RE: Theater Shooting...

[Countersteer]

I am thankful that so many men of Aurora, Colorado in the theater that fateful evening were armed and ready to defend not only their lives but the lives of others. Without their prompt action in a time of crisis I am certain that many more would have lost their lives or been seriously injured.

What a great country we live in, with a Constitution that insures our right to protect ourselves and those we love; where logic prevails over emotion. It is terrible circumstances such as this that ensures our right to bear arms!

[backinthesaddleagain]

Tragic event

[Heed]

The guy reportedly had an AR-15, a 12 gauge, glock, bullet proof vest, a gas mask.

How does a psycho like this obtain such hardware?

[Countersteer]

Originally Posted by Heed

How does a psycho like this obtain such hardware?

James Holmes had no criminal history.

[Gorilla25]

The only thing they found on his record was a speeding ticket

[Heed]

Originally Posted by Countersteer

James Holmes had no criminal history.

lmao. I know it's an ignorant question. it's so phucked how easily you can get a weapon. It's probably more difficult to get a drivers license (slightly exaggerating)

but I guess if I really wanted to shoot up a movie theatre bad enough I could get a gun no problem.

[Apex]

Do you think the guy would have went to shoot up a theater if he KNEW that 90% of the people had firearms? Most likely not (but hey, you never know, there are some crazy people out there). Back in the day, everyone knew how to shoot, and guns weren't what killed people, people killed people.

Nobody feared the gun, they feared the people who held them. Safety in numbers. Most of the general public would not use a gun unless life or death. If most of the GP carried, the small percentage that are criminals would think twice about pulling out a gun and holding you up or mindlessly shooting anything that had a pulse in sight.

That is my opinion of course, so lets not draw this into a gun debate. okthxbye.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Apex

That is my opinion of course, so lets not draw this into a gun debate. okthxbye.

Cuz that clearly wasn't the point of this thread.

[Jono]

This guy was so crazy but had a clean record. It is quite scary how insane some people can be. The man obviously needed help. I wonder if anybody knew that the shooter might be troubled.

I think we need some stricter laws on buying guns. Apparently he bought all these guns and ammo within 60 days. How is that not like a red flag? Doesn't anybody look at this. I think Heed might be right when he said it is harder to get a drivers license in this country. But I guess it doesn't matter. If someone wants a gun they can get one. Legally or illegally.

I think when I turn 21 I am going to get a handgun and then try to get a CCW permit. I want to be able to protect my ass from crazies!

[Apex]

Well, I have a few friends who buy and sell more than what he did in that time frame. I think you could have a general law, for the GP, that allows one gun every 6-months. Then if you want to be able to purchase more than that, you have to get a license. That license would result in a big bkgnd check, etc.

On a side note, a guy who has two kids that he is going to take hunting for the first time walks into a gun shop. He get a new rifle, and a rifle for each kid. That is 3 right there. Stuff like that happens all the time, yet that is acceptable. 99.9999% of the time, when multiples are purchased, it isn't to gun people down, it is because the person simply wants them. Maybe they just won a little lotto money and put it towards firearms, because it is their hobby. Lots of situations, can't guard against the remote few that try to screw things up for the others.


So are we to have a psych examination to determine who is fit/unfit to own a firearm? Doubtful, because then the NRA would state that if you require a psych exam for firearms, then you need one to hold a DL (which honestly, some people could use a little psych help behind the wheel), to vote, to claim unemployment, etc. That would be a bit of a reach. LOL Man that would SUCK!!! I could imagine the pile of paperwork you'd have just to renew your license. Bring a tote of paper to the DMV to renew. haha

It is fun playing politician...I wonder what will be created to earn votes in the upcoming election?

[Monkeytofu]

Not sure if this is a bait/troll thread.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Heed

lmao. I know it's an ignorant question. it's so phucked how easily you can get a weapon. It's probably more difficult to get a drivers license (slightly exaggerating)

but I guess if I really wanted to shoot up a movie theatre bad enough I could get a gun no problem.

The other way of looking at it is if they're easy to get then the normal people will have them, I'm from a country where handguns are totally banned, centre fire rifle permits are very difficult to get, and shotguns are easy enough to get. Possession of even a single unlicenced bullet can get you 10 years.

However:

Every criminal has easy access to a pistol, I could make 3-4 phone calls and have one within an hour, the bigger gangs have SMGs & assault rifles, for the right amount you can rent one for a few hours/days on the condition that if you fire it you bought it.

RIP to the dead, hope the injured make a quick recovery & the guy who done it dies roaring & on fire

[Countersteer]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Not sure if this is a bait/troll thread.

When you make a determination, please let me know...

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Jono

This guy was so crazy but had a clean record. It is quite scary how insane some people can be. The man obviously needed help. I wonder if anybody knew that the shooter might be troubled.

I think we need some stricter laws on buying guns. Apparently he bought all these guns and ammo within 60 days. How is that not like a red flag? Doesn't anybody look at this. I think Heed might be right when he said it is harder to get a drivers license in this country. But I guess it doesn't matter. If someone wants a gun they can get one. Legally or illegally.

I think when I turn 21 I am going to get a handgun and then try to get a CCW permit. I want to be able to protect my ass from crazies!

You already have a 10 day waiting period to buy a gun. Even if there was a 6 month waiting period psychopaths like this would still be able to build up the arsenal they need to commit such an act.

The ten day waiting period protects against "Hey you asshole I'm going to buy a gun and shoot because of said assholery." Asshole #1 will be protected because asshole #2 will have ten days to rethink his decision of killing him (unless he already owns a gun )

The ten day waiting period (or any waiting period) does not protect anyone from the psychopath that has a vendetta against the world because some 12 year old pulled his pants down in middle school. He is going to scheme and plan for years and years. This guy has probably been planning this since high school.

My point is gun laws won't protect anyone against people like this. Even in countries with complete bans on guns these people still find ways to commit mass murders.

[lostdaemon]

The shooter had been building up his arsenal and armor collection since at least May, legally it seems.

[slickt0mmy]

This is my first post, although I've been lurking for quite some time.

I think what a lot of you are overlooking is that gun laws only affect the law abiding. The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn't care about laws. So how is making more gun laws going to stop them? It won't. It only affects people like that hypothetical father someone above me mentioned, wanting to purchase some recreational rifles for him and his two sons.

Anyone hell-bent on killing people is going to find a way. Whether it be with firearms, explosives, baseball bats, knives, or any number of items we generally don't think of as weapons, such as airliners (ie: 9/11). They're already set on murder, so to think a few gun laws is going to stop them is simply foolish.

That being said, my personal view is that an armed society is a polite society. If more people had their concealed carry permits, we would see a decrease in crime (which studies show is actually the case). Would you want to go shoot up a theater full of people with pistols under their shirts? I know I wouldn't. Knowing people are armed (or the possibility of them being armed) keeps everyone polite.

I read one report of a woman who said she was literally within arms reach of the shooter in the theater. She was standing there watching him fire at the crowd. Now imagine if that woman had a firearm with her and was trained in the usage of that firearm. The whole ordeal would have been over in seconds and lives would have been saved. Unfortunately, no one in the theater had a firearm (apparently) and what we're left with is around 12 dead and who knows how many injured.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

If more people had their concealed carry permits, we would see a decrease in crime (which studies show is actually the case).

Bullshit. Post them or link to them, and the faulty logic and/or math will be clear to all.

[ally99]

Originally Posted by Alex

Bullshit. Post them or link to them, and the faulty logic and/or math will be clear to all.

Lol! Call it, Alex!

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Jono

This guy was so crazy but had a clean record. It is quite scary how insane some people can be. The man obviously needed help. I wonder if anybody knew that the shooter might be troubled.

cant tell what people are going through...or what makes them snap...
just have to prepare yourself when it happens.

Originally Posted by Jono

I think when I turn 21 I am going to get a handgun and then try to get a CCW permit. I want to be able to protect my ass from crazies!

that sounds like a pretty good idea.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

My point is gun laws won't protect anyone against people like this. Even in countries with complete bans on guns these people still find ways to commit mass murders.

well, the guy did pick a place where no guns were allowed on premises.
the people did not have a chance to defend themselves....

[PistolPete93]

Originally Posted by Alex

Bullshit. Post them or link to them, and the faulty logic and/or math will be clear to all.

I can't tell if you are serious?

http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-owne...43.html?cat=17

32,885 people died in car accidents last year in the US. 8,775 were killed by firearms.

Why is it so easy to get a driver's license? Seriously? There are so many dumb asses on the road. Should we ban cars? They seem to be more dangerous than firearms.

[slickt0mmy]

Originally Posted by Alex

Bullshit. Post them or link to them, and the faulty logic and/or math will be clear to all.

Here you go.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6_1_screen.pdf
Starting from page 9 should set you on the right track.

You also may want to check out John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

And here's an article addressing the fact that the FBI's crime statistics show a 4% drop in crime, despite gun ownership soaring. Hardly a "study", like what you asked for, but still interesting none the less.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/m...violent-crime/

[Alex]

Originally Posted by PistolPete93

I can't tell if you are serious?

Stay on topic and I'll continue to point out where you're wrong. Attack me personally and I'll either leave or close the thread. Your choice.

Originally Posted by PistolPete93

http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-owne...43.html?cat=17

Except for that fact what you posted isn't true, it makes for a great story:

The Kennesaw, Georgia Gun Violence Reduction Myth

Originally Posted by PistolPete93

32,885 people died in car accidents last year in the US. 8,775 were killed by firearms.

And this is relevant because...

Originally Posted by PistolPete93

Why is it so easy to get a driver's license? Seriously? There are so many dumb asses on the road. Should we ban cars? They seem to be more dangerous than firearms.

Oh - I get it. Dumbasses drive cars and it's easy for them to get a license, so clearly that should translate to it being a good idea for dumbasses to have easy access to guns.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Heed

but I guess if I really wanted to shoot up a movie theatre bad enough I could get a gun no problem.

hopefully somebody will be there to stop you,
if you decide to go down that path.

[adouglas]

Common misconception: It's easier to get gun than a driver's license. Go try it and find out the truth.

Where i live I had to jump through a ton of intrusive hoops and wait months to get my permit. That included personal references from my employer, a clean record, notarized documents, putting fingerprints and photos on file with the police, etc. etc.

Gun control DOES exist. There IS a system and in my experience, it's strict enough. Personally I believe that the existing laws need to be made more consistent, with CCW reciprocity, etc.

The fact that a system exists is not going to stop an insane person bent on killing people from getting a weapon. If he can't do it legally, he'll do it illegally. Criminals are armed even in countries and US locations where gun control is very strict (UK, New York, DC, Chicago, etc. etc.)

Crime is not rampant in places in the US where there is a strong gun culture. Yes it does exist. But does it go through the roof where gun ownership is commonplace? You tell me. I don't think so.

Take Vermont. Not exactly a hotbed of gun violence. You don't need a CCW permit there.

Take Illinois. CCW is BANNED there. So, anyone here from Chicago? How's the crime rate these days? Got a gang violence problem?

Alex, you call BS on the claim that more guns equal less crime. Prove your point. Cite an objective study where the reverse is shown to be true. I've looked into this, and the stats are muddy at best because crime is complex and driven by much more than gun ownership.

It's possible to spin the data twelve different ways to suit your view. The basic problem I ran into is that all of the information you find comes from partisan sources with an axe to grind one way or the other. They cherry-pick to prove their point.

I have a CCW permit and several firearms, which I enjoy shooting in different kinds of competition and also carry for personal protection because I live near a high-crime area. I also buy ammo when it's on sale… so yeah, I've bought 500 rounds of handgun ammo at a time and stored it in my safe. How is that a red flag?

You may ask why I have several firearms… why I need more than one. Same reason I own a pair of nice shoes, a pair of motorcycle boots, some sneakers, some golf shoes, some sandals and a pair of work boots. So I own five guns. How is that a red flag?

Sheer speculation, but it occurs to me that if this guy hadn't been able to get a gun, he could have just filled a gallon jug with gasoline, stuffed a rag in the neck, lit it and chucked it in the door. Or waited for the movie to let out and run over a dozen people as they left the theater using his car. Someone bent on mass murder will find a way. It may prove more difficult than opening up on a crowd with an AK47, but it'll still happen. A mass murderer isn't going be deterred by inconvenience.

The whole gun debate to me really boils down to blaming the implement, not the person wielding it.

[slickt0mmy]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Common misconception: It's easier to get gun than a driver's license. Go try it and find out the truth......

Great post. Especially about the stats part. I was hesitant to even mention the studies in my first post because statistics and studies can be found for both sides of the argument and really don't ever prove anything or change anybody's mind. It just becomes a game of who can find more stats that agree with their point of view.

Also, great point about the ammo. When I find a sale, I buy in bulk. It's not uncommon for me to have a couple thousand rounds of each caliber I own. If some people would have their way, I'd immediately be put on some watch list because of that, when in reality, I just want to save money.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

Here you go.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...6_1_screen.pdf
Starting from page 9 should set you on the right track.

Read it through again yourself. The statement was that more CCW's would make society more polite and and end up with a lower crime rate. The vast majority of those cherry-picked statistics in that section instead are trying to prove that things don't get worse with more CCW's, and the vast majority of people getting CCW's aren't going to commit a crime.

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

You also may want to check out John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime".

I know his findings have been discredited. You know his findings have been discredited. Why are we recommending his books again?

From his own wiki page:

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[24] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[25] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[26]
Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[27] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[28]

Some more:

Lott first gained fame in the 1990s for his claim that the passage of laws allowing for the concealed carry of handguns causes levels of violent crime to drop -- a claim that hassince been debunked. Lott has since been convincingly alleged to have fabricated data to claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses don't involve the firing of a weapon, cited data that doesn't exist to claim that the end of the assault weapons ban reduced murders, altered blog posts after the fact to eliminate false claims for which he had been criticized, and invented facts that don't appear in a study he cited, among other instances of fabricated, misrepresented, and sloppy research.

Notably, as the Times noted in 2006, Lott "acknowledged in 2003 using the online pseudonym 'Mary Rosh' for more than three years to attack his critics and praise his own work."

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

And here's an article addressing the fact that the FBI's crime statistics show a 4% drop in crime, despite gun ownership soaring. Hardly a "study", like what you asked for, but still interesting none the less.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/m...violent-crime/

Tying those two things together could not be more tenuous, as the wording even within the article makes clear. It also jumps interchangeably between more guns sold meaning more concealed carry permits, which isn't shown by the article either.

[slickt0mmy]

Originally Posted by Alex

Read it through again yourself. The statement was that more CCW's would make society more polite and and end up with a lower crime rate.....

As I said before, statistics can be found for both sides and arguments can be made for both. If you'd like, you can post some statistics about concealed carry being the cause of a rise in crime. I'll discredit those and then we can repeat the process over again until we tire of the thread. Personally, I'd rather just agree to disagree.

[WOTurtle]

Originally Posted by adouglas

common misconception: It's easier to get gun than a driver's license. Go try it and find out the truth.

Where i live i had to jump through a ton of intrusive hoops and wait months to get my permit. That included personal references from my employer, a clean record, notarized documents, putting fingerprints and photos on file with the police, etc. Etc.

Gun control does exist. There is a system and in my experience, it's strict enough. Personally i believe that the existing laws need to be made more consistent, with ccw reciprocity, etc.

The fact that a system exists is not going to stop an insane person bent on killing people from getting a weapon. If he can't do it legally, he'll do it illegally. Criminals are armed even in countries and us locations where gun control is very strict (uk, new york, dc, chicago, etc. Etc.)

crime is not rampant in places in the us where there is a strong gun culture. Yes it does exist. But does it go through the roof where gun ownership is commonplace? You tell me. I don't think so.

Take vermont. Not exactly a hotbed of gun violence. You don't need a ccw permit there.

Take illinois. Ccw is banned there. So, anyone here from chicago? How's the crime rate these days? Got a gang violence problem?

Alex, you call bs on the claim that more guns equal less crime. Prove your point. Cite an objective study where the reverse is shown to be true. I've looked into this, and the stats are muddy at best because crime is complex and driven by much more than gun ownership.

It's possible to spin the data twelve different ways to suit your view. The basic problem i ran into is that all of the information you find comes from partisan sources with an axe to grind one way or the other. They cherry-pick to prove their point.

I have a ccw permit and several firearms, which i enjoy shooting in different kinds of competition and also carry for personal protection because i live near a high-crime area. I also buy ammo when it's on sale… so yeah, i've bought 500 rounds of handgun ammo at a time and stored it in my safe. How is that a red flag?

You may ask why i have several firearms… why i need more than one. Same reason i own a pair of nice shoes, a pair of motorcycle boots, some sneakers, some golf shoes, some sandals and a pair of work boots. So i own five guns. How is that a red flag?

Sheer speculation, but it occurs to me that if this guy hadn't been able to get a gun, he could have just filled a gallon jug with gasoline, stuffed a rag in the neck, lit it and chucked it in the door. Or waited for the movie to let out and run over a dozen people as they left the theater using his car. Someone bent on mass murder will find a way. It may prove more difficult than opening up on a crowd with an ak47, but it'll still happen. A mass murderer isn't going be deterred by inconvenience.

The whole gun debate to me really boils down to blaming the implement, not the person wielding it.

my god i could not have said this any better! Perfect on all accounts

[Alex]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Alex, you call BS on the claim that more guns equal less crime. Prove your point. Cite an objective study where the reverse is shown to be true. I've looked into this, and the stats are muddy at best because crime is complex and driven by much more than gun ownership.

Sorry, that's not how this works. When someone posts "this should be so, and studies show that", the least they can do is point to them so they can be debated. Having to instead prove the inverse of an unsupported statement isn't the bar to clear here.

Where it goes from "let it go" to "point out why someone is wrong" for me, in this and any other interesting discussion, is when things go down this thought process.

Step 1: I want X.
Step 2: I think the world would be better if everyone had X.
Step 3: The facts show that I'm right, and those disagreeing with me are wrong.

Steps 1 & 2 are what the internet is for. Step 3 provokes responses.

[adouglas]

Fair enough, Alex. As with all here, I have a set of beliefs. I do not claim that these are facts. They may be summarized as:

1) I believe that existing studies are inconclusive, largely because of two factors. First, that the sample sizes are typically too small to have statistical validity. Second, that the issue of violent crime is too complex and depends on too many variables to draw meaningful correlations between rates of gun ownership and the incidence of crime. Alex, the page you quoted said "...the National Academy of Sciences ... found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime." Greater access to guns does not appear to equal more violent crime. Nor does it appear to decrease violent crime.

2) I believe that an insane mass murderer will kill people any way he or she can. If a legal route is available it will be followed and a gun will likely be purchased. If not, then the weapon will be acquired illegally or an alternative weapon will be found. I believe that stricter gun laws will not stop these people. It's a societal problem, not a legislative one.

3) I believe that most gun crime is committed with illegal firearms. I believe that increased gun control will not stop a person already breaking the law from continuing to break the law.

4) I believe that most gun-related suicide is committed with legal firearms. I also believe that if a gun isn't available, the suicide will happen anyway, via an alternate means.

5) I believe that realistic, reasonable and well-enforced restrictions on access to firearms are a good idea. That includes background checks, record-keeping with follow-up if a gun is used in a crime, loss of the right with conviction on criminal charges, stiff penalties, etc.

6) I believe that extreme views on both sides of the issue are ludicrous. The administration isn't out to disarm the population. Nor is everyone who chooses to own a firearm a wild-eyed, trigger-happy second-amendment crusader.

7) I believe that draconian measures such as outright bans or permit laws so strict that they amount to a ban are a bad idea because they never work. They affect those who obey the law, not those who willfully break it.

8) I believe that eliminating all restrictions is also a bad idea because as anyone who uses a firearm as a deterrent for personal defense will tell you, there ARE evil people out there and frankly, I'd rather they had some barrier to access.

9) I believe that I am the person best able to determine whether I should own a firearm. In locations where strict laws exist, the issuing agency decides based on "need." That does not sit well with me. If I follow the rules, then "need" should not come into the discussion.

10) I believe that more extensive training and education than is currently required is a good idea, especially in issues related to the law, judgment and decision-making. By the way, for those on the anti-gun side of the debate… guess who provides the education on safety required for those seeking permits? The NRA, because the NRA has a vested interest in responsible ownership and use.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

As I said before, statistics can be found for both sides and arguments can be made for both. If you'd like, you can post some statistics about concealed carry being the cause of a rise in crime. I'll discredit those and then we can repeat the process over again until we tire of the thread. Personally, I'd rather just agree to disagree.

good call.

Statistics matter in the grand scheme of things, but they aren't helpful for rare abnormalities such as this. they don't provide any useful data that relates to these situations, other than to stay away from places that ban guns.


active shooter scenarios are not governed by reason or logic, since there is no goal for them other than kill as many people as possible.

having an armed person stop the active shooter is the most efficient way to end a killing spree.

the studies that matter are the tactics needed to defeat these threats quickly and the ability/equipment to do so.

[Jiggles]

Gun debates, I don't have any statistics; all I know is I'm right and you're wrong.

[lgk]

if you're able to stop a murderous rampage, how could you be wrong?

[slickt0mmy]

Originally Posted by adouglas

10) I believe that more extensive training and education than is currently required is a good idea, especially in issues related to the law, judgment and decision-making. By the way, for those on the anti-gun side of the debate… guess who provides the education on safety required for those seeking permits? The NRA, because the NRA has a vested interest in responsible ownership and use.

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially this one. Owning a firearm is definitely not for everyone. And for those that choose to, I STRONGLY encourage continuous training. And I'm not talking about static range target practice. Personally, I make a point to attend at least one professional course per year, whether it be on concealed carry, home defense, tactical shooting, etc.
Gun owners should also educate themselves thoroughly on the state laws as well as federal laws pertaining to their firearms. Fortunately, in my experience, the majority of gun owners take that responsibility very seriously and are quick to chastise those who don't.

[Countersteer]

Ooops!

[CZroe]

I'll stir the pot:
"insure" != ensure

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Alex

Except for that fact what you posted isn't true, it makes for a great story:

The Kennesaw, Georgia Gun Violence Reduction Myth

Kennesaw may not be as urban as Morton Grove, but it's 10 miles from The Perimeter! I-285 (referred to as "The Perimeter" in all local media) encircles Atlanta and is the unofficial border of Atlanta-proper. It is one of the most heavily traveled roadways in the USA, and it's almost like saying anything 10 miles from the 405 in LA is "rural." Calling it that because it has a few trees is laughable (designated "Tree City USA" by the Arbor Day Foundation).

The writer is at least as manipulative as the people they accuse of manipulating data. Fighting fire with fire?

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by adouglas

2) I believe that an insane mass murderer will kill people any way he or she can. If a legal route is available it will be followed and a gun will likely be purchased. If not, then the weapon will be acquired illegally or an alternative weapon will be found. I believe that stricter gun laws will not stop these people.

Since I posted that we've found out that the guy's residence was laced with boobytraps, evidently made without commercial explosives.

Had he been able to get some C4, I'd be willing to bet a fair chunk of money he'd have used it. The fact that he couldn't did NOT stop him from trying to kill people with these things.

[slickt0mmy]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Since I posted that we've found out that the guy's residence was laced with boobytraps, evidently made without commercial explosives.

Had he been able to get some C4, I'd be willing to bet a fair chunk of money he'd have used it. The fact that he couldn't did NOT stop him from trying to kill people with these things.

They also found explosives inside the theater, which they believed he either planted or threw into the crowd, from last I heard.

Banning guns will not stop people from trying things like this. They will simply find another means of doing the same thing they wanted to do in the first place. Humans will always find ways to kill other humans. Banning "dangerous things" is not going to change that.

I think rather than focus on banning guns, why are we not teaching gun safety classes in high school? I'm sure even the most liberal of parents would like their child to at least know what to do with a loaded gun, in the event that they run across one (at a friend's house, left in a public restroom by a police officer [believe me, it happens]).