Reply With Quote
Yay! Talking point!
The gunman had a ballistic helmet, a vest, a throat protector, a gas mask and black tactical gloves. He also had an assault rifle - not just a handgun. Whoever decided to be the CHL hero probably would have been one of the first to die.
Yay! Talking point!
Tells me I read the story wrong. It's the City of Aurora, Colorado that has the ordinance against concealed weapons.
http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm
In 2003, the State said their laws trumped city ordinance. Boulder has sued. I'm not sure where the ordinance stands.
I guess we won't ever know.
You could take an educated guess.
Yes, how would you protect yourself without one?
Touché! And James Holmes should have been allowed to have one as well. That would have ended up stupendously!
Freedommmmmmmm!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ence-camp.html
Shy teen who turned into 'The Joker': Video reveals Dark Knight killer as student whose goal in life was to own a slurpee machine
- James Holmes attended a science camp when he was 18-years-old
- Appeared bright but nervous when talking about his research on 'temporal illusions' which focus on the cross between fantasy and reality
- Launched gun attack which killed 12 during screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado on Thursday night
- During the shooting spree, his semi-automatic rifle jammed during the attack forcing him to switch to a less-powerful gun
- Police say he had been planning the attack for months
- Friend says Holmes always got A's in school and never needed to study
They "supposedly" found match.com and adultfriendfinder.com accounts on him.
What do you guys think? Do you think this photo is legit?
Yes I think this photoshop is legit.
Looks like he might be in front of a poster.
Or dating a giant.
I have 3 family members that have CHL's and all 3 live in different cities in Colorado.
I thought I clarified, it's a city ordinance in Aurora that bans concealed carry, there's apparently a suit pending between the State and other cities with similar bans, and I'm not sure what the law is in Aurora, Colorado, whether there's an injunction on their ordinance, how it's being enforced, or what the public view is on whether or not they have the ability to carry guns legally into a theater.
You can bet if the City of Aurora has an ordinance banning the concealed carrying of firearms they're not going to advertise whether or not their ordinance is moot due to State law.
I'm at a loss as to how concealed carry could have been anything other than an aggravating force in this situation. A heavily protected gunman AND an adversary in a darkened and chaotic theater sounds likes recipe for increasing the problem, not solving it.
If the people in the theatre had been wearing body armor, none would have been killed.
As we all know from gang fights, when both sides are armed and firing at each other, the conflict is resolved quickly, no one is ever harmed in the crossfire, and the possibility of future violence is reduced.
N.R.A. Proposes Sweeping Ban on Movies
Saying it was “high time to take action against the number one cause of violence in America,” the National Rifle Association issued a statement today urging a sweeping ban on movies.
Tracy Klugian, an official spokesperson for the gun-lobbying organization, said that the N.R.A. had taken this extraordinary step because it “could not stand idly by and watch movies tear apart the fabric of our civil society.”
To that end, Mr. Klugian said, the N.R.A. would use money from its PAC, the N.R.A. Political Victory Fund, to support politicians who favored a ban on filmed entertainment.
In the hours after the N.R.A.’s announcement, politicians on both sides of the aisle were quick to applaud the group for identifying what it called “a long overdue need for movie control.”
“It is time for us to stop the madness,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner. “As a first step, I am proposing legislation that would impose a two-year waiting period and background check before one is allowed to see a Hollywood release.”
Minutes later, the White House said that the Speaker’s proposal was “a good first step, but does not go far enough,” arguing that Congress had to “take a hard look at whether superhero costumes and masks should continue to be legal.”
All in all, the N.R.A.’s Klugian said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the organization’s call for new legislation would be heeded “because our message finally seems to be getting through: Guns don’t kill people. Movies kill people.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz21OZC3Yps
^i'd support that before i supported banning guns. i think these guys might be on to something here. maybe you could pass a psych evaluation and iq test before being allowed into rated R movies, that's the nanny state you all wanted right??
You are so stupid. A giant ing straw man is getting the beat out of it again. No one is suggesting banning all guns -- just sensible gun control legistlation which we don't have nearly enough of.
seems that you're the stupid one here. sensible gun control? that guy had no record and could have passed any background check you gave him, dumbass. odds are he did have to pass one, why wouldnt he be able to genius?
For once, I have to agree with M>S. Gun control would not have stopped this kid from killing people. He was a smart guy, and he would have concocted something to harm people with. Guns are not the only weapons in the world. If someone is determined to hurt others, and intelligent enough to pull it enough, it is going to be nearly impossible to stop. Guns are just the easiest tool to use that is available. If you outlawed guns tomorrow, you'd just see a huge increase in stabbing deaths.
sensible gun control legislation includes more than a background check, dumbass. the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 included a ban on the ar-15 (i.e., the primary murder weapon). also, why would banning 50 & 100 round magazine clips not be sensible genius?
the purpose of gun control legislation is not to prevent all murders or any kind from ever happening. however, placing restrictions on what you've described as the easiest tool of murder that is available is an obvious step in the right direction.
Because it only takes 1 shot to kill someone, and there is absolutely no way you could have screened this man that he wouldn't have passed with flying colors. He had a clean criminal record as well as psychological one, and was a phd student at the university. nothing short of taking away the 2nd amendment and rounding up every last gun over the course of many years would have stopped this man from doing what he did. and if you took away his right to purchase a firearm he would have just found an even more lethal way to accomplish his goal. can you imagine had he decided to construct a bomb and take it into the theatre instead? he would have killed a lot more people that way than you could with a 50 round clip. and if you outlawed 50 round clips, there's always the black market. ask the cops how criminalizing drugs is working out.
except it isnt, because criminologist studies have shown the opposite. guns actually save many more lives than those who die from gun related violence, feel free to look it up. this is facts and science, something you may not be able to cope with. it's universally recognized by criminologists. just look at places like DC where they are banned, they actually have higher violent crime rates and gun crime. the problem is, bad guys can always illegally acquire guns just like they do drugs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
