Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[Butcher]

[Slate]

  I blame FORKS for obesity!  

[TheRapier]

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

To try and answer and not with any intent to change your mind, since they are pre-made. Here are the arguments

1. Gun is a tool. Yes. A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people. Giving a nut case a more effective tool is NOT a good thing.
2. You can kill people without a gun. Yes this is true. But you can't kill them as fast and effectively without a gun. The Colorado case is an excellent demonstration. Ever use a sword? I have. Had he been armed with a knife or a sword, the number of dead and wounded would be far less. He also would have been overwhelmed very quickly by sheer numbers.
4. Our founding fathers ordained this and saw it as good. hmmm. I pretty sure our founding fathers didn't have 12 people in a movie theater shot to death in mind when framing the constitution. Or a 4 year old killed on a playground or . . . Guns are not necessary for freedom. Would the gun in the hand of the 4 year old save him? in the hand of his mother? Reasonable laws that are enforced are necessary for reasonable freedoms. If you don't think so, please visit Libya or Syria. Read the constitution, even the little words. None of the above scenarios are protected.  
5. England and Germany are not free? Man, I can't even answer that one. Do yourself a favor and go there and ask. They aren't free to wield handguns but that isn't what they want anyway. "Freedom" as a concept is ALWAYS a trade off and not an absolute.

Again, read the part about its not ALL ON or ALL OFF. Its about reasonable protections. When we have stuff happen like this with remarkable regularity, that's a pretty good indication that reasonable protection has failed. I own guns, I taught my son gun safety. The problem here is that people look through the wrong end of a telescope and say, "I trust me to have guns and all the cool magazines, and automatic weapons". In most cases you are right.

What you really should be asking is, "Do I trust my knot headed neighbor who can't seem to park his car straight, who lurches down the street in a series of massive corrections, manages to set his lawnmower on fire every weekend, whose VCR blinks 12:00, and figures his trash looks good on my lawn, and hasn't learned how to bathe regularly yet, with a high powered automatic weapon." If your answer to this is an unqualifed yes, well . . .

The crux is determining a responsible adult. I'm saying we are failing at that right now and a realistic look would save lives.

[bustr]

Check the survellance video from last week that never made it into the Liberal media at the end of the article.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/24/gun_sales_spike_after_colorado_massacre

If you are afraid of your fellow citizens and denegrate them for being stupider than yourself and by a standard yet proven to be any the superior. Yet you want a life free of risk, harm, and the resposibility of freely protecting your life at the possible cost of your life. What is life worth to you that you are willing to trade your freedom to a bureaucrat and it's agents knowing they have no legal responsibility to protect you even from their own mistakes?

Your fellow citizens have more investment in not making mistakes than any bureaucrat or agent of government becasue they have perverted law to sheild themselves from consiquence. Yet you will deny your fellow citizens the natural right of self protection becasue you live in fear of your personal demise looking at all who might impact it as an evil enemy. Do the shackles and chains of your personal fear not make you an accomplice to those who in acts of evil want to take the lives of your fellow innocent citizens? Those very ones whom you fear becasue you have judged them inferior in functional capacity to yourself?

Fear in exstream situations kills more people by their automatic responces to it than it saves, becasue more often it incapacitates the mind from performing postive action. The militairy and police overcomes this by repititious training so the soilder and policeman has ingrained positive actions to draw upon. Concealed carry training creates the same positive action resource to draw from under stress. Or why bother in snow country practicing tail slide recovery with your car in an empty parking lot? On the highway your fear wil simply overcome you anyway while you scream and your high speed spinning car takes out the surrounding 12 cars killing all those innocent children.

If anyone bothers to read the Federalist Papers the 2ndA was a deterrent to tyranny by the Federal government becasue the Federal government only has privleges confered by the constitution. The natural right to self defence has never been questioned untill the last half of the 20th century in the U.S.. The 2ndA recognises that precondition's existance thus placing the Federal government on notice of it, and consiquences by it. The defence of your life needs no conditions becasue anything including your government can try to take your life from you at which point it is your responsibility to preserve it. Why? Because at one time suicide was considered a mortal sin and it is your duty to God to take care of his gift of life he entrusted to you. Natural rights cannot be granted by government. Only forcabely taken away by cohersion of death.

The United States and England are two completely different cultures, land mass sizes, and population densities. This argument about guns and violence, UK vs US, is the same as escoriating the state of california for it's Liberal one party dominated political culture and their stance on gun's and self protection.

California 38M, England 51M. In both cases the majority of the population lives in medium to large culturaly balkinised citys dominated by monopolitical Liberal\Progessive cultures. Both have high crime rates in their minority and immigrant cultures. California is still trying to catch up by eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendmants to the US Federal constitiution within it's jurisdiction.

[MarineUS]

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

To try and answer and not with any intent to change your mind, since they are pre-made. Here are the arguments

1. Gun is a tool. Yes. A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people. Giving a nut case a more effective tool is NOT a good thing.
2. You can kill people without a gun. Yes this is true. But you can't kill them as fast and effectively without a gun. The Colorado case is an excellent demonstration. Ever use a sword? I have. Had he been armed with a knife or a sword, the number of dead and wounded would be far less. He also would have been overwhelmed very quickly by sheer numbers.
4. Our founding fathers ordained this and saw it as good. hmmm. I pretty sure our founding fathers didn't have 12 people in a movie theater shot to death in mind when framing the constitution. Or a 4 year old killed on a playground or . . . Guns are not necessary for freedom. Would the gun in the hand of the 4 year old save him? in the hand of his mother? Reasonable laws that are enforced are necessary for reasonable freedoms. If you don't think so, please visit Libya or Syria. Read the constitution, even the little words. None of the above scenarios are protected.  
5. England and Germany are not free? Man, I can't even answer that one. Do yourself a favor and go there and ask. They aren't free to wield handguns but that isn't what they want anyway. "Freedom" as a concept is ALWAYS a trade off and not an absolute.

Again, read the part about its not ALL ON or ALL OFF. Its about reasonable protections. When we have stuff happen like this with remarkable regularity, that's a pretty good indication that reasonable protection has failed. I own guns, I taught my son gun safety. The problem here is that people look through the wrong end of a telescope and say, "I trust me to have guns and all the cool magazines, and automatic weapons". In most cases you are right.

What you really should be asking is, "Do I trust my knot headed neighbor who can't seem to park his car straight, who lurches down the street in a series of massive corrections, manages to set his lawnmower on fire every weekend, whose VCR blinks 12:00, and figures his trash looks good on my lawn, and hasn't learned how to bathe regularly yet, with a high powered automatic weapon." If your answer to this is an unqualifed yes, well . . .

The crux is determining a responsible adult. I'm saying we are failing at that right now and a realistic look would save lives.

You can take away guns, but if I'm going to become a murderer; by God I'm going to do it whether I've got to use a bow and arrow or silently go through a movie theater, acting like I'm whispering in their ear and just slit their throat, move on to some other random avacado (this is assuming the smoke grenade is still in play.)

So you want murderers to kill in silence then?



Someone who is strong and has good aim could kill 12 people with rocks before people really understood wth was happening. "Some nut is throwing rocks."

Better yet, give me one of those fancy crossbows with the rotating "ammunition" slots. It's a crossbow that's rotates like a revolver.

[TheRapier]

Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.

Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .

Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?

[MarineUS]

Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.

Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .

Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?

Lol why would you do that when you could get a gun? That's the point. You don't see that stuff because you have guns. Take away guns and it will be that.

A psychotic killer will always be a psychotic killer. Whether he has to eat your face off or shoot you in the mouth.

If I'm going to kill someone, it doesn't matter WHAT I use. A gun just makes it quicker.

I mean I could just crush someone's skull with a baseball bat. You folks gonna outlaw a sport after that?

----

And a wheel barrow? Do you know how little of a rock you need to kill someone if you've got the arm to lay out the force? I could lug it in an assault pack, let alone a nice back pack.

Hell and with the knife you don't have to slit throats. If it's long enough to punch through their lungs they won't be able to scream anyway. Just gotta pick your blade. It doesn't really have to be that long either.

Taking away guns just means more thorough killers will be born. Thorough killers tend to get away. Hell let's invite Jack the Ripper to come play.  

Criminals will always have guns. You will not ever change that. You will only cripple the honest folks who just want to own a weapon for the sake of shooting. It's a fun sport. I love putting targets up about 700 yards away and dropping them with an assault rifle. Why? Because to most people it's hard.

[Wiley]

I personally think we should all just be happy people go on shooting sprees instead of bombing stuff.  I shudder to think what the body count would've been if he'd put his explosives in play.

Wiley.

[TheRapier]

Er, which part of I'm not talking about banning all guns is difficult to understand? Did I say "ban target shooting because you're killing targets"? It's about reducing the death toll. Yes, admittedly psychos will find a way to kill. They will kill less if they don't have an assault rifle. How does a rational society determine when a member of that society should have access to use easily lethal force?

Let's admit that you sir are a master killer. You can kill with your hands, hell, you can kill with your eyeballs. Ok, so now, SO WHAT? What we are talking about is reducing the lethality of a nut job that DOESN'T have special training. We aren't talking about YOU, get it? Pulling a trigger is so easy toddlers can do it. Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?

How would you fix that?

[Mickthestick]

Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.

Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .

Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?

I'm all for a more effective method of weeding out the nutcases from the non-nutcases. I was once denied buying a 12 gauge in a Blacksburg VA pawnshop because I presented them with an out-of-state ID. About 3 months later, that very same shop sold Seung-Hui Cho the two handguns he used to go on a rampage at VA Tech...

However, it seems that a properly motivated nutcase will not be hindered by the lack of access to semi-automatic military-style weapons. The same shotgun I use to shoot skeet can be modified into a concealable killing machine in about 5 minutes. Batman fanboi may kill only 4 or 5 instead of 12 or 15, but where exactly does this dialog go then? What if he jammed the theater doors closed and simply set fire to the place with a couple gallons of gasoline? What if he flooded an apartment building with CO, killing dozens in their sleep? What do you prohibit then?

Guns have been legal in the US since the very beginning. There was a time when fully automatic weapons were available to anybody who wanted them... And yet, it's only relatively recently that these mass shootings have started to crop up.

I think that a rational response to this phenomenon would be to figure out the source of their psychotic ambitions (fame, notoriety, etc..), not just the mechanism by which they carry those ambitions out.

[Shuffler]

Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.

Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .

Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?

lolo Where to start. Many folks have been killed by rocks. Wocks were used as tools, building material, and weapons for a long long time.

Let's see...... extemely easy to sneak into a theater with a few bags of rocks..... I bet it is so easy that you could walk in with an rifle, shotgun, and a pistol.

Laws protect folks like the perp in this case. Had anyone noticed him acting odd chances are they did not say anything for fear of being labeled heartless or ignorant.

[MarineUS]

Er, which part of I'm not talking about banning all guns is difficult to understand? Did I say "ban target shooting because you're killing targets"? It's about reducing the death toll. Yes, admittedly psychos will find a way to kill. They will kill less if they don't have an assault rifle. How does a rational society determine when a member of that society should have access to use easily lethal force?

Let's admit that you sir are a master killer. You can kill with your hands, hell, you can kill with your eyeballs. Ok, so now, SO WHAT? What we are talking about is reducing the lethality of a nut job that DOESN'T have special training. We aren't talking about YOU, get it? Pulling a trigger is so easy toddlers can do it. Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?

How would you fix that?

By teaching parents not to leave their guns laying out.


Oh wait....we do that already. Stupid people will be stupid regardless of what you make them do or the classes they are forced to take.

[MarineUS]

I remember having to watch this in the 6th grade.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge8aZqgxV7Q


sneaking stuff in is the easy part. Especially a theater.

[Jayhawk]

I always have a gun next to me since i play with a headset on while my gf sleeps in the next room.  however just food for thought, if there had been several people in that theater with guns, there's always a possibility that many more would have gotten killed or hurt as no one would really be sure who the shooter was, or perhaps the shooter would have gotten stopped within the first couple of shots.  but with all that smoke and chaos most people only saw shadows in a dark theater.


semp

I generally have faith in people to make a good decision.  If you were at the back of the theater and couldn't see the shooter real well, I don't you think most would start firing randomly in that direction.  However, if you were a few feet away and could clearly see him, you would take that shot.  I look back the Gabby Giffords shooting and the concealed carrier who came around the corner and saw someone holding a gun.  He correctly judged the situation and decided not to shoot.  It's really hard to make a point either way though, with shootings like this so incredibly rare, it's impossible to really statistically say anything, everything is just a case by case basis.

[Jayhawk]

To bring the rock argument a little closer to guns, look at a bow and arrow.  A bow and arrow were designed to kill, humans and animals.  Can you imagine the damage a well trained individual would be able to inflict with a modern bow and arrow?  However, no one looks at someone who has a large bow collection as weird, it's just their sport.