Shooting At Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

Where are most assault weapons made? Are they mostly American made?

 

[[icon]]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

Right. There are 300 Million guns on US Soil.... about 200 Million registered to the general public.

1) What do you think happens when suddenly they're illegal? What is a realistic scenario in your mind? Seriously.

2) Let's say guns are illegal tomorrow. How hard do you think it would be for someone like this kid to obtain one?

We can start with that.

Start even TALKING about making guns illegal and ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ will be everywhere.

 

[identikit]

no gun control will work but total prohibition of handguns & assault weapons and that aint going to happen. any discussion beyond that will be as fruitful as having a War on Drugs. kidding ourselves continues to surpass football or baseball as our National Pastime.

This would prevent a psycho from killing people with guns

, but won't stop him from being a psycho. Instead, he'd have gone into the theater with a bunch of homemade bombs and taken more people out.I'm against guns, but I don't think there's much you can do to prevent what happened last night from happening. Take away one weapon and all you do is change the instrument used.

No it wouldn't.

 

[GDogg]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

What I am talking about? Read your question:

Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

Your question is pretty straight-forward. And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun. That is the reason why people who can legally buy them should suddenly should not be able to buy them. Understand now?I comprehend the drug reference, but it makes no sense. Marijuana is illegal, but you are able to buy them anywhere in the country. In your question, you are not able buy guns. You wrote the question. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[[icon]]

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

Right. There are 300 Million guns on US Soil.... about 200 Million registered to the general public. 1) What do you think happens when suddenly they're illegal? What is a realistic scenario in your mind? Seriously. 2) Let's say guns are illegal tomorrow. How hard do you think it would be for someone like this kid to obtain one? We can start with that.

Bump for GDOGG

 

[jamny]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

What I am talking about? Read your question:

Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

Your question is pretty straight-forward. And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun. That is the reason why people who can legally buy them should suddenly should not be able to buy them. Understand now?I comprehend the drug reference, but it makes no sense. Marijuana is illegal, but you are able to buy them anywhere in the country. In your question, you are not able buy guns. You wrote the question. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[[icon]]

And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun.

Awww... they're so cute when they're little and their eyes haven't opened yet. Coochie Coochie Coo! Ah Coochie Coo!

 

[GDogg]

no gun control will work but total prohibition of handguns & assault weapons and that aint going to happen. any discussion beyond that will be as fruitful as having a War on Drugs. kidding ourselves continues to surpass football or baseball as our National Pastime.

This would prevent a psycho from killing people with guns, but won't stop him from being a psycho. Instead, he'd have gone into the theater with a bunch of homemade bombs and taken more people out.I'm against guns, but I don't think there's much you can do to prevent what happened last night from happening. Take away one weapon and all you do is change the instrument used.

madness is a fact of life. spree-killing ideation may now also be a fact of life as a part of madness, because there is so much hardware and so many ways of supporting mortal fantasization. i dont have a problem with the loss of life among strangers - 40,000 people die each day from the simple inability to sustain life in this world and a few dead fanboys dont bother me any more than that - but i do have a problem with our direction as a species. our inability to agree that assault weaponry makes assault more likely is a very big indicator of the wrongness of our path.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the very sad reality that there is nothing that can be done to prevent such a large loss of life as we had last night (not to mention the injuries). If someone wants to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, unless they ONLY want to do it through the instrumentality of a gun, then banning guns won't stop it. The crazy person will simply use another method.Although, I do have a problem with the loss of life among strangers. I don't like to see or hear about anyone dying. I can't help, but empathize with them and their family. I recently lost one of my best friends (not to guns), and I really don't want anyone, including strangers, to feel that pain.

 

[Don Quixote]

All I heard was the first line. I agree with you.

However, what do you want done? You can't legislate crazy. Personally, I'm totally serious here, make prostitution legal. I'm guessing there is a good portion of these psychos that wouldn't do this if they could get laid.

I wish I had the answer. I just know what we are currently doing seems to be the suck. But hey let's start with your idea I'm down with that.

I know I've posted before in other threads, but they could re-enact the federal assault weapons ban. Primary weapon reportedly used here was banned under AWB. Same with the Giffords shooting. It would not have prevented this from happening, but the weapons used definitely made it easier to kill/injure many more people than otherwise.

A glock handgun counts as an assault weapon?

I believe the super size clip he used was banned.

I'm not positive, but I think the 15 round magazine was ok under the original ban. I know there have been attempts to impose a 10 round limit. THink some states have that, but not nationwide IIRC.

Loughner had an extended 31 round magazine.

Ok, but it still wouldn't have prevented the shooting, which I think is the more pressing issue. And as I pointed out in the original Loughner thread when Tim brought up the high capacity magazine ban, many of the top serial shooters reloaded several times. So the logic that reloading automatically stops the shooter is flawed.

I said in my OP that it "would not have prevented this from happening," so no argument from me on that point. I also don't argue that reloading does not automatically stop the shooter. But my view is that at least gives the victims a shot. Loughner was in fact stopped when he had to pause to reload, so it can be good in some cases. I don't think 100% effectiveness at stopping the shooter is required; if it saves some lives even 5% of the time in a case like this, it's worth it to me.

 

[jamny]

And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun.

Awww... they're so cute when they're little and their eyes haven't opened yet. Coochie Coochie Coo! Ah Coochie Coo!

I'm hoping he's just wording it wrong. Are people really that naive?

 

[GDogg]

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

Right. There are 300 Million guns on US Soil.... about 200 Million registered to the general public. 1) What do you think happens when suddenly they're illegal? What is a realistic scenario in your mind? Seriously. 2) Let's say guns are illegal tomorrow. How hard do you think it would be for someone like this kid to obtain one? We can start with that.

Bump for GDOGG

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

 

[Drifter]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

An FBI study a few years ago of people involved in shooting with police, found that of the, I believe, 47 cases they studied, no gun law in existence would have prevented the perpetrator from possessing the gun they had - in other words, they were, for the most part, obtained illegally. It's trite, but the saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is very true. Not to mention, that even if you believe the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be upheld and all guns should be banned, it's a very slippery slope to start say that this Right granted by the Bill of Rights is good and this one is bad.Also, in places that have tough gun restrictions, like Canada, although you are slightly less likely to be murdered than the U.S. you are much more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death, meaning that if someone is intent on murder, they will murder, regardless of their access to a gun. As for accidental shootings 70 people die in car accidents every year for every 1 that dies in a shooting death. Should we ban cars? How about poison, drowning, fires, choking or falling down? All more likely to accidentally kill you than a gun.

As I said earlier, I would support much tougher restrictions on private gun sales and failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm registered to you and beef up penalties for illegally owning a firearm or having a firearm registered to you used in a crime. I would even support having to pass some sort of rudimenatary safety/competency test to get a license to own a gun (not just carry). I think those address some of the real problems associated with firearms far better than the knee jerk ban 'em all "idea".

 

[GDogg]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

What I am talking about? Read your question:

Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

Your question is pretty straight-forward. And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun. That is the reason why people who can legally buy them should suddenly should not be able to buy them. Understand now?I comprehend the drug reference, but it makes no sense. Marijuana is illegal, but you are able to buy them anywhere in the country. In your question, you are not able buy guns. You wrote the question. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Want to elaborate? I'll be happy to make it clearer if you tell me what you're confused about.

 

[jamny]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

What I am talking about? Read your question:

Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

Your question is pretty straight-forward. And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun. That is the reason why people who can legally buy them should suddenly should not be able to buy them. Understand now?I comprehend the drug reference, but it makes no sense. Marijuana is illegal, but you are able to buy them anywhere in the country. In your question, you are not able buy guns. You wrote the question. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Want to elaborate? I'll be happy to make it clearer if you tell me what you're confused about.

You know that people will still buy guns illegally right?

 

[[icon]]

Not So Fun Facts: A study on gun -aturated populaces post-firearm prohibition.

Murder Rate By Country (per 10,000 people)

USA: 7 (for reference)

Mexico: 17.5

Russia: 30.6

As an aside.... Murder Rate in countries with very liberal gun ownership laws:

Finland: 2.9

Israel: 1.4

Switzerland: 2.7

Canada: 4.1

 

[[icon]]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. Two New Questions:1) Do you think it's possible to stop people from buying guns?2) How, exactly, do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns? I'll hang up and listen. PS: If you take away the ability of people to buy guns, there are still 200 Million of them out there in people's possession. Are you just hoping they expire and go bad or something?

 

[GDogg]

And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun.

Awww... they're so cute when they're little and their eyes haven't opened yet. Coochie Coochie Coo! Ah Coochie Coo!

I'll be nice about it for now, but I don't think you read the statement or the question closely.Let me rephrase it for you: If you are not able to buy a gun, then how can you shoot someone with one?And, now that I think about it, I suppose my assumption is that someone won't simply give one to you out of the kindness of their heart. So, if someone won't just give you one, and you cannot buy one, then how do you shoot someone with one?

 

[timschochet]

Well, you guys beat me to it, I wasn't going to raise the issue myself, but since it's already being addressed...

We can't eliminate the possibility of what happened this morning through the enactment of more laws. But can we reduce its probability? I don't think this question has a definite answer at this point.

Gun control advocates typically call for three things:

1. Make assault weapons illegal.

2. Ban clips with excessive rounds.

3. Remove loopholes such as the ability to purchase guns without registration at trade shows.

Intuitively, these sorts of restrictions have always made sense to me, and I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment. I have no fear that they would be the stepping stone to a government eradication of gun ownership, as the NRA constantly warns (with quite a bit of paranoia, IMO.) But I also don't know if these measures would be effective in reducing the probability of mass shootings and other violent gun-related crimes. If they would be, I'm all for it. If not, then I really don't care to have more useless laws on the books. But I don't know if they'd be effective or not.

 

[GDogg]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. How do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns. I'll hang up and listen.

Huh? I didn't ask the question. I have no idea how you'd do that. He asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is because people can't shoot someone with one if they can't buy them.Just read what is written and stop being an ###. And, if you struggle this much with reading comp, don't get snarky when you don't understand what's written.

 

[[icon]]

I'll be nice about it for now, but I don't think you read the statement or the question closely.

Let me rephrase it for you: If you are not able to buy a gun, then how can you shoot someone with one?

And, now that I think about it, I suppose my assumption is that someone won't simply give one to you out of the kindness of their heart. So, if someone won't just give you one, and you cannot buy one, then how do you shoot someone with one?

I'll go with the obvious answer.... because you already own one.

You're living in a fantasy land here. Get your head out of the sand and address the real world.

 

[GDogg]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

What are you talking about? I live in Miami, I can buy a gun almost anywhere. Do you mean legally? Maybe you didn't comprehend the drug reference but marijauna is illegal and I can buy it everywhere. Making something illegal does not make something disappear. It didn't work during prohibition and it never works as long as the thrist for the product is there especially in AMERICA of all places. Too much in the way of resources in this country to truly ban something that there is a real market for.

What I am talking about? Read your question:

Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

Your question is pretty straight-forward. And, the answer is obvious. If you cannot buy guns (from anyone), then you cannot shoot someone with a gun. That is the reason why people who can legally buy them should suddenly should not be able to buy them. Understand now?I comprehend the drug reference, but it makes no sense. Marijuana is illegal, but you are able to buy them anywhere in the country. In your question, you are not able buy guns. You wrote the question. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Want to elaborate? I'll be happy to make it clearer if you tell me what you're confused about.

You know that people will still buy guns illegally right?

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

 

[[icon]]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. How do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns. I'll hang up and listen.

Huh? I didn't ask the question. I have no idea how you'd do that. He asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is because people can't shoot someone with one if they can't buy them.Just read what is written and stop being an ###. And, if you struggle this much with reading comp, don't get snarky when you don't understand what's written.

Got it... so you have no answers then. There are ZERO realistic scenarios where guns will not be READILY available in the US... ever. Period. I don't care what laws you pass. It ain't happening. Ever.

 

[identikit]

Not So Fun Facts: A study on gun -aturated populaces post-firearm prohibition.

Murder Rate By Country (per 10,000 people)

USA: 7

Mexico: 17.5

Russia: 30.6

As an aside.... Murder Rate in countries with very liberal gun ownership laws:

Finland: 2.9

Israel: 1.4

Switzerland: 2.7

Canada: 4.1

Very interesting.

 

[GDogg]

I'll be nice about it for now, but I don't think you read the statement or the question closely.

Let me rephrase it for you: If you are not able to buy a gun, then how can you shoot someone with one?

And, now that I think about it, I suppose my assumption is that someone won't simply give one to you out of the kindness of their heart. So, if someone won't just give you one, and you cannot buy one, then how do you shoot someone with one?

I'll go with the obvious answer.... because you already own one.

You're living in a fantasy land here. Get your head out of the sand and address the real world.

I don't own one, Rambo.Fantasy land? I didn't create the question. Learn to read and then respond.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. Two New Questions:1) Do you think it's possible to stop people from buying guns?2) How, exactly, do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns? I'll hang up and listen. PS: If you take away the ability of people to buy guns, there are still 200 Million of them out there in people's possession. Are you just hoping they expire and go bad or something?

This.So basically we are banning guns for those people who follow the law? Criminals and crazy, demented lunatics will still be carrying since, well, they don't follow the laws.

 

[OldBill]

Well, you guys beat me to it, I wasn't going to raise the issue myself, but since it's already being addressed...

We can't eliminate the possibility of what happened this morning through the enactment of more laws. But can we reduce its probability? I don't think this question has a definite answer at this point.

Gun control advocates typically call for three things:

1. Make assault weapons illegal.

2. Ban clips with excessive rounds.

3. Remove loopholes such as the ability to purchase guns without registration at trade shows.

Intuitively, these sorts of restrictions have always made sense to me, and I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment. I have no fear that they would be the stepping stone to a government eradication of gun ownership, as the NRA constantly warns (with quite a bit of paranoia, IMO.) But I also don't know if these measures would be effective in reducing the probability of mass shootings and other violent gun-related crimes. If they would be, I'm all for it. If not, then I really don't care to have more useless laws on the books. But I don't know if they'd be effective or not.

In regards to the ban on assault weapons, I agree with your statement that "I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment."

When the constitution was being written Jefferson et al. probably didn't imagine people hoarding AK-47s in their basements. A musket to fend off the British or a rogue neighbor, infringing on your tobacco farm is one thing. The ability to take out an entire mall or theater with just a few pulls of a trigger is another.

 

[GDogg]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.

What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. How do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns.

I'll hang up and listen.

Huh? I didn't ask the question. I have no idea how you'd do that. He asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is because people can't shoot someone with one if they can't buy them.

Just read what is written and stop being an ###. And, if you struggle this much with reading comp, don't get snarky when you don't understand what's written.

Got it... so you have no answers then. There are ZERO realistic scenarios where guns will not be READILY available in the US... ever. Period.

I don't care what laws you pass. It ain't happening. Ever.

What's your deal?I'm not trying to solve a crisis here. He asked why you'd take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is to stop people from shooting other people. That's it. You're reading into #### that isn't there and you do it over and over again. I never said it was possible and I never said it was realistic. I gave the reason of why you'd do it.

I have no idea how to get rid of all the guns. But, I do know I'd rather live in a world without every day citizens having them.

 

[FavreCo]

Yep. They are stepping up security as predicted, afraid of copycats. Jesus these people are stupid. If there are copycats they will wait unitl the 'stepped up security' people proclaim all is clear ie 'this is costing too much'.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

 

[jamny]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

 

[timschochet]

Well, you guys beat me to it, I wasn't going to raise the issue myself, but since it's already being addressed...

We can't eliminate the possibility of what happened this morning through the enactment of more laws. But can we reduce its probability? I don't think this question has a definite answer at this point.

Gun control advocates typically call for three things:

1. Make assault weapons illegal.

2. Ban clips with excessive rounds.

3. Remove loopholes such as the ability to purchase guns without registration at trade shows.

Intuitively, these sorts of restrictions have always made sense to me, and I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment. I have no fear that they would be the stepping stone to a government eradication of gun ownership, as the NRA constantly warns (with quite a bit of paranoia, IMO.) But I also don't know if these measures would be effective in reducing the probability of mass shootings and other violent gun-related crimes. If they would be, I'm all for it. If not, then I really don't care to have more useless laws on the books. But I don't know if they'd be effective or not.

In regards to the ban on assault weapons, I agree with your statement that "I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment."

When the constitution was being written Jefferson et al. probably didn't imagine people hoarding AK-47s in their basements. A musket to fend off the British or a rogue neighbor, infringing on your tobacco farm is one thing. The ability to take out an entire mall or theater with just a few pulls of a trigger is another.

Right. However, I'm not for banning them unless someone can prove it would accomplish something. Is there evidence?

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

 

[17seconds]

Pretty sure controlling or banning guns wouldn't have much effect on criminal organizations or career criminals.

But it does seem like it would reduce the occurrences like this shooting, Columbine, the Gabby Giffords incident. The cases where a troubled person (usually a young male) with little or no criminal record goes on a shooting spree. If you believe banning guns keeps them away from law abiding citizens, that's who this kid was until last night.

 

[greenroom]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.

What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. How do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns.

I'll hang up and listen.

Huh? I didn't ask the question. I have no idea how you'd do that. He asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is because people can't shoot someone with one if they can't buy them.

Just read what is written and stop being an ###. And, if you struggle this much with reading comp, don't get snarky when you don't understand what's written.

Got it... so you have no answers then. There are ZERO realistic scenarios where guns will not be READILY available in the US... ever. Period.

I don't care what laws you pass. It ain't happening. Ever.

What's your deal?I'm not trying to solve a crisis here. He asked why you'd take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is to stop people from shooting other people. That's it. You're reading into #### that isn't there and you do it over and over again. I never said it was possible and I never said it was realistic. I gave the reason of why you'd do it.

I have no idea how to get rid of all the guns. But, I do know I'd rather live in a world without every day citizens having them.

And you would be in the minority. Why do you blame the guns? It is not the guns that are killing people, it is the person behind them. So quit saying if you remove guns that solves the problems guess what it does not.

 

[timschochet]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

I'd make them and sell them to myself, I suppose.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

 

[Rayderr]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

 

[GDogg]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

Sure. I don't think it would*.This dude didn't do this because he had four guns. He just bought those in the last four months. His apartment appears to have been rigged with explosives.

He did this because he's a raging psychopath. If he didn't have any access to guns whatsoever and they did not exist, he'd have used a bomb or started a fire without any way to escape the theater or etc., etc. The method would have simply changed.

*That is, unless, of course, he just loved the fantasy of blazing away with guns in a crowded theater. Then, it would reduce the probability, but that's based on the subjective motive of the killer. I'm operating under the assumption that he just wanted to kill a bunch of people.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

 

[Rayderr]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

He MIGHT do less damage. Absolutely no guarantee that it would make a difference. And we're still not treating the heart of the issue.

 

[OldBill]

Well, you guys beat me to it, I wasn't going to raise the issue myself, but since it's already being addressed...

We can't eliminate the possibility of what happened this morning through the enactment of more laws. But can we reduce its probability? I don't think this question has a definite answer at this point.

Gun control advocates typically call for three things:

1. Make assault weapons illegal.

2. Ban clips with excessive rounds.

3. Remove loopholes such as the ability to purchase guns without registration at trade shows.

Intuitively, these sorts of restrictions have always made sense to me, and I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment. I have no fear that they would be the stepping stone to a government eradication of gun ownership, as the NRA constantly warns (with quite a bit of paranoia, IMO.) But I also don't know if these measures would be effective in reducing the probability of mass shootings and other violent gun-related crimes. If they would be, I'm all for it. If not, then I really don't care to have more useless laws on the books. But I don't know if they'd be effective or not.

In regards to the ban on assault weapons, I agree with your statement that "I don't believe they violate the principle of the 2nd Amendment."

When the constitution was being written Jefferson et al. probably didn't imagine people hoarding AK-47s in their basements. A musket to fend off the British or a rogue neighbor, infringing on your tobacco farm is one thing. The ability to take out an entire mall or theater with just a few pulls of a trigger is another.

Right. However, I'm not for banning them unless someone can prove it would accomplish something. Is there evidence?

I'm not for banning them either. To be honest, if the sale of guns (all guns), went to a 100% black market type of economy (like marijuana) I probably would feel LESS safe. Do felons and criminals still get their hands on guns in under our current system? Absolutely. But I feel like it would be even EASIER if guns were outlawed, because everybody, (even well meaning citizens looking for home defense), would have to go through these back channels. At least the current system gives us SOME ability to identify those who attempt to acquire guns illegally.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

Sure. I don't think it would*.This dude didn't do this because he had four guns. He just bought those in the last four months. His apartment appears to have been rigged with explosives.

He did this because he's a raging psychopath. If he didn't have any access to guns whatsoever and they did not exist, he'd have used a bomb or started a fire without any way to escape the theater or etc., etc. The method would have simply changed.

*That is, unless, of course, he just loved the fantasy of blazing away with guns in a crowded theater. Then, it would reduce the probability, but that's based on the subjective motive of the killer. I'm operating under the assumption that he just wanted to kill a bunch of people.

See, I'm just not positive this is the case. As you say, we're dealing with a raging psychopath. It seems to me, (at least intuitively) that the more difficult we make the task for him, the less likely it is that he will actually do it (or the more likely that he will be apprehended in the task.) The problem with assault weapons is that they make it so incredibly easy for these nuts to do maximum damage.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

Simply, that is impossible. Even if you made it an instant death sentence to own a gun, people would own guns.

 

[Guest]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

My answer would be "No". This event, Columbine, and VT all took planning. They weren't "heat of the moment" type of situations. Just my opinion.

ETA: Plus any type of control put in place would not affect the weapons already out there. There were a lot of pre-ban assault rifles for sale legally the last time they put a restriction on them. They would not take away weapons people already have.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

He MIGHT do less damage. Absolutely no guarantee that it would make a difference. And we're still not treating the heart of the issue.

You're correct, there is no guarantee. Still, if I could be convinced that it could at least lower the odds, I'd be in favor of trying it out.