Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yossarian said:
Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting..
Click to expand...
the musket was the most powerful gun at the time of the constitution. it is not the bottom line as the constitution is not final and there have been assault rifle and extended magazine bans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think in this situation, someone firing back at the assailant may have been able to reduce the amount of damage done. Probably not with all the body armour he was wearing but, for someone not that well prepared then yes. It is all hypothetical but in the correct situation a capable person with a gun in that theatre could have limited the number of dead and/or injured. I doubt it would've made it any worse. And of course I assume a person who is somewhat familiar and has some level of training. Not just any Tom, d!(k, or Harry with a gun. But it is not my intention to claim CC would've helped because who woulda thought to even be carrying in a theatre in the first place. Heck I don't even take my wallet into movies because I don't want to be sitting on it for 2 hours.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Count me as one who believes a gun battle between two assailants in a crowded theater would NOT have turned out better than the Aurora massacre.

 
JJHusker1 said:
I think in this situation, someone firing back at the assailant may have been able to reduce the amount of damage done. Probably not with all the body armour he was wearing but, for someone not that well prepared then yes. It is all hypothetical but in the correct situation a capable person with a gun in that theatre could have limited the number of dead and/or injured. I doubt it would've made it any worse. And of course I assume a person who is somewhat familiar and has some level of training. Not just having a gun available. But it is not my intention to claim CC would've helped because who woulda thought to even be carrying in a theatre in the first place. Heck I don't even take my wallet into movies because I don't want to be sitting on it for 2 hours.
Click to expand...
i agree with you to an extent. but he did have smoke/gas bombs. this guy was prepared. a well-trained person could have helped (former military, top shot contestant, so on and so forth), possibly; however, i seem to think a ban on extended magazines and assault rifles would probably be more effective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think any amount of gun legislation is going to stop a sociopath who has his mind made up on killing a bunch of people. Where there's a will, there's a way.

 
The Dude said:
I don't think any amount of gun legislation is going to stop a sociopath who has his mind made up on killing a bunch of people. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Click to expand...
Case in point is Timothy McVeigh. Used a homebrew of liquid nitrogen fertilizer.

 
Ziggy said:
knapplc said:
I can't imagine a situation where I would need to have a weapon on me in public. Where you coming from there, Ziggy? Certain parts of town, certain times of day/night?
Click to expand...
I live in Maryland, work at a place where people would love to steal from and is near Baltimore and DC, and not fair from a few smaller cities. So mostly I would carry to and from work and have in a safe location while I was in my office.
Click to expand...
I live in New Jersey, Paterson specifically. There's a ton of crime, and last year they let go over 100 cops. Hence the reason I want my rifles.

 
sd said:
JJHusker1 said:
I think in this situation, someone firing back at the assailant may have been able to reduce the amount of damage done. Probably not with all the body armour he was wearing but, for someone not that well prepared then yes. It is all hypothetical but in the correct situation a capable person with a gun in that theatre could have limited the number of dead and/or injured. I doubt it would've made it any worse. And of course I assume a person who is somewhat familiar and has some level of training. Not just having a gun available. But it is not my intention to claim CC would've helped because who woulda thought to even be carrying in a theatre in the first place. Heck I don't even take my wallet into movies because I don't want to be sitting on it for 2 hours.
Click to expand...
i agree with you to an extent. but he did have smoke/gas bombs. this guy was prepared. a well-trained person could have helped (former military, top shot contestant, so on and so forth), possibly; however, i seem to think a ban on extended magazines and assault rifles would probably be more effective.
Click to expand...
Think about it. A smoke filled, dark theater with panicy people running everywhere. I bet you ask any seasoned police officer or military person and they'll tell you that isn't an ideal situation to pull a gun and start firing it off.

You also have to think of the situation. Since most gun carriers attending a midnight movie probably aren't experienced gun owners who deal with situations like the police or military do. We aren't used to seeing situations such as this where someone is coming at us with a gun. It'd be out of place and I know I personally wouldn't know what to do. "Is this really happening to me? Is this a publicity stunt for the movie?"

 
bennychico11 said:
Think about it. A smoke filled, dark theater with panicy people running everywhere. I bet you ask any seasoned police officer or military person and they'll tell you that isn't an ideal situation to pull a gun and start firing it off.

You also have to think of the situation. Since most gun carriers attending a midnight movie probably aren't experienced gun owners who deal with situations like the police or military do. We aren't used to seeing situations such as this where someone is coming at us with a gun. It'd be out of place and I know I personally wouldn't know what to do. "Is this really happening to me? Is this a publicity stunt for the movie?"
Click to expand...
knapplc said:
Count me as one who believes a gun battle between two assailants in a crowded theater would NOT have turned out better than the Aurora massacre.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.

Thought I read somewhere that there were bullets in the neighboring rooms..you'd think the walls would use 2X6's to help deaden the sound between different movies, but they still must be thin enough to not stop all bullets...Plus..How many gun owners do you think actually took the time to practice shooting under duress?

Since I'm pretty sure bullets would just bounce off me, I'd LIKE to think I would've just taken this guy down with an open field tackle, but it has since been pointed out to me that I would have probably just jumped on my Son and covered him up as much as possible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HUSKER 37 said:
I tend to agree.

Thought I read somewhere that there were bullets in the neighboring rooms..you'd think the walls would use 2X6's to help deaden the sound between different movies, but they still must be thin enough to not stop all bullets.
Click to expand...
Typically to help reduce sound transmission between theaters they use heavy insulation and/or decouple the adjoining walls, isolating the studs between the two theaters. Providing a sizable, sealed airgap between the two and combining that with sheet rock that has a high STC rating.

 
I've stated it before and I know I am in the minority on the subject but I've never understood why people think we need the right to bear arms at least in the context of the kind of arms one can get their hands on these days. You really think a semi automatic with a 100 round magazine is going to help you overthrow a tyrannical government when they have tanks, drones and F-22's? I heard some jackball on the radio today trying to explain how he needs a gun like an AR-15 to shoot coyotes. If you really think you need guns like that to hunt, you are either a terrible hunter or just lazy. You want a rifle or shotgun to hunt? I'm fine with that. You want a handgun that shoots 6 or 10 rounds for personal protection? Fine with that as well. But to have guns that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible (thus the name assault) and say they are for personal protection or for hunting or hell even target practice, sorry I just don't buy it. Hopefully someday our country evolves out the stone age with this issue.

 
bennychico11 said:
sd said:
JJHusker1 said:
I think in this situation, someone firing back at the assailant may have been able to reduce the amount of damage done. Probably not with all the body armour he was wearing but, for someone not that well prepared then yes. It is all hypothetical but in the correct situation a capable person with a gun in that theatre could have limited the number of dead and/or injured. I doubt it would've made it any worse. And of course I assume a person who is somewhat familiar and has some level of training. Not just having a gun available. But it is not my intention to claim CC would've helped because who woulda thought to even be carrying in a theatre in the first place. Heck I don't even take my wallet into movies because I don't want to be sitting on it for 2 hours.
Click to expand...
i agree with you to an extent. but he did have smoke/gas bombs. this guy was prepared. a well-trained person could have helped (former military, top shot contestant, so on and so forth), possibly; however, i seem to think a ban on extended magazines and assault rifles would probably be more effective.
Click to expand...
Think about it. A smoke filled, dark theater with panicy people running everywhere. I bet you ask any seasoned police officer or military person and they'll tell you that isn't an ideal situation to pull a gun and start firing it off.

You also have to think of the situation. Since most gun carriers attending a midnight movie probably aren't experienced gun owners who deal with situations like the police or military do. We aren't used to seeing situations such as this where someone is coming at us with a gun. It'd be out of place and I know I personally wouldn't know what to do. "Is this really happening to me? Is this a publicity stunt for the movie?"
Click to expand...
completely agree with everything you said. conceal/carry would not help there, would not help in most places; no matter how much our machismo wish it would, our rational senses forces us to understand it would not. hell, the batman does not use guns, why should we (completely earnest statement. i only understand people who own guns to hunt)?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top