It's the damn previews. Someone tells me to stop F*** texting during that time, I'm going tell them to mind their own damn business.The old bastard was some over grown bully boy with a belligerent attitude.F** that guy,
I will. He may be a very bright, coherent senior. The younger may be an **CENSORED**. They might both be. In this instance it's is the presence of the gun that creates the death....not the dispute ...the death. It takes two stupid human beings for there to be a dispute but if there is no gun no one likely dies. You have a physical altercation at worst but others likely intervene or a senior never a feels emboldened enough to push the issue. The stupidity of two people creates the dispute but the gun is the proximate cause of the death. Because guns are lethal they turn disputes into death unnecessarily. They provide much less of a buffer for stupidity.
Stupid is as stupid does Vin. People drink and drive and then kill people in accidents. I don't want to get into an argument about equivalence just demonstrate you can't legislate against all stupidity, and even if you do, some will still ignore it because they are, well, stupid. Case in point, guns were supposedly banned from that cinema. Whats more if you were to ban everything that might cause harm with stupid actions, we would be very cold and living in caves.
Spartan, you proved my point for me. You cannot legislate away stupidity and people break rules ... This event was a collision of two stupid people both breaking rules (the theater has a rule against cell phone use too). The easiest thing to control in this instance is not stupidity, human nature, rule breaking ... It's what?.... the gun ... The very thing that is the proximate cause of the death. Stupidity and rule breaking caused the dispute. The gun caused the death. But for the gun ....
So your answer is to legislate (ban) items that stupid people might do stupid things with. Where do you stop?
First, a gun is not just "an item stupid people use" like a broom or a hammer, both of which have a substantial non-violent social utility. Guns are only for killing and if this incident proves anything it proves that guns intended for self-defense get used to escalate crimes of passion. Second, at least we seem to have reach an agreement, even if only by begrudging acknowledgement or silence, that guns are often the proximate cause of death. No gun here, likely no death. Third, no one - including me - has said there is or must be some perfect solution. That is a dishonest pro-gun defense mechanism, BUT the mere fact that guns are ubiquitous means there is more gun violence. There is only so far you can reasonably go to accommodate a minority of gun owners. For example, how far is society to go to tolerate guns when guns a claimed by "honest people" to be for self-defense and yet you have a 71 year old former cop (the ultimate "honest person") taking a gun into a suburban movie theater in the middle if the day. To accommodate this type if person's right "to bear arms" does that mean society should bear the cost of puting metal detectors at movie theaters? Do you see the point? At some point the excercuse if rights clashes with others rights or freedom in such a way that someone's rights get diminished. Eventually the majority in this country will get tired of things like this and the pendulum will swing back further than it should because of a gun lobby that refuses all meaningful control. It's not that complicated. Gun freedom will decline because of mass murders, scenarios like this AND ... Gun owners who follow a PROFIT - DRIVEN gun lobby around like drones spewing one talking point after another instead of actually thinking for themselves. Look no further than this thread to see a tiny minority of thoughtful, responsible gun owners drowned out by a band of mindless social misfits who have nothing to add to any reasoned debate so they just repeat NRA talking points over and over, incapable of independent thought or intellectual honesty.
Another thread hijacked by the resident provocateur w/ a gun control diatribe, again.
So instead of putting the phone away or going outside the theater he told the old man to "go f himself"? Was he carrying a gun? Because I heard that is the only way that situations escalate.
Huh? You go up to a former naval petty officer whom is 6"5 during previews of a movie ( cell phone appropriate time) and tell him to stop f$&@ink texting and expect him to stand down? Or say "" yes sir"" ? Maybe I misunderstood your post because that is not how most would react.
Now his wife is a widow and his daughter is without a father in part because he couldn't just ignore the old guy. Sounds like arguing with the old guy over texting in a movie theater was a great idea.
Another thread hijacked by the resident provocateur w/ a gun control diatribe, again.
Of course, spewing the same garbage that has been shot down time and again.
