Mass Shooting at Dark Knight Rises Premier in Aurora Colorado (12 Dead, 59 Injured)

[alkemyst]

Calling me names and declaring the discussion over. Way to be an adult. Off your meds much?

personally it's all trolls or idiots mostly above.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Never let a tragedy go to waste... This thread is, in itself, a tragedy. Both sides using a horrific event like this to further their side's political agendas and talking points.

Just shameful.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I may not have the right country, I know somewhere over there they don't allow the public to own a gun.

That's where pussies need to go.

I apologize if I overstepped the bounds of civility in my comment toward you.

That being said, I have known many civil, responsible gun owners (I am one), many civil responsible people who didn't own or care for guns, and a few hardcore criminals who used guns to commit crimes. It has never been my experience that the people who dislike guns are more cowardly than those who love them. To the extent there is any correlation it has trended in the opposite direction - often those who are the biggest gun enthusiasts are those who are the most fearful. I certainly would not say that people who don't like guns are "pussies."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Explosives are harder to transport and setup than guns. Some are unstable, and so on. Furthermore, we do restrict purchases of everyday items that can be used for illegal purposes, like cough medicine/meth.

Also, on a psychological level, a psychopath like this guy will want guns for the experience of shooting people.

Assuming a competence equivalent to his education your first statement is false. Explosives are not that hard.

As to the second point blowing people up might be as satisfying as shooting. Unless you have a deep empathy with homicidal maniacs you have no basis for your claim.

 

[QueBert]

100 round mag on the AR-15, I can't find info but that can't possibly be legal out there? I know in Cali you can't have above a 10 round mag. I'm not for banning guns but if this 100 round mag was store bought I'm just dumbfounded.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

100 round mag on the AR-15, I can't find info but that can't possibly be legal out there? I know in Cali you can't have above a 10 round mag. I'm not for banning guns but if this 100 round mag was store bought I'm just dumbfounded.

I don't believe there is currently any federal limitation on magazine size, and if memory serves, California and Massachusetts are the only states that regulate this. The Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban prohibited magazines greater than 10 rounds in size, but even when the Ban was in effect, there was an active and legal trade in pre-ban high-capacity magazines (I spent a fair bit for pre-ban magazines for my Glock 17 in 2002 or so). High-capacity magazines are obviously (as in this incident) good for mass murder, but also (as in my case) helpful at the range, because they allow more shooting between reloading.

 

[Sunburn74]

Chicago had a strict gun ban for 28 years. There were still tons of shootings and murders.
Chicago also has had a no questions asked gun turn in events on at least a yearly basis for some time too. You even get a gift card for turning in a gun.
There are 25 to 50 shootings every weekend in Chicago.
Hint: the bad guys still get their guns in other places than gun stores, and they are not giving them up for a gift card

Again, I don't think you can really point to chicago or DC as good examples. As cities they were already at the extremes of gun violence (thus the ban) and likely had social issues that had taken root long before the ban had taken place that would have made it impossible ot work. Its like testing a drug on patients that are too far gone. You won't glean any actual information looking at the extremes and at things in their end stage. You have to look at stuff in the middle to glean discernible differences.


Anyway if you can't ban guns, can't you limit bullets? Can you say the most number of bullets a person can own is like 4? How many bullets does aperson need for self defense?

 

[tcG]

Banning dangerous objects is not a legitimate function of government. It's fundamentally against freedom and is the prerogative of totalitarian governments who decide overarching policy for their society from the top down.

 

[davmat787]

I don't believe there is currently any federal limitation on magazine size, and if memory serves, California and Massachusetts are the only states that regulate this. The Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban prohibited magazines greater than 10 rounds in size, but even when the Ban was in effect, there was an active and legal trade in pre-ban high-capacity magazines (I spent a fair bit for pre-ban magazines for my Glock 17 in 2002 or so). High-capacity magazines are obviously (as in this incident) good for mass murder, but also (as in my case) helpful at the range, because they allow more shooting between reloading.

This is my understanding as well, IRT magazine sizes.

I will say this, everyone, myself included, seems to be arguing from the extremes. On one hand, we have a side that wants to completely ban guns. The other side does not appear to be open to any sort of changes to buying process or limitations to ownership.

I think we can all agree that these type of tragedies are horrible, and if something can be done to prevent them, then we need to look into it. The gun rights side is worried any changes will infringe on their rights to legally own firearms, and the gun control side tends to view any gun owner as a fetishist or terrorist in waiting.

Seems like the first step is for all of us to try and reach some middle ground, and quit arguing from extremes.

For the gun controllers, that means forgetting about completely banning guns, that kind of crazy talk will get you nowhere, except maybe on the field of some civil war. I kid but maybe that is not so far a stretch if you want to seriously round up all the guns in the US. For the gun rightists, maybe we need to be realistic about gun ownership in the 21st century, and realize that not every attempt at some gun legislation is an attempt to grab our guns.

 

[Skitzer]

Guns, however, are mainly a fetish device for gun nuts. In this modern age no one really needs a gun, while most people need cars. We have police, home security systems, non-lethal defense systems, etc etc. There is zero need for legal guns outside of a fetish.

I live in Maine and hunt animals. Why would you want to take my rifle away from me?

 

[actuarial]

Again, I don't think you can really point to chicago or DC as good examples. As cities they were already at the extremes of gun violence (thus the ban) and likely had social issues that had taken root long before the ban had taken place that would have made it impossible ot work. Its like testing a drug on patients that are too far gone. You won't glean any actual information looking at the extremes and at things in their end stage. You have to look at stuff in the middle to glean discernible differences.


Anyway if you can't ban guns, can't you limit bullets? Can you say the most number of bullets a person can own is like 4? How many bullets does aperson need for self defense?

The other problem is that banning guns in a city, when you can drive a half hour away and buy one legally, is not going to be an effective form of gun control. Hell, even in Canada it's a problem that guns are so easy to get in the US and that's a different country.

 

[alzan]

I see no reason why anyone in the United States has need for your opinion.

Free speech in this country is pathetic, and needs to be addressed.

Pathetic?

Look in the mirror much?

 

[alzan]

I will be interested to learn more about the shooter and whether he is merely anti-social/destructive crazy (a la the Columbine shooters) or floridly psychotic crazy (like Jared Lee Loughner). It's possible given his age that he had been a smart and high-functioning young man who became schizophrenic or developed another serious mental illness. I find it very interesting that his mother was so certain he was the shooter even though she didn't learn of the event until a reporter told her about it.

I am grateful (if surprised) that he told the police about the booby traps in his apartment. I don't know that they would have been as careful about entering if he had not, and there could have been an even far greater loss of life.

The victims and their families belong in our prayers and thoughts. This is just an awful tragedy in all aspects.

My wife mentioned that aspect over dinner; she's a PO and she deals specifically with mental disorder and dual-diagnosis (substance abuse and mental disorder) clients, plus her twin sister has schizo-affective disorder. I mentioned that the young man had been attending the university for his doctorate in neuroscience and she responded that many schizophrenics are highly and sometimes genius-level individuals.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is my understanding as well, IRT magazine sizes.

I will say this, everyone, myself included, seems to be arguing from the extremes. On one hand, we have a side that wants to completely ban guns. The other side does not appear to be open to any sort of changes to buying process or limitations to ownership.

I think we can all agree that these type of tragedies are horrible, and if something can be done to prevent them, then we need to look into it. The gun rights side is worried any changes will infringe on their rights to legally own firearms, and the gun control side tends to view any gun owner as a fetishist or terrorist in waiting.

Seems like the first step is for all of us to try and reach some middle ground, and quit arguing from extremes.

For the gun controllers, that means forgetting about completely banning guns, that kind of crazy talk will get you nowhere, except maybe on the field of some civil war. I kid but maybe that is not so far a stretch if you want to seriously round up all the guns in the US. For the gun rightists, maybe we need to be realistic about gun ownership in the 21st century, and realize that not every attempt at some gun legislation is an attempt to grab our guns.

It's hard to disagree with any of this, at least for me. Even if it were constitutional to ban guns, I wouldn't support it. IMO there are sound reasons behind the Second Amendment, and realistically we are a country with many millions of guns on the street. I would never support draconian measures to round them up even if that were the law, and in practice it would be impossible to keep them out of the hands of criminals. I've always found it very difficult to challenge the core logic behind the old NRA slogan (which I am paraphrasing), "If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns." That being said, I also think that a significant part of the reason we have so much gun crime is that, well, we have so many guns, and in an ideal world I'd rather there were fewer. Kind of like abortion: I think it should be legal but I wish it weren't so popular.

The NRA and other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups have done a great job of achieving their objectives, and I understand why they feel they need to be so zealous. That being said, they are playing on the fear and paranoia of gun owners, and I don't agree at all that some reasonable regulations on gun traffic (like mandatory registration, or eliminating the gun show exemption) are unwise or threatening to anyone's reasonable civil rights.

 

[Joseph F]

Lol. Someone has issues... If this person gets convicted, shoot the fucker in the back of the head, like my country does for executions.

Something I always admired about East-Slavic states.

 

[sportage]

I think the issue is with assault weapons.
Not your basic riffle or pistol.
I'd never support banning everyday guns.
But when is it necessary to own the same weapons used by the military in war?
That is just insane.
Assault weapons are only used to kill people in large quanties.
I think that is why the word assault is used.
You hunt a bunny rabbit. You assault a human.

 

[BladeVenom]

The popularity of guns, and concealed carry have been going up, while murder rates have been going down.

 

[micrometers]

The popularity of guns, and concealed carry have been going up, while murder rates have been going down.

Relatively speaking. Crime was extraordinarily high in the 60's and 70's and 80's.

America's rate of death is higher than say France or Germany because of easy access to guns.

A ban on guns wouldn't be accomplished by forcibly taking away guns, much like EPA regulations existing guns would be grandfathered in and the manufacture of new guns would be banned.

Over time the supply would decrease, and the price of the price of the remaining stock would go.

I don't think anyone has an issue with civil war era rifles, but rather military style AR15's.

Heck, you could conceivably have gun ranges stocked with a variety of weapons, where enthusiasts could enjoy their hobby in the company of others, just the ownership of such objects wouldn't be allowed.

 

[micrometers]

I live in Maine and hunt animals. Why would you want to take my rifle away from me?

Why do you need an AR15?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think the issue is with assault weapons.
Not your basic riffle or pistol.
I'd never support banning everyday guns.
But when is it necessary to own the same weapons used by the military in war?
That is just insane.
Assault weapons are only used to kill people in large quanties.
I think that is why the word assault is used.
You hunt a bunny rabbit. You assault a human.

The thing is, the actual incidence of crimes committed with "assault weapons" (I am using quotation marks not to be snarky but because that term is, IMO, more a political than a practical one) is very low. The overwhelming majority of ordinary gun crimes (murder, robbery, rape, etc.) are committed with handguns, and the same is true of many mass shootings (e.g., Virginia Tech). That being said, you are certainly right that high-capacity military-style rifles are highly effective killing machines, which is why they are used by the military.

My view is that there probably isn't any particularly important reason, as a matter of policy, to make these weapons illegal (since they are not used in many crimes), and other things being equal I lean in favor of freedoms rather than restrictions. These weapons are fun to shoot, very handy as all-around ranch weapons in rural areas, and in some environments are great for self-defense. There is also a cogent argument that the Second Amendment doesn't permit the arbitrary prohibition of weapons just because they look scary. The founding fathers most definitely didn't give Americans the right to bear arms just so they could hunt and target shoot.

 

[micrometers]

Never let a tragedy go to waste... This thread is, in itself, a tragedy. Both sides using a horrific event like this to further their side's political agendas and talking points.

Just shameful.

Both sides? What concrete measures would you take to prevent this from happening again? That's what it's all about. A logical discussion on how the rules of society should be changed. If you weigh the interests of the groups, I don't see a good reason to allow the sale of weapons like this guy used. Because there will always be crazy people, you need a way to keep them from inflicting harm on others. A ban on the manufacture and distribution of new guns would work wonders in that regard.

 

[micrometers]

Frankly, who cares about what the Founding Fathers thought? We live in a democracy in the 21st century. We can rule ourselves and make our own decisions.

Fun vs potential for mass murder. I think fun has to lose here, on the balance of things.

 

[tcG]

Why do you need an AR15?

If I'm a law abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong, then I shouldn't have to justify my gun ownership to you. It doesn't matter why I need it.

America's rate of death is higher than say France or Germany because of easy access to guns.

We may have a higher crime rate (or "death rate," as you call it... perhaps you mean homicide rate), but how do you now it's because of our relatively easy access to guns?

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

America's rate of death is higher than say France or Germany because of easy access to guns.

..........

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The popularity of guns, and concealed carry have been going up, while murder rates have been going down.

If there are statistics on the "popularity of guns" (as distinguished from gun sales, which are not necessarily correlated with popularity in that the increment in sales may be largely to existing gun owners), I haven't seen them. Do you have a source for this?

It is true that violent crimes have been on a fairly steady decline since about 1992, but that trend began years before "shall issue" CCW laws became popular. Freakanomics makes an interesting argument that it may actually be the result of Roe v. Wade, in that a disproportionally high percentage of the fetuses being aborted after that decision made abortion legal nationwide were people likely to grow up to be criminals (a trend which has likely continued since Roe in 1973). As far as I know there is no research that shows any statistically demonstrable reduction in crime that can be causally tied to the implementation of laws like this.