CO: Shooting at Movie Theater in Aurora

[Deleted member 12999]

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:

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.

When someone assaults someone with it. Prior to that, it's just a tool or toy.

 

[OnTheRoad]

The terminology works both ways.

Select term: example, "rifle"
Add modifier: example, "assault rifle"
Equals = Scary, makes moonbats tremble and pee themselves.

Take same term: example, "rifle"
Add modifier: example, "tactical rifle"
Equals = Wicked cool, makes consumers spend more money on the same stuff.

Either way, all you're talking about is just a rifle.

 

[FPrice]

CO Governor: More Laws Would Not Have Stopped Tragedy

At last, a sane voice.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said no law could have prevented suspect James Holmes from carrying out the act of terror that rocked an Aurora movie theater early Friday morning and left 12 dead.

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something. Right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb. Who knows where his mind would have gone. Clearly a very intelligent individual however twisted. That’s the problem, this is a human issue in some profound way,” Hickenlooper said during an interview on CNN's "State of the Union."

“The people around him had no idea that this was something he was capable of,” said Hickenlooper.

“How do you prevent this?” Hickenlooper asked host Candy Crowley.” “How do we preserve our freedoms…and all those things that define this country, and yet try to prevent something like this [from] happening? Let me tell you, there’s no easy answer. There isn’t.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hi...s/2012/07/22/id/446136?s=al&promo_code=F888-1

 

[Mass-diver]

Sadly, as we all know, assault weapons are already banned for all practical purposes

Sure you go the NFA route and get an M16 for, for what 15-20k, with the high pice being a direct result of gun control laws. But, for the average person, M4s are essentially banned and, IMO, this is disgusting.

 

[drgrant]

Sadly, as we all know, assault weapons are already banned for all practical purposes

Sure you go the NFA route and get an M16 for, for what 15-20k, with the high pice being a direct result of gun control laws. But, for the average person, M4s are essentially banned and, IMO, this is disgusting.

"Assault Weapon" isn't even a legitimate term in the gun vernacular. Nobody in the industry calls even an MG an "assault weapon". Except for the media. It's a completely made up, BS term.

"Assault Rifle" is a different story, and subject to some debate.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

"Assault Weapon" isn't even a legitimate term in the gun vernacular. Nobody in the industry calls even an MG an "assault weapon". Except for the media. It's a completely made up, BS term.

"Assault Rifle" is a different story, and subject to some debate.

-Mike

Besides, everyone knows her name is "Charlene."

(disclaimer: I don't actually name my guns... That's creepy.)

 

[Carnea]

When I hear someone use the term "Assault Rifle", I always correct them. I tell them it is just called a "rifle" until it is used to shoot someone...then it is called an "assault rifle". That usually shuts them up.

 

[cekim]

When I hear someone use the term "Assault Rifle", I always correct them. I tell them it is just called a "rifle" until it is used to shoot someone...then it is called an "assault rifle". That usually shuts them up.

I try to stay out of pedantic word games most of the time, anyone who's opinion can be swayed by whether something is called assault rifle, assault weapon, select fire rifle, semi-auto sporting rifle, etc... is not someone who's opinion offers any value to me.

As far as I am concerned, this is all a shell game the NRA tried and failed to use to soft pedal 2A rights in the 60's and beyond. They tried to shift the focus off one of the very real, but messy reasons the Constitution mentions the natural right of self defense and defense against tyrannical governments on to something more palatable (to the immature, sheltered and ignorant of history) and happy sounding like "hunter's rights."

I understand why they tried this, but as I would expect, it failed because the only way you can explain to people why such things are required is to talk openly and honestly about the realities of governance and human nature and that just isn't "pleasant conversation." It is full of ugliness and violence, but if you don't talk about it at some point, it is all too tempting to pretend it never happened and ignore very real threat of it happening again.

I don't care if you call it a "weed whacker," "edger," or "plant killing device," but if you swing it my way, we are going to have words.

 

[Donvin999]

"Assault Weapon" isn't even a legitimate term in the gun vernacular. Nobody in the industry calls even an MG an "assault weapon". Except for the media. It's a completely made up, BS term.

"Assault Rifle" is a different story, and subject to some debate.

-Mike

I though assault rifle is simply an intermediate cartridge rifle? Coming from the sturmgewehr 44 meaning storming rifle which translating roughly to assault rifle?

 

[Mass-diver]

I though assault rifle is simply an intermediate cartridge rifle? Coming from the sturmgewehr 44 meaning storming rifle which translating roughly to assault rifle?

Most people include that capability for select fire. In my book, if it can't do full auto - it's not an assault rifle.

 

[Pete85]

I though assault rifle is simply an intermediate cartridge rifle? Coming from the sturmgewehr 44 meaning storming rifle which translating roughly to assault rifle?

The traditional definition of an assault rifle is a select fire rifle, regardless of caliber. Typically they can be set to semi-auto, multiple round burst, or full auto.

The term "Assault Weapon" was then created by the anti gun crowd to describe semiautomatic rifles to make people think the two were one in the same.

 

[cekim]

The term "Assault Weapon" was then created by the anti gun crowd to describe semiautomatic rifles to make people think the two were one in the same.

Sadly, a sizeable chunk of the people doing that couldn't even tell you that an AR15 wasn't capable of full-auto before or after the ban.

The one's who could are those you really need to worry about.

 

[feralchimp]

What's a 3-month old baby doing at a midnight screening??

FWIW, my guess would be air conditioning in a poorer neighborhood.

Just incredibly sad all around. What a waste...

 

[Maxpower]

FWIW, my guess would be air conditioning in a poorer neighborhood.

Just incredibly sad all around. What a waste...

Makes sense. Midnight is typically the hottest time of the day.

 

[OPM]

Well. I just returned from the range where I and my evil black assault rifle had a workout. Turned on Fox and these numbnuts were talking about banning costumes in theaters. Meanwhile elsewhere, well over 350 people dead and thousands injured in car crashes (from the time of shooting to now). All these assault vehicles of our roads – it’s frightening.

 

[Mass-diver]

Well. I just returned from the range where I and my evil black assault rifle had a workout. Turned on Fox and these numbnuts were talking about banning costumes in theaters. Meanwhile elsewhere, well over 350 people dead and thousands injured in car crashes (from the time of shooting to now). All these assault vehicles of our roads – it’s frightening.

Yup, about 100 people die every day in the US from car crashes

 

[peshooter]

Well. I just returned from the range where I and my evil black assault rifle had a workout. Turned on Fox and these numbnuts were talking about banning costumes in theaters. Meanwhile elsewhere, well over 350 people dead and thousands injured in car crashes (from the time of shooting to now). All these assault vehicles of our roads – it’s frightening.

I made a post on facebook about this to stir the pot with some of my anti friends... 12 people is a tragedy, 30,000 people (approx number killed in car crashes yearly) is a statistic. One guy said he was "disgusted" and one girl called me an arrogant prick.

 

[OPM]

In 2003 there were 6.3 million car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people died. Or put it another way, killed in auto accidents. Yet if a plane goes down or some scumbag shoots up a gun-free zone, nation cannot stop talking about it.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1748442315001/massacre-suspects-gun-club-application-raised-red-flags

He was a poser in the gun world too. What a fu***** loser.

 

[namedpipes]

In 2003 there were 6.3 million car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people died. Or put it another way, killed in auto accidents. Yet if a plane goes down or some scumbag shoots up a gun-free zone, nation cannot stop talking about it.

Yes, but we NEED to drive. That's our American right bestowed by President Hoover.

Nobody actually NEEDS an assault weapon, except for our police departments. A deer is just as dead if you shoot it with a wood stocked rifle as with an evil black Bambi murderer. As for flying, we can always drive if we have to.

So therefore deaths due to guns (pthu!) or airplanes are notable and tragic, while deaths due to automobile crashes are understandable and no big deal.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

In 2003 there were 6.3 million car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people died. Or put it another way, killed in auto accidents. Yet if a plane goes down or some scumbag shoots up a gun-free zone, nation cannot stop talking about it.

its because cars are convienent so the people they kill doesnt matter, its the price we pay for ease of transportation (as the ANTI's) would say, for us gunowners we are just overcompensating or lack man parts all together. I was even told "what are you afraid of......man up"

 

[30Mauser]

Saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday with my wife. Theater was almost empty at 4pm, but then, it was the Sunday matinee and they were showing it on 6 screens.

Yes, I had the 1911 as always, and yes, I kept an extra-cautious eye out for weird behavior and considered a little bit more than usual what I would do if SHTF. Still, we sat smack in the middle as I always do.

ETA: the movie was pretty good, not phenomenal.

 

[peshooter]

Nobody actually NEEDS an assault weapon, except for our police departments.

Surely you are just playing devil's advocate here? Civilians owning assault rifles is vitally important for "the security of a free state".

 

[Donvin999]

Saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday with my wife. Theater was almost empty at 4pm, but then, it was the Sunday matinee and they were showing it on 6 screens.

Yes, I had the 1911 as always, and yes, I kept an extra-cautious eye out for weird behavior and considered a little bit more than usual what I would do if SHTF. Still, we sat smack in the middle as I always do.

ETA: the movie was pretty good, not phenomenal.

That poses an interesting question where would you sit for safety? Closest to the exits? Hiding in the back? Front row opposite from emergency exit door?

 

[gearjunky13]

Saw The Dark Knight Rises yesterday with my wife. Theater was almost empty at 4pm, but then, it was the Sunday matinee and they were showing it on 6 screens.

Yes, I had the 1911 as always, and yes, I kept an extra-cautious eye out for weird behavior and considered a little bit more than usual what I would do if SHTF. Still, we sat smack in the middle as I always do.

ETA: the movie was pretty good, not phenomenal.

I saw the movie Ted a fuw days before this all happened and I was carrying my 1911 as well, at the time I felt a bit like I had a tin foil hat on doing so but now I'm happy I did

 

[cekim]

That poses an interesting question where would you sit for safety? Closest to the exits? Hiding in the back? Front row opposite from emergency exit door?

This question is incomplete without discussing the defensive perimeter...

 

[Pete85]

That poses an interesting question where would you sit for safety? Closest to the exits? Hiding in the back? Front row opposite from emergency exit door?

That would depend on the setup of the theater. Consider the Randolph theater where both the main entrance/exit and the emergency exit are toward the front of the theater, and the theater has stadium seating. Sitting toward the back, up high, you'd have a decent amount of time to react, some minimal cover available, and the advantage of being up high and having a relatively clear LOS to the target.

It would be different if you had the traditional style theater with seats on mild incline where you don't have the advantage of elevation.

Sad that this even needs to be a consideration.

 

[mikem317]

Nobody actually NEEDS an assault weapon, except for our police departments. A deer is just as dead if you shoot it with a wood stocked rifle as with an evil black Bambi murderer. As for flying, we can always drive if we have to.

My sarcasm meter is currently being serviced, so I'm not sure if you're being serious.

This is a common refrain by Fudds and Antis: "Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle for hunting deer." And they're right. But they should be corrected. AR-15s (and semi-automatic rifles in general) are a check against a would-be tyrant from assuming king-like power and then running amok (think issuing an Executive Order dissolving Congress, the Constitution and the SCOTUS and begin herding civilians into FEMA camps).

 

[namedpipes]

Technically, our right to travel extends to travelling in an automobile for private use. What is a privilege, is operating or driving a motor vehicle. Legally, there is a big difference. An automobile is for private use by private citizens and it is the right of citizens to use them on public roadways. Being the operator and or driver of a motor vehicle is a completely commercial endeavor. This is why they call motor vehicles on the road "traffic". By getting a driver's license and registering your car at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, you are stating that you are driving an automobile for commercial purposes and agreeing to the regulations and taxation that comes with owning and using a commercial vehicle on public roads.

This is much like filling out the W4 and declaring yourself a federal employee of the United States (which is a corporation) rather than just being a citizen of the United States of America (which is our republic) earning non-taxable wages.

I know, good like convincing .gov that is the case. However, that is the (federal) law.

While my post about driving being a right given by Hoover was mostly poking at our American viewpoint of car ownership, I am intrigued with the way you phrased that. Are you saying you believe "we have a natural right to drive on public roads" and it only become a priv if we seek a driver's license and registration?

I actually have some mixed feelings about the restrictions we have on driving. Take the Amish. Should they be required to install headlamps, turn signals and horns, and register their horse drawn wagons as vehicles? Sure they use the public roads but that's only because we went and paved them all. They certainly did not support the conversion of their woodland wagon paths into roads and highways.

Surely you are just playing devil's advocate here? Civilians owning assault rifles is vitally important for "the security of a free state".

My sarcasm meter is currently being serviced, so I'm not sure if you're being serious.

My post was positively sopping wet with sarcasm. Until my actions materially other people's rights, the social contract (our government) should not limit what I may own or do. Or you. I'm quite annoyed that I can't own (or even make) a machine gun without jumping through hoops and hoping some bureaucrat doesn't deny me for an unpaid parking ticket.

 

[namedpipes]

Basically, the way laws are written on the federal level, it supports the notion that we have the right to travel on the roads we pay for. Traveling in an automobile for private purposes should have no more regulation than walking or riding a bike in the same roads. The laws define travelling in an automobile as being vastly different from driving or operating a MV.

While I can agree there could be a reasonable distinction between private and commercial use of the roads, I wouldn't want to be the test case.