Did You Hear About the Other Shooting at Aurora Colorado?

Church Shooter

There has been a lot of publicity over the shooting in Aurora Colorado but that wasn’t the only shooting there. There was another shooting that has never got the publicity as the one at the movie theater. There was a shooting at a church prior to the one at the movie theater.

Oh, you never heard about this shooting? No!!!, I wonder why?

Could it be because there was only one victim at this shooting while there was twelve victims at the shooting by the theater? Not enough blood for it to go mainstream.

Could it be racial discrimination on the part of the liberal mainstream media since the victim at the church was black?

Could it be that the shooter was killed by a gun totin, Bible thumpin’, member of the church before anyone else could be victimized by this shooter and that does not fit the liberal argument for gun control laws?

Could it be that the theater was a government designated gun free zone while the church was not thus permitting people to be armed and ready to protect themselves at the church when there was a need but not at the theater?

Could it be if people had learned the right lesson from this incident the incident at the theater would not have been so disasterous?

People, you have a choice. Where would you rather be with your loved ones when someone decides to use a gun indiscriminately as both of these incidences declares, at a gun free area or where you can carry a gun to defend yourself if a shooting occurs?

Taken together both of these incidences shows the value of gun control laws and their ability to protect lives. they have little value. It also makes one wonder what is the real reason liberals want only the government to possess arms and not the people.

Shooting at the Church

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , | 13 Comments

Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Did You Hear About the Other Shooting at Aurora Colorado?

  1. I DID hear about this shooting. Was this the one where an off duty female police officer killed the perpetrator ? I heard about this once on news, and heard about the other one at least 500 times.

  2. The Griper

    no, Jane, the victim was the Pastor’s mother and the person who killed the shooter was the Pastor’s nephew and off duty officer.

  3. Your only mistake is in expecting people to think and see the obvious.

    Preach it brother.

    Grace and peacce.

  4. BB-Idaho

    Can’t keep up with them all, Griper. Here in the last week, two
    guys shot themselves in the leg accidently while roaming the
    canyons and one guy had to be medivacked: he was target shooting at exploding targets and got a chunk of shrapnel in his
    shoulder. We don’t have much for criminals, so the accidents
    out ratio the intent by about 5 to 1. Sloppy handling mostly:
    a couple tiny tots playing with dad’s toys shot themselves in the
    head. ..wouldn’t hurt to have some sort of training…

  5. The Griper

    you can’t legislate against foolishness behavior but you can legislate foolish laws, BB. and laws cannot prevent accidents. proof of this is auto accidents or accidents on the job. but as my post illustrates laws can result in a greater number of lives taken intentionally.

    when you look at all mass murders committed, you’ll find one thing in common. they were all committed in gun free zones. and when you consider that these mass murderers are charged with multiple charges you have to ask how these laws saved lives? all laws do is give a prosecuting attorney more ammunition to play with in court.

  6. BB-Idaho

    I worked in an industry that ought to know-we made ammunition in the billions for every conceivable use. Our plants banned personal weapons. The rationale was that workplace tensions could be
    limited to profanity. The rule was clear and a condition for working there.

  7. The Griper

    that is fine, BB, private businesses has been doing that forever. all we need to do is look back at the old west and seeing bars that made customers check in their arms. but remember, private business has a legitimate reason, liability. does government accept liability when they pass laws that can be said as resulting in a greater number of lives lost?

  8. BB-Idaho

    “does government accept liability when they pass laws that can be said as resulting in a greater number of lives lost?” Doubt it-remember the military draft?

    • BB-Idaho

      IMO, the crux of the 2nd Amendment vs regulation basically involves firepower in terms of ‘arms’. There certainly is a range of
      weaponry and I think all but the most ardent would ban say, artillery, rocket launchers RPGs and the like. So the definitions devolve down to the ‘small arms’ category. In that category, 50 cal for example tends to be more strongly regulated, as well as full auto.
      There was a ban on assault rifles for awhile, but the argument there continues as to the difference (if any) between those and semi-automatic hunting rifles. I’m not sure, but most of the ‘massecres’
      lately have involved handguns and uber magazines. So there is
      some argument that way.
      …now back to the ammo business, the weapons ban v liability argument, there are certainly a number of hazards in the business aside from armed employees which merit liability concerns. Inadvertant explosions, poison gas leaks, the always problematic
      forklift accidents, acid/caustic burns and just odd stuff (like the time
      I blew up a laboratory because of a leak in the acetylene line of
      the atomic absorption spectrograph). (or filled a buliding with
      toxic hydrogen azide gas from a sink blockage). I think those are
      risks which are accepted by a well run place where everyone knows what they are doing and how to react. The gun ban simply eliminated the disgruntled empoyee escalated violence; protecting the innocent, so to say.
      That said, i’ve observed elsewhere that no amount of regulation,
      law enforcement, amateur concealed folk or gun access will work 100% as long as society has the dark fringe at its far edges; heck
      look at peaceful Norway and the guy who killed 90 some picnic
      kids. I guess we have to accept these things….but we don’t have to like them. …and unless we live in Kennesaw, GA, we don’t have to have a gun.

  9. The Griper

    since when did any rule or law prevent a disgruntled employee from acting on his feelings? in fact we hear of many incidences that involved a disgruntled employee, including shootings.

    like i said, laws do not save lives they only give the State the means to prosecute those who would use guns to take lives.

    when we speak of “gun control” you have to ask yourself who should determine whether or not you own one. and you have only two choices, the people or the State? it is your life or the life of a loved one that may hinge on your answer.

    and statistics declare that the risk to life is a very real risk for each and everyone of us as shown by these two incidences.
    now, granted, the ownership of a gun does not guarantee a life will be saved but the risk is far better. that you already know.

    so, like i said in my post, where would you rather be with your loved ones if someone decided to shoot people at random, in a place like that church or at a place like that theater? how many people can be killed in the time the police are called and they respond?

  10. The Griper

    i’ll make this bet, BB, if there was to be a scientific study made i would hypothesize that there is a direct correlation between “mass homicides” and “gun control laws” in this nation.

    i would also hypothesize that there is a direct correlation between “gun control laws” and “kids accidental shootings” in this nation.

    i know, as a kid, guns were never locked away and we all knew where the guns were but we also knew better than to play with them.

    and when you look back on history you’ll see the same thing. in the old west, rifles were placed over the door or leaned up against a wall and hand guns were placed on the coat rack or back of a chair fully loaded when not worn.

    • BB-Idaho

      In response to “since when did any rule or law prevent a disgruntled employee from acting on his feelings?”
      ..standard policy: a disgruntled employee in the workplace
      that carries a weapon can start shooting.
      ..a disgruntled employee that makes a threat and goes home to
      get a gun can be interdicted by law enforcement. happens more than you think.

  11. The Griper

    a disgruntled employee that carries a weapon will be looking down the barrel of the weapon of how many other employees before he can start shooting? this would be like a robber going into a cop’s bar to rob the place.

    and how many disgruntled employees will go home and get a gun without making the threat first thus no interdiction? how many times has this happened?

    or there is no interdiction by the cops because the threat was so vague that they saw no reason to respond until it was too late? how many times has this happened?

    or, even if the threat is made how many times has it been ignored because the person who heard it did not think he was serious, thus no interdiction? how many times has this happened?

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: