I think you might be missing something here. A business like this movie theater is in no way infringing on your right to bear arms. But they are absolutely within their rights to say you cannot be on their property with a concealed weapon. And if you refuse, it is trespassing.

 

But you damn well better serve cakes to gays on demand. Boy the dissonance is like a hurricane around here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But you damn well better serve cakes to gays on demand. Boy the dissonance is like a hurricane around here.

 

No. You just suffer from a lack of understanding.

---

;

;

No. You just suffer from a lack of understanding.

Nope, lack of agreement.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes because all of the mass shootings recently were committed by "right wing wackos". Elliot Roger anyone?



Do we not already have laws in place that addresses "crazy people" having access to firearms?

Yes and no. People can still go to "roadside" or "tent" gun sales and buy a gun, no background check.

---

No. You just suffer from a lack of understanding.

Edit: Nvm

---

It's no surprise that they only cite statistics on gun deaths. There are plenty of other ways to kill people.


 

And Australia has a different culture than the US. I don't think large drug gangs are roaming the inner cities in Australia. Drug shootings account for a large percentage of murders in the US, and almost all of the gun possessions by gang members are already in violation of the law. Adding more rules for law abiding citizens isn't going to make a difference.

 

And how does one go about changing the culture?

---

So again I ask, what laws not on the books currently could have prevented this?

 

You keep asking this, but other countries are showing us that you can lower gun deaths with stricter gun laws.  Will stricter gun laws prevent all gun deaths?  No and no one is saying they will.  Can it lower gun deaths?  This is up for debate, but there are countries showing us in real time, not theory, that they can.

---

 

You keep asking this, but other countries are showing us that you can lower gun deaths with stricter gun laws.  Will stricter gun laws prevent all gun deaths?  No and no one is saying they will.  Can it lower gun deaths?  This is up for debate, but there are countries showing us in real time, not theory, that they can.

 

Gun deaths? Are you once again implying that other deaths aren't as important? What point is lowering gun deaths when people will just find other ways to kill? It didn't take a gun to kill and maim people in Boston. It didn't take a gun in Oklahoma City. It didn't take a gun in Austin.


 

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25334...fatalities

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Gun deaths? Are you once again implying that other deaths aren't as important? What point is lowering gun deaths when people will just find other ways to kill? It didn't take a gun to kill and maim people in Boston. It didn't take a gun in Oklahoma City. It didn't take a gun in Austin.


 

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25334...fatalities

So we shouldn't lower gun deaths?  That's your argument?  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So we shouldn't lower gun deaths?  That's your argument?  

 

That would be a better argument in lowering murders by illegals by eliminating illegals from this country. Being illegally in this country is not a Constitutional right (yet, although I would bet at least four of the old Ivy League lawyers ruling us would claim it was).


 

Lowering just GUN murders is worthless if the total number of murders increases as a result.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

But you damn well better serve cakes to gays on demand. Boy the dissonance is like a hurricane around here.

 

Gays are not allowed to carry guns into the theater either.   I don't see the dissonance.   It's a policy that applies to everyone.  

 

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."   But if the restaurant has to serve black people, how come it doesn't have to serve shirtless people?   Is that dissonance to you?  It's not dissonance to me, because the policy applies to everyone. 

---

Gun deaths? Are you once again implying that other deaths aren't as important? What point is lowering gun deaths when people will just find other ways to kill? It didn't take a gun to kill and maim people in Boston. It didn't take a gun in Oklahoma City. It didn't take a gun in Austin.


 

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25334...fatalities

It didn't take a gun on 9/11, either, but that's besides the point.

 

If you want to kill someone, a gun is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to do it.  If you want to kill a lot of people, a big gun with a large capacity magazine is the way to go.

 

In this country, we make it very very easy for crazy people to get guns.  We do this because there is a very small but extremely vocal group of gun owners that say, ad nauseum, that any restriction on the ability to carry firearms is unconstitutional.  And they are particularly sensitive about making sure crazy people can get guns because most of them have been called "nuts" in the past themselves.

 

I really don't mind professionals like soldiers and policemen having guns.  I don't want to run around in a nineteenth century wild west town where everyone is armed to the teeth, but I'm comfortable enough with the average citizen having a firearm in the house.

 

It's just that in the U.S., we do a terrible job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane.

---

Gays are not allowed to carry guns into the theater either. I don't see the dissonance. It's a policy that applies to everyone.


"No shirt, no shoes, no service." But if the restaurant has to serve black people, how come it doesn't have to serve shirtless people? Is that dissonance to you? It's not dissonance to me, because the policy applies to everyone.

I think the point he is trying to make is private property rights can't be used as an excuse to restrict access to constitutional rights while at the same time ignored in discrimination laws. If a business owner can say no weapons on my property for whatever reason why do they not have the same right to say no persons on my property for whatever reason or no lifestyle endorsements on my property for whatever reason. Personally I support letting private property function as they so choose. If a gay themed theater forbids guns I support that. For the same reason I support eliminating all discrimination laws on private property.

---

It didn't take a gun on 9/11, either, but that's besides the point.


If you want to kill someone, a gun is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to do it. If you want to kill a lot of people, a big gun with a large capacity magazine is the way to go.


In this country, we make it very very easy for crazy people to get guns. We do this because there is a very small but extremely vocal group of gun owners that say, ad nauseum, that any restriction on the ability to carry firearms is unconstitutional. And they are particularly sensitive about making sure crazy people can get guns because most of them have been called "nuts" in the past themselves.


I really don't mind professionals like soldiers and policemen having guns. I don't want to run around in a nineteenth century wild west town where everyone is armed to the teeth, but I'm comfortable enough with the average citizen having a firearm in the house.


It's just that in the U.S., we do a terrible job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane.

We have restrictions and lots of them on carrying a handgun. Are you advocating only police and military should be able to carry in public?

---

It didn't take a gun on 9/11, either, but that's besides the point.


If you want to kill someone, a gun is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to do it. If you want to kill a lot of people, a big gun with a large capacity magazine is the way to go.


In this country, we make it very very easy for crazy people to get guns. We do this because there is a very small but extremely vocal group of gun owners that say, ad nauseum, that any restriction on the ability to carry firearms is unconstitutional. And they are particularly sensitive about making sure crazy people can get guns because most of them have been called "nuts" in the past themselves.


I really don't mind professionals like soldiers and policemen having guns. I don't want to run around in a nineteenth century wild west town where everyone is armed to the teeth, but I'm comfortable enough with the average citizen having a firearm in the house.


It's just that in the U.S., we do a terrible job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane.

It's ironic that you mention the "Wild West town". They had strict gun control measures. The Wild West full of crime is a historical myth

---

We have restrictions and lots of them on carrying a handgun. Are you advocating only police and military should be able to carry in public?

 

I am advocating making it harder for crazy people to have guns.   For open carry, I think police and military make sense.  For concealed, most states have a process that tends to minimize the mentally impaired from getting a permit.  I can't remember the last time one of these mass shooters had a concealed carry permit.  Could have happened, I just don't remember.

 

Any other ideas save the "arm everyone!" to reduce the amount of guns falling into the hands of the mentally ill are welcome.

---

For the same reason I support eliminating all discrimination laws on private property.

 

Says the young white able-bodied Christian male.

---

;

;

I think the point he is trying to make is private property rights can't be used as an excuse to restrict access to constitutional rights while at the same time ignored in discrimination laws. If a business owner can say no weapons on my property for whatever reason why do they not have the same right to say no persons on my property for whatever reason or no lifestyle endorsements on my property for whatever reason. Personally I support letting private property function as they so choose. If a gay themed theater forbids guns I support that. For the same reason I support eliminating all discrimination laws on private property.

 

Nobody is saying gun owners cannot go to the movie theater. They just can't bring their gun with them.

---

;

;

It didn't take a gun on 9/11, either, but that's besides the point.

 

If you want to kill someone, a gun is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to do it.  If you want to kill a lot of people, a big gun with a large capacity magazine is the way to go.

 

In this country, we make it very very easy for crazy people to get guns.  We do this because there is a very small but extremely vocal group of gun owners that say, ad nauseum, that any restriction on the ability to carry firearms is unconstitutional.  And they are particularly sensitive about making sure crazy people can get guns because most of them have been called "nuts" in the past themselves.

 

I really don't mind professionals like soldiers and policemen having guns.  I don't want to run around in a nineteenth century wild west town where everyone is armed to the teeth, but I'm comfortable enough with the average citizen having a firearm in the house.

 

It's just that in the U.S., we do a terrible job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane.

 

It didn't take a gun on 9/11, either, but that's besides the point.

 

If you want to kill someone, a gun is the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to do it.  If you want to kill a lot of people, a big gun with a large capacity magazine is the way to go.

 

In this country, we make it very very easy for crazy people to get guns.  We do this because there is a very small but extremely vocal group of gun owners that say, ad nauseum, that any restriction on the ability to carry firearms is unconstitutional.  And they are particularly sensitive about making sure crazy people can get guns because most of them have been called "nuts" in the past themselves.

 

I really don't mind professionals like soldiers and policemen having guns.  I don't want to run around in a nineteenth century wild west town where everyone is armed to the teeth, but I'm comfortable enough with the average citizen having a firearm in the house.

 

It's just that in the U.S., we do a terrible job of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane.

 

Common misconception.  19th century mid-west towns had pretty strict gun control.  Much stricter than we have today.  The shootout at the OK Corral was because someone was carrying guns when they shouldn't have.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Says the young white able-bodied Christian male.

 

Are old, non-white, disabled, non-Christian females forbidden from owning property on which to exercise their own rights?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato