latest movie theater shooting..man shoots himself in the ass

Jiro said:
again..... how exactly will "No Gun Allowed" sign help prevent a massacre?
Click to expand...
I understand that the sign itself is pointless without another security measure like a metal detector or a security guard w/ portable device such as airports, pro football stadiums, courthouses and some schools. I know that it would create a long line and the owners of the theaters would not like to spend more money.

So you are right that the sign itself would not protect us. The sign would be helpful to warn people before security check-in.

As you know, times change. I predict that we will notice stricter policies/laws and more security in the future.

See what happened to airports and other places which had almost no security a long time ago. I don't know about train stations. If they don't have that kind of security yet, then they will in the near future.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I understand that the sign itself is pointless without another security measure like a metal detector or a security guard w/ portable device such as airports, pro football stadiums, courthouses and some schools. I know that it would create a long line and the owners of the theaters would not like to spend more money.

So you are right that the sign itself would not protect us. The sign would be helpful to warn people before security check-in.

As you know, times change. I predict that we will notice stricter policies/laws and more security in the future.

See what happened to airports and other places which had almost no security a long time ago. I don't know about train stations. If they don't have that kind of security yet, then they will in the near future.
Click to expand...

you seem to be very complacent and supportive about having security, stricter laws, etc everywhere. you must be a very fearful person. I feel sorry for you then. London sounds like a more fitting place for you since it's a police state with cameras everywhere and gun ban law.
 
Jiro said:
you seem to be very complacent and supportive about having security, stricter laws, etc everywhere. you must be a very fearful person. I feel sorry for you then. London sounds like a more fitting place for you since it's a police state with cameras everywhere and gun ban law.
Click to expand...

Well, USA is police state, unfortunately, due to drug wars.

Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan are best place for CrazyPaul if he wants totally safe.
 
Jiro said:
you seem to be very complacent and supportive about having security, stricter laws, etc everywhere. you must be a very fearful person. I feel sorry for you then. London sounds like a more fitting place for you since it's a police state with cameras everywhere and gun ban law.
Click to expand...
No, I am not afraid at all but I was talking about my prediction. It's possible that America will be like London someday because of terrorism.

At my workplace, USPS we are required to wear a photo ID badge for security purpose. We didn't have our badges before 9/11. Also any tote bag or backpack that employees bring to work must have a see-thru. Times change.

If you don't like new changes like increased security measures, you will have to accept it ultimately.

That's LIFE.
 
CrazyPaul said:
No, I am not afraid at all but I was talking about my prediction. It's possible that America will be like London someday because of terrorism.

At my workplace, USPS we are required to wear a photo ID badge for security purpose. We didn't have our badges before 9/11. Also any tote bag or backpack that employees bring to work must have a see-thru. Times change.

If you don't like new changes like increased security measures, you will have to accept it ultimately.

That's LIFE.
Click to expand...

Well, we are voters so we could vote politicians out if they want impose a tighten security that harmful to our freedom or violate our constitutional rights. The politicians are supposed not to be above the constitution.

Speaking about USPS, the USPS in city that where I live, don't wear photo badge at all, even no USPS uniforms so it is depending on locations.
 
Foxrac said:
Well, we are voters so we could vote politicians out if they want impose a tighten security that harmful to our freedom or violate our constitutional rights. The politicians are supposed not to be above the constitution.

Speaking about USPS, the USPS in city that where I live, don't wear photo badge at all, even no USPS uniforms so it is depending on locations.
Click to expand...
If they tighten security, they do it for our protection. The government doesn't want to see more people dead like 9/11. In other words, if they don't tighten security, more innocent people will die. That's not what the government wants.
 
CrazyPaul said:
No, I am not afraid at all but I was talking about my prediction. It's possible that America will be like London someday because of terrorism.

At my workplace, USPS we are required to wear a photo ID badge for security purpose. We didn't have our badges before 9/11. Also any tote bag or backpack that employees bring to work must have a see-thru. Times change.
Click to expand...
don't like it? don't work for government.

CrazyPaul said:
If you don't like new changes like increased security measures, you will have to accept it ultimately.
Click to expand...
No I don't have to accept it.

CrazyPaul said:
That's LIFE.
Click to expand...
only if you're complacent like a sheep. Politicians depend on our votes.
 
CrazyPaul said:
If they tighten security, they do it for our protection. The government doesn't want to see more people dead like 9/11. In other words, if they don't tighten security, more innocent people will die. That's not what the government wants.
Click to expand...

Look at Aurora massacre. Why didn't government immediately act on it like banning guns or enacting gun restriction laws? Simple - voters don't want it therefore the government aren't acting on it or they'll face our wrath. That's not what the government wants.
 
Jiro said:
Look at Aurora massacre. Why didn't government immediately act on it like banning guns or enacting gun restriction laws? Simple - voters don't want it therefore the government aren't acting on it or they'll face our wrath. That's not what the government wants.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? Yeah, you are right. We have rights to own guns. Look what happened to James Holmes who also had rights to own guns, shithead. Those people are already dead so how do we prevent it in the future?
 
Jiro said:
don't like it? don't work for government.


No I don't have to accept it.


only if you're complacent like a sheep. Politicians depend on our votes.
Click to expand...

WTF? I am talking about changes. I never said I don't like it. You don't like it because you own guns. I suspect that you don't give a fuck about dead innocent people who were killed by gun owners.
 
CrazyPaul said:
WTF? I am talking about changes. I never said I don't like it. You don't like it because you own guns. I suspect that you don't give a fuck about dead innocent people who were killed by gun owners.
Click to expand...
no.... these victims were killed by a lunatic, not gun owner.

do you think they would want us to live with our Constitutional rights stripped off and live like a bunch of sheep?
 
CrazyPaul said:
Oh, really? Yeah, you are right. We have rights to own guns. Look what happened to James Holmes who also had rights to own guns, shithead. Those people are already dead so how do we prevent it in the future?
Click to expand...

how do we prevent it? we don't.

how do you think we should prevent it? ban the guns? put up useless "No Guns Allowed" sign? militarized all police officers? police checkpoints all over?

seeing how you are easily hot and angry and unable to restrain yourself by calling me a "shithead" when you are much older than me... I would be much more concerned about the current state of your mental health than pondering on how we can prevent any further bloodshed. An angry man plus a gun... god help you.
 
Jiro said:
no.... these victims were killed by a lunatic, not gun owner.

do you think they would want us to live with our Constitutional rights stripped off and live like a bunch of sheep?
Click to expand...
The lunatic owned guns legally. He's not the only one. There will be more gun owners who plan to kill people for some reasons. Do you know what that means? They can go into theaters and kill innocent people as well because there are no security to protect those innocent people. Please don't say "well, those people should have bought a gun to protect themselves". That would be a dumb reason. This is not the Wild West.

BTW, I predict that there will be huge changes in the near future. If you don't like it, that's too bad.
 
CrazyPaul said:
The lunatic owned guns legally. He's not the only one. There will be more gun owners who plan to kill people for some reasons. Do you know what that means? They can go into theaters and kill innocent people as well because there are no security to protect those innocent people. Please don't say "well, those people should have bought a gun to protect themselves". That would be a dumb reason. This is not the Wild West.

BTW, I predict that there will be huge changes in the near future. If you don't like it, that's too bad.
Click to expand...
so you do support gun ban then?

as usual - your logic along with bunch of anti-gunners continue to fail as demonstrated for decades. It failed during Clinton Administration.
 
Jiro said:
so you do support gun ban then?

as usual - your logic along with bunch of anti-gunners continue to fail as demonstrated for decades. It failed during Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...
No gun ban means more murders factually.
 
Back
Top