Colorado Shooting

[jagtiger]

The difference is when the violent person kills with a can lid, he kills one person. If the same person had a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100 round drum he could kill 2 dozen+ people. Violent people will always kill. The difference is how many people he can kill is controlled by what kind of weapon he can get his hands on.

The truth is only law abiding people will follow the rules. People who has evil intentions will choose "gun free establishments". It's a no brainer - anyone heard of mass shooting in a gun range?

The belief of gun kills people is flawed. Remember 9/11? The so called terrorist didn't have guns. They use bread knifes to take over the plane - why? they were smart to figure out that loaded guns can not be carried inside the planes. How many people have they killed? We should blame the knives and the planes????

To keep you and your family safe - they now allow marshalls to carry loaded guns in the plane - go figure. My point is people kills people not the knives, not the planes...not guns. The reason I train hard on how to use my guns... that one day I maybe able to defend my family, friends and neighbors from such people.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I find this whole argument of people kill people and guns don't kill people ridiculous. What kills a person is another person, with a gun, with a bullet. All 3 of those had something to do with the other person dying.

Vegas is completely correct and logical in his statement. A nut will always try to kill, but having a knife or a gun or an ak47 makes all the difference in the world. What if I want to keep a tank in my garage? That ok? How about a nuclear bomb? That ok? That fall under my right to bear arms? Where are you going to draw the line? Right now any moron, any retard, anyone that isn't in jail already can get their hands on some crazy weaponry. This argument has now changed from should you own a weapon at all, to "well what kind should you own and who should you allow to own."

Just like I've always said in all my threads it comes down to money. Money money money. Gun rules don't benefit the gun seller. And he is more than happy to sit down with marketing people and come up with cute things like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or even more poetic "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That's a good one. Seems to make so much sense...

 

[Hugh]

You gotta draw the line somewhere, and to me that line should be BEFORE assault rifles and machine guns. You don't need that for personal protection. This is just insane.

Machine guns and many other sorts of destructive devices are regulated by the National Firearms Act commonly known as the NFA. They cost a small fortune, and are heavily regulated. Get caught with one without the proper approval and you'll be making big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth for a long, long time.

"Assault rifles" are nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with military styling. There are a ton of wood stocked semi-auto hunting style rifles on the market that are capable as the same carnage as their military styled brethren. The "assault" styled rifles are usually much lighter and are see extensive use in hunting.

I am an avid target shooter but I do not see the need or practicality in having a 100 round magazine. That is what was responsible for so much carnage in Aurora. Those should be NFA regulated items in my opinion.

Politicians love throwing around the "assault rifle" moniker because it sounds scary and gets good press.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Ok agreed. Probably not the best term to use. I also agree that a 100 round magazine is unnecessary. But tell me why you need a semi auto to hunt deer or squirrel. And why are requirements so lax?

 

[biscuits]

Ok agreed. Probably not the best term to use. I also agree that a 100 round magazine is unnecessary. But tell me why you need a semi auto to hunt deer or squirrel. And why are requirements so lax?

The problem with most gun control advocates like yourself is that your completly ignorant as to how guns work and are classified. Every gun rifle or pistol that fires a round everytime you pull the trigger is semi auto. A revolver is a semiauto. A standard 75 year old 1911 ( that's a type of handgun) is a semiauto. Short of a musket must guns are semiauto. So when people like yourself say all semiauto guns are unessasry or should be banned come across as horribly uninformed.

Assault weapons are almost always FULLY AUTOMATIC ( which means the gun continues to fire riunds as long as the trigger is held) and are already illegilal to own without heavy restrictions and licenses and fees that requires fed approval. Only governments and police forces have fully auto assault rifles unless of course said government sells them to the public of the country or neighboring country to either line the pockets for more corruption or to further a political agenda per our current administration fast and furious program.

 

[DRIFTER]

Ok agreed. Probably not the best term to use. I also agree that a 100 round magazine is unnecessary. But tell me why you need a semi auto to hunt deer or squirrel. And why are requirements so lax?

Why do you need a car that can do 180 when the limit is 65?

Lax requirements? Are you kidding me? I couldn't believe the requirements I needed to exercise my right to carry and I'm in law enforcement. This gun show loophole is a myth. There isn't one they have to follow the same rules as a brick-and-mortar store. The problem is there so many illegal guns on the street. Regulation will do nothing more than take guns out of the hands of legal law-abiding citizens. Criminals and killers don't follow rules. Laws only restrict the people that follow them. They don't apply to criminals.

If anything that 100 round mag saved lives because it jammed just like most of them do. A lot of states already have laws on the books banning them. But that hasn't stopped people / criminals from getting there hands on them.

Over 20 people were killed or injured in a single pickup truck accident the day of the CO shooting, yet no cries for a ban on hi-capacity trucks, tougher driver's license restrictions, mental health screenings for drivers, etc.

 

[myw]

+100000000

i find this whole argument of people kill people and guns don't kill people ridiculous. What kills a person is another person, with a gun, with a bullet. All 3 of those had something to do with the other person dying.

Vegas is completely correct and logical in his statement. A nut will always try to kill, but having a knife or a gun or an ak47 makes all the difference in the world. What if i want to keep a tank in my garage? That ok? How about a nuclear bomb? That ok? That fall under my right to bear arms? Where are you going to draw the line? Right now any moron, any retard, anyone that isn't in jail already can get their hands on some crazy weaponry. This argument has now changed from should you own a weapon at all, to "well what kind should you own and who should you allow to own."

just like i've always said in all my threads it comes down to money. Money money money. Gun rules don't benefit the gun seller. And he is more than happy to sit down with marketing people and come up with cute things like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or even more poetic "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That's a good one. Seems to make so much sense...

 

[Russ]

People who favor banning guns see only the offensive use of guns - as killing tools. They fail to recognize the defensive role of guns - to repel attackers. The genie is out of the bottle and guns are not going away. If guns haters get their fondest wish - total confiscation of civilian guns, people will still be killed by guns owned by criminals, and government.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/17684227...tops-shop-robbery-in-calif/?playlist_id=86915

 

[steveny]

"Assault rifles" are nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle with military styling. There are a ton of wood stocked semi-auto hunting style rifles on the market that are capable as the same carnage as their military styled brethren. The "assault" styled rifles are usually much lighter and are see extensive use in hunting.

I am an avid target shooter but I do not see the need or practicality in having a 100 round magazine. That is what was responsible for so much carnage in Aurora. Those should be NFA regulated items in my opinion.

Politicians love throwing around the "assault rifle" moniker because it sounds scary and gets good press.

Holy crap, Hugh is the voice of reason?
It boggles my mind the amount of the population that has no clue about guns but still have stiff opinions. A 30-30, looks like something a cowboy would carry on his horse, is way more deadly then a AR or AK. But the AR or AK gets all the bad press, Cause it looks evil.

As for the 100 round magazine, well in most cases the oversize magazines always jam. Someone proficient with a standard round magazine attached to another magazine and some chargers, would be able to fire WAY more rounds than someone with a 100 round magazine. Jsut quickly flip the magazine over and drop the slide. In fact the the gun in Colorado jammed because of the 100 round magazine. Large capacity magazines are for amutures or someone who wants bragging rights IMO.

Same can be said for a hand gun. Large capacity magazines make no difference. In fact someone who practices with a revolver can reload and fire way more rounds than someone with a semi-auto and a clip, assuming the revolver shooter is using a full moon clip and speed loader.

 

[steveny]

The problem with most gun control advocates like yourself is that your completly ignorant as to how guns work and are classified. Every gun rifle or pistol that fires a round everytime you pull the trigger is semi auto. A revolver is a semiauto. A standard 75 year old 1911 ( that's a type of handgun) is a semiauto. Short of a musket must guns are semiauto. So when people like yourself say all semiauto guns are unessasry or should be banned come across as horribly uninformed.

Assault weapons are almost always FULLY AUTOMATIC ( which means the gun continues to fire riunds as long as the trigger is held) and are already illegilal to own without heavy restrictions and licenses and fees that requires fed approval. Only governments and police forces have fully auto assault rifles unless of course said government sells them to the public of the country or neighboring country to either line the pockets for more corruption or to further a political agenda per our current administration fast and furious program.

And if semiauto guns are banned because they are assault rifles then single shot guns will be banned because they are 'sniper rifles'.

 

[steveny]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fo-rwXVNaNU

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MxVxt2lebqM

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9CyA9s41c

 

[jagtiger]

Why do you need a car that can do 180 when the limit is 65?

Lax requirements? Are you kidding me? I couldn't believe the requirements I needed to exercise my right to carry and I'm in law enforcement. This gun show loophole is a myth. There isn't one they have to follow the same rules as a brick-and-mortar store. The problem is there so many illegal guns on the street. Regulation will do nothing more than take guns out of the hands of legal law-abiding citizens. Criminals and killers don't follow rules. Laws only restrict the people that follow them. They don't apply to criminals.

If anything that 100 round mag saved lives because it jammed just like most of them do. A lot of states already have laws on the books banning them. But that hasn't stopped people / criminals from getting there hands on them.

Over 20 people were killed or injured in a single pickup truck accident the day of the CO shooting, yet no cries for a ban on hi-capacity trucks, tougher driver's license restrictions, mental health screenings for drivers, etc.

Very well said...thank you..As long as the ills of our society exists there will be people that will choose to arm themselves to defend their lives, their family and maybe one day yours.....Definitely not single shots :tongue:

 

[TURBO2GO]

If anything that 100 round mag saved lives because it jammed just like most of them do. .

Are you offering this as rationale for 100 round magazines? I am just asking...

The above is exactly the kind of marketing I was talking about. I really think gun manufacturers have little rooms with marketing people designing these little posters. It makes it a lot easier to not think about something and just repeat what they hand you...

Over 20 people were killed or injured in a single pickup truck accident the day of the CO shooting, yet no cries for a ban on hi-capacity trucks, tougher driver's license restrictions, mental health screenings for drivers, etc.

Ban hi-capacity trucks... you are comparing a car accident to this shooting? Saying if I blame loose gun laws then I should blame big trucks. Are you being serious? Please don't take anything I am saying personally, we are just talking about a point of disagreement. I just can't see it like you do at all.

What does one have to do with the other? I find it a real stretch to to say a car accident is on the same level as someone going into a theater and spraying people with bullets.

FWIW, those of you who think I am all for banning guns, I am not. I have mixed feelings on the subject. But I can tell you that a kid I used to work with... I would consider him borderline mentally unstable.. showed me an arsenal that would put a military depot to shame. How does one get these things? It was completely nuts what he had and it made me completely uncomfortable. It is not hard at all to get guns, and if you guys are saying the whole gun show thing is a myth, I don't think you are checking your facts. That's just one hole out of a hundred anyway... I don't want to get into details and arguments over what doesn't matter but overall it is waaaaaaay too easy to get guns in this country. You can call them semi-auto, assault rifle, revolver, whatever. On the whole, it is TOO EASY. There are TOO MANY floating around.

I ask why you need a semi auto to hunt deer, and I get "why do you need a car that goes 180 when the speed limit is 60". Is this a logical argument? I am baffled at some of these comparisons.

And this hunting thing has made this a very gray line. Suddenly everyone is a hunter. It's pretty shitty when your mother or brother goes to see a movie and winds up dead. I am not saying go ban all guns but you gotta do SOMETHING more than we do now.

 

[LMR]

I have not read most of this thread so if I get a little off topic, sorry.

Dave, I used to feel that way too before the roits in LA in 1992. I was not against guns but never felt the need to own one. I was watching on tv police leaving areas where some very bad things were happening. Though it never got close to where I live I thought what would happen if it ever did. It was 2 years later before I bought a gun but while shooting targets at the range learning to properly use it I was having a lot of fun. It turned into a hobby, second in fun to driving the NSX.:biggrin: I'm not into hunting and would only shoot a living thing if I felt threatened. I hope to only ever shoot at targets but it's nice to know I can defend myself if I had to.

I believe people should have the right to defend themselves because if we ban guns only crimals would have them as they usually buy them illegally anyways. But I agree that we need to make some changes to the gun laws to some how minimize what happened in Colorado and other places. But what those changes are is sometimes hard to come up with.:frown:

 

[Arshad]

People who favor banning guns see only the offensive use of guns - as killing tools. They fail to recognize the defensive role of guns - to repel attackers.

So what are the stats on the effectiveness of using guns defensively vs the increased number of homicides, gun-violence and crime caused by easy access to guns? My guess is that the latter greatly outweighs the former. The occasional story about the old granny who saved the day doesn't compare to the avalanche of stories of murders and other gun-related violent crimes happening daily.

I keep hearing the argument about needing guns "to protect our loved ones", but how many homicides and accidents are caused by family members with easy access to a gun? I don't think it creates a safer society -- just the illusion of one. The only reason you feel like you need a gun is because everyone else has one too.

As Turbo points out, there are lots of whack jobs out on the street. Maybe you feel you are a level headed person and have the right to own a gun to protect your family, but it also means every trigger happy nut-job with an anger-management problem on the street also has that same right. Personally I would give up that right if that meant all the crazies didn't have one. I'm not worried about the level-headed people -- I'm worried about the unstable ones!

The stats don't lie... there are plenty of countries with strict gun laws that have far lower gun-related crime and gun-related homicides per capita than the US. Even in Canada where we've had a rash of recent gun-related violence, we're still FAR safer than the US. The problem as others have stated is that the genie is out of the bottle, and there's no way to enforce effective gun control in the US anymore. It doesn't mean that gun control is a bad thing -- it just means that it's not going to work in the US.

It's interesting, because if you go to certain places in Africa, the middle-east, and Asia, you can't walk two feet without people strutting around with AK-47's. Lawlessness is rampant. The value of a human life is zero. There are armed guards around your housing complex, at the grocery store, and at your work. When you leave for work in the morning, you don't know if you're going to make it home in the evening. When you take your kids to the ice cream store, there are two big guys at the door with machine guns to protect you. EVERYBODY has a gun but NOBODY feels safe.

I had the wonderful experience of being carjacked with a gun to my head in one of these places. For all they knew I could have been carrying a gun, but it was hardly a deterrent. No thank you... you can keep your fricking guns.

 

[steveny]

I find it a real stretch to to say a car accident is on the same level as someone going into a theater and spraying people with bullets. .

Ones avoidable and the other is not. Unless you build a time machine and see what crazy people are going to do in the future then fly back and arrest them before they do it this crap will never stop. Take away guns, they do it with a knife...this week a single Chinese man with a knife stabbed 8 people to death while on a rampage. So then take away knives, they'll do it with a car. Take away guns, knives, cars they'll do it with water balloons. Taking away guns is not going to stop crazy.

 

[chumch]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet, but why not just ban all guns and see how that works: Isn't that what they were doing in Chicago for so long. Now lets just measure actual outcomes to see how well it worked. That should tell us if 100 % gun control works.

 

[DocL]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet, but why not just ban all guns and see how that works: Isn't that what they were doing in Chicago for so long. Now lets just measure actual outcomes to see how well it worked. That should tell us if 100 % gun control works.

Has there been a decrease in armed robberies and shootings? I don't think so.

http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/

 

[Arshad]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet, but why not just ban all guns and see how that works: Isn't that what they were doing in Chicago for so long. Now lets just measure actual outcomes to see how well it worked. That should tell us if 100 % gun control works.

It's too late. How are you going to enforce 100% gun control now? If you want an example of whether it works, look at a place like Japan where pretty much outside of the police and military, nobody has a gun.

Gun related crime and gun related deaths are orders of magnitude less than the US, even in large cities like Tokyo. There's no question it works.

 

[scorp965]

Gun related crime and gun related deaths are orders of magnitude less than the US, even in large cities like Tokyo. There's no question it works.

That would be like comparing car accident stats with a remote village in the Himalayas, which has one or two cars. Sure they have no car accidents, but that doesn't have any bearing, on any discussion, whatsoever.

Criminals find imaginative ways to take advantage of society; guns, knives, clubs, a board with a nail in it. Soon we will have bigger boards, with bigger nails, until one day we create a board will a nail in it so big....

 

[Russ]

So what are the stats on the effectiveness of using guns defensively vs the increased number of homicides, gun-violence and crime caused by easy access to guns? My guess is that the latter greatly outweighs the former. The occasional story about the old granny who saved the day doesn't compare to the avalanche of stories of murders and other gun-related violent crimes happening daily."

You'd be guessing wrong. This argument is based on the demonstrably flawed premise that the media reports incidents of self defense with the same vigor as incidents of gun-related violence. I submit that even the meekest inquiry into this subject will show the media consistently and systematically underreports or ignores stories about citizens who defend themselves with firearms.

If it's statistics you want, please, don't take my word for any of this, hit google, do some intellectually honest research and I believe you will be enlightened. You may discover, for example, that most self-defense uses of a firearm involve firing not a single round.

Interesting you mention certain places in Africa, the middle-east, and Asia. Where, exactly, do you buy your ice cream? Many of those places outright forbid the ownership of guns by common people, many are lawless war zones, so it doesn't surprise me you got carjacked in one of these places.

Here in the United States, we have the Second Amendment. It's not about the right to hunt, or the right to self defense in the home. It's not about freedom from risk of being shot. It's about freedom from tyranny. This principle was recognized by Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most peaceful, peace-loving men to have ever lived, who declared "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Think about it.

 

[Arshad]

That would be like comparing car accident stats with a remote village in the Himalayas, which has one or two cars. Sure they have no car accidents, but that doesn't have any bearing, on any discussion, whatsoever.

Why is that? If I compared it to a remote village in the Himalayas, you'd have a point but I'm comparing it to the largest city in the world (regardless of whether you take Tokyo proper or the greater Tokyo area).

So here's a modern first-world city with a city as populous as any in the US, with VERY strict gun-control that clearly has gun related crime and deaths literally orders of magnitude less than the US. How is that not relevant?

 

[Arshad]

This argument is based on the demonstrably flawed premise that the media reports incidents of self defense with the same vigor as incidents of gun-related violence.

Fair enough, let's assume that's correct. You talk about intellectual honesty. Do you honestly believe there is a higher incidence of people who use their gun for self-defense than people who use it for crime and murder? Seriously?

You may discover, for example, that most self-defense uses of a firearm involve firing not a single round.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Just as MOST crimes with a firearm do not involve firing a single round either. It's the THREAT in both cases.

Where, exactly, do you buy your ice cream? Many of those places outright forbid the ownership of guns by common people, many are lawless war zones, so it doesn't surprise me you got carjacked in one of these places.

Clearly you've never been to any of these places. This was an incident back in 1996 in Karachi, Pakistan. There were private armed guards stationed EVERYWHERE. At every store, at every neighborhood... and yes, two big guys with AK-47's at the door of the ice cream store where I went with my cousins. The value of life there is literally less than an ant -- people will shoot you without hesitation.

As far as getting carjacked, I could have had an M-16 strapped to my back, but the outcome would have been the same. If someone pulls a gun to your head, you don't exactly have a lot of options. At best I could have fired after the car if I had a gun... maybe hit some innocent kid on the side of the road, who knows.

Here in the United States, we have the Second Amendment.
:
It's about freedom from tyranny.
:
Think about it.

Again, let's be intellectually honest. Are the citizens of Japan being terrorized by their government? How about Canada? Or any number of other countries with strict gun laws?

On the other hand I can name lots of countries with clearly tyrannical regimes and no gun control whatsoever. How well is it working out for them? The only people who die there are the innocents who get caught in the crossfire.

Oh and by the way... just like the second amendment, the constitution of Pakistan also guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Like I said in my previous post: Everybody has a gun, but nobody feels safe.

 

[bee_are_bee]

Why is that? If I compared it to a remote village in the Himalayas, you'd have a point but I'm comparing it to the largest city in the world (regardless of whether you take Tokyo proper or the greater Tokyo area).

So here's a modern first-world city with a city as populous as any in the US, with VERY strict gun-control that clearly has gun related crime and deaths literally orders of magnitude less than the US. How is that not relevant?

I've posted about this earlier. Don't know if you've read the entire thread. One cannot compare Tokyo or Japan in general to the united states for a myriad of reasons. You're looking at the situation in a vacuum. Think about this beyond stage one. There are cultural factors that play into Japan having very successfully enforced their strict gun laws. If you go back through this thread I outlined them. Japanese citizens are some of the most law abiding I the world. They are raised to highly regard and respect the police and authority in general. Japan is also, by and large, a police state. They have no Fourth Amendment protections as we do. Police can search anyone for anything. No Miranda rights either. We on the other hand celebrate songs such as 'F** Da Police." Here's another thing. Criminals, in general, VOLUNTARILY adhere to the ban on firearms. Never gonna happen here. Another very important thing. Japan has never once in its history created or endured a "gun culture." Ownership of firearms by ruled citizens never was a common practice nor was it ever advocated. Invoking Tokyo as an example only proves a superficial understanding as to how laws and culture work.

 

[scorp965]

Why is that? If I compared it to a remote village in the Himalayas, you'd have a point but I'm comparing it to the largest city in the world (regardless of whether you take Tokyo proper or the greater Tokyo area).

So here's a modern first-world city with a city as populous as any in the US, with VERY strict gun-control that clearly has gun related crime and deaths literally orders of magnitude less than the US. How is that not relevant?

Your statement goes as follows:

Tokyo has very few guns, as a result their gun-related crimes are low.

So, a remote village in the Himalayas has very few cars, therefore, they have few car-related injuries and deaths. See how it's a pointless statement?

The real comparison would be overall crime statistics; by having a low level of guns, is overall crime reduced? And can you then confirm that the presence of guns has an inverse affect on crime? In a Country with high levels of gun ownership, is overall crime increased?

We have discovered this logic does not hold, in fact, these topics were discussed earlier in this very thread.