In this case he's right, the guy had head to toe body armor, a riot mask, ballistic gear and a gas mask. Anyone who shot at him, through the fog of tear gas, would probably have hit someone else in the theater, but even if they hit him, it wouldn't have stopped him and he would have killed them.
Maybe its just me but when I think about banning guns and adding laws to further stem our rights I Think "Oh yea, when guns are illegal bad guys will quit breaking the law..."
I swear if these unAmerican @$$clowns spent less time worrying about how my guns are hurting people and more time thinking about how how our country is being killed without a shot being fired then that would be a "CHANGE" I would stand behind.
ever since Cain killed Able, men have had to protect themselves from other men! It's just the way it is, nobody likes it, but that is the world. It's my duty as a husband and father to protect my family from such men therefore I will always carry my handgun and with diligence try my best to keep them safe, support your second amendment America!
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million..
if you do not accept responsibility for your own safety, to include maintaining the proper tools for the job, then you have no right to call yourself a citizen.
Why the gun IS civilization
Doug Giles latest article ‘The Dark Knight Movie Massacre & Why I Carry a Gun Everywhere I Go’ he states that “One fast-thinking and trained person who was armed/licensed with a concealed weapon could have stopped that SOB right in his tracks before the body count skyrocketed.” The armed citizen could have either killed him, sent him running for cover, or at least diverted his fire away from the masses and toward their person. He says that ‘you, my friend, are your first responder … your first line of defense.’ Doug recommends ‘to you, the good citizen, is to get equipped with a gun and become proficient with it. Make it like a cell phone: an additional appendage to your body. And then pray that you’ll never have to use it.’ The life you save maybe your own to include your family/friends.
Don't anyone for a second think that if I was there with my wife, once I realized what was going on... I would have drawn a weapon. I will not sit by and watch some maniac kill innocent people and possibly myself or my wife when I could do something about it...
As for the legality of carrying... I believe it's better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. I could never never live with myself if my wife got hurt or killed by some maniac while I could and should have done something! I only wish to God that there was someone in that theater that was armed... .Could have saved so many lives... And not a jury in this country would have convicted him for anything if the authorities got all up in a huff and charged a citizen for daring to defend himself and others from a maniac gunman.
Dumberg is an arrogant buffoon who walks around with armed guards at all times. He fancies himself a sophisticated and modern cosmopolitan fellow. He's a high priest of the Feudal age.
Blooming-Idiot! If some good citizen had saved the life of someone from his family, he'd he all about him!
Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's comment - but I just was reminded of an incident
This was mentioned on FOX - in 2002 - TWO ARMED students prevented more shooting at a law school in Virginia
That answers the Nanny's question
YES - armed citizens can and do prevent lunatics from doing more damage
I wonder how he would feel walking alone in bad neighborhoods of NYC with their restrictive gun laws.....how about DC or Chicago. He should have no reason to feel threatened or worried for his safety because those cities have some of the strictest gun laws, right? I mean I don't know whats killing all the young black people in chicago because their strict gun laws prevent people from having guns right? How do they do it??
What an idiot. Gun laws only restrict the law abiding citizen from being armed and having weapons. Criminals still get guns.
Well spoken from a man with armed guards. Mayor Daley used the same "Wild West" argument but there are more shootings in Chicago than there ever were in the Old West. I can only surmise that they want an unarmed citizenry to make it easier for them to take over when the proper time comes. You can bet those New Black Panthers blocking the voting booths had some guns close by.
Nanny Bloomberg .... Camping in the wilderness:
Where's the water? Can someone get me water?
Wait! Is it clean? You mean get it myself... from the stream?
What is there to eat? Fish??
Cooked over this fire? Wild flesh over dirty charcoal... Eh ... no thanks...
Do you have a candy bar?
I'll pay you $500 for that snickers bar!
I'll pay you $2000 for that 2 liter of Diet Coke!
Um, that's the whole point. People wouldn't pull out their guns and just start shooting, unless they had a death wish. Numerous other people could (and probably would be) armed too.
Since he likes to throw around the term "wild west" to make legal gun ownership and carry unpopular by association with the "old days", lets look at whether his argument holds any water. Nope, it doesn't. Why? Look at the crime statistics where guns are used. He's failing to acknowledge that to a large extent we're already in the middle of the "wild west," and its not because of legalizing guns, its quite the opposite.
One of the bad sides of human nature is for the strong to take advantage of the powerless, as a liberal he ought to believe this. But here he's promoting laws that make it difficult to own a gun or carry a concealed gun, the said laws have already artificially created a situation where most law abiding citizens are walking about unarmed and powerless. So we have an all too common occurrence of armed robbery, murder, rape, etc. Those who have armed themselves illegally hold the power. Those who wish to abide by the laws mostly have none. If he had any semblance of sincerity in this matter, he would move to protect the powerless by promoting the constitutional right to bear arms.
Could armed police officers have prevented deaths? Then why couldn't armed citizens who possessed the proper training?
Bloomberg is partially right... only armed Conservatives could have stopped the shooter. Democrats shoot like Obama bowls.
Armed citizens couldn't have prevented deaths. The murderer snuck in when it was dark and loud. No one noticed him until he started firing. He already shot a lot of people before anyone had any time to react. The commenters here don't seem to realize that when people with highly powerful firearms (known to politicians as "assault riffles") take shots at crowds of unexpecting people, many people will die.
What could have prevented this is if criminals like the murderer didn't have guns.
How do you know what would have happened if members of the audience had been armed? By the way the weapon he was using is not a " highly powerful firearm" it is a sub caliber weapon.
Your lack of knowledge is showing.
I can't. A murderer just shot me with a gun that he legally purchased in the United States due to America's gun laws. A-B-C-D... ... (X_X)
Here is a link to a video of a 71-year-old man who pulled out his gun during an armed robbery at an internet cafe in Florida and not only shot the robbers, but allowed the robbers to be captured by police: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/florida-customer-who-shot-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery-will-not-face/
So allowing people to be armed wouldn't stop robberies and get fewer innocent people killed? Look at the video, read the article, and judge for yourself.
Well, at least someone would have been shooting back. It could have given him something to think about besides his aim!!
Bloomberg is clearly not a deep thinker. I'd say he gets frustrated and hot-under-the-collar when having to weigh the pros and cons that come with resolving complex issues. Bloomberg nixes his discomfort by applying simplistic "solutions" to his oversimplified reduction of real-world problems.
It's very easy for morons like nanny Bloomberg to say this kind of nonsense because he travels with an entourage of armed bodyguards!His hypocrisy is amazing though not unexpected from a liberal hack!
Police are also armed citizens. Does Bloomberg plan to take away their guns, too? It was armed policemen who arrested the shooter and stopped him from continuing to shoot people as they left the theater. Had an armed off-duty policeman, security guard, or other armed citizen been inside the theater that night, the shooter could have been stopped much sooner. On the other hand, if all law-abiding citizens, including the police, were unarmed, the shooting may have continued for hours. Is that what Bloomberg would have preferred?
New York has some of the toughest gun laws. has that stopped crimes with guns being used ? NO.
we had prohibition in the 1920's did everyone stop drinking? NO
bloomberg is all that is wrong with politics.
All of these Elites can afford to pay someone to protect them. We don't have that luxury. All they care about is themselves and I suspect the whole disarmament thing has more to do with them truly being afraid of their wealth being seized by the underclass than a concern about lives. Remember, these same people see no problem with the murdering of a life in the womb. What makes anyone think they care about someone just a little older?
.................and why ALL officials have GUN equipped escorts???????
No, not "everybody" would be armed and a guy with a conceal permit would NOT "start shooting".....
It is hard to get FOID, many can't, and people with concealed carry know how to shoot.
And how to kill a perp with one shot.
You know it, Bloomburk, so don't make a fool of yourself AGAIN.
Here is a thought. How about we honor God's principles and stop living in darkness. And I am sorry Bloomberg if you were carrying a piece that man would have been stopped!
Bloomberg, like the rest of the Left, is a mindless, nonsensical bumbler who as RS has called him is a "nanny". Imagine the patriots who fought the British doing it without muskets, or those in one of the other wars on the battlefield without weapons.
Someone with a concealed carry may not have stopped all of the carnage but they could have saved some lives. I guess Bloomberg would have prosecuted them if it had been in NY. What a fool the mayor of NYC is and God help those who live there!
As a woman I don't like violence of any kind or weaponry but when it comes to saving innocent lives then God give us the strength to do what is right and necessary.
Earlier Allen West warned against wholesale disarming of our soldiers and sailor following long periods of international conflict--wars. What if the effective use of force against mindless rioting, senseless rampages by fools were condoned and even iconized by the media? What if the ABC Movie of the Week was, "An Internet Cafe and a Great American?"
I still recall vividly the image of the Korean grocer, standing in front of his store on Normandie Avenue LA, firing his .45 at the rats running back to their holes. He was not angry. He was clam. He was focused. He believed in what he was doing. And you can bet the fleeing scum did not misunderstood his message.
Isoroku Yamamoto-Fleet Admiral and Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WW11.
"You cannot invade the mainland of the United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass".
The founders knew what they were doing with the second amendment.
If a foreign military invaded the United States, they would have to watch out for the United States military, not the citizens. Foreign militaries have tanks, bombers, heavy artillery, etc. They would easily take down a bunch of Americans armed only with guns. Guns vs tanks and bombers=no contest.
(Sidenote: The British didn't have tanks or bombers during the Revolutionary War.)