Shooting at Movie screening of TDKR in Colorado

[Senator Clay Davis]

If you want to own your gun for non-detructive purposes (i.e. personal safety), then you should be more than happy to have tight, regulated access. You do only need it for safety and protection, right? And since most gun owners are responsible, upstanding, taxpaying citizens, then there should be no issue getting one with tight regulations, right?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

25 pages of Gun Control debate. Surprise!

Is this not the perfect time to have this debate? 70 people just got shot...I think that warrants a discussion.

At the end of the day though, we all know absolutely nothing in the US will change. It should...but it won't. Those in power are way too scared to make any real changes, so they'll use words like "reflection" and "solace" without ever saying or doing anything to prevent the next shooting....which will happen sooner or later.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Then why is it whenever there is a shooting death the calls for a ban on firearms or baseless restrictions are the first demand made by people? Trust me, happens every time!

Yeah, weird isn't it? Every time some lunatic arms himself to the teeth and kills a bunch of people with legal firearms, people say "hey, maybe it shouldn't be so easy to buy these guns!".

What are they thinking? Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people!

Regarding the "dancing on graves" bit, I couldn't agree more. Obviously the way to go when something like this happens is to dance around the graves.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

If those recreational drugs were legal and regulated where would that money go? Over 60% of all organized crimes money comes just from marijuana in the USA, take that away and you take away their money to supply bigger and more elaborate schemes.

If the USA took the time and money they spend on hunting a practically harmless drug like marijuana they could spend it on things that actually kill people like illegal guns and/or systems that would protect someone from getting 4 crazy guns, full body armor, etc. within a small period of time. Anyone who buys what this guy bought within 6 months time is up to no good 99% of the time.

I'm just glad no other people in the theatre were carrying or allowed to carry a gun else I bet there are more dead or injured from random gun fire. People think it would have protected them but it would have done more harm than good.

Originally Posted by Royle9

Also highly illegal in the U.S (recently a couple were searched @ held for questioning after trying to enter the US with these last week) May have even been charged. ** Severe Choking Hazard **

$2500 per egg they could have been fined. Honestly who would have ever thought?

[tjinaz]

Yeah, weird isn't it? Every time some lunatic arms himself to the teeth and kills a bunch of people with legal firearms, people say "hey, maybe it shouldn't be so easy to buy these guns!".

What are they thinking? Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people!

Regarding the "dancing on graves" bit, I couldn't agree more. Obviously the way to go when something like this happens is to dance around the graves.

The thread with 20 people shot in Toronto with Illegal firearms only generated 12 replies. I guess when it happens in America it is different.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

The thread with 20 people shot in Toronto with Illegal firearms only generated 12 replies. I guess when it happens in America it is different.

It is different because the guns used weren't illegal.

[tjinaz]

Did the guns being illegal make them do less damage? Did it make the wielder of the gun less criminal or crazy? Would the shooter or the victims in either case care if the gun was legal or not?

[Royle9]

At the end of the day, nothing will change as usual. It's really sad and unfortunate that the only time we question the "laws" & "rights" of mankind/humans is AFTER something terrible like this happens. It's disgusting, and we all know nothing will change because restricting the constitutional right of an American to own a high powered rifle for "protection" or "sport" is absurd.

RIP to all those lost.

If there's one positive I can take out of this whole situation its that this will be taken care of by the American judicial system. I would hate to see something like this happen in Canada where the guilty party would likely walk only a few years after a lengthy trial.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If you want to own your gun for non-detructive purposes (i.e. personal safety), then you should be more than happy to have tight, regulated access. You do only need it for safety and protection, right? And since most gun owners are responsible, upstanding, taxpaying citizens, then there should be no issue getting one with tight regulations, right?

If by regulations you mean a seriously strict buying process, extended background check, complex safety courses, and PAL licenses that have to be renewed every x amount of time, absolutely I agree. But a ban? No I don't agree.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Did the guns being illegal make them do less damage? Did it make the wielder of the gun less criminal or crazy? Would the shooter or the victims in either case care if the gun was legal or not?

Holmes purchased the guns legally.

His avenues for getting a hold of guns and the parameters for their acquisition could have been very different, which could have changed the outcome of this event.

He probably still would have gone crazy, but if he had a different gun or at a different time, this could have been a very different scenario.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HOOT

If those recreational drugs were legal and regulated where would that money go? Over 60% of all organized crimes money comes just from marijuana in the USA, take that away and you take away their money to supply bigger and more elaborate schemes.

If the USA took the time and money they spend on hunting a practically harmless drug like marijuana they could spend it on things that actually kill people like illegal guns and/or systems that would protect someone from getting 4 crazy guns, full body armor, etc. within a small period of time. Anyone who buys what this guy bought within 6 months time is up to no good 99% of the time.

Where do people get medical marijuana from? The same process could be used to supply everyone else who wanted to buy the drug. The fact that it is illegal gives the drug cartels a market to sell it, since they have access to the stuff, and the byproduct of that is drug crime, gun crime, etc, etc.

If the government regulated the buying and selling of marijuana, that problem would go away, because anyone could grow the stuff if they were approved. As in you wouldn't have to import drugs from Mexico, Colombia or any other South American countries that are prone to bring their violence to North America along with the drugs.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If you want to own your gun for non-detructive purposes (i.e. personal safety), then you should be more than happy to have tight, regulated access. You do only need it for safety and protection, right? And since most gun owners are responsible, upstanding, taxpaying citizens, then there should be no issue getting one with tight regulations, right?

And when the hell would anyone need an assault rifle for protection? Crazy

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Holmes purchased the guns legally.

His avenues for getting a hold of guns and the parameters for their acquisition could have been very different, which could have changed the outcome of this event.

He probably still would have gone crazy, but if he had a different gun or at a different time, this could have been a very different scenario.

Apparently he had over 30 IEDs setup in his home. If he couldn't have used firearms to carry out his plan, whose to say that he couldn't have used the 'softball' sized bombs to blow the theatre up? Or blow something else up.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that this guy was planning this act for over 6 months. He spent a lot of time and money in obtaining the equipment and making his bombs. If he couldn't have purchased the weapons legally, there is nothing to say that he wouldn't have bought them from the black market.

Have a tight buying process on firearms would only stop the moron who wants to go buy a gun because he's pissed off and wants to go shoot someone. If you have a 2 week wait, maybe he gets over it. Other than that there isn't much you can do if someone is intent on causing this much harm.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And when the hell would anyone need an assault rifle for protection? Crazy

You know, I don't get this. If someone breaks into your home and wants to harm your children, why wouldn't you want an assault rifle for protection?

Just pointing it at the would be intruder would likely scare him off.

And anyone who thinks home invasion don't happen is seriously naive.

I find it pretty stupid that people want to prohibit others from protecting their own home.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, I don't get this. If someone breaks into your home and wants to harm your children, why wouldn't you want an assault rifle for protection?

Just pointing it at the would be intruder would likely scare him off.

And anyone who thinks home invasion don't happen is seriously naive.

I find it pretty stupid that people want to prohibit others from protecting their own home.

I bet if I had an ICBM it would REALLY scare the guy off.

I find it pretty stupid that people would want to prohibit me from protecting my own home.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, I don't get this. If someone breaks into your home and wants to harm your children, why wouldn't you want an assault rifle for protection?

Just pointing it at the would be intruder would likely scare him off.

And anyone who thinks home invasion don't happen is seriously naive.

I find it pretty stupid that people want to prohibit others from protecting their own home.

That is a fair reason.

I would assume you will not allow somebody to have a bazzoka or a tank for protection.
So there probably is a limit to what is acceptable for protection.

So in your view an AR falls into the ok list. Where, in your opinion, is the acceptable limit on what weapon a person can have?

[Azure]

Did I say that a 'bazzoka' or a 'tank' is okay for protection? I like how you have to resort to making stupid exaggerations in order to try to prove your point.

Home protection is important to some people. The fact that you think its stupid that people should protect their family is exactly why no common ground can be found in terms of gun ownership and gun control. Both sides are sitting on the extremes, and those of us who aren't 'scared' of weapons like those here who have obviously never shot a gun, are lost in the stupid argument between both sides.

Do I want people to own automatic machine guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, etc, etc? I have never said that I did. But I don't think that owning a semi-automatic rifle that shoots the .223 round is 'evil' like you do.

I'm also not naive enough to actually think banning the 'assault' rifle will actually prohibit incidents like this from happening. There is a reason that the people who are screaming gun control right now are refusing to talk about the fact that this gun planning this attack for a LONG time. He was intent on carrying this out, and outside of getting him mental help before he went insane, there is probably nothing that we could have done to stop him.

The guy made 30 softball sized IEDs for frick sakes, and bobby trapped his own home. He then tried to lure people in by intentionally playing loud music. The people living there were only so lucky that nobody set it off before the cops could clear everyone out and disarm it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I bet if I had an ICBM it would REALLY scare the guy off.

I find it pretty stupid that people would want to prohibit me from protecting my own home.

Resorting to hyperbole won't help you prove your point.

If I live in an area where home invasions are a common problem, you damn rights I would want to own a gun in order to protect my family.

And no, having a gun when someone breaks into my house doesn't mean I would shoot the guy. Anyone with half a brain wouldn't go much farther if someone would point a gun at them.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Azure

Resorting to hyperbole won't help you prove your point.

If I live in an area where home invasions are a common problem, you damn rights I would want to own a gun in order to protect my family.

And no, having a gun when someone breaks into my house doesn't mean I would shoot the guy. Anyone with half a brain wouldn't go much farther if someone would point a gun at them.

Funny, I wouldn't buy or rent a house in the ghetto. Problem solved.

So what if the guy gets the jump on you, takes your gun and kills you and then sells it to someone else who uses it for other crimes?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Resorting to hyperbole won't help you prove your point.

If I live in an area where home invasions are a common problem, you damn rights I would want to own a gun in order to protect my family.

And no, having a gun when someone breaks into my house doesn't mean I would shoot the guy. Anyone with half a brain wouldn't go much farther if someone would point a gun at them.

Who says I was using hyperbole? I'm serious. Having an ICBM would definitely scare people off. The cool part is that it would actually be safer than having a gun because I would never even have to use my ICBM. It would be like MAD. Just having it ensures that you don't have to use it! All the gun does is ensure you're going to accidentally kill a family member who got up for a glass of milk or escalate the situation to a firefight when the home invader with a gun shoots you.

You also conveniently switched from assault rifle in your first post to gun in your second post. Which is it?