Another Colorado mass shooting - Page 2 - Nubblies.net Forums

ninjaface · 07-22-2012, 02:22 PM

Right, cause a dark theater full of scared, confused people with guns would have ended so much better.

angry pancake · 07-22-2012, 03:00 PM

For some reason I get the feeling that if everyone were packing heat and started shooting in that theater, more than 13 people would be dead.

DDTempest · 07-22-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angry pancake

For some reason I get the feeling that if everyone were packing heat and started shooting in that theater, more than 13 people would be dead.

This. The guy was wearing body armor. How many people can pull off a headshot in a crowded theater in the dark while people are running around screaming? Would put that person in the 99th percentile of pistol shooters.

f3lix · 07-22-2012, 07:37 PM

It's the threat of force, not that there would be a firefight. If you're one man and there are 10 unknown people packing, you're going to get picked off.

Mr. Blonde · 07-22-2012, 07:50 PM

Sidenote, I bet F3lix would have been a Loyalist during the Revolutionary War, lol.

SittinOnDubsWGW · 07-23-2012, 01:31 AM

Nevermind the other armed folks susceptibility to tear gas... Just because some crazy bastard wanted to hurt/kill people doesnt make the guns the problem. He could have just as easily done as much damage w an improvised pipe bomb.

I'm on the pro-gun side of the fence.

ninjaface · 07-23-2012, 06:23 AM

This latest shooting doesn't suddenly make guns bad. But its silly to think more guns will help keep something like this from happening again.

DDTempest · 07-23-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f3lix

It's the threat of force, not that there would be a firefight. If you're one man and there are 10 unknown people packing, you're going to get picked off.

So this "threat of force" would have stopped a maniac from going on a shooting spree? What about the "threat" that cops have guns and there was a police sub-station a block and a half from the theater? Your logic is flawed sir. This guy was trying to get the high score.

thekremlin · 07-23-2012, 08:16 AM

I'm absolutely shocked that a senseless shooting can possibly lead to "relax gun laws".

DJ FC · 07-23-2012, 08:49 AM

You're shocked (absolutely, even) that right-wing gun nuts will argue for more guns given any premise whatsoever?

I'm shocked at your shock. Seems pretty predictable.

thekremlin · 07-23-2012, 08:59 AM

I'm shocked at your shock of my shock. Literally shocked.

Me, being shocked:

Saint DH · 07-23-2012, 01:16 PM

Yeah, we should make gun laws even more strict so that only criminals and psychopaths who really want them are able to get them, oh yeah and the government, too. And while you're disarming society so that we civilians are completely defenseless against criminals and a corrupt government, you'll also be happy putting several honest businesses into bankruptcy and transferring their profits to criminal black market dealers.

Secondly, you act like, bc this guy was wearing a kevlar vest, suddenly he's invincible. I guarantee that if this asshole took one to the chest he is going down. It might not kill him, but he's going down. All it would take is one person to hit him. I'm also working under the assumption that if you're carrying a gun, you know how to shoot it. Aiming is not that difficult.

Also, that wasn't tear gas the shooter let loose. I don't know what it was, but it was most likely a failed attempt at making homemade tear gas.

Finally, if you don't think a theater full of armed individuals would have deterred this guy, you're wrong. Unlike most mass shooters, this guy didn't kill himself and he didn't get into a shoot out with the cops. He didn't want to die. If everyone were armed, instead of slaughtering a bunch of helpless sheep he's going against a group of people that can and probably will kill him. The police didn't deter this guy bc the police can't prevent shit from happening. They can only react, and there is often substantial lag time between the initial action and the police's reaction.

Ugly Bastard · 07-23-2012, 01:27 PM

DH, you're an account so you should respect numbers that point out you are wrong. Check out some stats on gun control to see how states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Saint DH · 07-23-2012, 01:41 PM

I'm an accountant so I know that numbers can say whatever I want them to say.

thekremlin · 07-23-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

I would guess that this applies doubly for countries.

SittinOnDubsWGW · 07-23-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

a)Secondly, you act like, bc this guy was wearing a kevlar vest, suddenly he's invincible. I guarantee that if this asshole took one to the chest he is going down. It might not kill him, but he's going down. All it would take is one person to hit him.

b)I'm also working under the assumption that if you're carrying a gun, you know how to shoot it. Aiming is not that difficult.

a) Not necessarily. Particularly that most people that carry concealed carry small caliber pistols. The North Hollywood shootout is a good example of that. Police Handguns weren't doing shit to the two robbers. Shootout lasted for 44 minutes. North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b) Hitting moving targets in a low-light area, especially with a pistol is not as easy most people think. If you've ever trained with a pistol, you'll realize at how clueless most people are when talking about deadly force situations say things like, "why didn't he just shoot him in the legs" or "why didn't they they shoot the weapon out of his hand." People are far too influenced by media and thinking shit is super easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekremlin

I would guess that this applies doubly for countries.

Mexico would be a great argument against that statement... although they'll tell you it's the US' fault.

Mr. Blonde · 07-23-2012, 03:35 PM

Does purchasing shotguns and rifle/ammo in the US require a waiting period or any sort of registration?

If not, what would it hurt to implement this sort of thing in the US?

f3lix · 07-23-2012, 03:50 PM

If 5 people pulled out a gun or even yelled FREEZE, this thing would have ended with way fewer deaths and injuries. It's that simple. Threat of force is all it takes. Just look how the U.S. reacts to the threat of force from terrorists.

Saint DH · 07-23-2012, 07:27 PM

I honestly can't see how it's possible to think that the death count would be higher if everyone in the theater were armed. Instinctively, the gunman will be forced to take cover at the first shot that hits anywhere near him. Now you've restricted his movement and you've restricted his range and accuracy. At least you're buying more time for the police to arrive and for people to escape. It's not just a guy slaughtering helpless people. The difference between someone who is armed and one who is unarmed is like the difference between the Almighty God and an ant. The gunman was shooting at people with a gasmask on, in the dark, while people were running a screaming, and he was able to kill, what, like 14 people?

Repugnant Abomination · 07-23-2012, 07:56 PM

It should be more difficult to get guns, especially assault rifles and shit, but you shouldn't go as far as to ban them. People, however, are ridiculous when they say it's to protect us against the government. The government would roll us over and sodomize every single one of our asshole's like it was nothing. No. They're more of a deterrent for crazy assholes. The problem is most people don't carry guns, so it almost doesn't even matter.

Whatever. You can't stop crazy assholes. There are going to be a few. Doesn't mean we should get rid of guns, just make crazy shit harder to acquire.

Ironic Mustache · 07-23-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f3lix

If 5 people pulled out a gun or even yelled FREEZE, this thing would have ended with way fewer deaths and injuries. It's that simple. Threat of force is all it takes. Just look how the U.S. reacts to the threat of force from terrorists.

Yes we're all very pleased about how the show of force during the "Shock and Awe" campaign, completely dismantled terrorist forces in Iraq. Show of force is clearly all it takes.

*Edit: I'm also pro-gun but come on; you can't say say shit like that with a serious face.

f3lix · 07-23-2012, 08:03 PM

I was referring to how we acted domestically with the Patriot Act, TSA, Homeland Security, etc...

I also had not realized my statement was left so open; thanks for pointing it out.

ninjaface · 07-23-2012, 09:18 PM

DH and f3lix, you guys can Monday morning quarterback this thing all you want, but it doesn't really get to the point of the matter.

This guy had a "drum magazine, capable of carrying 100 rounds of ammunition, which was attached to the AR-15 rifle". He also bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Neither have a truly legitimate purpose for home defense or hunting. Would it not make sense to regulate and track the amount of ammo sold as well as high-capacity magazines?

angry pancake · 07-23-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

I honestly can't see how it's possible to think that the death count would be higher if everyone in the theater were armed.

Really? A dark, crowded, theater and everyone starts shooting. Do you really think they'll only hit the bad guy? They're going to end up shooting each other.

Oh yeah. Pro gun here. But last thing I want is a fuckload of people to just starting shooting. The third guy, shoots the second guy thinking the first guy has moved and he's shooting the wrong person. And really, even if everyone in the room is an excellent shot at moving target in the dark, the first dude to shoot gets off more shots. I have a hunch that the dude who shot up the theater was willing to take the risk that there might be some armed people in the theater.

SittinOnDubsWGW · 07-23-2012, 10:27 PM

Here's my annoyance with guys arguing to death the "if everyone was armed in the theater" side:

DH and F3lix: Do either one of you own and carry a handgun regularly?

If NO, why not?

I rarely carry when I'm not at work. Mainly bc the situation doesn't warrant it... If I know im going to be in a high crime area (very rarely outta work) or if I'm flying, I'll bring it.

The convenience of NOT carrying a weapon is more important to me... As w most Americans.

I'll always have guns in my home

07-23-2012, 08:49 AM	#35 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 250185	You're shocked (absolutely, even) that right-wing gun nuts will argue for more guns given any premise whatsoever? I'm shocked at your shock. Seems pretty predictable.
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Leonard Bernstein's Mass	f3lix	Reviews	0	08-12-2009 01:34 AM
Another School Shooting!	Orgazmo	News	27	03-26-2005 09:31 AM
Courthouse Shooting	Trout Sniffer	News	5	11-06-2003 10:24 PM

07-22-2012, 02:22 PM	#26 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	Right, cause a dark theater full of scared, confused people with guns would have ended so much better.

07-22-2012, 07:37 PM	#29 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	It's the threat of force, not that there would be a firefight. If you're one man and there are 10 unknown people packing, you're going to get picked off.

07-22-2012, 07:50 PM	#30 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 278288	Sidenote, I bet F3lix would have been a Loyalist during the Revolutionary War, lol.

07-23-2012, 01:31 AM	#31 (permalink)
SittinOnDubsWGW I make bad decisions. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Desert Posts: 3,018 Internets: 108015	Nevermind the other armed folks susceptibility to tear gas... Just because some crazy bastard wanted to hurt/kill people doesnt make the guns the problem. He could have just as easily done as much damage w an improvised pipe bomb. I'm on the pro-gun side of the fence.

07-23-2012, 06:23 AM	#32 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	This latest shooting doesn't suddenly make guns bad. But its silly to think more guns will help keep something like this from happening again.

07-23-2012, 01:16 PM	#37 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,113 Internets: 284753	Yeah, we should make gun laws even more strict so that only criminals and psychopaths who really want them are able to get them, oh yeah and the government, too. And while you're disarming society so that we civilians are completely defenseless against criminals and a corrupt government, you'll also be happy putting several honest businesses into bankruptcy and transferring their profits to criminal black market dealers. Secondly, you act like, bc this guy was wearing a kevlar vest, suddenly he's invincible. I guarantee that if this asshole took one to the chest he is going down. It might not kill him, but he's going down. All it would take is one person to hit him. I'm also working under the assumption that if you're carrying a gun, you know how to shoot it. Aiming is not that difficult. Also, that wasn't tear gas the shooter let loose. I don't know what it was, but it was most likely a failed attempt at making homemade tear gas. Finally, if you don't think a theater full of armed individuals would have deterred this guy, you're wrong. Unlike most mass shooters, this guy didn't kill himself and he didn't get into a shoot out with the cops. He didn't want to die. If everyone were armed, instead of slaughtering a bunch of helpless sheep he's going against a group of people that can and probably will kill him. The police didn't deter this guy bc the police can't prevent shit from happening. They can only react, and there is often substantial lag time between the initial action and the police's reaction.

07-23-2012, 01:27 PM	#38 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	DH, you're an account so you should respect numbers that point out you are wrong. Check out some stats on gun control to see how states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

07-23-2012, 01:41 PM	#39 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,113 Internets: 284753	I'm an accountant so I know that numbers can say whatever I want them to say.

07-23-2012, 03:35 PM	#42 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 278288	Does purchasing shotguns and rifle/ammo in the US require a waiting period or any sort of registration? If not, what would it hurt to implement this sort of thing in the US?

07-23-2012, 03:50 PM	#43 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	If 5 people pulled out a gun or even yelled FREEZE, this thing would have ended with way fewer deaths and injuries. It's that simple. Threat of force is all it takes. Just look how the U.S. reacts to the threat of force from terrorists.

07-23-2012, 07:27 PM	#44 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,113 Internets: 284753	I honestly can't see how it's possible to think that the death count would be higher if everyone in the theater were armed. Instinctively, the gunman will be forced to take cover at the first shot that hits anywhere near him. Now you've restricted his movement and you've restricted his range and accuracy. At least you're buying more time for the police to arrive and for people to escape. It's not just a guy slaughtering helpless people. The difference between someone who is armed and one who is unarmed is like the difference between the Almighty God and an ant. The gunman was shooting at people with a gasmask on, in the dark, while people were running a screaming, and he was able to kill, what, like 14 people?

07-23-2012, 07:56 PM	#45 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 161638	It should be more difficult to get guns, especially assault rifles and shit, but you shouldn't go as far as to ban them. People, however, are ridiculous when they say it's to protect us against the government. The government would roll us over and sodomize every single one of our asshole's like it was nothing. No. They're more of a deterrent for crazy assholes. The problem is most people don't carry guns, so it almost doesn't even matter. Whatever. You can't stop crazy assholes. There are going to be a few. Doesn't mean we should get rid of guns, just make crazy shit harder to acquire.

07-23-2012, 08:03 PM	#47 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	I was referring to how we acted domestically with the Patriot Act, TSA, Homeland Security, etc... I also had not realized my statement was left so open; thanks for pointing it out.

07-23-2012, 09:18 PM	#48 (permalink)
ninjaface Level 20 Holothetan Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Space Posts: 5,245 Internets: 210144	DH and f3lix, you guys can Monday morning quarterback this thing all you want, but it doesn't really get to the point of the matter. This guy had a "drum magazine, capable of carrying 100 rounds of ammunition, which was attached to the AR-15 rifle". He also bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Neither have a truly legitimate purpose for home defense or hunting. Would it not make sense to regulate and track the amount of ammo sold as well as high-capacity magazines?

07-23-2012, 10:27 PM	#50 (permalink)
SittinOnDubsWGW I make bad decisions. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Desert Posts: 3,018 Internets: 108015	Here's my annoyance with guys arguing to death the "if everyone was armed in the theater" side: DH and F3lix: Do either one of you own and carry a handgun regularly? If NO, why not? I rarely carry when I'm not at work. Mainly bc the situation doesn't warrant it... If I know im going to be in a high crime area (very rarely outta work) or if I'm flying, I'll bring it. The convenience of NOT carrying a weapon is more important to me... As w most Americans. I'll always have guns in my home