Forums → WEPR → Shooting at a batman movie in Colorado
| 118 | 32534 |
so i heard that a guy dressed up as baine and killed a bunch of people.
I dident even know there was a batman movie out.
- 118 Replies
@NoNameC68
I understand that taking an entire population's gun rights away is bad for those who weren't involved, but wouldn't you give up some freedoms for guaranteed protection?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.
Again, the Constitution promised that John Locke's ideas for true freedom would be considered, but also of the ideas of Rousseau. I know I talk about these guys a lot, but the entire constitution was based off the ideas of 4 philosophers: Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Montesquieu. If you ever, and I mean EVER want to understand the Constitution, you have to know who these guys are.
While those four men where diffidently influential in the constitution, you can hardly state that they where the only influences on it. It was a document effected by a ton of philosophers through history, to fully understand it you would have to fully understand all of western history.
Cars have a use.
So do explosives. So logically we should all carry around packs of C4. Cars have a use, and so do guns. Banning something because it can be used as a weapon is just stupid.
What use do guns provide? Sport, and maybe hunting? I mean *maybe* as in hardly ever.
Protection, for you city folk, my state does a lot of hunting and takes in a lot of money from people coming into hunt. The place I live in is a great hunting spot, many people move here specifically for the outdoor sports like hunting. Hunting is used a lot here, as it is in many other states.
It's rare, but it happens. Guns are frequently used in crimes. It doesn't matter of what the murder rate is, it's what the crime rate is.
You know what else is used in crimes? Pants. So therefore we should outlaw pants!
I fail to see your point. Crime rate has nothing to do with guns, saying it does is just stupid.
It's been done in England and Australia as far as I know. There is very little gun-violence over there.
And my state has low gun violence, as well as many other places with lax gun laws. If two can prove your point, two can prove my point. Montana and the thing that other guy mentioned prove my point, ah?
Give everyone guns? That wouldn't work.
And why not?
You'd have gangs get together, grow, gain more members, and you could essentially have armies charging through streets.
...Why? ....What would make you draw such a conclusion? There is no connection whatsoever to legal gun ownership and being in a gang.
Freak accident. If any of those robbers were mentally unbalanced in any way, nature or nurture, they could have killed her.
And if one of the robbers was the avatar of Cathulu, he could have devoured the entire store and started the end times. What ifs can be anything you want.
The thing is, guns are dangerous. Criminals understand this as much as law abiding people do. When you have a gun pointed to your head, chances are that you are not going to risk your life doing something stupid. Most people, even criminals, are going to run the hell away if you pull a gun on them.
It's been done in England and Australia as far as I know. There is very little gun-violence over there.
Really?
So, who sold to this guy?
Irelevant as I already said he got all the guns legally. He had no criminal record either. Either he was on drugs, went insane or their is something bigger going on.
what? he was 22 or something.
ever seen a 22 year old docter? if you did then i instandly understand why you guys don't want to be forced to pay for healtcare. the docters do not get enoufg education to preform well. xD
Hey sh*t for brains, he was in collage. He was studying. Not a doctor yet.
Why the sudden harshness?
btw if he's a docter he might get away whit it because he was practising lobotomy or something like that. (remember it's the usa )
Shut your fat mouth. That's disrespectful to everyone involved. Your humor isn't apriciated by anyone anywhere. How would you like it if your family was murdered and I came along and laughed at their death?
what? to soon? xD
Hmm well how about you go tell that joke to the dad who lost his son their. You tell me if it's too soon.
And your US joke isn't funny either. I can guess the reason you hate the us is because we are sucsessful and probably because you can't speek it. Your grammar and English is utterly horrible, and that's coming from me.
In short to summon up my tiny rage.
Your not funny. That's disrespectful. Shut up. No one cares.
We, as a nation, should be mourning their loss in the hours while the shooting is still fresh rather than getting into arguments about gun control.
You should be mourning their loss? 2 weeks ago 4 of my friends were killed, and nothing ever ended up anywhere, not the news, not TV, nothing. I'm not trying to be a ******, but mourning for 12 or 13 people that died because of a lunatic 21-year old is idiotic. 20,000 (and I can't find a source for this, but I'm certain it's 20,000) people in Africa die each day, I see no one mourning them.
Das ist him, it may or may not be something he said, but in any case it's true.
I don't care about it, and couldn't care any less even if I tried. **** happens, life goes on. Some die peacefully, some don't. It's always been like this. I don't know what's all the drama about it, other than it being an ironic(?) situation, what with the guy calling himself the Joker and killing people on the premiere of Batman. The US government(as far as I know) allows the use of firearms, so I don't really get people that are like "Oh, how he get gun? ".
"Oh, how he get gun? ".
For about the third time on this thread I remind everyone that he bought them legally.
The US government(as far as I know) allows the use of firearms,
A license is needed and Im pretty sure you cant just go around using it. They alow you to have one. I think that you need to be in a designated area to use it, but im not into guns and such so im not positive.
Hmm well how about you go tell that joke to the dad who lost his son their. You tell me if it's too soon.
There was this YouTube commentator who was talking about the shooting. At one point, he made a joke that that the guy had a 12 kill, death, ratio. He did not say this joke at the expense of the victims, he was merely lightening the mood. His whole video was about how despite the tragic event, we live in a pretty safe world, and that we have to be careful not to get swept up about this news.
What happened? Everyone got caught up on the joke. Many people said he was being insensitive with the joke, that he wouldn't have said the joke if he had been effected by the shooting.
What bugs me is that people listened to the words of the joke and they jumped to their own conclusion that the commentator was being insensitive. If these people had taken the rest of his commentary as seriously as his joke, they would realize that he wasn't being insensitive.
Quite a few people explained that he wouldn't have made light of such a situation if someone he knew and loved was involved in the shooting. Of course he would have acted differently! But here's the thing, he wasn't involved in the shooting. Nobody should have to act like they were involved in the shooting.
---
It saddens me that these people died. But I'm not going to pretend that my life was heavily effected. I'm not going to act like I'm standing at their funeral.
We can't expect everyone to grieve about this tragic event and hold this horrible day close to their hearts. When something tragic happens to one or more people, it will always be a sad day for those involved. Whether it be the death of a family member, a friend, a co-worker, a class mate, a pet, someone you admired, all of these tragedies will make those related grieve.
It's okay to feel horrible about what happened to all those people within the theater, and it's even okay to grieve. But when someone else isn't grieving, then you need to understand that there isn't really a reason for them to grieve. We can't grieve every time something bad happens to someone. We simply can't. And for many people, grieving for those who died at the theater is nothing more than an insult to all those who's deaths weren't covered by the mass media.
TL;DR
Everyone who was not involved with the shooting in any way should not be expected to act a certain way.
It's been done in England and Australia as far as I know. There is very little gun-violence over there.
the uk turned into alot of stabing. knife attack rate is higher then ever befor in the uk.
(well maybe not as much as when guns were not invented yet. but you get the point right? =) )
australia never realy had a guns problem to begin whit i guess.
Well their actually would be less crime if everyone owned guns. Think, what idiot would steel things if guns were legal for everyone? That would basically be suicide. I think I heard in history class that an old contry once had legal guns and the crime was incredibly low. The only problem is the 1%
dunno if you are serious here. but that is a realy bad logic.
more guns = less crimes?
anyway... in switserland about every household has a gun because all man have to be in the army for 2 year or something. and they can keep their gun after they are done. to protect your family and to have it closeby when war breaks out. (so they don't have to distribute them) but almost 0% of these guns are used by them. they are able to be responsible enoufg to have a gun. learned to fight whit it in military and know what it can do.
"to protect your family and yourself" the same reason as i hear from the americans. but somehow the crime rate whit guns is massivly in the usa. because they are not responsible enoufg.
hell, if the usa government would give every household a gun. all hell would break lose. xD
That would be so unbelievably illegal it makes me cry
will it work?
yes it will, as his background only shows a speeding ticket.
dunno if you are serious here. but that is a realy bad logic.
more guns = less crimes?
And then you say
anyway... in switserland about every household has a gun because all man have to be in the army for 2 year or something. and they can keep their gun after they are done. to protect your family and to have it closeby when war breaks out. (so they don't have to distribute them) but almost 0% of these guns are used by them. they are able to be responsible enoufg to have a gun. learned to fight whit it in military and know what it can do.
Which proves my point of
Well their actually would be less crime if everyone owned guns. Think, what idiot would steel things if guns were legal for everyone? That would basically be suicide. I think I heard in history class that an old contry once had legal guns and the crime was incredibly low. The only problem is the 1%
Thanks for solving that yourself.
Must I spell this out? Ok.
First you have a good family dad who has a legal weapon in his house. Him and his family are peacefully sitting at home when suddenly a robber breaks in. The robber has a knife and attacks the father wife, but the father is quick and finds his gun and shoots the robber. No crime their. He later convinces his friends to go and get guns so they can defend themselves as well. Mean while all the criminals are scared because now people have weapons in their homes and the criminals don't want to end up dead. So crime is averted. Their would be rules though, it's not like anyone can just go and get a gun,
hell, if the usa government would give every household a gun. all hell would break lose. xD
Buddy, this ain't soviet Russia, the us government better not give us anything, we don't need a babby sitter in the white house, but I'd rather not get into politics right now.
more guns = less crimes
Believe it or not, a majority of people aren't murderers.
anyway... in switserland about every household has a gun because all man have to be in the army for 2 year or something. and they can keep their gun after they are done. to protect your family and to have it closeby when war breaks out. (so they don't have to distribute them) but almost 0% of these guns are used by them. they are able to be responsible enoufg to have a gun. learned to fight whit it in military and know what it can do.
ROFL, war in switzerland... good one we only need the rifles for the annual shooting exercise.
Their would be rules though, it's not like anyone can just go and get a gun,
Sometimes though I get the feeling you can do exactly this in America...
Now of course around here the thieves usually don't have guns and are clever enough to not get noticed.. and if you're being aggressed on the streets, what good does your gun at home do? Imagine everyone would constantly walk around with a gun.. bleh. And yet, aggressions by guns are relatively rare. It's not like criminals would take advantage of the situation and buy lots of guns and aggress everyone at night.. no. Usually it's hand-to-hand or using a knife. This is plainly enough since they can outnumber their victims.
... now it sounds as if switzerland would be very unsafe... luckily it's quite safe, but such things still happen everywhere. My point is, there is no such thing as a gun black market taking advantage of the low amount of guns people own.
That's disrespectful to everyone involved. Your humor isn't apriciated by anyone anywhere.
I appreciate it. Off/"Sick" humor is the kind of stuff that makes my day.
We can't grieve every time something bad happens to someone. We simply can't. And for many people, grieving for those who died at the theater is nothing more than an insult to all those who's deaths weren't covered by the mass media.
That is very well-thought through. And I agree with it. It does seem disrespectful to mourn one group of people while forgetting about others. People die nearly every second of the day, and everyone takes it differently. Personally, I laugh at it as to distract myself from the actual thing that is death. And to prove it:
Don't look at this if you don't like my humor.
Which proves my point of
switzerland is not the usa.
btw good job on leaving out my actual point and only quote the part where i explain how and why almost every household in switzerland has a gun.
First you have a good family dad who has a legal weapon in his house. Him and his family are peacefully sitting at home when suddenly a robber breaks in. The robber has a knife and attacks the father wife,
here you go wrong.
the robber does not have a knife but a gun like EVERYONE els has.
he comes in knowing the family also hs a gun. so he starts of shooting right away to not get shot homeself. and we have a (few) murder(s).
instead the family should co-operate whit the robber. give what he wants and stay alive. then call the cops who are going to investigate the robbery.
Believe it or not, a majority of people aren't murderers.
but a very great amount can't be trusted whit it.
then you can trow up the card that you can test them befor handing out. but whit such a great amount of guns in public they sure can steal a few from... let's say a mom in the shoping mall leaving her bag unguarded. or whatever other way there are millions...
beter make them illegal and only give permission for law enforcers, sport shooters (non-automatic. automatic shooting are not a sport) and hunting clubs (rifles) where the guns are locked in the clubhouse.) no one els needs a gun.
ROFL, war in switzerland... good one
sofar i know it was 1 of the reasons when the started whit it. while switzerland is a special country when it comes to the history of european wars. whit the technology of today. your not that safe anymore.
Don't look at this if you don't like my humor.
i can't agree more whit your post.
but that link aint showing a thing. =S
switzerland is not the usa.
Really? No wonder I failed my Geography class.
btw good job on leaving out my actual point and only quote the part where i explain how and why almost every household in switzerland has a gun.
Why does that make a difference?
here you go wrong.
the robber does not have a knife but a gun like EVERYONE els has.
he comes in knowing the family also hs a gun. so he starts of shooting right away to not get shot homeself. and we have a (few) murder(s).
instead the family should co-operate whit the robber. give what he wants and stay alive. then call the cops who are going to investigate the robbery.
Wait. The robber MURDERS three people in order to get, what, a Tv? That is logical. "Lets see. I am poor, I have a free gun, but everyone is armed and may be able to shoot me. Logically, I should COMMIT MASS MURDER! That will get me money!".
What stops him from stabbing them when neither of them have guns? After all, he is bigger, stronger, and faster then the others in the family, as well as better armed. Why wouldn't he just stab all three of them, so he does not get stabbed himself? Why does a gun make the difference?
but a very great amount can't be trusted whit it.
Why not? Most people have guns, and most people don't get shot. Very few people miss use them.
then you can trow up the card that you can test them befor handing out. but whit such a great amount of guns in public they sure can steal a few from... let's say a mom in the shoping mall leaving her bag unguarded. or whatever other way there are millions...
Do you think all thieves are high on drugs all the time? That would be the only way to explain how you think they think.
Unarmed Criminal: "Ok. I don't have a gun. So logically I should wade threw a crowded mall, filled with legally armed people, go up to a random, armed, stranger, and take their gun away from them! What could possibly go wrong?"
beter make them illegal and only give permission for law enforcers, sport shooters (non-automatic. automatic shooting are not a sport) and hunting clubs (rifles) where the guns are locked in the clubhouse.) no one els needs a gun.
Why? That does not make any since. You know that Colorado shooter everyone is talking about? He was trying to get into a hunting club, if he had succeeded wouldn't he still be armed? And besides, wouldn't this just act as you say drugs do? What is the difference between the drug trade and the gun trade?
Why does that make a difference?
for your point of view nothing because you do the same all the time.
so you can turn and twist them. probably just like you did right now.
but i did not read and will not read it. because you have not my interest.
for your point of view nothing because you do the same all the time.
...I murder three random civilians with a knife? I don't remember doing that?
so you can turn and twist them. probably just like you did right now.
The knife? So not only am I a murderer and a thief, but a sadist?
but i did not read and will not read it. because you have not my interest.
I guess I can start to ignore yours now then. Which is good, your poor grasp on the English language makes you hard to read.
sofar i know it was 1 of the reasons when the started whit it. while switzerland is a special country when it comes to the history of european wars. whit the technology of today. your not that safe anymore.
Well, we did have a few historic battles and our history isn't one of absolute peace... the thing is, we're safe, not because of our weapons and all that nonsense, but because who the **** would attack switzerland anyway? That's why I rofl'd ^^
We did have a shooting once though, in 2001 in Zug. Shows we're not safe from madmen. But that's exactly my point, who needs a whole arsenal at home when the shootings aren't done at home? If there's a way to prevent shootings or minimize the victim count, it's by using good security. At least that's what they did after the massacre in Zug.
Now I have nothing against one gun per household, but as I said, seeing how it goes around here, there's no mafia taking advantage of the lack of guns. That's why I'm not convinced by the argument that the criminals have guns anyway. Here they mostly have fists and knives, since it's enough.
Now of course you cannot compare Switzerland to America, maybe in America the criminals would walk around armed even if the normal citizen wouldn't have any guns...
You must be logged in to post a reply!