Really? That might be a thing you could look at changing too. And regardless of "obligation", I can't believe any (well, many) police would stand back and watch some thug on a rampage, wait until he's finished, then go and arrest him. They intervene in that, when they can.


We had that argument here during our gun buy-back. Maybe a few people kept their guns, but there hasn't been a significant issue with it. Different situation, of course.
Of course, if such a law were somehow passed in the US, so many crooks already have guns and wouldn't hand them in, that it would be a total gimme for crooks. From where the US is now, I don't think you COULD achieve a low-gun society. Not without more trouble than it would be worth, anyway.

The government cannot "Buy Back" anything that it never owned.

Just sayin'.

12 dead in 'Dark Knight' Colorado theater shooting

How about this proposal: anyone can have any kind and number of guns they want, but if your first trial determines that someone is negligent or criminal, they are immediately executed. No appeals. Since people kill people, and all.

I'll buy that.

First we need to determine how many of the theater goers were wearing hoodies in case it's hoodies that kill people.

Were the people he shot talking and texting during the movie? That would be reasonable justification.

Very funny

The dark knight rising I hear it is to die for

Well, this seems forgivable, presuming they went to press before the incident.

Attachment 39765



but this is just lazy and stooopid



Attachment 39766

:facepalm:

Why does the apology post have an earlier timestamp than the aurora one?

Good point. I notice one is via web and the other via iphone, and I guess that some multiple time-zone malarky is involved.

Doofus marketer made the first post, more senior exec had to step in and clean up the mess, maybe.

Anybody else have an opinion?

Sort of like pedophiles
... a trial is after the event and the person is apprehended and brought to trial and found guilty.

After all that, capital punishment is an (one-time) effective deterrent of recidivism,
but unfortunately it's not very effective as a preventative in the first place.

It won't happen in my lifetime, but eventually I believe this nation will demand
that the Supreme Court will revoke it's current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
(Now, everybody go buy ammunition and hide your guns) :rolleyes:
.

If they don't like genocides, the nation won't ask for gun control.

Joe Klein, Time magazine, wrote the current issue's cover story, Why Guns Won. Mr. Klein is the last person on Earth who ought to be writing about guns, for he is a giant statist and a gunbanner of many decades' standing. He's never been aware that a disarmed populace is necessary to a genocide, for otherwise that mass crime becomes impossible to commit.

Since I have some idea of the position he'll take, in defiance of the repeated Lott studies among others, I doubt I'll read the article.