How to Stop a Massacre...

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by eyesdown

 

Hey, who needs common sense when you have guns?

Whose common sense?

The mass hysteria, ban pitbulls, ban guns, burn the witches populace, or the common sense of people with gun experience, facts, and statistics behind them?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Oh, please, Germans were armed already... they didn't conquer half of Europe with plastic knives, after all. Your leaders don't even have to disarm you though. All the guns in the world are useless if you're not willing to put your life on the line for what you (claim to) believe in. But it's okay to let kids have them, it's not like guns kill people, and lots of them, very quickly and efficiently, no sir. Democracy is dead, democracy will one day save itself! Another pearl of wisdom from the land of the free!
Keep them coming, I'm so bored.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
This guy is a true hero and I think he deserves a medal:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/76eb34aa243b.jpg[/atsimg]

I agree 100%!!!

reply to post by nonono

Democracy is dead, democracy will one day save itself! Another pearl of wisdom from the land of the free!

Hey, I didn't say it would save itself, I just said we hoped it would. In my opinion, Karl Marx was correct, and the ultimate end to Democracy and/or Capitalism is a corporate oligarchy that looks an awful lot like Socialism. We're almost there, so he seems to have been right on the money.

It isn't that we "won't" stand up to change things. But if one person stands up, they just get hammered down by the controllers. I don't particularly want to be a martyr, I'd rather wait until the time is right for an organic change, so there is plenty of support and a real chance at victory. For that to happen, we have to have exhausted every conceivable chance at a democratic or peaceful solution, and we have to have abandoned all hope in the status quo, and we have to be a LOT LESS comfortable than we are now. I think we're still a long way from that point. Our poorest of the poor still have air-conditioning and fat bellies. An awful lot of our people still strongly support the direction the government is headed.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think I'll take the common sense of a person that see guns for what they are (lethal weapons that should be heavily regulated, if not banned altogether), rather than people who'll try to justify their new shiny toys with grand thoughts of indipendence and freedom (which at the end of the day are just empy words, as the reality of their situation keeps demonstrating).

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by eyesdown

 

Hey, who needs common sense when you have guns?

Whose common sense?

The mass hysteria, ban pitbulls, ban guns, burn the witches populace, or the common sense of people with gun experience, facts, and statistics behind them?

But the 'common sense people with gun experience aren't the ones doing the random spree killings- or maybe they are thats the thing anyone can pick up a gun and take several lives instantly. I think where we are differing here is between how to prevent a massacre and how to stop one. Yes the way to stop a gun massacre is to have a gun, the way to prevent one before it happens is not let every tom dick and harry buy a gun.

reply to post by eyesdown

the way to prevent one before it happens is not let every tom dick and harry buy a gun.

I agree to a certain extent. Wielding a gun is a huge responsibility, and even I think if you want to carry a handgun, there should be better safety courses, better and more frequent background checks.

In order to prevent massacres, we have to fix the economy, and get rid of the laws that fill up our prisons and waste the time of our police chasing hookers and dope smokers.

Let this Holmes guy pay $6k for a little nookie every week or two instead of repressing that primal urge and making him homicidal enough to spend $6k on weapons instead!

Get the gangs and cartels out of the drug industry and let business men run it. Help people get jobs, stop giving high interest loans and encouraging them to live beyond their means until they're bankrupt decide to kill their whole families.

Preventing these tragedies means looking at the ills of society with an honest approach and fixing the issues that are not good campaign fodder.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Lol, what are you talking about? The situation is already hopeless, it has been for a while I'd say. If you guys actually believed in "democracy" (which is supposed to be more than having 2 different puppets to choose from every 4 years), you would have revolted decades ago. How come you didn't? Of the two, one: either the idea of democracy is not worth fighting for or there are no worthy people who'll stand up and fight for it. Either way you don't need guns.

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Lol, what are you talking about? The situation is already hopeless, it has been for a while I'd say. If you guys actually believed in "democracy" (which is supposed to be more than having 2 different puppets to choose from every 4 years), you would have revolted decades ago. How come you didn't? Of the two, one: either the idea of democracy is not worth fighting for or there are no worthy people who'll stand up and fight for it. Either way you don't need guns.

I don't know what you know of the lifestyle in the US, but mine is pretty damn good. I'm not ready to give it up just for an ideal at this point. In fact, as frustrating and illogical as the government operations are, I'm actually part of that system. I make my living regulating and administering the very laws I often disagree with. It just is what it is. When the time comes to make a dramatic change, we'll be ready, but we're a LONG way from that right now. MOST people are pretty damn comfortable and happy.

What you read on ATS is not representative of the majority of the population.

I agree actually
I like the idea of many people having a gun. There needs to be a stricter method of getting a gun..I actually don't care about if a felon has a gun, I am far more concerned about mental stability and intelligence guiding who gets one (less people would qualify mind you..not smart enough to pass a gun safety and laws test, then your not getting a gun).

But ya, pandoras box was let out of the box a very long time ago...this will be an armed nation...so its time to encourage responsible carrying in public

One thing to consider though, any gun that is carried by an individual may end up being pushed in the black market..so ban assult weapons..nobody needs a tank.

A few words on the responsibilities of carrying a gun.

A lot of people share the opinion that giving guns to everyone will cut down on crime because now not just he ‘bad guys’ have guns. From people I have had these kinds of discussions with, they always seem to separate people into two distinct groups: the good guys and the bad guys.

The image they have of the good guy though, is always of someone who has a mature, even keeled nature, uses very good judgment, is trained with the firearm and has good aim. We all know this is not the case. The good guys fall into many other categories…the hotheads, the vigilantes, the wanna-be-heroes, the wanna-be-cops, those with bad eyesight and poor aim, shaky hands, frightened people who will shoot at the slightest threat…. I could go on. I guess it would be impossible to put the good guys into percent categories, but I would hazard a guess that the percentage of trained ‘good guys’ (who know when to pull the gun and when not to) is probably on the low side compared to the others.

As a community, do we feel comfortable walking around in crowded places knowing some of these ‘good guys’ are just itching to be a hero?

I am not necessarily for gun control, but I am also not in favor of just blindly flooding the streets with guns just to keep the playing field level. If gun controls are to be loosened, I think there should be a strict requirement for (i) initial training in the use of the firearm, (ii) a requirement for ongoing training (once a month at a gun range?), (iii) a required annual (or some other regular period ) proficiency test. How much training do cops undergo to keep their weapons? I know this is all unrealistic, and compliance would be fall off very soon. Most people are simply not that disciplined.

Put another way, I live in New York City. If I knew that most of the knuckleheads walking around here were packing (even though they are the “good guys”), I don’t think I would leave the apartment. I just don’t trust
their proficiency, judgement, or aim.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Now try to apply all of that to an incident in a dark movie theater, with a perpetrator throwing gas canisters, armed with assault rifles, wearing protective clothing...

This is ridiculous. The lengths people will go to to try to "prove" that others having guns would have prevented this psychopath from acting as he did, it's insane.

No whats ridiculous is the people on this thread making up circumstances of "what might of happened" repeating anti-gun rhetoric with no substance and no facts. The facts are that 1.5 million people a year successfully defend themselves or others with guns! Armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement in the country combined! Usually because they are the intended victims. That is why 911 is called dial a prayer...

The whole; this won't work in a crowded dark theater non-sens is ridiculous. People were getting on the floor behind the seats the darkness would have been an advantage to someone defending also. Even with body armor a pistol shot at close range will do damage and knock you down and of course there is always a head shot this will put the perp on notice he is not dealing with cowards right away and chances are he would run. Instead he banked on the media induced fear and ran roughshod over an entire theater. If I were in that theater He would have taken at least 3 rounds with one to the head!

The manhatten train massacre years ago would not have happened had people had guns. Two off duty police officers finally rushed the guy to stop the attack because they knew they were going to die if they didn't. They were unarmed because NY had a law at the time that they could not carry their guns off duty, they changed it after that. Had they had them the guy would have been dead from the get go. That was a crowded train car too.

The whole media blitz on how you should never try and defend yourself against an attacker is complete and utter BS! The facts prove prove otherwise. *80-97 percent of people who defend themselves with a gun are successful according to justice department stats. Gee how come you never hear that in the news.

And to those who say I am for guns but I think good background checks and registration are necessary you mean like how drugs are regulated and so hard to get... Oh wait... Sigh! Please educate yourself.

If gun control registration background checks etc. worked LA and NY city would be the safest places on the planet. They are in fact some of the most dangerous places. The states with the least amount of gun control have the lowest crime rates. Crime rates have dropped dramatically when counties and states have allowed concealed and open carry when they previously were not allowed.

Those are the facts not some made up media BS that keeps getting repeated in this thread!

@Hawkeye:

"If gun control registration background checks etc. worked LA and NY city would be the safest places on the planet. They are in fact some of the most dangerous places."

New York City's crime rate for 2010 is ranked number 269 out of 400 cities in the U.S. Its violent crime rate is BELOW the national average. "Crime" includes murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.

Source: os.cqpress.com...

...

Originally posted by spoonbender
the right to bare
is so you can rise up to thwart

Right, because a few thousand people in the USA with assault rifles is really going to do a hell of a lot against unmanned drones, chemical attacks, biological weapons, government controlled media, fighter jets...

The imagined scenario where the people may need to overthrow their government was constructed when all weapons were equal. This was before the tank, before the fighter jet, before mass media...

The right to overthrow your government ended when your government became infinitely more powerful than the people and capable of destroying them with ease. Perhaps the American people should have considered their precious right to overthrow before their government developed the ways an means to destroy any uprising within hours of one starting?

If you think you can overthrow your government with assault rifles you'll need to get a time machine too.

Originally posted by spoonbender
the right to bare
does not mean
tools for hunting & sport

See above.

Originally posted by spoonbender
if you think some 1
with a handgun couldn't
get a body count think again

Of course someone with a handgun can kill, that's not the debate here. The fact is he would not have been able to see people in that theatre to target them properly with a handgun. The more powerful weapons allowed him to spray the crowd with bullets. He didn't need to aim, or to see anyone. He knew there were a lot of people in there and all he had to do was pull the trigger.

What part of this is so difficult for you to understand? If you throw one dart at a ping pong ball you will probably miss. If you throw three thousands darts all at once at that ping pong ball you will hit it.

This is not rocket science.

Originally posted by spoonbender
dood's A.S. supposedly jammed
so he kept on firing using a 2nd weapon
a Handgun...

Once many were already dead and injured, and once his vision had adjusted to the light within the theatre, and once the gas had cleared from his vision and he continued his assault in the building outside of the theatre room...

You can try to spin it all you like. The fact is he used extremely powerful weapons that have NO SENSIBLE USE in society. None at all. They are designed with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as easily as possible. This is barely acceptable in a combat environment, so why is it acceptable in society?!

reply to post by hawkiye


I'm not going to try to argue your points, because you have none.

The motive of Holmes was to kill.
The motive of these men was robbery.

The weapons Holmes had were capable of killing hundreds of people.
The weapons these people had were handguns.

The environment Holmes was in went in his favor
The environment these robbers were in was not in their favor.

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts you would know that I am not "anti-gun". I support your right to own a gun and defend yourself. I do not support ignorance and stupidity in defence of insanity.

Suggesting that everyone who disagrees with high powered assault weapons being in the hands of crazy people is anti-gun is pathetic.

If you pull a gun out for use it should be to kill. Guns aren't any good if you are timid like the guy in the vid,he just went for it and pulled the trigger. I'm happy there are some who realize they are wholly incapable of functioning in a hostile environment so they will stay out of my way should such a thing occur. However I am afraid your pointless banter over gun laws doesn't move me as A:I'm not crazy and so I don't need to change my life to accomodate them and B: I am trained so I have fighting skills and knowledge so such an incident,should I find myself in a position.....near my home,where something might happen I can stop it quickly.
I'll keep my weapons.That being said I don't like carrying guns they make me nervous in a civilian environment,I prefer knives.
Although the courts HATE them,I'm good with a knife too.
I could have taken that guy out with a blade as I saw it in the vid no big deal."Baseball" would have run I'm sure or he would have been next.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The time to act has come and gone a thousand times already. You're just making excuses at this point. Not that I'm particularly surprised, now that, by your own admission, I know you're actually part of the problem...

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

The time to act has come and gone a thousand times already. You're just making excuses at this point. Not that I'm particularly surprised, now that, by your own admission, I know you're actually part of the problem...

No disagreeing with either of those statements. Yes, there have been plenty of opportunities that have come and gone, and yes, if I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem. Agreed.

Sooooooo, what would you have us do? Should I just march down to city hall with my gun? Should I send a strongly worded letter? Campaign for Ron Paul? (I did that one already.)

I think you are intentionally over-simplifying the issue. There has to be an organic movement from many areas of the population, and there has to be a spark. We might be closer than you realize..... the riots in Anaheim and Dallas are not dying down as quickly as expected. Who knows. At some point, there will be action springing up in all major cities, for different reasons, but at the same time, and we will know we have reached the boiling point.

To be honest with you, as much as Americans want to see the government changed, we sure as hell do not want to see violence, unrest, and 3rd world status here in our beautiful country. Things are still pretty damn good here, nobody (except on ATS) is trying to usher in strife and chaos. In fact, we hope it NEVER has to come to that.

reply to post by detachedindividual

I'm not going to try to argue your points, because you have none.

Translation: You cannot refute the link I posted with the stats a few posts back that prove your pathetic fantasy notion wrong so you ignored them... Sigh.

The facts completely refute your non-sense but hey why let facts reason and logic get in the way of your emotional ideas after all why should you ever consider you are wrong. By the way all guns are "assault weapons". The type of gun makes little if any difference when one knows how to use it. The media loves to pin evil sounding names to rifles to further their anti-gun agenda.. Oh and you are no pro gun advocate you have no understanding of the issue and refuse to consider facts. You are worse then the openly anti-gunners with your nonsensical ideas.

As soon as anyone can show me any evidence that registration, background checks and any other so called preventive measures have ever prevented some idiot from doing something stupid then I'll consider such measures. Till then I will oppose them for ever!