Until you provide me something substantial I'm just going to continue laughing at you. Also, your snide remarks about all things left wing do not an argument make. They do however look really really stupid. Just like you CONSTANTLY ***** about people stereotyping one person as the entirety of the right wing (Think: Bush) and you do the exact same thing to Timothy Mimeslayer. Are you at least cognizant of your hypocrisy?
I've given you plenty of substantial evidence, including first hand experience with various weapons from my time in the military. And you've dismissed everything because it runs contrary to your extreme leftist beliefs.
As for Timothy, he has (in the past) refused to accept my arguments because I cited Wikipedia. So have you. And so have others on the left wing. Now Timothy is saying Wikipedia is a fine source. That is major backpedaling, and I'm throwing it back at him just like how you and him and other lefties throw any backpedaling the right wing does back at the right wing.
Right now, I am using every tactic the left wing uses. Doesn't taste so good when people do it right back at you, does it? After all, if you can't beat them...join them. Your tactics are now mine.
They have RPGs, bombs, and fully automatic weapons. Are you suggesting America should have those things in civilian hands as well?
So me where I said that American citizens should have access to that grade of weaponry. Go ahead...I'll wait. Just make sure it's a proper quote with the automated link included in it that happens whenever you use the QUOTE button on these forums.
The simple fact is that a lot of the stuff our military has available to it is absolutely useless in a guerrilla warfare campaign, which is exactly what the reserve militia that we are all members of (as per the Militia Act of 1903, I did previously cite a source for this in this thread - it is still standing law as well under 10 USC 232 or 10 USC 323 [I forget which]) would be doing in the event of a foreign invasion or government oppression. That is why the US military is so ineffective at fighting al-Qaeda - just like the British during the American Revolution, we are expecting a stand up fight against an established and uniformed military force, not a guerrilla campaign. That is why we rolled over the uniformed Iraqi military in the beginning of the Iraq War, and have been mired ever since by insurgents.
And if you think the citizens of this country would not have military grade weapons within a few weeks of a new revolution (even if the military did not side with the citizens), you are very badly mistaken. Every soldier who died in an ambush would help arm the citizens with military weapons. Every vehicle that is disabled but not destroyed would help arm the citizens with military weapons. And there would certainly be plenty of "defectors" who would disappear on patrols and resurface on the other side of the field later on.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I've given you plenty of substantial evidence, including first hand experience with various weapons from my time in the military. And you've dismissed everything because it runs contrary to your extreme leftist beliefs.
You've provided an argument about how ONE gun type is successful against tanks. This is not an argument for why we would ever be able to defeat the US military forces.
As for Timothy, he has (in the past) refused to accept my arguments because I cited Wikipedia. So have you. And so have others on the left wing. Now Timothy is saying Wikipedia is a fine source. That is major backpedaling, and I'm throwing it back at him just like how you and him and other lefties throw any backpedaling the right wing does back at the right wing.
Nope. I've never criticized the usage of wikipedia for statistically based information. Nice try. Again congratulations on homogenizing the ENTIRETY of the "left-wing" here. Something you, apparently, abhor about the right wing.
Right now, I am using every tactic the left wing uses. Doesn't taste so good when people do it right back at you, does it? After all, if you can't beat them...join them. Your tactics are now mine.
"You are stupid and the way you argue is dumb. I guess I'll now adopt it!"
I have no problem with you citing wikipedia for statistically based information or fact checking what a particular law states. So the taste in my mouth is not so bitter. Annoyed that you found such an irrelevant horse so high on which to sit though.
So me where I said that American citizens should have access to that grade of weaponry. Go ahead...I'll wait. Just make sure it's a proper quote with the automated link included in it that happens whenever you use the QUOTE button on these forums.
this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.
To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.
To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.
To you, it is wishful thinking because it defeats your position on the topic. To the rest of us, especially those of us with a military background, it is a perfectly viable and reasonable and realistic possibility that could lead to a numerically superior yet initially under-equipped force beating a numerically inferior yet initially better-equipped force.
It has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, where an insurrection/rebellion/guerrilla organization was able to equip itself better through ambushes against the invaders and then beat the invaders back.
It is sad to see an American, of all people, claim this doesn't work because that is exactly how Americans got their independence from Britain - by a guerrilla campaign that pitted untrained and under-equipped, but numerically superior, farmers against the significantly smaller but better trained and equipped British Army.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Insurgencies don't beat invaders. The colonial army under Washington got its ass kicked in every single confrontation with the British that didn't involve them being out of ammo.
They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.
this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.
To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.
You really think that with the equipment and training people have in this country that we couldn't mount an insurgency as has never been seen before? With all of the firearms, materials to make weapons, etc.? Civilians can easily make IEDs, mortars, flame throwers, etc. Every victory against a small patrol or battalion would result in more equipment.
Even if the entire US military tried to occupy the country in some kind of military coup, there aren't NEARLY enough troops to occupy the country. Not even close.
I think you drastically underestimate what would be possible from a US insurgency.
Insurgencies don't beat invaders. The colonial army under Washington got its ass kicked in every single confrontation with the British that didn't involve them being out of ammo.
They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.
Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...
Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?
There are 1,456,862 active duty members of the US military when this article was last updated. And there are 1,458,500 reserve members of the US military. So assuming every reservist was called up and no one defected, there would be an estimated 2,915,362 soldiers at the disposal of the US government. As per the most recent census, there is an estimated 313,986,000 in this country. That means there would be an estimated 311,070,638 more citizens and possible insurgents than there would be military. The US military accounts for 0.928% of the US population.
I don't foresee less than 1% of the population being able to properly control or contain the other 99% in a guerrilla campaign.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...
Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?
Invasion is entirely different from a civil war.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I think he means that insurgents don't fighting open battles, because if you're outgunned it doesn't make sense to fight on the military's terms. You won't beat a military in the traditional sense, but you can accomplish the same ends. Look what the Taliban is doing to us.
For every 1 soldier in the US military (between Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) active or reserves, there are 107.7 civilians.
So unless each soldier is able to kill 107.7 people before being killed himself, they do not face good odds in a new revolution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Insurgencies don't beat invaders. The colonial army under Washington got its ass kicked in every single confrontation with the British that didn't involve them being out of ammo.
They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.
People keep forgetting about the French contribution in the conflict. France joining the war really made it a losing proposition for the British. Without the French fleet, the British at Yorktown would have simply evacuated and go on to fight another day. Who knows what would have happened if the conflict went on for a few more years.
If the invader is strong enough and determined enough an insurgency will not be able to dislodge them.
For every 1 soldier in the US military (between Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) active or reserves, there are 107.7 civilians.
So unless each soldier is able to kill 107.7 people before being killed himself, they do not face good odds in a new revolution.
That's only true if you have a straight up military vs civilians fight. However, any such conflict will be most likely a messy civil war. For every civilian opposing the government there will probably be another who supports the government and is willing to fight for it and most people will wish to sit the fighting out. If the majority of the military stays loyal to the government the odds are not in favour of an insurgent rebel movement.
Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...
Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?
I shall recommend you ask the Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans, Afghanis, Iraqis, Serbs, Tunisians, and Egyptians their opinions on the matter. The scenario you're describing is Civil War, and a tangent of debatable relevance to the subject of gun control. Which, due to an intense love of guns, isn't going to happen anytime soon, and because of that this thread should have died many pages ago when someone pointed that out.
There's nothing to discuss, it's not going to happen. All that has been shown in the past several pages is a fundamental misunderstanding of why exactly the second amendment was added and delusions about the efficiency of militias vs. professional armies. As well as people will happily spawn a freakish debate about their countrymen turning on each other and them needing guns for this eventuality.
OK I'm ready to get slammed for this one but what if every adult in the theater had a gun?
This guy committed this crime because he wanted to make a name for himself he shot and killed 12 people and injured however many others because he was fairly certain that no one else there had a gun and would be willing to react. People commit these crimes because they know the chances that a law abiding citizen with a gun is unlikely to be there.
Since you will never get all the guns that are already out there back or even know who has them. Why not pass gun laws with the intent of putting guns into as many law abiding citizens as possible?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
If you give about every person a gun, then you don't make people more safe. You just increase the likelyhood of people starting to kill each other. I prefer a country, where I can say, that the police and the military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens, instead of living in a country, where each person is a ticking timebomb.
Each person is a ticking time bomb already. Even if, somehow, the US government was able to take all the guns out of everyone's hands tomorrow...crime rate would likely remain constant. Perhaps even rise because now criminals know their victims are unarmed and they have nothing to fear.
As for mass killings like this fruit loop did...guns actually limit the damage and casualties because most idiots who use them like this guy did don't know how to use them. If you give someone like me (ex-military) an AR-15 with a drum magazine...there are going to be a lot more than 12 dead and 60ish people wounded in that theater. If he hadn't had firearms available, he could have easily (al biet with a bit more physical labor) acquired the materials to construct a few dozen bombs made from every day materials that would arouse no more suspicion than buying the stuff to make a ham sandwich for lunch. A couple bombs made out of homemade plastic explosives rolled in steel ball bearings would have killed a lot more people (and made what non-fatal injuries that happened a surgeon's nightmare). Or just one molotov cocktail (even easier to make than a bomb) dropped after securing the main doors, and then duck out the fire escape and wedge something under the door to prevent it from opening - everyone is dead, slowly.
You prefer a country where the police and military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens. That is your personal preference. I prefer a country where when seconds count and the police are minutes away...my Glock 17 is always within reach.
Guns are just a tool. A dangerous tool in the hands of some (but not most) people, but a tool none the less. And significantly less dangerous than a combination of the Internet, some money, and a trip to the hardware store. And until more people are killed annually in the US by guns than by cars, I will never support any kind of gun control measures that go beyond common sense measures.
The difference is that the items you mentioned have an actual use, besides murdering people.
So do guns. Guns of plenty of uses "besides murdering people."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
A lot of Americans are not smart enough to understand the earth is more than ten thousand years old. I am sorry but people like that, I do not believe have the cognizant capacity for me to trust them carrying around guns everywhere in public with them.
Then:
- probably someone would have started shooting before the killer got there. The more people have guns, the more likely one of those persons snaps and goes crazy
I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse, but I am trying to understand. The way you phrased this makes it sound like you are saying that a higher distribution of guns means people are more likely to be crazy. Or, a gun makes a person go insane, rather than the person being innately insane? Is that what you meant? If not, could you clarify?
On this point, I came across an op-ed article in The Washington Post, which tends to come down more in favor of gun control than against:
A notable quote: There are two questions to consider.
First, would tighter gun-control laws — say, one banning the AR-15-style weapon that James Holmes allegedly used — have prevented the Aurora shooting? It is a difficult case to make. A committed, intelligent mass murderer will find a way. Gun-control laws do not reduce massacres in the same manner that OSHA regulations reduce industrial accidents. Massacres are purposely monstrous violations of the law, which marginal changes in the law are unlikely to prevent.
Yep, the 2nd amendment is one of the most controverse things in existance.
In what sense? The US Supreme Court has ruled on whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or militias. Unless you're referring to more specific laws, like Concealed Carry. Out of cuiosity, and again not trying to be obtuse, but why are you so passionate about this topic? Obviously, we here in the US have a vested interest, regardless of what side of the debate we fall on; what about you?
If you give about every person a gun, then you don't make people more safe. You just increase the likelyhood of people starting to kill each other. I prefer a country, where I can say, that the police and the military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens, instead of living in a country, where each person is a ticking timebomb.
A fact that you can support, or your opinion?
This graphic showcases gun ownership rates by state:
Becaues there are more burglars than crazy madmen who break into houses for the sole reason of killing people. And I would do about anything to avoid a situation in which I and a crazy madman, that are seemingly so common in the USA, point a shotgun at each other at close range.
I would also do anything to avoid confronting a crazy madman, armed or not. Believe it or not, as a gun owner, I'd prefer a life of peace and non-confrontation; I'm not looking for any fights. I also recognize that the odds are likely I will live just that sort of life.
But being scared and being prepared ARE two different things. I don't assume I will die or have any significant health issues, but I still carry life and health insurance.
The difference is that the items you mentioned have an actual use, besides murdering people.
A gun is not an extinguisher. If one of those popular crazy madmen break into your house to kill you, then a gun won't suddenly turn this situation into a pink cloud of happyness. A gun is a way to make things escalate, and increase the likelyhood of people dying.
OK, I get that you don't like guns, but please: can we at least agree that, in a circumstance where a gun owner's home is invaded by someone with intent to harm, and where that gun owner shoots the intruder, that the gun owner is not committing murder?
I'm not asking you to revel in the death of a human being, nor am I trying to say that. I'm not asking you to say that this is a best-case scenario. I am asking you to quit with the dramatic wording. A gun can be used to commit murder. A gun can be used in defense (even if you don't agree with the practice). The intent of murder lies squarely in the individual behind the trigger, and murder is far more insidious than self defense.
The more people are able to acquire a gun, the more people will keep the guns lying around unlocked, and the more people will get injured or killed, for no reason.
So, update US gun laws to require gun owners to store their guns in biometric safes. I would be all for this.
I was about to type more, but then I started wondering, "What's the point?". Gun control gets discussed frequently on MTGS. Its hard enough for pro/anti gun US citizens to discuss it, and even harder for US citizens/Europeans to discuss it; the cultural differences and perspectives seem insurmountable to me.
Then:
- probably someone would have started shooting before the killer got there. The more people have guns, the more likely one of those persons snaps and goes crazy
- if they wouldn't have killed each other before the real killer arrives, then there'd be far more victims in your scenario, than in the one where the cinema visitors had no or few weapons. Think about a hundred panicky people in a dark cramped noisy room starting to shoot randomly.
so gun ownership makes you crazy or unable to control your self and shoot whoever else has a gun? if you don't have a gun you dont run you hit the floor? and before you ask I have been surprised and shot at.
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. He knew that he will either die there in the cinema, or by death penalty, or spend the rest of his life in his jail. Why should he have cared whether someone got a gun or not?.
my point was with 3 or 4 dead it would have been off the front page the next day and whoever killed this guy is the story not this loser
The killer was a law abiding citizen, before he started shooting. The more guns you give out, the more people die. Also, if everyone would be able to kill everyone in sight at any point... the result would be not only a huge increase in people getting killed, but also an even more increased mood or paranoia, fear and angst.
Even now, popular arguments such as "I need a weapon, in case people break into my home at night for the sole reason to kill me, or to drag my children out of their beds and rape them" speaks volumes about the mood in the USA.
he was but the less people having guns only works for the criminals the goverment cant be everywhere at once.
Police arriving at the scene: Oh look, there is some bloodsoaked guy with a gun in hand and frenzied expression on his face making a run for it *blam*
Whoa, another one *blam*
People inside the cinema: Oh noes, there are some more guys in black gear outside who are shooting at us *blam*
Everybody on either side: The other guys are shooting at us, fire back
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
OK I'm ready to get slammed for this one but what if every adult in the theater had a gun?
This guy committed this crime because he wanted to make a name for himself he shot and killed 12 people and injured however many others because he was fairly certain that no one else there had a gun and would be willing to react. People commit these crimes because they know the chances that a law abiding citizen with a gun is unlikely to be there.
Since you will never get all the guns that are already out there back or even know who has them. Why not pass gun laws with the intent of putting guns into as many law abiding citizens as possible?
You are talking about a dark, crowded theater. According to the reports many people initially thought this was just a publicity stunt and did not realize that they were in danger until they were shot. Once people realized what was going on the panic must have been horrible.
If everyone in that theater was armed, you would have had a much bigger body count as panicked people just opened fire at anything they thought was a threat.
Without access to guns, they would likely resort to more effective and cheaper (but slightly more work to make) homemade explosives that would leave less survivors and have more fatalities.
Even IF the crime rate would stay constant, at the same time, the number of accidents involving guns would go down, which would be already a positive trend. At the same time, there are in the USA about 18 times as many people, of a 100k sample, shot, than in Germany. I don't mention Germany here that often, because I think it's superior in anything, but simply because I know the statistics very well.
So accidents go down...that is worth disarming people and making everyone a disarmed victim in waiting for a criminal?
People have nothing to fear because they are armed? That makes no sense at all. People get the guns after all because they are scared, and they're scared because other people have guns. And that makes more people beeing armed, which scares more people, and in the end everyone is scared, armed and triggerhappy. And that should be a good situation to be in?
Maybe that is what you are taught in Germany, as to why Americans have guns and buy guns. But I've never bought a gun out of fear. I am armed almost 24/7, yes - because it is my Constitutional right. I am not scared, and I am not trigger happy. And since you love statistics so much, why don't you go look up the rate at which registered concealed carry license holders commit violence crimes. Here's a hint...it's a fraction of a percent.
"We give people devices designed for nothing but murder, for the reason that they otherwise build more dangerous weapons"? That makes no sense either. According to that logic, we'd have bombs exploding in Sweden, Germany and other countries with strict weapon laws every few minutes. But they don't. Shootings happen there nearly only with weapons people acquired legally. If people don't have immediate access to guns, then they seem to change their plans.
The difference is culture, not access. Look at Switzerland - the have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, but less crime. Unfortunately, American culture has come to the point that it glorifies crime and such in some areas. That is the problem - the culture needs addressed, not guns. We already have almost 15,000 gun control laws on the books. We don't need more.
I can go to bed and have a healthy deep happy sleep, without needing firearms under my pillow, because I'm afraid that crazy murderers break into my house any second. If those crazy murderers are that common in the USA, then maybe something should be done about those, instead of handing out weapons to everyone.
You truly are ignorant of the process of getting a gun if you think we are "handing out weapons to everyone." If we were "handing out weapons to everyone," then the business of selling illegal guns to criminals wouldn't be big in this country. In fact, pretty much every single post of yours' shows you are ignorant of US gun laws.
Tools with the only purpose of murdering people. Tools that are used constantly to kill people, on purpose or by accident. And as said, the argument "if we don't give them lethal weapons, they build more lethal ones" makes no sense either. Maybe the Colorado guy would have built bombs. Maybe he would have acquired guns illegally. Maybe he'd have also changed his plans. I don't know that, and you don't know that either.
Wrong again. Guns are used for a lot more than "murdering people." Also, there is no such thing as "accidental" murder. Maybe you should do some research before spouting that nonsensical European anti-American propaganda.
What do cards have to do with that? Current modern societies depend on cars. Cars have a purpose. They can be used for something actually useful, instead of just murdering people.
Guns are used for something actually useful. Cars, however, have no purpose and we can just use public transportation. Therefore, we should have strict car control laws because cars are capable of killing people and we have an alternative to cars.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Sad thing is, most gun owners are not. You know, since al-Qaeda and Mexican drug gangs are just waiting to raid your house, every good citizen obviously has to keep his arms loaded and ready at a moment's notice
I am a gun owner and I have a biometric safe. It is both the safest way to store my weapons fully loaded since I do have small children and the fastest way to access my weapons at a moments notice. I'm not so worried about al-Qaeda breaking in, but that guy that broke into my house about 5 years ago got a surprise he wasn't looking for. But thanks for being a sarcastic ass about it.
Though it is possible that someone goes crazy by holding a gun ("oooh, that feeling of power..." ), it's unlikely and not what I meant. What I did mean is that many people sometimes have problems with self control. Out of anger, out of panic, whatever. And then they might do things they'd otherwise not do. Such as, grab that weapon and shoot. And such things only happen if there is a weapon to shoot. Because the person will have reverted back to their normal state of mind (unless they commit suicide), before they'd have ever even gotten the idea of illegally acquiring a weapon.
Well, I got friends in many foreign countries, including in the US. So of course I'm interested in whats happening there. Also, I'm a pacifist and detest violence unless actually necessary. As such, I'm obviously also no fan of devices, which have nearly no use, other than injuring or killing people. Yes, guns are at times necessary, in the hands of professionally trained cops. But I see no reason why civilians should have them. If those guns wouldn't be a threat to other people, I'd say "do what you want". Like I don't care whether people drive around in a demilitarized tank.
Of course, it doesn't directly effect me, what the gun laws in the US are like. But we're not living walled in without our borders without contact to other countries (well, except maybe North Korea). So we have to look around, and see what happens at other places. Globalization has changed the world.
There are lots of things that don't bother me that much. But what I do care about is, that people can live their lifes in peace. People shouldn't be forced to follow a religion, nor force theirs upon others. People should neither have to spend time in cigarette smoke, if they don't want to. And people shouldn't be be in fear, injured, or even killed, only because some people think that they have to own firearms.
In cases where it's your life or my life, and you're attacked, then yes, I don't think it's murder. I also think though that this "your life or my life" situation is not as common as people might think, and that one of the reasons why it does happen more often than it has to, is that so many people are armed with guns.
Thanks for your reply; it helps me understand where you're coming from, and while I don't agree, I cant respect your perspective.
To your last point: Obviously, I disagree that the possession of guns is the primary factor in "my life or your life" scenarios. I think many things factor into such encounters, such as (but not limited to):
-A sense of entitlement, from Americans in general (and perhaps the Western world as a whole)
-Poverty
-Gang culture (which arguably is a sub-set of poverty)
-An individualistic, independent mindset, rather than a communal one. In other words, Americans look out for themselves above the needs of the community, both locally or nationally.
I could go on, but I feel like those are the big ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
Good article posted today by Carl M. Cannon. It opens with a 2007 case where an armed parishioner at a church saved almost everyone's lives (the two exceptions being a pair of sisters who were killed and their parents who were shot when they left church early). It talks about what led up to the ill-named "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," and puts the estimated 270 daily shootings we have in this country into perspective (estimated 300,000,000 guns in the United States, yet only 98,000 shootings a year [fatal and nonfatal] meaning only 0.000326% of guns in this nation are involved in a shooting every year, or for ever gun used in a shooting 3,061.224 are not - since Knaut loves statistics so much).
It then talks about the typical left wing response to atrocities like this, including the assumption that if guns were banned it wouldn't have happened (which is not necessarily true - Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a lot of people without using a firearm in Oklahoma City) and Mayor Bloomberg's urging to police across the nation to go on strike in protest of "lax" gun laws (which is illegal, police are not permitted to strike).
It follows up near the end with the stories of two women - one in Texas who watched a gun man kill her mother and father in a public cafeteria. She owned a pistol and had a permit to carry, but Texas law at the time forbid her from carrying in that cafeteria. She felt that if the laws had been different, she could have saved her parents instead of watching them die - she went on to become a politician who fought for people's right to a gun. The other is a woman whose husband was murdered and son was seriously wounded in New York City by an immigrant who lost it on a subway train in 1993. She went on to become a gun control activist who fought against people's right to a gun.
It ends with three stories. One is about a shooting in 1903 where a person wanted to stop the shooter, but was unarmed and no one would give him a gun to stop the shooter (and those who were armed refused to take again). The next story is from 1949, where an armed civilian shot a rampaging shooter once, but didn't kill him and couldn't muster the nerve to finish him. And the final story ends the story that it opened with, the church shooting in 2007 where none of the armed volunteer guards would give a Viet Nam vet their gun to take down the approaching shooter who had just murdered two sisters and wounded their parents, leaving it up to a single armed parishioner to stop the gunman and thus saving the lives of every single person still in that church.
If she had not been armed in church that day and her premonitions about the shooter had no led her to suggest armed volunteer guards...a lot more people would have died on Sunday, December 9th, 2007.
Guns in the hands of criminals kill people.
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (typically) save people.
Passing gun control laws only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals armed and the citizens disarmed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Passing gun control laws only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals armed and the citizens disarmed.
That to me really is the main thing. It like some of the old sayings, locks just keep a honest man honest. It does nothing to keep a thief out.
I have all my guns legally, carry them legally, keep them locked in safes when not in use, and teach anyone who will listen to me how to handle a weapon safely. Make it illegal and I won't have a gun anymore because I am a law abiding citizen. (Granted I would fight the law, but anyway.) Criminals and those who want to do my family harm will still have a gun.
That to me really is the main thing. It like some of the old sayings, locks just keep a honest man honest. It does nothing to keep a thief out.
I have all my guns legally, carry them legally, keep them locked in safes when not in use, and teach anyone who will listen to me how to handle a weapon safely. Make it illegal and I won't have a gun anymore because I am a law abiding citizen. (Granted I would fight the law, but anyway.) Criminals and those who want to do my family harm will still have a gun.
And the reason that no one in that theater was armed?
Because they too are law abiding citizens and the rules for the theater are "no guns." The rules stopped the law abiding citizens from carrying, but had absolutely no impact on the gunman bringing guns into the theater to kill people.
Gun control laws only work on people who follow the laws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
And the reason that no one in that theater was armed?
Because they too are law abiding citizens and the rules for the theater are "no guns." The rules stopped the law abiding citizens from carrying, but had absolutely no impact on the gunman bringing guns into the theater to kill people.
Gun control laws only work on people who follow the laws.
They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.
They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.
You can claim that, because it fits your views of society. But that does not change the fact that the Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO was a "gun-free zone" (except for the killer, it seems) by company policy. And I, as a law abiding CCW permit holder, also do not carry in any areas that are designated as "gun-free" zones - such as banks (which, oddly enough, being "gun-free" zones doesn't stop armed robberies...)
Colorado is a concealed-carry state, as was Virginia at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. But like Virginia Tech, according to World Net Daily, the Century 16 theater's parent, Cinemark Holdings Inc., has a strict "gun-free" policy at all of its 459 theaters, even for those who have concealed carry permits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've given you plenty of substantial evidence, including first hand experience with various weapons from my time in the military. And you've dismissed everything because it runs contrary to your extreme leftist beliefs.
As for Timothy, he has (in the past) refused to accept my arguments because I cited Wikipedia. So have you. And so have others on the left wing. Now Timothy is saying Wikipedia is a fine source. That is major backpedaling, and I'm throwing it back at him just like how you and him and other lefties throw any backpedaling the right wing does back at the right wing.
Right now, I am using every tactic the left wing uses. Doesn't taste so good when people do it right back at you, does it? After all, if you can't beat them...join them. Your tactics are now mine.
So me where I said that American citizens should have access to that grade of weaponry. Go ahead...I'll wait. Just make sure it's a proper quote with the automated link included in it that happens whenever you use the QUOTE button on these forums.
The simple fact is that a lot of the stuff our military has available to it is absolutely useless in a guerrilla warfare campaign, which is exactly what the reserve militia that we are all members of (as per the Militia Act of 1903, I did previously cite a source for this in this thread - it is still standing law as well under 10 USC 232 or 10 USC 323 [I forget which]) would be doing in the event of a foreign invasion or government oppression. That is why the US military is so ineffective at fighting al-Qaeda - just like the British during the American Revolution, we are expecting a stand up fight against an established and uniformed military force, not a guerrilla campaign. That is why we rolled over the uniformed Iraqi military in the beginning of the Iraq War, and have been mired ever since by insurgents.
And if you think the citizens of this country would not have military grade weapons within a few weeks of a new revolution (even if the military did not side with the citizens), you are very badly mistaken. Every soldier who died in an ambush would help arm the citizens with military weapons. Every vehicle that is disabled but not destroyed would help arm the citizens with military weapons. And there would certainly be plenty of "defectors" who would disappear on patrols and resurface on the other side of the field later on.
You've provided an argument about how ONE gun type is successful against tanks. This is not an argument for why we would ever be able to defeat the US military forces.
Nope. I've never criticized the usage of wikipedia for statistically based information. Nice try. Again congratulations on homogenizing the ENTIRETY of the "left-wing" here. Something you, apparently, abhor about the right wing.
"You are stupid and the way you argue is dumb. I guess I'll now adopt it!"
I have no problem with you citing wikipedia for statistically based information or fact checking what a particular law states. So the taste in my mouth is not so bitter. Annoyed that you found such an irrelevant horse so high on which to sit though.
this is my point. Military wins unless we have access to those materials. Everyone here has said "military doesn't auto-win! Look at X insurgency" but every single iteration of X insurgency has access to those weapons. It literally directly responds below to your claims of Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency has access to all of those weapons.
To imagine that we could kill enough military quickly enough to get weapons quickly enough to mount a successful insurrection is wishful thinking.
To you, it is wishful thinking because it defeats your position on the topic. To the rest of us, especially those of us with a military background, it is a perfectly viable and reasonable and realistic possibility that could lead to a numerically superior yet initially under-equipped force beating a numerically inferior yet initially better-equipped force.
It has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, where an insurrection/rebellion/guerrilla organization was able to equip itself better through ambushes against the invaders and then beat the invaders back.
It is sad to see an American, of all people, claim this doesn't work because that is exactly how Americans got their independence from Britain - by a guerrilla campaign that pitted untrained and under-equipped, but numerically superior, farmers against the significantly smaller but better trained and equipped British Army.
They win by attrition, by making the occupation unprofitable for the invading force.
You really think that with the equipment and training people have in this country that we couldn't mount an insurgency as has never been seen before? With all of the firearms, materials to make weapons, etc.? Civilians can easily make IEDs, mortars, flame throwers, etc. Every victory against a small patrol or battalion would result in more equipment.
Even if the entire US military tried to occupy the country in some kind of military coup, there aren't NEARLY enough troops to occupy the country. Not even close.
I think you drastically underestimate what would be possible from a US insurgency.
Isn't that still the insurgency beating the invaders? When someone invades, the citizens fight back, and then the invaders leave for whatever reason...
Is it still not a victory for the insurgency/rebels/guerrillas?
Here's a fun fact for you _:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military
There are 1,456,862 active duty members of the US military when this article was last updated. And there are 1,458,500 reserve members of the US military. So assuming every reservist was called up and no one defected, there would be an estimated 2,915,362 soldiers at the disposal of the US government. As per the most recent census, there is an estimated 313,986,000 in this country. That means there would be an estimated 311,070,638 more citizens and possible insurgents than there would be military. The US military accounts for 0.928% of the US population.
I don't foresee less than 1% of the population being able to properly control or contain the other 99% in a guerrilla campaign.
Invasion is entirely different from a civil war.
So unless each soldier is able to kill 107.7 people before being killed himself, they do not face good odds in a new revolution.
People keep forgetting about the French contribution in the conflict. France joining the war really made it a losing proposition for the British. Without the French fleet, the British at Yorktown would have simply evacuated and go on to fight another day. Who knows what would have happened if the conflict went on for a few more years.
If the invader is strong enough and determined enough an insurgency will not be able to dislodge them.
That's only true if you have a straight up military vs civilians fight. However, any such conflict will be most likely a messy civil war. For every civilian opposing the government there will probably be another who supports the government and is willing to fight for it and most people will wish to sit the fighting out. If the majority of the military stays loyal to the government the odds are not in favour of an insurgent rebel movement.
I shall recommend you ask the Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans, Afghanis, Iraqis, Serbs, Tunisians, and Egyptians their opinions on the matter. The scenario you're describing is Civil War, and a tangent of debatable relevance to the subject of gun control. Which, due to an intense love of guns, isn't going to happen anytime soon, and because of that this thread should have died many pages ago when someone pointed that out.
There's nothing to discuss, it's not going to happen. All that has been shown in the past several pages is a fundamental misunderstanding of why exactly the second amendment was added and delusions about the efficiency of militias vs. professional armies. As well as people will happily spawn a freakish debate about their countrymen turning on each other and them needing guns for this eventuality.
This guy committed this crime because he wanted to make a name for himself he shot and killed 12 people and injured however many others because he was fairly certain that no one else there had a gun and would be willing to react. People commit these crimes because they know the chances that a law abiding citizen with a gun is unlikely to be there.
Since you will never get all the guns that are already out there back or even know who has them. Why not pass gun laws with the intent of putting guns into as many law abiding citizens as possible?
Each person is a ticking time bomb already. Even if, somehow, the US government was able to take all the guns out of everyone's hands tomorrow...crime rate would likely remain constant. Perhaps even rise because now criminals know their victims are unarmed and they have nothing to fear.
As for mass killings like this fruit loop did...guns actually limit the damage and casualties because most idiots who use them like this guy did don't know how to use them. If you give someone like me (ex-military) an AR-15 with a drum magazine...there are going to be a lot more than 12 dead and 60ish people wounded in that theater. If he hadn't had firearms available, he could have easily (al biet with a bit more physical labor) acquired the materials to construct a few dozen bombs made from every day materials that would arouse no more suspicion than buying the stuff to make a ham sandwich for lunch. A couple bombs made out of homemade plastic explosives rolled in steel ball bearings would have killed a lot more people (and made what non-fatal injuries that happened a surgeon's nightmare). Or just one molotov cocktail (even easier to make than a bomb) dropped after securing the main doors, and then duck out the fire escape and wedge something under the door to prevent it from opening - everyone is dead, slowly.
You prefer a country where the police and military have the job of protecting law abiding citizens. That is your personal preference. I prefer a country where when seconds count and the police are minutes away...my Glock 17 is always within reach.
Guns are just a tool. A dangerous tool in the hands of some (but not most) people, but a tool none the less. And significantly less dangerous than a combination of the Internet, some money, and a trip to the hardware store. And until more people are killed annually in the US by guns than by cars, I will never support any kind of gun control measures that go beyond common sense measures.
So do guns. Guns of plenty of uses "besides murdering people."
I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse, but I am trying to understand. The way you phrased this makes it sound like you are saying that a higher distribution of guns means people are more likely to be crazy. Or, a gun makes a person go insane, rather than the person being innately insane? Is that what you meant? If not, could you clarify?
On this point, I came across an op-ed article in The Washington Post, which tends to come down more in favor of gun control than against:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-gun-policys-slippery-slope/2012/07/26/gJQA4azJCX_story.html?hpid=z2
A notable quote: There are two questions to consider.
First, would tighter gun-control laws — say, one banning the AR-15-style weapon that James Holmes allegedly used — have prevented the Aurora shooting? It is a difficult case to make. A committed, intelligent mass murderer will find a way. Gun-control laws do not reduce massacres in the same manner that OSHA regulations reduce industrial accidents. Massacres are purposely monstrous violations of the law, which marginal changes in the law are unlikely to prevent.
In what sense? The US Supreme Court has ruled on whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or militias. Unless you're referring to more specific laws, like Concealed Carry. Out of cuiosity, and again not trying to be obtuse, but why are you so passionate about this topic? Obviously, we here in the US have a vested interest, regardless of what side of the debate we fall on; what about you?
A fact that you can support, or your opinion?
This graphic showcases gun ownership rates by state:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
And the states with the highest rates of gun ownership are not the States with the highest incidence of violent crime.
I would also do anything to avoid confronting a crazy madman, armed or not. Believe it or not, as a gun owner, I'd prefer a life of peace and non-confrontation; I'm not looking for any fights. I also recognize that the odds are likely I will live just that sort of life.
But being scared and being prepared ARE two different things. I don't assume I will die or have any significant health issues, but I still carry life and health insurance.
OK, I get that you don't like guns, but please: can we at least agree that, in a circumstance where a gun owner's home is invaded by someone with intent to harm, and where that gun owner shoots the intruder, that the gun owner is not committing murder?
I'm not asking you to revel in the death of a human being, nor am I trying to say that. I'm not asking you to say that this is a best-case scenario. I am asking you to quit with the dramatic wording. A gun can be used to commit murder. A gun can be used in defense (even if you don't agree with the practice). The intent of murder lies squarely in the individual behind the trigger, and murder is far more insidious than self defense.
So, update US gun laws to require gun owners to store their guns in biometric safes. I would be all for this.
I was about to type more, but then I started wondering, "What's the point?". Gun control gets discussed frequently on MTGS. Its hard enough for pro/anti gun US citizens to discuss it, and even harder for US citizens/Europeans to discuss it; the cultural differences and perspectives seem insurmountable to me.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
so gun ownership makes you crazy or unable to control your self and shoot whoever else has a gun? if you don't have a gun you dont run you hit the floor? and before you ask I have been surprised and shot at.
thanks to people willing to watch the news 24/7 he got that name if we didnt watch it they wouldnt show it
my point was with 3 or 4 dead it would have been off the front page the next day and whoever killed this guy is the story not this loser
he was but the less people having guns only works for the criminals the goverment cant be everywhere at once.
instant iq test
You are talking about a dark, crowded theater. According to the reports many people initially thought this was just a publicity stunt and did not realize that they were in danger until they were shot. Once people realized what was going on the panic must have been horrible.
If everyone in that theater was armed, you would have had a much bigger body count as panicked people just opened fire at anything they thought was a threat.
Without access to guns, they would likely resort to more effective and cheaper (but slightly more work to make) homemade explosives that would leave less survivors and have more fatalities.
So accidents go down...that is worth disarming people and making everyone a disarmed victim in waiting for a criminal?
Maybe that is what you are taught in Germany, as to why Americans have guns and buy guns. But I've never bought a gun out of fear. I am armed almost 24/7, yes - because it is my Constitutional right. I am not scared, and I am not trigger happy. And since you love statistics so much, why don't you go look up the rate at which registered concealed carry license holders commit violence crimes. Here's a hint...it's a fraction of a percent.
The difference is culture, not access. Look at Switzerland - the have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, but less crime. Unfortunately, American culture has come to the point that it glorifies crime and such in some areas. That is the problem - the culture needs addressed, not guns. We already have almost 15,000 gun control laws on the books. We don't need more.
You truly are ignorant of the process of getting a gun if you think we are "handing out weapons to everyone." If we were "handing out weapons to everyone," then the business of selling illegal guns to criminals wouldn't be big in this country. In fact, pretty much every single post of yours' shows you are ignorant of US gun laws.
Wrong again. Guns are used for a lot more than "murdering people." Also, there is no such thing as "accidental" murder. Maybe you should do some research before spouting that nonsensical European anti-American propaganda.
Guns are used for something actually useful. Cars, however, have no purpose and we can just use public transportation. Therefore, we should have strict car control laws because cars are capable of killing people and we have an alternative to cars.
I am a gun owner and I have a biometric safe. It is both the safest way to store my weapons fully loaded since I do have small children and the fastest way to access my weapons at a moments notice. I'm not so worried about al-Qaeda breaking in, but that guy that broke into my house about 5 years ago got a surprise he wasn't looking for. But thanks for being a sarcastic ass about it.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
Thanks for your reply; it helps me understand where you're coming from, and while I don't agree, I cant respect your perspective.
To your last point: Obviously, I disagree that the possession of guns is the primary factor in "my life or your life" scenarios. I think many things factor into such encounters, such as (but not limited to):
-A sense of entitlement, from Americans in general (and perhaps the Western world as a whole)
-Poverty
-Gang culture (which arguably is a sub-set of poverty)
-An individualistic, independent mindset, rather than a communal one. In other words, Americans look out for themselves above the needs of the community, both locally or nationally.
I could go on, but I feel like those are the big ones.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Good article posted today by Carl M. Cannon. It opens with a 2007 case where an armed parishioner at a church saved almost everyone's lives (the two exceptions being a pair of sisters who were killed and their parents who were shot when they left church early). It talks about what led up to the ill-named "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," and puts the estimated 270 daily shootings we have in this country into perspective (estimated 300,000,000 guns in the United States, yet only 98,000 shootings a year [fatal and nonfatal] meaning only 0.000326% of guns in this nation are involved in a shooting every year, or for ever gun used in a shooting 3,061.224 are not - since Knaut loves statistics so much).
It then talks about the typical left wing response to atrocities like this, including the assumption that if guns were banned it wouldn't have happened (which is not necessarily true - Timothy McVeigh managed to kill a lot of people without using a firearm in Oklahoma City) and Mayor Bloomberg's urging to police across the nation to go on strike in protest of "lax" gun laws (which is illegal, police are not permitted to strike).
It follows up near the end with the stories of two women - one in Texas who watched a gun man kill her mother and father in a public cafeteria. She owned a pistol and had a permit to carry, but Texas law at the time forbid her from carrying in that cafeteria. She felt that if the laws had been different, she could have saved her parents instead of watching them die - she went on to become a politician who fought for people's right to a gun. The other is a woman whose husband was murdered and son was seriously wounded in New York City by an immigrant who lost it on a subway train in 1993. She went on to become a gun control activist who fought against people's right to a gun.
It ends with three stories. One is about a shooting in 1903 where a person wanted to stop the shooter, but was unarmed and no one would give him a gun to stop the shooter (and those who were armed refused to take again). The next story is from 1949, where an armed civilian shot a rampaging shooter once, but didn't kill him and couldn't muster the nerve to finish him. And the final story ends the story that it opened with, the church shooting in 2007 where none of the armed volunteer guards would give a Viet Nam vet their gun to take down the approaching shooter who had just murdered two sisters and wounded their parents, leaving it up to a single armed parishioner to stop the gunman and thus saving the lives of every single person still in that church.
If she had not been armed in church that day and her premonitions about the shooter had no led her to suggest armed volunteer guards...a lot more people would have died on Sunday, December 9th, 2007.
Guns in the hands of criminals kill people.
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (typically) save people.
Passing gun control laws only takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals armed and the citizens disarmed.
That to me really is the main thing. It like some of the old sayings, locks just keep a honest man honest. It does nothing to keep a thief out.
I have all my guns legally, carry them legally, keep them locked in safes when not in use, and teach anyone who will listen to me how to handle a weapon safely. Make it illegal and I won't have a gun anymore because I am a law abiding citizen. (Granted I would fight the law, but anyway.) Criminals and those who want to do my family harm will still have a gun.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
And the reason that no one in that theater was armed?
Because they too are law abiding citizens and the rules for the theater are "no guns." The rules stopped the law abiding citizens from carrying, but had absolutely no impact on the gunman bringing guns into the theater to kill people.
Gun control laws only work on people who follow the laws.
They didn't take guns into the theater because its a societal norm. Its the same reason you don't take guns into Chuckie-Cheeses. As much as you can bet that guns would have helped, I can bet that people who went to the theater did not think about taking a gun with them... because it is the societal norm.
You can claim that, because it fits your views of society. But that does not change the fact that the Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO was a "gun-free zone" (except for the killer, it seems) by company policy. And I, as a law abiding CCW permit holder, also do not carry in any areas that are designated as "gun-free" zones - such as banks (which, oddly enough, being "gun-free" zones doesn't stop armed robberies...)
http://news.investors.com/article/619196/201207231853/aurora-colorado-theater-gun-free-zone.htm