Shooting at Movie screening of TDKR in Colorado

[Regulator75]

Not sure if posted yet, here's a pic of the shooter in court.

[Champion]

I'm torn. I would love for this jerkoff to get the death penalty. It could cause more stress on him knowing he is going to be executed than a life sentence.

[MarchHare]

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.

How is a rifle suitable for home protection? I can maybe buy the argument that firearms in general could be useful to defend your home against an intruder (although statistics show that people are much more likely to shoot a family member than be involved in a home invasion), but a rifle is absolutely the wrong tool for engagements at close range (e.g. across a bedroom or down a hallway). You'd be better off with a shotgun in that situation, and it would work equally well as a deterrent.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

Yeah cause its just as easy for the average person to buy guns off the black market than at a local sporting good store?

Where's your black market at? How do you get a hold of them? Do you walk into the ghetto and start shouting you're looking to buy some guns? Do you walk into some shady asian restaurant in chinatown and ask around? Seriously, how is the average person going to find a black market arms dealer?

Stupid, stupid argument.

The ease of purchasing guns directly correlates to how often gun incidents can happen.

Sure we can't stop someone from researching how to make homemade bombs. That is a different argument.

But to suggest the average person can just as easily acquire a gun from the black market is a very dumb argument. Surprised it has been made several times in this thread already since it is fairly obvious that it is much, much harder for the average person to find guns via this route vs a gun shop/sporting good store/etc.

Making guns much, much harder to acquire would reduce violent gun incidences no?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Not sure if posted yet, here's a pic of the shooter in court.

Can't wait to see what Dr. Honeydew has in store for him this time

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think you missed my point of the question as I never said you felt that a tank was a good option. Nor have I called you anything. I believe you are attacking the wrong person and making assumptions.

now if you are calmed down lets try this again

You are ok with an AR correct-
You are probably not ok with a tank or a bazooka(as I stated before but you didn't read properly)


Soooo what item or line of home defence do you deem too excessive and should not be allowed in a persons home? I just wanted to know where you think the line should be drawn cause I know it is not a tank but more than an AR.

Thats all nothing more

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by nik-

Probably because people keep getting shot by weapons people don't need to have.

That's your opinion, and yours only. Its as intolerant as religion! Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean its not important to other people!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

hmmm how do you reply with the posters previous message? i kinda miss the old board. sniff sniff.

This is what we call "blind speculation"...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[QuadCityImages]

I think the problem that I, and a lot of other people, have with "assault weapons bans" is that they're largely based on looks. The Clinton-era ban had parts in it that made a gun more restricted if it had a carry handle (like an AR) or a bayonet lug. Neither of those things affect the operation of the gun, unless you're planning to use it as a spear, but they do make a rifle look a lot more "scary" to the typical gun hater.

Banning hi-cap magazines is something that I could potentially agree with, but there are so many 30-round magazines out there that anyone who wanted one could get ahold of some. Last time they banned them all it did was triple the value of them for anyone who already owned some. Even then, it doesn't take much more than a second to swap magazines, whether its an assault rifle or a hunting rifle.

My favorite form of gun control is definitely the waiting period, but it wouldn't have done anything here. I just totally agree if someone is at a gun store needing a gun RIGHT THE HELL NOW, there is probably a good reason not to give them one. I have never heard a good argument against bringing that piece of Clinton-era gun control back.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Aleks

That's your opinion, and yours only. Its as intolerant as religion! Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean its not important to other people!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What does this mean? Are you confusing need with want? Because the statistics don't bear out the need claim.

[Phanuthier]

On the victims : http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23...oting-victims/

On James Holmes : http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...e-recalls.html

A lot of the victims took a bullet for friends/family... I'm very impressed by that, that their first instinct was to protect.

Also, reading about James Holmes past is very creepy. Really have to wonder why he did this.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Aleks

That's your opinion, and yours only. Its as intolerant as religion! Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean its not important to other people!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Figure out how to remove this from your posts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

I think the problem that I, and a lot of other people, have with "assault weapons bans" is that they're largely based on looks. The Clinton-era ban had parts in it that made a gun more restricted if it had a carry handle (like an AR) or a bayonet lug. Neither of those things affect the operation of the gun, unless you're planning to use it as a spear, but they do make a rifle look a lot more "scary" to the typical gun hater.

Banning hi-cap magazines is something that I could potentially agree with, but there are so many 30-round magazines out there that anyone who wanted one could get ahold of some. Last time they banned them all it did was triple the value of them for anyone who already owned some. Even then, it doesn't take much more than a second to swap magazines, whether its an assault rifle or a hunting rifle.

My favorite form of gun control is definitely the waiting period, but it wouldn't have done anything here. I just totally agree if someone is at a gun store needing a gun RIGHT THE HELL NOW, there is probably a good reason not to give them one. I have never heard a good argument against bringing that piece of Clinton-era gun control back.

I agree with the waiting period too. 2 weeks minimum. I figured for the longest time that when you purchased a firearm of any kind, you had to wait a couple weeks before they did a background check, etc, etc.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yeah cause its just as easy for the average person to buy guns off the black market than at a local sporting good store?

Where's your black market at? How do you get a hold of them? Do you walk into the ghetto and start shouting you're looking to buy some guns? Do you walk into some shady asian restaurant in chinatown and ask around? Seriously, how is the average person going to find a black market arms dealer?

Stupid, stupid argument.

The ease of purchasing guns directly correlates to how often gun incidents can happen.

Sure we can't stop someone from researching how to make homemade bombs. That is a different argument.

But to suggest the average person can just as easily acquire a gun from the black market is a very dumb argument. Surprised it has been made several times in this thread already since it is fairly obvious that it is much, much harder for the average person to find guns via this route vs a gun shop/sporting good store/etc.

Making guns much, much harder to acquire would reduce violent gun incidences no?

I dont wanna get involved in all this stuff, but you have NO idea of which you speak when it comes to the bolded part.

I lived there for 11 years, but because i never became a citizen i was not allowed to purchase any firearms legally (not that i tried).

However, I had no shortage of ways to get a hold of pretty much anything i wanted had i chosen too. (and i mean anything from 6 shooters to Ak's)And no its not running down the street of some "ghetto" or anything like that. You seem to have some belief that "black market" means shady people selling them only, and that is entirely and completely not the case.

Guns are everywhere in the US, in ALL levels of classes and have been for generations....which is why "gun control" as most think of it, simply will never ever work in the USA.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I dont wanna get involved in all this stuff, but you have NO idea of which you speak when it comes to the bolded part.

I lived there for 11 years, but because i never became a citizen i was not allowed to purchase any firearms legally (not that i tried).

However, I had no shortage of ways to get a hold of pretty much anything i wanted had i chosen too. (and i mean anything from 6 shooters to Ak's)And no its not running down the street of some "ghetto" or anything like that. You seem to have some belief that "black market" means shady people selling them only, and that is entirely and completely not the case.

Guns are everywhere in the US, in ALL levels of classes and have been for generations....which is why "gun control" as most think of it, simply will never ever work in the USA.

More of a question than a comment. I get what you are saying in the last part for the (non?) gun control argument and it makes sense. But isn't that more of a short term argument? I would think that eventually, even if it takes 50-100 years, having a certain amount of gun control, would lessen the guns in legitimate stores, not to mention slowly change attitudes with new generations about gun ownership, both things contributing to an eventual decrease in black market guns. These things last a long time, but they don't last forever. They get seized or captured, lost, broken, etc.

Sometimes western society wants quick solutions that just aren't there, doesn't mean that changes can't be made in the meantime that will start the process and help down the road.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

Obama in his last term would be the perfect candidate to make a splash and ever lasting view on his presidency. You can tell by his demeanor when these things happen he hates guns.

I wonder what a country wide vote changing American gun laws to something similar to Canada would look like!

[metallicat]

What this guys was doing in the courtroom today looked like a completely fabricated show for the cameras.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Aleks

That's your opinion, and yours only. Its as intolerant as religion! Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean its not important to other people!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I'm interested in having an 80 inch TV, but it doesn't mean I need it. Also, no, it's not my opinion that people are dying needlessly as a result of the proliferation of guns. It's a fact.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Daradon

More of a question than a comment. I get what you are saying in the last part for the (non?) gun control argument and it makes sense. But isn't that more of a short term argument? I would think that eventually, even if it takes 50-100 years, having a certain amount of gun control, would lessen the guns in legitimate stores, not to mention slowly change attitudes with new generations about gun ownership, both things contributing to an eventual decrease in black market guns. These things last a long time, but they don't last forever. They get seized or captured, lost, broken, etc.

Sometimes western society wants quick solutions that just aren't there, doesn't mean that changes can't be made in the meantime that will start the process and help down the road.

Yeah as far as short term there is literally nothing that can be effectively done, and i guess that's what i was getting at as far as that goes. Long term? That would require an amendment to the constitution, and that's a whole different can o' worms.

Living there and making as many friends as i did, the whole gun ownership thing is ingrained into the collective quite deeply. These are very stand up, legitimate, law abiding citizens that see what they do as nothing more than a birth right (and constitutionally they are 100% correct).

We would go out shooting sometimes and i never knew what would be brought along til i got there, AR's, glocks, pistols and rifles all were part of the days events, and there no never any hesitation about any of them as everything we did was done with safety and responsibility at the forefront.

That's why it would be so hard to get people to change....because the vast vast majority of people with guns ARE responsible with them, and any major changes to their abilities to do so, would be seen as an afront to their ways of doing things correctly.

Most canadians dont understand that and see the issue as black and white....it just isnt that simple though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

More of a question than a comment. I get what you are saying in the last part for the (non?) gun control argument and it makes sense. But isn't that more of a short term argument? I would think that eventually, even if it takes 50-100 years, having a certain amount of gun control, would lessen the guns in legitimate stores, not to mention slowly change attitudes with new generations about gun ownership, both things contributing to an eventual decrease in black market guns. These things last a long time, but they don't last forever. They get seized or captured, lost, broken, etc.

Sometimes western society wants quick solutions that just aren't there, doesn't mean that changes can't be made in the meantime that will start the process and help down the road.

You have to change the 'culture' in the US. The majority of gun crime is committed by members of the lower class. If you can help many of them find a better way that drugs, gangs, guns, etc, etc.....then you'll probably see a huge drop age in gun related crimes.