14 Dead, 50 Hurt In Mass Shooting Inside Aurora Movie Theater

Originally Posted by G

Firstly, my thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and all of you who're hurting from this. I've read a lot of these posts, and I think it's sad for the US that the debate always goes to the extremes immediately.

I'll just say this (and yup, I know exactly what's coming my way - see above re: the extremes): societies that cannot handle the responsibility of firearms shouldn't have them freely available. Think about it. YOU can handle it, THEY can't - what are you prepared to live with so that YOU can have any gun you want any way you want? That goes for the place I live too - too many mass shootings before strict gun-laws were brought in. Today in Aus, you CAN own a gun, you just can't carry it around with you in the street. You CAN shoot at the range, you CAN hunt, that's it.

Nothing wrong with licensing and b/round checks and not being able to purchase f/arms and ammunition over the web IMO. You guys will all survive, trust me. At least give a gun-store worker the opportunity to see a face, hear a voice and make a call about whether to report someone to the authorities because he comes across as a whack-job.

Finally, to all of those "wish there were armed people at xx mass shooting" people: three separate shootings in Melbourne over the years where unarmed people stopped a shooter who intended mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trob...rsity_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_James_Knight

Remember though, there has never been a gun in the history of firearms that has killed another human. If someone wants to kill, they will find a way.

Some people can't handle liqour or beer, either. Yet that is not outlawed. Prohibition has been tried in the past, and is being tried now with narcotics. That never stopped anyone. If you have ever watched an episode of the American show "COPS" every now and then they bust felons with firearms. This is an automatic return to prison for them. They know the risk and do it anyways.

There are strict opponents to gun control here in the US. I for one am glad for that. I have said it here before. I do not own any firearms, however I am glad that others may own them, and may carry if they choose. And I am aware that an individual may do so legally or illeagaly.

[BigJimCalhoun]

Originally Posted by G

Nothing wrong with licensing and b/round checks and not being able to purchase f/arms and ammunition over the web IMO. You guys will all survive, trust me. At least give a gun-store worker the opportunity to see a face, hear a voice and make a call about whether to report someone to the authorities because he comes across as a whack-job.

Finally, to all of those "wish there were armed people at xx mass shooting" people: three separate shootings in Melbourne over the years where unarmed people stopped a shooter who intended mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trob...rsity_shooting


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_James_Knight

I think you are misunderstanding how our laws work. You cannot purchase a gun from the Internet and have it delivered to your home. The firearm must be sent to a gun dealer who runs the background check.

What is the purpose of registration and licensing? Many might think that is to they can be confiscated later.

If I were to attempt to stop an active shooter, I would rather be armed. I don't have the training that many here have, but I would rather have a firearm than a set of keys, some pepper spray or some "conflict negotiation skills"

BTW, the most unsafe I have ever felt was in Perth earlier this year.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by G

Firstly, my thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and all of you who're hurting from this. I've read a lot of these posts, and I think it's sad for the US that the debate always goes to the extremes immediately.

I'll just say this (and yup, I know exactly what's coming my way - see above re: the extremes): societies that cannot handle the responsibility of firearms shouldn't have them freely available. Think about it. YOU can handle it, THEY can't - what are you prepared to live with so that YOU can have any gun you want any way you want? That goes for the place I live too - too many mass shootings before strict gun-laws were brought in. Today in Aus, you CAN own a gun, you just can't carry it around with you in the street. You CAN shoot at the range, you CAN hunt, that's it.

Nothing wrong with licensing and b/round checks and not being able to purchase f/arms and ammunition over the web IMO. You guys will all survive, trust me. At least give a gun-store worker the opportunity to see a face, hear a voice and make a call about whether to report someone to the authorities because he comes across as a whack-job.

Finally, to all of those "wish there were armed people at xx mass shooting" people: three separate shootings in Melbourne over the years where unarmed people stopped a shooter who intended mass murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trob...rsity_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_James_Knight

So because the few and I mean very few people who have ever committed mass murder with a firearm or even murdered anyone with a firearm in this country chose to break the law, we should take away the rights of the overwhelming majority of people who have not and would not commit such acts?

If I own a gun what does it matter how I purchase ammunition? Should the government track and control how much ammunition I am allowed to purchase?

While you can purchase a firearm over the internet it still has to go to a local gun store before you can take it home. They don't just ship it to your house.
The only advantage of this is you can find better deals online than whats always in your LGS.
So whats the big deal?

No offense but who are you to tell me I should have to walk around unarmed and hope that I can manage to take down an armed assailant unarmed.

If you and your country were willing to lay down your protection and your rights good luck to you. But don't ask or expect me to do the same.

[Pribs]

Originally Posted by abc_123

He needs to STFU and get back into his box. If we need an opinion out of Mexico we will give them one.

No shit, I completely agree. If we wanted his opinion we would have asked for it. He should be worrying about the fucking drugs being pushed into the US from Mexico instead...

Also, I think it is absolutely lame that even government officials are using twitter or facebook to discuss events or send condolences rather than picking up the phone and calling the president or whoever it may be directly. This is how bad our society is getting?? wow...

Originally Posted by fng13

So because the few and I mean very few people who have ever committed mass murder with a firearm or even murdered anyone with a firearm in this country chose to break the law, we should take away the rights of the overwhelming majority of people who have not and would not commit such acts?

...

Kind of reminds me of one of the SEAL mottos, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Or in this case the rights of the many outweigh the whimsical psychotic outbursts of the few.

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

The SEALs are only stealing from a movie charcter who was paraphrasing.

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." - Jeremy Bentham

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."**
Mr. Spock, 'The Wrath of Khan'



** "Or the one." - James T. Kirk

I was thinking they probably stole it from the QPs! But that's okay. I know the SEALs don't mind a bit of thievery to get the job done.

[Dusty]

The fact remains undisputed that many lives could have been saved if somebody with a CCW was there to pop that loon.

[Badger52]

Feinstein's latest:

“We’ve got to sit down and really come to grips on what is sold to average citizens.” (emphasis mine)

[SoldierForGod]

The sad part of this is, when this nut gassed the place, half the kids in there thought it was the movie special effects.

[Pete]

Targeting.....

While pro and anti CC Permit people argue back and forth lets remember Targeting.

In just about all cases where somebody whips it out and starts shooting they do it in a place that does not allow those with permits to carry.

More liberal carry policies and more people with permits and weapons would by itself cut down on opportunity for these punks. Would he have done it if he knew there was a good chance 5% - 10% of the people sitting in there were armed?

[The Reaper]

Fox had a former NYC cop on this morning who was a complete idiot.

He kept referring to the AR-15 as an automatic weapon and left the impression that the guns were purchased over the internet.

There are a lot of ways to cause significantly more casualties in no more time in such an environment. No point in mentioning any of them.

As far as the firearms go, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Nothing special about it, though it looks "evil" to some people. It has a mag, as do most weapons beginning more than 100 years ago. He had a Remington 870, which is a magazine-fed hunting shotgun, and a Glock pistol, which is a normal semi-auto pistol. It is notable for being reliable, and relatively inexpensive ($500 or so).

You can own an M-16 assault rifle (full-auto) in some states. The scumbag in question would probably not have qualified to own one. You would have to have at least $15,000 to buy the weapon, find a willing seller, pay $200 for a tax stamp, get your application signed by your local sheriff, wait 6-9 months for approval, and then you can complete the forms and take the item home. Everyone I know with Class III / NFA items keeps them in a safe and are pretty much exemplary citizens. The legally held NFA items are too valuable for most criminals. Since the NFA registry started in 1934, only one registered automatic weapon is known to have been used in a crime, and the owner was a police officer.

Guns cannot be purchased and shipped to individuals, except by the federal government.

Firearms sales require a BATF Form 4473, proper photo ID, and a background check. You have to complete the form and sign it in person.

Unless you are an illegal alien. The BATF just issued new forms removing the requirement that you present ID and be a legal resident for 90 days or more.

No one can buy firearms for other people who cannot legally possess them. Except for the BATF.

You can buy ammo on the phone or the internet, and have it delivered. He bought a lot of it. Big deal. The ammo he expended at the scene would have fit in his pocket. Thr remainder at his home is irrelevant. You do have to have a photo ID, unlike our elections, and sign a statement that you are not prohibited from purchasing ammo. Or you can just go to the local Wal-Mart and buy all you like.

For those who are unsure, as was the misinformed idiot on Fox, the Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting. It is about the citizens' rights to form an armed militia, to protect themselves, and to forcibly remove oppressive governments.

I would love to point out to him that while, as the talking head noted, the founding fathers had no concept of rapid fire, magazine-fed firearms, the militiaman WERE REQUIRED to own military type weapons and they also held their own artillery. Attempts by the Brits to disarm the colonists led to the Revolutionary War. And I really doubt that the authors of the Bill of Rights had any concept of the television said head was appearing on, but that does not negate the First Amendment either.

I wish an armed citizen had terminated this scumbag's attempt before he fired the first round, but unfortunately, as I understand it, the theater was posted "No Guns" and it would appear that the rest of the patrons were law-abiding.

Now we (and more importantly the victims and their families) have to endure the murdering idiot grinning at us from the TV screen for the next six months.

Tragic. He should have been tried away from the media, his name never repeated, his face never shown, and his sentence carried out in a swift and effective manner. Now he has all of the notoriety he desired.

Prayers out to the families. RIP to the victims.

TR

[Streck-Fu]

Now he has all of the notoriety he desired.

And this is what will drive the next similarly motivated individual and the media, in the name of ratings and D.A.s seeking reelection attention will keep this on the front page for a year.

[alelks]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I wish an armed citizen had terminated this scumbag's attempt before he fired the first round, but unfortunately, as I understand it, the theater was posted "No Guns" and it would appear that the rest of the patrons were law-abiding.
TR

Hmmm,

Now I'm wondering if we couldn't see some law suits in the future against the theater. I mean they violated the patrons civil rights by telling them they couldn't protect themselves from someone like this.

I'd need to look at the gun laws of that state though.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by alelks

Hmmm,

Now I'm wondering if we couldn't see some law suits in the future against the theater. I mean they violated the patrons civil rights by telling them they couldn't protect themselves from someone like this.

I'd need to look at the gun laws of that state though.

Carrying on private property with a "no guns" sign doesn't appear to be a violation of carry laws.
It might be considered trespassing.

Seems to be addressed in C.R.S. 18-12-214 (5).


C.R.S. Title 18 Article 12 Part 2

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.

(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:

(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;

(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;

(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

(6) The provisions of this section apply to temporary emergency permits issued pursuant to section 18-12-209.

[G]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

So then why dont we send our troops to war without firearms if people with firearms bent on killing folks can be taken down by unarmed people?

Let me clarify; I carry a gun for work. Have carried since 1990. I have no problem with guns. I've gone through all the psych tests, agency tests etc etc and qual monthly with it for my role. To me the issue is if absolutely anyone can get almost any gun anytime, then that opens up the potential for disaster as happens time and again.