Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Prophet

Twelve Killed at Dark Knight Rises Midnight Showing

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Hoole' timestamp='1342828265' post='37799']
This is why I carry wherever lawful.


The saddest thing about the whole ordeal is that like every politician in America is trying to spin it into their campaigns.
[/quote]


Obama and Romney did suspend their campaigns for the time being but leave it to others to do the political work:

[url="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/limbaugh-tea-party-guns-already-getting-blamed-for-colo-theater-shooting/"]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/limbaugh-tea-party-guns-already-getting-blamed-for-colo-theater-shooting/[/url]


Clearly people haven't learned from things like the Zimmerman incident, shooting in Tuscon, etc, etc. . Because here they go again making false claims. And it just sucks because people are taking the loss of other peoples lives for their own gain, or trying to at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il has a half ass conceal law that both the left and right sides of the house agreed on. But more lobbying is required to get things the way we want (more money, go figure right?) Right now IL has what's called the Seven Seconds To Freedom law that basically states that you can carry a weapon concealed so long that it 1) Is stored in a non operational status. I.E. no round chambered and magazine removed from magazine well 2) is in a container that is: Fully encapsulating, Specifically designed for the use of carrying a firearm, and fully closed via velcro, a zipper, or buttons or similar devices.

It's not the greatest thing in the world but it works for now. I have an in pant fanny pack type deal that just has a magazine band and a barrel band in it that can fit a full sized gun inside of it. It opens via velcro all along the top seam and is attatched at the belt and flopped over the top and into your pants. I also have a 5.11 jacket that has a concealed carry compartment under the armpit as well as a 5.11 for NRA briefcase/ shoulder bag that has a rapid access compartment in it specifically designed for carry...plus it fits my laptop in it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the where lawful part that sucks. These movie theatres all post signs on their doors, barring concealed weapons even for permit holders. So if you were carrying in there, is it unlawful? I'm not sure actually. I think you could just be asked to leave, which could end up being trespassing, blah blah. Now if you're on government property, like state university or something.. that's different. But still, I conceal carry 99% of the time and if it were ever called into question, I'd play dumb about signage telling me I couldn't, and then leave.

What annoys me is the short sightedness of people. I see articles stating stuff like "[url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=movie+theatre+not+allowing+deadly+weapons&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Fblog%2F168986%2Fcolorado-shooter-likely-got-guns-ease&ei=U3INUIaMJ4q5rQHzz8ilCg&usg=AFQjCNEgpsAgkCY-0b6XTN_b1C3Yv5QoEA"][color="#1122cc"]Colorado Shooter Likely Got Guns With Ease | The Nation[/color][/url]" and it just bothers me. If he couldn't get a gun, what's to say he wouldn't have gone out and bought a chain saw. We going to enact a bunch of chain saw laws? And by the way, chainsaws are fucking scary... I might actually try to tackle someone with a gun. A chainsaw? GTFO. You've never seen a cell phone video of a chain saw attack, that's because the person was running so fucking fast in the other direction, they dropped it.

What this does do though is make me reconsider my snubnose 5 round .38 as my conceal carry. Going tonight to pick up a 9mm and a couple of magazines. Then going online to find a nice IWB holsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, from what I read and heard on Friday, it wasn't that he was concealing the weapon, but rather he went in like everyone else. Just after the movie started, he propped open a side/backdoor and got his gear on, then came back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and on the note: REALLY good that it happened to him, but what about the quality of the gun maker. They said he couldn't unload the full clip because his gun jammed up. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say good thing he was not a trained shooter. Anyone that has done shooting courses has it trained from day one how to solve 90% of your jams within about ohh... .5 seconds, Immediate action my friends...immediate action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wish California had that same law, or hell even Texas' law on guns. Would you fuck with someone if they had a Magnum Revolver strapped to their belt? Fuck no. Why do you think Texas has no shooting and shit like this? Because everyone owns a gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='doughboy60' timestamp='1343083082' post='38260']
Wish California had that same law, or hell even Texas' law on guns. Would you fuck with someone if they had a Magnum Revolver strapped to their belt? Fuck no. Why do you think Texas has no shooting and shit like this? Because everyone owns a gun!
[/quote]
....well....if I had the drop on them sure. But by no means would I do something where I didn't have the advantage on them. Like let's say....rob a store or bank, too many people, too many places to hide and get shot from, no thanks lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just leave these here. Good reads, I must say.

[url="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Ftoo_late"]http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control?fsrc=scn%2Ftw_ec%2Ftoo_late[/url]
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18877454"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18877454[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, interesting articles indeed. I can say this, the right to bear arms in one form or another has always been the law of the land. People have almost always had the unalienable (with the exception of slavery) right to take up arms to defend themselves and their homes. Be it with a club, a sword, a slingshot, or a bow. Only recently (in the history of man) has this been controversial it would seem. Ever in medieval times serfs (basically indentured servants) were even allowed to arm themselves. I think the reason for the controversy does have to do with what part of the states you come from and your exposure to guns etc. For example someone from North Dakota or Idaho is going to think people who dont have gun racks in the back of their truck windows are just plain weird. Whereas people from NYC or Chicago would be alarmed if they went to a state where it was allowed and saw people walking around with a pistol holstered. Also, I do believe that the controversy sparks because people actually realize the power firearms have, FFS, the world record sniper kill right now is at 2475m (thats 27 football fields or so.) That means someone would shoot, about 2 seconds later you would die, and 2 seconds after that your buddy would hear the report from the gun!

Point is and always will be people need to stop looking at guns as things that kill people and that is all they are good for. A gun is a tool, and just like any other tool it's use is up to the operator and not itself. Gun control is not a solution to anything, education and training is. As well as cracking down on the laws for aggravated crimes with guns across the states. If I knew I would fry in a chair or be dosed by lethal injection if I even shot at someone, guess what? I'd be hard pressed to find someone I would want to kill. Also, as for the whole assault rifle discussion that I can feel coming to head in this thread.. look at it this way, if someone wants to unload a MAC-10 on someone else or a crowd of people, let them because they just laid down 47 pieces of evidence against them with modern ballistics tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hoole' timestamp='1343143162' post='38377']
well, interesting articles indeed. I can say this, the right to bear arms in one form or another has always been the law of the land. People have almost always had the unalienable (with the exception of slavery) right to take up arms to defend themselves and their homes. Be it with a club, a sword, a slingshot, or a bow. Only recently (in the history of man) has this been controversial it would seem. Ever in medieval times serfs (basically indentured servants) were even allowed to arm themselves. I think the reason for the controversy does have to do with what part of the states you come from and your exposure to guns etc. For example someone from North Dakota or Idaho is going to think people who dont have gun racks in the back of their truck windows are just plain weird. Whereas people from NYC or Chicago would be alarmed if they went to a state where it was allowed and saw people walking around with a pistol holstered. Also, I do believe that the controversy sparks because people actually realize the power firearms have, FFS, the world record sniper kill right now is at 2475m (thats 27 football fields or so.) That means someone would shoot, about 2 seconds later you would die, and 2 seconds after that your buddy would hear the report from the gun!

Point is and always will be people need to stop looking at guns as things that kill people and that is all they are good for. A gun is a tool, and just like any other tool it's use is up to the operator and not itself. Gun control is not a solution to anything, education and training is. As well as cracking down on the laws for aggravated crimes with guns across the states. If I knew I would fry in a chair or be dosed by lethal injection if I even shot at someone, guess what? I'd be hard pressed to find someone I would want to kill. Also, as for the whole assault rifle discussion that I can feel coming to head in this thread.. look at it this way, if someone wants to unload a MAC-10 on someone else or a crowd of people, let them because they just laid down 47 pieces of evidence against them with modern ballistics tech.
[/quote]

That begs the question...what IF they just don't care? Your argument revolves on the assumption that people are rational, thinking critters, but it neglects to address those who AREN'T so rational. There are those who are aware of the laws and choose to break them (Columbine, OKC bombings) and those who are otherwise incapable (mental illness and such) of differentiating what is and is not acceptable in society. What do you use as a deterrent on those people?

I'm essentially on your side, Hoole, but someone needs to play devil's advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='stvnsng' timestamp='1343153266' post='38403']

[quote name='Hoole' timestamp='1343143162' post='38377']
well, interesting articles indeed. I can say this, the right to bear arms in one form or another has always been the law of the land. People have almost always had the unalienable (with the exception of slavery) right to take up arms to defend themselves and their homes. Be it with a club, a sword, a slingshot, or a bow. Only recently (in the history of man) has this been controversial it would seem. Ever in medieval times serfs (basically indentured servants) were even allowed to arm themselves. I think the reason for the controversy does have to do with what part of the states you come from and your exposure to guns etc. For example someone from North Dakota or Idaho is going to think people who dont have gun racks in the back of their truck windows are just plain weird. Whereas people from NYC or Chicago would be alarmed if they went to a state where it was allowed and saw people walking around with a pistol holstered. Also, I do believe that the controversy sparks because people actually realize the power firearms have, FFS, the world record sniper kill right now is at 2475m (thats 27 football fields or so.) That means someone would shoot, about 2 seconds later you would die, and 2 seconds after that your buddy would hear the report from the gun!

Point is and always will be people need to stop looking at guns as things that kill people and that is all they are good for. A gun is a tool, and just like any other tool it's use is up to the operator and not itself. Gun control is not a solution to anything, education and training is. As well as cracking down on the laws for aggravated crimes with guns across the states. If I knew I would fry in a chair or be dosed by lethal injection if I even shot at someone, guess what? I'd be hard pressed to find someone I would want to kill. Also, as for the whole assault rifle discussion that I can feel coming to head in this thread.. look at it this way, if someone wants to unload a MAC-10 on someone else or a crowd of people, let them because they just laid down 47 pieces of evidence against them with modern ballistics tech.
[/quote]That begs the question...what IF they just don't care? Your argument revolves on the assumption that people are rational, thinking critters, but it neglects to address those who AREN'T so rational. There are those who are aware of the laws and choose to break them (Columbine, OKC bombings) and those who are otherwise incapable (mental illness and such) of differentiating what is and is not acceptable in society. What do you use as a deterrent on those people?

I'm essentially on your side, Hoole, but someone needs to play devil's advocate.
[/quote]
My view is that if some one wants to do harm to the public, they can. For example, car locks prevent the ammount of crime. If every one's cars were unlocked then car related theft will have a higher occurance. But if one wanted to break into your car, they could easily smash the glass. If guns were illegal then it wouldn't solve the shootings. Guns will always be present, the benifit of having a gun for self defence would outweigh the diminishing chances of a shooting. Everything is a numbers game. There was a time when congress was deciding on baby seats for planes. The baby seats would increase the survival rate in a crash but it would cost the parents of the baby since they would have to buy another seat. Since the cost would go up to fly with a baby more parents would drive to their destination which would have a negative effect (since car crashes are more likely). So congress decided not to pass the law/regulation.

So I am basicly on your side here but I just want to highlight that it is a numbers game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='stvnsng' timestamp='1343153266' post='38403']


That begs the question...what IF they just don't care? Your argument revolves on the assumption that people are rational, thinking critters, but it neglects to address those who AREN'T so rational. There are those who are aware of the laws and choose to break them (Columbine, OKC bombings) and those who are otherwise incapable (mental illness and such) of differentiating what is and is not acceptable in society. What do you use as a deterrent on those people?

I'm essentially on your side, Hoole, but someone needs to play devil's advocate.
[/quote]
basically your asking me what do you do to deter someone who "has nothing to lose" from doing something they want to do? You can't. Never did I say that you will keep someone from doing something they REALLY want to do. If someone thinks it is worth dying to do something, they are going to do it. That's just the nature of being a person, we have the capability to reason with ourselves. But if a person doesn't have that skill, I guess I would point out the question "what are they doing in society anyways?" By no means am I saying we should kill retarded or mentally challenged people or insane people. What I am saying though is, why were they allowed to be in a position where they are able to hurt themselves or other people. Granted we could go into the argument that the person the OP posted about was more than likely mentally unstable but then we get going into semantics. Was McVay insane? Or was he acting out on something he felt passionate about? Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. Was the dude crazy or maybe he really really really wanted to be like the joker (albeit he did fuck up the hair color considering the jokers hair was deff GREEN and not RED.)

At the heart of the argument we have here we only really have one solution, by that I mean one that actually makes sense. The issue here is that people think that anyone can go and pick up a handgun from any store and shoot the shit out of a movie theater or what have you. Clearly this is not the case due to gun laws. HOWEVER if someone is going to do some shady shit and they really want to do it...they are going to stop at no end to accomplish what they want to get done. That being said, why are we making laws restricting and making it so hard for average people that want to defend themselves and the people around them in the presence of a crime being committed and the absence of the law? Doesn't make sense does it? A criminal will break the law and an average joe (under normal circumstances) will abide by it, that is why we get pissed off over new legislation further constricting the liberties of the current gun laws within the states. All the while crime is still rampant, people are still dying, people are still getting robbed, murdered, raped, and shot. Why? because as I said before, a criminal does not care.

For those of you that doubt what I'm saying here (and if you need me to spell it out....we need to ease off of making it harder for average joe and jane to get pistols and so called assault weapons [btw that means anything with a flash suppressor, a pistol grip rifle{think M16 variants} or a "high capacity magazine" {exceeding the ammount of rounds the firearm was intended to carry}] so that they can defend the public and their homes.) I direct you to the most recent viral video of the elderly man in Florida who was in an internet cafe who sucessfuly detered a robbery that was in progress. Not only may he have saved lives, but he stopped a REAL CRIME from happening. So my next question is: what would have happened in that movie theater has 2 or 3 people have been carrying a firearm with them? Yes he was in body armor and a ballistic helmet, but I promise you that as soon as he pulled out a gun and started shooting, lots of lead would have been flying his way. And I dont care how much armor your wearing, taking a bullet that is traveling at 1,000+ FPS to the chest STILL FUCKING HURTS LIKE HELL.

TL:DR read that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='AOBLXIX' timestamp='1343170878' post='38434']
Some great points of why we SHOULDN'T take away guns.

Im still shocked why people think taking away guns from law abiding citizens will do anything.
[/quote]
that was a side point to my last rant. just because you make it illegal to do something doesn't mean people still wont find a way to do it. Also, another main reason behind the constitutional right to bear arms is to mutiny in the event of the gov stepping their bounds too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use