LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market

How to Stop a Massacre


Here's the Libertarian solution for stopping massacres. It costs the taxpayers no money, works everywhere, deters violent crime, is employed in as little as five seconds, is easy to learn, requires no police, and most importantly, protects innocent lives.



Liberty_One 5 years, 11 months ago

You notice you never hear about a mass shooting at a police station or NRA meeting or gun club or any other place you'd expect people to be armed. Usually it happens in places where you would not expect the victims to be able to defend themselves. We see just how quickly the cowardly criminals run when someone is shooting at THEM.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

You notice how frequently you hear about mass shootings taking place in America, far more often than in most other countries that have greater limits on guns? Usually it happens here rather than in other places because access to guns is so great here.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Of course the availability of guns has something to do with it. How would this guy have been able to go on a shooting spree if he hadn't been able to purchase guns??? In most nations that have long had bans on guns of all types, you don't see this type of thing happening, and certainly not with regularity. It is the price we pay for our gun-loving ways.

They also have anti-depressants in other countries. My bet is, the guy wasn't on anti-depressants.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Where have I defended gun free zones? I think they are ridiculous. I am saying places with guns have more deaths by guns, that is all. Bringing more guns into a dark theater filled with smoke and a heavily armed madman is no guarantee of less deaths. That is what I am saying. Another shooter might have helped, but it is not a guarantee.

Consider the shooting rampage at Fort Hood. He was shooting trained military personnel, and how many died anyway? Fort Hood also goes against LO's comment about shooters never attacking where people might be armed and trained.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

Anyone that thinks Gun Free Zones are a good idea should post one of these at each entrance to their homes

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Why? Homes aren't a business.

Besides, would you put a sign saying "Guns Inside" on your home? Talk about an invitation to thieves whenever you are away.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

In other news, the USMC is buying Colt 1911s again. The best close combat handgun was designed over 100 years ago and is still unsurpassed.

Kathy Theis-Getto 5 years, 11 months ago

Good advice, sir. Thank you for your service and for remembering what they taught you. Our military has some of the best teachers.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Interesting, thanks for posting. I've been in the habit for some time of positioning my back to the wall w/ views of entrances and exits. My girlfriend thought of it as chivalrous but quirky until it served it's purpose one night.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

To the video -- this wasn't a massacre halted, but a robbery prevented. This is being shown now because of what happened in Colorado, but the two situations are not similar.

That said, good for the brave, armed citizen. It appears the gentleman who took matters into his own hands had training, was prepared to go on the offensive (as the Navy Seal in vertigo's post mentions), and that the obviously young criminals were not prepared for that type of response. Good for the gentleman and everyone else involved. He acted quickly and it all worked out. It was also not a crowded environment -- say, like a theater -- and it was well lighted.

Even then, it could have turned very bad very quickly. Watch it again. With the criminals separated, as they were, the one not being shot at could easily have turned and started blasting with what appears to be a shotgun. Obviously glad that didn't happen, but it could have. Just saying ...

To C&C holders and vertigo's posts, I have to agree that training is the key. I am all in favor of allowing people who are properly trained to carry. Perhaps because it is in the 2nd Amendment, I also feel there should be uniform, national laws across all states regarding where and when people can carry.

I also like reading about the flashlight -- something I've long carried with me.

However, let's not pretend that more shooters in the movie theater would automatically have prevented the massacre in Colorado. They could have done more harm than good. Again, just saying.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

12 dead, 59 wounded. More harm than good? Doubtful.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, it is very possible additional shooters could have done more harm than good. A few hours of training hardly prepares people for shooting at other people, especially in a darkened, smoke-filled theater. Of course, it is speculative with either point of view. However, even when armed police are put into such situations, the result is not always positive.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Ah, so now it's "shooters" and not just one. And I'm willing to bet most anyone that goes through the trouble of getting a C and C has a great deal of experience w/ firearms. Since when is any theater dark when there's a movie playing? Particularly when we're talking about a solitary figure standing alone on the stage silhouetted against the screen?
Like Liberty275 wisely points out below, once the shooter realizes he's not the only one shooting, his attention is going to be diverted to finding the threat. And like a boxer, everyone has a plan 'til they get hit; he could go down, he could run away, he could panic and take himself out.
Sorry, there's too many benefits to someone sane having a gun when the nuts are on the loose.

notaubermime 5 years, 11 months ago

"Since when is any theater dark when there's a movie playing?" Since the movie was a Batman movie. Black is the running motif. Assuming that any particular segment of that movie will give you a good silhouette of the shooter isn't a strong assumption.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

It's still a solitary individual raised up on a stage, silhouetted against the only light source and backdrop in the theater. EVERY segment of the movie silhouettes him.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

He didn't stay in the front, and there was smoke filling the room.

And if there could be one additional person with a gun, there could be two ... or ten, hence additional shooters.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

And there could be little green aliens from outer space. Didn't even have one person shooting back, yet you'll slippery slope it down to ten. Swell.

He on the stage long enough, and it certainly isn't difficult to see someone firing an automatic weapon, lotta flashes and noise coming from his "general direction."

gogoplata 5 years, 11 months ago

It is also very possible that additional shooters could have done more good than harm. Carrying a gun doesn't guarantee your safety but it does give you another option you wouldn't have without it.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Let's not pretend that making the theater a firearms-free zone accomplished anything other than giving the shooter a room full of defenseless targets.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

I'm not defending gun-free zones.

I've said it before and will repeat it -- training, and plenty of it, and then allow people to carry just about anywhere.

But it still doesn't mean that massacres will forever be prevented.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Let's not pretend someone trained to use a weapon would automatically be blasting away frantically, or that someone wouldn't be able to zero in on any single figure, on a stage, silhouetted against a movie screen, who was either stationary or walking calmly from one aisle head to the other, as has been reported. 12 dead, 59 wounded. Bettin' most of them would have liked someone attempting to put the psycho down.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

Not just that, but once the alleged killer realizes he's not firing all the shots going off, he's going to forget about shooting kids and look for who's trying to kill him.

Anyone trained to use a firearm that had a clear head could have taken him down. As you note, he was the perfect target, silhouetted against the screen. As for body armor, it might stop the bullet from penetrating, but if it was out of a .357 or better it would have taken the wind out of him and put him dazed on the floor giving people a better chance to run.

I don't think we'll ever be able to prevent these tragedies, and making us sitting ducks is wrong.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

I don't go to movies anymore, but the last one I saw was at the theater on south Iowa which I think is fairly new and I could easily see people down front as they went to their seats during the previews.

Liberty275 5 years, 11 months ago

I salve my conscious with the discovery channel and watching documentaries on Netflix.

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

I wonder...will there be a call to action to ban hyper-violent movies the pyscho mass murders tend to be inspired by, or will we hear more whining about gun control which of course only “controls” the law-abiding people and has zero impact on the homicidal maniacs. Hummmm….

Lets see…Hollywood donates a lot of money to Democrats who are currently running things, so the movies are safe. The majority of the US population supports the 2nd amendment and the NRA is a strong voice in congress on both sides of the isle…and it’s an election year….so the politicians will trowel-out their particular flavor of time-tested dogma along partisan lines, but not a one of them will touch a radioactive loser issue like this.

Show of hands – had you been there, would you have objected to someone in the audience standing up and shooting back at this nut job? I wonder how the 12 dead, 59 wounded would have answered this question.

The video’s merits are self-evident. One armed citizen in that theater could have made a huge difference. Great post Liberty. Thanks. (I was going to say you hit a bullseye)

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Sigh ...

Yes, it is possible that one armed citizen could have made a difference. It is also possible that there could have been a different result with more people killed given the protection the person was wearing. You don't know what his reaction would have been.

And just think, if your scenario had worked perfectly and the psycho had been killed, he wouldn't have lived to tell the police about the explosives in his apartment. Had they not known, it is possible that the building could have exploded when they went to investigate, killing countless more people ... I mean, since we are speculating and all. Heck, why not just wish Batman himself had been there to stop this.

Anything to support the notion of what inspires psycho mass murderers? Looks like graduate school might have inspired this latest psycho, while the one in Norway was inspired by right-wing conservativism and a desire to rid his country of foreigners, so before we go banning school and conservative politics because they are considered dangerous to society, we should be careful.

Now, would I have wanted someone shooting back? Yes ... ONLY if that person was on the other side of the theater! I WOULD NOT have wanted someone near me to start shooting back, which would likely have drawn particular attention back in my general direction.

The video is an entirely different situation, not at all like what was happening in the theater. That video may also teach future robbers not to waste time talking and just come in shooting. I mean, since we are speculating and all ...

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

Ya know something Beatrice, I'm pretty sure the friends and families of the dead and wounded would be happy to take the risk of there being a "different result."

Yes I do know what his reaction would have been. I've been in combat. I've lived it first hand several times. He would have reacted the exact same way anyone being shot at reacts -:they stop doing whatever they are doing at that moment and become 100% focused on not getting shot.

So how close is "near me?" 10 feet? 20? Hold on a minute, you there with the gun, move farther away from me before you start shooting back at the mass murderer. LMAO.

Trust me Beatrice, you wouldn't have the time to think of such nonsense. Wise up.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

It is funny to think that people know exactly how a crazed shooter would react. For all you know, he was hoping to get into a gun battle and he would turn all his direction toward the person returning fire. That would potentially not be good for those around the person returning fire.

Of course, I do not have the ability to see how all scenarios would have worked out ... as apparently some do.

I speak for myself, and you are likewise in no position to speak for all the friends and families of those killed by someone who was able to purchase so many guns and so much ammo. They may have very different points of view than you assume. I also note that you completely ignored the comment about the explosives left in his apartment. Had he been killed and not warned of his apartment being rigged, might not more have died?

No, I do not trust you for several reasons. For one, you are blaming the movies for the acts of an armed gunman, for goodness sake. Why should I trust someone who demonstrates such flawed logic? To trust someone like this would be ... well... unwise.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"For all you know, he was hoping to get into a gun battle and he would turn all his direction toward the person returning fire."

Well done! You just reiterated tbaker's point! Diverting attention.

"That would potentially not be good for those around the person returning fire."

Right. Better to let the madman spray freely across a whole auditorium w/ dozens more targets than to focus on one point. It's already been reported he did the majority of his damage shooting down the aisles; it was a turkey shoot. Focusing on one point probably would have saved a lot more people. Pretty common-sensical.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Diverting attention ... to another part of the theater. People are still in the line of fire and again, that does not in any way guarantee fewer deaths or injuries.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Very simple concept; read slowly and repeat 'til it sinks in: it would divert attention to ONE part of the theater as opposed to ALL the "targets". What's likely to inflict more casualties: shooting at a group of three seats or unloading an AR-15 and shotgun down aisles filled w/ people, backs turned, trying to escape?

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Why do I need to read slowly ... is that how you write?

OOOOHHHH I get it! You are trying to be condescending yet again. And here I thought I was having a conversation with people who like to converse with other like adults. Oh well. I guess for some that is simply asking too much.

So why would the section of a packed theater suddenly become empty around someone returning fire? Wouldn't it still be just as packed? Again, I absolutely would not want to be in the part of the theater from where someone started returning fire. That is where the attention would be drawn.

Read at any speed you care to.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Still can't grasp the concept. I understand.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

I understand fully what is being stated. I simply don't agree that it would mean fewer lives lost.

NOW do you see why your sad attempts at being rude and condescending are not necessary?

No, I didn't think you would.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

" I simply don't agree that it would mean fewer lives lost."

Then you're either being obtuse or you just can't grasp the concept.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Neither obtuse or incapable of grasping a simple concept. I am simply unwilling to say that the scenario of adding another shooter or shooters would mean few lives lost. Not that hard to grasp.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

Apparently it is. One on one: one has a gun, the other doesn't... who has the advantage?

There were 80 killed or injured. Having someone attack this individual would have almost certainly taken down that toll, if for no other reason than COMMON SENSE.... less time focusing on mass targets.

Most certainly you are unable to grasp the concept. The alternative is you're too pigheaded to admit you're wrong. IMO, that's a toss up.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

I think he was talking specifically about A-list actors.

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

Source? How about the shooter himself. Good enough source for ya?

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

My bio says I have military experience because I do. 29 years of it and deployments to five different wars, but you believe whatever makes you happy Agno. Sounds authentic…LMAO. Had you ever worn the uniform yourself, perhaps you wouldn’t have to depend on such limp measurements of voracity.

No trained marksman was needed. There is no "might" to it. Someone shooting back at this murderer would have been 100% better than no one shooting back at him. This is such a no brainer it really floors me someone would actually argue this point. At the risk of sounding redundant, you’re not thinking rationally because you are so intent on disagreeing with someone who challenges your world view that you can't see the obvious merit of this. Think about it – if someone is shooting at you in crowded room will no quick escape, would you prefer everyone be unarmed? Does the idea of being a helpless victim actually appeal to you?

headdoctor 5 years, 11 months ago

tbaker, this is an anonymous forum. Your bio really means nothing nor do you have to defend it. Unless you want to out yourself there is no way to prove it and even then how would we know that the person outed is really you. What does matter is the content and level of thought in your posts to stimulate discussion. Trolling to stimulate discussion is excluded.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"The logical ones see it as a possibility; the hyper ones grasp frantically for some sort of guarantee, where none exists."

Of course there's no guarantee. Evening the odds is simply a good gamble, though.

Ken Lassman 5 years, 11 months ago

I find it interesting that you are defending hyper-violent movies and using William Quantrill as your avatar picture. I'll defend your free speech, but don't be surprised if such posturing raises a few eyebrows.

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

FINALLY! After nearfly three years someone figured it out! Bravo Doug County!

People with eyebrow trouble should recall Quantrill's motives. His raid was the very predictable reaction to what the people in Lawrence were doing to the people in Eastern MO. Trust me, what he managed to do in Lawrence was a tiny fraction of the violence Lawrence people brought to MO.

Ken Lassman 5 years, 11 months ago

Call it pre-emptive defense of hyper-violent movies (your words, by the way) if you like.

And my reading of the history of bleeding Kansas AND Missouri is that it sounded more like the recent history of the Serbs and the Croatians, with more than enough blood on everyone's hands to go around. The sad part about that kind of conflict is that each side only recalls the other side's offenses, not their own. That's why I've never been a fan of the Kansas-Missouri sports rivalry: why feed the smouldering embers?

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

BTW, where did I defend a hyper-violent movie? Personally I think the movie had more to do with this tragedy than anything else.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

Okay, I've waited all day for someone to say it. Am I the only one to notice gramps is the only one firing a weapon, and continues to fire even after it is obvious these clowns only want the hell out of Dodge? Even firing his last shot after they are outside and presumably running for their lives? I have no sympathy for them but doesn't it quit being self defense under these circumstances? I can only wonder if there is more going on here than the video shows . . .

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

One word: Florida

I don't think he has to worry about it.

Oh, and how dare you bag on this guy for protecting himself!!! You anti-weapons enthusiasts are too much and you obviously hate America!!! So there.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

Yah, you found me out bea . . . ;-)

<<< (rolling eyes)

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

RoeD, I thought you might like that. ; )

headdoctor 5 years, 11 months ago

Thank you vertigo for injecting some common sense and observation into this thread. The purpose of my post is to ask the question, where did the other three rounds end up? Over the years I don't know how many times I have been to a side arm range. At any given time there wasn't more than one or two there who could hit the broad side of barn with a medium to large caliber hand gun and one of those was usually the range master. Add in a little fear and adrenaline and most would be hard pressed to hit a bull in the butt with a tennis racquet at point blank range. I am sure there are several marksmen who are licensed to carry. At the same time I don't want to be collateral damage because of a want to be driven by testosterone who is over estimating their abilities.

50YearResident 5 years, 11 months ago

What difference does it make where the bullets ended up? The point is no one was injured except for the robbers. Even police shoot outs seldon injure innocent bystanders. You are more likely to get hit by a car (or a lightning bolt) than being hit by a bullet. Chill out.

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

What makes me think that? Oh thats easy. It's the first time it was mentioned that I can recall. Thanks for your interest in my avatar Agno!

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

tbaker: "Personally I think the movie had more to do with this tragedy than anything else."

Okay, I get to be the first to say it -- Movies don't kill people ... people heavily armed at the movies kill people.

If the movie is at fault, is it this movie alone or all movies in general. Or is it specifically violent movies? Of the millions and millions of people around the world who have watched violent films, why is this the first time this has happened? Might I add that the murderer planned the attack and carried it out without even seeing the movie. So now, speculation on what might be in a movie must be at fault.

Abe Lincoln was shot at a theater -- was the play to blame?

I think you would be better off to blame hair dyes. After all, we couldn't possibly consider the easy access to an arsenal and military strength firearms with 100 round clips.

No, must be the hair dye.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, magazine. Thanks for correcting that.

tbaker 5 years, 11 months ago

I didn't say the movie killed people, I said it had "more to do" with the tragedy than anything else - that being in the context of gun control. Recent mass murderers in the US have been inspired by movies, but banning violent movies makes about as much sense as banning guns. I would say nice try, but this was clumsy. You're better than this B.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

There is only one variable that if you take it out of the equation, then the lunatic couldn't have gone on a shooting spree -- and those are the guns. A readily available arsenal to a lunatic had much more to do with the tragedy than anything else. The movie theater was just a location and the movie a backdrop.

Someone on this thread might have called for a ban on guns, but I certainly didn't. In fact, I have agreed that people have the right to carry. What I won't say is that more guns would have helped the situation. We simply don't know.

What I do say is that we need to acknowledge the price we pay as a society for having guns so readily available. Only then can we start to attempt to take steps (certainly not ban all guns) to prevent future inccidents.

Finally, mass murders are inspired by mental illness, not movies.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"What I won't say is that more guns would have helped the situation. We simply don't know."

Nobody EVER knows. The fact remains that having someone to defend the defenseless is better than none. You'd have to be honest, but I'm certain you'd be wishing someone was packing and able to lend aid when the madman was strolling up to your row to mow you down.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Exactly, nobody EVER knows -- despite the title of this very blog, which suggests otherwise. That we don't and can't know otherwise has been my entire point all along. Had the gentleman in the video been in the theater rather than a well-lighted internet cafe, I don't believe he would have had as positive results.

We don't know that adding more guns to the mix would be helpful. For one, I've already pointed out that had there been an armed citizen who was fortunate enough to take out this shooter, possibly killing him, then he wouldn't have been alive to warn police about the rigged explosives in his apartment. But he remained alive and he did warn the police, according to the accounts I've read. Had they not know, any chance that many more people could have been killed by explosives? It would seem very possible. So in that scenario, even if he had been killed, the loss of life still could have been much greater for reasons that reach far beyond the confines of the theater. However, we certainly do not know this for sure.

Yes, I would want an armed defender if an armed madman was coming right at me. I'm not silly enough to deny that. Then again, if the person is across the theater, I wouldn't want someone to start shooting from my side of the theater drawing attention to my general direction. I also wouldn't want someone in the back of the theater to start shooting toward the front if I were somewhere in the middle. In other words, it isn't possible to answer the question with a simple yes or no, in my opinion.

(Of course, I would ultimately prefer that madmen not have arms in the first place, but that is another discussion all together.)

Finally, the Navy Seal that vertigo quotes -- he points out other means of self defense. Not all unarmed people should be thought of as defenseless.

jaywalker 5 years, 11 months ago

"I've already pointed out that had there been an armed citizen who was fortunate enough to take out this shooter, possibly killing him, then he wouldn't have been alive to warn police about the rigged explosives "

That's fortuitous. Nothing more. Where ya gonna go with that line of rationale? Don't kill the Norway assassin because there might be more booby traps? Let the mass murderers shoot out to their hearts content .... just in case? Get real or go away!!!!!

"Yes, I would want an armed defender if an armed madman was coming right at me"

Only a fool wouldn't.

"Then again, if the person is across the theater, I wouldn't want someone to start shooting from my side of the theater drawing attention to my general direction."

So as long as you're ok it's fine, but don't fight back if you're nearby. Swell. Go get 'em! Unless you're next to me! Nobody wants to be in harms way, and there are no guarantees for anything, but trying to argue that having someone else in THAT theater that was armed... besides the nutjob that took down 80 w/ no resistance.... wouldn't have, in all probability, made a difference, is ridiculous.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, it was fortuitous that the killer was alive to warn about explosives in his apartment. I am talking about real world implications of what could have happened had he been killed. This is why statements like "in all probablity" on having another person with a gun in THAT theater would have meant fewer lives lost, no matter how ridiculous you think that notion to be. It is possible that an additional shooter could have meant more deaths, only that is a probablity you are not willing to accept. However, that does not make it ridiculous.

At what point is fighting back actually putting others in greater danger? Is shooting across a crowded theater a good strategy to fight back?

AGAIN -- I am not saying that someone else there to shoot back wouldn't have ended the situation with a better outcome, but I am saying that it is neither a guarantee nor a probablity of success. It is very possible that it could have meant more deaths. Very possible.

Paul Wilson 5 years, 11 months ago

Saying that guns are the problem is exactly like saying that a spoon is an obese person's problem.

If you think guns are the problem, take this simple test to see if you are correct:
1. Find a gun. (if you don't have access we can provide one for you free of charge)
2. Load it.
3. Cock it.
4. Release the safety.
5. Lay it on it's side on your kitchen table.
6. Take 3 steps backwards so that it is alone and untouched.
7. Kneel so you can look straight down the barrel.
8. Wait.

If you think guns are the problem...... The only way you can prove, with certainty, that you are not a completely ignorant fool........................is when you get shot.
Good luck with that.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

It isn't the gun itself that is a problem, it is the person holding the gun. Got it. In this instance, we are talking about a madman who plotted mass destruction. That is where the problem comes in.

For another example, cars by themselves are not dangerous, but when a drunk gets behind the wheel the situation changes. So does this mean that since the car isn't the problem we shouldn't take steps to prevent drunks from getting behind the wheel? I don't think so. Taking steps to prevent drunk driving has saved lives, and we have done this without banning cars.

Regarding guns, we should take greater and more practical steps to help prevent madmen from getting their hands on them. (note I wrote "madmen," not just citizens in general) What steps? I have suggestions, but I don't know for sure, yet we as a society should look at everything.

It is clear that band-aid laws against guns -- not allowing to carry in a restaurant in this town, but okay in that one, for example -- don't work. Also, more C&C holders out there don't add to Wild West shootouts in the streets, so that isn't the problem either. But we need real solutions and we should be able to talk about what those solutions could be with respect for one another. Also, just talking about what can we do does not mean the banning of all guns. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that one. Banning is out. So is allowing all people to have unlimited arsenals in all situations. A reasonable and practical place somewhere between seems to be in order -- when it is time to have that conversation.

Paul Wilson 5 years, 11 months ago

You're not going to be able to stop this from happening. Period. Crazy people are only crazy when they do crazy things. If the first crazy thing they do is kill dozens of people...well...we're screwed. I don't have respect for liberals who want to ban whatever happens to be the 'killer of the week'. So a respectful conversation won't happen.

beatrice 5 years, 11 months ago

Not that I was talking about banning anything in particular, but it is good to know that your lack of respect for others will prevent conversation from happening. Good for you for being open about your closed-mind.

notaubermime 5 years, 11 months ago

I have to wonder what the real point of this blog is. The action in the video would not be illegal in Colorado. You can own a gun, get a permit for concealed carry, and it is legal to shoot and kill someone in order to defend yourself or others.

I would say that anyone who wanted to take such an action could have. It isn't like people in Colorado would think "it couldn't happen here". It was only about 5 years ago that someone went on a shooting spree at two Colorado churches and I shouldn't even have to bring up Columbine. Clearly, people are aware of such a threat, have the means to get a gun and a concealed carry permit, and have the legal justification to defend themselves with deadly force with said gun.

If this isn't a legal argument, then perhaps you should weigh the pros of having a gun (loss of life from mass shooting events) versus the cons of having a gun (number of children who shoot themselves with their parents guns each year).

gudpoynt 5 years, 11 months ago

leave it to idiots.

psycho goes on a rampage with multiple illegal weapons, kills a dozen people and injures 5 dozen more.

and the idiots would have you believe it's because of... wait for it.... too much gun control.

riddle me this idiots, since we're all about living in hypothetical worlds today....

how many mass murders by psychotics have been prevented because the psychos couldn't get their hands on a butt load of highly lethal weapons?

if you're going to keep your heads lodged way up inside your hypothetic-holes, why not explore the space a little?

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

Okay, so that makes for a really cute video. I am more worried about someone with a gun being scared and shooting at whatever moves without making sure what they are shooting out. People do stupid things out of fear.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.