billay Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Last time I checked tear gas was illegal to own for the average citizen. So if the guy isn't afraid of breaking the law murdering people, and isn't afraid of breaking the law carrying illegal tear gas, do you think he would be afraid to illegally carry a firearm? At this point we don't even know if the firearm he was carrying was a legal firearm or obtained in a legal manner. You have read much into my comment Perch. I, like you, am attempting to refrain from getting too far into this debate too soon. We know little about the situation. I simply had to reply to Az's comments, as they presume much as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 What a horrible tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If Perch had been there this would not have gone down like this. That's a fact. The only massacres we have in Texas these days are from crazy muslims surrounded by disarmed soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Usually you go to a movie to escape reality for a few hours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If Perch had been there this would not have gone down like this. That's a fact. The only massacres we have in Texas these days are from crazy muslims surrounded by disarmed soldiers. Only ones we have in ATL are when I'm keepin it real... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I'm not sure that is accurate. if anything, violent crime rates have gone down in places with the most liberal carry laws. and it stands to reason...if a few of the patrons were packing heat and knew what they were doing, the whole thing might have unfolded very differently. Pretty accurate point. I did read that. However, if they're not carrying at all, no one gets shot and ends up dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 It appears as though he also had illegal explosives in his apartment. There is some speculation that he has ties to OWS. http://www.dailymail...by-trapped.html It really bugs me when they report him as "suspected killer" or "alleged gunman". Dude was found outside the theatre with the guns, wearing the outfit people saw the shooter wearing. He is THE KILLER not suspected or alleged. What a SNICKERSing nutjob (oh wait, that means he can use the I'm crazy defense and just get treatment for his "illness".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Pretty accurate point. I did read that. However, if they're not carrying at all, no one gets shot and ends up dead. True, he could have bombed with his ILLEGAL explosives. Are you not seeing this pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 True, he could have bombed with his ILLEGAL explosives. Are you not seeing this pattern? That gun owners are dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 That gun owners are dangerous? Its also backs up the idea that Bier and Unta are the only two sane people in neuroscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 What is easier to identify and try to have some semblance of control over in a society? A commodity like weaponry, or the closeted crazy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) That gun owners are dangerous? No, that those who choose to break the law will not be deterred by the law. You outlaw guns, then other means to murder rise. You outlaw drugs, and now people are using even more dangerous "legal" drugs like bath salts and synthetic Josh Gordon... And of course none of this is to mention the black markets that will undoubtedly arise, where you only empower dangerous criminals willing to take the risk for profit, and have less accountability about who has what weapons. Actually the war on drugs and prohibition are pretty perfect analogies for what kinds of failures you could expect from a war on guns. Edited July 20, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Does is have to be "outlaw"? Why not just common sense controls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No, that those who choose to break the law will not be deterred by the law. You outlaw guns, then other means to murder rise. You outlaw drugs, and now people are using even more dangerous "legal" drugs like bath salts and synthetic Josh Gordon, on top of more rampant legal alcohol abuse... And of course none of this is to mention the black markets that will undoubtedly arise, where you only empower dangerous criminals willing to take the risk for profit, and have less accountability about who has what weapons. Actually the war on drugs and prohibition are pretty perfect analogies for what kinds of failures you could expect from a war on guns. What kind of alternative means is going to be used to kill 12 and injure another 40 within a short period inside a movie theater? Sword, axe, bat, frying pan, flying guillotine, pointed sticks? PS I'd strongly suggest we move the gun debate to the thread started for that purpose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 What kind of alternative means is going to be used to kill 12 and injure another 40 within a short period inside a movie theater? Sword, axe, bat, frying pan, flying guillotine, pointed sticks? PS I'd strongly suggest we move the gun debate to the thread started for that purpose... the illegal explosives in his apartment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 No, that those who choose to break the law will not be deterred by the law. You outlaw guns, then other means to murder rise. You outlaw drugs, and now people are using even more dangerous "legal" drugs like bath salts and synthetic Josh Gordon... And of course none of this is to mention the black markets that will undoubtedly arise, where you only empower dangerous criminals willing to take the risk for profit, and have less accountability about who has what weapons. Actually the war on drugs and prohibition are pretty perfect analogies for what kinds of failures you could expect from a war on guns. Did I advocate for gun control? No. So put your canned arguments back on the shelf, skipper. I'm merely someone who notices that 100% of all gun-related violence occurs at the hands of someone with a gun. And the only thing separating a "good" gun owner from being a "criminal" gun owner is one really bad day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 It really bugs me when they report him as "suspected killer" or "alleged gunman". Dude was found outside the theatre with the guns, wearing the outfit people saw the shooter wearing. He is THE KILLER not suspected or alleged. What a SNICKERSing nutjob (oh wait, that means he can use the I'm crazy defense and just get treatment for his "illness".) You demonstrate little understanding of the insanity defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Did I advocate for gun control? No. So put your canned arguments back on the shelf, skipper. I'm merely someone who notices that 100% of all gun-related violence occurs at the hands of someone with a gun. And the only thing separating a "good" gun owner from being a "criminal" gun owner is one really bad day. Oh, my apologies, I see now that you were jsut trying to imply that all gun owners are dangerous.... Have no idea why I'd confuse that with you advocating for gun control Sorry, but on a bad day, I don't go around assaulting and attempting to murder people, so I don't think your strawman argument holds much water at all. Edited July 20, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 You demonstrate little understanding of the insanity defense. Maybe. But people who do commit these horrible crimes are obviously a little deranged and that immediately opens up the "it wasn't their fault, they're afflicted with a disease" angle. Yeah, the disease of pure evil. Jeffery Dahmer, Anthony Sowell, the Columbine shooters, the Mentor HS Shooter, the Copley OH shooting rampage (the last two close to home and very recent). I'd personally prefer all these people just kill themselves when they're done, or commit suicide by cop. The criminal tries, the costs, etc. are just a giant wastes on such pieces of trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Maybe. But people who do commit these horrible crimes are obviously a little deranged and that immediately opens up the "it wasn't their fault, they're afflicted with a disease" angle. Yeah, the disease of pure evil. Jeffery Dahmer, Anthony Sowell, the Columbine shooters, the Mentor HS Shooter, the Copley OH shooting rampage (the last two close to home and very recent). I'd personally prefer all these people just kill themselves when they're done, or commit suicide by cop. The criminal tries, the costs, etc. are just a giant wastes on such pieces of trash. which of the individuals you listed were found not guilty by reason of insanity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Oh, my apologies, I see now that you were jsut trying to imply that all gun owners are dangerous.... Sorry, but on a bad day, I don't go around assaulting and attempting to murder people, so I don't think your strawman argument holds much water at all. I'm not implying anything - I'm being pretty f'ing blunt. Any person with a gun is more dangerous than that same person without a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Maybe. But people who do commit these horrible crimes are obviously a little deranged and that immediately opens up the "it wasn't their fault, they're afflicted with a disease" angle. Yeah, the disease of pure evil. "Not guilty by reason of insanity." [inigo Montoya] I do not think that term means what you think it means. [/inigo Montoya] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I'm not implying anything - I'm being pretty f'ing blunt. Any person with a gun is more dangerous than that same person without a gun. So the guy building explosives in his apartment is less dangerous without a gun? Yeah, I'm sure if the psychopath couldn't get a gun legally (at this point we don't even know if he got them legally or not), he'd just go "aw shucks" and go on to have a normal life. Rather I'd say that "any person with a gun is more dangerous towards a different person without a gun." To be clear, I do advocate for gun education and requirements to own, but I'm really not sure I can take your statement any other wya than advocating for greater gun control that won't scratch the surface of the problem. Edited July 20, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did I advocate for gun control? No. So put your canned arguments back on the shelf, skipper. I'm merely someone who notices that 100% of all gun-related violence occurs at the hands of someone with a gun. And the only thing separating a "good" gun owner from being a "criminal" gun owner is one really bad day. I've had plenty of really bad days and I've never shot anyone. I've had the means to do so, but didn't. What kept me from doing it? Simple, I didn't want to deal with the consequences of it. It isn't the ability to do it that keeps me from doing it, but the consequences. If you take away my guns (I know, you don't advocate that) and I was imbalanced enough to kill someone, I could find plenty of other ways to do it. I could use my bow, I could use one of my knives. Sure that is slow and I wouldn't be able to kill large numbers. If I was wanting to kill large numbers, I'm sure I can figure out how to make an IED, or simply drive my 8,000# truck through a crowded area. Point being, tools and weapons don't kill people, people kill people. If someone wants someone else dead, and doesn't care about the consequences, there aren't any laws to keep it from happening. Honestly I'd rather face a guy with a gun than a guy with an explosive vest. I'm pretty sure for less than the cost of the gun and ammunition I could make a bomb that would bring down a large multistory building with my knowledge of structures. I could kill a much larger number of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 So the guy building explosives in his apartment is less dangerous without a gun? Yeah, I'm sure if the psychopath couldn't get a gun legally (at this point we don't even know if he got them legally or not), he'd just go "aw shucks" and go on to have a normal life. Rather I'd say that "any person with a gun is more dangerous towards a different person without a gun." Yes, anyone without a gun is less dangerous than that same person with a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.