Colorado: Think it Through!

[taichiliberal]

Now let's think that one through

That would be a first for you.

DTMB is just another crank who can't debate worth a damn, folks...he's just grinding an axe...ignore him and his predictable, childish retorts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey! I hate to burst your bubble cause it was a good speech.. but the stats show that a criminal always has access to weapons.

But is it the criminals responsible for these shootings? No - they become criminals when they have committed the shooting. Before that, they were law abiding citizens.

Seems the problem isn't with criminals at all - its with the every day Joe's who are ticking time bombs.

Wow, we really needed input on American laws from an ignorant foreign ****.

Not that it's any of your damned, never-lived-in-America, stranded-on-the-far-side-of-the-world-but-think-I'm-a-*******-expert business, it's usually the case that the shooters in these tragedies were NOT "law-abiding citizens". In fact, it's frequently the case that they didn't obtain the weapons lawfully at all. On those occasions when they did, it's because someone somewhere dropped the ball on making them ineligible under the laws we already have.

And while we're on the subject, I note that, despite the sheep you call citizens in your country trading their ability to protect themselves for the illusion of safety by passing restrictive gun ownership laws, you still manage to have violent crimes, and even gun crimes. Gosh, it's like it's the HUMANS are the ones making the decisions or something.

PLEASE disabuse yourself of the self-aggrandizing notion that we are the slightest bit interested in being anything like you. If you find some dimwit in America who does, please feel free to take him home with you as a gift from us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Well, it is known that one of the men who tackled Jared Loughner at the Tucson shooting was armed, but chose not to draw his weapon because of the circumstances and the good chance that he might hit an innocent bystander. He said that being armed gave him the courage to tackle the shooter, though. I'd imagine the concealed-weapon training also gave him the confidence that comes with having some idea what you're doing, and making decisions rather than just reacting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Worse than laying on the floor and getting executed ?

Worse as in innocent bystanders getting caught in a crossfire and even more of them being killed than were.

On the other hand, and let's don't lose sight of this, had it been likely that he would have faced several armed people in that theater, he would have just chosen a method that negated their advantage, like blowing the place up or setting it on fire. The tools are not the reason, they are not the catalyst, and they are not the responsible party.

 

[thanatos144]

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? Maybe you missed this part of my OP, "...Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy."

Now take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your screen and read the OP again....carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, then get an adult to explain it to you. Carry on.

I read it spanky and my translation was dead on. If you don't want people to expose you for the ignorant little facist prick you are don't post facist bullshit.

Thanatos is not too bright, is he folks? I mean I state in no uncertain terms I'm not about taking away his widdle gun, or making gun ownership an elitist thing. And yet, because I point out that thinking a CWP guy at the Colorado theatre would have saved the day is absurd, and that there needs to be some adjustment to our security system when any yahoo can load up for the next Civil War with 6K ammo and an assault rifle (with armor, gas canisters, etc.) from the 'net and no one blinks an eye, Thanatos becomes unglued.

Get a grip, Thanatos...learn to read and get your head out of the NRA's and Limbaugh's collective asses.

Excuse me you fascist prick but dont call me stupid for telling the truth about your ignorance. You say you dont want my guns yet wish to make it illegal to buy any or use them! I have a right to own buy and use guns and I will be damned if I let some ignorant asswipe like you to infringe on that right.

 

[taichiliberal]

Hey! I hate to burst your bubble cause it was a good speech.. but the stats show that a criminal always has access to weapons.

But is it the criminals responsible for these shootings? No - they become criminals when they have committed the shooting. Before that, they were law abiding citizens.

Seems the problem isn't with criminals at all - its with the every day Joe's who are ticking time bombs.

Wow, we really needed input on American laws from an ignorant foreign ****.

Not that it's any of your damned, never-lived-in-America, stranded-on-the-far-side-of-the-world-but-think-I'm-a-*******-expert business, it's usually the case that the shooters in these tragedies were NOT "law-abiding citizens". In fact, it's frequently the case that they didn't obtain the weapons lawfully at all. On those occasions when they did, it's because someone somewhere dropped the ball on making them ineligible under the laws we already have.

And while we're on the subject, I note that, despite the sheep you call citizens in your country trading their ability to protect themselves for the illusion of safety by passing restrictive gun ownership laws, you still manage to have violent crimes, and even gun crimes. Gosh, it's like it's the HUMANS are the ones making the decisions or something.

PLEASE disabuse yourself of the self-aggrandizing notion that we are the slightest bit interested in being anything like you. If you find some dimwit in America who does, please feel free to take him home with you as a gift from us.

Obviously you have issues/history with this poster (or their country of origin - where ever that may be), but what they said was not incorrect. What I find fascinating is this quote from you, "it's because someone somewhere dropped the ball on making them ineligible under the laws we already have." So are you agreeing with me that there should be some sort of reconfiguring of the current Patriot Act so that a red flag goes up when excessive personal weaponry is purchased in a short period of time?

 

[taichiliberal]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Well, it is known that one of the men who tackled Jared Loughner at the Tucson shooting was armed, but chose not to draw his weapon because of the circumstances and the good chance that he might hit an innocent bystander. He said that being armed gave him the courage to tackle the shooter, though. I'd imagine the concealed-weapon training also gave him the confidence that comes with having some idea what you're doing, and making decisions rather than just reacting.

Amazing....the guy TELLS you why he did what he did, and YOU try to supplant it with your gunner supposition and conjecture.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Worse than laying on the floor and getting executed ?

Worse as in innocent bystanders getting caught in a crossfire and even more of them being killed than were.

On the other hand, and let's don't lose sight of this, had it been likely that he would have faced several armed people in that theater, he would have just chosen a method that negated their advantage, like blowing the place up or setting it on fire. The tools are not the reason, they are not the catalyst, and they are not the responsible party.

the perp would not know if anyone was armed, as concealment is the whole point of a CWP. If this tragedy took place in a state where people with license to carry a weapon on display, it would have given more credence for the nut wearing all that body armor...and his attack still would have the element of surprise.

You're right, though....a killer will find a way to kill....but guns just make it easier.

 

[Intense]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Well, it is known that one of the men who tackled Jared Loughner at the Tucson shooting was armed, but chose not to draw his weapon because of the circumstances and the good chance that he might hit an innocent bystander. He said that being armed gave him the courage to tackle the shooter, though. I'd imagine the concealed-weapon training also gave him the confidence that comes with having some idea what you're doing, and making decisions rather than just reacting.

Good example. Bottom line, it's all projection. Nobody trully knows what would have happened, had Someone in the Theater been armed. Too many variables, not to undermine the concerns, there is just no way of knowing. There will always be those that do what they can, when they can, provided Society has not yet beaten that out of them.

 

[Intense]

Worse than laying on the floor and getting executed ?

Worse as in innocent bystanders getting caught in a crossfire and even more of them being killed than were.

On the other hand, and let's don't lose sight of this, had it been likely that he would have faced several armed people in that theater, he would have just chosen a method that negated their advantage, like blowing the place up or setting it on fire. The tools are not the reason, they are not the catalyst, and they are not the responsible party.

the perp would not know if anyone was armed, as concealment is the whole point of a CWP. If this tragedy took place in a state where people with license to carry a weapon on display, it would have given more credence for the nut wearing all that body armor...and his attack still would have the element of surprise.

You're right, though....a killer will find a way to kill....but guns just make it easier.

Nothing is easier than an explosion.

 

[taichiliberal]

I read it spanky and my translation was dead on. If you don't want people to expose you for the ignorant little facist prick you are don't post facist bullshit.

Thanatos is not too bright, is he folks? I mean I state in no uncertain terms I'm not about taking away his widdle gun, or making gun ownership an elitist thing. And yet, because I point out that thinking a CWP guy at the Colorado theatre would have saved the day is absurd, and that there needs to be some adjustment to our security system when any yahoo can load up for the next Civil War with 6K ammo and an assault rifle (with armor, gas canisters, etc.) from the 'net and no one blinks an eye, Thanatos becomes unglued.

Get a grip, Thanatos...learn to read and get your head out of the NRA's and Limbaugh's collective asses.

Excuse me you fascist prick but dont call me stupid for telling the truth about your ignorance. You say you dont want my guns yet wish to make it illegal to buy any or use them! I have a right to own buy and use guns and I will be damned if I let some ignorant asswipe like you to infringe on that right.

for your education; fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (merriam-webster)
and since there has been NOTHING in the OP or my subsequent posts that would indicate my advocating such, you are either mistaken or attempting slander.

And again, since there has been NOTHING in my posts that alludes to my advocating banning or confiscating guns, you are either lying, attempting slander or are incapable of comprehending what you read.

Again, I strongly urge you to get someone to explain to you what is being stated in the OP...preferably someone sober and with a rational, coherent grasp of things.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Well, it is known that one of the men who tackled Jared Loughner at the Tucson shooting was armed, but chose not to draw his weapon because of the circumstances and the good chance that he might hit an innocent bystander. He said that being armed gave him the courage to tackle the shooter, though. I'd imagine the concealed-weapon training also gave him the confidence that comes with having some idea what you're doing, and making decisions rather than just reacting.

Good example. Bottom line, it's all projection. Nobody trully knows what would have happened, had Someone in the Theater been armed. Too many variables, not to undermine the concerns, there is just no way of knowing. There will always be those that do what they can, when they can, provided Society has not yet beaten that out of them.

Sorry, but it's not "projection" in as much as it's wishful thinking on the part of people who ardently believe a CWP inj Colorado would have saved the day. Given the facts, that scenario is just implausible.

 

[taichiliberal]

Worse as in innocent bystanders getting caught in a crossfire and even more of them being killed than were.

On the other hand, and let's don't lose sight of this, had it been likely that he would have faced several armed people in that theater, he would have just chosen a method that negated their advantage, like blowing the place up or setting it on fire. The tools are not the reason, they are not the catalyst, and they are not the responsible party.

the perp would not know if anyone was armed, as concealment is the whole point of a CWP. If this tragedy took place in a state where people with license to carry a weapon on display, it would have given more credence for the nut wearing all that body armor...and his attack still would have the element of surprise.

You're right, though....a killer will find a way to kill....but guns just make it easier.

Nothing is easier than an explosion.

Agreed!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Worse as in innocent bystanders getting caught in a crossfire and even more of them being killed than were.

On the other hand, and let's don't lose sight of this, had it been likely that he would have faced several armed people in that theater, he would have just chosen a method that negated their advantage, like blowing the place up or setting it on fire. The tools are not the reason, they are not the catalyst, and they are not the responsible party.

the perp would not know if anyone was armed, as concealment is the whole point of a CWP. If this tragedy took place in a state where people with license to carry a weapon on display, it would have given more credence for the nut wearing all that body armor...and his attack still would have the element of surprise.

You're right, though....a killer will find a way to kill....but guns just make it easier.

Nothing is easier than an explosion.

You're correct. Guns are easier than some methods of killing, and not as easy as others. What they offer that makes people choose them - other than all the scenes of them being SO COOL on television and in the movies - is that they allow you to kill from a distance and watch your victims die. Spree killers like that, but it's not a dealbreaker, without which they'll give up the whole idea and settle down to nice, law-abiding lives.

 

[westwall]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

And yet legitimate research has proven you wrong over and over and over again. Gun free zones are the lifesblood of the mass shooter, areas where CCW's are allowed are rarely infected with that particular crime.

However the single biggest mass murder that has happened in the modern era was in New York or New Jersey (I don't remember which when a scumbag used a freshly purchased gallon of gasoline to kill over 80 in a nightclub because his girlfriend had left him.