The shooting in the movie theater in Colorado clearly means everyone should have guns all the time. Bonus is this asshole who keeps posting on my mother-in-laws facebook articles trying to argue that Holmes wouldn't have attacked at all if he knew anonymous citizens all had guns. Because dozens of people shooting at one guy in a dark theater through a panicked crowd and tear-gas is totally a good idea. He literally can not fathom why that would be a bad thing, insisting that "mutually assured destruction" would save lives. WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK.
While I agree with some of what he said, I do take issue that "Assault" rifles are that much more dangerous than hunting rifles and that anyone who wants one intends to use it on people. Many people just like them to sport shoot and like the "Tactical" look of them. A ranch rifle will do just as much damage as an AR-15. Also, handguns are used in far more crimes than rifles of any sort. Hell, I'd say someone is better off buying a rifle for home defense than a handgun since it would be harder to get away from you if you used the sling. Just because some rifles look scarier than others doesn't mean they're inherently evil.
Just because some rifles look scarier than others doesn't mean they're inherently evil.
I don't think it is controversial to suggest that it is significantly easier to kill large amounts of people with an AR-15 than it is with a bolt action hunting rifle.
Furthermore, his point is that the only purpose of an AR-15 (beyond making limber-dicks feel cool) is to make it easier to kill large amounts of people than it is with a bolt action hunting rifle, not that they look scary.
Some of you really think this issue boils down to "Liberals are pussies and want everyone else to be pussies too" don't you?
Also, handguns are used in far more crimes than rifles of any sort. Hell, I'd say someone is better off buying a rifle for home defense than a handgun since it would be harder to get away from you if you used the sling. Just because some rifles look scarier than others doesn't mean they're inherently evil.
Um, why is someone getting away from you a problem? Isn't that the optimal outcome?
In any case, it's clear enough that an assault rifle has significantly more destructive potential than a hunting rifle, though I don't think that that alone justifies an outright ban.
Moreover, statistically speaking they don't seem to be a particularly big problem.
If this is going to be a guns thing again, I'll throw in that I saw, through some random reading recently, that more people in America are killed with knives than in any other country in the world. Now, I don't know if that's true, and I don't have time to check it right now, but if it is true, wouldn't it weigh towards the argument that America is just a very, very violent place and the existence of guns, as such, is not quite the issue so much as that we're just a bunch of violent fucks?
Also, the people I know here have been also spouting that mantra that, if there had been someone else there with a gun, they could have taken out the movie shooter. I even saw some people on this forum using that argument after the Virginia Tech unpleasantness years ago.
I'm not so sure I like this argument, and it's being used more and more by the right. I think the real problem I have with it is that it endorses a wild west safety ethos. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in a situation like those people at the midnight movie shooting, I think I'd really rather take my chances avoiding being hurt by the one guy, as opposed to avoiding being hurt by multiple guys creating a dangerous crossfire.
The reality of it is that neither CCP or additional firearms regulations are likely going to do much of anything for situations like this. At some point the argument is just pure confirmation bias and pre-existing agenda.
I have to agree with HungryJoe. If I were in that situation, I wouldn't want every yahoo with a gun in the theater opening fire on the wacko and creating the crossfire, as Joe said. I'd hit the deck, stay low to the ground, try to get cover behind something, and hope that guy runs out of ammo or a SWAT team shows up while searching for an escape path. Hell, even if I had a CCP and a gun, I wouldn't have even considered shooting back at the wacko unless I was in pointblank range with no people or obstructions between me. Of course, that also would mean I'd probably be one of the first ones shot dead because I'd also be in point blank range without cover.
Yeah, in other situations a CCP might be useful but shootings like this are so frantic and there are so many other people around that things could escalate pretty quickly. Even if it would be helpful for someone there to have one, saying we should all carry is retarded. You're just asking for friendly fire. Besides, I don't think pistols are allowed in theaters if they have over a certain number of people inside.
Now, I don't know if that's true, and I don't have time to check it right now, but if it is true, wouldn't it weigh towards the argument that America is just a very, very violent place and the existence of guns, as such, is not quite the issue so much as that we're just a bunch of violent fucks?
Yeah that's pretty much my view. And with crazies like the Colorado shooter, who's to say they wouldn't have just made a bomb or something if guns were not available. You can take away guns and other weapons, but people will find some way to kill each other.
Like I said, I want to restrict guns more because I don't trust the CCW-carrying civilians to respond in a safe manner, not to prevent the crazies from getting their hands on weapons. The latter aren't nearly the risk that the former are.
Like I said, I want to restrict guns more because I don't trust the CCW-carrying civilians to respond in a safe manner, not to prevent the crazies from getting their hands on weapons. The latter aren't nearly the risk that the former are.
You're still asking that when the US nuked civilians after losing a military naval base?
As for gun control, the US loves them, so they should do the same as Switzerland. Fire the military and set up yearly mandatory military training for the militia. It could solve a ton of issues and let the rednecks wank all over their military hardware.
You're still asking that when the US nuked civilians after losing a military naval base?
That's a bit unfair - they were part of an extended military campaign in two theatres before they Nuked japan.
Like I said, I want to restrict guns more because I don't trust the CCW-carrying civilians to respond in a safe manner, not to prevent the crazies from getting their hands on weapons. The latter aren't nearly the risk that the former are.
It could be argued that mandatory training for CCW holders would also be a sensible idea. Sure, it would discourage plenty of people, but the people who were not would at least have some training beyond waiting for their license to come through, and 80s action movies.
Comments
Bonus is this asshole who keeps posting on my mother-in-laws facebook articles trying to argue that Holmes wouldn't have attacked at all if he knew anonymous citizens all had guns. Because dozens of people shooting at one guy in a dark theater through a panicked crowd and tear-gas is totally a good idea. He literally can not fathom why that would be a bad thing, insisting that "mutually assured destruction" would save lives.
WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK.
Furthermore, his point is that the only purpose of an AR-15 (beyond making limber-dicks feel cool) is to make it easier to kill large amounts of people than it is with a bolt action hunting rifle, not that they look scary.
Some of you really think this issue boils down to "Liberals are pussies and want everyone else to be pussies too" don't you?
Edit: Ninja'd.
In any case, it's clear enough that an assault rifle has significantly more destructive potential than a hunting rifle, though I don't think that that alone justifies an outright ban.
Moreover, statistically speaking they don't seem to be a particularly big problem.
Also, the people I know here have been also spouting that mantra that, if there had been someone else there with a gun, they could have taken out the movie shooter. I even saw some people on this forum using that argument after the Virginia Tech unpleasantness years ago.
I'm not so sure I like this argument, and it's being used more and more by the right. I think the real problem I have with it is that it endorses a wild west safety ethos. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in a situation like those people at the midnight movie shooting, I think I'd really rather take my chances avoiding being hurt by the one guy, as opposed to avoiding being hurt by multiple guys creating a dangerous crossfire.
As for gun control, the US loves them, so they should do the same as Switzerland. Fire the military and set up yearly mandatory military training for the militia. It could solve a ton of issues and let the rednecks wank all over their military hardware.