CO: Shooting at Movie Theater in Aurora

Selfishly what happens to me if I return fire and kill a 14 yr old trying to escape this mayhem? Do I go to jail for murder?
Click to expand...

You're responsible for every round your gun discharges. I don't know if you'd "go to jail for murder" but I bet the District Attorney would certainly consider filing Murder 2 or Manslaughter charges.

- - - Updated - - -

namedpipes said:
Yes, but if you exclude the continents of Asia, Africa and South America, THEN what's the count?
Click to expand...

I bet if we also take out Europe and North America we could get that count to zero. Unless something happened in Australia or Antarctica that I'm not aware of. [wink]
 
It's a shell game. Call it Assault whatever and get people afraid of it - thereby justifying the police/government to have them to PROTECT you from the evil boogeyman who has one to shoot up the mall with - even though the fact that Officer Friendly is now kitted up in body armor and black is a much bigger threat to your way of life than the occasional random nutbag.
 
mikem317 said:
You're responsible for every round your gun discharges. I don't know if you'd "go to jail for murder" but I bet the District Attorney would certainly consider filing Murder 2 or Manslaughter charges.
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of that. Very difficult choice to make in a split second of mayhem. Hard to know how you would react to this and what actions you may take is all I am saying.
 
mikem317 said:
I bet if we also take out Europe and North America we could get that count to zero. Unless something happened in Australia or Antarctica that I'm not aware of. [wink]
Click to expand...

Mrmm, not zero, witness our rash of "nothing to see here" incidents in the US at the very least, but "by and large" we still have it better than most of the world, for the time being.
 
Quotes of the minute:

"The responding officers would've probably had a 9 millimeter and a 40 millimeter and a shotgun..." -- William J. Bratton

(I realize that in the moment of an interview, people are going to misspeak, but--geez, come on. You were invited onto the show as an "expert.")

"it's not about the tools used, it's about the people." --Michael Chertoff, commenting on the weapons employed and the IED's found in Holmes' apartment.

"Let me emphasize that we know nothing about motivation in this particular case..." --David Gregory, his emphasis, not mine. David Gregory was deflecting talk about conspiracy.

(Wow. A couple of cool heads on network television. Surprising.)
 
Boman said:
Yes I am aware of that. Very difficult choice to make in a split second of mayhem. Hard to know how you would react to this and what actions you may take is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I sort of wonder if anybody was in fact carrying but chose not to engage. One victim was interviewed this morning in his hospital bed. He said that the shooter's right boot was "2 inches" from his head as he pretended to be dead. Too bad he wasn't carrying.

namedpipes said:
Mrmm, not zero, witness our rash of "nothing to see here" incidents in the US at the very least, but "by and large" we still have it better than most of the world, for the time being.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
mikem317 said:
I bet if we also take out Europe and North America we could get that count to zero. Unless something happened in Australia or Antarctica that I'm not aware of. [wink]
Click to expand...
The thing(s) people ignore in all of their self/America-loathing is that:
1. Despite all the crap the US takes for racism, this nation is one of the most heterogeneous and integrated on the planet. Up until very recently with Muslim influx, most of Europe was rather homogeneous and where it wasn't it was segregated.

So, they talk a good game about their liberal social policies, but it is easy to be "open" when everyone agrees with you and is between 2 and 3 cousins away from you in relation. Not so much when you have very different cultures and people mingling in close quarters.

In reality, as we are seeing in places like France with their "reactionary" policies against muslims, the US is far ahead of most European nations with regard to learning how to mix cultures and people in a true "melting pot."

2. Many of those crime stats are for nations which are the size of one our larger states and see above for the homogeneous nature of those nations.

3. Averaging out the rates of gun homicide over the whole country, when you understand 1 and 2 above totally misstates what is going on. The reality is that violence in this nation is highly concentrated in a VERY small land-mass which is the profound exception to the rule of the nation as a whole. Individual neighborhoods and hand-fulls of city blocks taken alone often account for 90% or more of the violent crime in a particular region.

So, all I can see conclusively from the statistics one can gather about guns and violence is at best there is no correlation between guns, suicide or violence. At worse, for the gun grabbers, you very often see an actual and causal relationship to the contrary.

Where guns are widely owned or introduced (by ownership requirement or relaxed permitting), you see low and dropping rates of violence.

The biggest mistake anyone makes is in thinking that ANY policy will every lead to ZERO violence. It will not. It cannot. In a world of 6B+ people, there will be homicides, there will be mass homicides. These events are lightening strikes and should have zero bearing on gun policy just as they have zero bearing on peaceful assembly policy, free speech, etc...
 
Man,its driving me crazy listening to that puke of a human Bloomberg. Dumb ass thinks guns are only for hunting and home personal protection. He thinks we don't need rifles like AR15s. I would like to tell him to go read the documents left behind by our founding fathers. We have a right to protect ourselves from our govt. Back then it was a flintlock,today its an AR15 if need be. If our founders had AR15s your damn sure they would have used those. I'm sure Bloompuke doesn't care though.
 
calsdad said:
There's a lot of pieces of this that just stink. The possibility there was a second person, all the gear this guy had, the booby traps, the way the media is jumping all over this in a millisecond, the threats against cops (what better to get them onboard?), the timing , etc.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the fact that before the bodies were cold or the smoke had cleared, one of the first things the media reported was "This doesn't appear to be an act of terrorism. This guy acted alone". That was on the news at 6:00 EST (about 3.5 hours after the shooting started). On 9/11, many were calling it an accident until they saw the second plane hit. Why the big rush to call this a "lone wolf" without performing any kind of an investigation?
 
mikem317 said:
What's the figure for the 20th century? Something like 100,000,000 killed by their "beloved" governments? And that's just from 1901 to 2000. Doesn't take into consideration all the atrocities that transpired before this.
Click to expand...

The count has not stopped… e.g. Syria. And it will not stop any time soon. [wink]

namedpipes said:
Yes, but if you exclude the continents of Asia, Africa and South America, THEN what's the count?
Click to expand...

About 60,000,000. But I do understand your point - almost no victims in Antarctica. [grin]
 
Last edited:
calsdad said:
You guys are debating back and forth whether "one civilian" could have stopped this. Maybe I missed the comments somewhere along the line - but you all seem to be missing one major thing: Gun control affects ALL "civilians" - and that includes an awful lot of people who are fully trained and able to handle a situation like this.

After 10 years of war - this country is full of combat trained and combat experienced "civilians" - many of whom can't get a firearm because that very same govt. that sent them over to combat now tries to ban them from getting firearms here at home.

I've also read an awful lot of studies that show that "civilians" ( who carry) often do pretty well when bad $h!t goes down - because they've trained for it and can often hit what they're shooting at (in contrast to cops who - when $h!t goes down - often let hundreds of rounds fly).

It's just a matter of time and chance whether an armed "civilian" will be present at one of these shootings or not. The old guy a week or so - was present. The guy at that shooting of the congresswoman a few years ago - was present. Unfortunately nobody was present at this, or - nobody who felt that they could affect the situation was present.

It's entirely possible that there was other armed civilan in that theatre - who - knowing they had a policy against firearms - decided "eff this - I'm out of here".

It's not like he's going to start giving interviews to the news media and tell people he was armed but he decided to leave. He'd just keep his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

.

The Pentagon said Friday that one sailor and two airmen were wounded in the shooting, and that one sailor was unaccounted for. Their names have not been officially released.
Click to expand...
 
Cekim for Prez... Just sayin...

cekim said:
The thing(s) people ignore in all of their self/America-loathing is that:
1. Despite all the crap the US takes for racism, this nation is one of the most heterogeneous and integrated on the planet. Up until very recently with Muslim influx, most of Europe was rather homogeneous and where it wasn't it was segregated.

So, they talk a good game about their liberal social policies, but it is easy to be "open" when everyone agrees with you and is between 2 and 3 cousins away from you in relation. Not so much when you have very different cultures and people mingling in close quarters.

In reality, as we are seeing in places like France with their "reactionary" policies against muslims, the US is far ahead of most European nations with regard to learning how to mix cultures and people in a true "melting pot."

2. Many of those crime stats are for nations which are the size of one our larger states and see above for the homogeneous nature of those nations.

3. Averaging out the rates of gun homicide over the whole country, when you understand 1 and 2 above totally misstates what is going on. The reality is that violence in this nation is highly concentrated in a VERY small land-mass which is the profound exception to the rule of the nation as a whole. Individual neighborhoods and hand-fulls of city blocks taken alone often account for 90% or more of the violent crime in a particular region.

So, all I can see conclusively from the statistics one can gather about guns and violence is at best there is no correlation between guns, suicide or violence. At worse, for the gun grabbers, you very often see an actual and causal relationship to the contrary.

Where guns are widely owned or introduced (by ownership requirement or relaxed permitting), you see low and dropping rates of violence.

The biggest mistake anyone makes is in thinking that ANY policy will every lead to ZERO violence. It will not. It cannot. In a world of 6B+ people, there will be homicides, there will be mass homicides. These events are lightening strikes and should have zero bearing on gun policy just as they have zero bearing on peaceful assembly policy, free speech, etc...
Click to expand...
 
The other day I was at the gym and overheard a guy talking about this shooting (i wasn't aware of it then)

Guy: "there was shooting in CO; they say that if someone had a gun they would have shot the bastard."

Me: "damn strait. Did he have fully auto weapon"

Guy: "yes it was full auto because the guy was shooting and shooting... And I was joking because I think it is stupid to have a gunfight in public place"

Me: "well I wasn't joking. Is this not 'stupid' to just have people executed"

Guy: "well he IS a criminal..."

Me (at this point I already turned red from his dumbness): "oh so it is his job as a criminal to kill people? And the only ones who can stop him is LE? If they ate not there then too bad for them?"

Guy: "well.... Still people shouldn't have guns"

Me: "I wish your ancestors were extinguished in the non gun fight during the rocks fight 100000 years ago so such inferiority wouldn't prevail"

Conclusion: like I said in in other threads liberalism is religion so those dumb assessing just believe in it because the smartest machine on earth the TV says so. No sense can be injected in them.
If most people were similar carrot led mules during Jefferson times this country wouldn't be better then Mexico or Trinidan...



Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
I actually had a reasonably civil debate with my anti friends on Facebook. They threw me some soft pitches about statistics and gunfights in dark, panicky theaters. My intelligent gunnie buddies backed me up and we all stepped back before anyone got their feelings too hurt. Might even have swayed a couple (but probably not much).

The last bastion of ignorance among those fudds who actually support civilian firearms ownership for "sporting and self-defense" purposes seems to be this mantra of "nobody needs an assault rifle for hunting squirrels". My favored response to this is "the musket was the original 'assault rifle'..."

I also found through the discourse that the argument boils down to this for me: if it were me in that theater with my family, should I be cowering behind a seat with my only defense being to bleed profusely on the shooter, or should I have the capability of meeting his unlawful force with my own lawful one if I so chose? Ditch the collectivist and abstract mentality and make it personal... I'll take more options over fewer any day.
 
30Mauser said:
I actually had a reasonably civil debate with my anti friends on Facebook. They threw me some soft pitches about statistics and gunfights in dark, panicky theaters. My intelligent gunnie buddies backed me up and we all stepped back before anyone got their feelings too hurt. Might even have swayed a couple (but probably not much).

The last bastion of ignorance among those fudds who actually support civilian firearms ownership for "sporting and self-defense" purposes seems to be this mantra of "nobody needs an assault rifle for hunting squirrels". My favored response to this is "the musket was the original 'assault rifle'..."

I also found through the discourse that the argument boils down to this for me: if it were me in that theater with my family, should I be cowering behind a seat with my only defense being to bleed profusely on the shooter, or should I have the capability of meeting his unlawful force with my own lawful one if I so chose? Ditch the collectivist and abstract mentality and make it personal... I'll take more options over fewer any day.
Click to expand...

Good points. The person that posted that progranda has posted numerous status updates about the CO shooting and about when will america wake up and enforce stricter gun control. I havent seen a single comment on any of the statuses about people that are anti, most people agree that this couldnt have been prevented and in fact guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people.
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
great response, ANTI's are dumb beyond belief
Click to expand...

And in 2004, the Federal AWB did expire, but it wasn't a lobbying effort by the NRA. It was coded to sunset after 10 years.

30Mauser said:
I actually had a reasonably civil debate with my anti friends on Facebook. They threw me some soft pitches about statistics and gunfights in dark, panicky theaters. My intelligent gunnie buddies backed me up and we all stepped back before anyone got their feelings too hurt. Might even have swayed a couple (but probably not much).

The last bastion of ignorance among those fudds who actually support civilian firearms ownership for "sporting and self-defense" purposes seems to be this mantra of "nobody needs an assault rifle for hunting squirrels". My favored response to this is "the musket was the original 'assault rifle'..."

I also found through the discourse that the argument boils down to this for me: if it were me in that theater with my family, should I be cowering behind a seat with my only defense being to bleed profusely on the shooter, or should I have the capability of meeting his unlawful force with my own lawful one if I so chose? Ditch the collectivist and abstract mentality and make it personal... I'll take more options over fewer any day.
Click to expand...

Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and even select-fire M16s are used for one reason: To safeguard liberty. They're not for hunting small game, so I guess in that respect, they're correct. Military-grade weaponry is supposed to be in civilian hands. That's what the Second Amendment is all about. It's the ultimate doomsday safeguard in case tyranny on the scale of Mao, Hitler or Stalin were able to get a foothold here and people were being shoved into boxcars.

There's nothing special preventing it from happening in the US. Heck, it did happen in the US when the FED GOV "detained" Japanese-, Italian- and German-Americans during WWII.
 
mikem317 said:
And in 2004, the Federal AWB did expire, but it wasn't a lobbying effort by the NRA. It was coded to sunset after 10 years.



Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and even select-fire M16s are used for one reason: To safeguard liberty. They're not for hunting small game, so I guess in that respect, they're correct. Military-grade weaponry is supposed to be in civilian hands. That's what the Second Amendment is all about. It's the ultimate doomsday safeguard in case tyranny on the scale of Mao, Hitler or Stalin were able to get a foothold here and people were being shoved into boxcars.

There's nothing special preventing it from happening in the US. Heck, it did happen in the US when the FED GOV "detained" Japanese-, Italian- and German-Americans during WWII.
Click to expand...

Exactly. it was spoken about in those terms in the federalist papers, very specifically.
 
mikem317 said:
Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and even select-fire M16s are used for one reason: To safeguard liberty. They're not for hunting small game, so I guess in that respect, they're correct. Military-grade weaponry is supposed to be in civilian hands. That's what the Second Amendment is all about. It's the ultimate doomsday safeguard in case tyranny on the scale of Mao, Hitler or Stalin were able to get a foothold here and people were being shoved into boxcars.

There's nothing special preventing it from happening in the US. Heck, it did happen in the US when the FED GOV "detained" Japanese-, Italian- and German-Americans during WWII.
Click to expand...
Completely agree... Not that many/any of us so armed would have had the cojones to face down the gov when they were forcibly relocating those ethnic minorities, nor first nations tribes, for that matter... But that's the principle, for sure.
 
My .02
1. If the police and military feel as though they need "assault rifles" we need them as well. Lawfull citizens in the absence of either will be forced to protect themselves and family against the same animals.
2. Why interview the Chief of Police in Philidepha on gun control about a shooting that occured in Colorado unless you have an agenda - CH5 today
3. Bad people do bad things and no regulation on the planet has ever stopped them from doing these things
4. While we may never no how someone would react in a defense situation, Self preservation will usually prevail and I would rather take my chances in a room where law abiding people had guns in this case rather than a room where they were banned.
5. The glass half full scenario tells me we are better off this lunitic did not douse the place with gas or use explosives in his rampage
6. No one is going to tell me this kid when it's all said and done did not have some real emotional issues before all this. Every single time they say he was just a normal kid something comes out in the facts later on to prove he wasn't.
7. People commit stupid and henous crimes all the time as they have through history and their stupidity or mental disfunction has nothing whatever to do with the rights that should be enjoyed by others.
8. Liberals have to use something to prove their point because normally they are so extreme and ill thought out, that what they say makes no sense to people who have knowledge of the subject matter. They are opportunist in everything they do and this is just another opportunity to push their own agenda. Unfortunitely it will also not be the last and nothing gun rights people have to say will change their minds. From here going forward they will continue to blame the NRA and other gun rights groups rather than the mental health system in this country.
9. Canada has pretty tough gun laws and yet we also have shootings there, Go figure!
10. Discount 50% of anything you heard on the news. It's been a long time since they reported the facts and nothing but the facts. Any major news story is going to come off with an agenda and thats the manner they use to interview there guest. Rarely do they interview gun rights advocates for opinions before the story dies down to a low drivel.
 
gene said:
My .02
1. If the police and military feel as though they need "assault rifles" we need them as well. Lawfull citizens in the absence of either will be forced to protect themselves and family against the same animals.
2. Why interview the Chief of Police in Philidepha on gun control about a shooting that occured in Colorado unless you have an agenda - CH5 today
3. Bad people do bad things and no regulation on the planet has ever stopped them from doing these things
4. While we may never no how someone would react in a defense situation, Self preservation will usually prevail and I would rather take my chances in a room where law abiding people had guns in this case rather than a room where they were banned.
5. The glass half full scenario tells me we are better off this lunitic did not douse the place with gas or use explosives in his rampage
6. No one is going to tell me this kid when it's all said and done did not have some real emotional issues before all this. Every single time they say he was just a normal kid something comes out in the facts later on to prove he wasn't.
7. People commit stupid and henous crimes all the time as they have through history and their stupidity or mental disfunction has nothing whatever to do with the rights that should be enjoyed by others.
8. Liberals have to use something to prove their point because normally they are so extreme and ill thought out, that what they say makes no sense to people who have knowledge of the subject matter. They are opportunist in everything they do and this is just another opportunity to push their own agenda. Unfortunitely it will also not be the last and nothing gun rights people have to say will change their minds. From here going forward they will continue to blame the NRA and other gun rights groups rather than the mental health system in this country.
9. Canada has pretty tough gun laws and yet we also have shootings there, Go figure!
10. Discount 50% of anything you heard on the news. It's been a long time since they reported the facts and nothing but the facts. Any major news story is going to come off with an agenda and thats the manner they use to interview there guest. Rarely do they interview gun rights advocates for opinions before the story dies down to a low drivel.
Click to expand...

who uses logic in arguments anymore, get with the times. Guns are bad and if we stop innocent people from having them then bad guys will obey the law also..... Look at gun free zones, there has never ever been a gun shooting in a gun free zone..........
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
who uses logic in arguments anymore, get with the times. Guns are bad and if we stop innocent people from having them then bad guys will obey the law also..... Look at gun free zones, there has never ever been a gun shooting in a gun free zone..........
Click to expand...

But like all the jobs that were 'saved' think of all the mass killings that were saved because of the gun free zones
 
One of the things that irks me about people is their misuse of of the term "assault rifle." Apparently, some folks are attempting to correct their mistake, because I came across this gem:

A federal law enforcement official says the semi-automatic assault rifle used in the deadly Colorado movie theater shooting jammed during the attack.
Click to expand...
Link.

I'd really like to ask anyone who uses that phrase to tell me at what point a semi-auto rifle becomes an assault rifle. [thinking]
 

Similar threads

Hanover Theater
Replies
10
Views
379
Broc
Broc
SWAT Under Siege movie
Replies
6
Views
221
Bt74
Bt74
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
226
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
8
Views
397
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Woman Shoots Home Intruder Who Interrupted Taylor Swift Movie
Replies
14
Views
341
Tigerstripe
T
Back
Top Bottom