PDA

View Full Version : Sales of firearms increase after colorado shooting



mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 12:50 PM
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/fear-prompts-gun-sales-1484156.html

angel0430
07-25-2012, 02:09 PM
This is not new. Everytime somethign of this magnitude happens people go out and start buying stuff.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 02:12 PM
Yeah I don't have a problem with this at all. People need to be able to defend themselves from loons like this guy.

duane1969
07-25-2012, 02:20 PM
Victims that shoot back live longer.

Imagine how much less of a tragedy Colorado would have been if just one licensed gun owner was carrying his .45 that day...

habsheaven
07-25-2012, 03:24 PM
You guys need a reality check. The guy discharged a couple of canisters which in all likelihood made visability an issue. He was wearing body armour and firing an assault rifle. Good luck with...

duwal
07-25-2012, 04:26 PM
Victims that shoot back live longer.

Imagine how much less of a tragedy Colorado would have been if just one licensed gun owner was carrying his .45 that day...


then you would have TWO gunmen firing in a dark theater fulled with gas and zero visibility. Yeah that would make zero sense. Chances are you'd be some more of the innocent people that the gunman missed

pwaldo
07-25-2012, 06:12 PM
Victims that shoot back live longer.

Imagine how much less of a tragedy Colorado would have been if just one licensed gun owner was carrying his .45 that day...

There are instances when an armed person would be more helpful against a lunatic shooting people. This is NOT one of them. He was wearing armor and was in a dark enclosed area with tons of people running around wildly. That's not really a situation where somebody firing to try and take them out would be something that I would want happening.

AUTaxMan
07-25-2012, 06:50 PM
It's not about taking him out. It's about distracting him enough to let more people get out of the building. Knowing the way he fled and how he put up no fight once the cops got to him, if someone...

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 07:27 PM
I guess it would depend on your ability and confidence. not matter how dark it is or how much smoke is in the way, muzzle fire is easy to spot, in fact easier in these situations, shoot for the light. shooting him in the leg would hinder his mobility and saved lives, a shot to the head would end it and even a shot to the arm or hand would slow him down, body armor is only so good.

but who would of, could of, should of does not really matter now, hind sight is 20/20, but foresight can be better.

OnePimpTiger
07-25-2012, 08:08 PM
Victims that shoot back live longer.

Imagine how much less of a tragedy Colorado would have been if just one licensed gun owner was carrying his .45 that day...

This.

I agree, dark and smoky makes visibility harder, but short of 100% darkness, you'd still be able to acquire the target...loud bangs and muzzle flash give a good indication and zeroing in would be possible. And, unlike the movies, a shot to the chest with body armor would definitely knock him down, slow him down, and probably take his breath away. Any kind of hit is going to reduce the number of shots he gets off.

pwaldo
07-25-2012, 08:13 PM
I guess it would depend on your ability and confidence. not matter how dark it is or how much smoke is in the way, muzzle fire is easy to spot, in fact easier in these situations, shoot for the light. shooting him in the leg would hinder his mobility and saved lives, a shot to the head would end it and even a shot to the arm or hand would slow him down, body armor is only so good.

Except that if you have several people all firing at the guy to take him down then you have increased odds that somebody who is not he shooter will be mistaken for him and get needlessly shot. Also shooting somebody in the arm, hand, or leg is going to be a difficult shot no matter what your ability is.

Remember everyone is looking at this from what we already know well after it has finished. The people in the theater didn't know how many shooters were firing, they didn't know he was wearing armor, they didn't know squat. Yes looking back you could have maybe done something knowing all of this but it won't do you any good now.

theonedru
07-25-2012, 09:00 PM
its silly how people are so stoic with their " if I had a gun blah blah would be dead or whatever"

1. Do you people know how foolish it is to tell others on an open forum that you have premeditated the shooting/ attempted murder of the next people that attacks you or does something that causes you to draw your gun and fire, you have just thrown out any self defense claim for the rest of your life.

2. People talk smack but the chance of them acting on it is slim.

3. They are just adding to the overall problem by going gun crazy after the fact.

4. How many people here has seen someone die from a violent act right before their eyes, to see them fight for the hopeless last breaths as their life leaves them. Its not pretty and you would be lying if you didn't think it doesn't affect you.

duane1969
07-25-2012, 09:23 PM
Shooting in the air to distract him would be better than scattering like cattle and hoping that he doesn't target you. At the very least, if he knew that there was an armed person there then he would...

hawk2618
07-25-2012, 09:52 PM
I don't think letting others bear arms at events like this is the solution.So a theater of 25 carrying out of a 200 seat theater or any inside event is the answer???I honestly think that would open the flood gates to more loons like this.Is a metal detecter for EVERY public event somewhere down the road?

duane1969
07-25-2012, 10:12 PM
I don't think letting others bear arms at events like this is the solution.So a theater of 25 carrying out of a 200 seat theater or any inside event is the answer???I honestly think that would open the flood gates to more loons like this.Is a metal detecter for EVERY public event somewhere down the road?

I don't know how cost effective that is. I know that metal detectors are expensive to buy and then you have to pay someone to monitor it. Plus, every person will have to be subjected to searches for the pleasure of watching a movie or going to Chuck E. Cheese. It won't take long for businesses to start losing customers.

Is a bunch of people carrying guns the answer? Maybe not. But 200 unarmed people in a closed room with a lunatic bent on killing everyone is not exactly my idea of an optimal situation either.

pwaldo
07-25-2012, 10:12 PM
People are really overlooking what I keep pointing out....if you have a room of 100 people and one shooter goes in and I pull out my gun to shoot and kill him. I *may* be mistaken for the shooter because I just fired a gun and then the other 25 people in the theater that are carrying guns will aim at me and then possibly start off some chain of events where everyone is shooting at somebody because "they are the shooter".

So stop pretending like if you were in that moment that you would be able to identify that there is one and only one gunman. This isn't the case. You would have no clue. This wasn't a situation to pull out a gun to stop somebody and the more people come in here with stories of how they would stop this guy are just being counterproductive to supporting guns because it is making you look bad.

JustAlex
07-25-2012, 10:13 PM
Habs, this is 'Merica....land of the free, land of GUNS! <br />
<br />
I'm sure if EVERYONE had been armed in that theater (in a dark room filled with smoke) everything would've been A OK :thumb: <br />
<br />
I mean,...

habsheaven
07-25-2012, 10:28 PM
Can you imagine someone pulling their gun and firing at the muzzle flashes as panicked patrons scramble all around them. I wonder how many people the HERO ends up shooting in the malay?

duane1969
07-25-2012, 10:44 PM
Can you imagine someone pulling their gun and firing at the muzzle flashes as panicked patrons scramble all around them. I wonder how many people the HERO ends up shooting in the malay?

Unless they are really stupid people then I would imagine that the people fleeing would be as far away as possible from the gunman.

habsheaven
07-25-2012, 10:55 PM
Unless they are really stupid people then I would imagine that the people fleeing would be as far away as possible from the gunman.

And where does that put them in relation to the HERO with the gun? Should they be expected to not cross his line of fire? I would wager the stupid person in the theatre is the one firing at a target with no clear line of sight.

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 10:56 PM
i would rather die trying to help then dying hiding on the floor. maybe others would have died, but maybe not, that is why i said hind sight is 20/20, and foresight can be better.
some people do talk smack and others have trained daily for several decades, but neither know what will happen when the time comes for something that horrific to happen to them.

no one said all people should have had a gun and opened fired on him, but heck, it may have saved a few lives.

death is horrific but the death of one to save many is better than giving up. and to die trying to live is better than being dead.

mrveggieman
07-26-2012, 10:02 AM
i would rather die trying to help then dying hiding on the floor. maybe others would have died, but maybe not, that is why i said hind sight is 20/20, and foresight can be better.
some people do talk smack and others have trained daily for several decades, but neither know what will happen when the time comes for something that horrific to happen to them.

no one said all people should have had a gun and opened fired on him, but heck, it may have saved a few lives.

death is horrific but the death of one to save many is better than giving up. and to die trying to live is better than being dead.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Hairylemon
07-26-2012, 01:47 PM
A lot of armchair heroes on here today. I bet 99% of you "I would have shot back" types would have been running and scrambling for cover like the rest of us.Possible exceptions being you guys in the Armed Forces.

mrveggieman
07-26-2012, 02:00 PM
A lot of armchair heroes on here today. I bet 99% of you "I would have shot back" types would have been running and scrambling for cover like the rest of us.Possible exceptions being you guys in the Armed Forces.

Funny you mentioned that. A while back a buddy of mines was telling me that he was out somewhere at a public event that had police all around and someone started shooting. Wouldn't you know the cops were the first ones ducking and hiding. I was thinking shouldn't the police be out trying to protect us instead of ducking and hiding like cowards.

habsheaven
07-26-2012, 02:14 PM
I would characterize ducking and hiding when shots are being fired as SMART, not cowardly. At least until you can determine what you are up against. But that's just me, I think I hold a higher opinion of the police than a lot of Americans do.

duane1969
07-26-2012, 02:15 PM
And where does that put them in relation to the HERO with the gun? Should they be expected to not cross his line of fire? I would wager the stupid person in the theatre is the one firing at a target with no clear line of sight.

Trying to do something to protect yourself or others doesn't have to be about being a hero. I would rather be in a position to defend myself and do something than be cowering in the corner waiting for my turn to die.


i would rather die trying to help then dying hiding on the floor. maybe others would have died, but maybe not, that is why i said hind sight is 20/20, and foresight can be better.
some people do talk smack and others have trained daily for several decades, but neither know what will happen when the time comes for something that horrific to happen to them.

no one said all people should have had a gun and opened fired on him, but heck, it may have saved a few lives.

death is horrific but the death of one to save many is better than giving up. and to die trying to live is better than being dead.

As veggie says...CHURCH!!!!!


A lot of armchair heroes on here today. I bet 99% of you "I would have shot back" types would have been running and scrambling for cover like the rest of us.Possible exceptions being you guys in the Armed Forces.

Uh yes, I would be dipping and ducking just like everyone else. I am not stupid. Just because I would shoot back doesn't mean that I would be dimwitted enough to stand toe-to-toe and have an OK Corral shoot out with a guy holding an AR-15. It isn't about bravery or chivalry, it is about self-preservation. Just because I would not die on my knees begging for my does not mean I have a John Wayne attitude or would look for a fight. My gun rights/ownership philosophy is very clear "Be Prepared or Be A Victim".

shrewsbury
07-26-2012, 02:23 PM
armchair heroes or armchair critics?

habsheaven
07-26-2012, 03:23 PM
I would rather be in a position to defend myself and do something than be cowering in the corner waiting for my turn to die.

Duane, just to be clear I think this philosophy is a good one. Not certain how it would have worked in this situation.

pwaldo
07-26-2012, 03:30 PM
i would rather die trying to help then dying hiding on the floor.

Nobody said you just had to sit there with your hands folded quietly and take a bullet to the head but this is probably one of the few instances where having a ton of people try to take down a crazed shooter by firing at them is not a good idea. The fact some people can't figure that out is the issue.

cardmasters
07-26-2012, 03:34 PM
Some of the so called armchair heroes will try to fight back. The person that stop the gilfords shooting was unarmed. And this is coming from a coward.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-26-2012, 05:03 PM
The reason the gun sales are going up is not because of the shooting , It's the aftermath of the shooting . The Dept. of justice and Obama were thinking new "gun control laws" before they cleaned the place up. This is a reaction by the citizens due to the reaction from DOJ. There have already been just about every democrat screaming "gun control' since the shooting.

mrveggieman
07-26-2012, 05:07 PM
The reason the gun sales are going up is not because of the shooting , It's the aftermath of the shooting . The Dept. of justice and Obama were thinking new "gun control laws" before they cleaned the place up. This is a reaction by the citizens due to the reaction from DOJ. There have already been just about every democrat screaming "gun control' since the shooting.

So what are you trying to suggest? The Colorado shootings were some type of false flag operation designed to take away our second amendment rights? :rolleyes:

INTIMADATOR2007
07-26-2012, 05:18 PM
So what are you trying to suggest? The Colorado shootings were some type of false flag operation designed to take away our second amendment rights? :rolleyes:
I'll leave ya' with the administrations favorite words .

"Never let a crisis go to waste"

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Istook-Colorado-Batman-shooting/2012/07/20/id/446083

Wickabee
07-26-2012, 05:20 PM
I'll leave ya' with the administrations favorite words .

"Never let a crisis go to waste"


So the US is headed back to Iraq?

mrveggieman
07-26-2012, 05:20 PM
I'll leave ya' with the administrations favorite words .

"Never let a crisis go to waste"

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Istook-Colorado-Batman-shooting/2012/07/20/id/446083

Now it's really funny that if someone would have suggested the same thing about your good ole buddy gwb and 9/11 they would have been branded as a conspiracy nut and hauled of to the looney bin. :loco:

pghin08
07-26-2012, 05:39 PM
This thread is giving me a headache. Legit.

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Actually, Colorado law, and the movie theater policy of no guns, caused everyone else to be unarmed. Visibility would not have been an issue. As soon as someone in body armor carrying multiple long...

habsheaven
07-26-2012, 06:58 PM
- No guns in the theatre did not stop Holmes from bringing one in. The law is irrelevant. <br />
<br />
- He discharged some sort of teargas canisters before beginning the assault, coupled with the dark...

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 07:49 PM
I will refer you to my thread, with concrete documented evidence from an investigation by the US Government, of the FACTS about the CIA mind-control program called MKUltra. But I'm sure you won't...

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 07:55 PM
Now it's really funny that if someone would have suggested the same thing about your good ole buddy gwb and 9/11 they would have been branded as a conspiracy nut and hauled of to the looney bin. :loco:

Because it is lunacy to think someone as dumb as GWB could pull off the greatest hoax of modern time with no witnesses. Alex Jones is a Jesuit and Deceives With The Truth.

GWB did not cause 9/11, but the powers that rule this world did. I used to argue with people that said GWB did it, because the fact remains he could not have. More than likely, the CIA did, but not because "Bush said to do it". Bush was just a puppet, from the same puppet masters that put obama the puppet in the White House.

R & D does not matter. It is a 1 party system, they own both sides of the coin. They would rather us fight about Republican vs. Democrat, that way we aren't paying attention to what they are doing.

Wickabee
07-26-2012, 07:57 PM
Jessie the fact you can even pretend to know what it was like inside that theatre shows how full of crap you really are.

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 08:43 PM
- the assault, coupled with the dark theatre. Visibility WAS an issue.

- You CANNOT compare Chicago and Switzerland. The mere fact you are trying to tells me ALL I need to know. The Swiss are a peace loving country. The US is a gun-crazed country.





Also, Finnland is a peace-loving country. However, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet, which is why Adrez Brevik or whatever the heck his name is, was not worried at all about retaliation when he murdered those people. So, we have Switzerland, who requires machine guns in every house, and Finnland, who requires almost no guns citizen wide. Which is easier to kill innocents without being killed by the citizens with return fire?


There is the logic of the left. Folks, plain as day, the logic of the left is absolutely flawed. Leftist Lunacy is a better word. Too bad innocent people have to die under it..needlessly.

Wickabee
07-26-2012, 08:48 PM
Go ahead and namecall. It just means.you have no.argument

habsheaven
07-26-2012, 10:12 PM
Also, Finnland is a peace-loving country. However, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet, which is why Adrez Brevik or whatever the heck his name is, was not worried at all about retaliation when he murdered those people. So, we have Switzerland, who requires machine guns in every house, and Finnland, who requires almost no guns citizen wide. Which is easier to kill innocents without being killed by the citizens with return fire?

There is the logic of the left. Folks, plain as day, the logic of the left is absolutely flawed. Leftist Lunacy is a better word. Too bad innocent people have to die under it..needlessly.

What are you trying to say? Is your mind as confused as what you type?

Wickabee
07-26-2012, 10:29 PM
I've never heard of Finnland myself.

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 10:44 PM
Jessie the fact you can even pretend to know what it was like inside that theatre shows how full of crap you really are.

The fact that you do not recognize suspicious behavior shows how unprepared you are.

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 10:44 PM
I've never heard of Finnland myself.

It's where the Finn's live eh. Way way East of Canadia eh.

jessejordan419
07-26-2012, 11:02 PM
What are you trying to say? Is your mind as confused as what you type?


I know logic can be hard to grapple for the leftist, but here it is plain and simple.

The quote was:



- You CANNOT compare Chicago and Switzerland. The mere fact you are trying to tells me ALL I need to know. The Swiss are a peace loving country. The US is a gun-crazed country.

Here is a list of these "Peace Loving Countries" as you like to call them.

Switzerland = guns in every house = nearly 0.00% gun crime

Norway = heavy gun restrictions = almost no citizen owned guns, much less carried = Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 because no citizens would have guns.
Finland = heavy gun restrictions =Ever heard of a band called Children of Bodom? Lake Bodom murders? Matti Juhani Saari kills 10 in 2008.
Germany = heavy gun restrictions = a long list of mass murders.

And now for American cities:
Chicago = heavy gun restrictions = most gun violence in America. Iraq is safer.
Colorado = heavy gun restrictions = Aurora = no armed resistance
The People's Republik of Kalifornia = heavy gun restrictions = long long list of gun violence and mass murders/armed robberies.

Do you see a pattern? I know it's hard to see logic through the fog of leftism, but it's there.

*censored*
07-26-2012, 11:04 PM
It's Finland. Single N in the first syllable.

And besides, Brevik shot up Norway, not Finland.

Get your facts straight before you try to make an argument.

Wickabee
07-26-2012, 11:13 PM
It's where the Finn's live eh. Way way East of Canadia eh.
Are you meaning Finland?

Should I take the ehs as an intended insult?

habsheaven
07-26-2012, 11:52 PM
I know logic can be hard to grapple for the leftist, but here it is plain and simple.

The quote was:



Here is a list of these "Peace Loving Countries" as you like to call them.

Switzerland = guns in every house = nearly 0.00% gun crime

Norway = heavy gun restrictions = almost no citizen owned guns, much less carried = Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 because no citizens would have guns.
Finland = heavy gun restrictions =Ever heard of a band called Children of Bodom? Lake Bodom murders? Matti Juhani Saari kills 10 in 2008.
Germany = heavy gun restrictions = a long list of mass murders.

And now for American cities:
Chicago = heavy gun restrictions = most gun violence in America. Iraq is safer.
Colorado = heavy gun restrictions = Aurora = no armed resistance
The People's Republik of Kalifornia = heavy gun restrictions = long long list of gun violence and mass murders/armed robberies.

Do you see a pattern? I know it's hard to see logic through the fog of leftism, but it's there.

You like cherry-picking your stats. Why don't you try listing the annual number of deaths by guns per country and show me where the good ole US of A sits on that list? Then we can talk about gun control/ownership and its effects on the numbers. I will be waiting here in the fog.

shrewsbury
07-27-2012, 01:02 AM
habs, you still waiting? looking mighty foggy out your way

jessejordan419
07-27-2012, 10:56 AM
It's Finland. Single N in the first syllable.

And besides, Brevik shot up Norway, not Finland.

Get your facts straight before you try to make an argument.


Actually, I got the facts straight in the post right above yours. And who cares if I added an extra N to Finland, if that is your only argument, you are standing on thin ice. The only difference between Norway and Finland is an imaginary line. They're all Scandinavians.

The fact remains, Switzerland does not have gun violence because when EVERYONE is armed, no one dares to rob or murder armed citizenry!!

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "An armed society is a polite society".

pghin08
07-27-2012, 10:58 AM
I know logic can be hard to grapple for the leftist, but here it is plain and simple.

The quote was:



Here is a list of these "Peace Loving Countries" as you like to call them.

Switzerland = guns in every house = nearly 0.00% gun crime

Norway = heavy gun restrictions = almost no citizen owned guns, much less carried = Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 because no citizens would have guns.
Finland = heavy gun restrictions =Ever heard of a band called Children of Bodom? Lake Bodom murders? Matti Juhani Saari kills 10 in 2008.
Germany = heavy gun restrictions = a long list of mass murders.

And now for American cities:
Chicago = heavy gun restrictions = most gun violence in America. Iraq is safer.
Colorado = heavy gun restrictions = Aurora = no armed resistance
The People's Republik of Kalifornia = heavy gun restrictions = long long list of gun violence and mass murders/armed robberies.

Do you see a pattern? I know it's hard to see logic through the fog of leftism, but it's there.


Here's a nice quote from the "gun violence" Wikipedia page:

"The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership and highest rate of officers."

So the country that has the most guns, has the most gun injuries? I'm SHOCKED!


Also, here's a link to an interesting article from the BBC back in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

In it, they mention the number of gun murders in Great Britain in 2006/07 (I assume this to be a 12 month period, but they're a bit vague in how they present it). That number? 59.

To compare, here's the number of gun murders in the United States in 2010: 8,775

Now to be fair, the population of the US is just about 314 million (according to the latest estimate), while the population in Great Britain is about 60 million, just shy of 1/5 the population of the US. But even if you multiply their gun murders by 6 (being generous here), you get 354 gun murders, or approximately 4% the amount of gun murders in the US. Gun laws in Great Britain are very strict. Out of those 60 million people, there are about 1.8 million legally owned guns in Great Britain, or about 1 in every 33 citizens. The US is just about a 1 gun per person.

There are a ton of comparisons that can be done like this. The more guns you have, the more gun murders you have. Pure and simple. How someone could argue that less gun control would mean less gun murder is beyond me.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

jessejordan419
07-27-2012, 11:02 AM
You like cherry-picking your stats. Why don't you try listing the annual number of deaths by guns per country and show me where the good ole US of A sits on that list? Then we can talk about gun control/ownership and its effects on the numbers. I will be waiting here in the fog.


That would be pointless. That would have no bearing what so ever. Now if you want to break it down by states, as in states with heavy gun restrictions vs. states with almost no restrictions, then you will actually have something to compare.

The stats are out there. I'm not going to spoon feed you, but if I must, it will be when I have more time. I'll start a whole thread about the stats of gun control states vs. non-gun control states.


I'm not cherry picking because Switzerland HAS NO GUN VIOLENCE. You're argument was "because Switzerland is a peace loving country" and I showed you how other "peace loving countries" close to Switzerland HAVE GUN VOILENCE because they do not have an armed citizenry.


You are ignoring the blatant facts before you, but I would expect no less from a leftist. That is the only way leftists can advance their agenda: by lying or ignoring facts. Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it".

pghin08
07-27-2012, 11:07 AM
That would be pointless. That would have no bearing what so ever. Now if you want to break it down by states, as in states with heavy gun restrictions vs. states with almost no restrictions, then you will actually have something to compare.

The stats are out there. I'm not going to spoon feed you, but if I must, it will be when I have more time. I'll start a whole thread about the stats of gun control states vs. non-gun control states.


I'm not cherry picking because Switzerland HAS NO GUN VIOLENCE. You're argument was "because Switzerland is a peace loving country" and I showed you how other "peace loving countries" close to Switzerland HAVE GUN VOILENCE because they do not have an armed citizenry.


You are ignoring the blatant facts before you, but I would expect no less from a leftist. That is the only way leftists can advance their agenda: by lying or ignoring facts. Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it".

Never thought I'd have to ask this question. How can you have gun violence without guns?

habsheaven
07-27-2012, 01:12 PM
That would be pointless. That would have no bearing what so ever. Now if you want to break it down by states, as in states with heavy gun restrictions vs. states with almost no restrictions, then you will actually have something to compare.

The stats are out there. I'm not going to spoon feed you, but if I must, it will be when I have more time. I'll start a whole thread about the stats of gun control states vs. non-gun control states.


I'm not cherry picking because Switzerland HAS NO GUN VIOLENCE. You're argument was "because Switzerland is a peace loving country" and I showed you how other "peace loving countries" close to Switzerland HAVE GUN VOILENCE because they do not have an armed citizenry.


You are ignoring the blatant facts before you, but I would expect no less from a leftist. That is the only way leftists can advance their agenda: by lying or ignoring facts. Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it".


It would be pointless because it would show how BLATANTLY WRONG you are. I expected as much from you. You are already quite predictable. Once again, when the smoke clears you have nothing to base your argument on. Call me "leftist" all you want. A certain someone on here has pointed out repeatedly what calling people names really means for your argument. I wonder who that was? LOL

pghin08
07-27-2012, 01:22 PM
One more thing:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/obama-wont-push-for-new-gun-laws-646460/

tpeichel
07-30-2012, 11:42 PM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/so-you-want-to-own-a-gun-part-five/?singlepage=true

There has been considerable speculation about whether a theatergoer with a concealed weapon could have made any difference in the minute-long rampage. Glenn Reynolds pointed out after Virgina Tech (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272) that concealed carry at least gives a citizen a fighting chance against an assailant. Frank Taylor and others suggest that there wasnít enough time, or it was too confusing, or that citizens carrying concealed weapons simply arenít aware enough, or professional enough, to make any difference.


Many people may have frozen in shock or panic. Others may have fired ineffectually (as the police so often do) and hit nothing at all, or may have added to the casualties. The simple fact of the matter is that we donít know, and can never know, if the presence of an armed citizen might have made a difference that night.


I do know one thing for certain. If I had been in that theater, and had my concealed weapon (which, absurdly, is illegal here in North Carolina), there is a chance I would have remembered I was armed. There is a chance I would have been able to draw my pistol and activate the laser sight. There is a chance that the thousands of rounds Iíve fired in training ó more than many police officers have in their career ó would have taken over and I might have had a clear shot where I put the dot between the shooterís eyes and detached myself from the carnage long enough to remember front sight, press.


Thereís a lot of chance and not an inconsiderable amount of skill that would have had to coalesce to end a rampage like this as suddenly as it began. But that is a chance I bet anyone pinned down by a raging gunman would have taken if the situation presented itself.


The first rule of gun-fighting still applies: first, have a gun.

mrveggieman
07-31-2012, 09:30 AM
http://pjmedia.com/blog/so-you-want-to-own-a-gun-part-five/?singlepage=true

There has been considerable speculation about whether a theatergoer with a concealed weapon could have made any difference in the minute-long rampage. Glenn Reynolds pointed out after Virgina Tech (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272) that concealed carry at least gives a citizen a fighting chance against an assailant. Frank Taylor and others suggest that there wasn’t enough time, or it was too confusing, or that citizens carrying concealed weapons simply aren’t aware enough, or professional enough, to make any difference.


Many people may have frozen in shock or panic. Others may have fired ineffectually (as the police so often do) and hit nothing at all, or may have added to the casualties. The simple fact of the matter is that we don’t know, and can never know, if the presence of an armed citizen might have made a difference that night.


I do know one thing for certain. If I had been in that theater, and had my concealed weapon (which, absurdly, is illegal here in North Carolina), there is a chance I would have remembered I was armed. There is a chance I would have been able to draw my pistol and activate the laser sight. There is a chance that the thousands of rounds I’ve fired in training — more than many police officers have in their career — would have taken over and I might have had a clear shot where I put the dot between the shooter’s eyes and detached myself from the carnage long enough to remember front sight, press.


There’s a lot of chance and not an inconsiderable amount of skill that would have had to coalesce to end a rampage like this as suddenly as it began. But that is a chance I bet anyone pinned down by a raging gunman would have taken if the situation presented itself.


The first rule of gun-fighting still applies: first, have a gun.



Agree.