[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

Exactly. The Left is all for stricter gun control laws. A lot of good it did them in this town in this instance.

If someone in the audience had had a legally concealed weapon would it have made a difference?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

We will never know. And as long as ridiculous laws are in place, there will never be a chance to know.

I didn't know this before, but if you live in Aurora, and you are in this theater when Holman comes in and starts shooting, and you shoot him to stop it, YOU would be arrested for carrying a weapon, concealed or not, and felony discharge of said weapon.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

As long as us "good guys" have the better weapons, and more of them, the "bad guys" will not be able to take over.

--Dave

And so began the Good vs Evil personal arms race.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

Get some stats I think very few......

Actually the Brady Campaign is notorious for including everyone who has a gunshot wound as a "victim" of gun violence in their stats. Including criminals shot by cops and gang members engaged in drive-bys...also 18 year old gang members are included in the "child victims of gun violence"...Look it up. I'm not denying we don't have waaay more incidences than other countries....I just wouldn't trust the numbers coming from the Brady Bunch if you want to be taken seriously.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by TomO

Actually the Brady Campaign is notorious for including everyone who has a gunshot wound as a "victim" of gun violence in their stats. Including criminals shot by cops and gang members engaged in drive-bys...also 18 year old gang members are included in the "child victims of gun violence"...Look it up. I'm not denying we don't have waaay more incidences than other countries....I just wouldn't trust the numbers coming from the Brady Bunch if you want to be taken seriously.

That makes sense to me, except for those who are shot by the police.

Of course gang drive-by shootings should be considered gun violence. Why wouldn't they be? And many of those gang-bangers are legally considered children. And they should be.

[SilenceInMotion]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And so began the Good vs Evil personal arms race.

A stone was cast once, and the arms race commenced.

Interesting thought, indeed.

[Ktoyou]

Ktoyou is to blame.

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who thinks it's a really good idea to march into a movie theater with weapons and kill a few people...........

Yes, right, when someone is gone nuts, it is not really an arms issue, rather a mental health management issue, which may need to be better monitored, as to those with mental illness having access to firearms.

The man in Austin was nuts.
The young man in Virginia was nuts
this man is nuts
Mass murder and serial killing are nut acts, more than a gun issue.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by PureX

That makes sense to me, except for those who are shot by the police.

Of course gang drive-by shootings should be considered gun violence. Why wouldn't they be? And many of those gang-bangers are legally considered children. And they should be.

Good luck with that.


Now we know who the Brady Crew are pandering to.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by PureX

Of course gang drive-by shootings should be considered gun violence. Why wouldn't they be? And many of those gang-bangers are legally considered children. And they should be.

He was talking about the gang members who get shot being counted as victims when they are the perpetrators of the drive-by, and 18 year olds are not considered to be children, legally speaking.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who thinks it's a really good idea to march into a movie theater with weapons and kill a few people is going to evidence good judgment at some point?

And the kid was wearing body armor. He appears to have anticipated the potential of meeting armed resistance without that notion having any impact on his plans, other than preparing for it.

To the reasonable, who are risking one thing for another of greater value, sure. To a nutter like this fellow or the sort who means to kill themselves directly or by cop? Not so much.

And that's the sort we're talking about.

It's not a matter of good vs bad judgement, it's about accomplishing a goal, mass murder, not maybe one or none.

If they wear body armor it's because they are prepared when the cops come.

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And so began the Good vs Evil personal arms race.

The good guys far outnumber the bad guys.

We win that race easily.

--Dave

[kmoney]

EXCLUSIVE: Movie massacre suspect sent chilling notebook to psychiatrist before attack

AURORA, Colo. – James Holmes, the accused gunman in last Friday's midnight movie massacre in Colorado, mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, but the parcel sat unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, a law enforcement source told FoxNews.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25...#ixzz21fJnqlzk

If only that had been read prior to the attack.....





Also, I saw an article about gun sales in CO being significantly up since the shooting.



And Legendary Director Peter Bogdanovich: What If Movies Are Part of the Problem?

The fact that these tentpole movies are all violent comic book movies doesn't speak well for our society.

Obviously, there is violence in the world, and you have to deal with it. But there are other ways to do it without showing people getting blown up. One of the most horrible movies ever made was Fritz Lang's M, about a child murderer. But he didn't show the murder of the child. The child is playing with a rubber ball and a balloon. When the killer takes her behind the bushes, we see the ball roll out from the bushes. And then he cuts to the balloon flying up into the sky. Everybody who sees it feels a different kind of chill up their back, a horrible feeling. So this argument that you have to have violence shown in gory details is not true. It's much more artistic to show it in a different way.

Today, there's a general numbing of the audience. There's too much murder and killing. You make people insensitive by showing it all the time. The body count in pictures is huge. It numbs the audience into thinking it's not so terrible. Back in the '70s, I asked Orson Welles what he thought was happening to pictures, and he said, "We're brutalizing the audience. We're going to end up like the Roman circus, live at the Coliseum." The respect for human life seems to be eroding.
......
The other point I would make: Even with all the murders in the United States since the Kennedys were killed, very few people have experienced murder directly. Generally speaking, the average person hasn't experienced it, and the average director hasn't experienced it. I think if they had, they would make their films differently. We had a murder in our family when Dorothy was killed, and I can't begin to describe how horrible it is. It's too easy to show murders in movies now. There are too many of them, and it's too easy. There is a general lack of respect for life, because it's so easy to just kill people.

Nothing's changed in 44 years [since Targets]. Things have gotten worse when it comes to the control of guns. This guy in Colorado legally had an arsenal. What's an AK attack rifle for? What is that for but to kill people? It's not for hunting. Why is it for sale? It boggles the mind.

[aCultureWarrior]

Wow.