A very sad day for establishments that ban concealed carry

71 people shot? Are you freakin kidding me?

This horrible event could have been stopped almost instantly had the movie theatre cared more about it's patrons saftey than political correctness.
ANY sign in front of ANY building that prohibits concealed carry should ACTUALLY say :

ATTENTION CRIMINALS !!!!!! This establishment has protected your ability to shoot all the people you want until law enforcement arrives. C'mon in , kill our customers, WE DONT GIVE A FU$K ABOUT OUR CUSTOMERS SAFTEY

They are going to come gun grabbin again those pathetic leftys, so, I went out and bought THIS today. Stock up while you can !!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80485479@N04/7613205052/in/photostream

 

My thoughts and prayers go out to those who suffered loss and injury due to this bloody maniacs actions

 

It's a fact of life that there are people out there who want to kill us. It doesn't really matter what their weapon of choice is be it a gun, knife or a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 (like Ted Kennedy's car). They're just lunatics intent on killing as many people as possible. This guy knew better than to attack a local gun show so he chose a venue where he knew people would be unarmed. It's sad to think how many lives might have been saved had there been an armed, legal-carry patron in the theatre. An armed society is a polite society.

 

I have many views of this matter which do include stricker gun controls or current ones being enforced but to get to the meat of your post I agree that one can not ban guns from good people and then expect bad people not to bring them. If a ban exisited then a metal dectator and armed security should have been in place. The measures could have been put in place with less then a dollar more added to each ticket to cover the costs which would also include the added insurance costs of having an armed guard.
Believe it or not, a place of business is punished for having such.

 

So if I follow this, you want the general public to pay for the privilege of showing up early to pass through metal detectors so they can see a movie only to have someone break in the fire doors and shoot them as opposed to going down the street for less money and less time? Funny, but I do not think that idea will catch on.

BTW, that would be $1/2B.

 

I understand your point but people are going to be needed to be protected if they are not allowed to protect themselves. Better security is needed and not just for guns. The facts are that this person also made bombs. Even if he had no access to guns he was smart enough that he could be able to make bombs and plant them to cause the same if not more damage. We have to adjust our line of thought that added measures of protection need to be done which included strong doors at the back as much as in the front. The way things are going we have to watch out as much for the mentally ill who are not being treated as much as for the religious terrorist. I would pay the extra money to take my kids to a place that has added security be it an airline, an amusement park, etc.

BTW: Most of us do it already with where we pick to live. I know I could live cheaper in FT Myers but Naples is far safer with all of its police which come with the higher home prices and propery taxes.

 

When the rest of society is willing to pay for the added security, it will happen. Until such time, one such case every couple decades might happen. So your odds are something like 12 deaths out of every 10,000,000,000 theater attendees. I do not think it would take me long to come up with a lot better ways to spend that $10,000,000,000. Might even start with some mentally ill facilities as being tremendously more effective.

BTW, that is just for theaters. How much more for sporting events, colleges, malls, Walmarts, parks, resorts, etc. There is a never ending list of places to try and protect. Just in OKC, you have got to add federal buildings, fertilizer, rental trucks and post offices.

 

I understand and on one level agree with your points. With the biggest with how to protect colleges, the costs of everything and could money be well spent elsewhere But I still feel it is wrong to take guns out of the hands of the responsible and not set up any measures to protect them from the mentally ill, the criminal element, or religious terrorists.

 

No matter how much you do, the kooks, terrorist, and criminals will find another way to spoil it. I will grant you that some of the methodology previously used for the mentally ill were over the top. Now that we have "advanced", our treatment is to give them a pill, tell them to take it and let them live free. That may not impede their rights, but how is it working? There has got to be something in the middle.

 

Dont they check bags and stuff in the US when you enter a venue? a lot of places here do. You go to Twickenham for the Rugby they check your bags, visit the O2 they will check your bags and they have metal detectors installed. Even some of the pubs and bars in major cities have security on the doors, some cinemas will ask to look in your bags as well. We simply take it for granted. I went to the Theater the other night and my partners bag was looked into as were many others and not a single complaint, thing is we have lived with the threat of bombs now for so long it is natural.

 

Steve,
Yes, here also, they check bags and stuff at major sporting events and concerts etc etc. You get wanded going to a baseball game or a famous band concert........
AND, that will help catch the criminals upon entry. A movie theatre, restauraunt, etc etc is unlikley to go to such measures. My opinion is, if you dont " wand" the bad guys, dont prohibit the good guys from carrying.

 

I will bet you 99% of the attendees of sporting events do NOT get checked. I live 1 mile from a high school football stadium. It seats 6,000 to 10,000. Three teams play there. So it is packed 20 some times per year (assuming they don't make the playoffs). The schools also have gyms for BB and wrestling. Also big draws. My home town, population 7,000 has 3 (2 HS's and a podunk college) football stadiums seating 2,000 and up with probably proportionately larger gym draws. (Wrestling outdraws BB every time.) In other words, there are umpteen relatively minor (unless it is your team) sporting events for every one major event where the people are actually sort of checked.

 

Read this and imagine a smoke filled theater and dozens of people with guns shooting into the crowd. More guns has never been the answer and it never will be. That is just the gun crowds fantasy. Less access to assault rifles and handguns would end these types of shooting almost entirely.

Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him. Look at the 1991 slaughter in Killeen, Texas, where 23 people died in a restaurant while a patron's handgun, thanks to a dumb law, was left outside in her car. Look at the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people died because under the university's naïve policy, nobody in the invaded classrooms was allowed to carry a firearm. Guns save lives. So the argument goes.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits. The legislature is considering two bills to expand this right, and as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training to politicians and their staff. The bill is tentatively titled the Giffords-Zimmerman Act in honor of the wounded congresswoman and her slain aide. "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim," argues the state's top pro-gun legislator. Beyond Arizona, at least two members of Congress say they'll brings guns while traveling their districts.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed: "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

 

Gun nut fantasy debunked.

View attachment 492

 

Just to put some perspective into your comments;

 

Hoo Boy! When will you nuts start realizing it's not the guns causing the problems, but the people who use them? For instance, I don't recall a single automobile causing a drunk-driving death, but many people who choose to get behind a wheel while drunk certainly kill people.

You're using the old "shift the blame" liberal tactic here. I trust that our forum members won't be fooled by it.

 

I honestly think these nutty libs take a bit of satisfaction in these shootings because they believe it helps build their case against gun ownership. If I'm not mistaken, this shooter also had made bombs. If he hadn't brought a gun into the theater do you think he might have used a bomb?

 

Jack is upset that 71 people were shot but seems OK that 30,000 in this country are shot each and every year as a result of gun violence. It seems to me that if it were true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and separating people from guns would solve the problem. People kill other people with guns. I'm not against guns, I'm against people with guns. Virtually 100% of people that are shot, are shot with guns. Bullets are far less lethal outside the chamber of a gun. As access to guns increases gun violence increases in any environment. The 2nd Amendment has outlived both its original intent and has actually begun to take freedom away from the victims of gun violence and should be repealed.

How many massacres will it take?

 

Here, get to know the guns you are defending. What limits on weapons would you support?

When he walked into the Century Aurora 16 theater, he wore full body armor and carried four guns: two semiautomatic Glock handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun, and an AR-15 style assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine.

 

Guns don’t kill people…
Bullets kill people,
Fired from guns,
By people,
Supplied by gun manufactures,
Bought anywhere from your local store to any number of gun shows,
Protected by the NRA
And guaranteed by your Constitution.
So, while guns don’t kill people, it takes a lot of different people to created, sell, use, protect, supply, load, and guarantee that guns shoot 30,000 people annually.

Why can't people change that?