CSpenceFLY

That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them. So we need this law to take the weapons away from the people who would never use them in the manner that caused us to need the law, while full well knowing it's not going to stop the act that caused us to need the law. If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now. Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. Laugh all you want. Your logic is flawed. If my logic is flawed it's not anywhere near as flawed as yours.

When they get started it will be any weapon used to assault.

Have a great afternoon. I'm going out to fire my fully legal assault rifle,my fully legal sawed off double barrel shot gun and a few of my hand guns.

I don't want to figure all of that out. Just like people don't want to figure out the real issue, they just want a knee jerk gun ban. But to answer part of your question. Sure, give the guy a trial. A quick one. Then execute him. If it makes you feel better to keep him in jail for an extended amount of time then make sure my tax money is not being used to keep him in jail or feed him. This guy is defective, he will never be a productive member of society. There is zero reason to warehouse him. I don't care how we do it, let Obama decide, make a committee. Bottom line there are cases where there should be no long drawn out appeal process, the person should never be released and there is no reason to warehouse defective people.

I blame the theater owner for having a no gun policy. If you put a criminal in a room full of people where he can be fairly certain that no one is armed he will act as a criminal. If you put that same criminal in a room where he could be relatively certain that a percentage of the people are armed he might just think twice about acting as a criminal. They created a venue where this guy could be reasonably certain he would encounter no resistance. They should be prosecuted.

Care to comment on how the ban on illegal drugs is working? A ban on any type of weapons will work out just the same. Actually, it's not the same. This crime has nothing to do with the drugs. Stop trying to change the subject with false equivalences. That's not what the anti-drug camp says. Let me guess, your all for legalizing drugs. I am for banning the sale and manufacture of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and regulation of firearms. Good luck with that. When you get your ban I'll still be able to go out and get pretty much anything I want, (legally I might add) it will just cost a little more. Crazy people will still be shooting up schools,churches,theaters and the likes and you'll be standing there with your pants around your ankles and your dick in your hand blaming on group or another for the injustices of the world.

Care to comment on how the ban on illegal drugs is working? A ban on any type of weapons will work out just the same. Actually, it's not the same. This crime has nothing to do with the drugs. Stop trying to change the subject with false equivalences. That's not what the anti-drug camp says. Let me guess, your all for legalizing drugs.

Your logic is flawless, of course. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the nuances involved with this issue. There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it from happening. For fucks sake. Do you really think this way?

That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them. So we need this law to take the weapons away from the people who would never use them in the manner that caused us to need the law, while full well knowing it's not going to stop the act that caused us to need the law. If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now.

Care to comment on how the ban on illegal drugs is working? A ban on any type of weapons will work out just the same.

Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. Learn to read,I didn't say this had anything to do with the war on drugs. Go back and read what I said. If banning things worked you would not be able to get illegal drugs in the US. Name one thing that is illegal to own that you can't put your hands on.

Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs.

It's not the actual execution that is so expensive - it's all the legal wranglings leading up to it. The laws should be overhauled so that clear cut, caught red handed BS like this gets the proper treatment. There is no excuse to keep this person alive. +1 Who gets to decide when a situation is so "clear cut" that certain individuals get fast-tracked to the death penalty? What criteria do we use to make this decision? How would you draft legislation to make this work? Look, I understand the anger towards this guy. But what you are proposing simply is not going to work in America. Everyone gets due process of law. And yes, in death penalty cases, the process is long and drawn out. This will not change, and it shouldn't. We can't have a system where certain individuals are simply fast-tracked to the gas chamber, and others are given full due process of law. Any legislation attempting to do this would immediately be found unconstitutional. You may well get your wish and see this guy executed. But it won't happen any time soon. Well lets see, how about if there is a whole theater full of people that were witnesses. Or maybe if there is video of the crime. In some cases I'm ok with the death chamber being one door over from the court room.

I've told people to de-friend me if they are going to get bent out of shape about my opinions or if they want to post crap and expect no one to respond with a differing opinion. Also a few that got bent about my sarcastic humor. My motto: There are several billion people in the world that I don't hang out with, you'll be in good company.

Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped. What IS known: The gunman was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun, Oates said. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car, parked just outside the theater's rear emergency exit, he said. Holmes had purchased the weapons legally at three area gun stores in the last 60 days and bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, including a 100-round drum magazine for an assault rifle, Oates said. Holmes had on a helmet and a full suit of tactical body armor. The likelihood of ANY amateur "hero" successfully taking him on in the theater is so small as to be essentially zero. And as has also been pointed out. If you hit someone wearing body armor with a 9mm or a 40 cal. They usually don't just stand there and take it. It's going to knock the shit out of them. And while I've never been shot at in a crowded, dark movie theater, He's probably never been shot back at while he was shooting up a crowded/dark movie theater. Add in that no one would be near this guy after he began firing and there might be a good chance for someone to land a well placed round to the center of his chest. Betting it would get his attention and maybe even buy some time.

It's not the actual execution that is so expensive - it's all the legal wranglings leading up to it. The laws should be overhauled so that clear cut, caught red handed BS like this gets the proper treatment. There is no excuse to keep this person alive. +1

His rights end where the peoples' civil rights begin. For instance he can't bar entry to people who aren't white. We already worked this out. He can refuse to allow weapons in the theater, and they do, in numerous states, even though they are a Texas based Company. Plus, I think we are talking about the Bill of Rights, apparently they are limited. Matt I'm looking for the Georgia law. I think in Ga. a property owner can restrict carry on their property but I don't think you are breaking any laws if you carry anyway. All they can do is ask you to leave.

I'm not trying to say not to try. No one here is. I'm calling out all this chest beating. Know your tactical limitations. Know why it may not go the way you vision in your imagination. Also, be willing to sacrifice all. That's what makes a hero, not taking out a bad guy. Now, are you willing to risk your life for total strangers? Will you widow you family for them? Remember, you are bringing attention to yourself and others around you. This may halt your "try". I don't carry to be a hero. I carry to protect myself and my wife. The masses are on their own. If someone is firing a weapon in a room I'm in, my life is already in danger. I wish you would just come out and make your point. What is it, hide behind a seat,hide behind the curtain? Besides taking no steps to protect yourself or end the event, what is your point?

Except you wouldn't have body armor nor the amount of firepower he did. He's acting, you're reacting. You're at a huge disadvantage even if you were similarly armed and armored . . . which you're not. It's a child-like fantasy for a person to think they'd suddenly become the hero who takes down the bad guy in this situation. I don't get it. Many times I have seen discussions of how to handle a malfunction where everything has gone wrong, with everyone giving advice to "keep fighting it all the way in", and "keep pulling handles until the blood fills your goggles". So why is it that in this situation many believe the proper thing to do is to just passively allow a homicidal maniac to control your destiny??? Good point.

Which, as I think most people here agree, is highly implausible. Oh sure, there are the Walter Mitty hero wanna bees who will say they're as good as SEAL Team Six, but the reality is they're not. I think very few CCW holders believe they are "as good as Seal Team 6". One thing being ignored here for all that are throwing up the training scenarios is this. Those training schools are run by professionals who plan for you to fail so they can teach you something. If you went through one of those schools and aced everything you did it wouldn't be worth your time. This guy was not a trained professional any more than I am. Other than gathering guns and an outfit you have no idea how or if he trained for this. You have no idea how many rounds were fired, what his kill ratio was, if he fixated on targets or if he randomly fired at movement. To many unknowns for any of you to say nothing would have helped.

I answered that but it didn't post. No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die? Your eyes are burning and producing tears in abundance, so taking careful aim is out of the question. It also hurts to breathe, and if your perspiring at all, any exposed skin will feel like it's burning. Add the effect of being caught completely off guard, the panicking crowd, and the low light situation, and the probability of an armed movie watcher stopping the body armored gunman without causing significant collateral damage is extremely low, near zero. That's all good to know. The alternative to trying would be doing nothing and that would not be an option. So you can't see clearly, the perp is dressed in black and has a flak jacket on, the theater is dark, and is full of innocent people including women and children. And you intend to start shooting. There may be other hero wannabes with the same idea as you and have guns out. How will you identify the correct target? Somehow I don't think you are going to improve the situation. No, I don't just plan to start shooting. You people are fucking maddening. I would intend on getting myself out alive. Like I said before, a theater is not completely dark unless they turned off the projector and this guy didn't have a crowd around him once he started shooting. I can safely bet you dollars to doughnuts that no one was running toward this guy. I can come up with as many positive scenarios as you can negative ones and none of them mean a damn thing. One thing not being considered here is Adrenalin and the will to live. People do amazing things under pressure as I'm sure we will learn as all of this plays out.

Yeah. I saw the Bonfire thread was locked out. I would like to believe that we all would. After all, it's the human condition to believe we can make a difference. But to say one would opt to "lay there and die" as the defensive response to inability of action doesn't work here. This is just beating one's chest and being over optimistic of a situation many have never experienced. . . You have never experienced. You would have failed. I have trained in emergency enviromments like these. Most with the knowledge of what's coming up have failed. I sure didn't do my "best". Ancedotal, yes, but very telling. Truth is, the most bad assed, war-fighting expierenced, well trained person will never trump planning, surprise and preparation. This is documented many times over in the history books and all Military syllabuses in the DOD. In the mass confusion that obviously ensued inside that theater, you have no way of knowing who or what might have made a difference. Being hit by a bullet might have been enough to stop him. Someone knocking him down might have. Failure/winning in a training scenario is different from failure/winning in the real thing. The people training you are not going to stop. You have no idea what might have stopped this guy. I don't understand the militant anti try stance.

I answered that but it didn't post. No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die? Your eyes are burning and producing tears in abundance, so taking careful aim is out of the question. It also hurts to breathe, and if your perspiring at all, any exposed skin will feel like it's burning. Add the effect of being caught completely off guard, the panicking crowd, and the low light situation, and the probability of an armed movie watcher stopping the body armored gunman without causing significant collateral damage is extremely low, near zero. That's all good to know. The alternative to trying would be doing nothing and that would not be an option.

I answered that but it didn't post. No I have not, But I would give it a try if put in the situation. What would you do, lay there and die?

It's not even remotely the same thing. Anyone attempting to say it is has deluded themselves with a highly false equivalence. We've already discussed this at length today. You might want to review some of the comments made by trained professionals. No scenario will be exactly the same. BTW, you people do know that a theater is not completely dark, right? Next time you're there look around and see what you can see. Also, you can bet your ass there was not a crowd around this guy while he was squeezing off rounds. Do I know if someone armed could have done something to stop the guy, No I don't. Do any of you know for sure it wouldn't make a difference, No you don't.