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

[devilock76]

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.

Yes Northern Ireland, a shining example of how banning guns ended that conflict so peacefully and with so little blood shed.

<pssst, that was sarcasm....>

Ken

[devilock76]

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

Just like the Vietnamese did...

Ken

[devilock76]

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.

No it is not. He could get enough explosive to level the whole theater from chemicals at any Home Depot and the electronics to detonate it remotely from any Radio shack. The skill set to do so are available in the average high school curriculum for someone who pays attention and easily someone working towards a PHD could grasp. He would have killed 100x as many people and been able to do it from the border into Mexico...

Ken

[lxskllr]

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

What else are you going to do? I'd rather die for a cause, then get bent over for the rest of my "life". Besides, in an all out civil war, some of the military would be on the civilian's side, and it would be highly unlikely nukes would get used. The odds aren't good, but they're still non zero.

[Joe234]

Aurora Press Conference: Shooter, James Holmes, purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet.



Ar-15 had 100 round drum magazine

[Joe234]

Point? That fact remains that more people die on the roads by orders of magnitude. People occasionally dying in spectacular fashion doesn't call for anything to be done about it. Things don't always have to be "done". The world's dangerous, and it'll always be dangerous. Arms mean power. When only the government has arms, only the government has power. That's an intolerable situation, and one our founding fathers attempted to prevent.

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

[wa3zrm]

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....

Don't know where the Mitten is, but folks here in Western Pennsylvania "cling to their guns and bibles!" And yes, they spend hundreds of dollars for the tax stamps... after all, they are "God fear'en" people. Our local gun stores are like supermarkets here... and the police tend to take care of their own... now if a Dirty Hippy happened to show up, I'm sure the police would bring the full weight of local, state and federal laws down on an "outsider."

[Dirty Hippy]

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....

[wa3zrm]

How many people like me have you got in your country?

I have a neighbor a few doors down from me that enjoys firing his full auto AK47 into the air two or three times a year... usually around holidays when he has had a wee bit to much to drink! After he empties two or three clips, the police show up and remind him that he's not allowed to do that. He tells them he is sorry and they take his gun. Same show repeats the next 4th of July, new year's eve or when the Steelers win the Superbowl.

[Frosted]

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.

[lxskllr]

If you're ok with that, that's good. But is it not worth reducing the risk? No?

There's hardly any risk to minimize. I've never had a gun pointed at me, and I've been in some pretty sketchy areas. I've been threatened by someone saying they'd retrieve a gun, but he was just talking out his ass. Guns are more common in the inner cities, but they're criminals, and criminals don't follow the law by definition.

There's no reason that guy in Oregon couldn't have done the same thing with improvised explosives. In fact, it would have been more effective. Even making rockets isn't rocket science. That's centuries old technology. This country was founded by an armed citizenry, and our founding fathers did their best to make sure it stayed that way. Trading that for the illusion of security isn't a valuable goal. There'll always be "one more thing" to legislate away. If we only get rid of X, then we'll be safe, and live happily ever after. That'll never happen, and it puts power completely into the hands of the few. When a few have complete power, tyranny is the result every single time.

[Frosted]

Do you also hate black people? They owned slaves too? What about spanish people, or nearly all middle eastern people, all slave owners at one point (some still today).

You are a bigot because you stereotype based on the color of ones skin. And founding fathers or not, the right to defend yourself is a human right and does not require a constitution. It is not Americas fault that the UK denies this basic human right to people by outlawing guns.

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.

[sgreger1]

If you're ok with that, that's good. But is it not worth reducing the risk? No?

Banning firearms does not reduce the risk of anything. At most, it reduces the instances of criminals choosing a gun as their weapon of choice. If guns were unavailable than they would use something else. Given the vast black market for guns (as in, they can be bought in any high school in america) we can't make laws that ban guns from law obiding citizens because then the criminals are the only ones who get to have guns.

Taking away the right to own a firearm (I emphasize again that it's a "RIGHT") is something only a draconian government would do. Then only the police and army have weapons and the state owns you.

[Dirty Hippy]

Why should we ban assault weapons? because they have a folding stock? Flash Suppressor? A larger magazine? A pistol Grip?

Those items are what constitutes an "Assault Weapon"

In the United States, most murders are made with a .22 caliber. For those that actually know about guns, a .22 very rarely has any of these special features.

The M16's 5.56x45mm caliber is responsible for many less deaths.

A folding stock does not make a weapon any more dangerous, unless your senator tells you it does...

[sgreger1]

Bigotry? Because I made fun of people who owned Africans
as slaves while they had sex with them?

Are most snusers right wingers?

Sorry if I offended anyone. These events raise emotions high.

Do you also hate black people? They owned slaves too? What about spanish people, or nearly all middle eastern people, all slave owners at one point (some still today).

You are a bigot because you stereotype based on the color of ones skin. And founding fathers or not, the right to defend yourself is a human right and does not require a constitution. It is not Americas fault that the UK denies this basic human right to people by outlawing guns.