Shooting at Movie screening of TDKR in Colorado

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Probably is still better than certainly. Banning assault rifles won't stop people from being murderers, but the more barriers you put in between them, the harder it gets. Honestly, stopping only a few of these types of events would be worth it. Especially when I'm still not sure what the benefit of having the around is.

Btw, there's a big difference between recreational drugs and assault rifles. There's not going to be a Badger on every street corner selling them out of his jacket. It's going to take crap load more effort (and money) to buy.

People buying recreational drugs from shady drug dealers helps contribute to there being an overwhelming number of 'firearms' in North America.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Btw, there's a big difference between recreational drugs and assault rifles. There's not going to be a Badger on every street corner selling them out of his jacket. It's going to take crap load more effort (and money) to buy.

Actually, it would probably be the same person.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

What kind of animals senselessly butcher their own species?

Chimps, for one.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Table 5

At the end of the day we have to figure at how much risk we (we in this case being US citizens) are willing to take. Thousands of people die from driving every year, but clearly society has decided that the benefits of driving far out weight the risks. So we clearly are ok with death on some level. But there's a tangible benefit to driving...and movies.

What's the benefit of assault rifles again? That we can protect ourselves on the off-chance the King of England invades?

Again you are talking about semi-auto rifles and there are thousands of gun owners in Canada and the USA who find a benefit in owning them. I'll bet for most it has nothing to do with protection or a desire to commit murder.

[Champion]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I hate to go grammar nazi in a thread like this but I have no idea why people use seen in place of saw. It instantly makes you sound moronic.

My deepest apologies sir. You are actually right. I don't know why I type this all the time even though I say saw when I speak

Bad habit I guess

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I heard on the news last night the US has been averaging 2 mass killings (4+ people) a year since 1999. Guessing other countries aren't anywhere close to that number.

Maybe Obama should protect the southern border a little better and deal more effectively with the drug trade and the gang warfare that goes along with it.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Again you are talking about semi-auto rifles and there are thousands of gun owners in Canada and the USA who find a benefit in owning them. I'll bet for most it has nothing to do with protection or a desire to commit murder.

Not trying to be a dick, but what do you suppose the benefit is?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Again you are talking about semi-auto rifles and there are thousands of gun owners in Canada and the USA who find a benefit in owning them. I'll bet for most it has nothing to do with protection or a desire to commit murder.

So what are the benefits to having a semi-auto?

If it's just to shoot random crap up for fun every once in a while (which I can see being fun), why not just have them be legal at a shooting range, and nowhere else? What's the benefit to having them be available in any other scenario?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Not trying to be a dick, but what do you suppose the benefit is?

Property / Livestock protection, especially for rural citizens.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Not trying to be a dick, but what do you suppose the benefit is?

Service Rifle Compettitions

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Property / Livestock protection, especially for rural citizens.

Like, protection of livestock from cougars, wolves and bears? I get that, and I get the hunting argument for having guns. But an AR-15 for this? Really? What happened to grandpa's bolt-action rifle for this purpose?

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Like, protection of livestock from cougars, wolves and bears? I get that, and I get the hunting argument for having guns. But an AR-15 for this? Really? What happened to grandpa's bolt-action rifle for this purpose?

For todays super animals like the flying squirrel and the electric eel

[Azure]

The AR-15 has better balance, easier to fire, easier to handle, easier to reload, easier everything. For shooting varmit or whatever it is simply a better weapon. And its not like it fires a bullet that is so vastly different from what your run of the mill rifle fires. The .223 round is VERY popular.

[Table 5]

So far we have scaring of varmin, and target practice. Anything else?

So far those are some pretty pathetic benefits when you consider the negatives.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Azure

The AR-15 has better balance, easier to fire, easier to handle, easier to reload, easier everything. For shooting varmit or whatever it is simply a better weapon. And its not like it fires a bullet that is so vastly different from what your run of the mill rifle fires. The .223 round is VERY popular.

I understand, except for the part where it needs to be semi-automatic for this. Not a gun guy at all, not really pro or anti, just think there needs to be more controls than there are presently in the US.

I still don't see why these guns need to be easily available to everyone when only a fraction will buy them for use as a tool, such as you describe.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So far we have scaring of varmin, and target practice. Anything else?

So far those are some pretty pathetic benefits when you consider the negatives.

I'm just saying its not much different from any other .223 firearm. The butt can be mounted on any rifle, and the 6 round magazine is pretty standard.

Its like comparing a $30,000 car to a $100,000 car. They probably both do the same thing, but one is way better at it than the other.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

I understand, except for the part where it needs to be semi-automatic for this. Not a gun guy at all, not really pro or anti, just think there needs to be more controls than there are presently in the US.

I still don't see why these guns need to be easily available to everyone when only a fraction will buy them for use as a tool, such as you describe.

Actually I would say an overwhelming majority of people that buy in the AR-15 legally buy it for target shooting or hunting. Which would be the same reason they buy most other firearms.

Its not a very practical self-defense weapon. At close range the shotgun is much more effective, and the handgun easier to use. There is a reason law enforcement opts for the MP5 or a shotgun in breaching scenarios.

[Kybosh]

People always ask what is the real difference between Canada and America or Canadians and Americans and I feel like these incidents really exhibit a key difference. Not in the occurrence of these events (they can happen anywhere), but the resulting conversation regarding freedom. Freedom is such an abstract idea and there is a clear difference between American and Canadian freedom ideologies. I think this key difference is why many of us on this board have such an incredibly hard time even understanding the rationale of our neighbours to the south. I don't own any weapons myself, but I'm also no stranger to firearms. Even then I have almost an impossible time imagining why anyone would need or want a concealed firearm or some of these more powerful weapons.

Someone mentioned how the black colour of a weapon or other modifications do not change the lethality. This is true, but there is no denying that certain weapons have perceived additional lethality based purely on the aesthetics. Why is it that these mass shooters and gangsters often times pick menacing looking weapons? I wonder if this kid would have bought a regular bolt action rifle if that was the only thing he was capable of acquiring after say a year waiting period?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its like comparing a $30,000 car to a $100,000 car. They probably both do the same thing, but one is way better at it than the other.

But the 30k one still gets the job done right? I guess my point is there is a tool that already accomplishes a task, we dont really need something that does it a little better but also brings along with it the possibility of a horrific side-effect.

Sort of the same reason why in war, we still use conventional bombs instead of nuclear ones. The risk doesnt really justify the reward.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by T@T

I tried hard to stay away from this thread because just about everyone knows my feelings on gun laws. But I will say only one thing. 12 people are dead and 71 injured while watching a ####ing movie.

If no assault rifles or handguns I'm willing to bet the ###### may have killed a couple and injured a few more and then got the crap kicked out of him to the point he would probably be dead...think about that you f***ng gun advocate idiots.

In other words. It probably wouldn't have happened and nobody would be dead or injured.

Sure you keep thinking that in your bubble