Ten killed in shooting at 'Dark Knight Rises' premiere: local radio

[sgreger1]

Nonsense. How are you going to take on a government that has nukes, drones and guided missiles?

How could you propose we take on the royal navy, or the queen herself? Such talk is madness, Europe has the largest naval force in the known world, we could never overthrow England! (Joe in the 1700's)

[sgreger1]

Wa3zrm......your neighbor would not just get his full auto AK47 taken away from by police.

He would be getting 25 years in the slammer, if he did not have a class III tax stamp.

Retarded drunk, with a semi auto....

I can attest to what wazerm is saying indirectly, I've lived some places where firearms are taught to children at a young age and a 15 year old may be caught firing off an assault rifle on his property like it was a cap gun. It's just a culture thing, in CA that would never stand, but in PA, Alabama, and many other places this is just normal life. People don't fear firearms and are aware of how to use them properly. Half the pussies on this thread would like to ban axes as well since they can be so deadly if used in an aggressive nature towards someone else. Well guess what, i'm going camping in CA next weekend and we're bringing our axes and our AR-15's and neither the park rangers nor anyone else can do shit about it. I'm glad we still have some vague level of freedom left in this country and everyone isn't completely scared out of their liberties yet.

[sgreger1]

When a few have complete power, tyranny is the result every single time.

It's funny that this is such radical thinking in today's day and age. Look at the EU, unelected people running the show. At least here we get soviet style elections where we get to choose between the two corporatist parties

Really though you are correct, we can't legislate away bad people, and these things are so rare that we would do better to ban cars or airplanes or bicycles than to ban firearms, because all of those things cause more death each year than a gun ever did.

[sgreger1]

Let me explain something. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK right?
If people there had a right to bear arms the country would have descended into civil war. Thank f**k it did not.
If you fail to see this simple point you ARE retarded.
I say assault weapons because they can cause the most damage. You can start there and then with smaller arms

I honestly, genuinely think you're all nuts.

I was making a comment about his disdain for white people because in the distant past whites owned slaves in our country, so not sure why you replied to me

Anyways, this idea of legislating away things like civil wars etc is retarded, if things are ready to descend into a civil war than firearms will not make the difference. Guns are only another tool to wage conflict with, and before guns we had swords and crossbows, war never changes and this is no reason to ban guns any more than it is a reason to ban swords.

Please don't call me retarded, we can have different opinions on the subject based on our respective cultures without stooping down to that level, I think we are all friends here so lets not get into the personal attacks like we so often do. I simply believe that weapons can not be removed from society, namely American society, so it is worthless to even discuss the possibility. You think letting the government and the criminals have all the weapons is the best plan, I think otherwise, let's leave it at that.

[sgreger1]

The guy used guns because it was easier than explosives.

Because you lot already have guns amongst the civilian population, getting rid of them would be impossible. Guess you're stuck with it....and the massacres will continue.
You're happy with the status quo though.

As though people don't kill people or go on killing sprees in other countries? What about what happened in Norway? What about the fact that despite having more firearms than people in America we still don't have even close to the highest homicide rate, or even the highest gun related homicide rate? And also this joker (parden the pun) rigged up his house with chemical weapons and the fire dept still hasn't been able to get into his flat yet. Not example a gun crime there.

You were in the army Extreme, so I know you understand both how dangerous and lethal a firearm can be as well as how effective it is at STOPPING someone from doing whatever they are doing immediately, like for example a crime.

Anyways, enough studies have been done on the subject and we already know that armed areas are inherently safer than non-armed areas so I am not sure why we even debate it.

[Crow]

This tragic incident should not be politicised.

That's all I have to say regarding this matter.

[Bigblue1]

I should believe someone who gets their info from Alex Jones?

So you have no rebuttal? You don't even know if I still listen to alex jones. I made a thoughtful and correct post that containe dpoints to a certain comment you made. I made no personal attacks and never brought up your talking point God olberman. Just shows how weak your argument is and how weak you are in making your points. I will say nothing else to you because if I did I would feel like i was taking advantage of you.......

[truthwolf1]

[Roo]

Extreme is right on one count: It IS easier to massacre with AR-15s and shotguns and Glock 9's in this country because one can easily procure these weapons at local sporting goods stores. One does not have to assemble bombs from chemicals and wires and shit from Home Depot. You can't argue with what he is saying here, and it's important in a situation like this to appreciate everyone's point of view. The fact it, this mother****er got an AR-15 at a FISHING store and procured a 100-round drum magazine from some other legal source. My personal stance is that I enjoy shooting my friends' guns occasionally, in the woods, but do people need the right to purchase 100 round magazines?? If so, for what purpose? Should you also be able to purchase a ****ing frag bomb?

I really appreciate the argument that if guns were banned all out, only criminals, by definition, would have access to them. And access they would have. We already have several guns per capita in this country. They are not going anywhere anytime soon even if some crazy law was passed and the 2nd amendment revoked. SO what are we to do?

One thing we can't do is compare this country and the gun violence problem to the UK. That is absurd. The UK is a tiny, virtually borderless ISLAND where obtaining a gun is extremely difficult. America is a vast country with long borders and a rich cultural (and legal) appreciation of gun ownership, where most of us can travel less than 15 minutes to a STORE where we can legally obtain assault weapons. Even if tomorrow guns were outlawed, as others have said, only criminals would have access to the Hundred of Millions of guns already in possession here.

Just pointing a few things out lest we get into too serious a comparison between the USA and the UK with regard to gun control. It's a fruitless pursuit. We need to figure out where to go with what we already have, instead of touting our viewpoints on what's already there.

[Joe234]

Do they have this in Europe?

This Week in Portland Shootings

POSTED BY SARAH MIRK ON FRI, JUL 20, 2012 AT 12:23 PM


http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/...land-shootings

The shooting this morning in Colorado is absolutely horrifying. Also terrifying is that the death toll from the shooting is about half of the average gun-related deaths in the USevery day.

Since just last Thursday, July 12th, police have responded to six shootings in Portland. Two of those were fatal and one of the not-fatal incidents involved a police officer.

Here's what the week looks like:

Thursday: Reports of two guys shooting into a North Portland apartment complex. Another report of someone pulling into an apartment complex on 129th and Division and firing shots.

Saturday: A gang-related shooting in Cully, where a man reportedly fires at a house near NE 46th and Killingsworth.

Tuesday: An officer-involved-shooting, where a 17-year-old guy suspected of having a gun ran from a traffic stop on SE 148th Avenue. A police officer shot him with a less-lethal beanbag gun and another officer shot him with an actual gun—he was injured and taken into custody. No weapon was found on him, but two loaded guns were found in a yard nearby.

Wednesday: A 31-year-old man is shot and killed in the parking lot of a strip club on SE 99th and Stark.

Thursday: A 49-year-old man was shot and killed on 5800 block of NE 6th Avenue, allegedly shot by two men.

The point here is that gun violence is real and terrible, even here in statistically rather safe Portland. The police just announced that in response to this morning's theater shooting, they'll be doing extra patrols around movie theaters "to help people feel reassured about their personal safety." But we can't protect against the epidemic of gun deaths with a few extra police patrols—when are we ever going to be up for writing laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who use them to kill people?

[OregonNative]

When did I say guns should be illegal? How about common sense like Europe.

You're right, bad shit never happens in Europe...

What happened about, oh I don't know, a year ago in Norway?

[Joe234]

-


An excerpt from Piers Morgan Tonight

Interview with Constitutional Law Professor Lawrence Tribe

MORGAN: What happened in Colorado is a tragedy. But could stricter gun laws have prevented it? The debate that many people are having tonight across America.

Joining me now is Harvard Law's Lawrence Tribe. He's a professor of constitutional law there. Mr. Tribe, it's a debate that rages every single time there is a shooting of this nature. This is the worst shooting in terms of people who were hit by gunfire that America has ever seen.

Is this enough, now, to prompt stricter gun control? And would stricter gun control have made a difference in this case?

PROF. LAWRENCE TRIBE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: First of all, I want to express my grief and my deep condolences for the victims. I think gun control is overdue. The Second Amendment does protect the rights of people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That's what the Supreme Court said.

But it certainly does not protect the right to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet or to buy four guns, including automatic and semiautomatic weapons, in a short period of time. There's no reason in the Constitution why we as a civilized society couldn't get our hands around a problem like that.

The reason is the National Rifle Association and all of the people who, frankly, make a living out of restricting the political possibility of gun control. We have to do something about it. I don't know how many killings, how much slaughters it's going to take before the nation wakes up to the need to address the problem.

I think we fool ourselves if we say better and stricter gun control would necessarily solve the problem. There are all kinds of things that we need to do. We may need to do things about the exits at movie theaters, so that if they are opened, there's an alarm that goes off if they are not immediately shut. We may need to do something about our educational system. We need to do something about the culture of violence.

But I think this is a time for the country to come together. And it's certainly not a time for us to divide over the question of whether we can impose reasonable controls on ammunition. I think everyone agrees that the Constitution permits that. It's simply our political system that has failed to act adequately.

MORGAN: Professor Tribe, very eloquently put. Thank you very much for joining me.

TRIBE: Thank you, Piers.

[Joe234]

This quite possibly may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You do realize that said government resides in the same proximity that a nuke may go off to squelch a rebellion. You do know the cold war was based on the premise of assured mutual destruction don't you? And speaking of that premise it fits right in with the fact that somebody is less likely to try to hurt somebody else if they think they can be hurt back..... Same shit different bag. Grow up and understand the basics rather that being brainwashed by one side or the other.

I should believe someone who gets their info from Alex Jones?

[Joe234]

You are a bigot because you stereotype based on the color of ones skin. .

thanks for the label

I stereotyped them on their wearing powered wigs. I respect the
founding fathers. The point I was getting at is that they are not
infallible. Sound believe anything they wrote is sacred and ordained
by God.

[Bigblue1]

Nonsense. How are you going to take on a government that has nukes, drones and guided missiles?

This quite possibly may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You do realize that said government resides in the same proximity that a nuke may go off to squelch a rebellion. You do know the cold war was based on the premise of assured mutual destruction don't you? And speaking of that premise it fits right in with the fact that somebody is less likely to try to hurt somebody else if they think they can be hurt back..... Same shit different bag. Grow up and understand the basics rather that being brainwashed by one side or the other.