Shooting at Movie screening of TDKR in Colorado

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well maybe Obama should protect the southern border. It may not be the solution for places like Chicago but, it would sure help in the southern border towns.

And wtf does this have to do with gun control?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

It's too bad the guy didnt attack everybody with an exploding shampoo bottle.

It seems resonable to limit shampoo bottle sizes on planes for safety with a grand total of 0 deaths.

Not being able to carry a litre of shampoo on a plane is a violation of ones rights to pursue happiness. Where is my lobby group for Proctor and Gamble.

You can't carry a gun on a plane or onto private property if the owner doesn't want them there. In fact the owner of this theater prohibited people from packing a gun on his property.

Conversely, I believe shampoo bottles were allowed in the theater.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Its irrational when it boils down to something that looks scary, sounds scary, and your personal opinion is that of "I don't see a need for it, so nobody else should need it". Just because I don't like war doesn't mean I hate on a military. People have to begin to understand that first and foremost MURDER is ILLEGAL and that did nothing to demotivate the individual, possession of firearms in the theater was against the rules, that did nothing to stop this, possession of a firearm on your person without a carry permit is ILLEGAL and did nothing to dissuade this person, so what makes ANYBODY think that increasing restrictions on firearms would have done anything to stop this? There are a multitude of ways this person could have carried out this crime, none other than firearms seems to create this aire of chaos amongst people, and it does rests squarely on a lack of understanding and education

You know when people dont want to vote for Obama so people just assume they must be racists.
This makes the anti Obama people upset cause their opinion gets no respect or listened to as everybody on the opposite side is judged as a single group.

These comments about pro gun control people are kinda the same

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You can't carry a gun on a plane or onto private property if the owner doesn't want them there. In fact the owner of this theater prohibited people from packing a gun on his property.

Conversely, I believe shampoo bottles were allowed in the theater.

I am actually ripping off Jon Stewart's comparison here.

But my silly point was that we limit bottle size on a plane for safety with 0 deaths I believe. But we wont limit a gun size/ability with countless deaths.

You can still own a gun/shampoo bottle just not one that could be a threat to large groups of people.

I dont see how this cant be a reasonable starting point for a conversation.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And wtf does this have to do with gun control?

Guns along with the drugs move regularly across the Mexican border. Automatics are illegal to possess or sell in the USA without hard to obtain licences. They are illegal in Mexico too but, the government has lost control. China and other countries ship these weapons to ports in Mexico. There is also a healthy black market that sees weapons used by the Mexican army sold to these gangs. They are used in their drug wars on both sides of the border. Innocent people get hurt all the time.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I am actually ripping off Jon Stewart's comparison here.

But my silly point was that we limit bottle size on a plane for safety with 0 deaths I believe. But we wont limit a gun size/ability with countless deaths.

You can still own a gun/shampoo bottle just not one that could be a threat to large groups of people.

I dont see how this cant be a reasonable starting point for a conversation.

Well semi-autos like the .223 caliber Holmes used are an important weapon for livestock protection in rural areas. Again they serve to protect children and pets as well in those areas.

Now I live in a small town and would never consider buying such a weapon for protection. I would be too afraid of missing my target and killing someone 2 blocks away. I wouldn't mind owning one for target practice. You might not understand that but, it is fun to fill a tin can with holes as fast as you can pull the trigger. My friend owns one and that is how he dispatches all his old computers.

So I suppose if you limited my access to semi-auto .223s it would be a small limit to my freedom. To another guy it would be taking away a tool he needs to protect his property and family.

Another thing that has been mentioned is magazine size. Canada limits magazine sizes but, I've seen plenty of illegal magazines brought across the border and added to Canadian purchased guns. Why? Because people who plink with a semi-auto hate to stop to reload all the time. In practicality If America limited magazine sizes then the millions of oversized magazines would go underground.

According to reports the semi-auto's magazine jammed which caused him to discard it. This is not uncommon with larger magazines. If he was more familiar with the weapon he might of chosen banana clips with something like 30 rounds a piece in them. You tape the one clip upside down to the other and when the first empties or jams you flip it upside down and slot in the other clip. His tactical vest would have held more clips handy when those 2 were done.

I guess the question really boils down to how much freedom do you restrict and for what benefit. I think it is very safe to assume that this guys ability to make bombs and his attraction to Joker suggest that lives would have been lost even if he didn't have access to guns.

We can look at other occurances of semi-auto violence if you want. There is gang and drug violence which generally use illegally obtained weapons in the hands of people who can't legally own them. There is domestic violence where usually a man takes out his family because relationships have been broken. A waiting period might help there if he doesn't already own weapons. Or perhaps in a domestic abuse situations the court could take away his weapons for a time.

Of the thousands of gun related deaths in the USA I imagine most are hand gun related. There is also machine gun deaths usually associated with gangs and drugs. Those are already prohibited. Have you seen a statistic that shows murders useing semi-autos alone. It would also be helpful to know how many of these murderers had the rifle legally.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And wtf does this have to do with gun control?

A massive, massive amount of weapons get moved over the Mexico/US border every single day.

[Flash Walken]

Calgaryborn, roughly 75% of homicides committed with a firearm in the United States are committed with a handgun.

Rifles account for anywhere from 10-4 percent, depending on statistics, a similar percentage as shotguns.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well semi-autos like the .223 caliber Holmes used are an important weapon for livestock protection in rural areas. Again they serve to protect children and pets as well in those areas.

Now I live in a small town and would never consider buying such a weapon for protection. I would be too afraid of missing my target and killing someone 2 blocks away. I wouldn't mind owning one for target practice. You might not understand that but, it is fun to fill a tin can with holes as fast as you can pull the trigger. My friend owns one and that is how he dispatches all his old computers.

So I suppose if you limited my access to semi-auto .223s it would be a small limit to my freedom. To another guy it would be taking away a tool he needs to protect his property and family.

Another thing that has been mentioned is magazine size. Canada limits magazine sizes but, I've seen plenty of illegal magazines brought across the border and added to Canadian purchased guns. Why? Because people who plink with a semi-auto hate to stop to reload all the time. In practicality If America limited magazine sizes then the millions of oversized magazines would go underground.

According to reports the semi-auto's magazine jammed which caused him to discard it. This is not uncommon with larger magazines. If he was more familiar with the weapon he might of chosen banana clips with something like 30 rounds a piece in them. You tape the one clip upside down to the other and when the first empties or jams you flip it upside down and slot in the other clip. His tactical vest would have held more clips handy when those 2 were done.

I guess the question really boils down to how much freedom do you restrict and for what benefit. I think it is very safe to assume that this guys ability to make bombs and his attraction to Joker suggest that lives would have been lost even if he didn't have access to guns.

We can look at other occurances of semi-auto violence if you want. There is gang and drug violence which generally use illegally obtained weapons in the hands of people who can't legally own them. There is domestic violence where usually a man takes out his family because relationships have been broken. A waiting period might help there if he doesn't already own weapons. Or perhaps in a domestic abuse situations the court could take away his weapons for a time.

Of the thousands of gun related deaths in the USA I imagine most are hand gun related. There is also machine gun deaths usually associated with gangs and drugs. Those are already prohibited. Have you seen a statistic that shows murders useing semi-autos alone. It would also be helpful to know how many of these murderers had the rifle legally.

I think that first, and its purely conjecture but there has been, outside of political terrorism, almost no instances of mad bombers blowing up people to gain noteriaty, you have to recognise the bombs were secondary, what he wanted to do was shoot people and if he had no guns this incident would likely have never happened. To use a car analogy, you can speed in a mini van just as easily as a Mustang GT but we both know if you are driving a mustang you are far more likely to put peddle to the metal as it is just more satisfying.

Second you bring up the issue of benefit, here is where I hate the pro gun lobby's blind faith in their own arguement, there are no benefits to society as a whole for gun ownership, there are individual benefits, a bit of free food for hunters mostly, I suppose you could add the pleasyre of shooting as well, or though how you weigh that economically is hard to guess.
Self protection is not a benifit as the main reason you wish to protect yourself is because of gun ownership in the first place.

The minimal benfit of the gun industry itself, be it in manufacturing or sales, is far outweighed bythe costs of guns in society, medical and security mostly.

It will not happen but there is no doubt that from a strict cost benefit stance gun control would be better for the US

[Azure]

He actually told the police about the bombs in his house, if anyone was wondering how they figured it out.

[SeeBass]

As a person who grew up in rural manitoba I am well aware of the need for livestock/family protection.

My father was a Conservation Officer so nobody would deal with this more than he and he never carried anything close to what is available at Bass Pro.

I'm sorry but I can't buy the excuse "for farmers" at that level of firepower.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

A massive, massive amount of weapons get moved over the Mexico/US border every single day.

And until recently, a bunch of them were moved by the DOJ!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think that first, and its purely conjecture but there has been, outside of political terrorism, almost no instances of mad bombers blowing up people to gain noteriaty, you have to recognise the bombs were secondary, what he wanted to do was shoot people and if he had no guns this incident would likely have never happened. To use a car analogy, you can speed in a mini van just as easily as a Mustang GT but we both know if you are driving a mustang you are far more likely to put peddle to the metal as it is just more satisfying.

Second you bring up the issue of benefit, here is where I hate the pro gun lobby's blind faith in their own arguement, there are no benefits to society as a whole for gun ownership, there are individual benefits, a bit of free food for hunters mostly, I suppose you could add the pleasyre of shooting as well, or though how you weigh that economically is hard to guess.
Self protection is not a benifit as the main reason you wish to protect yourself is because of gun ownership in the first place.

The minimal benfit of the gun industry itself, be it in manufacturing or sales, is far outweighed bythe costs of guns in society, medical and security mostly.

It will not happen but there is no doubt that from a strict cost benefit stance gun control would be better for the US

I'm going to comment on 2 things you said:

Firstly Holmes apparently wanted/wants to be Joker. If you watched the last Batman movie which was almost certainly his motivation both bombs and torture were used. Holme's collection of bombs within his lair testify to this.

Secondly, The primary use for a .223 semi-automatic other than plinking is protection of livestock/children/pets from wild animals in rural Canada/America.
In Alberta most ranchers have a semi-auto for such purposes. Where I live news reports at times include Cougar sightings. Coyotes often attempt to lure dogs away from their yards to kill them.

Shotguns and handguns are the weapons of choice for home defence. Shotguns because of their take down power and handguns because they work better in close contact. If I lived in a place where home invasions were a real threat I would own one of those two.

[vektor]

If he truly wanted to be like Joker one must think he has a plan to escape. Jump out the courtroom window kind of deal

[Calgaryborn]

[QUOTE=SeeBass;3803446]As a person who grew up in rural manitoba I am well aware of the need for livestock/family protection.

My father was a Conservation Officer so nobody would deal with this more than he and he never carried anything close to what is available at Bass Pro.

I'm sorry but I can't buy the excuse "for farmers" at that level of firepower.[/QUOTE]

What level of firepower. We're talking about a .223 round. It is just a little bigger than a .22 round. Conservation Officers don't deal with coyotes stealing chickens from a chicken coop. They might ask someone with dogs to tree a cougar so he can shoot him if the animal stays within a domestic area but, that isn't common.

Your father packed a lot more firepower than a .223 rifle. He probably avoided semi-autos because they are more likely to jam than a lever or pump action at the wrong time. I'm guessing his primary weapon was something like a bolt action 30-06 because of the accuracy, range, and take down power. But' i'd also hazzard to guess he had a lever action or bolt action handy in case he was dealing with a wounded bear or some other dangerous situation.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by vektor

If he truly wanted to be like Joker one must think he has a plan to escape. Jump out the courtroom window kind of deal

Well he did almost escape the scene because he was wearing the same tactical gear as the swat team. The only thing that gave him away was an officer noticed he was wearing neck and groin protection which most officers don't because they find it too restricting.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Guns along with the drugs move regularly across the Mexican border. Automatics are illegal to possess or sell in the USA without hard to obtain licences. They are illegal in Mexico too but, the government has lost control. China and other countries ship these weapons to ports in Mexico. There is also a healthy black market that sees weapons used by the Mexican army sold to these gangs. They are used in their drug wars on both sides of the border. Innocent people get hurt all the time.

Originally Posted by Azure

A massive, massive amount of weapons get moved over the Mexico/US border every single day.

You two do realize which direction those smuggled guns are moving, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggli...ms_into_Mexico

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reading about these courageous sacrifices in the name of love really only enrages me more that this waste of life destroyed the lives of people who made society better


http://gma.yahoo.com/women-survived-...opstories.html

Read it yesterday in a diff article, but its so awesome to hear stuff like this in what is otherwise a sad and brutal massacre.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

You two do realize which direction those smuggled guns are moving, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggli...ms_into_Mexico

That was long ago debunked. 95% of the firearms turned over to American authorities for tracing purposes turn out to be American in origin. Mexico doesn't turn over weapons that they don't assume came from America.

I'll bet most of those weapons that turn out to be American are hand guns, as well. They're easy to smuggle both ways. The automatic weapons come from suppiers like China that will sell to anyone.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Guns along with the drugs move regularly across the Mexican border. Automatics are illegal to possess or sell in the USA without hard to obtain licences. They are illegal in Mexico too but, the government has lost control. China and other countries ship these weapons to ports in Mexico. There is also a healthy black market that sees weapons used by the Mexican army sold to these gangs. They are used in their drug wars on both sides of the border. Innocent people get hurt all the time.

I agree with your point, but gun laws differ from state to state. It's relatively easy to get an automatic weapon in various states.