37
   

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 01:13 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That has more to do with recoil. The barrel does heat up in sustained fire, but they are designed so you can swap out a hot barrel and replace it with a cool one.


You do have cook-off due to heat on air cool and close bolt machine guns.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 01:58 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
The results of widespread gun ownership are plain to see...but 'there is none so blind as he who will not see.'

There are more thinking, and aware, and concerned, gun owners in this country, but they are not represented by the closed-minded triumvirate of gun nuts doing most of the posting in this thread.

We have the propaganda promoters of the NRA in this thread--and they mindlessly reiterate the same "gun rights" chant regardless of what else is said. They are indifferent to gun violence. And their constant comparisons to other methods of destruction are illogical. The damage done by other methods doesn't, in any way, mitigate the damage done by gun violence in our society. That's like saying you shouldn't develop a vaccine to wipe out one deadly disease because people might still be killed by other diseases. There is no logic in that type of thinking.

And their constant reiteration of the same self-serving illogical comments in post, after post, after post, proves the old adage that, "Shallow brooks are noisy."
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:06 pm
@firefly,
Sorry there is zero indication that having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a danger to the public at all.

The record of CC license holders for example as far as breaking the laws in any manner less alone using their guns in an illegal manner in Florida show that they are far less likely as a group to be law breakers then the general population.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:34 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry there is zero indication that having guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a danger to the public at all.
That's a meaningless statement.

Can you guarantee that all those easily available guns remain only in the hands of those who are law-abiding? Or in the hands of those who only use them reponsibly and in a lawful manner?

Jared Loughner legally purchased the 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine, that he used to kill 6, and wound 12 (including Congresswoman Giffords).

Wade Michael Page, the gunman in the recent Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, purchased his Springfield XD(M) 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol legally.

James Holmes was a law-abiding citizen until he fired those guns in the Aurora theater. He purchased all of his weapons legally.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-502d44c7/turbine/la-ol-aurora-theater-guns-20120816-001/600
Atlanta gun salesman Jack Riddle shows off an AR-15, a once-banned assault weapon used in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre



oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:50 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
There are more thinking, and aware, and concerned, gun owners in this country, but they are not represented by the closed-minded triumvirate of gun nuts doing most of the posting in this thread.


You engage in name-calling because you aren't smart enough to come up with an intelligent argument.



firefly wrote:
We have the propaganda promoters of the NRA in this thread


The truth is hardly propaganda, no matter how inconvenient it is for you.



firefly wrote:
and they mindlessly reiterate the same "gun rights" chant regardless of what else is said.


You hate our freedom. We get it.

But get this: We won't be giving up our freedom no matter how loudly you whine about it.



firefly wrote:
They are indifferent to gun violence.


Well, people would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

And our right to have guns would trump everything else even if there actually were a difference.



firefly wrote:
And their constant comparisons to other methods of destruction are illogical. The damage done by other methods doesn't, in any way, mitigate the damage done by gun violence in our society. That's like saying you shouldn't develop a vaccine to wipe out one deadly disease because people might still be killed by other diseases. There is no logic in that type of thinking.

And their constant reiteration of the same self-serving illogical comments in post, after post, after post,


The illogic is all yours.

You forget that the cause of the massacre is the person who carries it out, and if such a person is denied one method, they will consciously choose a different method.

It isn't as if, if they were denied one particular method of killing people, they would just give up without contemplating other methods.

Why do you think gun availability has little effect on homicide rates?



firefly wrote:
proves the old adage that, "Shallow brooks are noisy."


Note the fact that you freedom haters are the shallow noisy ones here....
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:54 pm
Two days ago, there was another shooting in a Nevada movie theater--this time, the gun toter only shot himself in the ass without harming anyone else.
Quote:
Meanwhile, there is the incident in Sparks, in which a theatergoer appears to have put the armed patron theory into practice -- and unwittingly demonstrated what really happens when untrained people are allowed to run around in public with deadly weapons.

During a showing of "The Bourne Legacy," a 56-year-old man with a concealed weapons permit shifted in his seat. His shooting iron fell to the floor, went off and shot him in what for some gun enthusiasts seems to be the thinking organ. Fortunately, neither he nor anyone else was seriously hurt; he was able to stand up, apologize to the audience and make his way to a local hospital.

It could have been much, much worse. But the incident demonstrated, graphically, how half-assed the rationale for an armed society really is.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-aurora-theater-guns-20120816,0,5392367.story
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 02:57 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Jared Loughner legally purchased the 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine, that he used to kill 6, and wound 12 (including Congresswoman Giffords).

Wade Michael Page, the gunman in the recent Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, purchased his Springfield XD(M) 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol legally.

James Holmes was a law-abiding citizen until he fired those guns in the Aurora theater. He purchased all of his weapons legally.


It would be better if they'd used bombs instead?



firefly wrote:
http://www.trbimg.com/img-502d44c7/turbine/la-ol-aurora-theater-guns-20120816-001/600
Atlanta gun salesman Jack Riddle shows off an AR-15, a once-banned assault weapon used in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre


Actually the only things that were banned are some of the harmless cosmetic features on the gun.

And, as has already been pointed out to you, bans on harmless cosmetic features are unconstitutional.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:03 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
During a showing of "The Bourne Legacy," a 56-year-old man with a concealed weapons permit shifted in his seat. His shooting iron fell to the floor, went off and shot him in what for some gun enthusiasts seems to be the thinking organ. Fortunately, neither he nor anyone else was seriously hurt; he was able to stand up, apologize to the audience and make his way to a local hospital.


Pretty silly "thinking organ" remark, given the fact that it's the anti-freedom types who are always substituting name-calling for reasoned thought.

That said, how in the world did it fall? A good holster should have kept it perfectly secure. Didn't he have it in a holster?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:09 pm
@firefly,
Sorry can you be sure that the can of gasoline will only be used to fuel a lawnmower and not be used to kill 39 people at an after hour club?

I any case all you can do is to disarm the law abiding low risk gun owners you can not make 300 millions firearms disappear and even in England anyone who wish to pay and break the laws can be arm with almost any firearm they care to buy.

You efforts at gun control to sum up only could result in greatly reducing the likelihood that someone with a firearm and mass murders on his or her mind will be far less likely to face someone that can stop him or her.

Right now in Florida at any public gathering there are ten times the chance there will be arm citizens around then an arm police officer so taking away the right of arm citizens to have CC licenses will be in aid of mass murderers by reducing the chances of arm resisted by a factor of ten.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:14 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You forget that the cause of the massacre is the person who carries it out, and if such a person is denied one method, they will consciously choose a different method.

Not true at all. It is the easy availability of the means, such as guns, that makes these acts all the more possible. That's why we have more frequent multiple/mass killings by firearms than by any other methods.
Quote:
Well, people would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

And our right to have guns would trump everything else even if there actually were a difference.

You are clearly saying you have no interest in trying to decrease gun violence--and that, in fact, you don't care how many people are killed by gun violence, because your alleged right to have guns trumps everything else.

You've said it all, oralloy--you live in your own self-encapsulated loony little world. I don't have to bother insulting you--or responding to you either--you seem quite happy, and at home, talking to yourself.

Responsible gun owners, of whom I know many, cringe at remarks like yours.



BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Not true at all. It is the easy availability of the means, such as guns, that makes these acts all the more possible. That's why we have more frequent multiple/mass killings by firearms than by any other methods.


Quote studies with links on that claim Firefly..............

One posting of mine had a claimed with a link that of the top 25 mass murders 52 percents had involved firearms and that sound about right.

In any case ,by body count firearms are hardly the greatest killer.......home make bomb kill hundreds in one event, box cutters and planes thousands in one event, plain gasoline 39 dead in one event.

Next gasoline is far easier and cheaper to get a hold of then firearms for example and had proven to be a very useful tool in mass murder.

Come to think of it had any mass shooting killed 39 people as a can of gasoline had done?

Have to look up the Texas tower shooter but I do not think his body count was anywhere near 39.

Just look it up the Texas tower sniper killed 16 people less then half of what a drunk did with a can of gasoline.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:28 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You forget that the cause of the massacre is the person who carries it out, and if such a person is denied one method, they will consciously choose a different method.


Not true at all. It is the easy availability of the means, such as guns, that makes these acts all the more possible.


Nonsense. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.



firefly wrote:
That's why we have more frequent multiple/mass killings by firearms than by any other methods.


The ease means people will usually choose that route if they can.

But if they are denied the easiest way, they still have no problem choosing an alternate method.



firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Well, people would be just as dead if they were killed some other way.

And our right to have guns would trump everything else even if there actually were a difference.


You are clearly saying you have no interest in trying to decrease gun violence--and that, in fact, you don't care how many people are killed by gun violence, because your alleged right to have guns trumps everything else.


Nothing alleged about them. Need help reading the Constitution?

Actually the reason I don't care much about gun violence is because the victims would be just as dead if they were killed with knives instead of guns.

But yes, my rights (actual, not alleged) do in fact trump everything else.



firefly wrote:
You've said it all, oralloy--you live in your own self-encapsulated loony little world.


Nope. The Constitution applies all across the nation.

You may wish that civil rights are something that I dreamed up myself, but no. Civil rights apply to everyone.



firefly wrote:
I don't have to bother insulting you--or responding to you either--you seem quite happy, and at home, talking to yourself.


"Debunking your nonsense" is hardly "talking to myself".

I know not having any facts on your side is causing you a bit of frustration, but sheesh! That attempt at an insult is pretty pathetic.



firefly wrote:
Responsible gun owners, of whom I know many, cringe at remarks like yours.


No they don't.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:28 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry can you be sure that the can of gasoline will only be used to fuel a lawnmower and not be used to kill 39 people at an after hour club?


That's the why develop a vaccine to get rid of one deadly disease when people can still die of other diseases illogical argument. No matter how many times you repeat it, it still fails to address the issue of gun violence.

Are you even aware of how much gun violence occurs in this country on a daily basis?

This shooting happened yesterday...
Quote:
Suspect in Washington shooting expressed political grudge
By Ian Simpson
WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 16, 2012
(Reuters) - The man charged in a shooting at a conservative Christian lobbying group in downtown Washington told a guard "I don't like your politics" before wounding him, according to court documents filed on Thursday.

Floyd Lee Corkins II, 28, of Herndon, Virginia, also was carrying 15 sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain, in Wednesday's shooting at the Family Research Council, an affidavit said.

The Family Research Council strongly opposes same-sex marriage and abortion, and Corkins had been a volunteer at a Washington gay and lesbian community center. Chick-fil-A's president has publicly opposed same-sex marriage.

Corkins' parents told FBI agents that Corkins "has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," the affidavit from the FBI said.

In an initial court appearance, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay ordered that Corkins be held without bond and that he undergo a mental evaluation. A preliminary and detention hearing was set for August 24.

Corkins faces a District of Columbia charge of assault with intent to kill while armed and a federal charge of interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition.

Corkins appeared in court subdued and dressed in white prison garb, his hands behind his back when he stood to address the judge. He told Kay he had about $300 and no property, and was assigned a public defender.

The affidavit said Corkins entered the offices of the Family Research Council and was stopped at the door by a security guard, according to the affidavit.

A witness told FBI agents that Corkins "stated words to the effect of, 'I don't like your politics,'" it said.

Surveillance camera footage showed that Corkins then pulled a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol from a backpack and shot the guard in the arm. The wounded guard wrestled the gun from Corkins and subdued him. A second guard called 911, the affidavit said.

Investigators recovered two more loaded magazines at the scene. They found another 50 rounds of ammunition and the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in Corkins' backpack.

The complaint said that Corkins lived with his parents. He had left their car at a Virginia subway station before the attack.

Corkins faces up to 10 years in prison for the federal weapons charge and from five to 30 years for the District of Columbia offense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-usa-shooting-washington-idUSBRE87E0VG20120816



spendius
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:30 pm
@oralloy,
Why don't you knock off the silly freedom shite oralloy?

The historian Robert Glass Cleland writing about the fur trappers contemporary with the passing of the 2nd. said--"he started from frontiers at which more cautious pioneers were glad to stop. . . and wandered through the reaches of the outer West with all the freedom of the lonely wind."

Observing the scene in 1817 William Cobbett observed the pioneers boiling their pot gypsy fashion, having a mere board to eat upon, sitting and sleeping under a shed far inferior to English cowpens, having a mill at 20 miles' distance, an apothecary's shop at a hundred and a doctor nowhere. He saw the rugged roads, the dirty hovels, the fire in the woods to sleep by, the pathless ways through the wilderness and the dangerous crossroads of the rivers.

You!! Free!! Don't be so bloody silly. It's just a word you keep using to insult our intelligence and to anybody with the slightest amount of it to make yourself look stupid. The 2nd was for that world.

To continually accuse people who don't agree with you on gun law of being freedom haters is pathetic. And in my view treason when it relates to those who have fought for freedom which you self-evidently haven't.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:38 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Nonsense. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Only in your loony self-encapsulated little world, oralloy.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TTiuvizYoDI/AAAAAAAA_yk/lhVt50LTCns/s1600/GunOwnership.jpg
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 03:55 pm
I'm all for 2nd Amendment rights, and I understand how people with a particular expertise in a specific area may want to display it from time to time, but these discussions on guns seem to always attract people who are intent upon demonstrating their comprehensive and detailed knowledge of guns and ammo.

I don't think they are nuts, but they obviously think these displays help define their images.

Unfortunately, they appear like nuts and so I wish they would save the **** for their gun clubs, and sniper forums.
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 04:00 pm
@spendius,
Treason??

There you go, throwing around a word when you have no idea what it means.
Nothing oralloy or anyone else has said comes even close to treason, in any way.
They have not given aid and comfort to the enemy, nor have they done or said anything that can be defined as treason.

Since treason is defined in the constitution, its not hard for you to look up, but I will save you some work...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person arraigned.

That can be found in article 3, btw.

FYI, treason is the only crime defined in the constitution.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 04:03 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Are you even aware of how much gun violence occurs in this country on a daily basis?


Are we talking about mass murders or crime such as drug gangs shoot outs?

Not the same and you are not going to disarmed the drug gangs the Mexico government been trying for decades with zero results.

Second given the far far lower bodies count from mass murder attempts by firearms compare to bombs and other means on average we are luck if a would be killer picked firearms over making bombs for example.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 04:06 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:


In any case ,by body count firearms are hardly the greatest killer....


you need to tell the FBI that they've got it all wrong

let us know how they respond to you
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 04:17 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
you need to tell the FBI that they've got it all wrong

let us know how they respond to you


Please name one repeat one mass murder attempted by firearms that killed more then the 39 people who was killed by a can of gasoline by a drunk , less alone the 168 killed and the 450 injured by a home make bomb set off in front to the Murrah Federal building.

Of course facts are beside the point for you.............
 

Related Topics

Information About Denver, CO. Wanted - Discussion by Aldistar
Maryjane - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Car Services to Airport? - Discussion by Steve Spencer
Expressmens Union Denver, Colo - Question by deegeez
So, do you think this is demonic? - Discussion by ossobuco
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 02:17:21