navysully wrote:You're right. To stop internet piracy, lets just shut off the internet. To stop speeding, lets get rid of cars.
Not everyone should carry. Only law-abiding, responsible, trained, and vetted people should conceal carry. In Virginia, you have to undergo a thorough background investigation, be finger printed, show proof of government training, and pay a fee to get the license. You won't get 20 conceal carriers in a movie theater at once. Maybe one or two. Those one or two could have helped avert this tragedy.
The thing about Aurora, Colorado, is that they have very strict gun laws. People couldn't have carried in there as it is illegal, which is a damn shame. All of these mass tragedy shootings happen in gun free zones. What does that tell you?
Cars and internet are a need in today's society but. They are vital to the economy and everyday life. But society doesn't need guns and nor should it have easy access to it. To say you need it for protection because the police won't protect you, is like saying every parent should take their child out of the school system to home school them because they can't protect them from bullies at school.
Obviously, every gun owner should be law-abiding, responsible, trained and vetted, but the amount of loopholes in which criminals can use to obtain a firearm (legal or not) is alarming. The shooter in the Colorado case, seemed like a normal guy, never been in trouble with the law, doing a Ph.D in neuroscience, he seems like the ideal candidate to be a gun owner. Yet, he had access to multiple weapons which he obtained legally. Not the mention the amount of ammunition he was able to get his hands without raising a red flag. Why would someone, ever need more than one weapon for self-protection anyway?
Would a concealed carrier really have helped? Sure, theoretically being able to end the shooters spree early would save lives, but what about in real life?How much would you trust those one or two potential concealed carriers to have had enough extensive training to be able to keep calm, line up a shot and take it, during all the chaos, being shot at and the smoke? Even trained soldiers would have trouble in that situation. Keep in mind, unloading your clip at the shooter is one thing, taking a carefully aimed shot admist everything going on, isnt' something you train for.
Gun-free zones doesn't stop these sprees, it stops smaller, more minor and likely more common incidents from occuring. The only way to limit these sprees from occuring, or at least lessen the effect of them, is to restrict access to these mass murdering tools. Now I'm not saying that if this guy was determined to do what he did, he wouldn't pay 5 - 10 more for an secondary market weapon, but it would most definitely limit the ability for even the most determined people to obtain these weapons.
