Colorado shooter singled out theater because it banned guns.

[Dfudhkfjdjeididnejdjd]

Keltoi Samurai

Bunai

After seeing that the "source" is "Fox News", I pretty much waved it aside. This is on par with 'if slaved owned guns they wouldn't be slaves' theory. I am waiting for an article that substitutes guns for light-sabers just to add to the absurdity.

interestingly enough, "owning firearms" actually is one of the rights denied to slaves during that timeframe. and it was the freeing of the slaves what lead to the first discussions of gun control in the US.

I guess there's no connection between the two, though

lol, cold and honest.

[Dfudhkfjdjeididnejdjd]

kakteed

Keltoi Samurai

kakteed

Keltoi Samurai

Dude it is Bob

Keltoi Samurai

actually, his vest was not bulletproof

Ok I stand corrected on that item. I just read a lot of the articles where people were calling it body armor, and given the rest of the defense was bulletproof I made an incorrect conclusion. Thanks for the correction.

and that means that, honestly, someone with a CCW could have made a difference, since his center-of-mass was the one thing he left completely unprotected ( incidentally, the part that all shooters train to aim for is the center-of-mass, because it's a large target, it has a lot of things to disrupt, and it can bleed a whole lot, real fast. all of this adds up to it being the single weakest point on an unarmored human being )

You might be interested in this.

I have plenty wild mass speculation of my own, I don't need a site that demands my Facebook credentials to supply me with more wild mass speculation.

now, if you have some facts, I might be interested.

Mrr, I actually forgot that it wasn't open anymore.

Anyway. I'll get you those facts, as I assure you that most of the people on there have access to knowledge an average person wouldn't, or wouldn't seek out, when my IP address isn't being blocked by everything...

There is NO facts that anyone carrying a gun in that theater could have made a difference because nobody was carrying a gun. However there IS the fact that nobody was carrying a gun, and everybody died.

How could there have been ANY more carnage if someone were carrying a gun? Perhaps there would have been carnage to the liberal agenda, yet that is all.

[Dfudhkfjdjeididnejdjd]

VirginianRanger

Crazy or not, if this is true then at best it's Premeditated Murder and at worst, Malice of Forethought. Either way, this guy should get to sit in the electric chair a few times.

Nobody goes into town wearing body armor and carrying large rifles. In fact most people do not own any of these things. He had been meditating about it for quite a while.

[David2074]

Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack.

Wow. Dumb.
Why do some people not get that a person committing mass murder does not care about your little sign saying no guns? It boggles my mind. The only public places I think should ban legal carry are maybe things like bars where some people go in the door with brains and then lose them some time during the night.

I've heard the arguments made in this article before and I agree with them.

[VirginianRanger]

bad-chop-suey

VirginianRanger

Crazy or not, if this is true then at best it's Premeditated Murder and at worst, Malice of Forethought. Either way, this guy should get to sit in the electric chair a few times.

Nobody goes into town wearing body armor and carrying large rifles. In fact most people do not own any of these things. He had been meditating about it for quite a while.

My point exactly. He knew what he was doing. This "insanity defense" has been played out. My recommendations for his punishment stands.

[Dfudhkfjdjeididnejdjd]

VirginianRanger

bad-chop-suey

VirginianRanger

Crazy or not, if this is true then at best it's Premeditated Murder and at worst, Malice of Forethought. Either way, this guy should get to sit in the electric chair a few times.

Nobody goes into town wearing body armor and carrying large rifles. In fact most people do not own any of these things. He had been meditating about it for quite a while.

My point exactly. He knew what he was doing. This "insanity defense" has been played out. My recommendations for his punishment stands.

My major is Criminal Justice. And I know from a fact that a judge going along with the insanity defense is so rare that it almost never happens. Though when it DOES happen the case gains a lot of attention.

This guy does not meet the standards for this defense.

[Dfudhkfjdjeididnejdjd]

David2074

Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack.

Wow. Dumb.
Why do some people not get that a person committing mass murder does not care about your little sign saying no guns? It boggles my mind. The only public places I think should ban legal carry are maybe things like bars where some people go in the door with brains and then lose them some time during the night.

I've heard the arguments made in this article before and I agree with them.

Well a night club has people there to frisk you, and the back entrance is going to be guarded whereas a theater does not do either. So yea, it is dumb.

[ObiWanKendrobi]

Bunai

After seeing that the "source" is "Fox News", I pretty much waved it aside. This is on par with 'if slaved owned guns they wouldn't be slaves' theory. I am waiting for an article that substitutes guns for light-sabers just to add to the absurdity.

Yeah, I tried looking for other articles that could have supported this, but all I could find were pro-gun websites spouting the same thing.
Can't find anything on factcheck.org supporting it either.
Once again, Faux News is spreading lies and bullshit.

[VirginianRanger]

bad-chop-suey

VirginianRanger

bad-chop-suey

VirginianRanger

Crazy or not, if this is true then at best it's Premeditated Murder and at worst, Malice of Forethought. Either way, this guy should get to sit in the electric chair a few times.

Nobody goes into town wearing body armor and carrying large rifles. In fact most people do not own any of these things. He had been meditating about it for quite a while.

My point exactly. He knew what he was doing. This "insanity defense" has been played out. My recommendations for his punishment stands.

My major is Criminal Justice. And I know from a fact that a judge going along with the insanity defense is so rare that it almost never happens. Though when it DOES happen the case gains a lot of attention.

This guy does not meet the standards for this defense.

I agree. From what I've read and from speaking to others in the medical field(I'm an EMT/Paramedic) a vast majority agree this guy isn't insane. HE might think he is, but that's not enough.

Good luck in your studies. Hopefully you won't have first hand experience studing a piece of work like him.

[Eternal Marionetta]

I'm kind of having a hard time believing this.

[David2074]

Madame Kovarian

Bunai

After seeing that the "source" is "Fox News", I pretty much waved it aside. This is on par with 'if slaved owned guns they wouldn't be slaves' theory. I am waiting for an article that substitutes guns for light-sabers just to add to the absurdity.

Yeah, I tried looking for other articles that could have supported this, but all I could find were pro-gun websites spouting the same thing.
Can't find anything on factcheck.org supporting it either.
Once again, Faux News is spreading lies and bullshit.

Perhaps what you should be asking yourself is can you find anything on factcheck.org (or anywhere else) refuting it? I don't respect Fox News but even so not everything they say is a lie. Likewise it is no surprise that discussion showing the failure of some gun control laws is being talked about by those 'pro-gun' web sites and not so much by the anti-gun sites. That's just kind of a given. Automatically assuming it to be BS because pro-gun people talk about it is the same as automatically assuming everything said by someone who is pro gun-control is BS. You have to use common sense but not everything either side says is a lie.

You could also use common sense and your own memory of the news. Think about all the mass shootings you know about here in the United States. Almost all of them were at schools and malls - both places that typically ban firearms. Schools because they are schools and malls because they are private property and many large mall chains have no guns as part of their posted rules.

This site
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
has some well reasoned arguments about various issues surrounding gun control including gun free zones. Yes it is an opinion blog by a pro-gun person but he is well qualified and it is rational discussion, not 'crazy gun nut rant'.

This study Multiple Victim Public Shootings by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes addresses the issue of the correlation between increased right to carry concealed weapons and decreases in multiple victim public shootings. It does not specifically address the issue of 'all mass shootings in gun free zones' but it does find a correlation between a decrease in gun free zones from state to state and a corresponding decrease in public multiple shootings. The report is long and somewhat dry but it cites lots of sources for their data and it examines the issues from both sides without the hyperbole and rhetoric you often hear from extremists on either side of the gun control issue.

An interesting footnote in that study (see spoiler) address the fact that when an armed individual does stop a mass shooting the media rarely covers it.

7 One puzzle is why the media rarely reports the role of guns in ending attacks. C0nsider the shooting spree at a
high school in Pearl, Miss. in 1997 that left two students dead. An assistant principal stopped the attack by
retrieving his handgun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter for over five minutes before police
arrived. A Lexis-Nexis search indicates that 687 articles appeared the first month after the attack but only 19
stories mentioned the assistant principal and only 10 mentioned that he used a gun to stop the attack. Some
stories simply stated that the assistant principal was “credited by police with helping capture the boy'' or that he
had disarmed the shooter. No story that mentioned the assistant principal’s role was aired on the national
evening news. A story on CBS with Dan Rather, which ran more than a month later, noted that the assistant
principal “eventually subdued the young gunman.” But these stories provided no explanation how of he had
accomplished this feat.
In another, school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, the owner of a nearby
restaurant, pointed a shotgun at the shooter as he was reloading his gun. The police did not arrive until 11
minutes later. Nearly 600 news stories discussed this crime during the next month, yet only 35 mentioned the
restaurant owner’s role. Moreover, these stories did not mention that a shotgun was used to stop the crime. The
New York Daily News, for example, explained that the restaurant owner “persuaded [the killer] to surrender,”
while The Atlanta Journal wrote how he “chased [the killer] down and held him until police came.”

[Love Muffin88]

Don't most all business(movie theaters are business) ban guns? What does the lawyer propose? That is actually realistic other than putting armed guards and metal detectors inside each and every business that is in existence.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

David2074

Madame Kovarian

Bunai

After seeing that the "source" is "Fox News", I pretty much waved it aside. This is on par with 'if slaved owned guns they wouldn't be slaves' theory. I am waiting for an article that substitutes guns for light-sabers just to add to the absurdity.

Yeah, I tried looking for other articles that could have supported this, but all I could find were pro-gun websites spouting the same thing.
Can't find anything on factcheck.org supporting it either.
Once again, Faux News is spreading lies and bullshit.

Perhaps what you should be asking yourself is can you find anything on factcheck.org (or anywhere else) refuting it? I don't respect Fox News but even so not everything they say is a lie. Likewise it is no surprise that discussion showing the failure of some gun control laws is being talked about by those 'pro-gun' web sites and not so much by the anti-gun sites. That's just kind of a given. Automatically assuming it to be BS because pro-gun people talk about it is the same as automatically assuming everything said by someone who is pro gun-control is BS. You have to use common sense but not everything either side says is a lie.

You could also use common sense and your own memory of the news. Think about all the mass shootings you know about here in the United States. Almost all of them were at schools and malls - both places that typically ban firearms. Schools because they are schools and malls because they are private property and many large mall chains have no guns as part of their posted rules.

This site
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
has some well reasoned arguments about various issues surrounding gun control including gun free zones. Yes it is an opinion blog by a pro-gun person but he is well qualified and it is rational discussion, not 'crazy gun nut rant'.

This study Multiple Victim Public Shootings by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes addresses the issue of the correlation between increased right to carry concealed weapons and decreases in multiple victim public shootings. It does not specifically address the issue of 'all mass shootings in gun free zones' but it does find a correlation between a decrease in gun free zones from state to state and a corresponding decrease in public multiple shootings. The report is long and somewhat dry but it cites lots of sources for their data and it examines the issues from both sides without the hyperbole and rhetoric you often hear from extremists on either side of the gun control issue.

An interesting footnote in that study (see spoiler) address the fact that when an armed individual does stop a mass shooting the media rarely covers it.

7 One puzzle is why the media rarely reports the role of guns in ending attacks. C0nsider the shooting spree at a
high school in Pearl, Miss. in 1997 that left two students dead. An assistant principal stopped the attack by
retrieving his handgun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter for over five minutes before police
arrived. A Lexis-Nexis search indicates that 687 articles appeared the first month after the attack but only 19
stories mentioned the assistant principal and only 10 mentioned that he used a gun to stop the attack. Some
stories simply stated that the assistant principal was “credited by police with helping capture the boy'' or that he
had disarmed the shooter. No story that mentioned the assistant principal’s role was aired on the national
evening news. A story on CBS with Dan Rather, which ran more than a month later, noted that the assistant
principal “eventually subdued the young gunman.” But these stories provided no explanation how of he had
accomplished this feat.
In another, school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, the owner of a nearby
restaurant, pointed a shotgun at the shooter as he was reloading his gun. The police did not arrive until 11
minutes later. Nearly 600 news stories discussed this crime during the next month, yet only 35 mentioned the
restaurant owner’s role. Moreover, these stories did not mention that a shotgun was used to stop the crime. The
New York Daily News, for example, explained that the restaurant owner “persuaded [the killer] to surrender,”
while The Atlanta Journal wrote how he “chased [the killer] down and held him until police came.”

One other interesting fact is everyone is acting like these killings are unheard of. They may need to check into the origination of the phrase 'going postal'.

[Love Muffin88]

I'm horrible to say this I know, but the article in the OP had sort of a tongue in cheek humor to me. Like it's saying the gunmen is thinking "I know what I'll do. I bring a gun...to a place that doesn't allow guns. They'll never see it coming LULZ It's gonna be like shooting fish in a barrel cool "

[David2074]

Love Muffin88

I'm horrible to say this I know, but the article in the OP had sort of a tongue in cheek humor to me. Like it's saying the gunmen is thinking "I know what I'll do. I bring a gun...to a place that doesn't allow guns. They'll never see it coming LULZ It's gonna be like shooting fish in a barrel cool "

While it isn't really funny haha to most of us the argument against gun free zones is that most of the time that is exactly what the shooter is thinking. Statistics of where public mass shootings occur support that theory. These shooters want to be known for their over the top "OMG!" acts and they come off as less over the top if as soon as they start shooting someone pulls out a gun and drops them.