|
| Karl Gehring/The Denver Post |
Guns did this, make no mistake. A deranged killer was just using them for what they're intended to do: murder as many people as possible as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Twelve people were killed and at least 50 others wounded early Friday when a gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest opened fire during a midnight screening of the latest Batman movie near Denver, authorities and witnesses said.
A three-month-old child and a six-year-old girl were among those treated, according to reports.
Authorities said the gunman had appeared at the front of the theater during the film and released a canister of tear gas. Witnesses told reporters that the gunfire erupted during a shootout scene in "The Dark Knight Rises".
Unless you're expecting the King of England to show up and try to steal your money iminently, your 2nd amendment argument is shit.
brought to you by
19 comments:
what kind of inconsiderate asshole brings a 3-month old baby to a midnight screening?
Well, yes, but that's kind of secondary at the moment.
I can't even comprehend the awfulness of this. Just storing it away somewhere. Also Luke I don't think this type of guy would let gun control stop him from getting a gun, hippie.
The more guns there are made legally the more channels there are for them to make their way into the hands of people like this.
Right because making things illegal always stops people from getting them. Just look at cocaine, for instance. No one ever has that.
Gun Toting deranged people all of you--MADMEN!!
Yo, Luke- I love your blog, generally speaking, but fuck this argument. The fact is, some fucking psychopath did this, not "guns." Guns didn't convince him to kill people, his twisted and sick mind did. He could have used chlorine gas, or a homemade bomb, or he could have driven a car through the line waiting outside the theater. There's NO WAY to preempt random murder by a determined individual. Placing the blame anywhere outside the person who did it is below someone of your intelligence. Also, your taste in music is not exactly similar to mine.
I hear you, and no, I don't absolve the dude of responsibility, it was obviously his fault and he's the worst type of piece of human vermin. But, while a psycho like this could probably find other ways to kill people, you really can't beat the efficiency, availability, and ease of use of a gun.
On the music thing I can't really help. I have truly awful taste
no reason for bombs to be illegal then i supopose
That's a good point, buying a gun and buying a bomb are exactly the same thing, just like taking aspirin is the same thing as shooting heroin.
What possible stupid reason could you have for defending the availability of guns Jake?
I imagine it's vastly easier by and large for your average person in the country to get a gun than it is to get cocaine.
I don't think a gun anything like aspirin. Maybe if a bomb is heroin a gun is an OC-80. I love the "criminals will be able to get guns anyway, why make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them?!" argument. Might as well make heroin legal as well then, correct? Criminals are getting it anyway! In England gun laws are much more strict, and they have 40 times fewer gun related homicides. Explain that one to me.
Adam, I would suggest that the reason that England has 40 times less homicides is because they have 40 times less homicidal maniacs, for too vast a number of reasons to list here, the predominant being they are not residents of a nation of infants.
Luke, my point is your solution is bogus. This was not a random act committed by a man that just happened to have a gun on him. Gun control would not have stopped this. The man is sick. I'm personally impartial about gun control, to be honest. But saying it would have stopped this is a colossal over-simplification. The gun is not the problem here.
Also I'm all for making heroin legal.
I assure you, there are plenty of homicidal maniacs in England. Study after study has shown that the lack of availability of guns has a direct correlation to the amount of gun crimes. Making guns illegal makes it FAR more difficult to get hands on one.
And there's no comparison with drugs, as it's far easier to get your hands on and sell drugs in an alley or out of your house than it is to smuggle illegal weapons into the country and sell them. The internet is a game changer, but not every idiot in this country has the wherewithal to seek out an illegal online arms dealer and skirt the law.
Gun control might not have stopped this, but it could have greatly reduced the chance of it happening.
Of course, we all know this argument is moot. You can not convince a gun owner that guns are bad, same as you can't convince me that there's a single reason why you should be able to own a fucking assault rifle. This debate is more polarizing than teenage abortion or gay marriage.
^agreed with all of that.
Look fellows, I don't like guns, I don't need guns, and frankly I wouldn't care at all if they were banned completely; my only point here is that wouldn't have stopped this from happening. Clearly. The guys apartment was rigged with bombs, he had been planning this for months - this was a determined individual.
Oh my other point was Luke's a hippie.
Machine guns have more in common with bombs than muskets though. Our terrorist friend here could and more than likely would have done this or something like this otherwise, but why make it easier for him? Gun nuts are defending the legal right for a lunatic to purchase a weapon of mass destruction no ordinary citizen should have the right to own.
Post a Comment