Shooting at Dark Knight in CO. What is WRONG with some people?

[Rickster71]

My brother shared this one with me:

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.​

 

[gmichael]

And here come the politicians. There's the red flag, and unfortunately, it will apply to me (and most of my friends who are shooters) if it passes:



I don't mind controls, but the politicians are still going after the wrong things. If it passes, I will have to talk my local shop into selling me 999 rounds at a time.

This is the line that gets me, "licensed dealers must maintain records of ammunition sales and report to officials the sale of more than 1,000 rounds to an unlicensed person."
Instead of reporting those sales, why not just, not sell ammunition to someone who is unlicensed? Did I miss something?

 

[Adam]

...why not just, not sell ammunition to someone who is unlicensed? Did I miss something?

If you reread it, you'll see that the context is someone that is not a licensed dealer.

 

[gmichael]

If you reread it, you'll see that the context is someone that is not a licensed dealer.

You want me to read it AGAIN? And maybe pay attention too?

 

[lsiberian]

Didn't mean to go all 'Uni-Bomber Manifesto' about media bias.
I'll have to endeavor not to drink in the AM before posting. j/k

Don't want to rant about a bias media without backing it up a little.

Below IMO a couple of examples:

On the first day of the shooting ABC news claimed , that there was a guy named James Holmes registered as a Tea Party member.
It turned out not to be the same guy.
The fact that they reported it without really knowing, and that they went (of all places) to search for Tea Party affiliation, tells me there is a systemic bias.

Another, example, is how the safe and successful use of a firearm for protection is rarely or never reported.
How do I know this?

The NRA magazine dedicates a page or two each month to 8 to 12 instances of actual home defense, called 'The Armed Citizen.'
Stories taken from local newspapers that never make nation news.

How is that a 12 year old, home alone after school, defends herself with a gun from a home intruder never makes national news?
Yet another 12 Y O that gets shot accidentally makes national news.

Remember media is a business not a public service.

 

[Adam]

You want me to read it AGAIN? And maybe pay attention too?

What do eggs have to do with this? Am I missing something?

 

[Rickster71]

Remember media is a business not a public service.

Care to elaborate?
IMHO They seem to be abusing their First Amendment protections.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Care to elaborate?
IMHO They seem to be abusing their First Amendment protections.

Remember: "Freedom of the press goes to those who own one"

 

[j_garcia]

Why not? Without a gun, ammo is useless. If you qualify to buy a gun, then you qualify to buy ammo. I don't know how easy it is to buy a gun online though, I've never looked into it.

According to the article, it isn't that difficult, but your state and local laws still apply. Here, buying it online still means going through a dealer to get it registered unless it is a "collector" items as also defined by the law.

You can refuse to sell anything. However, the buyer will just go to someone else who will sell.

Yep. Nothing would stop him or me from going to a bunch of different stores and coming up with the same amount of ammo, just in smaller quantities. I agree that controlling ammo really won't do much. ONE box of ammo is enough to injure or kill quite a few people, and the cost of one box isn't really that much.

Exactly. Unfortunately, to try and prevent things like this from happening, you have to start infringing on the rights of all those people who aren't going to go on a killing spree.

Do what? What could anyone have possibly done? Nobody could have done anything to this guy. Say he got flagged by some system for buying that much ammo, and he was questioned about it. All he has to say is that he bought it because he wanted to and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it. What are you going to do, arrest him? Investigate him? For what?

Unfortunately, 100% true. This guy had NO record at all. The only thing they mentioned was a moving violation. So there would have been no reason to think it odd that he was legally buying firearms or ammo. HOWEVER, the FIRST story I read on the incident said that as soon as his mother heard about the incident in Aurora, she KNEW it was here son. That says that there WERE indicators that something was wrong, though only those who were close to him would have known that and that is too bad.

My brother shared this one with me:

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.​

In terms of what politics and the media want to do But the reality is, all the laws in the world won't change criminals or psychos.

 

[randyb]

I just went through this thread and just have two predictions. Gun control (no real change to current federal/local laws) will not happen in the USA for at least the forseeable future. This type of tragedy will happen again in time. Best advice, try not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, regardless of whether your packing or not.

 

[randyb]

Here is an interesting read by someone I admire.

Skepticblog » The Colorado Massacre, Gun Control, and the Law of Large Numbers

 

[Nemo128]

You know that the bad guys will be armed.

You know what it takes for the bad guys to be armed? Some "good guy" along the way not being so good.

Illegally aquired firearms accounted for 85% of the gun violence commited in Newark NJ for about 3 years in a row last I checked. Those aquisitions were all chalked up to illegal sales and "stolen" guns from middle East Coast states like WV and VA. So yes, the bad guys will always be armed. It's usually by so-called law-abiding citizens who have no problem making a quick buck or some "innocent" owner whose house got robbed and access to their weapons was easier to get then a whore in Tiajuana.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unfortunately the definition of "well regulated" has always been a point of contention. Also, "being necessary to the security of a free State" seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. We have well regulated militias now. They're called the Marine Corps and the Army. They're regulated by the UCMJ. We're free to enlist and get access to all the hardware we want in order to "secure a free State". I know, I help build some of that hardware.

My brother shared this one with me:

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.​

It's more like reducing drunk driving by not allowing idiotic people to freely buy liquor whenever and however they feel like it. Which we do. Carding under 21 comes to mind. The problem is, the sole criteria used for that kind of security is simply an age. I know a lot more irresponsible morons that are 21 and over than are not.

Coming from someone whose had to lose a lot of people, friends and family, to gun violence, I'm quite cynical about the subject. I have no problem with gun ownership. The problem is, it's no different than the banking industry. You've got a small core group of people controlling a huge dangerous resource, and all it takes is an even smaller selection within that small core group to make decisions that put all of us at risk.

Guns don't wind up in the hands of those that commit violent crimes without first getting to the stage right before their acquisition. Me personally, if your gun is "stolen" from your house and it is used in the commission of a crime, you should be held liable if you did not take adequate steps to prevent its theft from happening.

For example, you go to a bar. Your friend gets drunk. You are working on taking some tasty looking muffin home to dunk her donut, and you give your friend your car keys because you don't want to leave. You should be liable if your car kills someone. If your home gets broken into, and your guns and ammo are laying out in plain sight, and they wind up killing someone later that night, you should be held responsible. It's your disregard for the severity and responsibility of gun ownership which allowed that to happen. Of course I'm going to blame the person who did it and hold them even more liable, but your irresponsibility should not be forgotten.

I'm sure the "slippery slope" debaters will chime in, but it doesn't hold water with me. The fact is, a firearm is built with a sole purpose. All weapons are made to cause damage. Period. Argue that it's a deer, a trespasser into your home, or a paper target. You are imparting kinetic energy on an object with the intent to cause penetrative damage to it. That should be regarded as a more severe responsibility than it is.

The woman's dad owns 3 guns. All are locked in a safe with the ammo at all times. Some people make the argument that they would be useless against an intruder in that case. BS. Take them out when you are home. These home invasions which give criminals access to firearms are total BS. Go find out how many guns are stolen in home burglaries or "lost" in your own states or towns. Many of you, I know for a fact, argue in other threads about personal responsibility being a massive problem in this country. Many of those same won't apply that logic to gun ownership.

On the issue of the CO shooting, all of his firearms were legally aquired from what I know. So was his ammo. It was just unpreventable because the world is packed with a-holes and sociopaths. I'm not going to argue what could have prevented it. It's a moot point. Saying that things like this would be more preventable with looser or stricter gun laws is also BS. As cold as this might sound, those lives are part of the cost of our freedoms.

 

[j_garcia]

Guns don't wind up in the hands of those that commit violent crimes without first getting to the stage right before their acquisition. Me personally, if your gun is "stolen" from your house and it is used in the commission of a crime, you should be held liable if you did not take adequate steps to prevent its theft from happening.

That IS the law in California. Another example: If your kid gets a hold of your gun and kills themselves or someone else or is involved in a crime, YOU are responsible. Criminal negligence.

 

[mike c]

speak of the devil

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack: reports - Yahoo! News

it's time to ban or regulate the sale of knives.

housewives/chefs/cooks must now go through background checks to purchase knives

"a housewife was found at her home with an entire set of cutlery! how she got that many sharp objects without anyone noticing is a shock!"

 

[Nemo128]

it's time to ban or regulate the sale of knives.

housewives/chefs/cooks must now go through background checks to purchase knives

Although I agree that the regulation of firearms shouldn't be sweeping, I despise comparisons like this.

A knife is a tool. Any knife collector, user, maintainer knows that a knife is a tool to accomplish certain tasks. A butcher knife is sold for the purpose of being used in kitchens to prepare food. Of course people will find a way to turn that tool into a weapon. That's human nature.

That's not a firearm. Again, a firearm's sole purpose is to harm. Also, I can have all the knives in the world, the damage I can do with those knives is still very limited in scope. By some people's arguments, the common citizen should be able to buy a mortar. How bout an artillery round and a Paladin to fire it with? How bout a suitcase nuke? Everyone, without exception, is in favor of some form of regulation. It's just a matter of degree. That's what makes the argument so ridiculous. You wanna hunt? Get a bowie knife. A bow and arrow. People talk about our Constitution and our national origins. Well, the original frontiersman didn't hunt buck with an assault rifle.

Give me one fully loaded Glock and I could do more damage in a few seconds than a katana-wielding wackjob could do in a minute. You can outrun a knife. Usain Bolt can't outrun a bullet. You can deflect a knife with a book or a garbage can lid or a car door etc etc etc. You can't deflect a bullet with pretty much anything found around you except a very thick concrete wall and that's only if it's a very small caliber.

 

[Rickster71]

Taking away the rights of all law abiding gun owners, because of the bad behavior of a few....
That would be the same as taking away the rights of all Muslims because of what happened on Sept. 11th.

It all really comes down to a person's 'intent.'
Blaming inanimate objects to excuse bad human behavior and their bad intent is ridiculous.

Guns are tools for self defense and target shooting, not 'only' used to kill. A policemen can hold a criminal at gun point until back-up arrives.
The racking of a 12 gauge shot gun can be enough to scare off intruders.

 

[randyb]

Nothing is going to change. Why debate it?

 

[j_garcia]

Although I agree that the regulation of firearms shouldn't be sweeping, I despise comparisons like this.

A knife is a tool. Any knife collector, user, maintainer knows that a knife is a tool to accomplish certain tasks. A butcher knife is sold for the purpose of being used in kitchens to prepare food. Of course people will find a way to turn that tool into a weapon. That's human nature.

That's not a firearm. Again, a firearm's sole purpose is to harm. Also, I can have all the knives in the world, the damage I can do with those knives is still very limited in scope. By some people's arguments, the common citizen should be able to buy a mortar. How bout an artillery round and a Paladin to fire it with? How bout a suitcase nuke? Everyone, without exception, is in favor of some form of regulation. It's just a matter of degree. That's what makes the argument so ridiculous. You wanna hunt? Get a bowie knife. A bow and arrow. People talk about our Constitution and our national origins. Well, the original frontiersman didn't hunt buck with an assault rifle.

Give me one fully loaded Glock and I could do more damage in a few seconds than a katana-wielding wackjob could do in a minute. You can outrun a knife. Usain Bolt can't outrun a bullet. You can deflect a knife with a book or a garbage can lid or a car door etc etc etc. You can't deflect a bullet with pretty much anything found around you except a very thick concrete wall and that's only if it's a very small caliber.

Many things that can be wielded can be used as a weapon. You can put a sharp stick in place of a knife and say the same thing. Yes, we could hunt with a sharp stick too, but that doesn't mean it is the best way to hunt. I personally don't hunt. Mike's point is, where does it stop? Rocks? Sticks? You can kill someone with your bare hands...

Taking away the rights of all law abiding gun owners, because of the bad behavior of a few....
That would be the same as taking away the rights of all Muslims because of what happened on Sept. 11th.

It all really comes down to a person's 'intent.'
Blaming inanimate objects to excuse bad human behavior and their bad intent is ridiculous.

Agreed. I didn't buy my firearms to kill anyone. I bought them to shoot. In the event that I need to use one to defend myself or others, then they are capable of doing that.

I said this one before too. My nearby gunshop has a sign on their counter: If guns kill people, do pencils make spelling errors?

Nothing is going to change. Why debate it?

Tool
Right In Two

Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it.
Right in two.

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
And this is what they choose...

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade
And cut each other down
And where there's one
they're bound to divide it,
Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs.
They make a club.
And beat their brother, down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.

Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Cut it all right in two

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky
Fight over life, over blood, over prayer,
overhead and light
Fight over love, over sun,
over another, Fight...

Angels on the sideline again.
Benched along with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end.

Cut it all right in two
Right in two...

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/898551-post3159.html

 

[AverageJoe]

Requirement to carry?

We've had various "Gun Control" laws, bills, and acts in this country for more than 175 years. Every so often congress comes up with new legislation to either attempt to protect the populace or maybe just try again to disarm it (I don't know if I'm conspiracy-theorist enough to firmly believe the later - yet): The National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, Crime Control Act, Brady Handgun Act, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, etc.

New departments, agencies and bureaus are created (or modified: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS became the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms).

Also for that 175 years, some City and State governments (and the District of Columbia) have moved to forbid sales or possession or manufacture of firearms within their boundaries.

Apparently none of these efforts have worked. Everyone seems to agree that bad guys will always be able to get a gun.

Maybe the time has come to try something else: I'd suggest a law requiring all adults to not only own a firearm, but also (in the interest of public safety) to carry one with them at all times (OK, maybe not while swimming).

I see several benefits:

A boost to the economy.

Those few deranged individuals intending double-digit mass murder might be limited to one or two victims before they are gunned down themselves (Possibly, if they knew it was likely they'd be stopped before generating the headlines of their predecessors, they may change their minds altogether).

Tax revenues up - Certainly the Feds won't hesitate there.

A more polite society - You never know if that guy you are about to flip off is really a psycho, but now he's armed, too.

I suppose those that view a firearm as an evil device and their own self defense as the sole province of the police and military could have the firing pin removed from theirs.

 

[gmichael]

We've had various "Gun Control" laws, bills, and acts in this country for more than 175 years. Every so often congress comes up with new legislation to either attempt to protect the populace or maybe just try again to disarm it (I don't know if I'm conspiracy-theorist enough to firmly believe the later - yet): The National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, Crime Control Act, Brady Handgun Act, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, etc.

New departments, agencies and bureaus are created (or modified: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS became the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms).

Also for that 175 years, some City and State governments (and the District of Columbia) have moved to forbid sales or possession or manufacture of firearms within their boundaries.

Apparently none of these efforts have worked. Everyone seems to agree that bad guys will always be able to get a gun.

Maybe the time has come to try something else: I'd suggest a law requiring all adults to not only own a firearm, but also (in the interest of public safety) to carry one with them at all times (OK, maybe not while swimming).

I see several benefits:

A boost to the economy.

Those few deranged individuals intending double-digit mass murder might be limited to one or two victims before they are gunned down themselves (Possibly, if they knew it was likely they'd be stopped before generating the headlines of their predecessors, they may change their minds altogether).

Tax revenues up - Certainly the Feds won't hesitate there.

A more polite society - You never know if that guy you are about to flip off is really a psycho, but now he's armed, too.

I suppose those that view a firearm as an evil device and their own self defense as the sole province of the police and military could have the firing pin removed from theirs.

I don't want to stop anyone from buying or carrying a gun, but I also do not want to be forced to. The first time some a$$hat cut me off on the highway I'd be reaching for that sucker. I shouldn't own a gun.