Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

It seems a reasonable hypothesis that none of the shooting massacres have been carried out by anybody who doesn't own guns.

Why not have some states with complete freedom to own any weaponry and others with complete bans. Then all those who wish to own guns can gather together in complete freedom and those who don't wish to own guns can feel safe.

What do gun toters wear when it is 95 degrees in the shade? Obviously sunbathing is out because it would leave people unprotected. They must feel uncomfortable when playing games.

The scene in Shane comes to mind. The sod-buster was openly armed. How does carrying a gun protect anybody from somebody intent on shooting them?

What helps maintain this particular mindset is complete ignorance of the outside world. It's no different from all the lies and exaggerations about the NHS spouted by similar vested interests when Obama tried to introduce Universal Health Care.

Have you been watching the expose of neo-Nazi groups in Germany on BBCNews24? The language these German 'freedom parties' use is nearly identical to that being spouted by the gun lovers. It's almost word for word.

The most important freedom is freedom of thought, and a lot of them lost that freedom that a long time ago. They never even noticed when it slid silently out the back door.

You can't argue with them, there is a kneejerk response each time, repeat the mantra, don't think. It's like talking to a cult member.

Not to me;
just speaking for myself, I think its FUN, if I 'm not too lazy
or tired at the time.

Its even more fun with the US Supreme Court
(that is America 's highest court, Mr. McTag) on the freedom side.





David

There is no way unless we are going back to hunter gather stage to keep someone of average or above to find ways to do mass murder with or without firearms.

I find it interesting the massive news coverage this story is getting.

Now for example a jumbo jet crash is also very uncommon however when it happen killings not 12 people but hundreds we normally get a fraction of the news coverage that we are now getting over these shootings.

Human nature is strange is it not.

One is an accident, one a deliberately committed act.

there was an excellent George Carlin bit with this premise

But somehow, the modern automatic rifle (or semi-automatic) is usually the tool of choice. So convenient. So efficient.

free = without reason

awesome
not really a surprise, given the poster
but awesome that he admits it

Thank goodness the baby is still alive!

Quite surprising really.

Well, 'Germany had [NOT!] outlawed private ownership of firearms'. Instead, the Nazis gave the allowance with that quoted law to carry firearms "without any reason" (opposite to previous situation, where you had to get a special allowance).

Oh I guess McVeigh did not get the word when he blowed up hundreds of people and a large federal building.

Then we had the long standing record for killing done with a sword repeat a sword.

Killing almost three times the numbers killed by the evil and all powerful sem-automatic weapons at the movie theater.

An the man who killed eight times the numbers that was kill at the movie as they party at an after hour club with a match and a container of gasoline.

Of course facts and reasons is beside the point for the anti-guns nuts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tsuyama massacre (津山事件, Tsuyama jiken?) was a spree killing that occurred on 21 May 1938 in the rural village of Kaio close to Tsuyama city in Okayama, Japan.

Mutsuo Toi (都井 睦雄, Toi Mutsuo?), a 21-year-old man, killed 30 people,[1] including his grandmother, with a shotgun, Japanese sword, and axe, and seriously injured three others before killing himself with the shotgun. Until the 1982 killing by Woo Bum-kon, this incident was regarded as the world’s worst massacre by an individual, except for the 1927 killing of 45 by Andrew Kehoe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then we had a gentleman who used a match and a can of gasoline to kill roughly eight times the numbers of people kill in that movie theater.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Happy Land Fire was an arson fire which killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" in New York City, on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were ethnic Hondurans celebrating Carnival.

Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested shortly after and ultimately convicted of arson and murder.

The incident

Before the blaze, Happy Land was ordered closed for building code violations in November of 1988. Violations included no fire exits, alarms or sprinkler system. No follow-up by the fire department was documented.

That evening González had argued with his former girlfriend Lydia Feliciano, a coat check girl at the club. González was ejected by the bouncer. He was heard to scream drunken threats. He returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline which he spread on the only staircase into the club.

The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people escaped by breaking a metal gate over one door.

González then returned home, took off his gasoline-soaked clothes and fell asleep. He was arrested a few hours later. Once advised of his rights, he talked freely of how he caused the fire. A medical examination found him to be sane.

Response

Found guilty on August 19, 1991, of 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder, González was sentenced to 174 twenty-five year sentences, to be served concurrently. It was the longest prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. He will be eligible for parole in March 2015.

The building that housed Happy Land was managed in part by Jay Weiss, husband of actress Kathleen Turner. The New Yorker quoted Turner saying, "the fire was unfortunate but could have happened at a McDonald's." The building's owner, Alex DiLorenzo 3d, and leaseholders Weiss and Morris Jaffe were found not criminally responsible, since they had tried to close the club and evict the tenant.

The street outside the former Happy Land social club (which was located on the northwest corner of Southern Boulevard and East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx) has been renamed "The Plaza of the Eighty-Seven" as a means of memorializing the victims. Five of the victims were students at nearby Theodore Roosevelt High School, which held a memorial service for the victims in April 1990.

The event was the subject of the Duran Duran song, "Sin of the City", and a Joe Jackson song, Happyland. It was also mentioned in the Jay-Z song, "You, Me, Him, and Her". A fictionalized version of the case, where it was an arson for fire insurance scam, was featured on Law & Order.

Wikipedia.org

One form of mass murder excuses another form of mass murder?

I don't think so.

An that somehow reduced the fact that twenty times plus more are killed by a jumbo jet crash then at that movie theater and yet we care far less.

But if the deaths was deliberately using a can of gasoline I question if we would have had this level of coverage either the means is what is driving this story in my opinion.

EXCUSES?????? is that the best nonsense you can come up with as the clear point is that you can not take all the means to do mass murders unless you would wish to take all our technology away.

Waving a magical wand and causing all firearms in the world to disappear is not likely to prevent one person from committing mass murders and to think otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

As far as handguns go, .44 mag is good for defense against dangerous animals, as is .454 Casull.

Anything smaller is too weak to be effective. Anything bigger has way too much recoil for a handgun.

My words ofen come from ME, Olga.
I am capable of being original; it comes easily.
I 'm no plagiarist.
When next I see Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA,
I hope to remember to tell him to tune up nomenclature
and descriptive parlance for greater accuracy.
"Freedom-loving" or "freedom-hating" is not neologistic,
whereas the Repressionists are those folks who strive
to repress and subvert and violate our Natural Rights and our
Constitutional Rights to self defense, bearing lethal weapons.




Well, in the exercise of my democratic rights,
I DO contact my political representatives and demand
of them that thay be active in ripping out any vestige of gun control,
however slight, exalting "equal protection of the laws"
and the 2nd Amendment filosofy of defensive freedom.

As a citizen, I am the Gun Freedom Lobby (part of it).





Thay don't value the freedom that OTHER citizens have.
To be more specific,
the Repressionists don't value each citizen's rights of self defense
and the rights to keep and bear arms.




Thay did not love their freedom enuf
to EXERCISE IT by being properly armed in their own defense in public.
It is a fact that thay paid a high price for their negligence.






Because he is CRAZY and malicious, a bad combination;
your question is like asking Y a rabid dog shud bite u
or Y a jellyfish shud sting u when u swim in the ocean.





In America, government was created and given permission to exist,
on a few certain conditions, among them that a citizen 's possession
of guns will exist beyond the reach of government jurisdiction,
the same way that government has no authority
to make u go to Church, if u don 't wanna go.
Get the idea ?
The American Revolution was begun by the Sons of Liberty n prosecuted at their behest.
The Founders knew that PERSONAL FREEDOM and government jurisdiction are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.






Freedom is not always cheap.
Thay failed to fight for it,
instead acquiescing to liberalism in going around un-armed.
When the time came to defend those "rights and freedoms"
of which u inquire from the predators, thay were unprepared.
We have testimony that the murderers went around blasting
some of the victims in the face, as the victims watched, helpless
because thay were un-armed, in co-operation with liberalism.
The victims needed to manifest the spirit of the 4th of July,
rebelling against liberalism.
When I was a kid in school, I was never un-armed.
I woud not have allowed someone to put the muzzle of a gun in my face.
( Admittedly, before age 8, I had only knives, no guns.)





She and her people shud have been better armed; u never know when u 'll need it.
When someone shot at me,
I certainly was not expecting it.




Tell me: like what ?





Sounds good; generous.
I don't mind paying for my own guns, tho. I get what I want,
the same as when I go to a good restaurant.





That is a very good letter, Olga.
Thank u for sharing it with us; very nice of u.
It is a very AMERICAN letter. It is freedom-loving.




Freedom Haters Exploiting the Blood of Innocents:
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/20/freedom-haters-exploiting-the-blood-of-innocents/#axzz21Qew2Bf7

It is a very good, freedom-loving AMERICAN response, Olga.
I adopt its sentiments, with American pride.




Well, I thought that is a PRIVATE matter between God and the author.



If the theater did THAT,
then it is exposed to litigation for negligence and wrongful death,
with the survivors as Plaintiffs and also the estates of decedents.
I hope that thay will do it.





Yes; trying to rape everyone out of his or her rights of self defense,
the vultures are in de facto partnership with future violent predators
to render their victims easier and safer prey. That is a good letter.
Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
protecting them on-the-job from the defenses of their victims.





Well, it is just u and the other supporters
of victim disarmament.





I advocate that, Olga. I have for years, decades and centuries.
The victims shud have been sufficiently responsible to aquire defensive guns
and to USE them in time of emergency.
I bet that thay coud have and woud have defeated his body armor.
His hands, feet and throat were exposed and even without
penetration of his armor, ammunition of sufficient power woud
knock him over backward, whereupon, thay coud all jump on him.





Well, it is the same as wearing seatbelts in cars:
u have the right to use your seatbelt, but u need to actually
engage the lock, and regarding such situations as THIS,
u need to EXERCISE your rights to self defense,
being properly armed with guns of sufficient power
(NOT feeble little 9mm automatics) with good
bullet configurations (like hollowpointed slugs).
THAT advice is our contribution to making America a safer place.





Yes. We do that by promoting more pervasive defensive armament.

Olga, I just LOVE how the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia expressed the idea, in 1846.
In 2008, the US Supreme Court approved of it
in D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783
and adopted its reasoning:

From Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)
“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]





David

The Founding Fathers decided that the entire US populace should keep military weaponry at home.

That argument would only have merit if there was actually an armed militia that you could point at for the right to apply to.

(And you would not believe the histrionics that emanate from the freedom-haters when I propose actually complying with the Constitution and having such a militia.)





Did any of the Founding Fathers oppose the people's right to carry arms for self defense when they go about in public?

I suspect not.