Police: Texting in movie theater sparks fatal shooting, retired officer arrested

[Peikko 1,575]

(argumentative comment removed - VJ Moderation)

while individual decision is confined by legal requirements, that is the crux of the issue. was the individual breaking the law by carrying? no. just his actions were unwarranted and a violation of the law.

always know your backstop.

not to mention that doing so could put one liable for not having it secured properly.

(response to removed argumentative comment removed - VJ Moderation)

The crux of the matter is more than just simply did he conform to the law and then break the law, the crux of the matter is should the US expect more of its citizenry that have the right to bear arms to act in a sensible and responsible manner and only carry arms and ammunition when and where it is necessary to do so rather than putting everyone at greater risk by carrying arms and ammunition based on a failure to understand risk and 'feeling' that carrying arms and ammunition is a good idea. You as an armed citizen have a duty to ensure we are all at less risk from arms, not more. That's a community duty. Arguing a selfish rationale is fine if you live in a cave but if you want to live in cities and communities, mitigate risk based on reality, don't increase risk because you have a second amendment 'right' to do so.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Kathryn41

[GandD 5,966]

that's his choice.

It is now. Not like we shouldn't have the option to debate whether it should be.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

years and years before the aurora shooting, every single time i went to the theater, the scenario of a shooter/killer in the audience crossed my mind. i rarely go to the theater anymore, but when i do, i still think about the possibility of such a thing occuring. every time. my son goes with friends, it's all i think about. these thoughts have never prompted me to start carrying a gun everywhere i go or keeping my son at home until he can carry a gun. i am of the mindset that these thoughts are intrusive and should be dealt with by minimizing their paranoid effects, not feeding them. intrusive thoughts are normally based in complete reality but drenched in hyperparanoia.

long story short..anxiety is tiring and carrying a gun is the easiest and dumbest way to feel at ease. imo, most of you concealed carry fanatics need to man up and take control of your ocd tendancies.

You should not stop going to the theater and worrying yourself to death. Don't let fear rule you. Take charge of your own safety.

Maybe Nice light Glock 27 perhaps?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is it appropriate for there to be a law that allows people to carry guns in cinemas?

[Peikko 1,575]

Perhaps you drive a beater but some car models are targets for the people to steal. More than once I have had a car broken to before. I feel my gun is safer on me than left in my car. At times I need it for protection. Depends on where you are and have been. Many people don't live a sheltered life such as yourself. One cannot dress like a homeless person all the time. A few thousand Dollar suit and a good watch at times makes you a target.

Again, taking a gun into a cinema because it's too dangerous to keep it in the car is not a reason why you NEED a gun in the cinema. What it tells me is that that gun would be better at home locked in a gun case because you are taking it into places that it is not needed because you do not have something better to do with it.

What type of car I drive, whether I dress like a tramp or in designer label suits and whether or not my life is or isn't sheltered is totally and utterly irrelevant, not least because you have no idea about any of it, it's just assumption on your part.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I still want to know why one's level of intellect is not considered before allowing them to own a gun. We have folks with 6th grade educations armed to the hilt with all of our lives at their disposal.

Murika!

[GandD 5,966]

I still want to know why one's level of intellect is not considered before allowing them to own a gun. We have folks with 6th grade educations armed to the hilt with all of our lives at their disposal.

Murika!

That prob would not have affected this situation.

[Peikko 1,575]

I still want to know why one's level of intellect is not considered before allowing them to own a gun. We have folks with 6th grade educations armed to the hilt with all of our lives at their disposal.

Murika!

Because we live in a society that affords everyone the same rights. As the right to bear arms has been interpreted as a constitutional right, then there has to be good reason to remove that right. I support that although I do feel that gun owners should be obligated to take safety courses and demonstrate the ability to understand and follow basic gun safety on a regular basis.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Did he post this on a dating website? What a Lothario!

I told one poster here, Jacque, that was my facebook photo.

[Teddy B 17,252]

That prob would not have affected this situation.

Maybe not. It was more of a general thought than anything else. Just doesn't seem right that any dim wit can strap on a gun without being able to do basic math.

[decocker 7,198]

You should not stop going to the theater and worrying yourself to death. Don't let fear rule you. Take charge of your own safety.

Maybe Nice light Glock 27 perhaps?

i have these sorts of thoughts no matter where i'm going or what i'm doing. safety has nothing to do with it. instrusive thoughts are related to ocd and there isn't a weapon in the world that i could own or carry around that will make them go away. if i allow these thoughts to take over, my body's natural (and appropriate) response is fear. the way i take charge of my sanity (not safety) is for every unreasonable fear/thought, i purposefully think of reasons not to be afraid and practice acceptance of the chaotic randomness that is life. honestly, having a gun around would actually heighten my stress levels. with great power comes great responsibility and all that..

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The crux of the matter is more than just simply did he conform to the law and then break the law, the crux of the matter is should the US expect more of its citizenry that have the right to bear arms to act in a sensible and responsible manner and only carry arms and ammunition when and where it is necessary to do so rather than putting everyone at greater risk by carrying arms and ammunition based on a failure to understand risk and 'feeling' that carrying arms and ammunition is a good idea. You as an armed citizen have a duty to ensure we are all at less risk from arms, not more. That's a community duty. Arguing a selfish rationale is fine if you live in a cave but if you want to live in cities and communities, mitigate risk based on reality, don't increase risk because you have a second amendment 'right' to do so.

actually, that is the crux of the matter. that is what he'll be in court for.

i'm also aware of any duties and responsibilities i bear as a firearm owner and as a cch carrier, whenever i choose to carry.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Because we live in a society that affords everyone the same rights. As the right to bear arms has been interpreted as a constitutional right, then there has to be good reason to remove that right. I support that although I do feel that gun owners should be obligated to take safety courses and demonstrate the ability to understand and follow basic gun safety on a regular basis.

Everything should be interpreted within reason.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Teddy B

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Because we live in a society that affords everyone the same rights. As the right to bear arms has been interpreted as a constitutional right, then there has to be good reason to remove that right. I support that although I do feel that gun owners should be obligated to take safety courses and demonstrate the ability to understand and follow basic gun safety on a regular basis.

safety courses how often? what is a regular basis? who's paying for these courses and demonstrations of gun safety?

[Peikko 1,575]

safety courses how often? what is a regular basis? who's paying for these courses and demonstrations of gun safety?

Determined by people who know about how frequently these things need to be reviewed and reinforced to ensure that safety awareness is paramount. If you want to own a gun you should be prepared to pay for courses on gun safety, they could be government subsidized for those who have problems paying. What does any of that matter? Gun safety is not intuitive, if it were people wouldn't constantly shoot themselves in the butt.