Unfortunately, I noticed that when tragedies and crimes like this happen, there are usually copy-cats, for what ever reason (maybe being jealous that someone else got so much attention for doing what this person always pervertedly dreamed about doing, maybe this person was just waiting for someone else to do it first, etc…)
The last I heard about the story, the murderer was most likely a homegrown terrorist who mistook Sikhs for Muslims because of the former group’s turbans, and that he may have had a 9/11 tattoo on his arm. But perhaps more details have been discovered since then.
This was my understanding from a brief news snippet as well. If it is true, then it certainly represents the terrible fruit of fear of the other, fear of Islam, and xenophobia in general.
I actually think it would be a terrible idea, almost as bad as starting a debate on the 2nd Amendment in the Non-Catholic Religions forum
Taking the ability to defend one’s self out of the hands of innocent people is not going to solve the problem. But I do believe in some gun control, like those wiuth a violent or criminal record, those with mental illnesses, etc… should not be able to get guns. And some states do have these types of laws. But when a person is Hell-bent on killing, they will find away, law or no law.
But giving one a constitutional right to own a deadly weapon is surely going to increase the chances of shootings of the kind seen in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and now Oak Creek.
But again, some states have laws limiting the right to own a gun. And besides that, until every police force, every military force, and every terrorist group on the planet is similarly disarmed, I will not give up the right to defend myself. There was a reason the American Founding Fathers made it a Constitutional right.
The American founding Fathers were not infallible. They instituted this at a time when the USA was first in existence and guns really were needed to defend property and enforce laws.
It depends…in some states, to buy a gun you must first take a firearms class…what makes you think that if everyone in Aurora (excluding kids, that is) had owned a gun they wouldn’t have had the proper training in how to use it?
If it was me, I would have shot back at the shooter, not in a “panicked frenzy”. But then again I would have been smart enough to get the proper training, first.
Of course, in a darkened cinema, with no prior warning, you obviously would have just shot back at the shooter because he probably was wearing a Hi-Vis jacket or something.
Neither of us was there, so neither really know. I guess I would have targeted where the bullets were coming from and where the flashes from gunpowder exploding came from. I don’t know, I don’t have the proper training and I wasn’t there. Hopefully a police officer or military person can come on here and tell us how they do it.Of course, in a darkened cinema, with no prior warning, you obviously would have just shot back at the shooter because he probably was wearing a Hi-Vis jacket or something.
Obviously…
The point I’m trying to make is that every time there is a shooting in the US the answer seems to be to staunchly defend the second amendment as opposed to possibly exploring changing it.
6 people were murdered while they waited for someone with a gun to show up and stop the attack.
And the theatre was filled with tear gas…Of course, in a darkened cinema, with no prior warning, you obviously would have just shot back at the shooter because he probably was wearing a Hi-Vis jacket or something.
Obviously…
