Cops lying a out evidence in Colorado shooting

monkeys with guns arguing about guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

The problem is that you don't see it from the perspective of carriers. I know many, and one defining trait is that they view their guns and ccw permits as serious responsibilities. They have training, practice regularly, and are mentally prepared to protect themselves and others in a hostile encounter.

---

I don't believe that to be true for the general gun owner. I mean do you really believe that the general population is capable of the claims you make above? Even those that you talk about, with all their training, to say that they are mentally prepared to protect themselves and others is a very bold statement. How can you say something like that? That is a complete subjective evaluation on your part. You only know how you will react when it happens, and most will panic just like the average joe. Even police and military with all their training and experience, panic, get nervous, and fuck up all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Yes, a theater is dark and the tear gas would make the scene confusing, but let's look at the information we have from the attack. He was fully decked out in tactical regalia and using an assault rifle. So he wasn't exactly trying to be inconspicuous. Also, we have numerous reports of eye witnesses seeing the attacker and reacting. From these descriptions alone we can see that a citizen with a firearm could make the competent decisions necessary to halt the attack.

The scenario you're projecting is a vision of chaos where a theater full of wannabe John Waynes pull out their pieces and start blasting each other. That's just completely unrealistic. And in the unlikely event that it occurred, it would still be infinitely more promising than a lone gunman in a room with a bunch of targets. They are lucky he didn't lock the doors and tell them to line up.

---

He was heavily armored, wearing a ballistic helmet, gas mask, tactical vest, ballistics leggings, metal shin guards and armored boots. He had the element of surprise. He threw gas grenades and start shooting a semi-automatic assault rifle at the crowd, popping anything that moves at a very fast rate. The cinema was dark, people were screaming and panicking everywhere, probably even pushing into one another. This is absolute chaos and yet you think some gun carriers in the audience would have been able to take the shooter out with their small caliber guns, that they wouldn't have shot themselves by mistaking one another as the original shooter and that they wouldn't kill other innocents with stray bullets. How can you think that this is "just completely unrealistic" is beyond me. This was at the movies, but it is not a movie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Sadly, this is the only type of gun-related news that gets much publicity. "Madman Slaughters Innocents" makes for better headlines than "Armed Citizen Stops Madman Before He Can Slaughter Innocents". Probably just a symptom of our violent nature. In any case, the latter headline is incredibly more common than the former. Lives are saved every day by responsible, law-abiding citizens.

---

I don't think that is true at all and that these cases you mention are the minority. I have never seen any numbers to support what you are saying here. Where did you get this information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. That you can't be protected by a gun all the time? I acknowledge that. But are you saying that just because something might happen in a way you don't expect, you shouldn't be prepared for anything? That's like a woman saying "You know, a man trying to rape me might be too strong to stop, so I shouldn't even try learning self defense."

---

My point was, if you have a gun you might be able to protect yourself, but you will not be able to protect your wife, kids, grand parents, etc, for the majority of their daily lives. And this is about them not you or me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

I don't have kids, and it's illegal for a child to possess or protect themselves with a pistol. However, a responsibly trained child with a firearm wouldn't be a travesty.

---

A child with a gun... i don't even know what to say to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

The point is that guns are equalizers. It doesn't matter how big and strong a threatening person might be; a gun changes the entire dynamic of predator and victim. A woman, an elderly person, even a child. They all become the equal of the assailant, or more likely, with the training they've probably undertaken, superior to the assailant. A nation of armed women is a nation without rape, think on it.

---

Guns are not equalizers! If i am a criminal and i think my target has a good chance of having a gun, i will bring a bigger gun, i will wear body armor and i will shoot first and ask questions later. I will also bring some help instead of doing it alone. I also have the factor of surprise on my side which means the victim probably wont even have time to react. Also because the target might have a gun, i am very jumpy and nervous, and will start blasting away at the slightest sign of resistance. Of course since me and my partners are carrying semi-automatics bullets will fly everywhere and innocents will get hit with stray bullets, even the ones carrying guns themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Your assumption is that if guns were illegal, there would be less crime. But killing a bunch of people in a theater is also illegal. The guns are inconsequential to the crime. To outlaw firearms would only outlaw the right of the peaceful citizen to defend his or herself.

---

At the very least it would make it much harder to kill and hurt that many people. Also, how do you defend yourself from a stray bullet? You think you will always be the first to shoot? And that your family will never be the one on the path of the bullets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

You'll see that in allegedly "progressive and forward-thinking" countries like England where guns are banned, the violent crime rates are much higher than in America. They still have all the rapes, robberies, and violence that we do. Just less women shouting "Back the fuck off, or I'll shoot!" Conversely, communities in America with a strong gun culture are among the safest in the nation.

---

The U.S. is the most armed society in the world by far and yet you are not even close to being the safest.

There is a limited number of characters per post, so i will write and post the response to the rest of your points tomorrow. Please don't reply before i post the rest. Thanks.

Let's look at something really quick. People that use guns in a way they should not be used are what? They are non law abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow the rules, that's why they are criminals. We take away guns, they will find a way to get them, or find another way to do harm. Let's say assault rifles where gone, that still wouldn't have stopped the senseless murders in CO, the killer would have just found another way to kill those people.

As far as the scenario of if people had personal protection or not in the theater is a subject that no one really can discuss because none of us where there. Sure I believe if they had armed citizens the situation could have been better off, but it is just too hard to say. I can say now that I would be ready if I was there and had my weapon, but to actually be in the situation no one knows. I believe as soon as the police showed up the killer gave up, so maybe if there was some citizens with weapons that met him with force maybe he would have stopped. Who know's it is all speculation.

The 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to allow us Americans the right to protect ourselves and to use force against the government if they got out of control, which is happening right now, take the Boston Tea Party, do you know how that got started? A few individuals in a bar drinking, hated how they government was controlling and over taxing all of the goods. It wasn't a large number of people, but it was enough to stand up for what was right. If the Police and Military have all the weapons and we have none and they turn on us to push socialism or communism how are we to protect ourselves? What's to say we can still by single shot weapons and no semi-auto, but Military and Police do, how can we protect ourselves then? We have these weapons available to us because our government has them, and more. I heard a quote the other day that I loved, A man called into a radio station that was talking about gun control and said this, "I have an AK-47 with a 30 round clip in my house for protection. Why you might ask? Because if some dumb SOB want's to break into my home or attack my family I have 30 reason why that is a bad idea." Most law abiding citizens who own guns don't break the law and commit all these murders. Most abuse from weapons are by people who have obtained the weapon illegally and obtained it do harm.

I don't own a firearm yet, but I will. This is my stance on them, I will use them for superior home protection, hunting, and when the world goes to shit, at least I know with my weapons, I can try to protect myself and family from harm.

Also here are ways that criminals are stopped by citizens who armed themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmQpyaSFVn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oEO_MV57I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQ...eature=related

and there is many more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitchell C

If you think it takes no skill to kill someone then you are sorely mistaken.

What might of prevented this is if someone else in the theater had a firearm of their own on hand.
Furthermore it's easy to say a gun is a cowards weapon when you aren't protecting your family.
If having a gun by the bed makes me a coward, then sign me up.

---

No it doesn't take skill to open fire in a crowded dark movie threatre with an Ar15 and kill 12 people...In fact the first thing I thought when I heard about it was "Wow I'm shocked he didn't kill more than 12" because he had literally every tactical advantage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitchell C

What might of prevented this is if someone else in the theater had a firearm of their own on hand.

---

HIGHLY unlikely in this particular case since the shooter had literally every tactical advantage..All he has to do is randomly spray bullets into the crowd....The "good guy" would have to recover from the shock then actively find and locate the shooter in the very dark panic strike movie theater and than shoot and kill him without avoiding any innocent movie goers (which would be probably very hard to do) plus the guy had full body armor on so he could probably take multiple shots before going down (if he even went down at all)

Chances are you wouldn't even be able to find the shooter in such an environment (unless you were sitting very close to where he opened fire...in which case you would probably be dead/injured before you have time to draw your gun) and chances are you would just shoot and kill an innocent person in mistake.

The honest reality of this particular case (I know the anti and pro guns people don't like to admit this) is that in some instances....their really is nothing you can do....This was one such case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

But who decides who gets to be a police officer? A halo doesn't come with a badge. What you are doing is giving one person the power of coercion, complete control over another with the threat of violence as a deterrent to resistance. You are giving a person a right that you are denying to another. That very action creates a stratification of classes. The armed man, the complete man. And the denied man, the "civilian", the subhuman. What should a professed "peace officer" be if not our equal? Are we so low as to be stripped of our claws in a modern world with evils no less ruthless than in the world of our primal ancestors?

---

Your gun is nothing compared to the power of the police and military. They are organized, trained, armored, experienced, have tanks, Apaches, bombs, drones, etc. This idea that by having a gun you will keep your institutions in check is very unrealistic. Again, if they think you have a gun they will just put you down faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Our miscommunication is due to an incongruity of cultural and societal perspectives. I am an American. I research my history and heed the warnings of wise Americans who came before. I believe in individual liberty, the ideal that built this country even though its spirit now flickers around me. Please read the text of my 2nd Amendment and the second paragraph of my Declaration of Independence. And when you read them, don't just see the words; see the actions and events that led to creating them and the importance that was placed within them.

---

Wise Americans that had slaves, no women's rights, etc. They were just people. People as flawed as we. The American constitution is a beautiful thing and no doubt one of the most important documents ever written in the world. However they lived in a very different time, a time without semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, among many other aspects. You have to read it in that context.

Also this is just your perspective. Yes many Americans have it as well but many agree with me. So no, there is no miscommunication due to our different societies/cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Yes. They're making tons of money. But not for the reasons you believe. It is the strict control of guns that stems the flow of wealth. They rely on the War on Guns as much as our "justice" system relies upon the War on Drugs.

---

I completely agree with you on the justice system relying on the war on drugs, but what is this war on weapons you talk about? You are the most armed society in the world. Politicians are afraid of going against the NRA. Did you hear Obama say anything or do anything about gun control during this tragedy? or during his mandate so far? no. Watch his speeches before he was president and you will see the power of the gun lobbyists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

Again, that's a skewed perspective. You're linking guns themselves as a catalyst to violence. Violence exists independently of firearms, which are merely tools with which it is dispensed. Violence, on the street or in the home can be categorized.

Robbery/Burglary - On the streets, it is mostly a symptom of poverty.

Murder - 1. Occurs as a companion to the former, 2. Domestically between family members or friends, 3. As a result of gang/drug disputes (a symptom of failed Prohibition), or 4. Perpetrated by sociopaths

Rape - Imagined inferiority and a lust for dominance wins over its conflict with virtue and morality, a symptom of cultural decay.

Coercion - Power corrupts, they say.

--Guns can be used in all of these forms of violence, and the quick and simple solution seems to involve taking guns away, as if it would solve these issues. In reality, the righteous solution to these societal ills is wholly more complicated than that. In order to reduce its proliferation, you must combat the root of each problem. That course of action isn't as glamorous or as controversial as blaming it on the guns, which of course, are not the problem but part of the answer.

I see a lot of people say "I wish guns didn't exist, but..." That kind of reactionary pontification is pointless. Guns do exist, and we must deal with it. Guns have changed nothing. Before them were swords and arrows, which were no less dangerous to the unarmed. And like in modern times, commoners in oppressed societies were most always forbidden to bear arms. Weapons are a symbol of power. The question is, who should wield power and who shouldn't? In my mind, everyone has that natural right, gifted them by their very existence as freethinking individuals.

---

Guns make it a lot easier to kill/hurt someone, especially if there is no limits to what you can buy. People are buying assault rifles, tons of ammo, modified clips with more bullets so that they don't have to reload as much, etc. And this is what makes you feel safe?! Do you think people should be allowed to buy so much firepower? Would gun control solve all the crime problems? of course not. But it would with a doubt reduce the number of deaths and stop this escalation of violence: you have a gun? then i will bring bigger and more guns, and shoot first, ask questions later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

And respect to you for honoring my beliefs and for having a civil discussion about a subject with the potential to go wrong quickly. My right to have free and open conversations like this is also dearly important to me, and that's another reason why my right to keep and bear arms is even more important. Because every other right we have is just a collection of words without the power to protect them.

---

I think your gun won't give you that power, but only an illusion of power.

Thank you and much respect to you as well. I am not an American, so i hope i don't come off as nosy, disrespectful or something like that. It's just that America has so much influence in the world and so much power, and if you fail we all do.

Kennesaw, Georgia has a mandatory gun law. Every head of household must own a gun and ammo. Here is there impressive stats taken from Wikepedia, and everything I see is its true.
Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.[20]

Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw][21][22], even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]

The city's website[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rv9j-bAV3s dude says it best in this video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derrick ikwueme

i'm all for the right to bear arms, but nobody needs a assault rifle for self defense, congress forgot to update the ban on assault rifles, no deer or elk wears a vest so only miliary and cops should be able to buy assault rifles. people forget that the germans created the first assault rifle in ww2 the stg sterm guverrer in order to wipe out whole squads on patrol. if this dude hadn't been able to legally buy a assault rifle from bass pro shop. he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people, the shotgun firing time would have given people time to escape or jump him at the reload point, the handguns would have ran out of ammo also giving windows of opportunity, but the assault rifle shoots about 100 rounds per minute and thats what he killed 12 and shot 70 people
with, NRA people need to stop being soo selfish & paranoid, no one wants to take there guns away just the assault rifles. notice England France & other western country's don't have thease problems happen every year like we do. the reason life is so cheap in 3rd world countries is because everyone even 12 year old kids walk around with AK's. if the NRA has it there way that's what america will be reduced to. GTA with the everyone strapped cheat code

---

Your right to have guns is more to stop the government then personal protection, so I think everyone needs atleast one apache helicopter.

Living in Australia (where guns are illegal) it's interesting looking in.

We have only had 1 major indicent like this in my life time that comes straight to mind compared to the mulitple from the US that make their way across the oceans into our news.

I have no idea on the sums of population differences between US/Australia and gun incidents so I wont even get into it.

All I know is when I was travelling around the US i did feel more aware that if I was going to get jumped/robbed etc that it might be at gun point. While in Aust my worry is if I was to get jumped/robbed it would be by numerous people or a knife would be involved. Which is better I'm not so sure.

Guns don't really enter the equation over here (talking genreally) and for me I think that feels like a better way to live.

Just my opinion and thoughts are with all those that have been hurt by this.

thugs and low lives will alway find a way to get what they want how many shootings are done with unregistered or stolen guns? if we ban guns those who dont care about the law will still find a way to get guns while the rest of us will remain unarmed