Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[MarineUS]

Ya see, this isn't about theory, its about what DOES happen. In the world, look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria. These places have LOTS of guns. Are they safe? Are they free? If guns = safety and freedom, what's up here? It is clear that guns by themselves don't guarantee either safety or freedom. It's the rational and educated and informed people who do that and are the most potent weapon for change that the world has ever known. Don't rely on the tool, don't rely on the rhetoric, but rather work to educate people, consider new viewpoints and LEARN from past mistakes. We aren't required to codify the past and just repeat it because all of the reasons stated. We can change it and make it better. I personally think that is what freedom really is. 

I see that you all have things well in hand. Thanks for illustrating so quickly why things are the way they are and why people will continue to die by violence in this country at a rate all out of proportion to the rest of the world for absolutely no reason but intellectual laziness. I just suggest, just for fun, let a NEW thought in. Don't just regurgitate what someone else has said into your ears. Entertain, just for a moment what would be the way to approach a law that could possibly make people safer and not infringe on the rights to own a firearm. If you were made a Senator right now, what would you do? How would you fix it?

First off - to live in America, being psychotic is a requirement.

Oh, those countries where religious extremist run everything isn't safe? I'm sorry. I didn't realize that affected my gun ownership.

Let me direct you all to a little town called Kennesaw, Georgia. It's a town where everyone who isn't a convicted felon/rapist etc. is required (more like asked) to own at least a hand gun. Guess what? One of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Why? Who in the hell wants to rob a house where there is someone who they KNOW has a gun?
Who would want to rob a car where they KNOW that it's owner has a gun?

It's a beautiful thing. You can call it dream land but I'll take my right to bear arms and beat you with it as I smile at a liberty that our European friends do not get to enjoy.

[Big Rat]

Let me ask this question.  Out of all these mass murders caused by a gun in one location at one time, has there ever been a victim or bystander with a legal weapon around?  As far as I can remember, no.  These have always taken place at locations where the perp knows everyone is sheep to be slaughtered.  What we don't here from out liberal media is the amount of these actions that were stopped by an armed citisen before they started (perp chose the wrong place and or time).  Gun control is a farce and always will be, if Britain is so great why are their police force now armed, when they outlawed guns, and when they weren't, they didn't outlaw guns .  Switzerland is a great example of a well armed populace that doesn't have our problems.

 
BigRat

[MiloMorai]

Switzerland is a great example of a well armed populace that doesn't have our problems.

 
BigRat

Switzerland has a well adjusted mentally stable population.

[katanaso]

Bodhi, no doubt a skilled user can do as much damage with a handgun as an inexperienced user can with an assault weapon. But that's just it.  An inexperienced person can use an assualt weapon with a large magazine and wreak havoc. Commen-sense regulations should not bring about rants of "They're taking our guns away!!!!" A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a simple law that does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, and would/should not be an issue among legal gun-owners. Not only that, but it may reduce the carnage in future shootings.

Guppy beat me to it.

Here's the problem with banning high capacity magazines:  there are millions in circulation.  I'd venture to estimate even tens of millions.  There's no way to get those out of circulation.  

A ban would stop the law abiding person from using them at a range, or for plinking out in some deserted area where it's legal to shoot, but it wouldn't stop any criminal from using them.  Do they care if it's illegal to have a 30-round magazine when they're going to rob a gas station, or when they're going to shoot somebody?  I wouldn't think so.

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet you often see AK-47's with 30 round mags on them.  Remember though, high cap mags are banned in California, as is that type of AK(specific features to it).

[TheRapier]

You don't fix that.... How could you?

Norway: 76 killed, mostly children, in a nation with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth...

You can't legislate evil. You can't legislate crazy. Evil and crazy people have been murdering thousands of years before man began recording his history. Laws are only useful for regulating those willing to obey and prosecuting those who will not.

The over-riding issue isn't weapons, guns, bombs or otherwise... It's a culture that glorifies violence; which it promotes in popular media and makes the media moguls very wealthy. Those same moguls who scream for gun control when some screwball emulates their villains or heroes, but whom will never accept even a shred of social responsibility for those actions... Violence is a cultural issue, and guns just an easy thing to point to rather than address the core issue.

Widewing, thanks for providing a rational response. However, I don't think I ever said we could prevent all murders, in fact the exact opposite. I didn't say we could legislate away crazy. What I said is we could make the psychos less broadly and easily lethal, which seems like a worthwhile goal. The point about Norway is that 74 murders is an absurdly low number for the number of people that live there. Same population in the US would have many more murders.

Yes, a big problem is that our society glorifies violence. Yes, PLEASE let the people who produce content you feel is objectionable and over the top violent know about it. Stop paying for it, stop consuming it. Absolutely! That at least is a plan that can change something.

If it unsafe to be where religious extremist run things, why don't people with guns who disagree, use their guns to make it safe? Could it possibly be that a majority of extremists WITH guns can run things and make it unsafe for people that don't agree with them? This is why I'm saying that guns don't equal safety and freedom. It's the educated and rational populace that create safety.

MarineUS, I'm sorry you feel the need to beat anyone physically but I guess that's where you're comfortable. Anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves a mouthful of knuckles. You win the "Internet Tough Guy" trophy. Congratulations! I'm very proud of you! Always nice and pleasant having a conversation with you!

Bustr, I'm kind of at a loss how Wikipedia, being written as it is by people of the world, can have any "agenda". If you mean that it may not be a center of the US viewpoint, that is undoubtedly true. But its distributed writing system makes it really hard to have an agenda. People kind of write what they think, just like here. But say that the stats are even off by a 100%, they seem to indicate a bit of a problem don't you think?

There seems to be a thread running here that states that if everyone had a gun it would be safer. That sounds a lot like if there were more bullets flying around fewer people would be hit. Lots of bullets flying around sounds a lot like a war. In WWII 2/3rds of the deaths were non combatants. This argument would be far more convincing if we could guarantee that all those people that were toting guns KNEW how to use them properly, had the proper training to judge a situation and take the right action. That would be a good component in meaningful gun legislation. I wouldn't have a problem with those folks having guns. I DO have a problem with people who don't understand basic gun safety owning guns and carrying them around (this include most gang bangers, that's why they are so good at shooting themselves). The problem is we can't get past the part of having guns or not, and don't have a conversation about having them safely.

[TonyJoey]

Here's the problem with banning high capacity magazines:  there are millions in circulation.  I'd venture to estimate even tens of millions.  There's no way to get those out of circulation.  
A ban would stop the law abiding person from using them at a range, or for plinking out in some deserted area where it's legal to shoot, but it wouldn't stop any criminal from using them.  Do they care if it's illegal to have a 30-round magazine when they're going to rob a gas station, or when they're going to shoot somebody?  I wouldn't think so.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet you often see AK-47's with 30 round mags on them.  Remember though, high cap mags are banned in California, as is that type of AK(specific features to it).

No doubt the law would not prevent everyone from having it. However, it may deter some who do not have the black market access or even motivation to acquire one. A law abiding gun owner I would hope would not need a 100-round clip for self-defense. On the other hand, if someone snaps one day and decides to randomly shoot-up a place, they would most likely use what they have, and may not go through the trouble of getting a 100-round clip before they carry out the deed. Unfortunately, some still may, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop those people.

[Widewing]

Widewing, thanks for providing a rational response. However, I don't think I ever said we could prevent all murders, in fact the exact opposite. I didn't say we could legislate away crazy. What I said is we could make the psychos less broadly and easily lethal, which seems like a worthwhile goal. The point about Norway is that 74 murders is an absurdly low number for the number of people that live there. Same population in the US would have many more murders.

You misunderstand... The 76 dead in Norway were from a single incident of mass murder.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57457869/norway-prosecutors-seek-psychiatric-care-not-prison-for-confessed-mass-killer-anders-behring-breivik/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea

[katanaso]

No doubt the law would not prevent everyone from having it. However, it may deter some who do not have the black market access or even motivation to acquire one. A law abiding gun owner I would hope would not need a 100-round clip for self-defense. On the other hand, if someone snaps one day and decides to randomly shoot-up a place, they would most likely use what they have, and may not go through the trouble of getting a 100-round clip before they carry out the deed.

I don't feel the need for a 100 round magazine for self-defense, but CorkyJr might think that fits the bill for his peace of mind.  I don't feel that's my right to tell him what's right or wrong, as he's legally able to own a firearm.

Personally, I'd own a 100 round magazine to take to the range because it would be fun.  But they're expensive, and not that reliable, so I never bought one.

That said, I probably own 40 or 50 30-round magazines.  Why?  Why not.  They're cheap.  If one gets damaged, I have more.  I've given them to friends who shoot AR's.  And I enjoyed taking 20 of them to the range to test out different types of ammo.  (It's much more convenient to load magazines the night before rather than at the range).

If you haven't shot an AR, realize that changing mags after shooting 28 or 30 rounds takes a second or two.  It's not a cumbersome process. 

The 30-round magazines are what I was referring to as being in the millions, not the 100-round Beta-C mags.  So honestly, they just wouldn't be that hard to get.

[TonyJoey]

Not everyone is as experienced as you however. One big clip is a lot simpler for an amateur than reloading a lot in a stressful situation. I would hope that not being able to use 100 or 50 round mags at a range would be a palpable price to pay for the knowledge that someone who snaps and decides to go on a rampage most likely will not have easy access to such a clip.

Edit: Just noticed you said an experienced person can reload in a second or two. The whole shooting was about 90 seconds. If he reloads a few times, thats a few more people who haven't been shot.

[MarineUS]

If it unsafe to be where religious extremist run things, why don't people with guns who disagree, use their guns to make it safe? Could it possibly be that a majority of extremists WITH guns can run things and make it unsafe for people that don't agree with them? This is why I'm saying that guns don't equal safety and freedom. It's the educated and rational populace that create safety.

MarineUS, I'm sorry you feel the need to beat anyone physically but I guess that's where you're comfortable. Anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves a mouthful of knuckles. You win the "Internet Tough Guy" trophy. Congratulations! I'm very proud of you! Always nice and pleasant having a conversation with you!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize a joke about a midget was serious business. You can take your train of "I have no humor" and drive it to another junction because I like to live, laugh and have fun. If you don't like that then you can bugger off. <3

People like you are a VIRUS. "Ermauhgawd! He said something about beating a midgeeeeeet! Errrrrmauhgawd! He's so evil! He's a buuuuuullllly." - I was assaulted in February by a man down the street from me after his dog tried to attack my niece. I followed his dog alllllll the way to his house on foot (about a mile) and told him he needed to lock it up or I was going to get it put to sleep. I was then assaulted by his wife with a broom. I pushed her back (and her being a fat sack of crap) and she fell. I pushed where your shoulder turns into your arms. Why? No pain there and it keeps her out of my "bubble" at which point her husband runs up and I sit and watch as he "haymakers" my face, puts me in a headlock and proceeds to smash in the back of my skull. I didn't swing, bite or kick one time. Why? Because I was in his yard at this point and beating this poor fellow into submission isn't exactly the USMC way.

You use enough force to stop the situation. I got loose and asked him if he'd like to break my nose because I could use the money and his pretty car. At that point he left me alone. So no, I'm not a fan of smashing people, but I do like to make jokes. If you've got a problem with it, I suggest you go get a reality check.

Why don't they stop them? Um...hellooooooo? We've been in Afghanistan for how long now? With a trained military, with aircraft, with biiiig boom sticks that make pretty fire and these guys won't go down. Why? Because most of those folks are brainwashed into thinking we're trying to kill off their religion.

For the places our military is NOT located: They are simply outgunned. The normal person may have an AK, but the groups who terrorize the populace have RPG's, home made explosives, a vague view on tactics and have done some type of training whereas joe shmoe over here is just a farmer trying to protect his family.



EDIT: Not to mention the fact that those "extremist" don't fight with GUNS. Most of the time it's ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EXPLOSIVES that are worn or placed in a busy area.

EDIT x2: Lemme just bold, italicize and underline that since you seem to be so out of touch with reality. I mean if you can't laugh at a joke then something must be unconnected up there. Just making sure you're good to go.

I was expecting a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed.

[katanaso]

I understand what you're saying, but the worst massacres were done with rifles (Norway, Australia) utilizing smaller magazines (30-round), or with pistols (Fort Hood, Virginia Tech).

This last one happened to use the 100-round magazine, but the others were all carried out with cheaper, more common magazines.

If production was halted on high capacity magazines, there are so many in circulation that, in my opinion, it wouldn't have much of an effect other than to raise the prices of those already available.

We're living in a really sick and twisted time in society, and I don't know how you fix that.  It's been boiling for several decades now, and every so often, one nutjob explodes and does something unfathomable to the rest of us who live civilized.

[TonyJoey]

I still believe that the positives outweigh the negatives, if any, that such a law would bring. Either way, I'm glad that a civilized discussion about politics can still take place on these boards, and in the US in general. We need more pragmatic people in government, and less that place ideology above all else. 

[mtnman]

Nice to see that people can spit back their indoctrinations so well . . .

1. ... A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people.

First of all, this statement is inaccurate.

Second, the irony is thick...  To claim that "a handgun has only one purpose, to kill people" is a perfect example of "spitting back an indoctrination".  It's a common generic statement designed to sway an emotional response from the unknowing or easily-swayed.

I own several handguns, and know many others that do as well.  They all get fired regularly.  Together, the handguns I know about personally have been fired literally 10's of thousands of times (and that may actually be an understatement...).  None of them have EVER been fired at a person, let alone killed anyone.

The killing in Colorado was due to a sick individual.  He could have easily killed more people than he did with items picked up from the grocery store at far less expense to himself.  To blame the inanimate objects he chose to use is foolish.  May as well blame the car for a drunk-driving death, or the matches for an arson attack, or the knife for a stabbing, or the pen that this crackpot used to fill out his background check form.

The fact is, killing someone is just one thing that can be done with a firearm.  It isn't even slightly close to the most common thing done with a firearm.  Even a handgun.

[guncrasher]

First of all, this statement is inaccurate.

Second, the irony is thick...  To claim that "a handgun has only one purpose, to kill people" is a perfect example of "spitting back an indoctrination".  It's a common generic statement designed to sway an emotional response from the unknowing or easily-swayed.

I own several handguns, and know many others that do as well.  They all get fired regularly.  Together, the handguns I know about personally have been fired literally 10's of thousands of times (and that may actually be an understatement...).  None of them have EVER been fired at a person, let alone killed anyone.

The killing in Colorado was due to a sick individual.  He could have easily killed more people than he did with items picked up from the grocery store at far less expense to himself.  To blame the inanimate objects he chose to use is foolish.  May as well blame the car for a drunk-driving death, or the matches for an arson attack, or the knife for a stabbing, or the pen that this crackpot used to fill out his background check form.

The fact is, killing someone is just one thing that can be done with a firearm.  It isn't even slightly close to the most common thing done with a firearm.  Even a handgun.

that reminds me of a joke, guns dont kill people, bullets do, I am for the right to bare arms but I always find that joke funny.


semp

[Mickthestick]

Switzerland has a well adjusted mentally stable population.

Yes, I hear that chocolate, cheese and protecting the financial anonymity of the world's richest criminals tends to promote calmness.

Going back to an older point, however, if you want to curb these shootings, you need to stop the motivation behind it. That motivation, I think most will agree, is the draw of instant fame and notoriety. Some savor the idea of becoming instant legends. Some savor it to the point that they're willing to give their lives in the process. Surviving the massacre isn't necessary, as Columbine proved.

Unless we figure out a way to make it impossible for a person to become an instant celebrity by doing something like this, people will resort to any method. Take away their guns, their explosives, their knives and axes and baseball bats, and they'll start driving school buses into swimming pools to make the headlines.

Is the media to blame? For the most part, I would say yes. Nothing sells like bad news and body counts. That's what they're going for, and that's what they get, every single time.

Of course, now we're talking about the freedom of the press, and it's not the second amendment that's implicated, but the first.