“Good Guy” With Gun Commits Murder In Florida Theater

So hang on a minute. You believe I base my opinions on gun ownership and gun problems based on Hollywood movies? You gun advocates are really getting desperate and running out of arguments.

 

If the force wasn't retaliatory then he was a bad guy.

 

The numbers of handgun deaths are on a poster posted earlier in the thread. The population figures are freely available on google. the rest is simple arithmetic. Why waste time with irrelevant questions?

 

"Coming to a theatre near you." It's America remember.

 

Do you deny that you want to ban semi-automatic weapons?

 

ok one sixth thats even smaller
no we tought you about freedom and democracy when we kicked your asses out and took our freedom from your oppressive government,

 

Okay.

There are people on all sides who want greater controls on firearms; so, I hope the good sense of people will eventually find their way to our laws governing the same.

 

Whether or not you're a "good guy" depends on how you use the weapon, not whether you're licensed to by the state. A licensed gun can be used to initiate force, a prohibited weapon can be used for retaliatory force.

 

You can't expect Floridians to be civilized.

 

Allow me to cut to the chase, Johnny. Here are a couple of choice quotes. In your own words:

To everyone else watching at home: Anytime someone feels the need to say "I'm not anti-gun" then there is a damn good chance that they are in fact anti-gun, as Johnny has demonstrated here.

This is the exact reason why so many people directly oppose any types of further restrictions on firearms. They know that so many of the people who talk about "common sense legislation" and declaring that they aren't "anti-gun" are really working toward their end game, which is outright bans, and are willing to lie through their snake teeth to reach those goals.

 

all places guns are banned by the government with no say from the people except for the usa and switzerland which has almost no gun laws but still somehow made it onto this ridiculous poster.

 

I don't see a reason to ban them, per se; but I would not prefer they be legal.

I don't buy the notion it is good for people to have large amounts of firepower. (It's like an arms race, that we cannot get to the end of.)

Allowing people self-protection, yes. Unlimited or excessive firepower... no.

 

you're the one who said "only in hollywood does the good guy survive" which is completely false so one could only assume you have based your opinion on hollywood movies.

 

I cannot argue that we seem to revere death, above many other things (including life).

 

And where did I say to "ban" semi-auto weapons (as you suggested before)?

I meant exactly what I said months ago, and still do today.

Semi-auto is generally unnecessary and proliferating too many of such firearms will not be a good thing.

(Save that to quote later also. I'm not changing it.)

And while the delineation upon restrictions I prefer need not become law per se, I think it CAN and SHOULD be argued that certain restrictions or controls must be considered. Putting more guns out here, really isn't the answer... except for those who profit from the proliferation of the weapons themselves.

If you think that, you are an extremist in your views; somewhat paranoid. You go too far in your mind, and that causes you to believe that 'zero' controls on firearms is wrong.

I know that is extreme, but I don't expect to convince you here/now.

Wrong. (See the above.)

 

It is silly to use individual events like this to argue against individuals owning low-powered guns. But I equally hate attitudes that encourage any old gun owner to jump into a situation they could likely make worse. There should be mandatory gun training for anyone who is permitted to carry guns in public, including training which extensively makes clear in what situations jumping in with a gun is likely to make things worse. In fact the same thing should be done with police officers, so many bystanders have been shot by police officers trying to shoot one guy - and victims have no real way to get any compensation for their injuries. Most never get compensated properly - it's a really sad situation.

 

Are you kidding? You said it when you made the statement that, "I think there is a level of power and destructive capacity in semi-auto weaponry, that civilians NOT associated with law enforcement or the military should not be allowed purchase or possess.


You said that civilians should NOT be allowed to "purchase or possess" "semi-auto weaponry". It's right there in black and white! That's what is known in the English language as a "ban".

*See note above about people lying through their snake teeth.

 

I'm not sure I'd consider that a reliable source, but thank you for the citation. Curious to me though how you could consider a request to cite your sources an "irrelevant question." That's like Debate 101!

 

I still see things that way.

In any case, you know that I'm not FOR putting just ANY weapon out there that people may want. And I think you're EXTREME to suggest that everyone who wants 'controls', is out to take your weapons, or whatever paranoid idea you are trying to communicate here.

You may disagree with that, but as an American I feel I need to voice that thought.

I'm willing to compromise, but no... I don't buy your view completely.

So be it.

 

The information came from the thread. It's so right in front of you that asking where it came from verges on the cretinous.

 

They also kill far fewer people.

The NRA's La Pierre said that the US should follow Israel's gun laws. Israel only shoots 2175 of it's people every year. That would be a four-fifths improvement.

 

Absolutely! He needed to be executed! If it was non-buttered popcorn, he should have been allowed to live. But BUTTERED popcorn??? Now, THAT is stepping over the line and he deserved to die!

 

Too stupid a comment to deserve a response other than:

"Too stupid a comment to deserve a response".

 

theyre also a herd of sheep compared to our free society
"any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither"
- ben franklin

 

I didn't suggest "that everyone who wants 'controls', is out to take your weapons." I merely pointed out that you advocated for a ban on semi-automatic weapons (the most commonly held weapons in the nation, btw) while making the laughable claim that you are not "anti-gun". That isn't paranoid; that's the plain truth.