Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[nrshida]

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.

Do we logically blame the alcohol for the drunk? Do we logically blame the sun for some sunbunny's skin cancer? Let's apply genuine logic and accept the fact that we need to examine our culture(s) rather than focus on symptoms instead of the root cause disease.

A profoundly wise and insightful post. 

[jimson]

First of all the Colorado shooter obviously knew how to make explosives and booby traps, I suppose we would feel better if he had detonated a bomb in the theater possibly killing hundreds.

Assault rifle by definition has full auto capability (machine gun) those are restricted.

A 6 shot revolver fires one round per trigger pull just as does a semi automatic, so the only difference is magazine capacity.

It doesn't take a firearms expert to change a magazine in a fraction of a second. If you really think magazine changes are a big impediment you might want to ask yourselves why most of the military standard issues of the world are 20 to 30 round magazines rather than 100 round drums. There would be nothing to stop the guy from using a bag full of revolvers either.

Before banning a legal item I would like to be assured that the result would be clearer than "There is some chance that it might possibly slow down a person intent on mass murder, maybe a little."

[Sabre]

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?

I am genuinely curious, Rap, about what you're actually suggesting in terms of new laws that might have stopped even this one individual in Aurora, while still not significantly impacting the rights of those law-abiding citizens who believe in and practice responsible gun ownership?  I say this without any sarcasm, but out of honest to goodness desire to promote a reasoned debate. The evidence to date suggests that, at least here in the USA, stricter gun laws does not equal safer communities (just the opposite, it can be argued). And there are legitmate reasons to own a gun: 1) Shooting sports (including hunting), 2) self/home defense, 3) THE original reason for the second amendment, i.e. defense against tyranny (foreign or domestic).  So, any such proposed changes/additions to gun laws must not unduly impact the lawful preservation of these liberties.

[Bodhi]

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.

There is no reasonable amount of gun control.  A person with half a brain and 4 X 30 round mags can accomplish just as much if not more than a person with a 100 round drum mag.  That's the problem with supposed gun control on magazine limitations.  It is not a realistic approach to stop the crime, instead, it is a knee-jerk reaction that is designed to appease the masses.  It has no bearing on reality.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear in that it states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Any limitations on firearms is an infringement.  There are many illegal limitations on firearms as it sits, but the courts are too busy (or are of a biased set) with other issues to properly address them. 

[Bodhi]

Pulleeeeeeze! By this reasoning, the best possible course is to leave guns lying around every street corner. Absolute freedom of access is not a reasonable course. We don't allow absolute freedom of access to motor vehicles!  A reasonable discourse as Guppy says is not an "attack" on anything. It is what a polite and intelligent and free society does to create itself.

Political discourse in this country has turned into demonizing the other side based on wildly fictitious arguments. I'm relatively certain that I'm not a demon and I'm pretty sure that other folks here are not either. What do we as rational people think? Can we talk? Can we disagree? Can a workable compromise be found? I think we can. I believe we can. I believe that is what America is about.

Take the blinders off. THINK

You want to talk about unreasonable?  You are suggesting something completely contrary and biased to push your agenda.  There are a plethora of different firearms available (not counting limitations).  Assault weapons have been very available since after the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban.  Guess what, there is no appreciable raise in gun crime with the use of assault weapons than there was during the ban.  It is nothing more than a feel-good measure that accomplished nothing but drive the costs of guns up.

Lastly, I have not created a fictitious argument, I think you have when you said guns should be lying around just for the taking.  I certainly never said that.  All I have said and support is that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for a infringement on firearms. 

Talk about blinder.

[guncrasher]

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...

just food for thought.  how many mass shootings has norway had in the past 10 years.  how many have we had?  I am all for the second amendment but sometimes i wonder if we lose as many cops in a year as England loses in decades then it's the mentally of people that is wrong.  we have a fascination with guns more than other countries and I think that is a big problem.   what the solution is?  I dont know.  it isnt less or more gun laws, it's more about we need to change our attitude.


semp

[Jayhawk]

just food for thought.  how many mass shootings has norway had in the past 10 years.  how many have we had?  I am all for the second amendment but sometimes i wonder if we lose as many cops in a year as England loses in decades then it's the mentally of people that is wrong.  we have a fascination with guns more than other countries and I think that is a big problem.   what the solution is?  I dont know.  it isnt less or more gun laws, it's more about we need to change our attitude.


semp

I think you're touching on an important issue that often goes overlooked.  People often make a faulty causal connection between America's love of guns and gun violence.  I would speculate that poverty, drug use, the war on drugs, and crumbling mental health services have a much bigger influence on gun crime than the availability of semi-automatic rifles.

[TonyJoey]

Would a bag full of revolvers be as effective as an M-16 with a 100-round capacity magazine?  

[SEraider]

I think you're touching on an important issue that often goes overlooked.  People often make a faulty causal connection between America's love of guns and gun violence.  I would speculate that poverty, drug use, the war on drugs, and crumbling mental health services have a much bigger influence on gun crime than the availability of semi-automatic rifles.

Economic pressures outside of poverty too I think. 

[TonyJoey]

The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.

[Wiley]

Economic pressures outside of poverty too I think. 

All of that, and I also think population density plays a factor somehow.  Canada in general isn't that much different than the states when it comes to gun culture other than handguns, but gun violence is quite a bit less common.

The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.

Explain in detail what the 100 round mag accomplished that smaller ones wouldn't have.

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.

It doesn't limit ammo at all.

[TonyJoey]

It doesn't limit ammo at all.

It doesn't reserve that express right, either. It's meant to be dealt with by elected officials. Prohibiting large-capacity mags violates no Constitutional provision, and evidently the assualt rifle ban didn't either, although I'd disagree with going that far.

Wiley- Like I mentioned a couple posts back, the shooting was only 90 seconds. A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.

[Slate]

  I thought they would outlaw large passenger planes after 911.  

[Spikes]

Well why would you want a gun without ammo?