Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More importantly did we ever find out what movie they were there to see? You know maybe it was one of those violent shoot'em up types with lots of blood and gore and killing... that has an impact too you know
My mistake for assuming the obvious, that criminals will always find a way to break the law.
Who said this guy was a criminal, well at least not until he criminally shot someone? No until proven otherwise, this was a good guy with a gun just before he became a bad guy with a gun.
Do the ammosexuals consider this a "good guy" with a gun or a "bad guy" with a gun? Does anyone really believe this is what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect - the rights of a drunk idiot to carry his gun into a movie theater and shoot innocent people?
Why are liberals so obsessed with sex? Overcompensating for something, or just afraid someone might find out how pathetic you are?
Every 52 minutes someone is injured by a drunk driver, over a million people a year are arrested for drunk driving. Does anyone believe this is what the 21st amendment was designed to protect? The rights of a drunk idiot to drive on public streets and run over innocent people?
Of course hopolophobic ignorant anti gun nuts don't really care about saving lives or protecting people so it's a moot point.
That's not really a good analogy. Cars are meant for transportation. Guns are designed specifically and exclusively for killing people (and other animals occasionally).
Don't you anti gun nuts ever get tired of being wrong? I guess not since you repeat the same old wrong lies and propaganda in every single thread that even mentions a gun.
I am a numbers guy as well, or so many who know me will be quick to confirm, but I think you miss the obvious here, with or without the numbers...
We can't possibly know how many people (with good or bad intent) do not bring guns into a gun screened area as a result of knowing there is that screen. Like at the airport, be reasonable. Surely you know and/or have to admit that a metal detector is a pretty solid deterrent that keeps guns from crossing that line of screening. Do you need numbers to be convinced of that? I surely hope not, but if so, please confirm before I consider this argument any further.
Or maybe simply look at the money being spent to provide that sort of security, whether at the airports or entertainment centers, like concert arenas, and call all those folks putting up the money for that security somehow not justified for doing so. Maybe you know better? I don't think so, numbers readily available for that or not.
Can't really know, by the numbers, how many kids would have drowned had they not been taught to swim before getting in the water, but really? We need numbers to figure out whether these preventative measures are worthy?
Good we quantify where/when possible, certainly where/when necessary, but not always.
Hopefully we can agree on that as most people do I think...
Your metal detector theory would be great if lots of people were getting accidentally shot in public. They don't though, in probability land, getting accidentally shot in a no gun zone is down there with getting struck by lightning.
The cost vs safety ratio is stupid high, it would be like setting up mandatory lightning safety video terminals at entrances. Sure, you might save 2 lives across the US for the hundreds of millions it would cost, but that money would be much better spent fighting obesity or malpractice.
You want to be scared of something? Sepsis. That preventable condition kills thousands of times more people per year than all gun accidents combined.
I was next to you yesterday in the grocery store. Did you feel threatened?
Were you that guy with the nervous twitch forever looking around as if being hunted? Had I known you had a gun as well, especially if I had seen it exposed, I would have felt threatened, but I didn't see any guns around me, so I didn't think about guns, at all. I think that's the last thing most people want to think about in general, at the store or anywhere else. I certainly don't think about guns in general other than when visiting these threads. I feel sorry for all these folks I've come to "know" here who it seems are always packing with the strong belief they should. Somebody in one of these threads even wrote they don't go to a theater or anywhere else that doesn't allow guns. I wonder how his wife feels about that or if my wife should feel I am any less a man or protector, because I am not always feeling a gun fight is just around the corner.
Someone else even just asked this question and made this comment, "Why are liberals so obsessed with sex? Overcompensating for something, or just afraid someone might find out how pathetic you are?"
I didn't know liberals were obsessed with sex. I thought sex was pretty much a bi-partisan supported activity, but either way..., that sex might somehow "overcompensate" for something is something new to me too. As I try to make sense of these notions, I will confess that I often suspect that men pack a gun more because of the way it makes them feel, not so much because of any real result or outcome, and why not? We all want to feel stronger, safer, more powerful, better. Some people work out to become more buff. Others like big fast powerful cars. Too bad that so many people look to guns to fulfill those same sorts of emotions as well, but "whatever gets you through the day" as they say...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.