Mass shooting at Batman premiere in Colorado.

I would have meep my pants and run like cheetah.

Anti-rights hand wringers claim that there are an atrocious 972.653 guns per U.S. citizen, yet not one peaceable, law-abiding, movie goer-- in a theater full of them --thought to whip out one of those guns from their personal arsenal and shoot back.

Or maybe they did think about it, but just weren't carrying because the laws that are written by anti-rights hand wringers are only effective at deterring peaceable, law-abiding from owning and carrying.

Or maybe every sensible person in the theater _was _responsibly prepared to take down a deranged whack-job with an assault weapon; but they were all actually all good with the "massacre"--after all, you should get what you deserve when you bring a baby to a movie theater. Maybe all the hue and cry is just coming from morally retarded hand-wringers who (for the common good) demand that they are entitled by right to impose upon the rest of humanity their sanctimonious social-awareness, dietary restrictions, proletariat philanthropy, superstitions, victim-power centered self-esteem, irresponsible brain chemistry alterations, personal finance experiments, and babies ... without consequence.

Never mind. everything is OK now.

Warner Bros., Celebs React to Colorado Movie Theater Shooting

cause its all been working up to this point, right?

I guess I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.

Loki,

Its too bad that you weren't in the theater.... you would have saved everyone!

or

you would have been a mangled mass of blood and bone on the theater floor.

Discerning Swarmers can choose their own story ending for you. Loki-make-believe-land or reality.

i knew this story would bring out loki...

i'm sure he would've been the hero that saved everyone with his peacemaker, or he might just have shot some people in his heroic attempt, either way it proves that gun laws are bad or something

Whatever it is you're talking about here, it only makes sense in your own "make-believe-land."

@BigDinWaunakee

Loki, Its too bad that you weren't in the theater.... you would have saved everyone! or you would have been a mangled mass of blood and bone on the theater floor. Discerning Swarmers can choose their own story ending for you. Loki-make-believe-land or reality.

I was going to go see it last night, but I decided to wait for the crowds to die down.

LOL!

@teh_blintz0r

I was going to go see it last night, but I decided to wait for the crowds to die down.

lolz.... straight to meep

It comes down to this (L0ki take note):

If having less (or no) restrictions on fire arm ownership makes for a safer society, then the US would have the least victims of gun violence in the world. The opposite is true.

If having more restrictive gun laws resulted in more victims of gun violence (because people could not defend themselves), then Canada would have a higher rate of gun violence victims than you have the US. The opposite is true.

There is no need to spin silly rationalizations about what would or might happen if gun control laws were implemented in the US, there are statistics and facts from all over the world that make the results obvious.

It comes down to this (meeproach take note):

You obtusely miss my point. You're an idiot.

@meeproach

It comes down to this (L0ki take note): If having less (or no) restrictions on fire arm ownership makes for a safer society, then the US would have the least victims of gun violence in the world. The opposite is true. If having more restrictive gun laws resulted in more victims of gun violence (because people could not defend themselves), then Canada would have a higher rate of gun violence victims than you have the US. The opposite is true. There is no need to spin silly rationalizations about what would or might happen if gun control laws were implemented in the US, there are statistics and facts from all over the world that make the results obvious.

If I missed yer point I apologize (although it's not a very clear one).

Anyway, my point still stands.

This is the real problem here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/crucial-conversations/201204/the-media-is-accomplice-in-school-shootings

No. Your point is meaningless.

@meeproach

If I missed yer point I apologize (although it's not a very clear one). Anyway, my point still stands.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

@LOki

If you say so. Enjoy your violent society.

Gun control tends to reduce gun crime, not violent crime, and once you start banning things because they can be used for violence, the logical slide down into UK-land is inevitable.

After banning guns there, gun crime dropped, and knife crime skyrocketed as all of the people who would've shot their fellow man just started sticking knives into them instead. So, of course, the only logical thing to do is to crack down meep the sale of knives!

I suppose next it will be golf clubs.

Though admittedly, I suspect there would be a great deal fewer body bags coming out of that theater if that guy had gone in there with a golf club.

somebody jiggle the lokibait a little.

There's a lot of guns in Canada and really only one mass shooting of significance, excluding historical Indian massacres. I think is more about the culture rather than the availability of weapons. Were there any mass shootings prior to Whitman in Austin in 1966?

@teh_blintz0r

I am not so sure about your arguement regarding knives.

We have the extreme gun control here, to the point that these days it is very hard for an honest man to own a gun. (The really bad guys don't seem to have as much trouble.) Knife crime didn't escalate all that much,(we never had that many guns here to start with) but they did crack down on knives anyway, and it is now illegal to carry anything bigger than a three inch blade in public here. (Switchblades were always illegal). We now have the situation where people are holding up shops armed with a lump of 2x4, but you can't kill too many people with a club, and shop owners don't pay that much attention to them either.
We made guns a lot harder to get after this , and do not have these random acts of violence against strangers that seem to occur with depressing regularity in the US. Gun crime here tends to be confined to the 'criminal classes' and seems to mainly be used as a means of solving disputes between bad guys, not against the general public. If a weapon (not a version of club) is used against a stranger, it is most often a car or a kitchen knife.

Gun control does work to stop this sort of crime.

@middle_age_man

This could be a large part of it as well. Unfortunately, we in Australia will never get to find out.

...when you pry it from my cold dead hands...

I'm not really in favor of gun control in the US. I'm a huge fan of American on American violence.

Here here!

BAHAHA! I just read at crooksandliars.com that "In 2006, there were 30,896 deaths due to firearms in the United States. This equates to an average of 85 deaths due to firearms each day. " THAT'S meepING AWESOME!!!!

And then, to amuse me further, RIGHT BELOW THAT, the weekly "In Memoriam" bit lists the 12 victims along with 9 service members who died in Afghanistan. That gun loving American killed more of his own countrymen in one day than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban managed all week!

Remember, America: shooting each other is not just your right, it's my pleasure!

@meeproach

I'm not really in favor of gun control in the US. I'm a huge fan of American on American violence. <<br />
If only you could get the right ones (Hint- they occupy penthouse offices on Wall St).

BigDinWaunakee has no valid refutation of the point I make, which is precisely why he resorts to suggesting I have a gun-blazing hero-fantasy that I wish to have fulfilled.

meeproache's submission is idiotic in that any point made that follows the pattern of "Lack of canoe regulations on lakes causes drownings, whereas strict canoe regulations in the desert is proven to prevent them", is just going to be a meaningless point for obvious reasons.

Anti-rights asshats like these two refuse to admit that the reason their "reasonable" gun control laws are ineffective at deterring violent crime, and only effective at deterring reasonable folks from having the most effective tools for self-defense is that their laws are deliberately designed to be that way.

They have no interest in preventing events like this--they cheer them on as being new levers by which they can advance their agenda of disarming more potential victims of their sanctimonious (and not coincidentally self-serving) notions of what's best for their fellow human beings.

The fact of the matter is that we HAVE gun control laws in this country, and just as this latest business has proven, they are not effective. I am just saying that their lack of effectiveness not due to a failure to be strict enough--they're plenty strict. They're not effective because they target the WRONG PEOPLE. They deter good people; not criminals. They encourage criminals to commit crimes, while placing obstacles in the path to guns for good folks who are best positioned to defend themselves with guns. This is done deliberately.

Gun control laws are not about public safety, or preventing any kind of crime ... gun control laws are about controlling YOU.

@LOki

LOki said - "The fact of the matter is that we HAVE gun control laws in this country, and just as this latest business has proven, they are not effective. I am just saying that their lack of effectiveness not due to a failure to be strict enough--they're plenty strict. They're not effective because they target the WRONG PEOPLE. They deter good people; not criminals. They encourage criminals to commit crimes, while placing obstacles in the path to guns for good folks who are best positioned to defend themselves with guns. This is done deliberately."

Your point here is wrong. The perp in this case was 'good people' by all the relevant measuring sticks- he had no criminal record and no known history of mental illness, but that didn't stop him from going postal in a cinema. All of his weapons and ammunition were legally purchased.

Where your gun-control has meeped up is in making AR-15's with 100-round drum magazines legal for any idiot in the street to buy. Why the meep do you need to have a legal military weapon? Sure, a good sub-machine-gun (or even an ordinary one like the old F1) is fun to shoot, but really.

LOki said - "Gun control laws are not about public safety, or preventing any kind of crime ... gun control laws are about controlling YOU."

Also wrong. Control laws are about reducing the number of guns in the street, and making life easier for law-enforcement by making guns actually on the street the possessions of bad guys. Control laws do this by making the good guys transport their guns in locked cases in the trunk of their car, not concealed on their person. Ultimately, control laws are about making the only people who have legal guns the people who need them - LEO's, hunters, farmers etc. rather than any random ticking time-bomb on two legs.

Hey, its Loki Atwater. The King of obfuscation disguised as intellectual discourse. Unlike Lee A, Loki didn't die of a brain tumor (yet).

PS... BIG BROTHER just PMd me that last sentence and threatened me with unspeakable violence unless I wrote it. They also said something about coming for you and your LokiWoman and LokiSpawn. Best hole up in that back-yard bunker ASAP. Please write to let us know of your status.

@LOki

You're a fool. If everyone in that dim theater was packing a gun there would have been twice the number of dead and injured -more if they each had 100 round magazines.

You can (and probably do) believe every retarded justification there is for lax gun laws but the fact remains guns are dangerous to have around. More guns = more deaths and injuries (accidental or otherwise).

Example of your retarded logic: You label me an "Anti-rights meep", it's the opposite. I believe in my right-to-life so strongly that it trumps your right to carry a gun in the public spaces we share. Life, Liberty, Happiness - in that order.
Your liberty to bear arms which makes you so happy, (not YOUR arms, specifically, but your right to them) causes thousands of people to loose their right to life every year.

I can only hope that Loki attends an event involving such a tragedy. Since he is UberMan, sitting squarely in the arc of fire won't be a problem for him. Hopefully, the spawn and family aren't with him.

Afterwards, he can regale us with his heroic tales made possible by the right to carry laws. Or we can request pictures of his decimated meat sack.

Regardless of the outcome, I will have a drink and have a good laugh.

PS ... BIG BROTHER did not make me write that.

I can only hope that Loki attends an event involving such a tragedy. Since he is UberMan, sitting squarely in the arc of fire won't be a problem for him. Hopefully, the spawn and family aren't with him.

Afterwards, he can regale us with his heroic tales made possible by the right to carry laws. Or we can request pictures of his decimated meat sack.

Regardless of the outcome, I will have a drink and have a good laugh.

PS ... BIG BROTHER did not make me write that.

That was definitely worth a dubble post.

@dragonstaff

dragonstaff:

LOki said - "The fact of the matter is that we HAVE gun control laws in this country, and just as this latest business has proven, they are not effective. I am just saying that their lack of effectiveness not due to a failure to be strict enough--they're plenty strict. They're not effective because they target the WRONG PEOPLE. They deter good people; not criminals. They encourage criminals to commit crimes, while placing obstacles in the path to guns for good folks who are best positioned to defend themselves with guns. This is done deliberately."

Your point here is wrong. The perp in this case was 'good people' by all the relevant measuring sticks- he had no criminal record and no known history of mental illness, but that didn't stop him from going postal in a cinema. All of his weapons and ammunition were legally purchased.

This actually make my broader point (that gun control laws are inherently misapplied and ineffective) rather well.

dragonstaff: Where your gun-control has meeped up is in making AR-15's with 100-round drum magazines legal for any idiot in the street to buy.

But it's not legal for any idiot in the street to buy an AR-15 with a 100-round drum magazine.

dragonstaff:Why the meep do you need to have a legal military weapon? Sure, a good sub-machine-gun (or even an ordinary one like the old F1) is fun to shoot, but really.

What you think someone else needs is entirely irrelevant--and it's rather presumptuous of you to imagine that you're qualified to be the judge of what others need, and what they should have bsed upon such judgement.

The better question is, what is it about YOU that says that YOU should not be allowed to possess a machine gun? What is it about YOU that is so deranged, that others must forcibly prevent YOU from possessing a machine gun? And why do YOU insist that everyone else has the same weakness of character and lack of self control?

dragonstaff:

LOki said - "Gun control laws are not about public safety, or preventing any kind of crime ... gun control laws are about controlling YOU."

Also wrong. Control laws are about reducing the number of guns in the street, and making life easier for law-enforcement by making guns actually on the street the possessions of bad guys.

Well, apparently I am NOT wrong then. Thank you for validating my point.

dragonstaff: [Gun] Control laws do this by making the good guys transport their guns in locked cases in the trunk of their car, not concealed on their person.

See? "Bad Guy" is just someone that doesn't want the whole world to see his gun. "Bad Guy" means anybody who is prepared and capable of using a gun for any reason what-so-ever--even if it is used in the defense of his own life or the lives of others. Thank you again for making my point.

dragonstaff:Ultimately, control laws are about making the only people who have legal guns the people who need them - LEO's, hunters, farmers etc. rather than any random ticking time-bomb on two legs.

Obviously not. OBVIOUSLY.

And thank you as well, for validating my point about you.

@BigDinWaunakee

meeproach:
You're a fool. If everyone in that dim theater was packing a gun there would have been twice the number of dead and injured -more if they each had 100 round magazines.

meeproach:
You can (and probably do) believe every retarded justification there is for lax gun laws but the fact remains guns are dangerous to have around.

meeproach:
More guns = more deaths and injuries (accidental or otherwise).

meeproach:
Example of your retarded logic: You label me an "Anti-rights meep", it's the opposite.

meeproach:
I believe in my right-to-life so strongly that it trumps your right to carry a gun in the public spaces we share. Life, Liberty, Happiness - in that order.

meeproach:
Your liberty to bear arms which makes you so happy, (not YOUR arms, specifically, but your right to them) causes thousands of people to loose their right to life every year.

Nope. Not true in any sense. My right to bear arms has cost not one single life ever. EVER!

Have a nice day anti-rights meep!
@meeproach

@LOki

Your personal right may not have cost any lives yet, because you have not personally killed anyone yet, but the right to bear arms as applied to the general populace has killed hundreds, and added twelve more to the tally last weekend in Colorado.

dragonstaff:
Your personal right may not have cost any lives yet, because you have not personally killed anyone yet, but the right to bear arms as applied to the general populace has killed hundreds, and added twelve more to the tally last weekend in Colorado.

Nope. Not one life. Not even one; certainly not hundreds; and certainly not twelve last weekend in Colorado.

@dragonstaff