Post
In the days following the shooting, several prominent conservatives stated that we Americans cannot have a debate about controlling our *huge* amount of guns. One Fox News host said that this would be an insult to the American people. So we can't have a debate? Last time I checked, this is still a *free* country.
a2fun1 a2fun1 36-40, M 69 Answers Jul 24, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

We can sit and have a debate...a debate over enforcing bans...the buying selling of guns....ammo..accessories...whatever you want to debate....<br />
A debate is a waste of time....<br />
We can pass all the gun regulations we choose or want...the ONLY people it will EVER affect is the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS...the ones who act responsibly and maturely and you want the option to own a gun....it will NEVER have any impact on the idiots who do stupid sh*t like the countless shootings!<br />
I am sure in this little **** hole town i live in....i can walk out my door with money and within a half hour have a firearm....WITHOUT any form of criminal check!!<br />
Like they say...If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns!!

Best Answer

We have gun controls and its a lot harder to get shot or shoot anyone..We are definitely not allowed to own AK-47's for example...We are not allowed to carry knives or weapons of any type..There are still maniacs,.but they are far less armed and dangerous.

Best Answer

yep when one of them comes at me with a club Im going to shoot the son of a %itch several times in the torso

Best Answer

All the guns bought by James Holmes were done so legally.

Best Answer

First, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of gun control invoked and the rate of violent crimes committed. Those cities with the most stringent controls on guns also happen to be the same cities that have the highest rates of violent crime. So how is that working out for you.
Second, if you live in the US, I suspect you are incorrect in your statement about not being allowed to own an AK-47. You cannot own a full automatic AK-47. You probably can own a semiautomatic AK-47.
Finally, how compliant are the criminals in your city with the laws preventing the carrying of weapons? Anyone willing to assault, rape, rob, or murder another human being is not likely to care or to comply with laws against the possession of weapons. Knowing that the bad guys are armed, the good guys are not armed, and the closest cop is five minutes away -- do you feel safe?

Best Answer

what a sh!t answer. though i do agree with it.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

Debate all you like. Until you pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, your debate is nothing but hot air. And please understand that I say that there are many of us out here in America who will fight to the death before anyone takes away are firearms. I refuse to rely upon any Government to protect me. They are incapable of doing so. Furthermore, it is Government like we have gotten from President Obama that scares me more than anything else. <br />
<br />
I personally took an oath before God to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I gave years of my life to doing exactly that in service to my nation. I will not allow my Government to be usurped through illegal and unconstitutional means by any power without a fight.<br />
<br />
The simple truth of the matter is that, had there been law abiding armed citizens in the theater, the mass murderer and domestic terrorist would have been so busy ducking and running for his own life, a lot fewer innocents would have been shot.<br />
<br />
In my responses to several of the other posters in this thread indicated, armed law-abiding citizens can make a big difference in situations such as this. While the specifics of the situation differ, there are enough similarities to make it worthwhile to refer you all to the article at the following link:<br />
<br />
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/

Best Answer

That is the solution to the problem 2A heaters will never understand.

Best Answer

your username is funny as f uck

Best Answer

Thanks. It was meant to be.

Best Answer

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The man was dressed in full body armor (including groin and throat protection) in a dark theater with tear gas canisters set off while armed with an assault rifle that could fire 100 rounds per minute. This is not the OK Corral anymore. We don't live in the old west.

Best Answer

Feel free not to arm yourself and I will feel free, in accordance with my rights under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to arm myself. I know that I can hit a target in the head from 30 to 50 feet, 18 times in a row, without missing. Thank God I was not in that situation. However, had I been, I and many like me could and would have taken that murderer down before he had killed 12 and wounded another 59. Do you know what an armed man considers unarmed citizens? Targets. Feel free to be a target if you wish.

Best Answer

Armed or not, we are all targets until the first round is fired.

Best Answer

Here's a Q for you, LS. As Layne pointed out, Holmes was completely "armored up". He walked into the theater, tossed a tear gas cannister(s?) and then began firing. Say you were sitting on row 20. In all the smoke and total chaos (people literally running for their lives), would you be able to take him out? This is not a practice range with a still target, this is real life. Even the best police marksmen have a 20-25% hit ratio at best when firing at a suspect on the move. I can be as macho as the next guy, but all the "I coulda taken him out" statements after every mass shooting are utter nonsense.

Best Answer

I know how I have responded in life-and-death situations on more than one occasion in my life. I know from experience that I do not panic and I do not run away, I run toward the problem and respond. The statistic you cite is in regard to all officers who are involved in a shooting. Many are not that well trained and most never expect to have to use a firearm. Many are barely acceptable shooters even on the range. I am not trying to be macho and did not claim that I alone would have taken him down. I do know that as long as no good citizen is armed and present, no one is well prepared to take down the bad guy. Even so, there have been incidents where unarmed citizens have placed their lives at risk and taken down armed murderers in the commission of a crime. I also know that news reports say three men threw themselves in front of bullets to save the women with who m they were on a date. If any of those men had been armed, they could have fought back. The murderer was indiscriminately shooting people as fast as he could. Would he have stood still and taken fire in return? Maybe. But maybe not. Would he have perhaps focused on trying to find the source of return fire, giving innocents more time to flee? Perhaps, perhaps not. Again -- you have the right to choose to be a target. I choose my right to fight back. I may still die, but I will do my best to take the bad guy down with me and hopefully save one or more innocent lives.

Best Answer

We dont know if he was wearing armor or not. First reports are almost always wrong. it also doesnt matter if he was wearing body armor. if he was hit with a .45 or 44 mag he would have gone down. its not like in the movies where you can take round after round. and I would bet that if one person would have fired back he would have turned tail and run. he is a coward like everyone else how shoots unarmed people.
VERY different story when lead starts to be returned.

Best Answer

so? say some one actually needed all that stuff.......it be great to know you can get it under credit cards. IF you were going to use it for lawfull reasins of course.

Best Answer

I'd dropped his *** hopefully before the first bystander got hit ! I dont carry 13+1 9mm for nothing (would of liked to had the "SPRINGFIELD XDM" 19+1 and 2 xtra clips for that night )

Best Answer

I agree !!! Newspaper said he planned for that night...... I bet he did not plan for someone to fight back tho.

Best Answer
9 More Responses

bc its not the guns we need to control its the ppl who have them.....and good luck with that one....

Best Answer

In that case why not allow Iran to have nuclear rockets ??
After all,.its not the rockets that are at fault ..
Its only the people that are the danger.

Best Answer

In theory then: a person says "I want to obtain firearms so that I can kill every person that has blue eyes and blond hair", and of course, since they have the "right" to arm themselves, we give them their weapon of choice! Same as allowing a country to obtain nuclear weapon materials, like Iran, whose STATED goal is to "wipe Israel and its supporters (read as:USA) off the face of the earth". Flawed logic, to be sure.

Best Answer

Gee, an idiot could answer that one. Iran has proven itself to be a nation that exports terrorism and violence. It is an international criminal nation. Like violent felons are not allowed to purchase, and should not be allowed to purchase, firearms, Iran should not be allowed to develop and have nuclear weapons.

Best Answer

We all saw through history how well the prohibition went -_-. It will be no different if they try to take guns away.

Best Answer

Guns and alcohol are not that comparable..

Best Answer

They may not be..but trying to ban either or will produce the same effect in my opinion. Just because the government tries to ban or control something doesn't mean people will just roll over and say "OK, take it away from me"

Best Answer

actually they are

Best Answer

@livinglarge45 knows exactly what I meant - many law abiding citizens would then be the criminals for holding fast to a right we have now. You can't just turn around and punish the masses for the acts of the few crazies. It doesn't work that way, never has and never will.

Best Answer
1 More Response

Until there are no guns for anyone, criminals, average citizens, nor even military or police, deaths due firearms will continue. Though first things first you are 1/3 more likely to die by accidentally falling than by a gunshot wound and 3x more likely to die at your own hand then by someone else shooting you, so you better watch your step and keep taking your happy pills, for those are both things that are truly in you immediate power to control.

Best Answer

getting rid of the guns won't help the death by violence rate. You will only find another wewapon.

Best Answer

Why are liberals so obsessed with guns, why do they seem to think the answer to every problem is to restrict the rights of honest law abiding citizens while giving more rights to the criminals among us?<br />
<br />
If you break into my home or attack me or a member of my family I will do everything I can to stop you including the use of deadly force. The liberals would have you grab the telephone and shout at the intruder stop or I'll dial 911!

Best Answer

aint that the truth.

Best Answer

its pretty simple. Laws that require in a time-ly manor ,the execution of all people found guilty using a fire arm during the commission of a crime. ( all crime with a fire arm). No loop holes, no excuses, no exceptions the number of crimes "by" fire arm in this country would drop a great deal. The number of repeat offenses would be even lower (cause the maggots using guns in crimes would be dead ( to a large extent. anti gunners your stance is plainly stupid and discrimanates against about two-hundred-seventy five million Americans who do own or have owned fire arms. there are countries which have outlawed guns. move to one of them __that way you can shut the phucckk up:)

Best Answer

That "law" would die before the ink was dry and for excellent Constituional reasons

Best Answer

sameconst. protects law abiding gun owners move to some 3rd world country

Best Answer

what?

Best Answer

This makes a lot more sense than passing laws that outlaw a tool. Outlaw the act of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, then strictly implement and enforce the law.

Best Answer

thats the stupidest thing i ever herd. every one who read that answer is now dumber thanks to your retarded azz

Best Answer
2 More Responses

What is there to debate? I got some...if you don't have one get one.

Best Answer

very very good sir.

Best Answer

Here is what it comes down to, people aint going to give up there guns until everyone else does to,That includes police,army,FBI , everyone now what do you think the odds of that happening is?!

Best Answer

It would be a futile debate. It is like abortion. Each side has an opinion set in stone.<br />
<br />
No good to debate it because it would be a never ending debate with no clear winners on either side.

Best Answer

The last debate I had about that topic was 1983. Either you want that right or you don't. I want the option, even though I do not currently own any weapons. <br />
<br />
Remember, that smiling a-hole was in Colorado. If he had been in Texas or Oklahoma, he would not have made it out alive. <br />
<br />
And don't forget, the murder per gun ratio here is extremely low.

Best Answer

In Sheridan Wyoming this guy would be full of holes on a dark slab right now

Best Answer

Damn straight.

Best Answer

Where, in Texas?

Best Answer

That attitude is what causes these crimes. It is not OK to kill anyone, for any reason, EVER.

Best Answer

And you too. Death by gunfire is not an answer.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

Somebody tries to take my guns, I will be one very pissed off *****. I'm sorry, but gun control and the NRA will always be butting heads. Honestly, I can't believe there wasn't one person in that theatre with a concealed carry...God knows if there was, there might not have been so many casualties. <br />
I use guns for sport, hunting, or just for ***** and giggles, and owning a firearm does not automatically make a person bad or devious. Hell, the hillbillies around my part of Ohio would go absolute apeshit if they didn't have a gun. I feel safer with one in my home, living in the middle of nowhere. Plus it's a nice shock to people who dont think a woman is gonna have a gun on her :)

Best Answer

I am sure there was a license carrying individual in there...but being a law abiding citizen and being respectful of the law or rules of the theater...they didnt carry their handgun...and to me THATS where the issue lay...Law abiding citizens doing as they should and was not able to save many of the ones who lost their lives...No criminal ever expects to open fire and someone other than LEO's firing back.....
I myself being from Indiana carry my handgun everywhere...it is always by my side in my vehicle...
yes i live in hillbillyville myself and i would hate to see what would happen here if someone tried to take their firearms

Best Answer

hahah hillbillyville, nice. That would be one very interesting day in Hell, if it were ever to happen. I agree, law abiding citizens got screwed..I was a cop, so I got to carry everywhere regardless, but once I was off the force I also had to remind myself that certain places didn't allow a firearm ....gas stations annoy me with this. Good question.

Best Answer

Other than obviously schools....there us ONLY one place in my town that is actually posted in the door...."No Firearms Allowed"...
Thank you for your service as a LEO....it is very nice to know that an officer/former officer views this topic the way you do...

Best Answer

Yes! If you get rid of guns for law-abiding citizens, criminals will still find ways to get them. It'll just be one-sided, a guaranteed massacre. It's not like gun violence will go away magically if guns were banned. I also have guns and enjoy shooting for fun, but I also know that I am prepared to defend myself, my family and my home if anyone ever decides to break in here. My sister-in-law is afraid of guns and can't believe I'm a woman and carry a concealed weapon. I truly hope I never need it but I feel so much better when I'm home alone with my kid living in the middle of nowhere that I'm not just an easy target.

Best Answer

well I just found out that the theater doesnt allow people to carry into the theater. its their right to , its a private establishment, its their right to say no guns. funny how law biding citizens where killed by following the law.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

You can, but the amount of gun crimes committed with guns purchased legally compared to the amount of people who legally own guns will not aid your argument.

Best Answer

It's not the guns. And it's actually not the people. <br />
<br />
It's the society. <br />
<br />
Shootings and random acts of violence, etc, are a symptom of a sick society. I say, let's find the root of the problem instead of focusing on the shallow symptoms of a deep illness.

Best Answer

Finally I stumble upon someone who sees the big picture and is not distracted by the dog and pony show between the right and the left.

Best Answer

Being a sociologist helps. :)

Best Answer

We can have a debate sure. Lets see 250 million guns, how many guns are used by criminals to commit crimes vs how many are used to save lives. <br />
The media deliberately doesn’t report those stories. <br />
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx<br />
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/athens-ga-man-uses-a-gun-to-save-a-woman-from-a-violent-career-criminal/question-2760357/<br />
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/video-father-shoots-1-of-3-armed-home-invaders-who-were-holding-his-son-hostage/<br />
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10741492<br />
http://thearmedcitizen.com/<br />
The problem isn’t guns, it’s the criminal. Blaming the gun is like blaming the fork for making you fat. Or the bottle of booze for making you drunk. It’s the personal actions of the criminal. How about doing away with all gun laws and put in place 3.<br />
# 1. Use a gun in the commission of a crime (without discharging it) 15 years , no parole.<br />
# 2. Use a gun in the commission of a crime injuring or maiming someone 25 years no parole.<br />
#3. Killing someone with a gun automatic death penality.<br />
Enforce those laws and there will still be the idiot that uses a gun to commit a crime.<br />
You said there are 250 million guns , ok . How many of those 250 mil are not used in the commission of a crime?

Best Answer

this is very very good. My "emotions" sometimes limit the intellect of my answers. your plan is abso rock soild ty much for being a sensible person

Best Answer

Ty.

Best Answer

The 3 gun laws you propose are interesting indeed. And one of your links being to Baton Rouge's WAFB is even more interesting (unfortunately, it was a broken redirect to an ambulance chaser). However, the bottomline: There are 250+ million guns in the US. That figure probably includes antique and non-working guns. Unfortunately, with that many *working* guns, quite a few will fall into the wrong hands. It's inevitable. The problem is *both* the criminal *and* the guns. Please don't say guns are not to blame here. Stats don't lie. Time and time again it has been proven that if guns are taken out of the equation, homicides decrease dramatically.
And if I read one more "I coulda taken Holmes out because I hit 90% of my targets at the range!!" response, I will puke. Just what that theater needed, a bunch of concealed-carry Rambo's with guns ablazing in all that tear gas smoke and chaos. Oh wait, they're almost perfect at the range. Nevermind.

Best Answer

you are incorrect with your statement of "Time and time again it has been proven that if guns are taken out of the equation, homicides decrease dramatically"
Univeristy of Chicago on guns whos the exact opposite.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Question: What is the basis for these numbers?
Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?
Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
and then you went childish with the rambo crap. People that carry are a very serious lot. but you dont want to know that because your mind is made up.

Best Answer
1 More Response

You know, that's a lot of guns. And all of them are dangerous.<br />
<br />
But strangely enough, that's also the reason that we've never needed to fear an invasion from a foreign power. Because whomever would be stupid enough to invade would discover that they would have to take this entire nation one city block at a time, with a populous armed to the teeth. This bloody cost would be so great, no one has attempted it.<br />
<br />
Does it bother me that lately there are more and more people going nutso with guns? Yes, it bothers me that more and more people are going nutso. Perhaps we need to look at what it is that is turning our population into a convention of apathetic sociopaths?

Best Answer

It's not people going nuts,It's a world tuning away from God,But he is making his move for the return of his ,son.So just pay attention with what is going on around you,Especially with Isreal.If we abandon Isreal,Then the US is doomed

Best Answer

its actually the entire god/religious beleivers/nuts who are nuts.

Best Answer

No offense, but "in the name of God" people have religiously been killing each other since Moses led the tribes to slaughter everyone in "the Promised Land"... because God gave it to THEM. And no offense again, but if you are a Christian, I'd love to point out the terms of the New Covenant. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
Not "Love Israel as I have loved you."
It really saddens me when the Prince of Peace is used to promote hate and division. He hands us the Keys to the Kingdom, and we expect Him to build it for us and carry us over the threshold while we sit on our arses and smugly announce how WE are worthy. How can we learn to value what the Kingdom IS, if we don't even obey what we've been instructed to do? There is no "salvation of one", my friend, for you are loved no less than anything else in the universe. That you choose to love who you feel like (promoting Israel over anyone else, for the sake of the USA...?) means that you only love the USA, and thus have MISSED THE POINT of the DIVINE INSTRUCTIONS.

Best Answer

people been debating that for years. every time some one gets shot people start saying we need to get rid of the guns. it s like they think the guns have a brain and say gee i think i will go shoot some one today. or make more laws . like some chiminals realy care about the laws

Best Answer

ok ..... lets look at numbers here people........ look at them for good honest citizens that protect their home and loved ones vs ******** like Holmes. That is sad and tragic, I myself would of loved to have been there and dropped him with 2 rounds to his chest and one between his eyes before that got that far. As sad as that and the others are, they DO not come cose to the numbers of good people whose lives were saved by guns !!! Stop looking at the guns and LOOK at the *******. They WILL KILL even if guns are non existant, If THEY CHOOSE to do so.

Best Answer

Or the number of family members who were shot to death by other family members with guns. We mustn't forget them, eh Shooter?

Best Answer

What's to debate at this stage? The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution protects the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. I really doubt any more "debating" about the issue will change anyones mind.

Best Answer

It is being debated and the liberals are doing their best to make any and all weapons illegal to own. They just haven't figure out yet how to do away with the Second Amendment.

Best Answer

Related Questions