Arming people in movie theaters

[MikeK]

THE PURPOSE of proposed mandatory training is to raise the cost and difficulty of owning a firearm.

That depends on who is doing the proposing. Mandatory training need not be costly.

The simple fact is the Constitution guarantees our right to own guns. So it should be up to government to optimize the attending circumstances -- which calls for making proper training available to all legitimate gun owners. Instead of spending money on anti-gun programs, which exist in direct opposition to the Second Amendment, the government needs to resume, vitalize and subsidize the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program which was starved out of existence and finally eliminated (by Obama) in the '90s.

If a citizen wishes to own a gun, or guns, then train him or her in proper use and handling. Make training programs available at little or no cost.

 

[rightwinger]

Another example of lack of training.

I am strongly pro-gun. But not without a substantial amount of training by gun-owners. Especially those who wish to move about in public while carrying a gun.

Then you support gun control where only those with money can exercise their right....since training requirements are one of the tools to keep people from owning guns...that is how they do it in Europe......

You are assuming that firearms training will be costly but that is not necessarily so. In case you've never read any of my political comments it's important that you know I am a socialist. Where the Second Amendment is concerned I believe the money government spends on promoting and enforcing gun control measures would be better spent on subsidizing firearms training for citizens.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a boy there were (government subsidized) marksmanship and firearms training sessions conducted twice each month in the gymnasium of PS 10 (grade school) in Brooklyn, NY. Boys from 13 and up learned about guns with the goal of become expert riflemen and once each month we brought our .22 rifles to the outdoor range in Canarsie.

My first high-caliber rifle, an .03 Springfield, was bought by my father from the government for eleven dollars through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. (Are you acquainted with that?) Back then ('50s) the government wanted citizens to be armed and well-trained.

THE PURPOSE of proposed mandatory training is to raise the cost and difficulty of owning a firearm.

The purpose is to have more knowledgeable and responsible gun owners

They need it

 

[Correll]

Another example of lack of training.

I am strongly pro-gun. But not without a substantial amount of training by gun-owners. Especially those who wish to move about in public while carrying a gun.

Then you support gun control where only those with money can exercise their right....since training requirements are one of the tools to keep people from owning guns...that is how they do it in Europe......

You are assuming that firearms training will be costly but that is not necessarily so. In case you've never read any of my political comments it's important that you know I am a socialist. Where the Second Amendment is concerned I believe the money government spends on promoting and enforcing gun control measures would be better spent on subsidizing firearms training for citizens.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a boy there were (government subsidized) marksmanship and firearms training sessions conducted twice each month in the gymnasium of PS 10 (grade school) in Brooklyn, NY. Boys from 13 and up learned about guns with the goal of become expert riflemen and once each month we brought our .22 rifles to the outdoor range in Canarsie.

My first high-caliber rifle, an .03 Springfield, was bought by my father from the government for eleven dollars through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. (Are you acquainted with that?) Back then ('50s) the government wanted citizens to be armed and well-trained.

THE PURPOSE of proposed mandatory training is to raise the cost and difficulty of owning a firearm.

The purpose is to have more knowledgeable and responsible gun owners

They need it

Bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

Show me an example where an armed woman stopped a mass killing

Otherwise, we are talking NRA fantasies

In relative terms there are not that many mass killings, nor is there a proportionate number of armed women -- or armed citizens in the general sense for that matter.

We have 300 million guns out there

They do not seem to be doing that good a job of keeping us safe

 

[rightwinger]

Another example of lack of training.

I am strongly pro-gun. But not without a substantial amount of training by gun-owners. Especially those who wish to move about in public while carrying a gun.

Then you support gun control where only those with money can exercise their right....since training requirements are one of the tools to keep people from owning guns...that is how they do it in Europe......

You are assuming that firearms training will be costly but that is not necessarily so. In case you've never read any of my political comments it's important that you know I am a socialist. Where the Second Amendment is concerned I believe the money government spends on promoting and enforcing gun control measures would be better spent on subsidizing firearms training for citizens.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a boy there were (government subsidized) marksmanship and firearms training sessions conducted twice each month in the gymnasium of PS 10 (grade school) in Brooklyn, NY. Boys from 13 and up learned about guns with the goal of become expert riflemen and once each month we brought our .22 rifles to the outdoor range in Canarsie.

My first high-caliber rifle, an .03 Springfield, was bought by my father from the government for eleven dollars through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. (Are you acquainted with that?) Back then ('50s) the government wanted citizens to be armed and well-trained.

THE PURPOSE of proposed mandatory training is to raise the cost and difficulty of owning a firearm.

The purpose is to have more knowledgeable and responsible gun owners

They need it

Bullshit.

Horseshit

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me an example where an armed woman stopped a mass killing

Otherwise, we are talking NRA fantasies

In relative terms there are not that many mass killings, nor is there a proportionate number of armed women -- or armed citizens in the general sense for that matter.

We have 300 million guns out there

They do not seem to be doing that good a job of keeping us safe

The gun free zones don't seem to be working well, either. How do you explain that failure?

 

[2aguy]

300 million fucking guns in this country

Where are all the gun owners to "keep us safe"

It is a myth

Non sequitur.

We were discussing your belief that a woman cannot use a gun effectively.

You called it a "NRA fantasy".

An aside: I want to go out on a limb here.


I want to predict, based on nothing but you being a liberal, that you

a. Do not believe that a woman can use a gun effectively.

AND

b. support women in combat.

Am I correct? Yes or no.

A. I don't believe most untrained women could handle an active shooter situation

B. I support trained women with demonstrated proficiency being in combat

Hopefully you don't believe most untrained men could handle an active shooter situation, either?

Most untrained men COULD handle an active shooter situation.

It does not take special training to deduce that the man shooting people at random needs to be stopped and to aim and shoot.

Could a woman, as well?

yes.

 

[2aguy]

Show me an example where an armed woman stopped a mass killing

Otherwise, we are talking NRA fantasies

In relative terms there are not that many mass killings, nor is there a proportionate number of armed women -- or armed citizens in the general sense for that matter.

We have 300 million guns out there

They do not seem to be doing that good a job of keeping us safe

The gun free zones don't seem to be working well, either. How do you explain that failure?

Shhhhhhhhh.......you aren't supposed to bring up gun free zones.....gun grabbers don't like to have reality thrown in their faces.........

 

[2aguy]

What could make more sense than having armed people on a movie theater?

I TOLD you to stop talking!

You mean people simply watching a movie with a legally owned and carried gun on their hip that they never use to commit crimes or shoot people........?

Don't make me tell you to shut up again......and STOP KICKING MY FUCKING SEAT

I don't kick seats....I hang my feet over the ones in front of me..........

 

[2aguy]

Another example of lack of training.

I am strongly pro-gun. But not without a substantial amount of training by gun-owners. Especially those who wish to move about in public while carrying a gun.

Then you support gun control where only those with money can exercise their right....since training requirements are one of the tools to keep people from owning guns...that is how they do it in Europe......

You are assuming that firearms training will be costly but that is not necessarily so. In case you've never read any of my political comments it's important that you know I am a socialist. Where the Second Amendment is concerned I believe the money government spends on promoting and enforcing gun control measures would be better spent on subsidizing firearms training for citizens.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a boy there were (government subsidized) marksmanship and firearms training sessions conducted twice each month in the gymnasium of PS 10 (grade school) in Brooklyn, NY. Boys from 13 and up learned about guns with the goal of become expert riflemen and once each month, accompanied by a parent, we brought our .22 rifles to the outdoor range in Canarsie or upstate in Nyack.

My first high-caliber rifle, an .03 Springfield, was bought by my father from the government for eleven dollars through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship, now the "Civilian Marksmanship Program (quietly modifed by Obama). Are you acquainted with it? Back then ('40s - '50s) the government wanted citizens to be armed and well-trained.

I have posted about how easy it is for criminals to get guns in Europe....one of the police officials quoted said that a normal citizen has to know all the rules, in a huge manual on gun safety and pass a difficult test......that is how they make it impossible for normal people to pass the test to keep them from owning guns.....and the same officer said a criminal can get a gun in about an hour....

 

[2aguy]

Should we have sexual training on how to wear a condom to prevent being killed by aids[...]

Do you really think slipping a condom on your gadget and being adequately proficient in the use and handling of a modern firearm is a valid comparison?
If so, please be assured you are quite mistaken.

also or defensive stunt driving classes to prevent car accidents and hitting civilians

While defensive stunt driving classes would be constructive such an extreme isn't necessary to enable competent operation of ordinary automobiles. But a minimal level of training is necessary to obtain a license to drive.

Did someone teach you to drive? Or did you buy your first car without ever being in a driver-seat before, then just get in and drive away?

I once watched a woman buy a .38 revolver in a gun shop. She knew absolutely nothing about the weapon and had to be shown how to load it. But she did the paperwork and walked out with her gun and a free box of fifty.

Hopefully she has someone who will train her. But one can only wonder how many other similarly untrained individuals have guns at home or, worse, are walking around with one in a pocket, purse or concealed holster. These individuals are responsible for the vast majority of gun accidents and misuse.

Proper training would eliminate most gun accidents and misuse.

mandatory training is one tool they will use to prohibit ownership and carrying guns for self defense...there will never be enough training for the gun grabbers.....and the tests and fees and time to take the training will become prohibitive for the poor and middle class.....

 

[2aguy]

Should we have sexual training on how to wear a condom to prevent being killed by aids[...]

Do you really think slipping a condom on your gadget and being adequately proficient in the use and handling of a modern firearm is a valid comparison?
If so, please be assured you are quite mistaken.

also or defensive stunt driving classes to prevent car accidents and hitting civilians

While defensive stunt driving classes would be constructive such an extreme isn't necessary to enable competent operation of ordinary automobiles. But a minimal level of training is necessary to obtain a license to drive.

Did someone teach you to drive? Or did you buy your first car without ever being in a driver-seat before, then just get in and drive away?

I once watched a woman buy a .38 revolver in a gun shop. She knew absolutely nothing about the weapon and had to be shown how to load it. But she did the paperwork and walked out with her gun and a free box of fifty.

Hopefully she has someone who will train her. But one can only wonder how many other similarly untrained individuals have guns at home or, worse, are walking around with one in a pocket, purse or concealed holster. These individuals are responsible for the vast majority of gun accidents and misuse.

Proper training would eliminate most gun accidents and misuse.

I completely support training...as much as possible...but mandated training is no different than a literacy test for voting....and that would be against the 14th Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Show me an example where an armed woman stopped a mass killing

Otherwise, we are talking NRA fantasies

In relative terms there are not that many mass killings, nor is there a proportionate number of armed women -- or armed citizens in the general sense for that matter.

We have 300 million guns out there

They do not seem to be doing that good a job of keeping us safe

Really...that is a bunch of crap.....there were over 320 million guns in private hands in2013 and a grand total of 505 accidental gun deaths.


there were 8,124 intentional gun murders....using guns illegally mainly by career, violent criminals.....

Normal gun owners, 11.1 million carrying guns in 2013.... And the hose normal gun owners used their guns 1.5 million times to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...


Not one, real world statistic supports anything you say, or anything you propose to allegedly deal with the criminal gun violence we have.....

Not one statistic.....you are wrong.

 

[reconmark]

Agree

Problem is there were not enough guns in that theater to respond after the first shot was fired

It was an accident. Returning fire would be stupid as hell.

Having a bunch of guns in a dark theater when a shot goes off and idiots assuming a massacre is taking place then randomly shooting at everyone else with a gun is bound to happen.

And yet in crowd situations during mass shootings where the idiot mass shooter chose a non gun free zone…….there hasn't been the problem has there…….normal gun owners have reacted incredibly responsibly in mass shooting attacks……...

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

 

[Conservative65]

It was an accident. Returning fire would be stupid as hell.

Having a bunch of guns in a dark theater when a shot goes off and idiots assuming a massacre is taking place then randomly shooting at everyone else with a gun is bound to happen.

And yet in crowd situations during mass shootings where the idiot mass shooter chose a non gun free zone…….there hasn't been the problem has there…….normal gun owners have reacted incredibly responsibly in mass shooting attacks……...

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

Incomprehensible jibberish on your part says nothing despite it making sense to you. Idiots think anything they say makes sense. That's why you're an idiot.

Still flying my flag and not a damn thing has been done about it.

 

[reconmark]

Having a bunch of guns in a dark theater when a shot goes off and idiots assuming a massacre is taking place then randomly shooting at everyone else with a gun is bound to happen.

And yet in crowd situations during mass shootings where the idiot mass shooter chose a non gun free zone…….there hasn't been the problem has there…….normal gun owners have reacted incredibly responsibly in mass shooting attacks……...

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

Incomprehensible jibberish on your part says nothing despite it making sense to you. Idiots think anything they say makes sense. That's why you're an idiot.

Still flying my flag and not a damn thing has been done about it.

First, you stupidly asserted that a man with his finger on the trigger prepared to shoot an innocent man and then assaulting that innocent man was a sane course of actions; you compound your stupidity by attempting and failing to rationalize his behavior.
Understandable because you obviously have less proper training than he did.
Second, you got on an internet message board and told a blatant lie, as I stated earlier, once you have to lie in order to prop up your uninformed opinion you have already lost the argument.

Just walk away from this loss and go get some training before you run your silly assed trap again.

 

[Conservative65]

And yet in crowd situations during mass shootings where the idiot mass shooter chose a non gun free zone…….there hasn't been the problem has there…….normal gun owners have reacted incredibly responsibly in mass shooting attacks……...

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

Incomprehensible jibberish on your part says nothing despite it making sense to you. Idiots think anything they say makes sense. That's why you're an idiot.

Still flying my flag and not a damn thing has been done about it.

First, you stupidly asserted that a man with his finger on the trigger prepared to shoot an innocent man and then assaulting that innocent man was a sane course of actions; you compound your stupidity by attempting and failing to rationalize his behavior.
Understandable because you obviously have less proper training than he did.
Second, you got on an internet message board and told a blatant lie, as I stated earlier, once you have to lie in order to prop up your uninformed opinion you have already lost the argument.

Just walk away from this loss and go get some training before you run your silly assed trap again.

I haven't lost. Since you're a born loser, I suggest you crawl back under your rock and take what the rest of us throw your way. Be a good boy and say thank you sir, may I have another.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Man's gun goes off in theater, hits woman

The incident happened shortly after 8 p.m. PT at the Regal Cinemas at The Landing in Renton.

According to Renton police, a man who appeared intoxicated went to the showing of 13 Hours. Police say the man walked inside the theater with a gun and "accidentally" discharged his weapon, hitting a woman in the theater.

The woman was transported to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle in critical condition, according to firefighters

Being intoxicated and in possession of a fire arm is a crime

So don't start whining about responsible gun owners being dangerous since this guy obviously wasn't a responsible gun owner in fact he was committing a criminal act

 

[2aguy]

And yet in crowd situations during mass shootings where the idiot mass shooter chose a non gun free zone…….there hasn't been the problem has there…….normal gun owners have reacted incredibly responsibly in mass shooting attacks……...

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

Incomprehensible jibberish on your part says nothing despite it making sense to you. Idiots think anything they say makes sense. That's why you're an idiot.

Still flying my flag and not a damn thing has been done about it.

First, you stupidly asserted that a man with his finger on the trigger prepared to shoot an innocent man and then assaulting that innocent man was a sane course of actions; you compound your stupidity by attempting and failing to rationalize his behavior.
Understandable because you obviously have less proper training than he did.
Second, you got on an internet message board and told a blatant lie, as I stated earlier, once you have to lie in order to prop up your uninformed opinion you have already lost the argument.

Just walk away from this loss and go get some training before you run your silly assed trap again.

again…..two different concealed carry gun owners were at the gabby gifford's shooting, both were ready to fire if it was needed and neither one did because they assessed the situation and realized it was not needed. The one concealed carry permit holder saw a man with a gun and did not fire, he was told this man was another good guy, so he took the responsible measure and disarmed him until his identity and intentions could be verified…..

And you, twit, say that these guys were irresponsible…..in the middle of the chaos of the mass shooting, you said that normal gun owners would not be able to act rationally or responsibly with guns……and in two instances in one mass shooting you are proven wrong……

YOu are a nut…..

 

[reconmark]

So it's safe to assume that you are going to post a direct rebuttal to my statement and stop comparing apples to oranges...or not.

So it's safe to assume you think you make an actual statement?

It's safe to assume you were unable to comprehend it...

Incomprehensible jibberish on your part says nothing despite it making sense to you. Idiots think anything they say makes sense. That's why you're an idiot.

Still flying my flag and not a damn thing has been done about it.

First, you stupidly asserted that a man with his finger on the trigger prepared to shoot an innocent man and then assaulting that innocent man was a sane course of actions; you compound your stupidity by attempting and failing to rationalize his behavior.
Understandable because you obviously have less proper training than he did.
Second, you got on an internet message board and told a blatant lie, as I stated earlier, once you have to lie in order to prop up your uninformed opinion you have already lost the argument.

Just walk away from this loss and go get some training before you run your silly assed trap again.

I haven't lost. Since you're a born loser, I suggest you crawl back under your rock and take what the rest of us throw your way. Be a good boy and say thank you sir, may I have another.

Trying to avoid your ignorance of professional firearms procedure, use of force and lying seem to be your fall back position.
Idiots like you are the reason sane people don't want backwood yahoos carrying guns.
It's obvious you lack training, intelligence and the ability to properly handle a firearm.
Now go take your finger off the trigger, go sit in the corner and stop pretending to be Marshal Dillon.