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

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.

So it's OK to have 50+ people injured just because you are being stubborn and won't admit another gun "might" have been helpful?

So it's OK to have 50+ people injured just because you are being stubborn and won't admit another gun "might" have been helpful?

Personally in a circumstance like that I could see a gun as another asset to do damage rather than protect. I certaintly couldn't make a headshot right off the bat, not at the distance required, anywhere that would be easy/gurranteed/able would have already been unloaded on.

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.

He was smart, I'll give you that, but I doubt he could get his hands on two ak47's and a shotgun if there were stricter gun regulation's. I could imagine two hand gun's, which frankly would have halved if not more, the death toll.

Stricter gun control, in my opinion, would in fact discourage people like this from trying stunts like this, and even if he was to manage to get a hold on fire arm's, it wouldn't be as dramatic as what we just saw.

So it's OK to have 50+ people injured just because you are being stubborn and won't admit another gun "might" have been helpful?

Your situation is hypothetical so LOL.
Another gun could've hurt more people. They're designed to hurt people so it's more likely that it would hurt people instead of protect them.
Also, I agree with Sarah. Gun control is useful. In my city they started some gun control policy and murders/crime have gone down by a lot.
Oh, and alcohol... restrictions on alcohol have also helped us prevent crimes. You can't buy it after 10pm in certain places where it's cheaper, you can consume all you want whenever you want.

From another region in my country who passed gun control laws:

Según la Policía Nacional, el número de muertes violentas en algunas partes de Antioquia disminuyó en más del 8% mientras duró la restricción a finales de 2011.

According to National Police, the number of violent deaths in some regions of Antioquia diminished by 18% while the restriction lasted until the end of 2011.

Lowest crime rates in Bogota in over 40 years

Gun control policy helps prevent murders, 17% lower in just three months. 63 cases less than same period last year
We've extended this policy for another 3 months because it's useful.
Articles above are in spanish.

Oh, and alcohol... restrictions on alcohol

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. Risks are higher, arguably, but living life without taking any chances is proven to be unfulfilling at best and unsuccessful at worst.

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

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. Risks are higher, arguably, but living life without taking any chances is proven to be unfulfilling at best and unsuccessful at worst.

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.

Think about what you're saying, the right to bare arms meant to use MUSKETS. How many problems can you cause with a MUSKET. Now we have automatic weapons that shoot 60 bullets in like 3-4 seconds. You don't think as times change that some of those lines lose their intentional purpose?

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. Risks are higher, arguably, but living life without taking any chances is proven to be unfulfilling at best and unsuccessful at worst.

haha.
Actually, knowing there are less morons armed outside makes me more comfortable and I feel safer to go outside at whatever time, to do whatever I want. But that's just me. Sure, I might not able to own a gun but it allows me and other people to enjoy another liberties.

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

Yes, I can feel that gun control is better for everyone. I also know that it's better for everyone because of statics. Everyone includes me, so gun control makes me happy. I hope they keep extending it until it becomes permanent.
People that think they're alone in the world and that everything is there just for them piss me off.

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. Risks are higher, arguably, but living life without taking any chances is proven to be unfulfilling at best and unsuccessful at worst.

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

"Won't even give it the time of day" lmao

To placate Flonne we should give everyone in the world a gun for a year and see how that goes.

Here's an idea: how about you give gun control the time of day. You're equally as guilty as the people you're looking down on except we actually have statistics to back us up. Less guns = less people shot. It's not even difficult math. You eliminate the cause and the problem goes away.

Your rights and freedoms. fdihsuiofhuighiashghishgsag

God damn.

You eliminate the cause and the problem goes away.

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

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

Oh, so we train everyone who get's a gun now, so people actually know what they are doing when they have a psychotic break down. That's a fine idea, because you know, a trained gunman would have been able to get a clean headshot at this guy before unloading 2 ak47's onto an open crowd. Ya know, by surprise.

Seriously, have you people handled a gun before?

Guns are stupid, and I think Batman agrees with that.

"Won't even give it the time of day" lmao

To placate Flonne we should give everyone in the world a gun for a year and see how that goes.

Here's an idea: how about you give gun control the time of day. You're equally as guilty as the people you're looking down on except we actually have statistics to back us up. Less guns = less people shot. It's not even difficult math. You eliminate the cause and the problem goes away.

Your rights and freedoms. fdihsuiofhuighiashghishgsag

God damn.

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.

Oh, so we train everyone who get's a gun now, so people actually know what they are doing when they have a psychotic break down. That's a fine idea, because you know, a trained gunman would have been able to get a clean headshot at this guy before unloading 2 ak47's onto an open crowd. Ya know, by surprise.

Seriously, have you people handled a gun before?

Not trained as in marksmanship, but trained as in gun safety.

Also, the gunman didn't want to die, making him much less likely to open fire if he knew there was a good chance that someone (or several people) in the crowd were armed.

Less guns = less people shot. It's not even difficult math. You eliminate the cause and the problem goes away.

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

Think about what you're saying, the right to bare arms meant to use MUSKETS. How many problems can you cause with a MUSKET. Now we have automatic weapons that shoot 60 bullets in like 3-4 seconds. You don't think as times change that some of those lines lose their intentional purpose?

I already stated that I'm not including automatic weaponry and explosives into the equation; ordinary people don't have any need for those things.

Yes, I can feel that gun control is better for everyone. I also know that it's better for everyone because of statics.

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.

So much facepalm. So much. Typing this with one hand.

So much facepalm. So much. Typing this with one hand.

You're from Canada, you wouldn't understand.

You're from Canada, you wouldn't understand.

I have to assume you're not serious at this point.

If you are then I guess the same argument could be used against you: if you want a gun, move to Somalia so all Americans can live safely.

Not trained as in marksmanship, but trained as in gun safety.

Also, the gunman didn't want to die, making him much less likely to open fire if he knew there was a good chance that someone (or several people) in the crowd were armed.

ya know, bullet proof vest, dark theater or smoke doesn't give any confidence at all. Gun safety is how to operate, and I assure you, you try to operate a gun in that circumstance, you'll just cause more problems.

I already stated that I'm not including automatic weaponry and explosives into the equation; ordinary people don't have any need for those things.


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.

Gun control so ak47's are not eligible as a gun. You're right, normal people wouldn't have it, it should be regulated as illegal. I don't agree weapons all together should be completely stripped, but I agree there should be quite a limit to them.

I'm sorry but America should not be the only country in the world that is, frankly, uncivilized. I find it even more offensive how you speak of these freedom's as if they mean to the world to you, but what have you done to protect them? I have 3 generations of military in my family and they agree that gun's should be much more controlled, they aren't a defense mechanism, they are a machine created for the sole purpose of taking life. Freedom isn't about personal freedom's, it's about the freedom to live in a safe enviroment while being as independent as possible. Unfortunately, law breakers, retard's, and pretty much anyone with little to no consideration towards his fellow american forces hand's that we hoped not to see.

America is very young, it was an experiment, yet we reverted essentially to everything the brit's ended up putting us through. Does that not say, as a human being with such a vast amount of independence cannot function without some forms of rules/regulations? I mean does it not bother you that the majority of the population who supports the current right are criminals and redneck/hillbillies?

You can't have something if majority cannot use it responsibility, for my safety and for yours. If you want to live in risk, move down to mexico, nothing is stopping you.

I have to assume you're not serious at this point.

If you are then I guess the same argument could be used against you: if you want a gun, move to Somalia so all Americans can live safely.

Hate to tell you, but there are millions of people just like, hell, worse than me on this issue, in your eyes. I know several people with hundreds of thousands of dollars in guns in their basement, all of which have said on many occasions they would kill anyone that tried to take them away. To be honest, I agree with that sentiment. If guns are ever outlawed and they actually try to enforce it, this country will not even have a police force within a few months, and they would need to repeal it with their tails behind their legs just to save some face. Don't get me wrong, cops have been nothing but helpful to me and I like having them around, but if someone enters my house with the intent to take my guns away, they will not be leaving.

I mean does it not bother you that the majority of the population who supports the current right are criminals and redneck/hillbillies?

Nope. I live in this south anyway, I'm perfectly fine with being stereotyped. It's better that people think you are too stupid and disregard you, than think you are too smart and therefore an actual threat. I'm not either one of those, I have a slightly above average but steadily decaying intellect (due to virtual stagnation and lack of motivation), but I would still prefer to be seen as the former.

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.

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

ya know, bullet proof vest, dark theater or smoke doesn't give any confidence at all. Gun safety is how to operate, and I assure you, you try to operate a gun in that circumstance, you'll just cause more problems.

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.