Another Fatal Shooting in a movie theater

[Webfoot Hero]

There is no need for civilians to have guns. Any benefit is outweighed by the vast majority of bad. So many unintentional and intentional death. This isn't the 18th century, we don't need militia.

You don't know a lot of gun owners, do you? Otherwise you'd know why guns are still a necessity for some. For those living in rural areas, guns are needed to ward off varmints and other animals that could get your pets and for protection from potential burglars due to cops not being nearby. Also, guns are sometimes used by those with restraining orders to protect themselves against dangerous people when cops can't be looking after them 24/7. I've lived in a house with at least one gun in it for over 30 years and not once have I been injured by them. Same goes for just about every gun owner I know as well. Guns aren't dangerous if they are properly handled and stored.

 

[PyroChamber]

The thing about Chicago is 30 minutes away is a state where you can buy guns. Have some of your gang bangers friends live there, buy the guns legally you go visit them and pick them up to bring to Chicago. Nothing will change in Chicago unless the neighborhood stands up to the gangbangers, but they never will.

Sadly this is all true.

 

[regwec]

I think, to avoid tedium, it should be acknowledged that when someone says that civilians have no need of guns, they are excluding farmers and their like.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You don't know a lot of gun owners, do you? Otherwise you'd know why guns are still a necessity for some. For those living in rural areas, guns are needed to ward off varmints and other animals that could get your pets and for protection from potential burglars due to cops not being nearby. Also, guns are sometimes used by those with restraining orders to protect themselves against dangerous people when cops can't be looking after them 24/7. I've lived in a house with at least one gun in it for over 30 years and not once have I been injured by them. Same goes for just about every gun owner I know as well. Guns aren't dangerous if they are properly handled and stored.

I know a few gun owners. I also don't go to their houses. What you just stated does not explain the hundreds of millions of guns we have in the US. You want farmers to own guns because of their specific circumstances? Fine. I think that is reasonable. In fact if a job calls for it, I can see that as reasonable. But personal ownership for no such reasons? Completely unnecessary imo. Not when it cost over 30,000 people their lives every year.

Guns are always dangerous. It is their nature. It only takes one mistake for disaster. And a lot of the time, it isn't a mistake. Take your restraining order protection idea. How well trained would such a person be necessarily?

 

[Golgo-13]

This is absouletly tragic..and unfortunately, i see no end to these kind of heinous crimes in sight.

I'm curious as to why the media isn't making the movie that was playing at the time, as big a part of the story as they did with the TDKR shooting..?

 

[Golgo-13]

It is mental issues like this that should be addressed in gun control, not the elimination of access to gun ownership for everyone. Stricter mental evaluations and background checks for symptoms of bipolar disorders, PTSD, etc should be thoroughly evaluated before letting someone even remotely touch a gun.

I say that as someone who has a concealed carry license; but, doesn't own a gun, yet.

This is a good idea, although not fool proof. Alot of people that have mental illnesses don't seek help, or don't even realise they have one, so if they haven't been treated for it, there will be no record to check. Also, i've owned a hand gun for almost 20 years now, i could easily develop a mental illness inbetween the time i purchased that gun and now, therefore there would be no way to stop a person like me doing something heinous with it……

 

[Greens]

This is absouletly tragic..and unfortunately, i see no end to these kind of heinous crimes in sight.

I'm curious as to why the media isn't making the movie that was playing at the time, as big a part of the story as they did with the TDKR shooting..?

Probably because, at the time, there were reports that audience members initially thought the shooter was part of the show. This movie is an Amy Schumer comedy flick, which makes it hard to sensationalize.

 

[SV Fan]

You don't know a lot of gun owners, do you? Otherwise you'd know why guns are still a necessity for some. For those living in rural areas, guns are needed to ward off varmints and other animals that could get your pets and for protection from potential burglars due to cops not being nearby. Also, guns are sometimes used by those with restraining orders to protect themselves against dangerous people when cops can't be looking after them 24/7. I've lived in a house with at least one gun in it for over 30 years and not once have I been injured by them. Same goes for just about every gun owner I know as well. Guns aren't dangerous if they are properly handled and stored.

My personally take on guns is

1. Don't go after guns, go after bullets(ie do we really need a 30 round clip? There is absolutely no logical reason why somebody needs a 30 round clip, set the limit at 10). I would settle for on this issue if you want to use 30 round clips on a firing range, you buy the clip at the range and can't take it off the firing range property

2. I believe guns should be regulated at a city level without state or federal interference(if if a city decides it wants to be an gun free zone(ie basically don't have guns within city limits unless it's in your house or a case or designated areas) that should be their choice). My take on this is if a city is a gun free zone, it will give the police free reign to shoot anybody with an exposed gun in a public space

 

[regwec]

That would seem to be a sensible start.

 

[Mysteryman]

I thought I read somewhere that The Obama administration had proposed some sort of ban on 50 caliber bullets .
But this got out to conservative talk radio so, they put out a statement saying that they were not going to do it at this time .

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

They could announce a ban on the slightest unecesaary accessory and there'd be a huge outrage as a ban on anything gun related gets pro-Gun folk in a tizzy as they think it's a stepping stone to total banning.

You don't know a lot of gun owners, do you? Otherwise you'd know why guns are still a necessity for some. For those living in rural areas, guns are needed to ward off varmints and other animals that could get your pets and for protection from potential burglars due to cops not being nearby. Also, guns are sometimes used by those with restraining orders to protect themselves against dangerous people when cops can't be looking after them 24/7. I've lived in a house with at least one gun in it for over 30 years and not once have I been injured by them. Same goes for just about every gun owner I know as well.

In the UK farmers in rural areas can have licensed guns. They and the armed response police and military the only ones who need guns so therefore the only ones who can have them.

People with restraining orders here manage without guns

Guns aren't dangerous if they are properly handled and stored.

This reminds me of STD/Pregnancy risk

Abstinence equals 0% chance of those
Safe Sex = 3% chance of those.

 

[Venomfan]

No, just a part. Pretty much every Swiss male adult is armed due to conscription, they don't have gun related deaths. What's different there if guns are a 'big part' of why this happens?
.

my friend who lives there told me the gun is kept at home but the ammo is kept at the military base. So it's not exactly the same thing if what he tells me is true.

also, what about modifying the law a bit. When it was written people had muskets right? Say everyone has the right to a single shot, shot gun if you can't bother getting rid of all fire arms

 

[DeadPresident]

my friend who lives there told me the gun is kept at home but the ammo is kept at the military base. So it's not exactly the same thing if what he tells me is true.

also, what about modifying the law a bit. When it was written people had muskets right? Say everyone has the right to a single shot, shot gun if you can't bother getting rid of all fire arms

Fair enough, which is possibly a good case for ammunition control as an additional measure. The case for .50 caliber bullets confounds me, idiots use that to hunt elephants I'll never understand why that needs to be available to the public.

 

[The Endless]

.50 cal bullets are available to the public? Whhhhyyyyyyy?!?!

 

[regwec]

what about modifying the law a bit. When it was written people had muskets right? Say everyone has the right to a single shot, shot gun if you can't bother getting rid of all fire arms

What a wonderful idea.

 

[KevanG]

.50 cal bullets are available to the public? Whhhhyyyyyyy?!?!

Because of all the Tyrannosaurs and Mammoths lurking in the alleys and forests. 50. Cal for home defense is like saying you need to buy a nuke to drill a hole for a well.

 

[DeadPresident]

.50 cal bullets are available to the public? Whhhhyyyyyyy?!?!

I can understand having them available at ranges, some people might want to fire a Desert Eagle for fun or whatever, but letting some *****ebagels stockpile the stuff - permit/license required or not is ****ing stupid.

I mean you can basically get replicas of tanks with permits in some states. There's a difference between bearing arms, and having military level ordinance and munitions available. Automatic weapons I don't understand either.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

.50 cals are available but most never own them because of the cost of the bullets (typically around $2-3 per bullet, with $5 not being uncommon.) They may be fun to mess around with but just aren't practical for most shooters unless they have a load of money to burn.

 

[regwec]

I suppose you could just save up for some if you really wanted to massacre a lot of people.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I suppose you could just save up for some if you really wanted to massacre a lot of people.

But for the cost of a hundred rounds of .50 cal, you'd have over 500 of almost any other typical caliber ammo so it's not really one to crazy with. People freak out about .50 cal but those guns are too big to have any kind of mobility and rare because of the excessive cost they have over most other guns.

 

[KevanG]

It's because people think .50 cal and it brings to mind anti-tank guns from CoD or something. Not really something you want to be facing no matter if it's stationary or not.

 

[regwec]

I think I sneaked the barest hint of irony in that post.

 

[DeadPresident]

But for the cost of a hundred rounds of .50 cal, you'd have over 500 of almost any other typical caliber ammo so it's not really one to crazy with. People freak out about .50 cal but those guns are too big to have any kind of mobility and rare because of the excessive cost they have over most other guns.

All fair points, but if it's somebody that's in a fractured and unreasonable state of mind that wanted to do a lot of damage in close quarters, like a movie theater, that could make larger caliber ammo appealing. Perhaps restricting home defense ammunition to only a certain size round would be a good start.

I'm sure this dude had a couple thousand dollars in savings that he could have used to get a few clips of .50 caliber ammo if he felt like it.

I mean Harris and Klebold rocked up to Columbine like a couple of Fallout 4 characters strapped to the brim. Kids picked up a carbine and a machine pistol...if teenagers can get their hands on carbines and automatic 9mms? I gotta start asking questions.

But I suppose an automatic 9mm is capable of doing far more damage than a .50 caliber handgun.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

All fair points, but if it's somebody that's in a fractured and unreasonable state of mind that wanted to do a lot of damage in close quarters, like a movie theater, that could make larger caliber ammo appealing. Perhaps restricting home defense ammunition to only a certain size round would be a good start.

I'm sure this dude had a couple thousand dollars in savings that he could have used to get a few clips of .50 caliber ammo if he felt like it.

I mean Harris and Klebold rocked up to Columbine like a couple of Fallout 4 characters strapped to the brim. Kids picked up a carbine and a machine pistol...if teenagers can get their hands on carbines and automatic 9mms? I gotta start asking questions.

But I suppose an automatic 9mm is capable of doing far more damage than a .50 caliber handgun.

At close quarters, a .50 cal isn't going to do any more damage than say a shotgun or handgun. If anything, the cyclic rate, recoil, and size/weight of a .50 cal weapon would slow down an attacker in a tight quarters area. That's the main reason you see attackers choose 12-gauge shotguns and smaller caliber handguns.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

CBS News is reporting that officers who approached the shooter's body said he reeked of alcohol. So not only suffering from mental illness, he was also likely heavily intoxicated. Definitely not a good combination when in possession of a firearm.