PDA

View Full Version : Heller: If someone in the Aurora cinema was armed, this tragedy could have been avoided


Pages : [1] 2

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 07:04 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. See link for full article :thumbsup:

Heller: If someone in the Aurora cinema was armed, this tragedy could have been avoided (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/26/heller-reaffirms-gun-rights-in-the-wake-of-aurora-theater-shooting/)

The plaintiff in the landmark gun rights Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, re-affirmed his support of restoring gun rights in the wake of July 20 Aurora, Colo., cinema spree shooting in his exclusive interview with Human Events and Guns & Patriots.

Dick Heller, who is an armed special police officer in a federal office building, said it was about 9 a.m. Mountain Time when he got the news that a madman had opened fire on in the Century 16 movie house showing the new Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises,” hitting more than 70 people in the audience and killing at least 12.

“I was at work and I called one of my friends, who is an armorer in West Virginia, and who has a Class III license to manufacture machine guns, and he broke the news to me,” he said.

“In Colorado, I am surprised someone wasn’t armed to be able to defend themselves or to shoot back,” he said.

The best defense against a crazed spree shooter is an armed citizen, he said.

“Gun ownership isn’t about duck hunting, it’s about saving your life and defending all the civil liberties we enjoy in this country,” he said.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 07:08 PM
More of the ol' "I woulda taken Holmes down because I sat in a seat in the theater" bull****.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 07:22 PM
More of the ol' "I woulda taken Holmes down because I sat in a seat in the theater" bull****.

So if you were in there, you'd not have wanted someone with a gun to help save your life?

You're lying.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 07:48 PM
And yes, Wog. I have sat in seats in that theater, several times. Most recently last evening, in fact. Olympus Has Fallen is currently playing and a scene in it in which North Koreans are storming the White House is so graphic by the mass murders of OUTGUNNED Americans that a woman behind me began crying and had to leave the theater to compose herself, the movie obviously connecting with her memories of where she was sitting.

In order to help illustrate to clowns like yourself who enjoy armchair quarterbacking from your Lazyboys while you munch your bonbons who have never been there but think they know a damned thing, I took a couple pictures while I was there to illustrate to people such as yourself what it's like being in there and imagining James Holmes ascending that staircase and pointing a rifle in your face. Perhaps you'll find these two photos a little instructive and you'll admit if you were there that night you'd wish someone was there with a gun to help you.

By accounts of the Aurora PD, the most lethal section of the theater was rows 8 to 12, in which 6 deceased victims were found. Last night I sat in row 11, and from that row I took this photo looking down the stairwell that Holmes ascended while shooting into the seats.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2r59h8p.jpg

Imagine yourself sitting there that night. Would you have wished at least one person had a defensive weapon in that theater while you were being shot at and trying to hide as you hear those around you screaming in horror and begging for their lives or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Next picture. Row 9, a couple seats from the stair Holmes ascended, which according to reports is the exact spot that Jon Blunk was shot to death in. Imagine if it was you there on that floor hiding. Would you feel happy that no "Rambo" was there to try to take out Holmes, or would you wish that someone could have helped you from being shot several times in the back with a rifle?

http://i47.tinypic.com/e5k8ko.jpg

I think a simple yes or no response to the above question suffices here, also.

cutthemdown
03-23-2013, 07:55 PM
Liberals are crazy if you think someone couldn't shoot a gunman in a theater because its dark. You can see people. If some fool was standing over you with a gun you could see well enough to shoot him.

Would armed citizens sometimes lead to crossfire casulaties? probably. Would armed citizens stop mass killings? probably not because reaction time will always lag behind someone with a plan. It could though stop some earlier. But everyone being armed would be pretty scary. Sure it makes you safer but only if the other guy is unarmed.

I haven't made my mind up yet on whether open carry would make people safer. I tend to think it wouldn't. Still though i do believe if i was armed and in a theater while someone was shooting people I would have a reasonable chance to shoot him with my gun.

Might have to wait for your shot but you could get one.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 08:01 PM
Liberals are crazy if you think someone couldn't shoot a gunman in a theater because its dark. You can see people. If some fool was standing over you with a gun you could see well enough to shoot him.

Holmes saw well enough to kill 12 and injure 58. Those people had the right to a fighting chance to live, and only an armed person could have given them that.

Everyone should visit that theater, it's quite the learning experience. There are things you feel and learn that even a camera just cannot pick up.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 08:16 PM
So if you were in there, you'd not have wanted someone with a gun to help save your life?

You're lying.

You're so mentally unstable and stupid that if you'd been there with your gun, you likely would have killed the wrong people.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 08:18 PM
In order to help illustrate to clowns like yourself who enjoy armchair quarterbacking from your Lazyboys while you munch your bonbons who have never been there but think they know a damned thing,

You went to the theater so that means you would have taken down Holmes with no problem.

Waddya do? Stay at a Holiday Inn Express ® last night?

Speaking of armchair quarterbacks...

You, being you, are more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than you are to stop a shooter.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 08:20 PM
^^ No response.

Checkmate.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 08:26 PM
nyuk in action...

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/225/a/4/Keyboard_Commando_by_Plognark.jpg

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 09:09 PM
nyuk in action...

I hope you don't have family that depends on you to keep them safe.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 09:13 PM
I hope you don't have family that depends on you to keep them safe.

Anyone relying on you for anything will be sorely disappointed.

Got the neg rep out of your system yet, Mr. Chickenhawk?

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 09:38 PM
SO, Wog, what would you have done were you there in those rows that night?

houghtam
03-23-2013, 09:38 PM
I already addressed the theater issue. You don't have a clue what your talking about. Only errand, a highly trained killing machine, and no one else could have stopped him without significantly increasing the body count. But not errand. He's a badass. With 30 year old training.

W*GS
03-23-2013, 09:41 PM
SO, Wog, what would you have done were you there in those rows that night?

Used you as a shield.

houghtam
03-23-2013, 09:44 PM
Holmes saw well enough to kill 12 and injure 58. Those people had the right to a fighting chance to live, and only an armed person could have given them that.

Everyone should visit that theater, it's quite the learning experience. There are things you feel and learn that even a camera just cannot pick up.

I wonder why every theater employee in the world does theater checks from the bottom of the theater facing back, and not vice versa.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 09:48 PM
I wonder why every theater employee in the world does theater checks from the bottom of the theater facing back, and not vice versa.

Facing back? Elaborate please?

EDIT: Holmes moved toward the back so people hiding just about anywhere with a gun could have gotten something off at him. You can sit in those seats and see staff members ascend the very same staircase Holmes used very clearly.

Perhaps you should visit there, too.

houghtam
03-23-2013, 10:08 PM
Facing back? Elaborate please?

When doing a theater check (to throw out unruly teens, for example), you stand at the bottom and look up, using the screen to both illuminate the direction you are looking (from the screen to the projector) while also using the running movie and light from the screen to keep from being noticed. The only way you would not be at a tactical disadvantage is if you were somehow below him when you engaged him, and that would then assume he had already started his rampage, and the likelihood of your LOS being obstructed by runners grows exponentially.

Once again this is all over and above the other stuff that has been discussed, such as the fact that many people didn't realize what was going on until it was too late. From the wiki article: Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening. Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank,[8] while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere as a publicity stunt by the studio or theater management.[9]

Again and for the millionth time, and hopefully the last, I just think its completely ridiculous to assume that a person would be a big enough fan of a film to go to the midnight showing, but have enough situational awareness not to be totally engrossed with this movie they're so excited to go see, that they are able to detach themselves and act before being acted upon, all while being in a dark room with a movie running, with tear gas and/or smoke, and down the shooter without a greater loss of life.

Just completely ridiculous to believe that series of events, IMO.

houghtam
03-23-2013, 10:17 PM
Perhaps you should visit there, too.

Btw, There is likely nothing about theater 9 that is any different than hundreds of other auditoriums I've been in before in my ten years in the industry. In fact, I would guess that if the Aurora 16 location is like any of the other countless Century theaters I've been in over the years, there's at least one other auditorium in THAT building that has the exact same layout. I don't need to go there to know what it looks like. These things are pretty standard. Seen a movie in one, seen a movie in Em all, and when you spend 60+ hours a week for 7 years straight, you tend to imprint these things on your brain.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 11:01 PM
Btw, There is likely nothing about theater 9 that is any different than hundreds of other auditoriums I've been in before in my ten years in the industry. In fact, I would guess that if the Aurora 16 location is like any of the other countless Century theaters I've been in over the years, there's at least one other auditorium in THAT building that has the exact same layout. I don't need to go there to know what it looks like. These things are pretty standard. Seen a movie in one, seen a movie in Em all, and when you spend 60+ hours a week for 7 years straight, you tend to imprint these things on your brain.

Your posts are interesting and yes, theater 8 next door is the mirror image of theater 9. Both are the 2 largest theaters in the building. Holmes chose 9 in part due to the large size and in other part due to the more secluded back exit area where he parked his car.

Considering witness accounts and my contemplations in that theater, I continue to believe that those folks would have at least had a chance. Holmes was walking and firing. He couldn't fire everywhere at once. Those who for example in the front 5 floor rows ducked down and were not shot could have theoretically been able to get a shot off as he passed them as could those toward the top he hadn't approached yet. People ran from him, the upper rows toward the top emergency exit; some on the other side jumped over the opposite ledge near the opposite stair; and some others toward the bottom fled out the emergency exit door on the bottom right that Holmes entered.

Unfortunately the demographic that attend midnight Batman movies aren't the same demographic most likely to be carrying defense weapons.

Aside from that, about what kind of customer flow does a theater of that size need to remain open? The place is lagging in business though on weekend evenings they seem to get reasonably decent crowds.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 11:06 PM
Again and for the millionth time, and hopefully the last, I just think its completely ridiculous to assume that a person would be a big enough fan of a film to go to the midnight showing, but have enough situational awareness not to be totally engrossed with this movie they're so excited to go see, that they are able to detach themselves and act before being acted upon, all while being in a dark room with a movie running, with tear gas and/or smoke, and down the shooter without a greater loss of life.

Just completely ridiculous to believe that series of events, IMO.

By accounts I've read, once he started shooting, people realized it wasn't a prank and they immediately began screaming and running.

Of course and I admit it is theoretical. I just cannot shake the feeling that a concealed carrier in there (or better yet more than one) could have done SOMETHING to help these folks.

By the way, since you are familiar with Century procedures at least in somewhat, I keep seeing these employees go tinker with the emergency exit door Holmes used. I haven't looked at it very closely, only once having passed by it by a few feet, but I can't imagine them doing much other than superficially checking it for the sake of customer comfort. It doesn't even look like they put an alarm system on it, and the door in Theater 15 has no indication of being alarmed, either. I've never seen them check the emergency exit doors of any other theater of that building I have been in.

Of course if there was a visible, audible alarm, then teenagers would probably have difficulty resisting going over there and setting it off.

Rohirrim
03-23-2013, 11:26 PM
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

nyuk nyuk
03-23-2013, 11:33 PM
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

A gun is a chance at another sunrise.

cutthemdown
03-24-2013, 02:20 AM
Colo need not worry anymore because they did some legislation to make people safe.

BroncsRule
03-24-2013, 07:47 AM
I hope you don't have family that depends on you to keep them safe.

I hope you don't have family.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:33 AM
Of course and I admit it is theoretical. I just cannot shake the feeling that a concealed carrier in there (or better yet more than one) could have done SOMETHING to help these folks.

Obviously you spend a lot of time at the movies.

That's your problem.

Hint: Movies aren't reality.

peacepipe
03-24-2013, 08:40 AM
I can't shake the feeling that had there been a concealed carrier more would have died & been injured in the crossfire.

Pony Boy
03-24-2013, 10:05 AM
Liberals are crazy if you think someone couldn't shoot a gunman in a theater because its dark. You can see people. If some fool was standing over you with a gun you could see well enough to shoot him.

Might have to wait for your shot but you could get one.

I carry a Ruger LCP 380. with a crimson laser sight and it would be highly visible across a dark theater, just put the red dot on the target. It's also palm size and can be carried in a rear pocket, it looks like a wallet.

Meck77
03-24-2013, 10:10 AM
I carry a Ruger LCP 380. with a crimson laser sight and it would be highly visible across a dark theater, just put the red dot on the target. It's also palm size and can be carried in a rear pocket, it looks like a wallet.

Nice.:thumbsup:

Would rather be sitting by you pulling our your 380 then some p***Y pulling his cell phone out crying for help.

It really is interesting seeing the media/government brainwashing working on some of these people on this forum.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 10:28 AM
I hope you don't have family.

And who would you be that you felt the need to come here and make a snide personal attack? I certainly don't know you.

I take it you have nothing to contribute to the thread.

You must be a liberal.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 10:30 AM
I carry a Ruger LCP 380. with a crimson laser sight and it would be highly visible across a dark theater, just put the red dot on the target. It's also palm size and can be carried in a rear pocket, it looks like a wallet.

1) The theater isn't that dark, I've been in there multiple times, and

2) I bought a Crimson Trace for my .357 mag because of my visits to that theater. Those things help a ton in aiming, especially longer distances.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 10:33 AM
I can't shake the feeling that had there been a concealed carrier more would have died & been injured in the crossfire.

Great, so you can respond to this post of mine from page 1 ---


In order to help illustrate to clowns like yourself who enjoy armchair quarterbacking from your Lazyboys while you munch your bonbons who have never been there but think they know a damned thing, I took a couple pictures while I was there to illustrate to people such as yourself what it's like being in there and imagining James Holmes ascending that staircase and pointing a rifle in your face. Perhaps you'll find these two photos a little instructive and you'll admit if you were there that night you'd wish someone was there with a gun to help you.

By accounts of the Aurora PD, the most lethal section of the theater was rows 8 to 12, in which 6 deceased victims were found. Last night I sat in row 11, and from that row I took this photo looking down the stairwell that Holmes ascended while shooting into the seats.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2r59h8p.jpg

Imagine yourself sitting there that night. Would you have wished at least one person had a defensive weapon in that theater while you were being shot at and trying to hide as you hear those around you screaming in horror and begging for their lives or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Next picture. Row 9, a couple seats from the stair Holmes ascended, which according to reports is the exact spot that Jon Blunk was shot to death in. Imagine if it was you there on that floor hiding. Would you feel happy that no "Rambo" was there to try to take out Holmes, or would you wish that someone could have helped you from being shot several times in the back with a rifle?

http://i47.tinypic.com/e5k8ko.jpg

I think a simple yes or no response to the above question suffices here, also.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 10:36 AM
Obviously you spend a lot of time at the movies.

That's your problem.

Hint: Movies aren't reality.

No, I don't. I've been going to Century Aurora to throw them my support. Beyond that, I don't normally see a movie a year.

Suffice it to say, you never answered my simple questions and never intended to. You came to this thread to yet again drop your shorts and defecate everywhere, making the usual snide cutting remarks of someone with a hurt ego.

Let us know when you have something adult to say, assuming you are one.

:twokisses

W*GS
03-24-2013, 10:50 AM
Suffice it to say, you never answered my simple questions and never intended to. You came to this thread to yet again drop your shorts and defecate everywhere, making the usual snide cutting remarks of someone with a hurt ego.

Let us know when you have something adult to say, assuming you are one.

Quite the hypocrite you are, neg rep boy.

baja
03-24-2013, 11:02 AM
" Guns save Lives" - true or false?

Pony Boy
03-24-2013, 11:05 AM
1) The theater isn't that dark, I've been in there multiple times, and

2) I bought a Crimson Trace for my .357 mag because of my visits to that theater. Those things help a ton in aiming, especially longer distances.

What I like about the crimson trace is you can have it on your lap or under a table and as long as you can place the red dot on the target it's effective.

DenverBrit
03-24-2013, 11:38 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.
“Gun ownership isn’t about duck hunting, it’s about saving your life and defending all the civil liberties we enjoy in this country,” he said.

Really? The NRA and the gun lobby don't give a rat's about our 'Liberties' they care about the gun industry. While were arguing about clip size, the Government has been eroding the Constitution and our basic rights. But let's all get frothy about the second amendment and how background checks are unconstitutional.

In the last ten years we have seen a steady erosion of the fundamental rights and civil liberties, all in the name of national security.

The gradual erosion of our civil liberties came in the shape of Warrantless Wiretapping, abuse of the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, No Fly and Selectee Lists, Abuse of Material Witness Statute, Attacks on Academic Freedom and monitoring peaceful groups.

The so-called War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act’s over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI’s new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.
http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=7260

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 12:46 PM
Really? The NRA and the gun lobby don't give a rat's about our 'Liberties' they care about the gun industry. While were arguing about clip size, the Government has been eroding the Constitution and our basic rights. But let's all get frothy about the second amendment and how background checks are unconstitutional.


http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=7260

Here we go again with the illiterate "clip" nonsense again.

The NRA are against liberties because aren't against what you're against. By your reasoning, then Barack Obama is against liberties.

It can easily be argued background checks are unconstitutional. What I especially don't like about them is that they're backdoor gun registration. Take a look at ATF form 4473. Gun registration is supposedly illegal in Colorado, yet when I decided to get a rifle instead of a pistol a month ago, the gun shop had to call the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and notify them of my change. Why?

baja
03-24-2013, 12:55 PM
Here we go again with the illiterate "clip" nonsense again.

The NRA are against liberties because aren't against what you're against. By your reasoning, then Barack Obama is against liberties.

It can easily be argued background checks are unconstitutional. What I especially don't like about them is that they're backdoor gun registration. Take a look at ATF form 4473. Gun registration is supposedly illegal in Colorado, yet when I decided to get a rifle instead of a pistol a month ago, the gun shop had to call the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and notify them of my change. Why?

Why? Because if your goal is to take away the guns from your citizens it is very helpful to know where they are.

DenverBrit
03-24-2013, 12:55 PM
Here we go again with the illiterate "clip" nonsense again.

The NRA are against liberties because aren't against what you're against. By your reasoning, then Barack Obama is against liberties.

It can easily be argued background checks are unconstitutional. What I especially don't like about them is that they're backdoor gun registration. Take a look at ATF form 4473. Gun registration is supposedly illegal in Colorado, yet when I decided to get a rifle instead of a pistol a month ago, the gun shop had to call the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and notify them of my change. Why?

Try responding in English and address the issue I raised.

Fedaykin
03-24-2013, 12:57 PM
Here we go again with the illiterate "clip" nonsense again.

It's the pedantocolypse!

The only people who complain about clip vs. magazine are those that are trying to pretend they know a lot about firearms in order to bolster their cred.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:04 PM
It's the pedantocolypse!

The only people who complain about clip vs. magazine are those that are trying to pretend they know a lot about firearms in order to bolster their cred.

Those who use words from movies that have no place in gun shops are pretending to know ****.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:05 PM
Try responding in English and address the issue I raised.

So Obama lover has no response.

DenverBrit
03-24-2013, 01:13 PM
So Obama lover has no response.


Drinking early??

Again, what was your point, you avoided addressing mine and come back with a sophomoric response wide of the mark.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:19 PM
It's amazing how this thread is making the anti-gun crowd veer so far off topic they're either slinging mud like angry children who had the bottle taken away or are harping on typos or other irrelevancies to avoid addressing points.

ASStounding!

Fedaykin
03-24-2013, 01:21 PM
Those who use words from movies that have no place in gun shops are pretending to know ****.

LMAO. The word clip has become synonymous with magazine, and more than just in movies.

Welcome to the fluid nature of natural language kid.

Fedaykin
03-24-2013, 01:22 PM
It's amazing how this thread is making the anti-gun crowd veer so far off topic they're either slinging mud like angry children who had the bottle taken away or are harping on typos or other irrelevancies to avoid addressing points.

ASStounding!


This from the pedant trying to pretend actual knowledge of firearms by berating people about clip vs. magazine while completely ignoring their posts.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:31 PM
This from the pedant trying to pretend actual knowledge of firearms by berating people about clip vs. magazine while completely ignoring their posts.

Odd that every magazine I've ever bought the word "clip" doesn't appear anywhere on the packaging.

Care to respond to the topic of this thread or just drag your resentment over another thread over here and whine?

baja
03-24-2013, 01:32 PM
Once again do you believe the phrase, " Guns saves Lives "is accurate?

Don't make me make a poll....

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 01:34 PM
Once again do you believe the phrase, " Guns saves Lives "is accurate?

Don't make me make a poll....

Go for it because nobody is capable of an honest conversation on this thread. Apparently my pictures and pointed questions about the Century Aurora Theater are causing brainwave overload and bowel incontinence.

Fedaykin
03-24-2013, 01:45 PM
Odd that every magazine I've ever bought the word "clip" doesn't appear anywhere on the packaging.

Care to respond to the topic of this thread or just drag your resentment over another thread over here and whine?

Resentment over you showing your utter stupidity to the whole forum? Why would I have resentment about that? It's god damn hilarious is what it is!

Did you know folks, we didn't allow citizenship to anyone but white ango saxon protestants until after 1960!

ROFL

Rohirrim
03-24-2013, 01:54 PM
Wow! He really is the drama llama, isn't he. ;D

Fedaykin
03-24-2013, 01:57 PM
It's pretty funny all the idiots who don't understand the difference between being in a dark room looking AT a bright light source is not the same as being in a dark room with a bright light source BEHIND you.

The Aurora shooter could easily see the crown, they were illuminated for him. The crowd could not, they were night blind from staring at a bright light source.

Idiotic pictures of a semi-darkened threatre without the projection system running are just that, idiotic. They in no way represent the conditions the victims faced.

It's not like this is an uncommon experience. Go to a damn theater. Then, while the movie is playing, look around and see how piss poor your vision is.

Then, for the full effect, bring some pepper spray and give yourself a dose and see how good your vision is while night blind and tearing up profusely.

DenverBrit
03-24-2013, 02:08 PM
It's amazing how this thread is making the anti-gun crowd veer so far off topic they're either slinging mud like angry children who had the bottle taken away or are harping on typos or other irrelevancies to avoid addressing points.

ASStounding!

Hilarious!

You've accurately described yourself and the irony sailed right over your head!!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_H8KDKpNcbYo/Subtxan6qwI/AAAAAAAAApw/KGs9OmLVrsE/s400/blog+box+of+rocks.jpg

Meck77
03-24-2013, 02:32 PM
Next movie I go to I'm packing this. See minutes 2:50 for what it will do to wack jobs.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dSp7CipN1pw?list=SPFBFCDCC3DBB96BC4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Requiem
03-24-2013, 02:40 PM
I like how nyuk nyuk thinks she actually could have took down Holmes.

Meck77
03-24-2013, 02:49 PM
I like how nyuk nyuk thinks she actually could have took down Holmes.

So given the chance you would rather die not trying then actually fighting back?

Come on req..You can't be that gutless dude.

I can tell you that holmes type chicken **** wouldn't fly in AZ anymore. People packing everywhere there. :thumbsup:

Colorado is becoming a safe haven for illegals and criminals now.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 03:05 PM
So given the chance you would rather die not trying then actually fighting back?

Come on req..You can't be that gutless dude.

I can tell you that holmes type chicken **** wouldn't fly in AZ anymore. People packing everywhere there. :thumbsup:

Colorado is becoming a safe haven for illegals and criminals now.

There is a difference between having a will to stop the guy and actually being able to do it. My guess is that nyuk's experience in such a scenario is 0. Just because she got a new shiny gun and took a few gun safety courses doesn't mean she is a good marksman or knows what the **** she would be doing. Especially in a theater packed with people, the way the atmosphere was, etc.

Now, would someone who was 11B, went Airborne Ranger and spent time in Special Ops be able to make a difference if in that place? Quite possibly. Nyuk? **** no.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:09 PM
Resentment over you showing your utter stupidity to the whole forum? Why would I have resentment about that? It's god damn hilarious is what it is!

Did you know folks, we didn't allow citizenship to anyone but white ango saxon protestants until after 1960!

ROFL

I understand your continuing anger over your inappropriate references to magazines, however as I said, please at least try to keep it on the right thread. Same with this other silly comment.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:10 PM
I like how nyuk nyuk thinks she actually could have took down Holmes.

I never said such a thing and yet certain people with personal hostility against me on this forum continue to make claims that I did.

I take this as meaning you have no argument.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:12 PM
So given the chance you would rather die not trying then actually fighting back?

No, rather Req is unsurprisingly against the idea of self-defense carrying even while he like the others here cannot answer my post about the theater. Why don't they answer? We know what they're really thinking - If I was in there, I'd want someone else there with a gun to give me a chance to live another day.

And they aren't man enough to admit it.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:16 PM
There is a difference between having a will to stop the guy and actually being able to do it. My guess is that nyuk's experience in such a scenario is 0. Just because she got a new shiny gun and took a few gun safety courses doesn't mean she is a good marksman or knows what the **** she would be doing. Especially in a theater packed with people, the way the atmosphere was, etc.

Now, would someone who was 11B, went Airborne Ranger and spent time in Special Ops be able to make a difference if in that place? Quite possibly. Nyuk? **** no.

Next time in Colorado, go visit the theater. Your comments are purely speculative; we'll never know whether or not someone in there may have been able to help because nobody was armed. Don't try to make it about ME, I never did.

Make a visit: Century Aurora Theater (http://www.cinemark.com/theatre-detail.aspx?node_id=1647&showtime_date=), 14300 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, Colorado. Whatever is playing in XD is theater 9. Buy a ticket.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 03:18 PM
No, rather Req is unsurprisingly against the idea of self-defense carrying even while he like the others here cannot answer my post about the theater. Why don't they answer? We know what they're really thinking - If I was in there, I'd want someone else there with a gun to give me a chance to live another day.

And they aren't man enough to admit it.

I have no reason to have a conceal in carry. I'm not paranoid nor do I feel threatened where I go.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 03:20 PM
Next time in Colorado, go visit the theater. Your comments are purely speculative; we'll never know whether or not someone in there may have been able to help because nobody was armed. Don't try to make it about ME, I never did.

Make a visit: Century Aurora Theater (http://www.cinemark.com/theatre-detail.aspx?node_id=1647&showtime_date=), 14300 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, Colorado. Whatever is playing in XD is theater 9. Buy a ticket.

No thanks. Congratulations on being junior detective of the OM and actually taking the time to post pictures from the theater to try and pump your arguments up on here. GOOD WORK.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:23 PM
The Aurora shooter could easily see the crown, they were illuminated for him. The crowd could not, they were night blind from staring at a bright light source.

Wrong. You've never been there. Come visit. (http://www.cinemark.com/theatre-detail.aspx?node_id=1647&showtime_date=)

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:24 PM
No thanks. Congratulations on being junior detective of the OM and actually taking the time to post pictures from the theater to try and pump your arguments up on here. GOOD WORK.

Apparently so, nobody can respond to a couple simple yes or no questions.

That didn't take much effort at all.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:25 PM
I have no reason to have a conceal in carry. I'm not paranoid nor do I feel threatened where I go.

You live in the middle of nowhere. Secondly, if you didn't suffer from paranoia, you wouldn't want magazines banned over one asshole with orange hair.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 03:25 PM
Apparently so, nobody can respond to a couple simple yes or no questions.

That didn't take much effort at all.

I don't think anybody feels the need to justify themselves to you. Ha!

Requiem
03-24-2013, 03:32 PM
You live in the middle of nowhere. Secondly, if you didn't suffer from paranoia, you wouldn't want magazines banned over one a-hole with orange hair.

I've lived in bigger cities, smaller cities and the middle of nowhere. I've walked alone in Seattle, Portland, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, etc. and never felt the need to have a firearm on me for personal protection.

If you would have read my conversation with Tombstone RJ, I already said that the magazine ban / size limit legislation didn't address the problem.

This is like the 10th time you've tried to say I can't have an opinion on the matter because of where I live or that I don't have a family of my own. Despite the fact that you probably don't have a family to protect (would seriously doubt you have a husband and kids).

I grew up in a family of hunters, have step-brothers who own one of the most successful hunting/fishing guide services in the country. I'm willing to wager I have fired off more guns in a week out with the boys than you have in your entire life.

But it's really cool that you put a gun on your XXXL sized Manning jersey. So manly.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 04:12 PM
I've lived in bigger cities, smaller cities and the middle of nowhere. I've walked alone in Seattle, Portland, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, etc. and never felt the need to have a firearm on me for personal protection.

If you would have read my conversation with Tombstone RJ, I already said that the magazine ban / size limit legislation didn't address the problem.

This is like the 10th time you've tried to say I can't have an opinion on the matter because of where I live or that I don't have a family of my own. Despite the fact that you probably don't have a family to protect (would seriously doubt you have a husband and kids).

I grew up in a family of hunters, have step-brothers who own one of the most successful hunting/fishing guide services in the country. I'm willing to wager I have fired off more guns in a week out with the boys than you have in your entire life.

But it's really cool that you put a gun on your XXXL sized Manning jersey. So manly.

Yet again another with no response to the topic of this thread pulls out a longwinded childish retort of the like I haven't seen since the 7th grade. It's not quite mating season, Mr. Peacock, you can hold of on your mating season strut for now.

As I said - not everyone has your experience nor you theirs. You don't presume to speak for others any more than I do. Liberals such as yourself, hoewver, enjoy trying to forcefeed their one size fits all feel-good solutions.

The problem with your argument - admittedly so - is that your experience with guns is rural and sporting in nature and your only experience in larger cities is in taking little walks, not living there year after year after year. It also depends on what sections of larger cities as well. If I have a nice little enclave home, I don't take it upon myself to dictate to others.

At least you're willing to admit magazine bans won't do any good, which is more than I can say for most libtards.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 04:14 PM
I don't think anybody feels the need to justify themselves to you. Ha!

Debate isn't asking for one to justify themselves. If you can't answer a point, then at least concede so like an adult rather than behaving like an overgrown child in extended adolescence and throwing toys around the room and calling names like your feelers are hurt.

And btw, if you ever make it out to Century Aurora, don't buy the small soda unless you want to be gouged $4 for a miniature cup

http://i50.tinypic.com/25sya9j.jpg

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 04:30 PM
After 3 - count em 3!! - intense pages of hawt debate, the liberal position on defense weapons can be summarized thusly:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UOmmmzEX4MM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
03-24-2013, 04:36 PM
[...]certain people with personal hostility against me on this forum[...]

Go on...

Requiem
03-24-2013, 05:01 PM
The problem with your argument - admittedly so - is that your experience with guns is rural and sporting in nature and your only experience in larger cities is in taking little walks, not living there year after year after year. It also depends on what sections of larger cities as well. If I have a nice little enclave home, I don't take it upon myself to dictate to others.

Um, my experience with guns > yours. Regardless if it is used for sport and that I am in a rural setting. Do you really think knowledge of guns and how to use them is determined by where one lives? The way I fire a pistol here is the same as I'd fire it for self-defense if I lived in the city. Good grief. I am sorry that you are new to the firearms game.

At least you're willing to admit magazine bans won't do any good, which is more than I can say for most libtards.

Libtards? And you accuse others of acting like kids. Ha!

houghtam
03-24-2013, 06:21 PM
Go on...

I was under the impression rep bombing was bannable...

W*GS
03-24-2013, 06:25 PM
I was under the impression rep bombing was bannable...

Eh - nyuk is hardly at the "bombing" stage.

He's just a stinking hypocrite. But we all knew that already.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 07:04 PM
I was under the impression rep bombing was bannable...

I wouldn't say 4 neg reps for hostile, abusive posts is a bomb.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 07:05 PM
Eh - nyuk is hardly at the "bombing" stage.

That's right - I don't neg bomb people.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 07:06 PM
Go on...

Which came first?

W*GS
03-24-2013, 07:08 PM
That's right - I don't neg bomb people.

Yeah, right.

You're a pathetic pile - and I apologize to pathetic piles for comparing you to them.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 07:09 PM
Um, my experience with guns > yours. Regardless if it is used for sport and that I am in a rural setting. Do you really think knowledge of guns and how to use them is determined by where one lives? The way I fire a pistol here is the same as I'd fire it for self-defense if I lived in the city. Good grief. I am sorry that you are new to the firearms game.

I'm sorry, how you fire a gun has what to do with this thread?

Meck77
03-24-2013, 07:28 PM
Req my question was for you not nyuk.

Would YOU rather be armed if you found yourself in a mass shooting situation or not. Simple question. Yes or No.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 08:41 PM
I'm sorry, how you fire a gun has what to do with this thread?

Flew over your head, huh? You were the one trying to downplay my experience with guns because I primarily use them for sport or have used them in a rural setting. Which makes absolutely no sense. Where and how I have used a weapon matters how? Numerous times you have tried to say I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't: (A) Live in a big city or (B) Have a family of my own to protect.

Pretty sure that the latter also applies to you, so who are you to use that crapline on others? I stand by my point that even if I lived in a big city, I wouldn't feel the need to get a conceal and carry permit or have one on my person in order for personal protection or to feel safe.

Regardless, I'll take my experience shooting a wide variety of weapons over my life and my ability to adequately handle different firearms within reason over someone like yourself who recently got her new shiny toy in order to "feel safe."

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 08:44 PM
Req my question was for you not nyuk.

Would YOU rather be armed if you found yourself in a mass shooting situation or not. Simple question. Yes or No.

Crickets yet again, apparently. Amazing how these liberals can't answer a simple yes or no question.

We know what the answer would be, and they won't admit it.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 08:52 PM
Req my question was for you not nyuk.

Would YOU rather be armed if you found yourself in a mass shooting situation or not. Simple question. Yes or No.

You mean in a situation like the Aurora Theater where mass panic ensued and the ability to actually take out Holmes was virtually non-existent? Or something completely different? Even more chaotic?

It is one thing for me to take firearms training classes, shoot a buck or pheasant and go pistol shootin' with the boys for enjoyment. It takes a whole other type of mindset or mentality to actually think that I -- as an armed citizen, would effectively be able to stop some absolute terror of a human being Hell bent for leather trying to wipe people out because they have a screw loose. Especially if they were decked out in crazy armor like Holmes was.

Would I like to be armed if I was in a situation like that? Sure. To protect others and those I am with. I'd rather have a fighting chance to survive than go down without a fight.

However. . . do I think I actually would have a good shot at getting the situation to unravel the way I would want it to. . . i.e. the maniacal shooter being dead? Probably not. And that isn't a lack of confidence in my ability to shoot a weapon, it is honest assessment coming from lack of experience that a solider or someone like a police officer would have dealing with exchanging fire on targets/suspects. Never been in crossfire before, been shot at or had to shoot at another human being. Just because I'm trained with a gun and have one in that situation doesn't mean I am going to succeed in ending a killing spree.

How often has an average Joe citizen stopped a killer in any mass shooting event? Like. . . ever?

I can point to numerous examples where people who were ex-Law Enforcement or ex-Military had the knowledge and experience to stop someone, but I can't think of many unsung, regular Joe hero's who have effectively stopped a mass shooting rampage. In fact, members of law enforcement highly discourage civilians ever getting into the mix of things because they could do more harm than good.

I imagine that if 5-10 people (who had guns) were in the Aurora Theater when Holmes went nuts, more innocent people would have died because people would have panicked or incorrectly assessed the situation. Then again, just my thoughts.

If you don't like my answer, that is fine. But at least I am being honest.

Meck77
03-24-2013, 08:56 PM
Would I like to be armed if I was in a situation like that. Sure. .

That's what I thought. Same with Obama. My best friend protects him daily. They are loaded with guns but the aholes in DC don't want you to have a gun.

I would rather you have a chance to protect yourself, your grandmother, or another innocent child in a situation like Aurora or any other situation also. Req you hear what the media wants you to hear. Plenty of people pull out guns and stop crimes all the ****ing time. A rancher neighbor of mine did. Did it make CNN? No because there was no blood and guts to report. The media loves body counts.

Wake the hell up kid.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 09:00 PM
Same with Obama. My best friend protects him daily.

Gross :flush:

Requiem
03-24-2013, 09:00 PM
That's what I thought. Same with Obama. My best friend protects him daily. They are loaded with guns but the aholes in DC don't want you to have a gun.

I would rather you have a chance to protect yourself, your grandmother, or another innocent child in a situation like Aurora or any other situation also. Req you hear what the media wants you to hear. Plenty of people pull out guns and stop crimes all the ****ing time. A rancher neighbor of mine did. Did it make CNN? No because there was no blood and guts to report. The media loves body counts.

Wake the hell up kid.

I live in Dakota. Having legal access to quality weaponry will never be a problem and I see no legislation at the federal level that is ever going to hurt my ability to obtain something in order to enjoy for sport or personal protection while I am here. Let me know when the day comes that all guns are banned. Then your "They took our guns!" rant might actually have some validity. As of right now, here on Earth, it doesn't.

And BTW, I don't watch the mainstream media. Haven't had cable since Hurricane Katrina.

I asked, when, if ever, has a regular Joe citizen stop a mass shooting when it was taken place?

I did not ask if someone's ability to wield a weapon deterred someone who was going to engage in a criminal activity from doing so. (Like someone going into your house and trying to rob you, but you pull out a boss 22 and say get the **** off my lawn and the **** their pants and run away.)

And my grandma's are both dead. Jesus protects them now with unlimited heaven ammunition by angels.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 09:01 PM
So Req, you don't mind the vague definition of "assault weapon" which is clearly a term used by media and politicians to inflame the public into a state of mass hysteria ready to ban things with very vague definitions?

How do you feel about ATF form 4473?

Requiem
03-24-2013, 09:08 PM
So Req, you don't mind the vague definition of "assault weapon" which is clearly a term used by media and politicians to inflame the public into a state of mass hysteria ready to ban things with very vague definitions?

How do you feel about ATF form 4473?

Most people in the media, politicians and John Q. Public don't actually know what "assault weapons" are or how to adequately classify firearms.

And what about the form? Don't go down conspiracy road here!

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 09:24 PM
Most people in the media, politicians and John Q. Public don't actually know what "assault weapons" are or how to adequately classify firearms.

And what about the form? Don't go down conspiracy road here!

Look up the form. There is no conspiracizing. It's online. Go look and consider the information they want, why they want it, and how it can be abused.

There is a vague definition because there is no such thing. The definition has been morphed over the years from fully automatic combat rifles to something much, much less. We're now being told that semiautomatic rifles that can fire ~60 rounds per minute are assault rifles in spite of that actual military assault weapons can fire upwards of 6,000 rounds per minute.

The guns these illiterates are labeling assault weapons are half-assed peashooters in comparison to the real thing.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 09:28 PM
Look up the form. There is no conspiracizing. It's online. Go look and consider the information they want, why they want it, and how it can be abused.

Scared about the fingerprinting thing? State requirement. Not all states require it when purchasing a firearm.

Like I said: conspiracy.

Not gonna worry about it.

I'm sure when I die at a young age, people will still have guns.

Hundreds of years from now, people will still have guns.

Though, at some point in time. . . America won't exist.

C'est la vie.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 09:29 PM
Scared about the fingerprinting thing? State requirement.

Jesus Christ. ATF form 4473 has nothing to do with fingerprinting. Go look it up or kindly stop commenting.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 09:33 PM
Jesus Christ. ATF form 4473 has nothing to do with fingerprinting. Go look it up or kindly stop commenting.

Don't know if I really care to have a conversation about gun rights with someone who just recently purchased one because they went hysteric and wanted to feel better about themselves.

And yes, I looked at the form. Should I be worried about questions in Section 11?

Don't have anything to worry about with those questions!

Carry on, Wayward Son.

It is time for me to Skype!

Meck77
03-25-2013, 08:33 AM
Look what the liberals in NY are doing now. Nothing short of how the Soviet Union did it. Communist.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/gun-advocates-upset-over-tipline/2007603/

Requiem
03-25-2013, 08:41 AM
$500 cash prize if you turn someone in for having an illegal firearm. People would never have to work ever again!

houghtam
03-25-2013, 09:02 AM
Look what the liberals in NY are doing now. Nothing short of how the Soviet Union did it. Communist.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/gun-advocates-upset-over-tipline/2007603/

People up in other people's business because of a perceived broken law? OH THE MUTHA****ING HORROR!!

George Zimmerman and neighborhood watch groups all over this great nation are gasping in terror from such oppression.

I guess it's only okay to profile when it serves your own interests?

Meck77
03-25-2013, 09:05 AM
$500 cash prize if you turn someone in for having an illegal firearm. People would never have to work ever again!

Make your jokes but this is a perfect example of how the second amendment is being threatened more and more each day.

Just how the hell is someone suppose to know if someone else has a legal gun or not?

If someone suspects illegal activity everyone in America has the option to call the police. Being paid to call the police=communist the core. You stated once your family has Ukranian roots. If so they you should know how the KGB/communists divided villages/people with tactics EXACTLY like this.

Requiem
03-25-2013, 09:13 AM
Make your jokes but this is a perfect example of how the second amendment is being threatened more and more each day.

While on the other hand, where I am from, teachers are now allowed to have firearms in the classroom.

I don't get how the link you posted is exactly going to fly, but are people allowed to have "illegal" firearms?

Just how the hell is someone suppose to know if someone else has a legal gun or not?

Not entirely sure, but if this extends to weapons that are already banned it is pretty easy to figure out.

You stated once your family has Ukranian roots. If so they you should know how the KGB/communists divided villages/people with tactics EXACTLY like this.

They left before the Bolsheviks ever got power in Russia in 1917 and for completely different reasons.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 09:52 AM
Wrong. You've never been there. Come visit. (http://www.cinemark.com/theatre-detail.aspx?node_id=1647&showtime_date=)


LMAO So when this place plays a movie, they keep the house lights up and dim the screen eh?

Jesus you are a moron. Do you not realize that the lighting conditions at work before and after the movie are nothing like the lighting conditions DURING the movie? Do you not understand the basic biology in play of being in a darkened room staring at a bright light source?

Your "point" has been ripped to shreds kid. Your pictures are pointless and the fact that you don't even grasp the difference between the lighting conditions during and before/after a movie in playing speaks volumes about just how incapable of basic reasoning you are.

I understand your continuing anger over your inappropriate references to magazines, however as I said, please at least try to keep it on the right thread. Same with this other silly comment.

LMAO No on here is angry but you. Most people would be angry too if they were shown to be a complete moron over and over again like you have been.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 10:03 AM
LMAO So when this place plays a movie, they keep the house lights up and dim the screen eh?

Jesus you are a moron. Do you not realize that the lighting conditions at work before and after the movie are nothing like the lighting conditions DURING the movie? Do you not understand the basic biology in play of being in a darkened room staring at a bright light source?

Your "point" has been ripped to shreds kid. Your pictures are pointless and the fact that you don't even grasp the difference between the lighting conditions during and before/after a movie in playing speaks volumes about just how incapable of basic reasoning you are.



LMAO No on here is angry but you. Most people would be angry too if they were shown to be a complete moron over and over again like you have been.

:spit:

:yayaya:

:welcome:

houghtam
03-25-2013, 10:08 AM
Hey Fed, do you feel like schooling DramaSoshulismnyuk on the nuances in the term "assault weapon" as it relates to military capability and get him to look like a fool just like you did with cut and Beavis, or you gonna sit this one out?

Ha!

peacepipe
03-25-2013, 10:24 AM
Go back to the thread starter,is this the same Heller,as in heller vs dc,that SCOTUS ruled that guns can be regulated & that machine guns & the like can be banned.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 10:28 AM
Hey Fed, do you feel like schooling DramaSoshulismnyuk on the nuances in the term "assault weapon" as it relates to military capability and get him to look like a fool just like you did with cut and Beavis, or you gonna sit this one out?

Ha!

I'll wait to see if it's even possible for the vapid one to grasp the difference between move playing and movie not playing.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 04:36 PM
Trying to say some dead person, shot by a gunman, might not have had a better chance if he was armed is a joke. It doesn't matter if the room is pitch black you have a better chance to live while someone shooting at you if you also are armed.

No way being unarmed in a theater with a gunman shooting makes you safer then being armed. The gunman shot people after walking right up on them. For sure at that point had the person been armed they would have shot the gunman.

Could people be shot by accident while someone was trying to defend themselvs or others? of course they could that is also 100% reasonable.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 04:37 PM
Hey Fed, do you feel like schooling DramaSoshulismnyuk on the nuances in the term "assault weapon" as it relates to military capability and get him to look like a fool just like you did with cut and Beavis, or you gonna sit this one out?

Ha!

Sorry but he never proved more people killed with assault weapons. In fact i won that argument proving its handguns that are the real danger.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 04:39 PM
It's already DOA anyways. No liberals in red states have the guts to go after peoples guns so really gun control already watered down and over with. Game, set, match to the NRA.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 04:42 PM
A few states like CO will make token laws limiting clip size but all that will do is push some jobs out of your state. Oh and maybe increase law enforcement costs by having another law to police.

It won't though change the homicide rate in CO one bit. Why? because criminals don't use assault rifles with 30 round clips very often and the ones that do won't care about your stupid law.

A kid can still grab dads rifle and accidently kill himself with a 10 round clip. A person can still go on a rampage with a 10 round clip. So really its dont nothing. Of course liberal ****twads on the board want you to believe that smaller clip give you a shot when the gunman has to reload. LOL sorry people you can literally reload in under 5 seconds.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 04:49 PM
Trying to say some dead person, shot by a gunman, might not have had a better chance if he was armed is a joke. It doesn't matter if the room is pitch black you have a better chance to live while someone shooting at you if you also are armed.

No way being unarmed in a theater with a gunman shooting makes you safer then being armed. The gunman shot people after walking right up on them. For sure at that point had the person been armed they would have shot the gunman.

Could people be shot by accident while someone was trying to defend themselvs or others? of course they could that is also 100% reasonable.

Again.

In that situation, with those circumstances, with the extensive experience I have in what it actually looks like while a movie is playing and what it looks like in an auditorium when everyone panics, I can say with about 99% certainty that the body count would have been significantly higher had there been one or more concealed weapons in the audience.

Yes. The person holding the gun is always at least a little safer. No one is arguing that. We are arguing the fact that the danger to the surrounding people increases as you add guns to the situation. The vast majority of people with concealed carry permits are not ex-military or ex-law enforcement. They are average shmoes with no tactical training and only a very basic understanding of how to actually make the bullet go where they want it to. They are people who don't have the faintest clue what it feels like to be tear gassed.

No thanks. The group as a whole is safer with bullets only flying in one direction.

Mecklomaniac
03-25-2013, 05:05 PM
No thanks. The group as a whole is safer with bullets only flying in one direction.


And the group as a whole is safer if we hand over the plane and let the trained professionals negotiate with the hijackers after they land the plane.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 07:11 PM
Trying to say some dead person, shot by a gunman, might not have had a better chance if he was armed is a joke. It doesn't matter if the room is pitch black you have a better chance to live while someone shooting at you if you also are armed.

No way being unarmed in a theater with a gunman shooting makes you safer then being armed. The gunman shot people after walking right up on them. For sure at that point had the person been armed they would have shot the gunman.

Could people be shot by accident while someone was trying to defend themselvs or others? of course they could that is also 100% reasonable.

You really are a straw man serial killer. It's pretty sad.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 07:13 PM
Sorry but he never proved more people killed with assault weapons. In fact i won that argument proving its handguns that are the real danger.

LMAO I see you're still lost on what we were talking about, or simply to dishonest (as usual) to acknowledge it.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 07:20 PM
There is no assault weapons problem or a rifle problem in our country. Just like 9-11 and the patriot act going to far our govt is once again using isolated incidents to take away our freedoms. Seriously give me one argument how Americans are killed or threatened by the people who own assault rifles? Very few incidents involving them. It's such a non issue that no on will even argue with me that its needed because of the number of incidents. The best people can say is do you really need 30 rounds? We could kill the gunman as he reloads? or you don't need them for hunting? or a shotgun is better for protection? or Feds beauty, the potential the guns are more dangerous even though they haven't been used for many crimes or murders? Like a pre-emptive gun ban based on the fact if people started using them we would wish we didn't have them?

Fact is assault rifles don't appeal to criminals. The only time they make the news is a brazen robbery where they would just get fully auto or bypass your clip law etc and the off random attack like the colo shooting.

We can't stop people from going crazy. The only smart gun control is by saying if you get caught with a gun and your a felon we give you 25 yrs hard labor. If you use a gun in a crime during a robbery its 35 yrs hard labor. If you kill someone regardless of how you do it unless its self defense you get life hard labor. No more kick back prisons make them work until it kills them. I think they would make great miners. We should build prisons right on top of rare earth mines and let them have at it.

Liberals want to be soft on crime then come back and say wow the world is scary. Maybe we shouldn't have guns. But all that does is leave people in a survival of the fittest when it comes to confrontations. Someone bigger and stronger then you arrives and you are screwed. Or some criminal who doesn't follow the law has one up on you because he is armed.

make no mistake about it many many liberal politicans would love to outlaw all guns.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 07:27 PM
Know what the minimum firearm training necessary for a concealed carry in Colorado?

A hunter's safety course (in many counties, though I don't know all).

(ironically perhaps, this is how I obtained mine)

ROFL

Hunter's education, where you learn valuable urban combat skills like how to carry and store a rifle safely, and how to identify if a particular elk has the legally required points, how to field dress various game animals, and basic wilderness survival.

Oh, and how to shoot a BB gun! Woot!

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 07:30 PM
There is no assault weapons problem or a rifle problem in our country. Just like 9-11 and the patriot act going to far our govt is once again using isolated incidents to take away our freedoms. Seriously give me one argument how Americans are killed or threatened by the people who own assault rifles? Very few incidents involving them. It's such a non issue that no on will even argue with me that its needed because of the number of incidents. The best people can say is do you really need 30 rounds? We could kill the gunman as he reloads? or you don't need them for hunting? or a shotgun is better for protection? or Feds beauty, the potential the guns are more dangerous even though they haven't been used for many crimes or murders? Like a pre-emptive gun ban based on the fact if people started using them we would wish we didn't have them?

Fact is assault rifles don't appeal to criminals. The only time they make the news is a brazen robbery where they would just get fully auto or bypass your clip law etc and the off random attack like the colo shooting.

We can't stop people from going crazy. The only smart gun control is by saying if you get caught with a gun and your a felon we give you 25 yrs hard labor. If you use a gun in a crime during a robbery its 35 yrs hard labor. If you kill someone regardless of how you do it unless its self defense you get life hard labor. No more kick back prisons make them work until it kills them. I think they would make great miners. We should build prisons right on top of rare earth mines and let them have at it.

Liberals want to be soft on crime then come back and say wow the world is scary. Maybe we shouldn't have guns. But all that does is leave people in a survival of the fittest when it comes to confrontations. Someone bigger and stronger then you arrives and you are screwed. Or some criminal who doesn't follow the law has one up on you because he is armed.

make no mistake about it many many liberal politicans would love to outlaw all guns.

Once again, cutlet going on totally random tangents. Bravo!

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 07:36 PM
Its stupid to think some cop had he been in that theater with a gun could not have killed holmes. Officer why did he get of 30 shots and you did nothing. Well it was dark ya know? Hell I am a decent shot and have been in a theater a ton of times. After your eyes adjust you can see. Sure it would be difficult to shoot well but if a guy walked up your aisle shooting the notion you would have little chance to hit him without killing tons of innocent people is a joke.

Also though saying it would always end better if citizens were armed is also not correct. You can't predict things like that. Sometimes it would end better sometimes it wouldn't.

I love how Houghtam says because he worked in a theater he knows how it would turn out is pretty funny.

i worked at a bank does that mean i know how to make sure a bank robbery is safer? no it doesn't.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 07:49 PM
It does fit the argument Fed because liberals make an issue where there is none. You have no evidence i have seen showing that people with concealed carry permits shoot people on accident.

cutthemdown
03-25-2013, 07:50 PM
Just like there is no evidence that assault rifles are used to commit a high number of murders or crimes in America.

We need to focus on other things like immigration where some good law can help the country grow and be more fair to immigrants.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 07:59 PM
Its stupid to think some cop had he been in that theater with a gun could not have killed holmes.


Good thing no one is saying that, huh strawman-killer.


Officer why did he get of 30 shots and you did nothing. Well it was dark ya know? Hell I am a decent shot and have been in a theater a ton of times. After your eyes adjust you can see.


Your eyes aren't going to adjust to the darkness when there's a bright source of light shining in them. Again, basic ****ing biology here folks. No one's arguing that someone with dark adjusted vision in a simple dark room wouldn't have been able to see.

Stop murdering the ****ing strawmen. They deserve to live!


Sure it would be difficult to shoot well but if a guy walked up your aisle shooting the notion you would have little chance to hit him without killing tons of innocent people is a joke.


Nice totally unsupported assertion. So a guy's coming at you with a gun. You just start blasting away while in a crowd? You think it's unlikely you're going to hit someone other than the intended target? Really? Most people at a range have a hard time hitting a man sized target @ 15 yards without careful, deliberate aim (i.e. not just "pointing"). And that's in the controlled environment of a range not in a life or death, blood pumping, eyes watering, pissing your pants situation.


I love how Houghtam says because he worked in a theater he knows how it would turn out is pretty funny.


He's about the only other person in the thread that doesn't lack the basic brain power to understand that the lighting conditions during the movie are a lot different than at other times.

For instance, your idiotic comments about your eyes adjusting.

So once again we're back to the wingnuts either too dishonest or too stupid to deal with a simple, objective fact of reality because it doesn't suit their ideological beliefs.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 08:12 PM
Its stupid to think some cop had he been in that theater with a gun could not have killed holmes. Officer why did he get of 30 shots and you did nothing. Well it was dark ya know? Hell I am a decent shot and have been in a theater a ton of times. After your eyes adjust you can see. Sure it would be difficult to shoot well but if a guy walked up your aisle shooting the notion you would have little chance to hit him without killing tons of innocent people is a joke.

How many times have you been tear gassed? Your eyes adjust to that?

Also though saying it would always end better if citizens were armed is also not correct. You can't predict things like that. Sometimes it would end better sometimes it wouldn't.

I love how Houghtam says because he worked in a theater he knows how it would turn out is pretty funny.

Which one of us has filed police and incident reports on multiple occasions, one being when a fire extinguisher was released during a showing, two being brawls one of which which resulted in multiple innocent people being injured?

Here's a clue...

:welcome:

i worked at a bank does that mean i know how to make sure a bank robbery is safer? no it doesn't.

In bold.

Yes, I would say I know exactly what the conditions in a movie theater with poor visibility are, and how easily it is for someone to get injured in a situation like that. Never mind when two sets of bullets start to fly.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:39 AM
In bold.

Yes, I would say I know exactly what the conditions in a movie theater with poor visibility are, and how easily it is for someone to get injured in a situation like that. Never mind when two sets of bullets start to fly.

Poor visibility?

http://i49.tinypic.com/5cn4e9.jpg

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:41 AM
Your eyes aren't going to adjust to the darkness when there's a bright source of light shining in them.

Wrong. This photo taken yesterday, March 25, 2013, inside Theater 9

http://i49.tinypic.com/5cn4e9.jpg

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:44 AM
Just like there is no evidence that assault rifles are used to commit a high number of murders or crimes in America.

We need to focus on other things like immigration where some good law can help the country grow and be more fair to immigrants.

Giving illegal aliens what they want isn't fair to Americans, and those people aren't immigrants, anyway. Giving them what they want only makes the problem worse, as we saw after the 1986 amnesty which set off a human tidal wave giving us what we have today.

"Assault rifles" are a vague and I'll add MEANINGLESS term since military assault weapons are fully automatic and can fire upwards of 6,000 rounds per minute, not a measly 60.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:46 AM
Go back to the thread starter,is this the same Heller,as in heller vs dc,that SCOTUS ruled that guns can be regulated & that machine guns & the like can be banned.

"Machine guns" have been banned for 100 years for civilian use.

Instead of admitting that Heller knocked down a ****load of liberal gun regulations in Washington DC, you anti-gun people cling to one small snippet of that ruling you feels gives you license to ban whatever you like.

The Heller ruling ruled that trigger lock laws are unconstitutional. You can't ban willy-nilly.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:50 AM
LMAO So when this place plays a movie, they keep the house lights up and dim the screen eh?

Jesus you are a moron. Do you not realize that the lighting conditions at work before and after the movie are nothing like the lighting conditions DURING the movie? Do you not understand the basic biology in play of being in a darkened room staring at a bright light source?

Your "point" has been ripped to shreds kid.

OH clearly.

http://i49.tinypic.com/5cn4e9.jpg

peacepipe
03-26-2013, 08:56 AM
"Machine guns" have been banned for 100 years for civilian use.

Instead of admitting that Heller knocked down a ****load of liberal gun regulations in Washington DC, you anti-gun people cling to one small snippet of that ruling you feels gives you license to ban whatever you like.

The Heller ruling ruled that trigger lock laws are unconstitutional. You can't ban willy-nilly.

The point is,as the ruling stated"machine guns & the like can be banned",the only point is that certain types of guns ie ARs can be banned/regulated. The 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

I never discounted what the ruling allowed,but you are taking one snippet of the ruling and acting as if it's all there is in the ruling.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:03 AM
The point is,as the ruling stated"machine guns & the like can be banned",the only point is that certain types of guns ie ARs can be banned/regulated. The 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

I never discounted what the ruling allowed,but you are taking one snippet of the ruling and acting as if it's all there is in the ruling.

What about ARs makes you defecate your shorts besides media hype? ARs are not machine guns. Do you know that even when ARs aren't used in killing sprees, the media claims they were? They're still claiming Holmes used one, he did not - he used another rifle of a similar caliber, which is the caliber commonly used for hunting small animals with.

You're so afraid of varmint rifles - which are used in less than 1% of gun murders - that you want to ban them?

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:07 AM
And yet more "I been in the theater and here's some pics" crap from nyuk.

Yes, it was a horrible shooting.

Yes, we get that it emotionally disturbed you.

Yes, we get that you've been there and taken pics with your cellphone camera.

No, that doesn't mean stopping Holmes would have been easy.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:08 AM
And yet more "I been in the theater and here's some pics" crap from nyuk.

Yes, it was a horrible shooting.

Yes, we get that it emotionally disturbed you.

Yes, we get that you've been there and taken pics with your cellphone camera.

No, that doesn't mean stopping Holmes would have been easy.

Nobody said it would be easy but we definitely get that you can't answer simple questions.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:13 AM
Nobody said it would be easy but we definitely get that you can't answer simple questions.

Suppose the guy has a real gun:

http://www.radicalrc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UtahTeachersGunTraining.jpg

Do you take the shot?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:15 AM
Suppose the guy has a real gun:

http://www.radicalrc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UtahTeachersGunTraining.jpg

Do you take the shot?

Absolutely. Now go back to page 1 and answer my questions.

peacepipe
03-26-2013, 09:18 AM
What about ARs makes you defecate your shorts besides media hype? ARs are not machine guns. Do you know that even when ARs aren't used in killing sprees, the media claims they were? They're still claiming Holmes used one, he did not - he used another rifle of a similar caliber, which is the caliber commonly used for hunting small animals with.

You're so afraid of varmint rifles - which are used in less than 1% of gun murders - that you want to ban them?

I never said ARs are machine guns. I merely pointing out that ARs can constitutionally be banned. I'm pointing out that guns/ARs can be regulated.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:19 AM
I never said ARs are machine guns. I merely pointing out that ARs can constitutionally be banned. I'm pointing out that guns/ARs can be regulated.

And there are countless other rifles that aren't ARs but have the same functionality and fire the same caliber.

You're chasing after shadows.

What about ARs makes it bannable? From the last "assault weapons ban" we got retarded garbage about folding stocks and pistol grips. You could have the AR as long as it didn't have BOTH a folding stock and pistol grip. You know how abjectly retarded that is?

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:20 AM
Absolutely.

You do note the innocent folks in the background, don't you?

What happens if you miss (and that's quite likely)?

You've clearly not taken any training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios.

You're at least as much of a danger to the public as the shooter.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:28 AM
You do note the innocent folks in the background, don't you?

What happens if you miss (and that's quite likely)?

You've clearly not taken any training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios.

You're at least as much of a danger to the public as the shooter.

He's pointing a gun at human beings and as such is an immediate threat to life and it would be perfectly legal to blow his head off. In the name of saving lives, as all you emotional effeminate lib-males do, you engage in speculation about people in the background and hand-wring about "what ifs" while the guy has a gun in a woman's face and is about to unload. You also intentionally ignore that a defender could take a different position to make it less likely to have a bullet hit others.

You're not that bright, are you?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Do I have to re-paste the post here and rub it into your snout again?

So you're saying if he had that gun to YOUR head, you'd get angry if someone pulled out a weapon to defend your life because your concern is someone in the background? Idiot - those people are looking at the man, and if he had a real gun, they'd be ducking under the tables making it even less likely they'd get hit.

Yet again, you are lying your ass off.

:thanku:!Booya!

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:33 AM
He's pointing a gun at human beings and as such is an immediate threat to life and it would be perfectly legal to blow his head off. In the name of saving lives, as all you emotional effeminate lib-males do, you engage in speculation about people in the background and hand-wring about "what ifs" while the guy has a gun in a woman's face and is about to unload. You also intentionally ignore that a defender could take a different position to make it less likely to have a bullet hit others.

You're not that bright, are you?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Do I have to re-paste the post here and rub it into your snout again?

So you're saying if he had that gun to YOUR head, you'd get angry if someone pulled out a weapon to defend your life because your concern is someone in the background?

Yet again, you are lying your ass off.

Boy, you have a little snit-fit when your ignorance and false sense of bravado are laid bare to the reading audience.

Like I said, you're as much of a risk to bystanders as the shooter is.

Get yourself some real training, son. There's knowing when not to shoot, you know.

PS - When you went to the theater and took those pics, were you carrying?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:37 AM
Boy, you have a little snit-fit when your ignorance and false sense of bravado are laid bare to the reading audience.

Like I said, you're as much of a risk to bystanders as the shooter is.

Get yourself some real training, son.

PS - When you went to the theater and took those pics, were you carrying?

I'm still waiting for you to answer the 2 simple questions I asked on the first page of this thread: If you were in those seats with a rifle to your face, would you or would you not wish someone were there to defend you? Now you can't answer the same question with the very imaginary scenario you just invented.

I wonder why. So why not admit that and be honest?

Truth is - you're willing to sacrifice the life of the person with the gun in their face as long as that life isn't YOURS, and that's what your evasive posts have been saying between the lines every page of this thread.

Tell us - just once - what you would do if that gun was in YOUR face in that crowded room. Don't be snarky and say something stupid again like, "Use you as a shield." Would you or would you not wish someone nearby had a gun to pull on the assailant? Yes or no.

Answer the question like a man.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:40 AM
Clearly, your skills at evasion need work. Your reaction to failing a simple test just shows that you need to put more time and effort into your training. Until you do, please do the rest of us a favor and don't go out carrying. You're putting innocent lives at considerable risk.

PS - If I had an out-of-control semi barreling towards me as I was walking on the sidewalk, it sure would be nice to have Superman there to save me.

peacepipe
03-26-2013, 09:41 AM
And there are countless other rifles that aren't ARs but have the same functionality and fire the same caliber.

You're chasing after shadows.

What about ARs makes it bannable? From the last "assault weapons ban" we got retarded garbage about folding stocks and pistol grips. You could have the AR as long as it didn't have BOTH a folding stock and pistol grip. You know how abjectly retarded that is?

You can have any opinion you want on ARs,it doesn't change the fact that they can be constitutionally banned/regulated.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:42 AM
Clearly, your skills at evasion need work. Your reaction to failing a simple test just shows that you need to put more time and effort into your training. Until you do, please do the rest of us a favor and don't go out carrying. You're putting innocent lives at considerable risk.

PS - If I had an out-of-control semi barreling towards me as I was walking on the sidewalk, it sure would be nice to have Superman there to save me.

So answer --

By accounts of the Aurora PD, the most lethal section of the theater was rows 8 to 12, in which 6 deceased victims were found. Last night I sat in row 11, and from that row I took this photo looking down the stairwell that Holmes ascended while shooting into the seats.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2r59h8p.jpg

Imagine yourself sitting there that night. Would you have wished at least one person had a defensive weapon in that theater while you were being shot at and trying to hide as you hear those around you screaming in horror and begging for their lives or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Next picture. Row 9, a couple seats from the stair Holmes ascended, which according to reports is the exact spot that Jon Blunk was shot to death in. Imagine if it was you there on that floor hiding. Would you feel happy that no "Rambo" was there to try to take out Holmes, or would you wish that someone could have helped you from being shot several times in the back with a rifle?

http://i47.tinypic.com/e5k8ko.jpg

I think a simple yes or no response to the above question suffices here, also.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:44 AM
You can have any opinion you want on ARs,it doesn't change the fact that they can be constitutionally banned/regulated.

So you want things banned you cannot justify them being banned for besides having a scary folding stock and a scary pistol grip.

Even in "mass shootings" according to the Mother Jones Magazine mass shooting study, such weapons were present in under 25% of incidents, causing an average 7.5 injuries and deaths combined PER YEAR for the last 30 years.

And for this you're crapping all over the floor wailing about wanting to ban because media coverage has you scared.

PLEASE get a grip on yourself.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:50 AM
More nyuk fantasy travelogue baloney.

Please do us all a favor and quit carrying until you get some proper training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios. You're putting the lives of innocents at grave risk with your flawed and dangerous attitude.

peacepipe
03-26-2013, 09:50 AM
So you want things banned you cannot justify them being banned for besides having a scary folding stock and a scary pistol grip.

Even in "mass shootings" according to the Mother Jones Magazine mass shooting study, such weapons were present in under 25% of incidents, causing an average 7.5 injuries and deaths combined PER YEAR for the last 30 years.

And for this you're crapping all over the floor wailing about wanting to ban because media coverage has you scared.

PLEASE get a grip on yourself.

I personally have no issues with ARs, I wouldn't mind owning one,do I need an AR? No. I'm simply pointing out,that ARs or any version of an AR,can be constitutionally be banned/regulated. A point you're not comprehending.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 09:54 AM
More nyuk fantasy travelogue baloney.

Please do us all a favor and quit carrying until you get some proper training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios. You're putting the lives of innocents at grave risk with your flawed and dangerous attitude.

She has owned a gun for a few weeks and all of a sudden thinks she is an expert marksman. Lmfao.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:55 AM
More nyuk fantasy travelogue baloney.

Please do us all a favor and quit carrying until you get some proper training in shoot/no-shoot scenarios. You're putting the lives of innocents at grave risk with your flawed and dangerous attitude.

More evasiveness from the disingenuous peanut gallery. Please send me a photo of you so if I'm ever nearby when someone pulls a gun on you, I'll know to not help you. KTHX

I'm not carrying yet because I don't have a permit yet, which has NOTHING to do with the conversation on this thread and is merely deflective BS.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:56 AM
She has owned a gun for a few weeks and all of a sudden thinks she is an expert marksman. Lmfao.

Folks like nyuk do more damage to their own credibility, and to the RKBA, than they can understand.

Too much action movie bull**** that they mistake for reality.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:57 AM
She has owned a gun for a few weeks and all of a sudden thinks she is an expert marksman. Lmfao.

I couldn't imagine being so immature and embittered that I feel the psychological need to put words in other peoples' mouths, words I know for a fact they never uttered.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 09:58 AM
Folks like nyuk do more damage to their own credibility, and to the RKBA, than they can understand.

Too much action movie bull**** that they mistake for reality.

I also like how she thinks that her being in an empty theater taking pics from her cell phone replicates the craziness that ensued at the Batman movie Holmes decided to crash.

She doesn't even have her conceal and carry permit yet, but thinks she has the ability to defend OTHERS if the opportunity presented itself.

Such arrogance.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:58 AM
More evasiveness from the disingenuous peanut gallery. Please send me a photo of you so if I'm ever nearby when someone pulls a gun on you, I'll know to not help you. KTHX

I'd rather you not be anywhere near anyone with your gun. Please make sure any damage you do is purely self-inflicted.

As for the pic:

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/8/2010/01/uls_rnb5wm4.jpg

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:59 AM
I also like how she thinks that her being in an empty theater taking pics from her cell phone replicates the craziness that ensued at the Batman movie Holmes decided to crash.

She doesn't even have her conceal and carry permit yet, but thinks she has the ability to defend OTHERS if the opportunity presented itself.

Such arrogance.

Such dangerousness.

peacepipe
03-26-2013, 10:01 AM
I couldn't imagine being so immature and embittered that I feel the psychological need to put words in other peoples' mouths, words I know for a fact they never uttered.

Lol,you can't? Try reading some of your own posts.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:04 AM
I couldn't imagine being so immature and embittered that I feel the psychological need to put words in other peoples' mouths, words I know for a fact they never uttered.

Don't kid yourself, you are plenty immature. Did you still want to sell me a kidney?

And I guess you just forgot what you said to W*GS and wanting his picture so you knew what he looked like so you would never save him.

Not only are you pathetic, but ridiculously petulant and petty. We will call you Triple P.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:06 AM
I personally have no issues with ARs, I wouldn't mind owning one,do I need an AR? No. I'm simply pointing out,that ARs or any version of an AR,can be constitutionally be banned/regulated. A point you're not comprehending.

So you don't mind that the government wants to ban guns it can't define are a threat, have no statistical evidence are a threat and in fact chooses to ignore statistical evidence that shows the guns are only rarely used in gun murders.

Are you normally this blindly trusting?

The media and liberal politicians are currently defecating in unison about the AR 15 issue. They previously defecated about the same issue, only then they called them Bushmasters. These assholes can't even accurately name the gun in question, even while they're trying to push to ban such guns. Instead, they come up with a common catchword that they use as a pushbutton word. The flavor of the week is "AR 15."

Of course, they can't tell the truth about other things, either, such as about what James Holmes was wearing. Want to see a big media lie? Watch this (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57477290/investigators-track-colo-shooting-suspects-ammo-shipments/). CBS News claiming Holmes had a "bulletproof vest" on when the very receipt they showed proved he purchased a flipping utility vest with magazine storage pouches (http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urban-assault-vest/black?utm_source=bs&utm_medium=display).

Start asking why the government wants to ban guns with such thin pretexts and stop going along with the hype.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:09 AM
Don't kid yourself, you are plenty immature. Did you still want to sell me a kidney?

And I guess you just forgot what you said to W*GS and wanting his picture so you knew what he looked like so you would never save him.

Not only are you pathetic, but ridiculously petulant and petty. We will call you Triple P.

You actively pick fights with people and recoil like a child when it backfires. That's not my problem. Your behavior with instigating against people has gotten you permanently banned from at least 2 Broncos forums. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else you've chosen to attack.

As usual, when unable to respond to something, you resort to pubescent slur-hurling. But then again, you're a liberal, and I already know liberals cannot uphold the very standards they claim to have.

Wog has said plenty of abusive filth to me on this thread and elsewhere. On this thread alone he said he'd use me as a shield against James Holmes and I heard not a single squeak of protest out of you, now suddenly you play Mr. Moral Outrage? Cut the ****. I don't think saying one thing in return makes me a 'hypocrite' in spite of that you have a psychological need to twist it into that to justify another of your juvenile chimping episodes.

So please, chimp away.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:13 AM
OH clearly.
...cute picture...

... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:42 AM
... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?

No, it's because it was a cellphone and I had to lighten it to make it look more like it looked with the naked eye, otherwise it comes out way darker than it looks.

Simply visiting there yourself will put a stop to all of this silly speculation.

I actually figured I'd get called a liar about having been there, and am quite surprised I haven't been.

Yes - theater 9 has some new stuff, but I was also in theater 8 yesterday which looks more like pre-remodel 9 did, just a mirror image. Some of the stray slugs from 9 went into 8 next door and hit people. You can still see people coming up the stairs and identify moviegoers from staff. You can see their Monsters, Inc. tshirts and the walkietalkies on their waistbands.

If you wanted to see ticket stubs, just ask. Theater 9 is now known as XD and theater 8 is Auditorium H (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet).

http://i50.tinypic.com/2zez9zd.jpg

Other pics I've taken:

Remodeled entrance of Theater 9

http://i47.tinypic.com/t50il5.jpg

Out front

http://i46.tinypic.com/2quqi47.jpg

The Denver comPost has a picture spread of the place (http://photos.denverpost.com/2013/01/17/century-aurora-theater-reopens-after-shooting-photos/#1) when they had the reopening ceremony. Theater 9 is in pictures 4, 9, 10, 17 (front entrance like my picture), 27 (great view of seating area), 31, and a whole-theater birdseye view in photo 32.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:43 AM
You actively pick fights with people and recoil like a child when it backfires. That's not my problem. Your behavior with instigating against people has gotten you permanently banned from at least 2 Broncos forums. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else you've chosen to attack.

You've been shelved at other forums too, so don't act like I'm the only one. Lmfao. I got banned at Broncomania like 8 years ago and Tned's site because I willingly crossed a line he didn't want me to, but I did anyways. The outcome was what I had hoped for. So don't think you are on some moral high ground, because you really aren't.

As usual, when unable to respond to something, you resort to pubescent slur-hurling. But then again, you're a liberal, and I already know liberals cannot uphold the very standards they claim to have.

I don't think you know much about where I stand politically on most issues. Calling you out in this thread isn't slur-hurling. It is the facts. You recently purchased a gun, don't even have a conceal and carry and limited experience in a firearm, yet have the audacity to think that you could have changed the outcome of a tragic event and even save the lives of others if such a scenario presented itself.

Protip: You cannot.

What is even more funny is the fact that you state I can't have an opinion on the issue at hand because I don't live in Colorado and my experience with guns comes from using them primarily for sport and living in "the middle of nowhere." I'm sorry, but I will take my experience with those weapons over yours any day. Like I said, posting a picture of your shiny new toy over a Manning jersey doesn't impress anyone here.

Wog has said plenty of abusive filth to me on this thread and elsewhere. On this thread alone he said he'd use me as a shield against James Holmes and I heard not a single squeak of protest out of you, now suddenly you play Mr. Moral Outrage?

Didn't see his comment. Probably well-deserved.

Cut the ****. I don't think saying one thing in return makes me a 'hypocrite' in spite of that you have a psychological need to twist it into that to justify another of your juvenile chimping episodes.

Of course you don't. Anything to absolve any personal responsibility for the actions you have taken on this forum. You like to make a lot of assumptions on not only myself, but a lot of members here. It's quite silly. The fact that you are desperate enough to go to the theater in order to try and prove whatever points you think you are is just plain silly. Nobody here takes you seriously, so why bother?

We are all laughing at you.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 10:45 AM
OH clearly.

http://i49.tinypic.com/5cn4e9.jpg

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3800849&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:45 AM
More pictures of the theater. Wee!

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:48 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3800849&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.

Like you have any knowledge of how theaters work, you liberal kiddie. ;D

Lol. I have gone Burt Wonderstone and the new Oz movie in the past week and while the lights on the sides are up during the previews, as soon as the feature film plays, everything dims. I have seen a zillion movies in my life (always a friday night tradition back in HS and now back home with friends) and there has never been an instance where there were big lights on (like in her picture) when the film was playing.

Do you think it is possible that some of the lighting and set-up in that theater changed since the shooting?

Either way, her posts are ludicrous.

You know what feels the greatest when you are beating your head against a brick wall?

STOPPING.

Yet, she is going hard. HAAAAAAAAAARD.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:49 AM
No, it's because it was a cellphone and I had to lighten it to make it look more like it looked with the naked eye, otherwise it comes out way darker than it looks.


LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!

:rofl:


Simply visiting there yourself will put a stop to all of this silly speculation.


Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 10:52 AM
... with a camera running @ full aperture, 1/8 second shutter, and ISO800.

See how washed out the picture looks (particularly the screen)? See how grainy the picture is? That's because of those settings, and those settings are also why the photo makes it look like there's decent visibility. Too bad your eyes have to collect light continuously and don't have 1/8 of a second to do so for every 'frame'. Not to mention your eyes won't be running at 'full aperture' (i.e. fully dilated) nor be dark adjusted (cones adapted to darker conditions) after starring at the screen.

Entirely unimpressive vapid one. Do you think no one here has any experience with cameras either? It's pretty damn easy to make a camera 'see' more light than the human eye in the dark. I do it all the time (I do astrophotography).

However, this time you had your GPS on, so at least we have some idea that the picture was actually taken at that theatre!

One thing I will give you, though, is that it does look like that particular theater has installed very unusual lights, probably because of the shooting. Anyone know what's up with that light?

They're just common sconce lights. From the picture (it's pretty grainy) it looks like a common design that has two 60 watt bulbs (one up one down) with reflectors pointing up and down to shine on the wall and provide extra light on the stairs (notice the treads on the steps have a reflective paint on them), and a translucent glass or plastic cover to provide ambient light when at full.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:54 AM
The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.

I don't remember exactly when I took it. The lights were down and the screen was playing. I'll see if I can give it another go again next time. Unfortunately the time stamp my camera puts on pictures is jacked up and not accurate, it adds several hours. But dishonest? No. And no, the sconce lights weren't all the way up, either. I do remember lights were dimmed.

And there were people in the theater - just about 25 of them, mostly to my left.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:54 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3800849&postcount=118

I already addressed this last month.

The picture you claim you took yesterday is still irrelevant, because you can easily tell it was taken in between shows. How?

1 - It's a ScreenVision (or whichever company they use for outside advertising) ad for a fish taco.

2 - The sconce lights are all the way up.

3 - There's no one sitting in any of the seats.

Read my post.

The auditorium would have been near pitch black with regard to the theater lighting, and the light from the screen both helps wash out figures in between the viewer and the screen and acts as a spotlight for anyone with their back to the screen.

This is a concept that takes place in every theater, everywhere, except the showings we used to run for autistic children where we would play the movie with the lights turned up and the sound turned down.

You're being about as dishonest as you can get here.

Thanks, didn't occur to me it wasn't actually the movie playing.

So, now we have:

Lying about when the pictures were taken and digitally manipulating the images (more lying).

Look at that conservative integrity being demonstrated!

houghtam
03-26-2013, 10:55 AM
LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!

:rofl:



Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.

Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

:rofl:

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:57 AM
LMAO. So we can add 'doesn't know **** about cameras' to your description. Doesn't matter if it's a crappy little cell phone or a $10,000 professional gear, the artifacts (particularly the graininess) I point out are a direct result of having a high ISO setting.

Would you like me to demonstrate later tonight with my $1,800 camera?

Oh, and nice to see you admit you were digitally manipulating the image too. Good job!

:rofl:



Been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theaters. Looks nothing like your manipulated image.

My cellphone - at least - doesn't take good indoor pictures. Unless the lighting is extremely bright, you have to adjust it to get a picture more like you see with the human eye. If you wish to call that a plot, well knock yourself out.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 10:57 AM
Fed has completely schooled nyuk.

Congrats, sir.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:58 AM
Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

:rofl:

Such perfect vision it took a 1/8 of a second exposure @ ISO800 to get a picture that still needed to be digitally lightened to make it "look like what was seen'.

And hell, there wasn't even any tear gas and smoke.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:59 AM
OM never lets me down.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 11:02 AM
My cellphone - at least - doesn't take good indoor pictures. Unless the lighting is extremely bright, you have to adjust it to get a picture more like you see with the human eye. If you wish to call that a plot, well knock yourself out.

Not calling it a plot, calling you stupid for not understanding the basics of low light photography and dishonest for lying about when the picture was taken and being further dishonest by digitally manipulating the resulting image.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 11:02 AM
I don't remember exactly when I took it. The lights were down and the screen was playing. I'll see if I can give it another go again next time. Unfortunately the time stamp my camera puts on pictures is jacked up and not accurate, it adds several hours. But dishonest? No. And no, the sconce lights weren't all the way up, either. I do remember lights were dimmed.

And there were people in the theater - just about 25 of them, mostly to my left.

No. It's a ScreenVision ad for a fish taco, not part of the movie. The lights don't go to low until after the trailers are done playing. If you took a picture of that sconce light while the movie were playing, you wouldn't barely be able to make out what it is at that distance on a cell phone.

And I wouldn't post a picture while an actual film is playing, if I were you, and I'm dead serious. The FBI investigated a 13 year old girl at my theater who took a picture of her friends in front of the Jonas Brothers movie. Don't think someone won't call them if you do.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:06 AM
Yep. It's that dark on a lightened photo, and the feature isn't even playing yet and all the lights are still up.

PERFECT VISION!

:rofl:

And here's a picture I took a couple seconds previous to the other one. The movie is playing like I remembered. This picture is just more blurry.

North Korean insurgents speak Korean in the movie, thus the captions.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2dquech.jpg

houghtam
03-26-2013, 11:10 AM
And here's a picture I took a couple seconds previous to the other one. The movie is playing like I remembered. This picture is just more blurry.

North Korean insurgents speak Korean in the movie, thus the captions.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2dquech.jpg

K, dude!

:rofl:

Hold on then, let me go call the theater and tell them they need to check the cues on their print of Olympus Has Fallen in Theater 9, because they're way off.

That light is on full.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:12 AM
Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.

If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.

By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 11:13 AM
If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.

By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.

Quoted.

Is that a threat?

Didn't think so.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:18 AM
Fed has completely schooled nyuk.

Congrats, sir.

Still waiting for you to answer 3 simple yes or no questions.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:19 AM
Quoted.

Is that a threat?

Didn't think so.

No it's a bit of advice for someone with a very long track record of harassing people and being banned multiple times for doing so. That's a very dumb thing to do, and you never know the kind of people who can be online.

If I was one of them, suffice it to say I'd have carried out a threat already.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 11:21 AM
If you wish to try - again - to stalk someone, do a better job.

It is your homepage profile on Broncomania. If it ain't your site, why post it there?

By the way, considering how much you choose to harass people online, I'd suggest refraining from posting your personal info everywhere.

I'm sure my personal information is EVERYWHERE. After all, I have been on the internet since 1996. And funny thing is, if you weren't looking for it (or looking me up) -- you wouldn't know.

Do a better job.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 11:25 AM
No it's a bit of advice for someone with a very long track record of harassing people and being banned multiple times for doing so. That's a very dumb thing to do, and you never know the kind of people who can be online.

If I was one of them, suffice it to say I'd have carried out a threat already.

LooooooooooooooooL.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:29 AM
It is your homepage profile on Broncomania. If it ain't your site, why post it there?

What it means is that you're yet again googling around trying to fish for personal info to use as a weapon, even if your efforts are half-assed.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 11:36 AM
What it means is that you're yet again googling around trying to fish for personal info to use as a weapon, even if your efforts are half-assed.

I'm just pointing out how retarded you are. Indentifies as ex-leftist? Check. Almost verbatim posts same arguments? Check.

Why put it there if it isn't your homepage? Why say it is when it isn't? It's quite easy to see (if it is not) where you get your sick and twisted thoughts.

Good grief. Time for you to put the tail between the legs and head home. You were obliterated in this thread.

Like I said, why you continue to post on a forum where you are consistently trumped and not liked is beyond me, but undoubtedly you have a lot of free time to waste if you are strolling by yourself going to movies and snapping cell phone pics to argue with people online.

Man, I might debate draft prospects with the boys. . . but what you are doing is next level sadness.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 11:37 AM
Here's a question for you, Dramanyuk.

When you left that theater after the movie, did you complain how difficult it was to see getting out of the auditorium?

Because since that sconce light is clearly not dimmed, the next cue (the one that is placed at the beginning of the credits) would have told the sconce light to dim during the credits, making it nearly impossible to see. No way you could not have noticed it.

Yeah, didn't think so.

Screenvision ad.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 11:49 AM
Wish my lazy, leeching liberal ass had the spare time to go play junior detective at the theatre several times a week.

Guess I'm just not very proficient at leeching off society.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:52 AM
I'm on vacation this week, Fed. I have over 300 hours of paid leave to use and I'm using 36 of it this week. How about yourself?

TonyR
03-26-2013, 11:53 AM
Just curious what the "solution" is that nyuk and meck are suggesting. What is it you want, exactly? More lenient conceal & carry laws? Is that it? You think this will lead to more people carrying, and thus more safety? You think the people who would carry into a situation like what happened in that Aurora theater are the types of peopld you'd actually want to be armed, rather than just the opposite? Spell it out for us. What are you suggesting?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:56 AM
Here's a question for you, Dramanyuk.

When you left that theater after the movie, did you complain how difficult it was to see getting out of the auditorium?

Because since that sconce light is clearly not dimmed, the next cue (the one that is placed at the beginning of the credits) would have told the sconce light to dim during the credits, making it nearly impossible to see. No way you could not have noticed it.

Yeah, didn't think so.

Screenvision ad.

I've never had problems getting in or out of any of the theaters in that building, lighting or not.

By my recollection, the movie was playing. Was I lying or otherwise trying to launch a hoax for the reason of positing that someone with a concealed weapon that night could have saved lives? Please.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

Since I'm not the sconce master, I couldn't tell you if there was an error or not or what the usual MO is for them.

This is very basic - witnesses in those seats saw where he was and what he was wearing and described him to the cops. Doesn't that alone say enough?

Oy vey.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 11:59 AM
Just curious what the "solution" is that nyuk and meck are suggesting. What is it you want, exactly? More lenient conceal & carry laws? Is that it? You think this will lead to more people carrying, and thus more safety? You think the people who would carry into a situation like what happened in that Aurora theater are the types of peopld you'd actually want to be armed, rather than just the opposite? Spell it out for us. What are you suggesting?

More young folks need to carry. The problem is that too few carry and it's mostly older people. Younger ones are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

If people are going to poo themselves over an extremely rare instance such as Aurora, then they need to do their part and take a role in defending themselves and ensuring their own safety, instead of acting like overgrown children and running to government to pass irrelevant and stupid laws for the sole purpose of restoring their sense of security.

If I was in that theater and being shot at, I'd have wished that I or someone else in there could have had if but one weapon to give us all a chance. Why I'm attacked for that here is beyond me.

TonyR
03-26-2013, 12:07 PM
More young folks need to carry. The problem is that too few carry and it's mostly older people. Younger ones are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

If people are going to poo themselves over an extremely rare instance such as Aurora, then they need to do their part and take a role in defending themselves and ensuring their own safety, instead of acting like overgrown children and running to government to pass irrelevant and stupid laws for the sole purpose of restoring their sense of security.

If I was in that theater and being shot at, I'd have wished that I or someone else in there could have had if but one weapon to give us all a chance. Why I'm attacked for that here is beyond me.

What's striking is how lacking in common sense your position is. You actually think that "more young folks" carrying would make things safer. Reality, logic, common sense, and a little critical thinking suggests the opposite. Instead of having trained people saving the day in that Aurora theater situation you most likely would have had a bunch of inexperienced idiots. That's just not a solution. That's lunacy. You need to think on your position here.

Meck, do you have the same silly position? You've been such a tough guy in this thread, I hope you don't shy away from explaining what it is you really believe.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 12:09 PM
I've never had problems getting in or out of any of the theaters in that building, lighting or not.

By my recollection, the movie was playing. Was I lying or otherwise trying to launch a hoax for the reason of positing that someone with a concealed weapon that night could have saved lives? Please.

Do you know how retarded this sounds?

Since I'm not the sconce master, I couldn't tell you if there was an error or not or what the usual MO is for them.

This is very basic - witnesses in those seats saw where he was and what he was wearing and described him to the cops. Doesn't that alone say enough?

Oy vey.

And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?

Uhh

Bull. ****ing. ****.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 12:11 PM
Nyuk nyuk on the Aurora incident: --link removed by moderator-- Read her awesome thoughts.

I like one of the other articles there, by "William S. Lind". It starts:

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

Just another 3rd-rate white guy bemoaning the fact that they aren't running things any more and those uppity n-words, women, gays, and so on, aren't slaves and underlings any more.

Wadda ****ing idiot.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 12:18 PM
And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?

Uhh

Bull. ****ing. ****.


Nah man. Don't you get it? A picture from a camera set for high light sensitivity, digitally lightened further (so much so that the picture in no way represents human vision), in an empty theater in lighting conditions not representative of the actual lighting conditions during the attack, with no tear gas and no smoke is perfectly indicative of the situation!

It's so simple, anyone with a revolver and a couple hours at the range and way to much hubris coulda totally prevented anyone from dying.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:23 PM
What's striking is how lacking in common sense your position is. You actually think that "more young folks" carrying would make things safer. Reality, logic, common sense, and a little critical thinking suggests the opposite. Instead of having trained people saving the day in that Aurora theater situation you most likely would have had a bunch of inexperienced idiots. That's just not a solution. That's lunacy. You need to think on your position here.

Meck, do you have the same silly position? You've been such a tough guy in this thread, I hope you don't shy away from explaining what it is you really believe.

This is the bottom line here: If you were in those seats that night, would you be going on and on about percentages and chances this or that, or would you have wished someone was there with a defensive weapon? I think we know the answer.

You're saying it's better to just let people like Holmes blow them away without resistance. That is lunacy.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:24 PM
I like one of the other articles there, by "William S. Lind". It starts:



Just another 3rd-rate white guy bemoaning the fact that they aren't running things any more and those uppity n-words, women, gays, and so on, aren't slaves and underlings any more.

Wadda ****ing idiot.

If you want to whine about a link someone posted somewhere, at least post an appropriate thread instead of hiking down your Depends at an inappropriate locale.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:25 PM
Nah man. Don't you get it? A picture from a camera set for high light sensitivity, digitally lightened further (so much so that the picture in no way represents human vision), in an empty theater in lighting conditions not representative of the actual lighting conditions during the attack, with no tear gas and no smoke is perfectly indicative of the situation!

It's so simple, anyone with a revolver and a couple hours at the range and way to much hubris coulda totally prevented anyone from dying.

There was no "smoke," and it took several minutes for the tear gas to fill the place, since it has a 40 foot ceiling.

Just go there, PLEASE?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:28 PM
And I would bet if you read the actual statements you would get about 75 different accounts of what they thought he wore.

That still does not address the issue at hand, which is the effect of low lighting, washout effect, panicking people, smoke and/or tear gas, confusion, the possibility of not even being able to assess the threat before it's too late, and, you know, the other 7500 pages of circumstances which tipped the scales in favor of the guy with a tactical uniform and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines, not the 300 or so screaming people trapped inside the sold out midnight showing theater in such close proximity so as to make people complain about how little room movie theaters always have and how cramped they are, but all the sudden when they all hide or run or jump over seats or whatever they do when people start firing bullets at them, they can take out the guy with no additional loss of life?

Uhh

Bull. ****ing. ****.

Accounts I've seen of where they actually saw the guy are quite consistent: black clothing, gas mask. They weren't "trapped inside," they were running away from him either via the upper emergency exit or hopping over the stair wall on the opposite side. Aside from that, it seems that if a person is faced with imminent guaranteed death from a guy like Holmes approaching with intent to kill everyone in that room OR a resisting shooter who MAY accidentally injure or kill someone but who in the process stops Holmes from killing far more people... Is there even an argument which is the better trade-off?

Why are we even discussing this crap?!

TonyR
03-26-2013, 12:35 PM
This is the bottom line here: If you were in those seats that night, would you be going on and on about percentages and chances this or that, or would you have wished someone was there with a defensive weapon? I think we know the answer.

You're saying it's better to just let people like Holmes blow them away without resistance. That is lunacy.

Once again you're not using any common sense.

Events like the Aurora theater shooting are rare. Putting guns in the hands of a bunch of "young folks" is guaranteed to increase gun violence exponentially. Instead of staredowns, and words being exchanged, and occasional fist fights, you'd have guns being drawn. Would cooler heads prevail? Maybe. Sometimes. But when the testosterone is pumping and hotheads have guns, you've appreciably ramped up the possibility of serious violence. And I'm not sure this is even debatable.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:39 PM
Once again you're not using any common sense.

Events like the Aurora theater shooting are rare. Putting guns in the hands of a bunch of "young folks" is guaranteed to increase gun violence exponentially. Instead of staredowns, and words being exchanged, and occasional fist fights, you'd have guns being drawn. Would cooler heads prevail? Maybe. Sometimes. But when the testosterone is pumping and hotheads have guns, you've appreciably ramped up the possibility of serious violence. And I'm not sure this is even debatable.

Yes, Aurora is very rare.

Young people already have guns, who want to have guns. I'd love to see any evidence you can state that those who pass a background check to get a permit and take the required NRA class would be a public safety threat. You're making it up, whole cloth.

There are already some young folks with guns, carrying legally concealed on Colorado campuses. Where are shootouts?

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 12:44 PM
I'd love to see any evidence you can state that those who pass a background check to get a permit and take the required NRA class would be a public safety threat.

What does carrying and storing a hunting rifle, field dressing game, identifying legal game to shoot, basic wildness survival, shooting a BB gun @ 25yards, etc. training do to prepare someone for urban combat situations involving multiple armed individuals (only some being hostile), non-optimal conditions ( tear gas, low light, etc.), innocent bystanders, etc.

?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 12:47 PM
What does carrying and storing a hunting rifle, field dressing game, identifying legal game to shoot, basic wildness survival, shooting a BB gun @ 25yards, etc. training do to prepare someone for urban combat situations involving multiple armed individuals (only some being hostile), non-optimal conditions ( tear gas, low light, etc.), innocent bystanders, etc.

?

Here's the problem.

Life has its curveballs, and you and yours are saying that unless there is a 100% money-back guarantee that an errant bullet may not hit someone, then all bets are off, nobody is allowed a defensive weapon, so let's all lay down and let Holmes pump as many bullets into our bodies as he wants.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Cops and the military aren't even held to this standard.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 12:54 PM
Here's the problem.

Life has its curveballs, and you and yours are saying that unless there is a 100% money-back guarantee that an errant bullet may not hit someone, then all bets are off, nobody is allowed a defensive weapon, so let's all lay down and let Holmes pump as many bullets into our bodies as he wants.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Cops and the military aren't even held to this standard.

Nice strawman. No one is saying what you claim.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 01:03 PM
Nice strawman. No one is saying what you claim.

It's the end result of what you're saying. You don't want young folks carrying guns -- even if they legally qualify -- and the end result of that is that these things can happen to them.

As far as the "wild west" canard goes, liberals in Colorado claimed that in the 1980s when the state legislature passed what liberals tarred as the "make my day law." Nothing of the remote sort has happened, and in the TWO instances that I can recall in which a couple guys tried to murder people and invoke the law, both were thrown in jail for murder where they remain.

Now we have the same "wild west" rhetoric being moved and applied to other forms of self-defense.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 01:07 PM
It's the end result of what you're saying. You don't want young folks carrying guns -- even if they legally qualify -- and the end result of that is that these things can happen to them.


More strawmen have been massacred in this thread that I thought existed.


As far as the "wild west" canard goes, liberals in Colorado claimed that in the 1980s when the state legislature passed what liberals tarred as the "make my day law." Nothing of the remote sort has happened, and in the TWO instances that I can recall in which a couple guys tried to murder people and invoke the law, both were thrown in jail for murder where they remain.

Now we have the same "wild west" rhetoric being moved and applied to other forms of self-defense.

Nice red herring.

Care to honestly talk about this topic, or shall we continue with your dishonest narratives and photos and the murder of more strawmen?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 01:11 PM
More strawmen have been massacred in this thread that I thought existed.



Nice red herring.

Care to honestly talk about this topic, or shall we continue with your dishonest narratives and photos and the murder of more strawmen?

You don't want more (if any) concealed carry so I just stated the result of that. I don't see what the controversy is.

Dishonest narratives and photos? As I said, adjusting a picture to make it more like looking through one's eyes isn't dishonest. It's trying to make it look more like what it looks like through one's eyes --- and nothing more.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 01:13 PM
You don't want more (if any) concealed carry...


Never said that. Strawman #6,4567,789 gunned down in cold blood!


Dishonest narratives and photos? As I said, adjusting a picture to make it more like looking through one's eyes isn't dishonest. It's trying to make it look more like what it looks like through one's eyes --- and nothing more.

:rofl:

Un-huh sure. I know I don't see everything washed out and grainy. What about everyone else?

houghtam
03-26-2013, 01:14 PM
Nice strawman. No one is saying what you claim.

Yeah nope.

Look, despite the fact that I wasn't just a "lowly" theater manager during much of my career, even theater managers in most companies are aware of the reasoning behind why policies are in place. Most theaters are gun free zones. Why? Is it because those rich CEOs are closeted liberal pinkos who want to come for your guns? No. It's because they realize the liability involved with people carrying weapons in a place where the majority of the customer experience takes place in low lighting, with many stairs, and in close proximity to hundreds of people.

If anybody knows a thing or two about statistics, it's insurance companies. They'll tell you all you need to know about the types of lawsuits you're looking at when it comes to things like this. I mean think about it. Let's say there are two concealed weapons in that theater. One sitting in the middle of the theater, the other at the back. The shooter enters, starts shooting, and the guy at the back of the theater returns fire as some people start to panic. The person in the middle of that night, thinks it's a publicity stunt until he starts seeing bodies drop. Who do you shoot? What if it really is a publicity stunt and the guy who returned fire was just a panicked guest with an itchy trigger finger? What if the guy at the back of the auditorium, now hearing two sets of gunfire, in the smoke and confusion, opens fire on you? There are any number of scenarios and what ifs, which is kind of the point. My guess if you had to put it on some sort of actuarial equation it would look something like this:

Low lighting + teen and family environment + lots of steps + GUNS = INSURE AT YOUR OWN RISK

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 01:21 PM
Never said that. Strawman #6,4567,789 gunned down in cold blood!

Why is it a strawman?


Un-huh sure. I know I don't see everything washed out and grainy. What about everyone else?

Washed out and grainy? It was a cellphone, a lower end Samsung Droid. Just what are you expecting here?

And why on earth would someone manipulate photos (with what, Photoshop) in a conspiracy to pass off the idea that a defense weapon in the theater may have helped to save lives?

Please do not go full tard.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 01:25 PM
Low lighting + teen and family environment + lots of steps + GUNS = INSURE AT YOUR OWN RISK

Then perhaps they should be willing to pay out when that backfires?

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 01:56 PM
Why is it a strawman?


Because what you are attributing to me isn't my position? Are you to daft to grasp the concept of 'strawman'?


Washed out and grainy? It was a cellphone, a lower end Samsung Droid. Just what are you expecting here?


The camera took the photo @ its (likely) max light sensitivity. That's what caused it to be washed out and grainy. ISO800, f2.8, 1/8sec. This is well beyond the max focal ratio, light sensitivity and 'exposure' time of the human eye -- even in your sh*tty little cell phone camera.

It's pretty hilarious that even after I told you this the first time you're still trying to bullsh*t me -- especially when I have the knowledge, the metadata and after you admit to manipulating the image even after it was taken.


And why on earth would someone manipulate photos (with what, Photoshop) in a conspiracy to pass off the idea that a defense weapon in the theater may have helped to save lives?


Because you're childish and want to "win" the debate by any means necessary and/or your ideological wingnuttery demands that reality bend to your will. Take your pick.


Please do not go full tard.

Only person gong 'full tard' here is you oh vapid one.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 02:02 PM
Because what you are attributing to me isn't my position? Are you to daft to grasp the concept of 'strawman'?



The camera took the photo @ its (likely) max light sensitivity. That's what caused it to be washed out and grainy. ISO800, f2.8, 1/8sec. This is well beyond the max focal ratio, light sensitivity and 'exposure' time of the human eye -- even in your sh*tty little cell phone camera.

It's pretty hilarious that even after I told you this the first time you're still trying to bullsh*t me -- especially when I have the knowledge, the metadata and after you admit to manipulating the image even after it was taken.



Because you're childish and want to "win" the debate by any means necessary and/or your ideological wingnuttery demands that reality bend to your will. Take your pick.



Only person gong 'full tard' here is you oh vapid one.

Which is why everyone thinks its epicllama. You don't have 35,000 posts and a history of needing to win and everyone slapping you around and just disappear.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 02:04 PM
Then perhaps they should be willing to pay out when that backfires?

What backfired? The theater is in no way culpable.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 02:59 PM
Because what you are attributing to me isn't my position? Are you to daft to grasp the concept of 'strawman'?

Perhaps I mistook you for another poster on this thread.


The camera took the photo @ its (likely) max light sensitivity. That's what caused it to be washed out and grainy. ISO800, f2.8, 1/8sec. This is well beyond the max focal ratio, light sensitivity and 'exposure' time of the human eye -- even in your sh*tty little cell phone camera.

I went by what I could see in comparison to what I had to do with the cellphone camera to give it the closest equivalent, and that is it. If you don't accept that, that's your issue. Just visit the damned place.

Why are you harping on exposure when if I had left it at default, it would have picked up a picture much darker than the eye could see? You wanted a more accurate representation, DIDN'T YOU?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 03:01 PM
Which is why everyone thinks its epicllama. You don't have 35,000 posts and a history of needing to win and everyone slapping you around and just disappear.

I thought that guy was in Texas. All I can figure is the guy is a conservative with a similar view of mine to at least some degree, therefore I am supposedly this guy. If you call what you guys do here "slapping around," that's pretty sad. Most of the posts directed against me are juvenile ad hominem attacks, and many debate in bad faith, such as is seen on this thread by Wog.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 04:50 PM
Houghtam and Fed earned their gold stars for the day.

errand
03-31-2013, 10:31 PM
I already addressed the theater issue. You don't have a clue what your talking about. Only errand, a highly trained killing machine, and no one else could have stopped him without significantly increasing the body count. But not errand. He's a badass. With 30 year old training.

LOL....I'm not a "badass"....well, i guess compared to your pacifist ass, I am.

I'm a former Recon Marine who took his training 30 years ago very serious, and continues to do so.....I can't explain it to a clown like you, but practically every former veteran has awareness that people like you don't.

I never sit with my back to a restaurant entrance...I'm always sitting where I can see the entrance. In a movie theater I always sit in the back row where I don't have to worry about anyone coming from behind me, etc....kind of like I don't get into my car at night without checking the back seat, or when I'm walking with a woman on a city sidewalk or parking lot, I keep my body between her and traffic...I guess I'm just wired differently than you are.

errand
03-31-2013, 10:36 PM
I carry a Ruger LCP 380. with a crimson laser sight and it would be highly visible across a dark theater, just put the red dot on the target. It's also palm size and can be carried in a rear pocket, it looks like a wallet.

good choice!

errand
03-31-2013, 10:53 PM
It's pretty funny all the idiots who don't understand the difference between being in a dark room looking AT a bright light source is not the same as being in a dark room with a bright light source BEHIND you.

The Aurora shooter could easily see the crown, they were illuminated for him. The crowd could not, they were night blind from staring at a bright light source.

Idiotic pictures of a semi-darkened threatre without the projection system running are just that, idiotic. They in no way represent the conditions the victims faced.

It's not like this is an uncommon experience. Go to a damn theater. Then, while the movie is playing, look around and see how piss poor your vision is.

Then, for the full effect, bring some pepper spray and give yourself a dose and see how good your vision is while night blind and tearing up profusely.

You ever try to fire a weapon with a gas mask on? This may be a surprise to you but it's not easy to do, so his advantage wouldn't have been so great as his sight would have been diminished by the gas and condensation that generally forms on the eye lens.

and he was in the front row when he set off the gas grenade, which would have silhouetted him against the screen...and as I've stated earlier, I know what a canister grenade being tossed sounds like.....add in the warning blast he shot into the ceiling means I would have had enough time to respond to the threat....before the gas filled the theater.

I would have the advantage of him unaware that I was carrying, and firing at him from higher ground....and even if my response to him is futile...him focusing on me (lest he has a death wish and ignores me) would have allowed many countless others to get out of there with their lives...and like you lioberals always say...if it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

his only true advantage was that he was the only one who was armed in that theater.......

errand
03-31-2013, 11:00 PM
I like how nyuk nyuk thinks she actually could have took down Holmes.

What makes you think he had such a great advantage? Just because he surprised them doesn't mean he'd have surprised others.....he was wearing a gas mask which limits his visibility, which explains why he only killed 12 despite basically shooting fish in a barrel....and keep in mind his gun allegedly jammed, he fired a warning shot first, etc...

As I stated earlier...the only true advantage he had was that he was the only one armed in there.

errand
03-31-2013, 11:12 PM
There is a difference between having a will to stop the guy and actually being able to do it. My guess is that nyuk's experience in such a scenario is 0. Just because she got a new shiny gun and took a few gun safety courses doesn't mean she is a good marksman or knows what the **** she would be doing. Especially in a theater packed with people, the way the atmosphere was, etc.

Now, would someone who was 11B, went Airborne Ranger and spent time in Special Ops be able to make a difference if in that place? Quite possibly. Nyuk? **** no.

I've seen women that rode bulls in rodeos, and even met a wing walker....things I doubt very seriously most of us even attempt.....just because you know how you would react doesn't mean you know how anyone else would.

I've had many years of training even without counting my military service, and we still have clowns on here saying it wouldn't matter.......

baja
03-31-2013, 11:15 PM
I shiit in a guy's gas mask once, W*GS reminds me of him.

errand
03-31-2013, 11:17 PM
I have no reason to have a conceal in carry. I'm not paranoid nor do I feel threatened where I go.

I'm not paranoid, nor do I feel threatened...because I carry a conceal handgun. I do however know that for evil can show up at anytime....I choose to be prepared for it

errand
03-31-2013, 11:26 PM
I shiit in a guy's gas mask once, W*GS reminds me of him.

LOL....the hash smokers on a med float use to use the filters to filter their smoke in the berthing compartments on ship.

baja
03-31-2013, 11:30 PM
I see that traitor Elway in a yarning to massage ego has managed to ran off another pro bowler

Meck77
03-31-2013, 11:59 PM
I see that traitor Elway in a yarning to massage ego has managed to ran off another pro bowler

You feeling ok?

baja
04-01-2013, 12:16 AM
Just poking a stick at errand

baja
04-01-2013, 12:18 AM
I suspect we will be better off without doom and certainly better off than having doom at 12 or 8 mil a year/

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 12:28 PM
I suspect we will be better off without doom and certainly better off than having doom at 12 or 8 mil a year/

His recent performance simply didn't justify that kind of pay. There's only so long a person can legitimately ride on their reputation.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 12:29 PM
I see that traitor Elway in a yarning to massage ego has managed to ran off another pro bowler

You see, Elway was intimidated of Doom because Doom was going to outperform him, break all his records, win the hearts of the fans, and steal the spotlight. It was a plot from the get-go and Elway finally found an excuse to push him out of the door.

:thumbs:

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 12:35 PM
You ever try to fire a weapon with a gas mask on? This may be a surprise to you but it's not easy to do, so his advantage wouldn't have been so great as his sight would have been diminished by the gas and condensation that generally forms on the eye lens.

and he was in the front row when he set off the gas grenade, which would have silhouetted him against the screen...and as I've stated earlier, I know what a canister grenade being tossed sounds like.....add in the warning blast he shot into the ceiling means I would have had enough time to respond to the threat....before the gas filled the theater.

I would have the advantage of him unaware that I was carrying, and firing at him from higher ground....and even if my response to him is futile...him focusing on me (lest he has a death wish and ignores me) would have allowed many countless others to get out of there with their lives...and like you lioberals always say...if it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

his only true advantage was that he was the only one who was armed in that theater.......

HEAR HEAR!!!

But the truth is the outcry against carrying concealed in such a situation has nothing to do with saving any lives except their own. They're more than happy to throw others to the dogs if it means choosing between that and feeling personally uncomfortable about someone carrying concealed in that theater. "Take these shots from Holmes in the back because I have a hair up my ass about conceal carrying, okay?"

Of course as we've seen, liberals have a thing for throwing others under the bus.

:yayaya:

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 12:39 PM
I already addressed the theater issue. You don't have a clue what your talking about. Only errand, a highly trained killing machine, and no one else could have stopped him without significantly increasing the body count. But not errand. He's a badass. With 30 year old training.

Significantly increased body count? I fail to see how this could be the case, unless people got up and ran toward Holmes to form a protective circle around him.

Sorry but what happened in that theater need not have happened, and I'll go to my grave believing that.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:08 PM
I shiit in a guy's gas mask once, W*GS reminds me of him.

You remind me of the **** I had this morning.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:09 PM
Sorry but what happened in that theater need not have happened, and I'll go to my grave believing that.

Just because you believe something strongly does not make it true.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:23 PM
Just because you believe something strongly does not make it true.

Oddly I don't see you say the same thing about your own position.

I didn't say my view did make it true, but as I said a million times on this thread, at least those people would have had a fighting chance. Something is better than nothing, it's that simple.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:26 PM
I didn't say my view did make it true, but as I said a million times on this thread, at least those people would have had a fighting chance. Something is better than nothing, it's that simple.

That "something" could have resulted in more casualties. Is that "better"?

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:38 PM
That "something" could have resulted in more casualties. Is that "better"?

I think it far more likely it would have either stopped the massacre or lessened it, at least enabling people to tackle Holmes.

Again, if YOU were there that night, you'd have wished someone was there with a defense weapon, as would anyone have. One of the worst possible nightmares that anyone could face was lived by those people in that theater, and that was being fish in a barrel with no help.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:40 PM
I think it far more likely it would have either stopped the massacre or lessened it, at least enabling people to tackle Holmes.

Yeah, because you're an expert on the tactics to stop a mass shooter in that environment. You took pictures!

Again, if YOU were there that night, you'd have wished someone was there with a defense weapon, as would anyone have. One of the worst possible nightmares that anyone could face was lived by those people in that theater, and that was being fish in a barrel with no help.

What would be even worse would be multiple individuals firing away at indistinct targets.

Rigs11
04-09-2013, 01:42 PM
yuk yuk has been watching too many rambo movies

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:46 PM
Yeah, because you're an expert on the tactics to stop a mass shooter in that environment. You took pictures!



What would be even worse would be multiple individuals firing away at indistinct targets.

Yet again you've derailed from honest discussion and refuse to admit that if you were there, you'd have wished someone - anyone - was there with a gun to help save you or your child's life.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:47 PM
yuk yuk has been watching too many rambo movies

Kindly refer to this post on page 1 of this thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3819787&postcount=4). Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 01:49 PM
Yet again you've derailed from honest discussion and refuse to admit that if you were there, you'd have wished someone - anyone - was there with a gun to help save you or your child's life.

I wasn't there, and all your wishes and dreams are just speculation, mainly because you haven't provided any real evidence for your opinion, just repetitions of the same mantra. Your pictures are risible.

There's no way you can be certain, even a little bit, that Holmes would have been stopped and lives would have been saved. There's a strongly non-zero chance that more would have been wounded or killed had someone else started shooting.

errand
04-09-2013, 01:50 PM
Yeah, because you're an expert on the tactics to stop a mass shooter.....ad nauseum.

What would be even worse would be multiple individuals firing away at indistinct targets.

The most deadly thing on the battlefield is one well aimed shot......

as for multiple people shooting at a target.... those of us who own guns and train all the time and shoot em all the time are generally pretty good shots....not to mention we take our training very seriously because the one life that can be saved will be ours

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:53 PM
I wasn't there, and all your wishes and dreams are just speculation, mainly because you haven't provided any real evidence for your opinion, just repetitions of the same mantra. Your pictures are risible.

Back at you, but at least I've been to the place.

There's no way you can be certain, even a little bit, that Holmes would have been stopped and lives would have been saved. There's a strongly non-zero chance that more would have been wounded or killed had someone else started shooting.

Same can be said for your view, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating it as fact, NOR does it stop you from continuously ignoring the simple fact that if YOU were there that night, you'd wish someone with a defensive weapon was in that crowd to try to help, and that says all that need be said.

errand
04-09-2013, 01:56 PM
guys like W*Gs don't believe in God or guns.... but when somebody breaks into his house the first thing he's going to do is call someone with a gun and pray to God that they show up in time to save his stupid ass

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 01:58 PM
guys like W*Gs don't believe in God or guns.... but when somebody breaks into his house the first thing he's going to do is call someone with a gun and pray to God that they show up in time to save his stupid ass

I'm agnostic but I have guns. I'm not a fan of those who are angry at the thought of conceal carry in a place like Century Aurora when they won't admit that if they were there during that massacre, they'd have wished someone was there with a gun to help them. That's just not right. If they aren't willing to say that if they were there it was better nobody had a gun, then they shouldn't try to impose that view on others. That looks like ****.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 02:08 PM
The most deadly thing on the battlefield is one well aimed shot......

Who says the shot would have been well-aimed in that environment?

W*GS
04-09-2013, 02:12 PM
Back at you, but at least I've been to the place.

Which means nothing. Visiting Normandy doesn't make one an expert on planning and executing an amphibious invasion of Europe.

Same can be said for your view, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating it as fact, NOR does it stop you from continuously ignoring the simple fact that if YOU were there that night, you'd wish someone with a defensive weapon was in that crowd to try to help, and that says all that need be said.

If you were the other person there with a weapon, I'd prefer you kept it holstered. You're too dangerous.

W*GS
04-09-2013, 02:13 PM
guys like W*Gs don't believe in God or guns.... but when somebody breaks into his house the first thing he's going to do is call someone with a gun and pray to God that they show up in time to save his stupid ass

Boys like you are more likely to have their gun used to shoot themselves, a family member, a visitor, or your kid's friend than a bad guy.

But at least it will be God's will.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 02:14 PM
Which means nothing. Visiting Normandy doesn't make one an expert on planning and executing an amphibious invasion of Europe.



If you were the other person there with a weapon, I'd prefer you kept it holstered. You're too dangerous.

Yet again, you're dishonest and every time you're directly answered with what you would feel were you there that night, you resort to ad hominem cheap shots against me.

That speaks volumes. Too bad you aren't willing to admit it and be decent enough to try not to impose otherwise on others.

nyuk nyuk
04-09-2013, 02:16 PM
Who says the shot would have been well-aimed in that environment?

"In that environment"??

You've never even been there. How would YOU know?

W*GS
04-09-2013, 02:18 PM
Yet again, you're dishonest and every time you're directly answered with what you would feel were you there that night, you resort to ad hominem cheap shots against me.

It's not a cheap shot. You, armed, are a danger to everyone around you. Your ideas about proper use of firearms are misguided, to be generous.

Hint: Playing FPS games does not count as training.

That speaks volumes. Too bad you aren't willing to admit it and be decent enough to try not to impose otherwise on others.

Go ahead, CCW. Just be aware of the responsibility involved. So far, you haven't demonstrated the slightest bit of any.