Well just who do you trust with guns? It’s gotta’ be somebody.
Would the situation have been improved if both had been armed?
Does it?
In one of these hoity-toity liberal states that wants to repeal The Second Commandment, a guy would have to move to a different seat in the theater when some asshole starts texting. :dubious:
Thank the Baby Jesus that Florida has a law that allows the victim to Stand His Ground. Was the texter another black punk wearing a hoodie? Watch the liberals start blaming the victim again.
What sort of legislation or other realistic action would have prevented this latest Heretofore Law Abiding Citizen attack, and yet would have been acceptable to the gunstrokers? Lumpy? Damuri? Anybody else wanna try?
Mandatory ownership of guns by all citizens, and mandatory carrying of guns by all citizens. You see, if the criminal* simply knew that the victim was definitely armed, he would not have dared to shoot him. Everyone would be completely safe.
*Innocent people never shoot others; the moment they do, they instantly become criminals. Therefore, we only need to worry about criminals
**No, I’m not serious.
Tragically, *they *are.
“A good guy with a gun”.
I recall reading somewhere, but can’t be arsed to google-fu for it now, that being armed was overwhelmingly more likely to make one assume that everyone else was also armed.
Which kinda blows a hole in the theory that ‘if everyone was armed, criminals would be too a-scared to break into homes or hold people up’.
Also just kinda suggests that carrying a gun reduces a gun owner’s already laughably low IQ to retarded eggplant levels, putting them in ‘better shoot first’ mentality - ‘Igor angry! Igor use thunder stick, make bad person go ouch!’
I see it’s just the usual gang of gun haters here, cracking wise in a circle jerk. Let me speak up for True Americans.
First, the guy who thought the victim should have used a silencer (so as to not commit the same offense he was reacting to) overlooks that silencers are illegal in gun-hating America.
And the suggestion that he should have fired a warning shot, or aimed just to maim, ignores the imminent danger to the victim. Certainly anyone audacious enough to text in a Florida theater should be assumed to be armed. The victim might have been able to afford warning shots if he had a 20-round magazine but you gun haters are making that illegal too! :smack:
All in all, it seems a pretty open-and-shut case of SYG. Since the victim was a police officer, that’s where our sympathies should lie. But I’ll bet that a Florida D.A. kowtows to the liberal media and prosecutes the victim, just as they did to that hero Zimmerman.
Only in America.
Florida is one fucked up state.
The shooter was a retired police captain. Even back when most states were “May Issue” on carry permits, retired police officers were on the short list of people considered trustworthy to carry guns. If they aren’t then basically nobody is. Not even current police officers when they’re not on duty.
[sarcasm]Or perhaps we should even do what the British do and ban police officers from routinely carrying and and rely on special “armed response” units (who get issued their arms from a locked vault only three people have the combination to). I’m sure the New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles police departments would endorse this measure. And then, because they’re trained killers who can’t be trusted in a civilian society, retired police and soldiers should be remanded to special “retirement” camps where they can’t do any harm. For their own good of course. [/sarcasm]
Another relevant Cracked article: 6 Things Gun Lovers and Haters Can Agree On.
I’ll summarize tho:
#6. Gun owners aren’t a unified group.
#5. Assault weapons aren’t the devil.
#4. Self-defense is less of a factor than fun is.
#3. It’s important to put facts before fear-mongering.
#2. Gun culture isn’t limited to old rednecks.
Can you guess what #1 is?#1. No one’s going to take your guns
I’m sincerely glad it’s starting to dawn on you.
Why sarcasm? It’s worked pretty well for them, hasn’t it?
Newtown was “a little convenient massacre”, says Fred Dicker of the NY Post.:rolleyes:
Um…yeah. Glad you finally came around.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If you honestly believe that disarming the police is a viable option in the United States, then you’re delusional. I’m sorry you hate guns so much that your brains shut down on the subject, but the world is founded on force and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
Anyway, now I’m seeing reports that the texter initiated physical force; if that’s the case then given the shooter is 71, maybe it’s not cut-and-dried.
Way to completely miss the point. Nobody’s saying we should disarm the police. We’re saying that gee, maybe having a bunch of untrained Rambos wandering around with guns, itching to shoot someone because they having put their cellphone away in a movie theater when the previews are still showing, isn’t such a great idea.
:rolleyes: by ‘physical force’ do you mean 'a bag of potentially deadly popcorn?
Yes, our Lone [del]Survivor[/del] Ranger insists that the victim “stood up and struck him in the face with an unknown object”. That sure sounds better than ‘I got pissed off and shot the sonuvabitch’. Too bad nobody saw a fucking thing other than a potentially deadly bag of popcorn.
This is backed up by the Complaint Affidavit.
Your hero really had a bug up his ass about texting during movies, btw - he followed a woman to the bathroom to bitch and moan. Maybe she’s alive because he wasn’t packing that day.
You’re the one who brought up an example of where exactly that works just fine. The cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing, between your ideology and what even you know is the world of fact, is not my problem. But maybe someday yes, the dissonance will resolve itself and reality will dawn on you.
With a piece of popcorn. 
Who’s delusional?
You gun lovers will be dismayed to learn that there weren’t more gun-totin’ retired police captains in the Roswell New Mexico schoolwhere a student opened fire, critically wounding two fellow students.
First I would point out that we don’t know what happened here.
Second, there is no law that can prevent people flipping out any more than there is a law that can make criminals give up their guns. I understand that you feel that the best way to mitigate this uncontroable risk is to just take everyone’s guns and thereby mitigate the risk of people flipping out.
Third the incidence of previously law abiding people flipping out and shooting up the place is relatively rare compared to the incidence of law abiding people engaging in self defense and to the incidence of criminals committing crimes with guns.
You are focusing your efforts on a law that would disarm a large law abiding majority of the population that commits a small minority of gun murders but would do nothing to disarm the 7 million felons and gang members that commit a majority of gun murders.
Yeah, I think they want to take guns from everyone they can and then hope that the guns in criminal hands magically disappear. I have never really heard any of these anti-gun folks address how they would deal with all the guns in criminal hands (the guys who commit the majority of gun murders), they seem violently opposed to the idea that a disarmed civilian population might lead to more gun crime (see, almost anyplace where guns are banned but crimianls still have guns).
As an aside, we put military dogs through a period of rehabilitation to help them assimilate to civilian life but we don’t do that for our military humans.
Other than the cite to the study in his point 4, I mostly agree. However, for some people, guns are purely about self defense, espcially the large group of people in cities who buy a handgun.