The problem is, the gun lobby will use this argument: If people in the cinema were armed, they would have been able to return fire and prevent the deaths.

The problem with that argument is that returning fire in a darkened auditorium could have killed many more innocent people.

Those states that have relaxed their firearms laws further and allow concealed carry have seen violent crime rates massively decrease.

So well worth the odd massacre then.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/video]

This madman had at least four weapons on him, and, after reading a Fb post by someone asking how he could have killed so many, I did a search, and if he was using an AR-15, a common semi-auto in the States, he could have a 60 or 100 round mag on it!
It’s a miracle that the death toll wasn’t higher, really. A terrible thing for his family, and those of his victims.

After posting this yesterday, I read in the paper today that the first gun used was a semi-auto shotgun, and after that ran out he used a rifle, which Police said was an AR-15, fitted with a 100-round drum magazine!
Apparently, some of the casualties were in the next theatre, when rounds went through the walls, so it’s a mercy nobody started shooting back, or the collateral damage from rounds going through other walls could have been horrific.
A desperately sad situation all round, and it’s difficult to imagine the emotions of the victim’s families. 🙁

Here’s a suggestion, let’s for once focus on the victims and not on whether guns should be banned or fought for till your dying breath.

Everytime someone goes off the rails and thinks the way to deal with their feelings is to go off on a killing spree it comes back to the same thing and the victims get forgotten about in favour of the shit biscuit crazy prat who wasn’t cuddled enough.

While you lot are trying to turn a simple thread into a soapbox I dare you to try and list 10 victims of shooting sprees int he last ten years without the use of Google.

I used to shoot, I used to own my own guns, after Dunblane I had to hand them in during the amnesty. I was not an unhinged fantasist, I took part in a sport. I can see why guns should be banned completely, but I also believe in the rights of people not being quashed because of 0.0001% of the population.

Perhaps a separate forum should be set up for arguing because this is going to get tedious

While you lot are trying to turn a simple thread into a soapbox I dare you to try and list 10 victims of shooting sprees int he last ten years without the use of Google.

Those who are as you put it “turning a simple thread into a soapbox” are focusing on the victims of what happened yesterday and the future victims in what will no doubt happen again if it remains unchecked.

Related to what Boba Fett posted:

How the media shouldn’t cover mass murder

While you lot are trying to turn a simple thread into a soapbox

I also believe in the rights of people not being quashed because of 0.0001% of the population.

Hmmmm…..

Sorry, there’s simply no legitimate reason for any member of the public to have an assault rifle – it’s ridiculous. I bet the death/injury toll would have been a lot lower without it.

While you lot are trying to turn a simple thread into a soapbox I dare you to try and list 10 victims of shooting sprees int he last ten years without the use of Google.

You’re right, I can’t do that. I also can’t list 10 people who have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, WW2, 7/7, the Shoah, the Argentinean Dirty War, the Congolese wars or the Emmerdale plane crash.

The problem is, the gun lobby will use this argument: If people in the cinema were armed, they would have been able to return fire and prevent the deaths.

It’s the argument pro-gun people come out with after every mass shooting.
That’s irrelevant here. The people (well, citizen non-felon adults etc) in the cinema were entitled to have been armed (concealed with a CCW, openly without).