rushmc 18 #151 July 20, 2012 Quote>Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable >steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do >something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and >reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable >Citizens. Agreed 100%. Me too"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #153 July 20, 2012 Quotenot protecting themselves didn't work out too well, did it? Holy fuck people are bad at reading. Gravitymaster stated he would be running for the exit with a gun in his hands. I questioned if that was the best course of action, considering in the confusion some other armed person might think he is the shooter and shoot him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #154 July 20, 2012 QuoteHonestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. I agree. Problem is many here have already stated that it would be an invasion of privacy. Plus that you would be unable to know when somebody snaps. I have been asking people what other avnues are open, but nobody is willing to provide an answer. Obviously removing rights is not an option. I get the sense to for many restrictions on the right are not even an option. That doesn't leave much else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #155 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuotenot protecting themselves didn't work out too well, did it? Holy fuck people are bad at reading. Gravitymaster stated he would be running for the exit with a gun in his hands. I questioned if that was the best course of action, considering in the confusion some other armed person might think he is the shooter and shoot him. Protecting myself does not necessarily involve firing at the shooter. It means whatever I need to do to save my own life. If others choose not to carry, they should not expect me to protect them. The reason I would have drawn my gun is because if confronted, milli-seconds count. I don'twant to be standing there drawing my gun as a bullet smashes into my brain. That doesn't mean I'm going to be wildly waving my gun around attracing attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #156 July 20, 2012 Quote Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps ... You expect this in SC??? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #157 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote. Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. Matt Agreed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,619 #158 July 20, 2012 Quote*** Obviously removing rights is not an option. Not necessary either, since the Supreme Court has already stated quite unambiguously that preventing felons and the mentally ill from having firearms is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rstanley0312 0 #159 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteAs a CCW holder, I don't know what I would have done. Movie room full of chaos, some asshole at the front of the theater popping shots, tear gas. The last thing we need is a 2nd person shooting. What if I hit someone else with a bullet? What if I was thought to be on the offensive? Maybe if I was in the front row with an option, open, and clear shot I'd consider it. Quote Right, we need to do a FAR BETTER JOB keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases. Good job all those CCW holders were around to prevent this. Setting aside the gun free zone venue. One of the things all Fire Arms owners should know, and any who has ever taken any class has been told this, is KNOW what you aiming at, AND, what id behind your target. For my CCW, the Instructor reinforced my already held belief that my weapon is for DEFENSE, and that some times retreating to a safer area is a better option in that defense. The net is on fire with tough guys saying they would have done this or that. Most have no true training or experience in this type of situation, I know I never trained to have a gun fight in a crowded theater in my 21 Years in the Army or my years in PS and VIPS. Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. Matt I agree also... that is addressing the problem. The guns are not the problemLife is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #160 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote*** Obviously removing rights is not an option. Not necessary either, since the Supreme Court has already stated quite unambiguously that preventing felons and the mentally ill from having firearms is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Well, at that point I think the Individual has shown they do not deserve to retain their rights, or in the case of the mentally ill, it is better for the whole of society. I think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,120 #161 July 20, 2012 QuoteI think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Won't prevent the shooting that happened today. If he doesn't pass the background check, he will just use another weapon or get them illegally. Guns aren't the issue remember. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #162 July 20, 2012 I agree the gun is not the issue the dude holding them is. His Mom might have been able to stop it, or a friend who might pay attention. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #163 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Won't prevent the shooting that happened today. If he doesn't pass the background check, he will just use another weapon or get them illegally. Guns aren't the issue remember. Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. That probably would have resulted in the deaths and injury of even more people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #164 July 20, 2012 >Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #165 July 20, 2012 Quote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #166 July 20, 2012 >That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? OK, sorry. I thought you said they weren't the issue at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #167 July 20, 2012 Quote I have been asking people what other avnues are open, but nobody is willing to provide an answer. there were answers...they just aren't the silver bullet you're seeking. If problems like this were easy to solve, they would be already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jshiloh 0 #168 July 20, 2012 QuoteTo a PG-13 movie, doesn't matter that it's a midnight show.... Why were they bringing a 3-month old to ANY movie, let alone a midnight showing of a PG13 movie? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #169 July 20, 2012 Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out "According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #170 July 20, 2012 Quote I think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Matt Matt, I like to back test solutions against incidents. Same as with all of the angry debates over the past decade on wingloading BSRs. I remember taking some of the stricter guidelines and looking back on 5 years of canopy crashes and found that it would have filtered out a minute portion of the deaths. I think it was less than 10%. IMO, that sort of return doesn't warrant dramatic change. As for your two suggestions 1) background checks are effectively universal in states like California where private sales are done via an FFL. But if you look back to Columbine, the girlfriend gave the kids one of the guns. I still don't know how she avoided prosecution for that, but the reality is that private transfers will always be possible without a background check. Further problems are around what the background check should and actually can accomplish. VTech may be an example of the process failing - data not processed properly. But we also have privacy laws around medical records and for good reason. People shouldn't avoid seeking medical help out of concern they will lose their guns or their job. I would be surprised if back testing the incidents will show that background checks on legally executed private sales would have stopped many from getting their gun. And of course, those guys may easily have gone on to an illegal transfer, or the alternate weapons. As a Californian, implementing this would change nothing for me, so I can't argue that it does great damage. But I do view the FFL process more as a nuisance tax on law abiding citizens rather than one that accomplishes much. 2) What does mandatory fire arms training get us? Don't we want incompetent gunmen who get tripped up by a cartridge jamming, giving others the chance to run or tackle the suspect? What exactly would you suggest? Too little and it makes no difference. Done onerously and it's a clear block against those who want to exercise their rights. An example of the latter is a proposal to require all purchasers to go to a county sheriff range and demonstrate proficiency. That's a long drive for many, and the police don't really have the bandwidth to adminster. The end result would be great difficulty getting tested at all. California's current plan seems to be a milder form of this. In the 90s, to buy a handgun you needed to get a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate. It was essentially a DMV level multiple choice test, a $20 fee, and was good for life. It filters out the illiterate and the dumbest 5% of the population. But the nutters weren't satisfied, so they replaced it with an Handgun Safety Certificate. Same test, but now it expires every 5 years and the BFSC is useless. But here's the fun part - don't supply enough certificates! Last year I went to the closest gun store to San Francisco - one city down, not transit accessible on 3 separate occasions and in all instances they were out of the fucking certificates, so they couldn't run the test. I've got a gun in Nevada to ship over but I can't get an HSC to allow the sale to complete yet. I've also encountered with my purchases a mandate to buy a trigger lock (got a collection of them) and a requirement to demonstrate proper gun handling to the seller. More minor annoyances with little gained. The point of these regs, aside from subtle taxes on the poor, is about preventing accidental shootings, particularly with minors. It does nothing to address these sort of shootings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #171 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo a PG-13 movie, doesn't matter that it's a midnight show.... Why were they bringing a 3-month old to ANY movie, let alone a midnight showing of a PG13 movie? Because they're a bit selfish and don't care about the others, or, they are one of the lucky ones that has a young infant that sleeps well. One of my closer friends would join me for dinner and plop their daughter in the stroller/crib next to the table. Noisy San Francisco restaurants and she slept happily. Seemed to like the white noise. So if they went to a movie, and stayed near an exit so they could disappear if she got noisy, probably not that big a deal. For other kids, this would be obnoxious parent behavior. But the kid is just as fine in a dark theatre at midnight as it would be at home. It was an unfortunate outcome here, but no more so than if the parents were killed while the baby was at home with a sitter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #172 July 20, 2012 QuoteThe point of these regs, aside from subtle taxes on the poor, is about preventing accidental shootings, particularly with minors. It does nothing to address these sort of shootings. Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons to consumers in the United States would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,619 #173 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Nope. You wrote "Guns are not the issue, correct." Poor memory you have.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #174 July 20, 2012 Quote Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. This. I'm not sure how to do it, but agree it is how we should approach it. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #175 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Nope. You wrote "Guns are not the issue, correct." Poor memory you have. Guns are part of the issue. Poor comprehension you have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 of 28 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,619 #158 July 20, 2012 Quote*** Obviously removing rights is not an option. Not necessary either, since the Supreme Court has already stated quite unambiguously that preventing felons and the mentally ill from having firearms is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #159 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteAs a CCW holder, I don't know what I would have done. Movie room full of chaos, some asshole at the front of the theater popping shots, tear gas. The last thing we need is a 2nd person shooting. What if I hit someone else with a bullet? What if I was thought to be on the offensive? Maybe if I was in the front row with an option, open, and clear shot I'd consider it. Quote Right, we need to do a FAR BETTER JOB keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases. Good job all those CCW holders were around to prevent this. Setting aside the gun free zone venue. One of the things all Fire Arms owners should know, and any who has ever taken any class has been told this, is KNOW what you aiming at, AND, what id behind your target. For my CCW, the Instructor reinforced my already held belief that my weapon is for DEFENSE, and that some times retreating to a safer area is a better option in that defense. The net is on fire with tough guys saying they would have done this or that. Most have no true training or experience in this type of situation, I know I never trained to have a gun fight in a crowded theater in my 21 Years in the Army or my years in PS and VIPS. Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. Matt I agree also... that is addressing the problem. The guns are not the problemLife is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #160 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote*** Obviously removing rights is not an option. Not necessary either, since the Supreme Court has already stated quite unambiguously that preventing felons and the mentally ill from having firearms is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Well, at that point I think the Individual has shown they do not deserve to retain their rights, or in the case of the mentally ill, it is better for the whole of society. I think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,120 #161 July 20, 2012 QuoteI think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Won't prevent the shooting that happened today. If he doesn't pass the background check, he will just use another weapon or get them illegally. Guns aren't the issue remember. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #162 July 20, 2012 I agree the gun is not the issue the dude holding them is. His Mom might have been able to stop it, or a friend who might pay attention. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #163 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Won't prevent the shooting that happened today. If he doesn't pass the background check, he will just use another weapon or get them illegally. Guns aren't the issue remember. Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. That probably would have resulted in the deaths and injury of even more people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #164 July 20, 2012 >Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #165 July 20, 2012 Quote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #166 July 20, 2012 >That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? OK, sorry. I thought you said they weren't the issue at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #167 July 20, 2012 Quote I have been asking people what other avnues are open, but nobody is willing to provide an answer. there were answers...they just aren't the silver bullet you're seeking. If problems like this were easy to solve, they would be already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jshiloh 0 #168 July 20, 2012 QuoteTo a PG-13 movie, doesn't matter that it's a midnight show.... Why were they bringing a 3-month old to ANY movie, let alone a midnight showing of a PG13 movie? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #169 July 20, 2012 Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out "According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #170 July 20, 2012 Quote I think 100% background checks, including for private sales. With a web based system it is doable. Mandatory Fire Arms training for ALL, regardless of back ground. And for those who are gonna pile on how wrong this is, remember it is not taking away your rights. Matt Matt, I like to back test solutions against incidents. Same as with all of the angry debates over the past decade on wingloading BSRs. I remember taking some of the stricter guidelines and looking back on 5 years of canopy crashes and found that it would have filtered out a minute portion of the deaths. I think it was less than 10%. IMO, that sort of return doesn't warrant dramatic change. As for your two suggestions 1) background checks are effectively universal in states like California where private sales are done via an FFL. But if you look back to Columbine, the girlfriend gave the kids one of the guns. I still don't know how she avoided prosecution for that, but the reality is that private transfers will always be possible without a background check. Further problems are around what the background check should and actually can accomplish. VTech may be an example of the process failing - data not processed properly. But we also have privacy laws around medical records and for good reason. People shouldn't avoid seeking medical help out of concern they will lose their guns or their job. I would be surprised if back testing the incidents will show that background checks on legally executed private sales would have stopped many from getting their gun. And of course, those guys may easily have gone on to an illegal transfer, or the alternate weapons. As a Californian, implementing this would change nothing for me, so I can't argue that it does great damage. But I do view the FFL process more as a nuisance tax on law abiding citizens rather than one that accomplishes much. 2) What does mandatory fire arms training get us? Don't we want incompetent gunmen who get tripped up by a cartridge jamming, giving others the chance to run or tackle the suspect? What exactly would you suggest? Too little and it makes no difference. Done onerously and it's a clear block against those who want to exercise their rights. An example of the latter is a proposal to require all purchasers to go to a county sheriff range and demonstrate proficiency. That's a long drive for many, and the police don't really have the bandwidth to adminster. The end result would be great difficulty getting tested at all. California's current plan seems to be a milder form of this. In the 90s, to buy a handgun you needed to get a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate. It was essentially a DMV level multiple choice test, a $20 fee, and was good for life. It filters out the illiterate and the dumbest 5% of the population. But the nutters weren't satisfied, so they replaced it with an Handgun Safety Certificate. Same test, but now it expires every 5 years and the BFSC is useless. But here's the fun part - don't supply enough certificates! Last year I went to the closest gun store to San Francisco - one city down, not transit accessible on 3 separate occasions and in all instances they were out of the fucking certificates, so they couldn't run the test. I've got a gun in Nevada to ship over but I can't get an HSC to allow the sale to complete yet. I've also encountered with my purchases a mandate to buy a trigger lock (got a collection of them) and a requirement to demonstrate proper gun handling to the seller. More minor annoyances with little gained. The point of these regs, aside from subtle taxes on the poor, is about preventing accidental shootings, particularly with minors. It does nothing to address these sort of shootings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #171 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo a PG-13 movie, doesn't matter that it's a midnight show.... Why were they bringing a 3-month old to ANY movie, let alone a midnight showing of a PG13 movie? Because they're a bit selfish and don't care about the others, or, they are one of the lucky ones that has a young infant that sleeps well. One of my closer friends would join me for dinner and plop their daughter in the stroller/crib next to the table. Noisy San Francisco restaurants and she slept happily. Seemed to like the white noise. So if they went to a movie, and stayed near an exit so they could disappear if she got noisy, probably not that big a deal. For other kids, this would be obnoxious parent behavior. But the kid is just as fine in a dark theatre at midnight as it would be at home. It was an unfortunate outcome here, but no more so than if the parents were killed while the baby was at home with a sitter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #172 July 20, 2012 QuoteThe point of these regs, aside from subtle taxes on the poor, is about preventing accidental shootings, particularly with minors. It does nothing to address these sort of shootings. Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons to consumers in the United States would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #173 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Nope. You wrote "Guns are not the issue, correct." Poor memory you have.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #174 July 20, 2012 Quote Honestly, I think the discussion should be on how we can take reasonable steps in trying to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to do something like this again, with out removing rights, we have at birth and reaffirmed with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for law abiding and stable Citizens. This. I'm not sure how to do it, but agree it is how we should approach it. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #175 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Guns are not the issue, correct. Considering he had enough knowledge to rig his >apartment with explosives, it's very likely he could have just as easily rigged uo pipe >bombs and begin tossing them into the crowd. Yes, and he could have driven his tractor trailer into the theater and done the same thing. He could even have done it by flooding the theater with nitrogen and asphyxiating people. But here in the US the gun is the weapon of choice for killing sprees. Thus they are part of the issue. They are not the CAUSE of the issue, but they are a part of it. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? Nope. You wrote "Guns are not the issue, correct." Poor memory you have. Guns are part of the issue. Poor comprehension you have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
