Another idiot with a loaded gun in a movie house. Scary !

OK, now listen very closely.. I own a handgun BUT.. I am thinking it is time to start all over.
Turn them in and start all over. I hand mine in and the authorities can check me out..Background and Drugs. If I clear, then I get my handgun back... If I am Scott A. Smith, then no F-ing way.

Yeah, yeah...I know it won't work in reality.. *sigh*

"Police are trying to figure out why a man took a bag of weapons with him to an Ohio movie theater..."

Hint: It might be because he a complete idiot...by choice or mental defect.

YOu can thank the media for glorifying over and over and over again all these guys who do this crap! IT gives them the attention they want! IT needs to stop! There are always copycats who thrive on this. This is a perfect example. When a crazy murderer is shown 24 hours a day online, on tv,etc, it gives other psycho's ideas!!

What makes you think these people don't already have these ideas? Evil people don't need any ideas, I think they are creative all on their own, but I do agree that constant repetition of the tragedy such as Aurora probably does feed them and probably makes them more confident that if someone were able to carry out the carnage that happened in Aurora, they could, too. This won't stop, or slow down for that matter, until we as a country address the current gun laws in this country.

Jeep: Personal responsibility. This is not a media issue, so let's keep it as such.

Mark_DW - I agree. I have defended the right to carry a gun and concealed carry license tooth and nail. Unfortunately, Joe Rogan appears correct in his assessment of current breeding practices and these waterheads shouldn't be allowed to own fire arms just because they meet an age requirement.

Sad state we live in. Bring back capital punishment, and faster execution lines. No free meals for 20 years while waiting for the chair to free up.

Gee, I don't know. He doesn't look any different than some of my neighbors. I live in AZ and sleep with a pistol just in case. 8(

So why is it than in most states its easier to get a gun than a driver's license (yeah I know cars kill people too) but in an effort to keep it real at least you have to pass a written exam and an actual driving test to prove your skills, on the other hand if anyone suggests a background check or heavens forbid so much as a mandatory fire arms training/safety course you get all the 2nd Amendment loons running around with their hair on fire screaming "They are trying to deny us our rights!!"

BTW- In the last 100 years about 900 people have been killed with guns by mass murdering loons

EACH YEAR over 700 people die as a result of firearms accidents and another 23,000 plus are wounded!

He wanted the fame that the media gave to the Colorado shooter

An off-duty police officer and the theater manager became suspicious after noticing that Smith was carrying a beige satchel, WKYC reported.

WTF? And I can't even get a 3 oz bag of M&Ms into the theater.

@Julie,

My thoughts exactly. I was unable to get in with some cinnamon Certs, but this guy had a bag of weapons. WTF?

Another suburban thug. It's an epidemic.

RonInColorado

OK Ron it is a fact that

Around the globe it is estimated that 1.2 million people die in car accidents in one year – that equates to 3200 traffic deaths every day.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/16429/crash-boom-3000-people-die-in-car-accidents-daily/#hCEUlvZd2F8hBKoB.99

So your point is??????

Sounds like the person responsible at this theater didn't do their job. A woman's purse gets searched for food and drink and this guy's satchel doesn't? And after what happened in Aurora? As for the perp - this guy is in need of some very, very serious mental health help. I suppose his family, neighbors and friends will deny he had exhibited any disturbing signs. Hopefully they will reflect good and hard and realize that he had. Kudos to the off duty police officer. If not for him we might have read of another senseless tragedy.

@myspell... I guess I need to start watching out for my mini-box of Altoids Smalls.

Maybe the theater could sell hand guns...say a $150.00 hand gun for $2,000.00? Isn't that about the right markup? :-)

Seeing that he is from North Ridgeville, this guy is not a suburban thug as Bonos_rama states, North Ridgetucky is far from suburbia.

gmainco,

Please, please put the car analogy away.

I fully support the 2nd Amendment, 100%, but that tripe has got to go.

It just makes you look ignorant.

So let me see if I get this straight: We have a guy who appears to have broken the law by carrying concealed weapons (by the way the article is written it is implying he does not have a concealed carry permit) into a place of business and was noticed to look "odd' and "out of place". He is questioned, found to have weapons for no apparent reason, and was arrested. So just to clarify: We have a guy who broke the law and was arrested.

So the system worked - right? Guns are legal to own but we have a person who abused that right and was arrested. So what does that have to do with me and MY guns? That is like saying (Aurora example) a person drives their car drunk and intentionally plows through a parade and kills and injures a number of people - so many say MY car should be taken away. Or (as in this case) like a person sitting suspiciously in a parking lot, is questioned, and found to be drunk. If he had driven off he may have hurt someone. What does that have to do with MY car?

Same with gun ownership. A gun is a dangerous item if used incorrectly and 99.9% of gun owners take that responsibility very very seriously. I have owned guns for over 30 years and currently own 8 handguns and 2 rifles and SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE not ONE of my guns have ever injured or hurt anybody. So I ask again, what does MY guns have to do with someone who uses THEIR gun irresponsibly? So if someone uses their CAR irresponsibly are you wanting to take away my car too?

Maybe he went there thinking he might get the chance to become a hero. Now he is thinking I could have been somebody; I could have been famous or infamous. What he failed to realize he was somebody already a DAD. Some people are only despondent and are not really dangerous, but no one on this channel gives anybody the benefit of doubt. Only look for the bad and ugly in people, makes them feel better.

Ron In Colorado - With the number of people killed by drivers in one year. it shows one thing - doesn't matter if we have to take driving lessons and exams there are still those out there who passed but should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car. Those for Second Amendment rights are not against background checks, etc., so don't make us out to be against laws that protect people. We yell loudest when the government threatens to remove our guns, which most of us bought (and registered) in order to protect ourselves and our property. The problem with human nature is that no one knows what sets others off to do the things they do and these people will always fly under the radar. It's happened with law enforcement officers, lawyers, doctors and others. Unless the person exhibits disturbing behavior over a period of time and those closest to him do not report it, we will have incidents like this and worse.

hambone johnson

Just giving Ron some figures to go with his post???? You have a problem with that? I get tired of all the bleeding hearts dragging out their figures for gun deaths and never backing up the car side they quote, so forgive me for giving some facts and figures. Have a nice day....drive safely...

Gmainco: You just keep using the car accident example and is entirely relevant. Some state they are "tired" of that example and not sure what that means. Are they also "tired" of the many gun articles speaking of guns are the reason for these "crazies"?

If cars cause MORE deaths than guns should we outlaw cars? But, you would argue, that MOST people drive responsibly and they should not be punished for the reckless use of a car by the irresponsible. Yes, I agree with you. Now substitute the word "gun" for "car" - why would your answer be any different?

It doesn't say that he owned the guns legally. It doesn't say if they were bought legally and registered properly. It doesn't say they weren't stolen weapons. It doesn't say if they were sold by a licensed dealer or at a gun show. It doesn't say if he is now or ever has been in treatment for mental disease. And it doesn't say if this guy, who thought carrying a satchel of weapons into a movie theatre was a good idea ever had a background check done on him.

So, Pro Business, have you ever bought or sold a gun without going through ALL the required steps? Have you ever bought or sold one at a show where background checks didn't ALWAYS happen? Have you ever sold a gun to someone with a criminal record or a history of mental illness? Are you sure? Can you say the same for every person who ever bought a gun from you or sold you one? Guns all start out legal but very often are stolen or sold illegally to criminals. Are you positive that any gun you once owned has never been used in a crime? We need to short circuit the process whereby legal guns become illegal, untraceable, and used by criminals. Only stronger regulation can help guarantee that.

The article doesn't say if he had a concealed carry permit...otherwise he didn't do anything illegal. I carry everywhere I go...including the theater...but I have a permit.

Chris:

Let me help you and answer all your questions - No........... That's all that has to be said.

You see you think your list makes sense but each of your items take away one more piece of liberty. If we want NO crime we can solve that - we initiate a police state where police are allowed to search your house and car at any time without question, you must where a GPS device on your ankle, you must notify the government when you are leaving your house and identifying your end destination, no guns or pocket knives allowed, no computers or internet, and any kitchen knives must be in a safe with fingerprint reader that sends a signal to the government each time the safe is opened.

You see when you start taking away liberties the question is where does it stop? The danger is - it doesn't. In fact Thomas Jefferson once said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.".

We have laws and if you break the laws you get arrested and serve an appropriate penalty. Restricting the citizen does nothing more than creating a tyrannical government. Once you take away the 2nd amendment then taking away the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th-10th amendment is a piece of cake. The Bill of Rights was written and this important topic given the 2nd amendment (and not the 9th or 10th) because the founding fathers felt next to free speech and freedom of religion that the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd MOST important amendment. Take away THAT amendment and the others are taken away shortly thereafter.

On that note Thomas Jefferson also stated "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.". Give up that and you give up ALL rights shortly thereafter.

I resigned: And your point? That someone takes a legal item and uses it illegally is not cause to remove all the items from everybody. They used box cutters on 9/11 - do we take away box cutters from everyone? If I sell a jet ski to someone and they drive it intentionally through a group swimming at a beach do we outlaw jet skis?

Your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You are stating that because someone uses a legal item illegally then ALL should be removed? So if a computer is used to download child porn by your neighbor do we outlaw ALL computers? If a person gets drunk and uses their car to drive through a parade intentionally creating injuries and deaths do we outlaw ALL cars? If a person uses a jet ski irresponsibly do we outlaw jet skis? If a person buys fertilizer and makes a homemade bomb do we outlaw fertilizer? No, I am certain you would say punish the person using the objects illegally.

We live in a country where citizens have freedoms UNLESS you abuse those freedoms. We don't punish everyone for something done by a particular person. Maybe in other countries like Iran, Libya, and Pakistan and if you prefer not having any freedoms you are welcome to move to one of those countries. But I enjoy living in a country were we have freedoms. Abuse those you pay the penalty but if you DON'T then enjoy your freedoms.

gmainco,

Yes, I have a problem with you posting facts and figures that are irrelevant to the story. Everybody knows cars kill far more people. Mostly because there are far more cars.

But when you trot out that old analogy, you're deflecting from the real discussion.

WOW,...you just don't get, and probably never will. Sigh.

The car argument is for those weak minded people who have to have guns to protect themselves. Those people have no other rational argument left.

hambone johnson

You missed the point I was making. When you introduced the car analogy into you post you left out the facts and figures to go with it I was just providing those figures to go with your gun fact and figures. The gun facts and figures have nothing to do with crazies killing people any more than car facts and figures have to do with crazies killing people. That same crazy could use a bomb, fire or any other thing to hurt and kill so please stop blaming the guns.

Neither guns or cars are going away no matter what the facts and figures on both.....

If cars cause MORE deaths than guns should we outlaw cars? But, you would argue, that MOST people drive responsibly and they should not be punished for the reckless use of a car by the irresponsible. Yes, I agree with you. Now substitute the word "gun" for "car" - why would your answer be any different?

An automobile's sole function is NOT to kill something. A gun's only function is to kill something. I don't know why that is so difficult for you thimble wits to understand.

I can utilize an automobile without killing something. I do it most days.

I cannot utilize a gun without killing something as that is a gun's sole function. Do you get that? I can hear you saying, oh but I only use mine for target practice. Target practice is a warm up for killing something. It's practice to make sure you hit whatever you're trying to kill. Do you get that?

Your argument would be like me driving a car around a parking lot and saying oh but I don't ever intend to take it out on the road. Would you believe me? If you did you'd be pretty stupid.

This is not in any way an apples to apples comparison. If you think it is, you need a course in basic logic.

@ gmainco:

I noticed that in your post you used the word accident!! Those car killings, most anyway, are just--accidents. But, when some gun nut walks into a crowded public venue and shoot until there is no one standing, I don't think even you would classify that as an accident???? By the way, when I can drive my gun to work or my gun can drive me to my vacation spots, then I will elevate it to the same level of necessity. What is your point????

Maybe all these crazies should start attending GOP conventions and/or NRA meetings just to make a point about gun regulation. If we can enlighten the GOP and NRA folks, then maybe, just maybe humanity might have a chance.

Charles-1820634

All I can do is refer you to post #1.33. If you all missed my meaning I am sorry but I still say many things can be used as weapons and to blame the item is wrong, the crazy person is to blame no matter what the weapon..............................................

Guns are also to protect people, and they do protect 1-2 million people from crime every year, and the vast majority of the time it's without firing a single shot. Guns are a deterrent to crime and you don't have to kill someone for it to work. Why do you think mass shooters almost always choose gun free zones, like churches, schools and a movie theater with a no gun policy. I have yet to see a crazed shooter target an NRA sponsored event, a gun show or a similar event where a lot of people are armed.

"The car argument is for those weak minded people who have to have guns to protect themselves. Those people have no other rational argument left"

yep, "no no please dont shoot me i have a family" just doesn't work with irrational attackers.
all the people who sleep with their gun... you don't take it with you... to a movie... how is that gun gonna protect you then?

gmainco,

His stat about the mass murderer was, in fact, quite relevant to the story.

Statistics about car accidents are not.

And I didn't introduce the car analogy, you did. I'm the one who says it's a tired cliche and irrelevant.

I have yet to see a crazed shooter target an NRA sponsored event, a gun show or a similar event where a lot of people are armed.

But most of the crazed shooters have attended those similar events at one time or another.

Why do you think mass shooters almost always choose gun free zones, like churches, schools and a movie theater with a no gun policy.

Because that is where they can get the most attention, and it is where those they have been taught to hate reside. Schools are an easy target and get lots of news, because kids should be protected by our society. Churches are usually targeted because some fundamentalist nutjob doesn't believe that they teach the same version of Biblical fairy tales that they choose to believe, or that the targeted religion doesn't emphasis the same verses of the Bible that the shooter feels are most critical (ignoring the "thou shall not commit murder" commandment because they feel that abortion is wrong, for instance).

Such nonsense that guns protect 1 - 2 million people per year. Complete foolishness. More made up numbers, or did they come from some NRA self-reporting survey?

The simple fact is that you are claiming that between 2,700 and 5,5oo people use guns to "protect people" every day is sheer nonsense. When you start with a lie, the likelyhood of more appearing soon after certainly increases.

I read article twice...where does it say that he was threatening anyone, how did they figure he had weapons, a good guess? So what if he had vests and other stuff in his truck, was he threatining anyone? was he acting weird? lets get ful story before you libs stone him to death......So now if i sit center rear which police considered the best tactical place, but also the best place to view and hear a movie i will be considered a threat?...maybe he was just prepared for the worst....media hype....

Chris, that all sounds good in theory, but what about those crooks and thieves who don't follow anything you suggest? How many guns will not be registered because of that? In a perfect world where everyone followed the law, yes, it would work, but, look around you.

Chris-749391 Some of your ideas are great but I wish to knock down some of them. A 1 year waiting period for gun purchases? What happens when a abused ex-wife needs something to protect herself with? I know your answer already. Get a restraining order. Guess you never learned that a piece of paper isn't fist, knife or bullet proof. As far as outlawing any bullet that can penetrate police bullet proof vest you have just outlawed every hunting rifle out there. A .3030, 306,.225, .500 caliber rifle along with many others will go clean through a normal bullet proof vest with standard hunting ammo. They will even go through a flack vest. Even a little .22 magnum bullet will go through a lot of vest and it is often used as a pistol round. That is what happens when some one without any experience in guns tries to pass gun laws.

I personally own a gun/guns more to protect my family than myself. I say this as a USMC vet with the full ability to protect myself. Sometimes there are more of them than you , if they break into MY house with MY wife/kids there ... they will get shot. Bottom line.

Oddly enough , my wife is from North Ridgeville, which used to be VERY rural, not so much anymore .

In any event , this idiot needs help/incarceration.

I read article twice...where does it say that he was threatening anyone, how did they figure he had weapons, a good guess? So what if he had vests and other stuff in his truck, was he threatining anyone? was he acting weird? lets get ful story before you libs stone him to death......So now if i sit center rear which police considered the best tactical place, but also the best place to view and hear a movie i will be considered a threat?...maybe he was just prepared for the worst....media hype....

If you can't figure out why carrying a gun, 2 mags, and a bag full of knives into a movie theater is suspicious, then you need just as much help as this guy.

Jeremiah Bullins, after it was discovered that Smith's bag contained a fully-loaded 9 mm pistol, two full magazines and three knives, according to WKYC. Bullins also found a fourth knife under Smith's clothing.

1) Identify all firearms. Record the owners' names, addresses, identity information (such as SSN), and the serial number of all weapons, including shotguns.

2) Ban all unrecorded firearm sales, .......................

3) Require that all sale of ammunition be recorded, ........................

4) Require that all future weapons have their firing pin micro-....................................

5) Impose serious waiting periods. For weapons designed to kill people (assault rifles, automatic pistols, etc) there would be a 1-year waiting period. ......................

6) Ban all "enabling" accessories unless you are a law enforcement officer. This includes all magazines holding more than 10 .................

7) Require that gun powners show some personal responsibility............

8) Create a "no gun" database that helps to bar certain people from gun ownership. While it may not seem all that fair, ...........

Chris ,did you really read this article or you are just making-up. This guy got four knifes , so knifes should be banned too, he carry a 9mm pistol, not a assault weapon. Coming up with all your non sense bunch of regulations won't stop crazy people to do evil things. Whe people use guns over innocents, the problem is not the guns is our society , our values are in decline , parents don't watch their kids, there is no respect at home , nor at the school, violence all over , games , hollywood. Thanks to terrorist and people like this maniac , we are losing our freedom little by little. Guns is not the problem , is the people.

Unoriginal copycat loser.

hambone johnson

Sorry I didn't mean you introduced the car "accident" into this. Ronincolorado did and I was responding to him and I will also refer you to #1.33 and #1.37. So before you issue 40 lashes to me I hope you understand what I was refering to. Blame the crazy person not the weapon whether it is a gun a car or a persons bare hands.

No, guns are not the problem, the problem is you NRA BRAINWASHED TYPES thinking somebody is going overthrow the goverment. The NRA will support the DEVIL if he is against gun control. That is the truth.

Also, somebody said he had a 9mm, not an assault rifle. Well, the 9mm and the assault rifle are both SEMI AUTOMATIC, or autoloading. So, you take the 9mm pistol, out a stock on it, longer barrel, end result is an assault type rifle. You NRA survial types love those 100 rd mags too. Sheesh

Yet another "non-criminal" "responsible gun owner" who exempts himself from the rule of law, and thus violates criminal statutes.

Criminal statutes based upon CENTURIES OF EXPERIENCE WHICH NECESSITATE THEM, and are intended to protect public safety from nuts, screwballs, idiots, jackAsses, and other mental defectives who, were gun laws established in keeping with sanity, would prohibit such mental deffectives from possessingg anything more dangerous than a blunted wooden toothpick.

Right: he was "acting in self defense" by violating the law in order to look for trouble.

@ProBusiness: 2 things per seperate posts of yours under this thread.

First: your "resolution" to stopping crime through a complete totalitarianism is incorrect, but your screen name had already suggested that your perspective would fit this world view. On a side note, i imagine you are against Obama and anything relating to him, yet your ideology of government (totalitarianism) is exactlty what the fear mongering anti-obama culture is afraid that Obama is creating exactly that. So you are quite the contradiction and your beliefs and values have apparently been handed to you without any bit of strong-sense critical thinking.

Second, the only way to solve this problem is to start socializing our children and society with love and compassion, one where we truly help other and make them feel wanted, ONLY then will these issues be resolved.... and yes this is possible, but this "im better than anyone else/survival of the fittest mentality is blinding us from the truth. This civilization of have and have-nots, pride and self, get yours and screw everyone else IS the sickness of human history and it starts with Religion (God vs Satan which then moves into religion vs religion and this ones better than that one). What good it did people like Hitler, hating their whole life, he's in the same place we will all end up in 100 or so years (hopefully) and that is DEAD. I bet he wishes he would have spent his short life differently.

Have you ever truly helped someone who was down and out? Have you ever been down and out and someone helped you? it is an amazing feeling and one where everyone wins. There does not have to be a loser, but unfortunately you and just about everyone else has been raised to think so, from kindergarten, think about it. Hell, just read all this rhetoric in all of these internet news articles and social sites where people can state their opinion, notice all the name calling and im better than you posts.

Im not a christian, but Jesus said it best.

This is the "reasoning" of a typical mental defective:

Chris ,did you really read this article or you are just making-up. This guy got four knifes , so knifes should be banned too, he carry a 9mm pistol, not a assault weapon.

_____

Idjit: because he had knives is no excuse to say it is therefore acceptable for him to also have guns.

Here's a really, really, really simple fact for you:

One does not extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

If a nut has a knife, it makes no sense to give him additional weapons.

Were the US subject to mature adult, sane, gun laws, irresponsible mental defectives such as you would be prohibited having guns. And that is as it should be, especially as you are asserting that your alleged "individual right" to own and use guns trumps everyone else's right not be murdered.

Here's another simple fact for you:

If you point an UNLOADED gun at another, you are committing the crime of Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Regardless the mechanics, if a gun LOOKS like an assault weapon, it IS an assault weapon.

gmainco

hambone johnson

. . . . Blame the crazy person not the weapon whether it is a gun a car or a persons bare hands.

Blame those who defend the ability of crazy persons being able to get guns -- who then compound that stupid irresponsibility by making excuses for that ability.

The fact is that it is increasingly clear that these gun-nuts who commit mass murders are getting their guns legally. And you are defending that -- so long as it is other than you being killed.

Better to save one life by enacted wise restrictions than to defend as a "right" the mass murder of twelve.

OK, now listen very closely.. I own a handgun BUT.. I am thinking it is time to start all over.
Turn them in and start all over. I hand mine in and the authorities can check me out..Background and Drugs. If I clear, then I get my handgun back... If I am Scott A. Smith, then no F-ing way.

Yeah, yeah...I know it won't work in reality.. *sigh*

Sure, it'll work in reality. If your handgun is loaded, please unload it. Swing the cylinder out, if it's a revolver, if it's a pistol, remove the magazine and - if you know how to do it - field strip the thing. Put it all in a box, close it up, and seal it with packing tape. Then take the box to your nearest police headquarters or sheriff's office and tell them that you're questioning whether you really should have the thing. You can rest assured that someone there will talk it over for you, and if during that discussion it comes down to you not being a person who should or would like to have a handgun, then they'll gladly accept it from you. Or, you could just take it to a licensed dealer and sell it for as much as he or she will give you for it. Then you won't have to worry about keeping it and you can recoup some or all of the money you spent on it in the first place.

So why is it than in most states its easier to get a gun than a driver's license (yeah I know cars kill people too) but in an effort to keep it real at least you have to pass a written exam and an actual driving test to prove your skills, on the other hand if anyone suggests a background check or heavens forbid so much as a mandatory fire arms training/safety course you get all the 2nd Amendment loons running around with their hair on fire screaming "They are trying to deny us our rights!!"

Getting a gun and getting a drivers' license are, actually, NOT equivalent and an accurate comparison is not possible. Purchasing a gun and purchasing a car would be the 'apples to apples', as would 'getting a license to carry a gun' and 'getting a license to drive a car on public roads'.

To actually purchase a vehicle, nothing special is needed. You give the person selling it the money they want, which could be simple (pull out a wad of cash) or more complex (take out a loan for it). In most cases, they sign the title over to you, but not always (if you're buying a basket case of an antique to restore, there may be no title and you'll have to have one issued when you complete the project). In most cases, we take the signed title down to the court house to get a new one issued in our name and then proceed to register the car, but in most states, one does not absolutely HAVE to do that. If you're buying a clunker of a Jeep or an old truck and you plan to only use it for work on your own farm or ranch, a jalopy of an economy car for use as a glorified golf cart under similar circumstances, or say you're going to build what you bought into a race car or maybe enter it in the demolition derby at the next county fair, title and registration are a moot point. You paid for it, you've probably got a title signed over to you in your possession, it's YOURS! Until, that is, you scrap it or maybe (a long shot) sell it to someone else when you're done with it.

You do not have to have a drivers' license to purchase an automobile, nor do you need one to operate it on private property, especially if it's your own, such as a farm or ranch. You just can't take it out on taxpayer provided roads! THEN you need a license, and registration, and title. If you finance the vehicle, however, then the title is probably required anyway since THAT will effectively be the lender's collateral!

Laws vary from state to state, but in most cases, if you want to have a firearm on your own property, and this often includes a business if you own one, no license or registration is required. However, if you transport it off of your property, and this could include anywhere including a place of business that you might happen to own, the law will generally require you to have the gun unloaded and securely packed in some sort of container, and sometimes the gun will have to be partly disassembled or in a locked container, too. Or, in many places, you could apply for the license or permit that allows you to lawfully transport your gun in a loaded and ready-to-use condition pretty much anywhere as long as that 'anywhere' is not specifically disallowed (again, laws vary on that).

To get that license, it could be as simple as a bit of paperwork and a fee, but in most places, you will have to take a training course that will involve a written examination and quite possibly a live-fire qualification under the supervision of a law enforcement officer. After a thorough background check, your application will be approved after you are fingerprinted and possibly photographed. Precisely which gun you are allowed to carry may be stipulated on your license by manufacturer, model, and serial number, and sometimes your permit will stipulate what conditions you may carry your gun under. This could be work related only, only when carrying valuables beyond a certain dollar amount, only during certain house, or whatever. Or, it could be essentially unlimited. Again, it varies.

To lawfully carry a gun and to legally operate a motor vehicle in public are, in many places, extremely similar. To merely purchase and take possession of an automobile, especially if you pay cash for it, can be simpler than purchasing a gun, especially through a dealer. You can pay cash for a gun (I wouldn't, though, could look shady) but no matter how you do it, you'll have to fill out BATFE Form 4473, undergo waiting for a National Instant Check System call made by the dealer to officially approve you, and you may possibly need to have a permit to acquire (like in my state, for handguns) or put up with a waiting period. None of those would apply to a private party purchase, by and large, but none of those are things that automobile purchasers have to put up with, either.

1) Identify all firearms. Record the owners' names, addresses, identity information (such as SSN), and the serial number of all weapons, including shotguns.

That's what happens when a prospective purchaser fills out BATFE Form 4473 which will be either in the hands of the dealer for the next 20 years, or else the BATFE itself if the dealer goes out of business or loses his or her Federal Firearms License before then.

Gun shows would just be required to treat gun sales just like a sporting goods store --- same process.

All those gun dealers who have tables set up at gun shows have to do the very same things that they would back home in their shops. They keep a supply of Form 4473 on hand, and most who were established in the early 1990's rapidly got cell phones so they could make the required NICS background check calls when that law went into effect.

Require that all sale of ammunition be recorded, but that the powder or the slug in every round contain micro-ID tags such are used in dynamite. When a weapon is fired, there would be micro-tags on the shooter, the person shot, and in the local environment. This would allow ammunition used in felonies to be tracked back to a purchaser.

California recorded all ammunition sales for a long time, and maybe they still do. It has occasionally proven to be worthwhile, especially in cases where the ammunition was an odd caliber for an unusual or obsolete gun that was connected to a crime.

The idea of using taggants in propellant has been around a long time, like over 30 years, but taggants that do not ignite under intense heat and pressure during the firing of a cartridge yet would also not abrade or otherwise damage the bore or chamber of the guns they're used in just haven't been developed yet. It's a lot different from explosives, where the explosion is not contained and at least some of the micro tags will survive and be scattered. Taggants that do not burn or be otherwise destroyed when firing the gun also pose a severe risk to the shooter should they blow back into his or her face and especially into the eyes.

Require that all future weapons have their firing pin micro-engraved so that it leaves a coded trace on the shell as it is fired. In this way shell casings at a crime scene could be traced back to the purchaser. At the time of registration or purchase, the firearm woud have to be test-fired and the cartridge and slug(s) would be coded into a database. This would allow crimes to be tracked back to the owner from just a slug and/or shell casing.

Many new handguns include a fired cartridge case in a sealed envelope as such is required in some jurisdictions. However, the microstamping scheme is something else that has been around for a long time and does not really work. Firing pins do wear and occasionally, they chip or break. After a few hundred or a few thousand rounds, the microstamp could be illegible if the tip of the firing pin has worn, or even it the gun had not been cleaned and hard carbon fouling was coating the tip of the pin. And it's not like firing pins are that big of a deal to change, either. On a brand new model of gun, it could work, but there really are not too many of those. Most are just new productions of decades old designs, especially things like the Colt Government model and the many copies thereof. Fitting one of many, many existing firing pins would easily alter the gun to eliminate the microstamp, and there is no small number of one-time machinists were laid off or retired but continue on as hobbyists out there who would gladly accept what may seem to be an insane amount of $$$ to machine a copy of a microstamped firing pin...and actual machine tools needed to do that range from the most rudimentary (a drill press and a file) to none at all (just files). Heat treating and hardening are optional if durability is needed, but if not (a 'one shot use' type of affair, such as a crime gun), it's not necessary.

Require that gun powners show some personal responsibility.

The law provided for this long ago. If you are negligent with a firearm, misuse a firearm, or violate any of the many laws regulating firearms, you will most certainly be held responsible for your actions! Pretty much anything one should not do with a gun is covered by a criminal offense in state or federal codes, and occasionally even in local ordinances! As far as financial responsibility goes, most accidents and other mishaps involving firearms are in fact covered by homeowners' insurance, which is required to be held by anyone who takes out a mortgage for a home. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone paying cash for a house? The rich don't even do that because they wouldn't have the tax deduction then. In fact, a common tactic of attorneys for burglars who are shot by homeowners is to try to sue the homeowner who shot them for some type of negligence so they can get the judgement satisfied by the homeowner's insurance carrier.

TheTiGor

Well explained. It is time to end this non-sense talking from those idiots who think that the only solution to stop people like Smith, is taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

You should visit the closest NRA location because most of you just parroting the same thing that the left media says about them. NRA has many programs that educate children's and adults how to properly use guns.

http://www.nra.org/home.aspx

Thank you, redvirginia.

There is a lot of nonsense on both sides of this issue, which I have learned through the years is truly understood by very, very few people. Education is the problem, as most of what people have learned about this has been from various forms of popular fiction as well as informal discussion from people who themselves know precious little. Education is also the answer, for facts and understanding the situation is what negates the detrimental extremism that only ends up hurting everyone in the end.

The NRA does have some decent programs for education, but they are certainly not the only ones, nor are they the be-all, end-all. There are many excellent books written by veterans of both the military and law enforcement that will set the reader straight as to what is fact and what is fiction. Surprisingly, almost ALL of those people who are true professionals in what they do and have been at it for a few decades have no problem with honest, law abiding citizens maintaining formidable weapons for lawful purposes...and since they're writing books about the topic, they also pretty much imply that they expect that those same honest, law abiding citizens they have no problem with having weapons will absolutely take it upon themselves to learn and train to levels of understanding and proficiency one needs in order to handle firearms with the utmost respect for their capabilities that they deserve. On the flip side, these same authors also very well imply how they feel about dishonest outlaws who avail themselves to firearms...they've been arresting (those of law enforcement background) or killing (either military or LE) them for years!

ProBusiness...re: 1.20/1.26/1.29

Nowhere did I advocate taking guns from people or banning their possession. What I advocate is establishing a paper trail of every gun in the country much as we have have with every motor vehicle. That would require REGISTRATION of every firearm. It would also require each owner to be personally responsible for those weapons. It is quite telling that you did not respond at all to my questions of people transferring guns without proper documentation or background checks. Do you have a problem with laws requiring background checks before getting a weapon? Do you have a problem with existing laws requiring registration of guns? You say make the people responsible for wrongdoing pay the price for their actions; does that include people who illegally transfer firearms or are they somehow exempt?

YG: Your final comment stating "you are not a christian" explained all your previous comments. You don't believe in freedoms whether that is speech, religion, or right to bear arms. There are plenty of countries you are welcome to go to that don't allow those freedoms if you like. If you don't like America and what it stands for you are welcome to leave.

I Resigned: We don't have the time to go through each of your items where some have a small amount of merit and some are absurd. But we have a much bigger debate and that is: what is the role of government. My argument is once you start allowing government more and more control over each step of your life then each day you give up liberties that can never be returned.

Some of your comments are somewhat rational like background checks. But the problem is government does not look at that as a solution but a starting point. Then each time take just a little bit more liberties. First it starts as background checks. Then it becomes full registration. Then it becomes strict transfer laws. Then it becomes so cumbersome that trying to buy or sell a gun becomes so difficult that, in effect, the right to keep and bear arms is eliminated.

You see liberals start out with something that sounds logical like "why would anybody not agree with background checks". And I agree. I have no problem with that - but it won't stop there.

For example, I hear things like "we should limit the amount of ammo a gun can hold to 14 rounds - THAT is not unreasonable - is it?". And they are right - that is not unreasonable. But it won't stop there. A law will be written limiting any guns to 14 rounds. That means it is VERY unlikely that number will ever be increased so "forevermore" 14 rounds will be the maximum.

But it won't stop there. One day a "nut" will have a semi-automatic with 4 clips of 14 rounds and people will yell and scream that 14 rounds is STILL too much. That should be reduced to 8 rounds. Then 4 rounds. Then 2 rounds. Until the Barney Fife law is passed where any gun must be unloaded and the owner is not allowed to carry more than 1 bullet that must be kept in either a shirt pocket or pants pocket. You see liberals start out with what they think is "reasonable" but it won't stop there.

So my argument is rather than attacking the item enforce the laws. With almost 300 million guns in our society any gun injuries and deaths are minimal compared to the number of legal gun owners. Just like we wouldn't outlaw swimming pools due to drowning deaths we don't outlaw guns due to misuse. If someone misuses a gun they are charged with a crime and an appropriate penalty administered.

So going through your "list" is not the relevant discussion. Some are not totally unreasonable and some are absurd but the discussion should be on "what is the role of government" and the role of government is security of our country, legal system, etc. Let the legal system do the job of controlling misuse and not take away rights and liberties under the pretense of "protecting" us.

lol! good on ya!

Your homophobia is showing, pained1. But, hey, no problem. I love it when people honestly show the world who and what they are.

BTW, I suggest you find an appropriate thread to spew your bigotry. This is not it.

yea, the guns didnt carry the ass into the theater? ? ? ?

With the exception of political correctness favoring gays, there does not seem to be a reason why gays should be immune to dislike while not gays are automatically judged as bigots in the name of gay discrimination. Could it be that gays are governmentally protected (and therefore Unconstitutionally) bigots, able to spew sneer and negativity on anyone they disagree with without fear of ramifications for their crass behavior?
Or is it merely that you're safe behind a keyboard and thus showing the world what a rotten person you are on the inside? After all, where better to do it than where you can just disappear completely if you become outnumbered, change your name, or even develop a sock puppet army to defend your irrational views with?

So. Why is it okay to be gay and not okay to not like gays? Because there are more gays on the Internet than there are in real life. We proved that last week with two protests, one of which barely anybody attended. So Doc? Instead of being a bigot because you can't take a joke that denigrated heterosexuals (hence you attacking him just proves you're a d-bag that can't read context to save his own life), how about you just shut up? Thank you, gir'fren.

i wonder if he was being paranoid about the shooting that occurred and was being way over prepared just in case? then again what's the point to bringing a ton of weapons into a theater in the first place, we only have two hands and if he was intending on doing a repeat of the previous tragedy then why, who or what put him up to it?

maxgiver sounds more like maxtaker to me!

just because you have guns doesn't mean you're stupid, that's like saying that all people with blond hair are stupid. fyi i have 7 and have had them since i was 18 years old, not one accident and you want to know why? because i keep them away from stupid people and people who aren't smart enuf to avoid making sweeping generalizations about others and people who have issues or a chip on their shoulder, i also practice proper weapon safety and handling procedures.

if at all likely the trends we are seeing are our own country's home grown version of terrorism, after all didn't the first case occurring cause terror and fear, although our terrorists don't seem to have a target yet, unless their target is our rights by demonstrating how dangerous something can be by misusing said rights in an attempt to sway voters and politicians by attempting to create proof by breaking the law? but that would be like if a large group of people all over the USA decided they were going to text while driving intentionally and aim for groups of drivers on the highway to make a law get passed by getting people killed to make an example.

You liberal gun haters should spend some time in the gun sporting world. You would probably enjoy target shooting, skeet, trap, hunting, etc. Guns are not the problem. This guy could have walked into that theater with a molitov cocktail under his shirt, or a can of mustard gas, or maybe a hand grenade. A crazed killer will kill anyway he can.

didn't the article say he was carrying 4 knives.... they are not loud and you would not even hear the guy in the row beside you die during the movie ...

i don't get why people are in an uproar about the one gun he had a 9mm handgun vs the 4 knives

Scarlett; good for you, but unfortunately there are some gunowners that don't do a very good job of securing their guns. I don't remember if it was last week or week before but a man and his wife had gone to lake in NE OK and posted on fb where they were at. While they were gone, someone broke into their house and stole his guns (they were in a glass display case, locked but not secure). Now we have to worry about someone out on the streets of OKC with firearms just ready to kill someone that might cross them. I too believe in 2d Amendment rights but not when it comes to weapons such as AR-15s, AK-47s, 50 Cal firearms.

I also believe more control should be enforced at gun shows, it seems there is a gun show every weekend here in OKC.

@lip...:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda! He could have brought a water hose and drowned everyone???? But he didna! He broughta bunch of weapons, to include guns with high capacity clips/magazines, which leads me to believe guns were the weapons of choice--again!!!! So, coulda, woulda, shoulda did not happen. He dida bring a GUN. Enough said!!!!

ed there's no difference between AR-15s, AK-47s, 50 Cal firearms and any other weapon you would use to hunt with or use for home defense. a gun is a gun, but full auto is regulated because it's hard to control a gun that fires many rounds at a time. there's no such thing as an assault rifle either, all weapons can be used to assault someone or something and this also includes things that aren't meant to be used as a weapon. just because a gun can hold a lot of ammo doesn't make it any more or less effective. a glass case is never safe unless in a safe room meant for storing/protecting valuables.

charles a knife or sword is many times more deadly than a gun when used properly in confined spaces, i should know because i'm a sword/weapon smith, the man in question could have decapitated most of the audience without so much as a scream before anyone noticed if he knew about human anatomy and the right blade(s) and how to use them and attacked from behind going towards the front rows. probably just another idiot looking for infamy without a clue.

Yeah, I was just curious what time he went into the 10 pm show..

Being, he was the first and only one in there?

You're right. A gun can't pull its own trigger. And no one can kill people by throwing bullets at them either.

Try as you might, the old, "guns don't kill people" argument just doesn't hold water. Take the gun out of the equation, people don't kill with guns.

Even if the gun were taken out of the equation he was armed to the teeth with knives people would have died regardless

IN REPLY TO DANIMYL You stand a better chanch of living after being stabbed than being shot 8 times by a gun!

Take cars out of the equation and people don't kill with cars. Or guns. Or knives.

How about instead of outlawing guns, we outlaw cars? That way only the criminals will have cars and everyone will be safe because criminals obey gun laws too.

Far less would've been injured if he started running around with knives than with the gun. That's the point. And knives have alternative uses that are needed in our society...

Oh, Mr. Jay. Engaging in the same old fallacy, I see. Might as well compare guns to dogs or bicycles. None is an apt comparison. But keep trying.

@ danimyl

Ahh yes, because he can kill dozen people with knives, right?

The problem is gun is for killing more effectively and in shortest amount of times.

nobody knows at this moment if he was going to kill people, so the statement people would have died is a stretch, he could have killed people but we don't know his intentions. He could have brought a bag of weapons to defend himself of other copycats...who knows?

I do not condone same gun marriage.

Even if the gun were taken out of the equation he was armed to the teeth with knives people would have died regardless

Another video game hero. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill a person with a knife? Do you have any idea how close you have to get to them and how long you have to wait for them to die?

What I see most on these threads are a lot of little boys who mistake fantasy for reality. It's not too hard to stand across a room and shoot. It's very hard to stick a knife in someone and watch them die face to face.

@Mr. Jay, that argument doesn't hold much water. A cars main purpose is to transport people from one place to another. A guns main purpose is to kill or injure things. It's hard to argue against that. What other main purpose does a gun have? You can argue it defuses a situation, for target practice, etc., it's main purpose is still to kill or injure. Now even the knife argument has a big fallacy to it. Knives, while yes a weapon, in most peoples daily lives are a tool to eat and prepare food. That's what most people use knives for. I don't know many people eating food with guns.

Far less would've been injured if he started running around with knives than with the gun. That's the point

Ahh yes, because he can kill dozen people with knives, right?

The problem is gun is for killing more effectively and in shortest amount of times.

Really? What if just one person had been killed? Multiple people being killed aren't ok, but one person being killed, no big deal, right? Murder is murder is murder. So, let's outlaw hard liquor but not wine, because there is far more potential to get drunk and drive and kill someone with the hard liquor than there is with the wine. See how failed your logic is? Bottom line is, it all comes down to responsibility.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/report-man-with-gun-ends-stabbing-spree-at-utah-store

or did you hear about the one in the greyhound buss where the guy cut off the head of the guy beside him and started eating him?? while the passangers freeked out and puked? yea ...

@ Mr.Steady

You have a reading problem. Don't twist my words around to suit your purpose.

The point is with guns, he can kill dozens people in the time it took him to kill 1 or 2 with knives.

With people running around and he would take far more times to kill 1 or 2 and police would arrive by then.

Are you saying he can kill as many people with gun as he can with knives?

The sky is falling! the sky is faling!...this is the cry of the libtards, you hear ir anytime theres a media hype about a person with a gun...high capacity clips...if it was a 9mm most have 15-19 round clips as standard gear...high capacity to me means the extended clips that will hold 30+ rounds...Its just media hype to push the anti gun crowd....

It's really pointless to think that outlawing guns is a solution. That's like saying we've rid the country of cocaine once we made it illegal. Guns exist and people that want them will find a way to get them, legally or not. It's far too late to think we can keep guns out of everyone's hands.

The article did not specify whether or not he purchased these guns legally, but if he intended to do harm, how much do you think a law would have stopped him? What position does that leave everyone else if the crazies and the felons have the guns while the law-abiding citizens don't?

What position does that leave everyone else if the crazies and the felons have the guns while the law-abiding citizens don't?

They always avoid that question because they can never give an answer that suits their agenda.

CuongDNguyen:

Don't twist my words around to suit your purpose

I'm not twisting your words at all. I'm simply pointing out your failed logic which you still obviously fail to comprehend.

You see he got there early to pass out guns to the unarmed incoming theater goers to protect themselves from the next nut case!

Guns? he had only one gun. Plenty of knives though. Maybe a stern warning to Old Timer Knife Company is warranted here

@ danimyl

So, he is going to chase after each person and use knives on them. Wow, that must be how these guys kill dozen of people in a few minutes.

Oh, that's right, knives are better than firing hundreds of rounds per minutes...

Stone-pipe, sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt", usually conveyed through irony or understatement, and...and...oh nevermind, go back to your pipe.

I don't believe that the NRA cares one way or the other. That has been proven time and time again whenever there is a mass shooting. Wayne whats his face get up at the podium and gives out his standard performance.

Lost in the Shuffle, If this was a black man would you had said the samething?

Wait! Leave the "Black" guy out of it. This has nothing to do with him. Trying to make everything about the "Black" guy doesn't have a place on this board.

Go look for a story concerning a "Black" guy before you comment. Racist a-hole.

Race does not make the sarcasm any better or worse. So, yes, I would have said the exact same thing. We are allowing ourselves to follow an idiology that more guns will provide security and safety. When, in fact, there isn't an answer in violence for hatred or mental illness.

fix our culture, not our laws.

One thing that needs changed is the law prevent psychiatrist from letting police know when someone is being treated. A person can be under treatment and lye on his application for a gun card and no one can check!

No, that doesn't need to be changed. There are ways to deal with dishonesty on applications. Removing the priviledged communication laws is not the way to do it.

He certainly has a police record now. Four counts of carrying concealed weapons, so he evidently does not hold a license/permit to carry a gun (unless the 4 counts are for carrying concealed knives.)

I have a state license to carry - it would not bother me a bit to require it for anyone to purchase/possess/transport a handgun, loaded or not.

Showing your age there hummingbird. That was what? All of three 2-and-a-half weeks ago? I think seeing a movie still ranks up there higher than flying in an airplane on the safeness scale... And the family movie experience died about 10 years ago when ticket prices started skyrocketing...

That time is still now, hummingbird. The only thing to fear is fear itself and you seem pretty full of fear. So much fear that it's making you hateful because you feel powerless against it and threatened by it right down to your children who have no fear whatsoever except of the dark and the boogeyman.
I think it's time you sat down and had a long talk with yourself about what it means to be afraid and why it should not be allowed to rule your life and make your decisions for you. A lot of people buy a gun and that absolves the fear; others rationalize that a gun is too risky because children somehow always get ahold of these things and shoot themselves while the parent blames the gun instead of themselves for teaching their child about guns and how they are very, very dangerous and should never be picked up unless there is a need to do so.
Armed gun nuts will always be around and they will proliferate the more people disarm. They are predators and they thrive amongst a flock that they know cannot and will not defend themselves. If they know they are the only one armed, they know they are unstoppable. If they have to question whether someone else nearby may be armed, only the truly stupid and insane attack. Most predators are smart enough to know not to go after others who are as strong as they are, and when you have a gun, you are stronger than any man unless they also have a gun. Understand? You cannot disarm people lawfully because the very nature of a criminal is to break the law, defy the law; in disarming the people you prevent them from having enough strength to protect themselves and their loved ones and the others around them because lawful people obey the law. When the law threatens more than it protects, it is a terrible law and should be removed.
Yes, accidents happen. We're only human. Learning from our mistakes is in raising awareness in the lehtality of weapons, particularly in children, while not terrifying them with mindless chatter about how they should never ever own a gun and to hate them and fear them and never understand them at all. Someone with a healthy respect for guns fears them but will wield them when it is necessary, never to inspire terror or to take life needlessly. Children, as that seems to be the only fear that gets brought up most often when the gun debate comes up, can be taught to respect firearms. If their parent cares about them enough to teach them the facts of life, that is.

totally agree !

I started to teach my son the use and safety of firearm when he turned 12. he is now a amazing marksman. he understand perfectly what a gun is, how much damage it can make and how to handle them safely, at the same time take your kids hunting, be outside in the forest hiking for hours, teach them about the animals that live here, the plants, enjoying the birds that are building a nest etc.. get them off the computer, video game etc....

Mr. Jay:

See how you run???? I am not afraid of a gun; I respect guns and I know all about them and what they can do!!! My fear (not a debilitating one) is that the nut with the gun may not respect the tool as much as I do, and have not idea the horrors a gun can inflict. I'll bet a dollar to every doughnut that the gun carriers are the ones that are fearful???? We hear it here on this thread all the time. What if someone breaks into your home, what if someone hijacks your car, what if someone is shooting someone else, and the granddaddy of the all-- what if someone breaks in to your house and rape your wife and daughters. I don't know about you, but that sure smells like fear to me. No????

Wow, a lot of you are so F@#$ing stupid. Trying so hard to justify keeping guns. Bottom line they're dangerous when given to someone. I guess we should start sending our own kids loaded with guns to school or where ever they go for their own safety.

Also, if you have to be carrying a gun to go eat out or doing something simple, then there's something obviously wrong. Some of you should be put in those situations, then I think you would have a different view on the whole thing.

I think the makers of Spiderman have a legitimate gripe. How come only Batman brings out the crazies ? This guy was the only person in the theater. He wanted to shoot everyone inside it ? To bad he failed ! He didn't dye his hair red. He didn't shave his head, and cross his eyes like a chameleon , like the Gabby Giffords shooter. He didn't form a neo-nazi rockband, or give himself a hip/ sinister name like Jack Boot. Even among psychotic mass murderers there are fashion standards. Looking at your fat face from the story. I have a few suggestions. How about using the stage name Maniacal Meatloaf ? Or starting a rock band in prison called Calories for Hate ?

hey Jay, 'anonymity' or 'notoriety'?

How about reading the article...

An off-duty police officer and the theater manager became suspicious after noticing that Smith was carrying a beige satchel, WKYC reported.

Because it wasn't the theater manager who became suspicious and called the police. The 'Off-Duty officer AND the theater manager became suspicious' ... 'arrested by off-duty officer'. More than likely, given the CO. incident, the theater hired off-duty officers to provide security. From what was reported it seems that the police were notified after (or perhaps at the same time) that the off-duty officer contained the situation.

I know it's hard to believe but not all police officers are fat, lazy, nazi gestapo harassing harmless americans while living off the tax payer dollar.

If this off-duty officer failed to do anything, and a shooting situation occurred, people would be calling for his head on a platter; but when he PREVENTS something, no one wants to give him any credit.

OMG!!! I've wanted to say that about 4 or 5 articles now lol

F-ing A.. Close.. I was going to suggest checking what Vaccines they received when they were children..and if there is a way to see if there were any bad batches going around..

..Something definitely odd.

I'm missing your point. Without knowing what type of handgun this gentleman had, there is no arguement to be made about guns that shoot "many, many bullets." And how many is "many, many?" Typical full-sized 9mm handgun these days carries 12 to 15 rounds per magazine. Compact models carry 6 to 10. A revolver carries 5 to 7 (and some .22's carry more). As the article stated, this gentleman had no criminal backround and there is a complete lack of any notation that he appears mentally unstable. The types of weapons that people can own is limited. Individuals cannot own machine-guns made after 1985, incidiary rounds or explosive devices like gernades or rocket-launchers. What is considered an assaunt weapon? Is my battle-proven 1913 bolt-action Mosin-Nagant an assault weapon. It was one of the primary weapons used during WWII. Or does it just have to look dangerous?

He had far more knives with him than he had guns, and the guy who killed a group of people with a knife in China last week proves that people who want to go crazy and kill others will do so by whatever means are available.

The man walked into a theater with a bag containing multiple weapons and ammunition, and you want to quibble about the ratio of guns to knives, or how many shots one the guns may have been capable of?

Have you people lost your ever loving minds, or are you just incapable of seeing past a very, very narrow and obsessive focus?

Many people walk into untold numbers of establishments every day with handguns and extra ammunition and tactical knives. A little more detail would better expose his motives. Was the hangun a Kahr which is specifically designed for concealment at the expense of only carrying 7 rounds in a magazine? Or, was it a Glock with purposly bought oversized 30 round magazines that serve little practical purpose? Did the knives consist of a multi-tool like a leatherman or a belt-mounted box-cutter from where he worked? Or, were each of the knives K-Bar fighting knives or Cold Steel Natcheze Bowies? See the difference?

a "mental health check" should be required before posting on the internet also. there are a lot of crazy posters on here.

How about a mental health check for a car purchase and drug screening because drunks and dope heads and mentally not able persons kill others with a car approximately 40,00 people a year die in car crashes...thats not included the injured or maimed (approximately 4 times that 160,000 people) and about 11,000 from guns. I mean I know its an atrocity when anyone dies from any negglent or on purpose reason, but come on use some sense here. People are killing kids left in cars and neglect and most of these "Children Protection/Advocate agencies mostly seem to act after the fact......you need a licence for a dog....to fish to drive a car...but any a**hole can be a parent in 15 seconds. How about mental check for any person wanting a child, if they are deemed mentally insufficient then ban them from having children.....the argument for mental check for a firearm purchase is STUPID, because then you need mental checks everywhere else in life....like before you go to college and could be denied education so that like Columbine and Virginia Tech and other schools you will prevent the nut case from shooting the students....If one area needs mental checks ...all areas where harm could be deemed by the user needs checks....bet you wouldnt like them apples of a mental check looking up your proverbial brain skirt to see whats rolling around in your head....you open that door and they (government) would love that much more control...and when that door is open they will widen it further that you ever wanted....Hell they have technology now they want to use in courts that a scanner can tell when you are lying or not just by viewing your brain activity like a CAT Scan without you saying a word...but those that support mental checks and stuff support the idea...well I have nothing to hide....uh huh....keep thinking that....the control police are in the hallways waiting for when we are compliant enough they they can come in and finish the job.

Mental checks would soon become like the movie Minority Report....where the aressted and jailed people who never committed a crime....but did so because they could predict that they would permit a crime. I agree and wish (a wish is a desire without effort) there was a better way to address and possibly prevent such atrocities......but not at the expense of ones personal being.For example for gun banning/ mental check supporters..... I will post a sign on my front lawn saying my home is protected with fire arms...but my nextdoor neighbor who is and advocate for gun bans or mental checks for buying one does not and I promise to honor thier desire and not to use my firearms to protect them. Sounds harsh I know....but the truth hurts dosent it?

Again with the cars. Give it up people. The old argument of "cars kill" was defeated in logic and fact years ago. Please, do come up with something that does not contain fallacy.

Was it?

How about alcohol and driving? How many people are killed by drunk drivers in a year? Should we ban alcohol? Come on DOCJT, find my fallacy. You can't see past your narrow-minded view that it is the people that are the problem, not the guns.

Your fallacy is that neither alcohol, nor cars, are manufactured with the express intent to take life or to maim. Did I really have to point that out to you?

Huh?

So what, you think he should get off because he didn't shoot anyone...yet???

wtf?

I suppose you support george zimmerman too huh?

Lady, you are a f*cking idiot

... Last night! Just before 10pm in Ohio.

Hey Mac, Grow up

I agree Jessica. Unless its illegal to carry a firearm and knives into a movie theatre in Ohio, as long as, he had his concealed carry there is nothing they can do. In fact, he will probably sue them and become an instant millionaire.

And concerning Zimmerman, if some 6 foot tall teenager beat me the way Zimmerman's hospital photos shown, I would have reloaded another clip and emptied it in him and spit upon his body.

Uh, since forever. I don't think it has ever, in the history of this country, been legal to walk into a movie theater with a bag full of weapons.

Concealed carry refers to one gun. Not a bag full, lol.

Zimmerman was never in the hospital, and therefore, there are no hospital photos of his injuries. However, there is a report from his doctor that indicates he had no significant injuries.

Do you use one finger to type, or two? LMAO at the sheer ignorance.

Zimmerman? Oh, you mean that mexican guy that got the @!$%# beaten out of him on a surveillance camera filmed from across the street when the black guy jumped him? The guy that shot the black guy beating him to death in the street over having been followed for a bit before the mexican guy broke off to leave the area? That Zimmerman case?

I suppose you also think Obama got into Occidental for his grades in high school.

Mr MacD

I support GZ but not this idiot. The difference? This guy had BAG full of weapons, keyword: BAG. George only had the one on him. It all comes down to intent, George had his for person protection. I cant see how having them in a bag could help you in a defensive situation. See George constantly deals with the negative side of society and I dont blame him for carrying a gun to defend himself and as it turns out he needed it to save his life! Trayvon was the textbook reason to have a gun. Lets have someone repeatedly bash your head into the hard concrete and see if you wish you had a gun to make him stop. I suppose you'd say Trayvon would have stopped only after a couple of really good bashes to the head. I wouldn't want to make that assumption if its my head being bashed in. BTW its kinda hard to think straight when your brain is impaired.

t, shameful post, really, empty a gun into an unarmed teenager by a grown man, awannabe cop. Wait until the trial and see what the real evidence is. Your nasty post is indicative how you really feel about human life. Spit on it, you're disgusting.

FIrst, why didn't he have a conceaed carry permit if he wanted to carry a gun. Second, Since when does a married man go to a popular movie without his wife or a friend. Third, even if he has a concealed carry permit, why all the knives. THere are too many questions hear to be ignored.

I am very pro gun. I wont vote for an antigun politician, but if the NRA doesn't find a way to make a common sense compromise for the betterment of socieity, there wont be a ssecond amendement to protect.

DOCJT

Concealed carry refers to one gun. Not a bag full, lol.

I thought they said he had 1ea 9MM pistol. Where did you get a bag full ? You making stuff up again?

skyparrot empty a gun into an unarmed teenager by a grown man

Zimmerman fired one shot.

Wait until the trial and see what the real evidence is.

You need to find out what the hell is going on before you open yor trap.

@Kevin Skyparrot was responding to a post by t-1959754

@whoseword:

You did not ask this question of me, but felt obliged to answer!! You failed to grasp the greater dynamics here. I would never put my self in the position to get my head bashed in. I would call the police and let them handle it, the way most law abiding people handle criminals and law breakers. However, you and I both know that the child that Mr. Zimmerman murdered was neither a criminal or a law breaker!!!! Peace and love!!!!

He did not have a CCW that stated he had the legal right to walk around with a bag full of weapons and ammo. Period.

Too many movies dude.

His mistake was not listening to Crack Stuntman when he was told not to play with too many knives.

I agree, we can stop all this gun owning/carrying debate before these atrocities ever happen....lets ban movies thats the ticket ! (pun not intended) Lets stop all education so noone will shoot a student...stop all concerts...all flights..ah what the heck lets ban all activities so we dont even have a remote chance of this happening ever...dont have to worry about guns or knives are letter openers for that fact or any useful everyday tool that can cause harm like a hatchet....lets have background check before you can buy a riding lawn mower so some drunkkard wont drive a car instead...he couldnt possible cause any harm on a lawn mower weaving in and out of traffic...yes lets be smart and prevent anything happening way before a gun (or any other "weapon" being used by not creating or letting happen any events where possible unknown things can happen......you people who think that way are dumb s*&^ts....Forrest Gump said it...S*$T happens...intended or not...Grow up and get some sense into your head.

Your probably closer to the truth than most. Was he permitted..CCW. He won't be now, because he is irresponsible. I'm still not ruling out the "Manchurian Candidate" posibility with government involvement. Just to push the gun control issue. We are ALl sacrificial lambs for themto get their way.

Yes - I think we need the TSA at every theater, mall carnival and theater! This will make us all safe!

No TSA in theaters, please. I can grope my date myself, thank you.

Because Holmes brought his guns in through the front door. Oh wait, no he didn't. So how is having metal detectors going to help anything?

But what about at my front door, back door and windows at my home? I want to feel safe there too. Far more people are killed by home invasion than at theaters.

Tiny,

Why stop there? How about if the government installs a metal detector with a full time security officer at every home in America. If anyone attempts to enter or leave your home with a weapon, they will be arrested. Simple right? Everyone is safe right?

I can't tell if your post was sarcasm or not, but I certainly hope you can tell mine was.

@ 6079smithw.....LOL LOL Yes, but they are so good at it, especially if she is 82 years old !! LOL LOL Maybe you can get some good tips!! LOL LOL The "training" may be tax deductable too.

Tell you what, let's just go ahead and arrest EVERYBODY right now, for no reason given at all, put them all in a giant prison facility with armed guards around the clock to be sure that no one does anything but what they're told to do.

Wait a minute... that plan sounds so familiar. Didn't I hear recently about a proliferation of FEMA camps around the US, a small arms treaty with the UN that we have no say about, and the NDAA legislation passed at the first of the year that permits for indefinite detention without need for warrant or reason..?

Mr. Jay, did you forget to refill your prescriptions again?