practically built on it. That would be the equivalent of the government outlawing the internet. Its so ingrained in society that any politician who supports a complete gun ban would not be able to hear the end of it and probably wouldn't even be able to get it passed. And even if it did, there would be a protest from some states that have embraced Guns and ammo into their lifestyles and have taken it up as sport (like many Southern States). Not only that, but there are a great many other variables to take into consideration as well- like how to find out which citizens have already, honestly, turned in their guns to the federal collector or how do you confirm that people have given up their weapons. And then what happens when the gun ban doesn't decrease gun related crimes? Or increases it? Guns for sure will never be off the streets- that's practically a guarantee. What the states really need to focus on is a way to limit the merchanting of high power weaponry and ammo. While California isn't perfect, it has made a step in the right direction as its laws severely limit the capabilities of automatic/high powered weapons and outright ban certain types of high powered guns and assault weapons, while also allowing people to have guns legally. The closest thing to gun control that the States will ever see is a compromise between gun ban advocates and gun supporters. The States will never be able to completely outlaw guns, but they sure as hell can limit the most dangerous ones.

I'd like to add that the above (and many other posts) are highly speculative and neither side can know how the entire country will react to any sort of gun legislation that is passed. We can all hope that it works, but we don't have a guarantee that it will. That's why personally, should I ever be able to and need to, I would much rather have the ability to carry a weapon in the case that I need to defend myself than being left a sitting duck with no chance against a person with a gun. History has shown us that both sides of the debate can be a likely outcome (Japan's complete ban on guns has severely lowered their gun-related crimes by a large amount (but not stopped it altogether); a gun ban in the states a long time ago actually made the country's crime rate increase). Considering that neither presidential candidate has so much as thought about legislation in their platforms, I don't think we're going to see anything any time soon (that is, until the debates).

Totally works for illegal drugs, right? I guess smuggling is impossible for guns.

1. We're not discussing drugs.
2. I already posted statics proving that less guns=less murders and crime.
3. Statics that prove you wrong.
4. Most of the murders/crimes that happen/happened here involve illegal guns, yet murder/crime rate was reduced by enforcing gun control policies.
5. Why is it so hard to accept? Gun control help prevents crime. It's a fact.

OK then, let me put it another way; a gun supporter would tell a person that wants gun control and will not listen to any reasonable arguments for freedom to carry this: the deaths that supposedly could have been avoided with stricter gun laws are a risk worth taking and even worth dying for. Anyone can move somewhere else if they don't like or agree with that, nobody is stopping them. To subvert and change it for everyone in the entire country is an incredibly selfish thing to do when there are PLENTY of other countries out there that have strict gun laws.

Oh, god... I'm glad others already dealt with this.

Yes, eliminate the shooter when more trained people are packing and the problem goes away.

Why? Does people even read previous posts?
There's evidence that supports that less guns= less crimes.
Same guns, same shooters, more guns, more shooters, educated ones or not= danger.

The thing you keep forgetting is that there will never be less guns. You can have less legally owned guns sure but since most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns anyway there's really no point.

It doesn't matter. Most of the murders/crimes that happen/happened here involve illegal guns, yet murder/crime rate was reduced by enforcing gun control policies. One of the links I posted earlier has something about it... they're in spanish, though.

And then what happens when the gun ban doesn't decrease gun related crimes? Or increases it? Guns for sure will never be off the streets- that's practically a guarantee.
What the states really need to focus on is a way to limit the merchanting of high power weaponry and ammo.

Again: Most of the murders/crimes that happen/happened here involve illegal guns, yet murder/crime rate was reduced by enforcing gun control policies.
I agree with the second part, though. If US can't limit all guns, at least limit the ones that people have no need for.

1. We're not discussing drugs.
2. I already posted statics proving that less guns=less murders and crime.
3. Statics that prove you wrong.
4. Most of the murders/crimes that happen/happened here involve illegal guns, yet murder/crime rate was reduced by enforcing gun control policies.
5. Why is it so hard to accept? Gun control help prevents crime. It's a fact.

1. There is a direct correlation because if guns were restricted to that extent here, there would be smuggling of them as well.
2. So?
3. ^
4. ^
5. Why is it so hard for YOU to accept? Forcing change that the MAJORITY do not want is not only silly, it is dangerous. Compromise is best in situations like this, and we already HAVE compromised. Overcompromised, in fact.

To explain, I say "so?" because I've already mentioned my stance on that, in fact you quoted it.

What would you need a gun for?

What would you need a gun for?

Protection from other people. You can call it a cyclical argument if you want, now.

Protection from other people. You can call it a cyclical argument if you want, now.

Get a shield, not a gun.

Get a shield, not a gun.

I can't lift a 20 pound bag, what makes you think I can lift some sort of 1 ton tower shield that can cover my body?

Get a shield, not a gun.

I'll just take a shield and put it right in my pocket here...

No thanks. Give me an M1908. If I had the choice, though, I'd bring an M1911.

I can't lift a 20 pound bag, what makes you think I can lift some sort of 1 ton tower shield that can cover my body?

So put on some muscle so no one wants to pineapple with you. Two problems solved.

So put on some muscle so no one wants to pineapple with you. Two problems solved.

I'm not the type to live a healthy life, that's not in my long term goals at all. I'm hoping I die before 50, personally, and living healthy would extend that dramatically. Besides, too much effort to get in shape, anyway. The best I can hope to do is get a job I'm bored with then eventually die. Not to be depressing or anything, those are just the facts of the matter, and I'm content with it.

I'm not the type to live a healthy life, that's not in my long term goals at all. I'm hoping I die before 50, personally, and living healthy would extend that dramatically. Besides, too much effort to get in shape, anyway. The best I can hope to do is get a job I'm bored with then eventually die. Not to be depressing or anything, those are just the facts of the matter, and I'm content with it.

You have to legitimately be one of the worst people in the world.


Just saying.

You have to legitimately be one of the worst people in the world.


Just saying.

I'm OK with this, too.

What would you need a gun for?

Some people like to use it for sport shooting and hunting. But no one needs an assault rifle for that (except for sports apparently because sports seem to use automatic weapons). At most, you'd need a shotgun or a long ranged rifle with decent hitting power, but nothing remotely as necessary as an AK or an AR.

Hand guns like pistols/revolvers can also be used for sport shooting and personal defense.

On the more extreme part of the spectrum, you could use your gun to liberate your tyrannical and corrupt government that's oppressing you and your neighbors. That's always a nice reason to have a gun.

Some people like to use it for sport shooting and hunting. But no one needs an assault rifle for that (except for sports apparently because sports seem to use automatic weapons). At most, you'd need a shotgun or a long ranged rifle with decent hitting power, but nothing remotely as necessary as an AK or an AR.

Hand guns like pistols/revolvers can also be used for sport shooting and personal defense.

On the more extreme part of the spectrum, you could use your gun to liberate your tyrannical and corrupt government that's oppressing you and your neighbors. That's always a nice reason to have a gun.

Except that in America the people who support guns are the same people who would elect and enjoy a tyrannical and corrupt government. See: Tea Party.