four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer

[Quantum Windbag]

That's kind of the point....with open carry, James Holmes has no need to sneak around. He can openly carry his AR-15 into the theater and when someone asks what is in the backpack he can say...500 rounds of extra ammunition

Are you going to take your kid into that movie?

The theater was a gun free zone. Even in open carry states businesses can tell people to leave their guns outside.

Want to try again, or would you rather admit you really screwed up?

This is an open carry state. Why would a business tell anyone to leave their guns outside? They keep everyone safe don't they? James Holmes is sitting in the theater holding an AR-15 with a large magazine......will you take your child to that movie?

Why are conservatives answering every question but that one?

Because they are run by lawyers.

 

[rightwinger]

Because the bad guys are usually cowards and prefer unarmed victims.

Consider for a moment, you are a dirtbag looking to score some cash for your next fix. There is a strip mall with a convenience store with a prominently displayed sign restricting firearms in their establishment, and a gun store next door to it. Which will you rob?

I wait for the gun store to close and then I rob that

The idiots guide on how to rob a store.

More money to be made robbing a gun store than convenience store

 

[JimBowie1958]

I wait for the gun store to close and then I rob that

The idiots guide on how to rob a store.

So tell us, then, wise one:

How would you rob a store?

(I think I'm beginning to get a much deeper picture of why ^ the resident tough guy ^ carries guns with him everywhere he goes. Hmmm ...)

Lol, OK I will answer your question, just to prove the stupidity of all the anti-gun hysteria.

1) find something that you can sell or fence. Stealing the Crown Jewels is pointless if you cant sell them, unless you just have a thing for possessing the Crown Jewels.

2) case places that have the good you can fence and pose as a customer so you can observe the place. Look for when the target is most vulnerable, look for structural integrity issues that might let you bust in, maybe even set up such a weakness yourself if you can, like unlocking an unmonitored window no one ever gives a second look. Test to see which places get the quickest response times by going up and jostling the back door or tossing a rock through a window. Avoid security cameras and if you don't know what they look like then study up on the subject.

3) Consider which of the places give you the most opportunity with the least risk and most reward. Then draw up your plans with abort conditions and signals if you have accomplices. Don't risk jail time if there is any reasonable risk of getting caught.

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am when the cops are processing the drunks, which might vary depending on locale. In most places that is about one hour after bars have to legally close. Using your look out to warn of any LEOs approaching, bust in through the weak spot, hit the target and leave everything else alone. Then leave.

5)You should practice doing this with a mock up prior to the job if you have no experience in such activities. If you have to pick a lock or do anything else that requires much eye ad hand coordination while under stress, practice these too till you can do it in your sleep. Picking a lock is a lot harder when your nervous than it is when watching a UTube video.

6) when you sell to your fence don't leave any proof of who you are so the guy can flip on you when he gets caught. Always use nicknames.

7) Don't do crimes in the city you live in and hit places in different locales. Change your methods with each hit. Be creative. Reusing the same methods leaves a forensic trail that LEOs will notice and then put more effort into getting you more because you are embarrassing them if not because of their pride.

I could go on, but there it is. Now tell me how full of shit I am, you fucking retard.

Point: NONE OF THIS REQUIRES A FUCKING GUN. You would be stupid to carry one in.

 

[hunarcy]

The point is that our second amendment can cut both ways

If you think you can parade around with your firearm slung over your shoulder just because you are not technically breaking the law, you are still subject to someone elses second amendment rights to consider you a threat and act appropriately

The point is that merely possessing a firearm doesn't constitute a threat. You would have to make some overt act in order for someone else to legally "consider you a threat and act accordingly"

 

[hunarcy]

How is an employee, or a homeowner for that matter, supposed to know at what point that gun becomes a threat?

Can't be too safe

IIRC, Luby's Cafeteria happened in Texas...

I was there shortly after it happened. Good ole Killeen/Ft Hood

A paradise for massacres

What he fails to mention is that the guy drove his car through the doors and got out firing. NOT the same as having your firearm slung over your shoulder and not bothering anyone else.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sigh...

>> hy·poth·e·sis noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Full Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement <<

Maybe you need these:
>> See hypothesis defined for English-language learners »
See hypothesis defined for kids » <<

Quantum Windbag said, 'Hypothetical means absolutely no basis in reality now?'

None of the definition you gave for that word means that hypotheticals can have no basis in reality. Hypothetical may have no basis min reality, but always can have a basis in reality.

If you weren't such an arrogant fool you could see that.

That doesn't even make any sense.

A hypothesis is anything you want it to be. It's not contingent on any reality.

What Quantum Dickbag did was assume the parameters of a historical event MUST be the parameters of the hypothesis. And that's bullshit. And I corrected him on that and then he did it again.

Maybe you should grow a pair and worry about your own posts. It's obvious they have more than their share of issues.

Ok since you insist that your hypothesis has no bearing on reality why do you keep asking for an answer? I mean it is devoid of reality, why should we waste time on it? It has no bearing on what may happen.

 

[Pogo]

Quantum Windbag said, 'Hypothetical means absolutely no basis in reality now?'

None of the definition you gave for that word means that hypotheticals can have no basis in reality. Hypothetical may have no basis min reality, but always can have a basis in reality.

If you weren't such an arrogant fool you could see that.

That doesn't even make any sense.

A hypothesis is anything you want it to be. It's not contingent on any reality.

What Quantum Dickbag did was assume the parameters of a historical event MUST be the parameters of the hypothesis. And that's bullshit. And I corrected him on that and then he did it again.

Maybe you should grow a pair and worry about your own posts. It's obvious they have more than their share of issues.

Ok since you insist that your hypothesis has no bearing on reality why do you keep asking for an answer? I mean it is devoid of reality, why should we waste time on it? It has no bearing on what may happen.

It wasn't my hypothesis. I'm just defining what one is for those who apparently don't know how to drive.

A hypothetical isn't "devoid of reality" -- it's simply not the same case as what historically happened in Aurora. Because the parameter of "gun free zone" --- which your ilk is constantly whining about -- has been taken out of the scenario. You know, like your ilk keeps calling for. In effect he's giving you your wish and you don't want to answer. Why is that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That doesn't even make any sense.

A hypothesis is anything you want it to be. It's not contingent on any reality.

What Quantum Dickbag did was assume the parameters of a historical event MUST be the parameters of the hypothesis. And that's bullshit. And I corrected him on that and then he did it again.

Maybe you should grow a pair and worry about your own posts. It's obvious they have more than their share of issues.

Ok since you insist that your hypothesis has no bearing on reality why do you keep asking for an answer? I mean it is devoid of reality, why should we waste time on it? It has no bearing on what may happen.

It wasn't my hypothesis. I'm just defining what one is for those who apparently don't know how to drive.

The purpose of a hypothetical is to ask a question about what MIGHT happen. There for to be taken seriously the situation depicted in the Hypothetical must be realistic, it must have a chance of being real. otherwise it is a total waste of time to even answer said question. You in essence have admitted that the hypothetical you are droning on about is in fact with out basis in reality, thus a waste of time, thanks for making that easier.

 

[Pogo]

Ok since you insist that your hypothesis has no bearing on reality why do you keep asking for an answer? I mean it is devoid of reality, why should we waste time on it? It has no bearing on what may happen.

It wasn't my hypothesis. I'm just defining what one is for those who apparently don't know how to drive.

The purpose of a hypothetical is to ask a question about what MIGHT happen. There for to be taken seriously the situation depicted in the Hypothetical must be realistic, it must have a chance of being real. otherwise it is a total waste of time to even answer said question. You in essence have admitted that the hypothetical you are droning on about is in fact with out basis in reality, thus a waste of time, thanks for making that easier.

Yet another deflection, yet another sidestep. And yet another ignorance --- I just got done telling you, and it's still there above, it's not "my" hypothesis. But it is perfectly realistic. You continue to dance around it without confronting it, so I ask again, why is that?

Let's run it back in slow motion. It's not mine but I think I can rehash:
We all know what the Holmes guy did in the Aurora movie theater. Once that happened, "your ilk", as it always does, kept whining about the movie theater being a "gun free zone". OK, now here's the hypothetical: take that sign away and it's no longer a gun-free zone. Holmes walks in laden with guns and ammo. He doesn't have to sneak in through a side door now because remember, it's not a gun-free zone. He simply walks in having bought a ticket like everybody else.

How do you like this Holmes guy now? He just walked in, hasn't shot anybody yet. He's a good guy, right?

Windbag's deflection was to keep reverting it to the historical case. Yours and Blowie's is to get lost in what a hypothesis is. Nobody wants to just take it on.

 

[Iceweasel]

Let's run it back in slow motion. It's not mine but I think I can rehash:
We all know what the Holmes guy did in the Aurora movie theater. Once that happened, "your ilk", as it always does, kept whining about the movie theater being a "gun free zone". OK, now here's the hypothetical: take that sign away and it's no longer a gun-free zone. Holmes walks in laden with guns and ammo. He doesn't have to sneak in through a side door now because remember, it's not a gun-free zone. He simply walks in having bought a ticket like everybody else.

How do you like this Holmes guy now? He just walked in, hasn't shot anybody yet. He's a good guy, right?

Windbag's deflection was to keep reverting it to the historical case. Yours and Blowie's is to get lost in what a hypothesis is. Nobody wants to just take it on.

I don't recall anyone chiming in that it was a gun free zone. Most of us know that signs don't mean shit unless they have metal detectors. Yes, someone with a gun could have dispatched the asshole, how is that even arguable?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let's run it back in slow motion. It's not mine but I think I can rehash:
We all know what the Holmes guy did in the Aurora movie theater. Once that happened, "your ilk", as it always does, kept whining about the movie theater being a "gun free zone". OK, now here's the hypothetical: take that sign away and it's no longer a gun-free zone. Holmes walks in laden with guns and ammo. He doesn't have to sneak in through a side door now because remember, it's not a gun-free zone. He simply walks in having bought a ticket like everybody else.

How do you like this Holmes guy now? He just walked in, hasn't shot anybody yet. He's a good guy, right?

Windbag's deflection was to keep reverting it to the historical case. Yours and Blowie's is to get lost in what a hypothesis is. Nobody wants to just take it on.

I don't recall anyone chiming in that it was a gun free zone. Most of us know that signs don't mean shit unless they have metal detectors. Yes, someone with a gun could have dispatched the asshole, how is that even arguable?

But it was a gun free zone, and if it had not been, the shooter probably would have picked a different theater like the two he had already passed up on the way to the one he did shoot up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I wait for the gun store to close and then I rob that

The idiots guide on how to rob a store.

More money to be made robbing a gun store than convenience store

risk s too high dumbass or people would be robbing them every day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That doesn't even make any sense.

A hypothesis is anything you want it to be. It's not contingent on any reality.

What Quantum Dickbag did was assume the parameters of a historical event MUST be the parameters of the hypothesis. And that's bullshit. And I corrected him on that and then he did it again.

Maybe you should grow a pair and worry about your own posts. It's obvious they have more than their share of issues.

Ok since you insist that your hypothesis has no bearing on reality why do you keep asking for an answer? I mean it is devoid of reality, why should we waste time on it? It has no bearing on what may happen.

It wasn't my hypothesis. I'm just defining what one is for those who apparently don't know how to drive.

A hypothetical isn't "devoid of reality" -- it's simply not the same case as what historically happened in Aurora. Because the parameter of "gun free zone" --- which your ilk is constantly whining about -- has been taken out of the scenario. You know, like your ilk keeps calling for. In effect he's giving you your wish and you don't want to answer. Why is that?

In other words the hypothetical situation is the same as the reality that happened minus minor changes made for the sake of the question.

In other words you totally got the whole damned thing wrong again.

 

[Unkotare]

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am ...

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

 

[Pogo]

Let's run it back in slow motion. It's not mine but I think I can rehash:
We all know what the Holmes guy did in the Aurora movie theater. Once that happened, "your ilk", as it always does, kept whining about the movie theater being a "gun free zone". OK, now here's the hypothetical: take that sign away and it's no longer a gun-free zone. Holmes walks in laden with guns and ammo. He doesn't have to sneak in through a side door now because remember, it's not a gun-free zone. He simply walks in having bought a ticket like everybody else.

How do you like this Holmes guy now? He just walked in, hasn't shot anybody yet. He's a good guy, right?

Windbag's deflection was to keep reverting it to the historical case. Yours and Blowie's is to get lost in what a hypothesis is. Nobody wants to just take it on.

I don't recall anyone chiming in that it was a gun free zone. Most of us know that signs don't mean shit unless they have metal detectors. Yes, someone with a gun could have dispatched the asshole, how is that even arguable?

But it was a gun free zone, and if it had not been, the shooter probably8 would have picked a different theater like the two he had already passed up on the way to the one he did shoot up.

Bullshit based on wishful thinking. And already long debunked.

>> Among the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that didn't allow firearms? <<​

-- NRA's Gun-Free Zone Myth

 

[JimBowie1958]

Did The Aurora Shooter Seek Out A "Gun Free" Zone? : GUNFAQ.ORG


So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer&#8217;s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater&#8217;s entrance.
.
In short, Lott maintains that the Cinemark Century 16 was chosen specifically because it was a &#8220;gun free&#8221; zone.


So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media &#8211; disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.
.....

Ten Closest Theater Locations
1.Cinema Latino de Aurora (L)
777 Peoria St., Aurora, CO 80011
(gun ban) Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
1.22 miles (3 minutes)
2.Cinema Grill (G)
13682 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
3.72 miles (7 minutes)
3.Century Cinemark Theater (B)
14300 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO 80012
No weapons allowed sign
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
3.97 miles (8 minutes)
4.Harkins Northfield 18 (H)
8300 E. Northfield Blvd., Denver, CO 80238
Not posted at the time of the attack
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
5.13 miles (10 minutes)
5.Aurora Movie Tavern
18605 East Hampden Avenue, Aurora, CO 80013-3533
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
10.04 miles (18 minutes)
6.Elvis Cinemas Tiffany Plaza 6
7400 E. Hampden Ave, Denver, CO 80231
Not posted
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.12 miles (18 minutes)
7.The Movie Tavern At Seven Hills
18305 E. Hampden Ave., Aurora, CO 80013
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
10.02 miles (19 minutes)
8.Landmark Theatre Greenwood Village
5415 Landmark Place, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
12.88 miles (19 minutes)
9.UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 and IMAX
2000 S. Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80222
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.66 miles (20 minutes)
10.Esquire Theatre
590 Downing St., Denver, CO 80218
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.95 miles (21 minutes)

 

[JimBowie1958]

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am ...

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

Lol, but you would counter that with you cock-suck-fu and sleep ninja surprise attack.

Not to mention your dreaded dragon invulnerability to anyone who opposes you expert style of martial arts.

lol, you are so full of shit

 

[Pogo]

<snip>....
In short, Lott maintains that the Cinemark Century 16 was chosen specifically because it was a “gun free” zone. <snip>

"Lott"? Who the fuck is "Lott"?

from the link:

Author and gun rights activist John Lott has a theory.

Ah. A "theory", has he?

"Gun rights activist", is he?

Was he there? No. Did he speak to Holmes? No. But the activist "has a theory". As opposed to 30 years of data.

Thanks for playin'. Be sure to pick up your gift basket on the way out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't recall anyone chiming in that it was a gun free zone. Most of us know that signs don't mean shit unless they have metal detectors. Yes, someone with a gun could have dispatched the asshole, how is that even arguable?

But it was a gun free zone, and if it had not been, the shooter probably8 would have picked a different theater like the two he had already passed up on the way to the one he did shoot up.

Bullshit based on wishful thinking. And already long debunked.

>> Among the 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that didn't allow firearms? <<​

-- NRA's Gun-Free Zone Myth

Lol Pogo,. you stupid ass, the authors are challenging the motive o the perps, while the NRA is explaining the methods and locales the killers chose, who gives a fuck what the motives are.

For example, the NRA doesn't delve into why some retard wants to kill Sikhs, but asserts that if they do decide to shoot a bunch of any specific group of people, whether there would be anyone possible carrying concealed is a factor in their choice as the stats back up.

The data is plainly there as all but two mass shooting has been at a location that banned guns over the last twenty years, and one of those two was a place where the hosts banned guns due to previous incidents.

roflmao, if you couldn't lie you would choke to death.

 

[Unkotare]

4) My preference would be to hit a place at about 3:00 am ...

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

Lol, but you would counter that with you cock-suck-fu ...

Nobody wants to hear about your other hobbies, Master Drou-zi....