61°
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. — Residents of Norwalk, Stamford, Fairfield, Wilton and from throughout Fairfield County are speaking out on the Daily Voice's Facebook pages about the shooting at a midnight screening of "Batman: The Dark Knight Rises" in Colorado.
At least 12 people were killed and dozens were hurt when a gunman opened fire at a movie theater in the Denver suburb of Aurora. A 24-year-old man was the prime suspect in the shooting Friday morning.
"Disgusting! You can not even go to a movie theater without being in danger," Amy Gallagher Tarantino wrote on The Stamford Daily Voice's Facebook page.
"I absolutely wouldn't let my kids go to a midnight screening after this," Randy Heller wrote on The Norwalk Daily Voice's Facebook page. "Not that I'm specifically worried about a copycat shooting or think that Norwalk is particularly dangerous. But this reminds us that the world can be a different place after midnight.
"My 15 year old went to the midnight screening in town last night and it gave me a sick feeling when I woke to hear the news of the shooting ... much more so than if she had not attended," Adrianne Yarosh Meyer said on The Wilton Daily Voice's Facebook page.
"Sad that we really need to think about the risks of just going 'to the movies' personally thinking of keeping my entire family away from this flick for awhile, all while saying prayers for all those injured and killed," Linda Faucher-Swallow wrote on The Norwalk Daily Voice's Facebook page.
"This can happen anywhere," Dina Castellano Leon wrote on the Fairfield Daily Voice's Facebook page. "My 21 year old son went to see the 12 am showing here in Fairfield last night. Just so scarey. You never know. Be aware of your surroundings. Malls, post offices, schools, office buildings and now movie theaters. We need changes made in our gun laws."
"Senseless! How tragic! So sad!" Patti Eilertsen-Krom wrote on the The Stamford Daily Voice's Facebook page.
Post your own reaction in the comment below or on your town's Facebook page.
Comments (13)
WiltonRes, from a British point of view I find your arguement a very coherent and balanced reply to the pro gun lobby. Yes, I agree that we should be able to defend ourselves and again from a British point of view, British law states that we use only as mush force is reasonable......that in my opinion is a cop out.....in the heat of an attack from a third party you are likely to use anything you can get your hands on to defend yourself, so if the attacker comes at you weilding an iron bar and you run him over with your car, you are the one likely to be prosecuted.
So Brithish law is in some ways is flawed and the politicians here tend to be reactive rather than proactive and try and close the stable door after the horse has bolted. They banned sporting guns after a similar incident in the UK and only succeeded in destroying hundreds of peoples sporting activities ( not talking about hunting but target shooting)
Personally I think this arguement will never end and I dont think there will ever be a satifactory conclusion so these incidents will continue forever. How do you stop maniacs committing these vile acts.....I dont think we ever can
Regards to you all
catch UL8ER
First, my condolences to the families/loved ones of those who perished in this awful crime. My heartfelt sympathies to the injured, some of who may endure lifelong damages.
While I am not for an outright ban of guns - I see NO earthly reason for anyone, save someone in law enforcement or military - to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. To my knowledge hunters do not use AK-47s to hunt deer. Those weapons were designed for war, aka, to kill people.
For someone determined to kill, they can do it with whatever is available. Machetes are used far too often in Africa, and who doesn't read a news story about someone stabbing someone with a kitchen knife?
If others had had a gun in the theater, what good would it have done, since the shooter had a bulletproof vest/helmet. Only an experienced person (police/military) might have been able to take him down, but more likely there would have been 'collateral damage'.
One thing this horrible incident did show is that there are lot more good people than bad out there in the world, people who sacrificed their lives to saved loves one. We should remember them, and not the shooter.
Was going to address a bunch of incorrect info you guys posted (mainly mythterm)... But figured its not worth my time. .. Give this a read instead:
----------------------------
A letter from the founder of Front Sight Firearms Training Institute in Nevada.
For obvious reasons, there will be no Front Sight Joke of the Week this weekend.
Instead, I would like you to forward this e-mail to everyone you know and ask them to forward it to everyone they know.
Politicians, city officials and businesses who support "Gun Free Zones" are killing us with their lunacy.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Well let's ask our elected officials, opinion leaders, the news media, and those businesses who support the insanity of gun control and "Gun Free Zones" how many more Americans are they willing to kill by continuing to disarm responsible, trained citizens WHO CAN STOP a deranged gunman BEFORE he can massacre disarmed and helpless citizens.
How many MORE times are our elected officials going to pass gun control laws, enforce "Gun Free Zones" or consider signing an Arms Treaty to circumvent our cherished Second Amendment and expect a different result than what we received at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises? It is INSANITY to believe that more gun control will make us safer.
Criminals, terrorists, and the deranged DO NOT follow gun control laws. Never have and never will.
Any politician, opinion leader, news pundit, or business owner who thinks otherwise is the poster child for Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.
And while you are at it, ask the 50 or more who were wounded and the hundreds who feared for their lives in that "Gun Free Zone" theatre if they would have liked to have had a gun of their own to protect themselves and those around them when a madman walked right in and started shooting. NOBODY could stop him, because there wasn't another gun, a LIFE SAVING GUN, in that theatre!
Ask your elected officials, opinion leaders, the news media, and those businesses who support the insanity of gun control and "Gun Free Zones" when they are going to wake up, get smart, look at the data, look at the statistics, look in the mirror and realize they are WRONG... DEAD WRONG about guns? When are they going to admit to themselves that they are KILLING Americans with ignorance and gun control schemes?
It is no secret, due to so many real world examples that are readily available for everyone to see on the Internet, that when you have an armed, trained, responsible citizen in a public place EVERYONE IS SAFER and such murderous rampages as have occurred countless times in "Gun Free Zones" just can't happen.
Even if someone in that theater had a gun to stop him, how many people would have been shot before someone stopped him. Dont get me wrong, I'm not in favor of a ban on all guns. I am completely in favor of a ban on guns that shoot 50 to 60 bullets in one minute. Maybe I am wrong though. I am open to that. So I want to ask you. Please link me to a news story where a citizen in the US had to use a weapon that shoots 50 to 60 bullets a minute to save their life but a gun that only holds 6 bullets would not have been good enough to save their life. If you can provide this information I may change my mind. Thanks.
So you want guns that shoot slow? Like maybe 10 rounds a minute? ... Or just smaller magazines? Only takes a second to reload.
A big problem here is that a lot of people in this part of the country have no idea how guns actually work.
Not worth discussing here. If you really care to hear bth sides of discussion, stop by ctguntalk.com... You can find the anti-gun side of the discussion on the evening news.
I know very little about guns so I have a question about one of the weapons used by the shooter. He used an AR15 which uses a magazine that allows him to shoot 50 to 60 bullets in one minute. Is this not considered to be an assault weapon? I just can't imagine why any civilian would need to have a weapon that allows someone to shoot that many bullets in one minute.
I'm also trying to find info on how gun control in the UK caused an increase in crime but so far all of the web sites I've looked at with crime statistics in the UK do not show this to be the case. I also cannot remember the last time I've read about a rape being committed where the victim was able to pull out her gun and shoot the rapist. I'm not saying it hasn't happened or cannot happen. But I don't believe rape numbers have shot up just because women in the UK don't carry a gun.
If it happens even with the UKs stringent gun laws then why would you support ensuring that people cant protect themselves? If we enacted similar laws here MAYBE gun deaths would decrease, but a couple million crimes a year would be sucessful that are now stopped in their tracks. Isnt it a fact that while gun crimes decreased in the UK after the ban crimes against persons from robbery to rape escalated? And the same happened in Australia. I'm not sure that mental illness is a justification or excuse for these things. I am sure that I couldnt sleep at night if I supported gun control and somebody who would have had a gun if not for my butting in ended up a victim of a crime.
A rational person might hold that theater liable for its no gun policy. Its not much different than if they had a no fire extinguisher policy & somebody torched the place. When you create helpless people you need to assume responsibility for them.
Might seem insignificant but that movie theater was a gun free zone that the shooter could feel very safe doing his thing in. Relatively easy access to guns works both ways, we do have laws against criminals & certified mentally ill people buying or possessing guns but its a right that law abiding Americans have in this country.
Some will certainly disagree but if more of us took our rights & saftey seriously people like this can be stopped in their tracks. Just last week a 71 year old armed civilian shot & stopped an armed robbery in Fla. If that old man had been at that movie things may well have been very different. Its always easy to pull your hair out asking why after the fact, but its non-sensical to start promoting knee jerk antigun legislation every time a relatively rare thing happens without examining the entire scope of things. For example in the USA civilians use a private firearm to stop or prevent a crime over 2.5 million times a year. This tragedy, as bad as it was, does not justify creating 2 and a half million victims each year.
My deepest sympathies go out to all the victims & their families but I hope that they arent demeaned by useing them to push a political agenda.
Didnt canada just have one? Can you point to a country that hasnt had a mass shooting? The list of those that have had them recently is far from short. Canada, England, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands and probably every country on earth if we are honest. We arent living in a war zone & nobody suggested that we were. Several people who escaped were very close to the shooter & while nobody can be certain, its silly to think that its impossible that an armed individual might have been able to make a difference. What is certain that unarmed people cant stop someone like this. Its also certain that the things YOU suggest are limiting civil rights. You keep going on about assault weapons, this guy used a semi automatic rifle, a semi automatic pistol & a shotgun, none of which are assault weapons. Its not about being holier than thou, its about being realistic. I'm fairly well educated on the second amendment, broken to the basics its a right to defend ourselves against guys like this. It intended for us to have access to the same small arms as the military so WE could form militias that would be effective fighting forces. That is a fact, not an invented fiction like some imaginary place with no weapons, no crime & everybody dancing in joy holding hands.
Its a right in this country & its a right that if more people took advantage of, things of this nature would decrease. The very fact that they always happen in places where people are likely to be unarmed should make that obvious.
Your last sentence is very telling, you dont like freedom of speech either, another right we have in America, unless of course somebody agrees with you, I never suggested you not express your opinion, I'm perfectly happy to let people spout ignorant propaganda. The Norwalk Daily voice solicited opinions, I gave mine, you dont need to like it but what you are tired of is irrelevant.
You should change your name to mythperpetuator.
To all of you who truly believe that someone who had been armed could have stopped that chaos on Thursday night, you are all seriously delusional. The lunatic had already thrown a smoke bomb, specifically so that no one would know what was happening. Do you all seriously believe that if anyone had been armed in that theater that they would have known in which direction to shoot without shooting someone else? And if everyone had been armed, then everyone would have died. The right to bear arms is needs to limit civilians to non-assault weaponry. We are not living in a war zone (yet) and should not be required to bear arms in order to protect ourselves against psychotic killers. By allowing these civilians to stock-pile weapons, bullets, knives, etc. for the sole sake of killing human beings (not to mention the riot gear that he was wearing so that no one else could take him out), is just limiting our own civil rights. It's time to stop acting holier-than-thou about the second amendment and actually learn your history about why we have those rights (which come SECOND to the Freedom of Speech (meaning we have a right to speak our minds about banning assault weapons that have been used to kill so many people lately). Oh and by the way, the countries that do have bans on these kinds of weapons, DON'T have the same kinds of massacres happening to civilians. Keep your damned handguns and opinions to yourselves. I'm tired of hearing it!
I know every country has it nutters but certainly the relatively easy access (compared to the UK) that you have to guns over there does not help. We have had similar incidents over here in the UK and it always seems to turn out that the perpetrators are mentally ill (or so they claim when they are caught) and indeed during subsequent investigations they we known to have issues. So you might say why was something not done.....I would ask the same question but thats the very often useless British authorities responsible for such matters.
Those people affected have my deepest sympathy and am sure that the rest of the UK feel the same Catch U all L8ER