Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 998607" data-attributes="member: 17969">Response time was 1.5 minutes and the police was there in force.  The guy barely made it back to his car when he surrendered like the little coward he was. Its easy for you to criticize what happened that day as you monday morning quarterback the shooting from a perspective that MORE guns would have made people MORE safe.But you ignore all the FACTS about the shooting that get in your way, your selfishness for guns BLINDS you to the obvious.The problem with your perspective SOBER, is that its generated out of the John Wayne Syndrome where guys like you want to be a "hero" so bad with your guns as if you are the cowboy in the white hat.But in reality, guys like you are not heros because you carry a gun, you are the kind of person the public should fear.In the cities of Compton, Bell Gardens, South Central, East Los Angeles, San Fernando ( all in southern california ) are cities where most of the population is ARMED, would you call all these men in these cities "heros"??There is a shooting everyday in those towns and people die.  Is this your idea of Americans not being on their knees??What i find odd is your claim that we are UNARMED and HELPLESS while the ARMED LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS have their way with us....  how do you define LUNATICS and PSYCHOPATHS??How does someone make this determination?  Should people with mental disorders be allowed to own guns?  and if not, would that include those addicted to drugs or addicted to alcohol??I mean, people addicted to drugs and having gone into treatment doesnt mean they can make good judgements, they have already demonstrated they cant make good decisions, and the same for alcoholics.Both are mental disorders that impair judgement, and I certainly dont want to see anyone with either of these conditions whether presently or previously to have any access to weapons.A person who cannot control their lives enough to stay off drugs or alcohol is EXACTLY the kind of person who should NEVER be allowed to own guns.In this shooting, every right wing kook on the radio keeps repeating the claim that "if only" one person had a gun in that theatre, the outcome would have been different.But what if there were more than ONE person armed in that theatre??Lets say there were 5 armed persons in there, and the gas canisters go off and the shooter begins his rampage and the first person takes out his gun and starts shooting, then the other 4 persons who do not know who each other are, take out guns, who are they going to shoot other than each other??Its the stupid suggestions that make me laugh the best.  Now you would have 6 shooters firing inside the theatre and NONE of them would know who the other was or why they were shooting.  In the dark, in a panic, in chaos, in the smoke and with all the loudness of the movie sound, it would be a free-for-all and many more people would have been killed.Clearly, restricting access to assault weapons and magazines that limit rounds is the answer.When Gov Romney was in office, HE BANNED all the guns used by this shooter and the magazines he had.When CLINTON was in office, he also BANNED all the guns used by the shooter.  IT was BUSH and the GOP controlled house and senate that UNDID the bans on those weapons and THEY should be held partially responsible for thier contribution to this massacre.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

Verification