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

Oh boy, here we go again. (this is directed to ALL of you.)

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.

Yes, because all gun owners are tea party republicans. >_>

I support guns and vote democrat. I guess that makes me the weird one.

Guns are a touchy subject. I fear of guns in the hand of someone insane and personally wish guns didn't exist at all, though this fear isn't exactly the kind that doesn't let me sleep at night it's just a thought I get every now and then. I guess that makes me the weird one though.

Yeah, I just hate the pomegranate out of people that use them incorrectly. I've seen too many catastrophes caused by idiots wielding them, innocent people and children damaged by them.

That pomegranate just ain't right.

As long as you follow the four gun laws it's very hard for someone to get hurt:

• Treat firearms as if they are loaded
  
• Point the muzzle away from non-targets
  
• Keep fingers off the trigger
  
• Be sure of your target and of what is beyond it

Gun rights activists hate seeing people improperly use guns more than anyone, and safety is always the absolute highest concern when properly handling a firearm. Ask any gun owner. I'm sure they will agree. Respect the firearm and those around you and you shouldn't have issues.

As long as you follow the four gun laws it's very hard for someone to get hurt:

• Treat firearms as if they are loaded
  
• Point the muzzle away from non-targets
  
• Keep fingers off the trigger
  
• Be sure of your target and of what is beyond it
  

Gun rights activists hate seeing people improperly use guns more than anyone, and safety is always the absolute highest concern when properly handling a firearm. Ask any gun owner. I'm sure they will agree. Respect the firearm and those around you and you shouldn't have issues.

Most people can't drive a car, you expect them to handle a miniature cannon with all those things in mind? The stricter gun policy is more on the lines of heavy artillery, at least in my personal opinion. I own two hand gun's, and although I could afford an auto rifle such as an AR-18, I don't find it rational to own such a heavy arm. I completely advocate weapons for those who shoot as a hobby, but you don't need something THAT powerful for the shooting range...I mean at least prove that you can act rationally with a gun for a year or so.

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.

If I recall he had a gas mask on. I don't know if you've ever trained with a gas mask on, let me tell you, it takes some serious getting used to and I doubt he had any training with it.
I agree with the Tear gas. When we did the gas chamber it fucking sucked. Very hard to fight in it with no mask. Scenario Number 2 would be difficult. It takes some serious training with a sidearm to head shot someone from even a good distance when adrenaline is flowing. As for Body Armor....I have no idea what kind of body Armor he was wearing. If it was just Kevlar alone a few shots would of definitely knocked him down. If he had ballistic plates, then that's another whole story.

But any weapon than no weapon at all would be better in that kind of situation. IMO.

As for restricting guns. Most bad guys use illegally acquired weapons (I'm going to assume that this guy bough these weapons legally, so there is there is the exception), unlike we law abiding citizens. It would hurt those who genuinely want to own a weapon for the sake of protection.

Either way my opinion is biased. Coming from a military background, I feel safer with a weapon, not just because it can kill, but because I know how to effectively and safely use it to eliminate a threat and protect the good people I care about.

If I recall he had a gas mask on. I don't know if you've ever trained with a gas mask on, let me tell you, it takes some serious getting used to and I doubt he had any training with it.
I agree with the Tear gas. When we did the gas chamber it pineappleing sucked. Very hard to fight in it with no mask. Scenario Number 2 would be difficult. It takes some serious training with a sidearm to head shot someone from even a good distance when adrenaline is flowing. As for Body Armor....I have no idea what kind of body Armor he was wearing. If it was just Kevlar alone a few shots would of definitely knocked him down. If he had ballistic plates, then that's another whole story.

But any weapon than no weapon at all would be better in that kind of situation. IMO.

As for restricting guns. Most bad guys use illegally acquired weapons (I'm going to assume that this guy bough these weapons legally, so there is there is the exception), unlike we law abiding citizens. It would hurt those who genuinely want to own a weapon for the sake of protection.

Either way my opinion is biased. Coming from a military background, I feel safer with a weapon, not just because it can kill, but because I know how to effectively and safely use it to eliminate a threat and protect the good people I care about.

Those are legitimate points but I don't like the illegal excuse reasoning, I would imagine it give more teeth to authorities who end up seeing someone illegally possessing a gun, as it would be illegal besides, in my opinion, pistols, although same effect, much less damage, than being accustomed to everyone carrying such strong arms.

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.

heh.

Guns are a touchy subject. I fear of guns in the hand of someone insane and personally wish guns didn't exist at all, though this fear isn't exactly the kind that doesn't let me sleep at night it's just a thought I get every now and then. I guess that makes me the weird one though.

Oh, I feel the same way, if they had never been created then many problems would be solved before they ever occurred. I don't just want guns to have guns, I want them to protect myself from OTHER people with guns. If they didn't exist, there would obviously be no need for that sort of thing.

Again, I don't live in the USSR in circa WWII, or China, so I would prefer to keep my freedoms. I'll move there if I want to be told how to live my daily life, but until then, I'll take my chances with crazy people that have a slightly higher chance to be armed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, you're serious?

pomegranate guys, I didn't realise the UK was part of the USSR or China. Guess I had better learn a new flag then, because I've been using the wrong one. Why didn't anyone tell me?!?!?!?

By the way, the situation is entirely hypothetical because of people touting gun control. We will never know if it would have helped or hindered the situation because you won't even give it the time of day.

People touting gun control will never know if it would seriously help or not?

You only have to look at the other first world countries gun crime rates to see that restrictions on firearms decreases the number of firearm related deaths/injuries to see that it helps.

People that feel they know what's best for everyone instead of just themselves are the worst type of people

THE IRONY IT BURNS

I think we all know the real answer. After consulting with my friend, a bottle of gatoraide and some girl on the bus, the only answer is;

LEGALIZE COCAINE AND MARIJUANA. That would lower the demand for weapons incredibly, gangs have no product, [MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION]; doesn't have to shoot anyone, save frustration for the incredibly stupid, and f`uck we'll be high all the time just having a great time.

AMERICA.

Though I don't use them, legalizing drugs and taxing them is probably the best (really, only) way to get out of the amount of debt we have now. It's not like anything can possibly be more damaging than tobacco.

THE IRONY IT BURNS

I was going to completely disregard your post as nonsensical, but hell, I don't have anything better to do, so let me ask you this; how is that irony in any way? Lack of gun control isn't us telling everything they are required to have guns, whereas gun control is exactly the opposite, it is people telling us we CAN'T have guns, whether that be in public or in some extreme cases even in our own homes.

It's not like anything can possibly be more damaging than tobacco.

You know nothing of drugs, then. lol. And again, there are multiple ways to get out of debt. Will you stop trying to make economics arguments?

You know nothing of drugs, then.

Not gonna argue that, either. All I know is, drug dealers can make a ton of money, so why would the government not want to take those profits and remove the high cost of imprisoning people using them at the same time?

And sure, there are many ways to get out of debt, but not when the amount you owe is more than the freaking GDP, much less the government's own yearly earnings. I know enough about economics to say that no, I won't stop making arguments on the subject, by the way. 10 hours a day of shitty financial shows from when my dad had a broken foot and needed me helping him for over 5 months gave me at the very least a basic idea of how the stock market works, not to mention he made me come along with him to attend a 4 hour seminar on how to make money off of put and call options. It was moderately interesting, but that was probably because it wasn't 5+ middle aged to old men trying to yell at each other at the same time to drown out all the others, as if that somehow makes their point more valid simply because nobody can hear the others, where in reality nobody can understand any of them. God financial shows suck ass.

You are so naive. The economy is much more than "the stock market". We've had economies since the dawn of civilization. They didn't have stock markets back then.

Not gonna argue that, either. All I know is, drug dealers can make a ton of money, so why would the government not want to take those profits and remove the high cost of imprisoning people using them at the same time?

Because those profits wouldn't be the same, the reason that it's expensive is the risk that follows.

Because those profits wouldn't be the same, the reason that it's expensive is the risk that follows.

Some prescription drugs are thousands of dollars a bottle, and there's no way it costs anywhere near that much to actually make the stuff. I have a friend who has to pay over 13K a year on painkillers because of severe nerve damage in his leg/spine.

Some prescription drugs are thousands of dollars a bottle, and there's no way it costs anywhere near that much to actually make the stuff. I have a friend who has to pay over 13K a year on painkillers because of severe nerve damage in his leg/spine.

That's to pay for R&D, running trials on animals/humans, and for paying the fines when it's prescribed for off-label use. By the time it hits the shelves, a single drug can take millions of USD and years of trials.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-m...n-control/

Quoting cracked for facts is like quoting sankaku for facts; it's going to be incredibly one-sided and while not technically incorrect, still a very bad portrayal of the real situation.

And by the way, the actual law of the land is not very high on my list of priorities; if they outlaw guns or anything else I support, I will not be getting rid of them. I don't care about "guns save people" or "second amendment" or any of that bullshit, what it really comes down to is, I just care about my own opinion on the matter. What is best for any one person is not the same as what is best for anyone else; as long as I do not directly affect the lifestyle of those around me, I'm fine with using my own ruleset, as it does not technically change the state of the world. The only time I'm going to be shooting someone is if they shoot FIRST in a public place or if they are breaking into my home. While you would certainly find my reasoning behind why I won't be killing a group of people disgusting, in the end the result is the same; I won't be hurting people for no reason, the only time I will be using my weapons is when they use them first. Partially out of half hope they will kill me, partially to keep to my own set of morals.