RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread...

RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:00:12 AM)
FR, Due to multiple reports for this thread, it has been locked for review. Meanwhile, on other threads, please stick to the topic and do not make other posters the topic.

VideoAdminRho -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 11:34:18 AM)
A large number of posts have been removed for personal attacks, making the poster the subject, changing member names to something derogatory and being off topic. If your post was removed and you did not receive a gold letter it is because you quoted or replied to a post that has been pulled.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 4:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 My original question assumes nothing. It asserts, correctly, that people the other side of walls were indeed killed. It also asserts, correctly, that if they had been armed, they would still have been shot. Your original question implied that I must be stupid enough to imagine that having someone armed in the other theater would have been of benefit. And in repeating the question you made explicit both that assumption and your dishonesty in attributing such a notion to me. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its noticable that you still avoid my point. Others killed on that day were in the same complex, not "Another theatre"..... You don't have a point. The complex, as is the case with many today, housed more than one theater. That's why it's called a complex. See how that works? The people who were injuring by bullets coming through the wall were in a different theater in the complex. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As with most gun threads those who dont like my replies resort to smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive aggresive posts. I think it fairly clear where the "smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive agressive posts" are coming from. K. You still dont quite get it. Below is your original post. quote: I can't help but think that some of the people who were in a certain theater in Colorado, or a certain subway car in New York to mention just two examples, might have found themselves reconsidering the potential benefit of having a law-abiding citizen among them who was carrying a weapon and knew how to use it. Nothing you have said so far alters the fact that bulets came through the walls. It makes no odds which part of the complex they were in, so lets ditch the juvenile notion that the theatre were somehow seperate. If more people had been letting off rounds, more people could have died or been injured due to bullets coming through the walls. More guns equals more bullets equals more injuries. Sorry to point out the obvious. Im not getting into the notion of having to take a gun to the movies in order to feel safe, that isnt something we have much of a problem with over here, for some odd reason. [8\|]

PeonForHer -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata To dismiss as "pure conjecture" and "wishful thinking" the common sense observation that an incident in which helpless people were shot like fish in a barrel would be likely to have had a different outcome if one or more of them had been armed is the height of agenda-driven double-speak. It'd be wishful thinking to assume that the total outcome would necessarily have been better, I'd say. A darkened theatre floor, chaos of screaming, disorientated people . . . missed gunshots, police not being able to distinguish the perp from the hero . . . . It's possible the whole thing could have ended up even worse.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Nothing you have said so far alters the fact that bulets came through the walls. It makes no odds which part of the complex they were in, so lets ditch the juvenile notion that the theatre were somehow seperate. If more people had been letting off rounds, more people could have died or been injured due to bullets coming through the walls. More guns equals more bullets equals more injuries. Sorry to point out the obvious. You don't know much about construction codes do you? In the US, commercial property has to have a firewall (masonry) between units of a commercial building like that. Seriously, of all the rounds the idiot touched off, none went thru to other spaces and hit other folks did they? What makes you think that if anyone else had fired a round, it would have magically penetrated? ETA. Sorry to point out the obvious.[:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:15:09 PM)
• Reports suggest children were among those injured. A six-year-old is said to be receiving treatment at Denver Children's hospital. Eyewitnesses say bullets from the shooting in theatre nine passed through the theatre walls into adjacent screens, injuring people there also. Injured people are being treated in six hospitals around Denver. http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2012/jul/20/denver-batman-premiere-shooting-live The shooting took place at the Century 16 Theater, next to the mall in Aurora. There were screenings being held in three separate theaters, with the shooting taking place in theater 9. (Though some of the bullets reportedly passed through the wall, hitting people in theater 8.) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/07/mass-shooting-batman-premiere-colorado/54819/ Moviegoer Quentin Caldwell, who was in an adjacent theater, said, "I think we were 15 minutes in, and there was a chase scene where there was gunfire on screen. "And right then out of nowhere on the right side of us we hear a very distinct 'pop, pop, pop, pop.'" Caldwell saw wounded people, including one young couple who was holding a bleeding woman by her face and guiding her down the stairs, Caldwell said. "I looked to my right and another gentleman is holding his stomach and running down the stairs trying to get out of there," he said. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-scene

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:19:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You don't know much about construction codes do you? In the US, commercial property has to have a firewall (masonry) between units of a commercial building like that. Seriously, of all the rounds the idiot touched off, none went thru to other spaces and hit other folks did they? What makes you think that if anyone else had fired a round, it would have magically penetrated? ETA. Sorry to point out the obvious.[:D] You obviously didnt read the reports at the time. You also dont seem to know bullets can travel through masonary. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/10/officials-release-complete-list-injured-victims-in-aurora-massacre/ Scroll down and in mentions those shot in theatre #8 ETA. Not sorry to point out the obvious.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:21:22 PM)
Lucy beat me to it.

thishereboi -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:24:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 My original question assumes nothing. It asserts, correctly, that people the other side of walls were indeed killed. It also asserts, correctly, that if they had been armed, they would still have been shot. Your original question implied that I must be stupid enough to imagine that having someone armed in the other theater would have been of benefit. And in repeating the question you made explicit both that assumption and your dishonesty in attributing such a notion to me. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its noticable that you still avoid my point. Others killed on that day were in the same complex, not "Another theatre"..... You don't have a point. The complex, as is the case with many today, housed more than one theater. That's why it's called a complex. See how that works? The people who were injuring by bullets coming through the wall were in a different theater in the complex. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As with most gun threads those who dont like my replies resort to smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive aggresive posts. I think it fairly clear where the "smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive agressive posts" are coming from. K. You still dont quite get it. Below is your original post. quote: I can't help but think that some of the people who were in a certain theater in Colorado, or a certain subway car in New York to mention just two examples, might have found themselves reconsidering the potential benefit of having a law-abiding citizen among them who was carrying a weapon and knew how to use it. Nothing you have said so far alters the fact that bulets came through the walls. It makes no odds which part of the complex they were in, so lets ditch the juvenile notion that the theatre were somehow seperate. If more people had been letting off rounds, more people could have died or been injured due to bullets coming through the walls. More guns equals more bullets equals more injuries. Sorry to point out the obvious. Im not getting into the notion of having to take a gun to the movies in order to feel safe, that isnt something we have much of a problem with over here, for some odd reason. [8\|] Yes but had the gunman known ahead of time that others in the theater would probably also be armed, he may have never gone there in the first place.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Yes but had the gunman known ahead of time that others in the theater would probably also be armed, he may have never gone there in the first place. Thats your opinion, where as bullets going through the wall is a fact.

thishereboi -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Yes but had the gunman known ahead of time that others in the theater would probably also be armed, he may have never gone there in the first place. Thats your opinion, where as bullets going through the wall is a fact. And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion.

Politesub53 -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion. WTF..... The dead and injured are still dead and injured, whichever way you wish to spin it.

thishereboi -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion. WTF..... The dead and injured are still dead and injured, whichever way you wish to spin it. I wasn't spinning anything. I pointed out that the whole thing might not have happened if the gunman had thought the other people were armed. It's called a discussion. You have a problem with it, use the block feature.

tweakabelle -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 5:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion. WTF..... The dead and injured are still dead and injured, whichever way you wish to spin it. I wasn't spinning anything. I pointed out that the whole thing might not have happened if the gunman had thought the other people were armed. It's called a discussion. You have a problem with it, use the block feature. You created an imaginary set of circumstances that (surprise!) were tailored to suit your point of view. It's called conjecture, speculation or fantasy. The term doesn't matter as much as the fact that the scenario you invented is imaginary

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 6:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 My original question assumes nothing. It asserts, correctly, that people the other side of walls were indeed killed. It also asserts, correctly, that if they had been armed, they would still have been shot. Your original question implied that I must be stupid enough to imagine that having someone armed in the other theater would have been of benefit. And in repeating the question you made explicit both that assumption and your dishonesty in attributing such a notion to me. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its noticable that you still avoid my point. Others killed on that day were in the same complex, not "Another theatre"..... You don't have a point. The complex, as is the case with many today, housed more than one theater. That's why it's called a complex. See how that works? The people who were injuring by bullets coming through the wall were in a different theater in the complex. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As with most gun threads those who dont like my replies resort to smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive aggresive posts. I think it fairly clear where the "smoke, mirrors, slight of hand and passive agressive posts" are coming from. K. You still dont quite get it. Below is your original post. quote: I can't help but think that some of the people who were in a certain theater in Colorado, or a certain subway car in New York to mention just two examples, might have found themselves reconsidering the potential benefit of having a law-abiding citizen among them who was carrying a weapon and knew how to use it. Nothing you have said so far alters the fact that bulets came through the walls. It makes no odds which part of the complex they were in, so lets ditch the juvenile notion that the theatre were somehow seperate. If more people had been letting off rounds, more people could have died or been injured due to bullets coming through the walls. More guns equals more bullets equals more injuries. Sorry to point out the obvious. Im not getting into the notion of having to take a gun to the movies in order to feel safe, that isnt something we have much of a problem with over here, for some odd reason. [8\|] Yes but had the gunman known ahead of time that others in the theater would probably also be armed, he may have never gone there in the first place. he did get his tickets online in advance at the only theater in the area that banned firearms

Kirata -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 6:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Nothing you have said so far alters the fact that bulets came through the walls. It makes no odds which part of the complex they were in, so lets ditch the juvenile notion that the theatre were somehow seperate. If more people had been letting off rounds, more people could have died or been injured due to bullets coming through the walls. More guns equals more bullets equals more injuries. Sorry to point out the obvious. I said a "certain theater," and it should be obvous to anyone with the intelligence of a clam that I meant the one the gunman was in. The theaters were most certainly separate. And no bullet fired toward the screen (and hence the shooter) in any of them would have entered another theater. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just making shit up. K. [image]local://upfiles/235229/9B779CCE8B494ADC875F3D3EB1DD94B5.jpg[/image]

BamaD -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 6:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi And that it would have happened anyway is your opinion. WTF..... The dead and injured are still dead and injured, whichever way you wish to spin it. I wasn't spinning anything. I pointed out that the whole thing might not have happened if the gunman had thought the other people were armed. It's called a discussion. You have a problem with it, use the block feature. You created an imaginary set of circumstances that (surprise!) were tailored to suit your point of view. It's called conjecture, speculation or fantasy. The term doesn't matter as much as the fact that the scenario you invented is imaginary As do others with their assumptions that the good guys bullets can't possibly be as accurate as the bad guys and with their presumption that when the cops showed they might have shot both but we can be sure they would have shot the good guy

JeffBC -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 6:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer "Over 70 percent of Americans believe that welfare recipients both abuse the system and become overly dependent on it (Hays 2003)." Hell's bells! chuckles You forgot to add... "despite pretty much every study ever done." Think of it like global warming.

Kirata -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 6:41:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It'd be wishful thinking to assume that the total outcome would necessarily have been better, I'd say. A darkened theatre floor, chaos of screaming, disorientated people . . . missed gunshots, police not being able to distinguish the perp from the hero . . . . It's possible the whole thing could have ended up even worse. With all the respect that you afford me, I didn't assume anything. I assessed it to be likely that the shooter would have been incapacitated before the police arrived. Even wearing body armor, you can't take a .45 to the chest and continue eating lunch. K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/12/2013 7:26:32 PM)
As long as we're all making assumptions why can't the would be armed citizen hero have laser sights on his handgun for a clean head shot ? How does anyone miss after having practiced with one of those ? Personally I prefer glow in the dark 3 dot night sights as I don't like the bulk of laser sights. I can hit a 2 liter soda bottle from 20 yards away at dusk to dark every time.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875