that shooting was in my neck of the woods. It's unfortunate no one else was carrying, but it seems he shot so fast and then took his own life it may not have mattered. F**ck'n coward should have just took his own life. Gun control is definitely not the answer.

I'm Batman wrote:

It's an open carry state right? So you beleive no one in the area was carrying? What's the next step then? Do you require everyone carry?

My guess is there were likely people carrying and the knee jerk reaction about "more people carrying" is equal to the knee jerk reaction about needing more gun laws. Both sides have a tendancy to fling the same things every time. I agree with you though that is probably didn't matter. There were likely people carrying and it made no difference one way or another. With the exception of all the rambos in here, most people that carry are not equiped to make a difference in a fast moving high pressure situaiton.

Why did the noob post that in this forum anyway[frypan]

teedubbya wrote:

That theater is a gun free zone.

ZRX1200 wrote:

there should be built in defense systems that can detect a threat and eliminate the target automatically... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

In a crowded (and dark) venue such as a movie theater it could be very difficult to determine who was the shooter unless you were in close proximity to him. Amid such chaos it would be nearly impossible to get a clear shot without hitting innocent movie patrons. In this instance more armed citizens would probably have made no difference and could actually have resulted in more casualties. That being said, I still wouldn't want to die for lack of shooting back. Crazies like theater shooters are impossible to defend against before the fact. They're just like the suicide bombers in other parts of the world.

elRopo wrote:

well, we should restrict car sales then too... a car can be a hell of a weapon.... 😟

DrafterX wrote: