Why wasn’t he shot then by some honest citizen with a carry permit?
I’ll give you two choices. 1. No one out in the parking lot could tell that he was the shooter. 2. They could tell but they were scared to death to confront him. No “good guy with a gun” was very helpful here, was he? So the guy went back into the theater, fired some more shots, and shot himself. Let’s go deeper. Suppose the theatre did not have the “no guns” policy. Suppose half of the audience had been carrying. What result? I’ll give you two choices. 1. The good guys would have immediately shot this thug after the first two murders. Or2. There would have been a blood bath as the patrons with guns started firing in the direction of the shots and then started firing at each other bc no one could tell who was the bad guy. Number 1 would be the right answer only if someone in the rows behind or beside the guy saw him fire the shots. But then other shooters would have seen the good cowboy and thought he was the shooter. Will you “set the record straight” for us? Public carry is pretty worthless to protect against this kind of shooting
.... and they were women! They were not members of the well armed militia. The two unarmed teachers were among those who were shot in the rampage but helped save lives.
Where were all the law abiding and responsible gun owners ? At the shooting range ?
The shooter is now confirmed to have an extensive criminal history but still got a gun and ammo "legally". He was walking proof of what LA Gov. Piyush told NRA convention in Houston not too long ago:
"It is plain and simple. President Obama is coming after your guns". Right. President Obama has nothing better to do than go after rednecks for their guns. LMAO.
-- Modified on 7/25/2015 1:33:53 AM
TER took it down because of their policy about naming names but it was a link to a hooker shooting/killing a guy who was attacking her and who had killed other gals previously.
Maybe we should change the old saying?
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy, OR GIRL, with one?" LOL
She took it from the perpetrator while it was in his possession. Luckly the dude was a weak ass or else..
...about other murders by the same guy too. He was only a suspect in other murders because of similar M.O. but you know how lazy cops are - they like to lump all unsolved murders together and blame one guy to close the books and go eat doughnuts.
Why wasn’t he shot then by some honest citizen with a carry permit?
I’ll give you two choices.
1. No one out in the parking lot could tell that he was the shooter.
2. They could tell but they were scared to death to confront him.
No “good guy with a gun” was very helpful here, was he? So the guy went back into the theater, fired some more shots, and shot himself.
Let’s go deeper. Suppose the theatre did not have the “no guns” policy. Suppose half of the audience had been carrying. What result?
I’ll give you two choices.
1. The good guys would have immediately shot this thug after the first two murders. Or
2. There would have been a blood bath as the patrons with guns started firing in the direction of the shots and then started firing at each other bc no one could tell who was the bad guy.
Number 1 would be the right answer only if someone in the rows behind or beside the guy saw him fire the shots. But then other shooters would have seen the good cowboy and thought he was the shooter.
Will you “set the record straight” for us? Public carry is pretty worthless to protect against this kind of shooting
Is it not, in many cases, because they have been surrounded by a "good guy with a gun" and have no options left?
So, directly or indirectly, the armed good guy stops the bad guy, right?
The rest is obviously opinion as was your entire post. We've been through your assertions before with the Aurora shooting. I I don't think you convinced anyone then either. The people you need to convince are the people wounded and the families of those killed.
and did not limit his inquiry to the interior of theatre. So I'm not clear on how you get he was "factually inaccurate." It would be fair to say you assumed he meant the interior only.
And, of course, the rest of my post is indeed opinion. As with the Aurora shooting, I see you still have no rebuttal other than to say it is not so.
Good. As The Donald would say, I like people who are consistent, even if consistently wrong. LOL.
How much time did he spend outside? Ten seconds maybe. When he saw police he turned around and went back inside. He didn't fire his weapon outside. The cops did not recognize him but your'e claiming some armed civilian should have. Sheesh.
My rebuttal is just is just as strong as as yours, which is nothing more than saying that it IS SO.
Long ago I gave up on exercises that are the equivalent of trying to pound sand up a dead horses ass. There's simply no product point.
There is a different explanation for this:
All Rednecks don't own guns but all those who own guns are rednecks. I frequently visit a major sports retailer and I hear that their "guns and hunting" sections are called "redneck" areas. Golf & Tennis section is called "Classy Sports" area. Football, Basketball & Baseball section is called "slum dog millionaires" section.
Similarly all rednecks are not Republicans but all Republicans are rednecks.
For the record my mother is not white, voted for Obama(twice), actually voted for Shirley Chisholm back in the day (Google her Hadji if you must) and was a member of SDS back in the sixties. but according to Hadji, because my mother exercises her 2nd amendment rights, she is a redneck.
I have been taken to task for not blasting "righties" hard enough. You lefties really need to STFU about that if you none of you can bring yourselves to criticize Hadji when he makes statements this fucking ridiculous
That is why "the gun control debate in the US was effectively over after Sandy Hook".
They've tried a clandestine elementary school in Connecticut to make their point. Maybe a mass shooting of Nuns, blind orphaned youths toddlers and infants picnicking at a park by yet another socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loner" using guns both legally as well as illegally purchased with magazines holding no more than ten rounds.
Did I leave out any other possibly damning details to justify total gun confiscation?
Perhaps "socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loners" should be "controlled" and/or "confiscated".
Perhaps "socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loners" should be "controlled" and/or "confiscated".
Valid point none the less.
Liberal policies seem to be where the breakdown is.
Anti-gun nuts and the liberal media could give a shit about all the inner city, black on black crime. It NEVER comes up.
Had a security guard or two with weapons been stationed there, there was a chance zero loss of life would have happened.
And btw, the gun control "debate" has virtually been over for quite some time. Most people think US citizens should be able to own weapons as that is what our founders wanted.
It makes me wonder what other ideas from the 1700s would have remained acceptable in the US to this day had it been similarly enshrined, which in itself is quite a worrying thought.
You didn't think our founding fathers knew technology would change? It changed during their time so no clue what point you are making there.
They knew the government could not always get there in time to save innocent people and they also knew that when you disarm the folks, they do not have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. communist nations know this for the first thing they do when they wrestle power is to collect all the weapons.
The anti-gun crazies in our country fail because they admit, after an incident like Sandy Hook, no law would have stopped that shooter or the Va Tech shooter, or Columbine, etc.
The only reason they bring it up is to stir partisan politics, not because their policy preferences would work. They know they won't.
Simply that even the most prescient of 18th century men could not have predicted that firearms would be what they are now or available in the numbers that they are now; that the right to bear arms is a somewhat more daunting prospect in the 21st century than it was then. I was merely posing a hypothetical question as to whether the founding fathers would have the same opinions regarding firearms today.
It just doesn't resonate or stick. Much like driving a car, people accept the risk. 40,000 Americans lose their life every year in accidents.
We could take draconian measures to make sure that number was a fraction of that. Reduce speed limits to 15mph, massive fines and jail time for repeat offenders, etc.
Why don't we? We don't want to be inconvenienced, it would hurt business, driving times would triple or quadruple, extra stress, etc etc etc.
We have made a choice that the upside of driving, at the speeds at which we drive, far outweighs the downside of the deaths and injuries sure to occur. Similarly, people accept the inevitable gun deaths due to deeply held beliefs about our rights, which many feel are sacrosanct.