By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
-CraZed- on 25 July 2012
Edit Thread
MessiaH said:

-CraZed- said:

3. There was only one person in that theater who had a gun.... James Holmes. Had another legitimate movie goer had a gun or a few had guns someone could have shot him and stop him from killing as many as he had. When seconds count the police (who carry guns) are just minutes away. And even if it is true the police showed up in 90 or so seconds somone could have stopped him in less than 30. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

The idea of possessing a gun will never be outdated. The idea of banning guns is outdated. We are always so busy trying to ban inatimate objects that we forget about the human aspect of the problem. All banning guns will do (and has done) is make the average citizen prey to criminals who care nothing for their rights to be safe and secure in their person and propety.

To your point #3, I think if other people had guns they could have accidentally shot other civilians. Remember that this happened in a dark theater, smoke bombs were detonated, the murderer was wearing full body armor from head to toe, and people were running all over the place in a frenzy. So if he was shot at, it would not have done anything, he was wearing armor. And chances are, amidst the chaos, the people with guns would have accidentally shot other people trying to run away. 

The idea of possessing a gun became outdated since the wild west was over. People are so bound by the Constitution that was written in the 1700's when times were radically different. There is no shame in admitting that there is room for amendments to be made. I am not saying "ban guns", but clearly the status quo is NOT working. People are getting killed in alarmingly high numbers. People are prone to violence for some odd disgusting reason. People are scared. And that is why they want a gun by their bed-side. No doubt, something needs to be done, what that is should be open for discussion and reasoning.

While you make a valid point.... it doesn't change the fact that he was able to kill those people with no resistance at all. Sure someone could have accidentaly shot another theater goer but they were already shot by the perpetrator. Either way they were shot. I personally would rather have the chance to defend myself than be killed  with my hands in front of my face in submission. This was chaos and the only one who was able to take advantage of it was this wacko and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Could imagine that saying being true ifvthe fish had guns?

As for your assertion that people are being killed in alarmingly high numbers, you are just wrong hombre. The murder rate has been going down steadily since the 90s (funny enough the Playstation came out around this time) where it was over 9 per 10000 (in the 80s it was over 10!) murdered to less than 5 per 10000 in 2010. Its the perception brought on by the 24-hour news cycle that has perpetrated this idea that more and more people are killing.

Mass murder, genocide etc. are nothing new in the history of humanity. Banning guns for the average citizen won't change that. It would only serve to make those who follow the laws and respect their fellow citizens rights victims of those who do not.