Colorado Shooting - for gun-phobes

[thedutymon]

Afternoon,

Living here in Colorado (Small Mountian Town about 200 miles from Denver/Aurora) I am deeply saddened by being the Countrywide Headline for another one of these senseless tragadies........Period!!

But the gist of the problem we have here is included in my above sentence. The problem IS the Media. If NO and I mean NO mention was made from Moment One of who was the Perpretrator of this incident we would see a drastic reduction in these type of incidents. And if the guy was knealt down in the parking lot and a Bullet put behind his ear, that would be another deterent.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the Gun Debate....I personally own 35-40 Rifles, Pistols, and Shotguns and if I was to count up all my stashes around my property I probably have 40-50,000 rounds for all the different weapons.
Now you probably know where I stand on the whole Gun Control issue........
Wrong Keemosabee........I believe that we need more Gun Laws and we need to get the guns out of the hands of Idiots!!

I used to live in Denver and even did a stent in Aurora and made a descision to move to the mountains because I wanted to raise my kids without fear of Gangs and City crime. Thank all that be I did!

Until the ownership of guns is made the provenance of Law abiding citizens. How do we accomplish that, lots of different ways. As was discussed, make it harder for Wacko's to buy them. Do a background check that encompasses the Mental Health industry, any Flags form them, no gun until they get clearance!!! Increase the penalties for possesion of an Unregistered weapon. Pick up your local Crip with an Unregistered Handgun and give him 10 years and make him do 10 years. Couple times of this he's in his 40's and not much of a worry about anymore.

Make it easier for Law abiding citizens who complete a Safety and Shooting course to get Concealed carry's. I have mine, if I would have been at that movie, that MF'er would have killed at least a few less or I'd be Dead!!! Enough of us get walking around bearing arms and the Criminals have to start worry'ing about that aspect of the Crime there committing, crime goes down, its been proven!!!!

Lots of other things could be done..............But the biggest issue is the 24/7 Ruthless/Sickening/BloodSucking/ NEWS MEDIA..........Don't allow them to Glorify these incidents and I can tell you what will happen....They will slow to a trickle.

The Headline should be "A Deranged Guman heretofore to be known as A##Hole #3 shot and killed 9 people at a local school today, The Gunman is in Custody and we will update with informnation about the Victims. The Gunman WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED out of common decency for the Victims of this tragedy"

That's how you stop this crap.....................All they want is there 15 minutes of Fame!!!

Out

Neil

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thedutymon

.................All they want is there 15 minutes of Fame!!!

Neil, there is no getting around sensationalizing news. Most people crave it or we wouldn't have it. And it's actually getting worse - look at all the reality t.v. shows. Now that's a real load of crap and a horrid statement as to where our society is heading. Look at the video games - blood and guts gets us off.

So, basically, don't look for the media to downplay these incidents.

As far as "15 minutes of fame", I have no idea if that's what motivated Holmes, but I doubt it. Is it what will motivate potential copycat killers? Perhaps.

I used to go to the movie theater in question - my girlfriend (who I later married) lived off Mississippi, near the theater. My parents lived in Littleton and my brother and sister went to high school near the Columbine massacre. But none of that would cause a second's hesitation when I make decisions about how I live my life. Both of those incidents were horrid tragedies that life is full of. I also don't hide during storms out of fear that lightning will strike me.

We have been executing and imprisoning murderers forever, and I always hope that the punishments will deter future violence, but it doesn't. When some estranged parent murders his children after visitation, it isn't about "15 minutes of fame" - it's about an angry, distraught, depressed, 'crazy' person at the end of his rope, acting in a way that makes no sense to anyone but himself. Copycat killers are found mostly in the movies. I suspect it's the same for Holmes. He's still alive, so we will find out at some point.

Meanwhile, I plan to see 'Batman' tomorrow, even though our theaters don't post policemen outside.

[thedutymon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Neil, there is no getting around sensationalizing news. Most people crave it or we wouldn't have it.

So, basically, don't look for the media to downplay these incidents.

As far as "15 minutes of fame", I have no idea if that's what motivated Holmes, but I doubt it. Is it what will motivate potential copycat killers? Perhaps.

.

Afternoon,

I respectively disagree with you on several points. Without infringing on 1st amendment rights which I firmly believe in I do not see it out of the realm of a reasonable and prudent society in a time of escalating crises as it pertains to these shootings to come to an agreement to self censor, whether that is through mandate or reasonable corporate citizenry is up to the people. That means the top tier Networks, Web News sites ect.; That this would not stop all reporting is inherently understood, But if Joe the Frickin' Idiot was not bombarded with it 24/7 glorifying the Name of the perpetrator on TV for Days/Weeks after an incident like this I firmly belive these type of incidents would be slowed at least. Especially the easily led/influenced Teens/School incidents.

And I disagree with your take on this type of person that is "it's about an angry, distraught, depressed, 'crazy' person at the end of his rope". What we have done in our society with the MEDIA is train this individual to do is exactly what happens, Pick up a Gun and plan a mass killing, not seek mental health help or some other sort of assistance or simply live with it as was done for most of the 20th century. No instead its about the Glory, whether you want to see it or not, the Wackos who don't blatantly do it for the Glory (Such as Kliebolt & Harris), do it because we have taught them that this is the way to react to their situation. Where in the He!! do you think these dipwads come up with the idea to react in the manner they do? The Fruckin' Media...That's where!!!

And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

YeeHah!!

Neil

[nolemmings]

And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

Couldn't disagree more.

It is after midnight in a dark theater, with a few people walking the aisles on their way to/from the concessions in the lobby. Everyone is relaxed and having a good time. Now a guy in full body armor starts dispensing tear gas to make visibility in an already darkened venue even worse. Shots are fired. Panic ensues and people scramble in all directions. Next a gunshot is fired from a different direction--is it a white knight come to save us, or another bad guy? You draw your weapon, and there are shots from a third direction (fourth, fifth, etc--you get the idea). Who are you going to shoot at? What if one of those shooters is looking to shoot you?--after all, he doesn't know what side your are on either. Meanwhile dozens of people are running into one or more lines of fire, all the while again in the dark and smokey room with tears welling up in their/your eyes from the gas. You shoot at the right guy, even though again he is in full body armor. Whoops--why did that screaming chick run in front of your clear shot and take it in the chest? Hey, that other guy who is firing at you needs to be dealt with--better snap off a few rounds in his direction.

As I mentioned on this thread in the main forum, there was an armed citizen in Tucson coming out of the grocery when Gabby Giffords was shot. He chose not to fire because he said the chaos of the situation made him unsure of his target and worried he would hit other innocents. And he had visibility and room to maneuver. Law enforcement lauded his decision.

The Aurora movie massacre is both abhorrent and aberrant. I will take my chances that it happens so freakishly seldom that I can still go to the movies. If I walk into a theater and see anyone wearing a gun, much less several people, I am out the door. I'll be damned if I'm gonna die while you "good samaritans" and protectors of the people are trying to make me feel "safe".

[vintagetoppsguy]

You can disagree all you want, but the facts don't lie. I can give you several examples in which a concealed handgun carrier saved lives by thwarting a multiple homicide attack. Can you give me just one example in which a concealed handgun carrier accidenatlly shot an innocent bystander in a multiple homicide attack? Just one?

[thedutymon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Couldn't disagree more.


As I mentioned on this thread in the main forum, there was an armed citizen in Tucson coming out of the grocery when Gabby Giffords was shot. He chose not to fire because he said the chaos of the situation made him unsure of his target and worried he would hit other innocents. And he had visibility and room to maneuver. Law enforcement lauded his decision.

And your entitled to your opinion as well, even if wrong. Of course you can spin this anyway you want but I never meant that I wanted every idiot in the country running around with a weapon and pulling it under any circumstance. What I Meant and want to be Clear on is a Trained and Armed citizenry makes me feel a whole lot safer than the status quo. The guy in Tuscon who chose not to fire made the right decision, as I would, and any properly Trained and "Licensed to Carry" individual should and would.

Every situation is different and putting some literary story drama spin on your argument against having weapons is as wrong as distorting the facts of any hypothetical argument. Under some circumstances Having a Gun and being able to Use it Is The Right thing to do, no ifs and or buts.

I stand by my statement, If I would have been there and felt I could make a difference, since "I Do Carry", I would have used it if possible. Then again being previously in Law Enforcement I do not depend on others to defend Myself and My Own, that is my prerogative.........Period!!!

Peace Out

Neil

[thedutymon]

Afternoon,

Just a couple of examples where an Armed Innocent Bystander made a difference.

In April 2012 an armed Wacko walked into an Aurora Colorado Church and opened fire, killing one person. An Armed parishoner who was carrying a concealed weapon permit shot and killed the shooter.

In a 2007 incident, in Trolley Square Mall in Utah, a shooter opened fire on dozens of innocents, he was almost immeaditly pinned down by an Off Duty Police Officer who kept him immobilized until help could arrive. The responding officers put the POS out of his misery with no deaths of innocent bystanders.

And the list could go on and on !!!!

Peace Out

Neil

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by thedutymon

Afternoon,

Just a couple of examples where an Armed Innocent Bystander made a difference.

In April 2012 an armed Wacko walked into an Aurora Colorado Church and opened fire, killing one person. An Armed parishoner who was carrying a concealed weapon permit shot and killed the shooter.

What are they putting in the water in Colorado

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thedutymon

And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

YeeHah!!

Neil

Really? You think Holmes would NOT have tried to kill people if he thought citizens were armed?

Okay.

Edited to add: before someone misconstrues my rebuttal to your comments to mean that I am against citizens having handguns, that's not the case at all. I'm only against them having ridiculous guns such as AK 47's. I don't think those are necessary for self-protection.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Really? You think Holmes would NOT have tried to kill people if he thought citizens were armed?

Scott,

Did you know that every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms? Does that help answer your question?

And come on. Nobody's suggesting that citizens arm themselves with AK-47s, but a lot of states have concealed handgun laws - the two key words being concealed (kind of hard to conceal an AK) and handgun (not an AK).

In this particular case, Colorado does have a concealed handgun law, but this theatre had a no guns allowed policy which does have to be followed (by the law obiding citizens).

Edited to add: And before someone mentions Jared Loughner and the Arizona shootings, they should know the following: "Arizona law permits private business owners (or their designates) to prohibit weapons from being brought onto their property, whether signs are posted or not. Private businesses are typically non-government operated businesses such as grocery and department stores, convenience stores, laundromats, banks, office complexes, etc. Failure to obey the request can result in your arrest for trespassing. (ARS 13-1502 / ARS 13-1503)"

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott,

Did you know that every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms? Does that help answer your question?

No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't help answer any questions involving Holmes. No, he didn't choose a target practice range to carry out his murders, or a bar with a pile of Harleys parked outside. Even if firearms were allowed in movie theaters in Colorado, it would have been a 'safe' environment for him to enter with the arsenal he brought.

And come on. Nobody's suggesting that citizens arm themselves with AK-47s, but a lot of states have concealed handgun laws - the two key words being concealed (kind of hard to conceal an AK) and handgun (not an AK).

In this particular case, Colorado does have a concealed handgun law, but this theatre had a no guns allowed policy which does have to be followed (by the law obiding citizens).

You are sort of creating a straw man here. My reference to AK-47's had to do with HOLMES. He didn't need one, and either do citizens. As I've stated before - no idea how you missed it - I'm not against citizens having guns. Do you really think that if movie theater patrons were allowed to carry hand guns, that Holmes would have chosen a different venue?

Edited to add: And before someone mentions Jared Loughner and the Arizona shootings, they should know the following: "Arizona law permits private business owners (or their designates) to prohibit weapons from being brought onto their property, whether signs are posted or not. Private businesses are typically non-government operated businesses such as grocery and department stores, convenience stores, laundromats, banks, office complexes, etc. Failure to obey the request can result in your arrest for trespassing. (ARS 13-1502 / ARS 13-1503)"

David, I haven't spent much time studying gun control. My original comments about Holmes in the other thread, were for the most part regarding comments others made about mental illness. You and I are probably of the same mindset regarding guns - not sure, but probably. Like most everything else, Americans get what Americans want - if we want handguns, we get them. If we want AK-47's, then we'll get laws that allow that.