Discussing The Colorodo Shooting & Gun Laws

[Abrasky]

I would like to point out, it is in the report of what happened that the 24 year old man that he had other options available for mass killing that he deployed that were not guns. He rigged his apartments with explosives. If he didn't have guns, what would stop him using these explosives that he rigged to his house. People are a bit naive to think that he murdered just because he had a few guns. He had explosives too.

 

[Girl3]

The Colorado guy is mentally ill. He could have set the theater on fire and killed as many people or more. He could have made a bomb ala Timothy McVeigh and killed everyone in the theater. He could have gotten an airplane and flew it into the theater - anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people can.

Having watched the simulation, if one armed person with a good shot had taken a bead on James Holmes head or groin, maybe no one would have died. There was time and opportunity for someone with decent skills.

Last year 6000 people in the US died while texting and driving. Perhaps we should remove cars and cell phones. That will save 6000.

I own guns and always have. I grew up in a state where gun ownership is very high, but I've never known anyone who went bat-sh*t crazy and shot a bunch of innocent people.

 

[Girl3]

Oh and drug overdose deaths have now exceeded motor vehicle crashes as the number one cause of death amongst people between the ages of 12 and 45. In 2008, 36,000 drug overdose deaths were recorded in the US - those are just the ones that were reported to the CDC.

We are more at risk from ourselves than we are from someone wielding a gun.

 

[Nicolette]

Okay, for those who have guns (for other than hunting) - when or where would you use a gun? Do you think that in a position of defending yourself (adrenaline etc) you have the skills to make a good judgement call and would be confidently be able to shoot to protect by injuring the other person and not kill?

And lets be honest here... if you want to be technical, isn't PTSD a mental illness?

 

[anthony]

People continue to lose sight of the larger picture... being: guns kill people without a choice.

Someone taking their own life, self issue... it wasn't inflicted upon them. Cars kill other people, and many countries have more and more stringent laws being put in place to slow vehicles down and lower motor vehicle accidents and deaths. Those doing so, are seeing a clear reduction.

As mentioned above, people seem to fly one way or the other, instead of looking at the entire picture outside of just their own knowns. What are others doing in the world that is working? What have others tried that failed? And why did it fail? The list goes on and on.

 

[Nicolette]

We are more at risk from ourselves than we are from someone wielding a gun.

I don't think a person choosing to take their own life is comparable or a relevant statistic to the discussion of guns and killing innocent others.

 

[jimmy-joe]

Okay, for those who have guns (for other than hunting) - when or where would you use a gun? Do you think that in a position of defending yourself (adrenaline etc) you have the skills to make a good judgement call and would be confidently be able to shoot to protect by injuring the other person and not kill?

A) if someone breaks into your home, and yes easily, you shoot them in the legs, unless you shoot on the inside of the thigh, you're likely to miss vitals, or even just shooting NEAR them could scare them away.

B) for fun at the range, in a safe and controlled manner, it's fun shooting things (not people)


Also, I'm willing to bet you'd feel a lot more in control if you have a weapon(or training) in front of you rather than someone coming at you and you have no real defense lol. Adrenaline can be used extremely well if you know what to do, and with enough practice, you can get the actions down to automatic graceful movement lol.

And in terms of lethality, there's nothing more lethal than the human mind.

Also seems like reported crime rate wouldn't be the best measurement of success, just look at how many of the victims here have their crimes go unreported. Not to mention if nobody knows you've been killed... Who's going to report it?

 

[Nicolette]

So B) sounds fine to me Jimmy-joe - I don't have a problem with shooting ranges and blanks... still don't get why you need to have the gun the rest of the time.

 

[jimmy-joe]

still don't get why you need to have the gun the rest of the time.

Break-ins. Armed robbery, you have to get a permit and take a class to carry a concealed weapon, which means you get registered, aka way easier to track(if you use it in a crime).

Otherwise I'd imagine most people would keep them in their homes, or maybe a pistol in case of a carjacker, in their car.

Most people don't carry rifles around... and a lot of people have safes for them, or lock them away.

Guns don't have minds of their own, if someone wants to use a gun on you, they can get it, whether it's illegal or not. Probably a big reason there's less gun crime in places with stricter laws/bans is because there's much less risk of the victim carrying a gun, so why bring a gun when a knife or a bat or baton or pipe will work? Then you can get what you want and you don't get charged with murder if you get caught.

Don't view this from a normal-peaceloving law-abiding citizen's viewpoint if you want to deal with the crime. Think about the crime equation... Desire + Opportunity...

Someone who wants a single firearm for defense isn't going to need more than like a spare clip for insanely outrageous situations, if even that, they probably won't go more than a shot or two if they EVER discharge their weapon at someone.

Someone who wants to abuse/rob/kill/rape is going to get their hands on whatever tool is necessary to achieve this with their desired target.

It's that simple.

But when you ban ALL guns from everyone, you're taking away another line of defense for them, while doing nothing to the criminals. So in effect you're helping criminals at that point.

 

[Loner]

I guess what bothers me the most is all the hype about one person's crime when we live in a world where mass murders have been commiteed by institutions and governments. Where is the outrage then? I'm much more upset about Fast and Furious, Yemen, what's taking place in Syria, and what has taken place in other nations globally (with legally obtained weaponry I might add) than I am about one mass murder who has been captured and is going to be prosecuted. Governments typically haven't been charged or procecuted for mass murder are they?

Occasional random nut jobs don't scare me nearly as much as when lawfully obtained weapons are trained on their own people by their own governments. Guess that's a secondary point.

This is the real reason the American Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms. I am sure this will get me labelled as a nutcase by most of you, but the right to bear arms is about the people being properly armed so as to redress their grievances with government if given no other alternatives. Yes, this seems incredibly naive and obsolete in a country that keeps voting for the same two choices of who they are told to vote for, but thats the reality.

Its also very easy to think such an idea is archaic and unnecessary in today's civilized world but the truth is the world really isnt that civilized, even if you ignore the actions of lone crazy people, the government is not necessarily your friend. We have a great system of checks and balances, but history repeats itself. Every stable country turns to chaos tyranny or at least entropy (which brings a certain amount of limited anarchy as the state can no longer provide the necessary number of public services like in post soviet russia) eventually. This is fact. I doubt it will be in my lifetime, but those are the facts. I'm sure most of you are thinking of me as some crazy right wing conspiracy theorist at this point but I'm not, I'm just a student of history, I'm actually fairly liberal in most of my political beleifes. I think people just have a tendency to look at the present as being somehow disconnected from history. WWII really wasnt that long ago, and the world is not a fundamentally different place. I doubt we'll need guns to enact changes to government in my lifetime, but things change, someday we might. THAT is why americans are allowed to own guns without any justifications of self defense or sporting purposes. Yes it seems crazy and foreign but in america the people own this country and the government serves at our pleasure, we arent subjects like australians or brits.

 

[catjudo]

Imo if taking guns away from innocent people who use them for hunting

Again, this doesn't have to be a black or white discussion. Can we not agree that there would be benefits to some better regulations and oversight?

I find it extremely funny that events with ILLEGAL weapons (you need to have a special license/permit to own/sell auto, and LOL it's not that popular...), seem to ALWAYS spark up people saying to take ALL guns away.

I just want to point out that the event that is being discussed in this thread...the recent mass murder at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado...was carried out with LEGAL weapons. All of his guns, extended magazine, ammunition, etc were purchased legally.

I asked this previously in this same thread and the question seemed to be conveniently ignored. What possible reason is there for a person who only has legal and ethical intentions with their weapon to own an extended magazine that holds 100 rounds of ammunition on their assault rifle? I personally don't see the need for anyone to own an assault rifle. But surely we can agree that no one needs to be able to fire off 100 rounds without reloading??

How about longer waiting periods for guns? In Colorado where this event happened a person can legally purchase an assault rifle in less than an hour. Why is that necessary for anyone with legal intentions? What about some oversight regarding multiple weapons being purchased within a short time frame? A semi-automatic assault rifle, a shotgun, two handguns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition all legally purchased within a few months. Does it really infringe on your right to bear arms that much if such purchases were to at least trigger some sort of alert to law enforcement so they could be aware and/or follow-up on what the purchaser's intentions are. I mean seriously, if the government can track and limit my purchase of cold medication then why is it so outrageous to even consider something similar in regards to guns?

Or maybe you don't like those suggestions. But surely people can't be so arrogant as to think that our gun laws are absolutely perfect exactly as they are and couldn't possibly be improved upon.

 

[piratelady]

Our gun laws need to be changed. The people who load up on ammunition and attack a bunch of innocent people in a movie theater may be in the minority, but it does happens. Because it happens the laws need to be changed to account for this.

As Catjudo points out, our lawmakers can recognize the danger in drug addicts and dealers stocking up on cold meds to make meth; but control guns? Perish the thought! Part of the problem are the NRA lobbyists. They are very good at their job and I believe, largely because of them, our laws will not be changing in the near future. It is very unfortunate for America.

Jimmy-joe: I have to say, I disagree with the idea of owning a gun for defensive purposes. It is entirely too easy for the attacker to get the gun away from me in a physical confrontation. Or if you have it stored in your house, someone breaks in and takes your gun, and uses it to shoot you. Why increase their odds of having a weapon that can so easily be used to take a life - whether intentionally or not.

I do not see the harm in, at the very least, making is significantly more difficult to get a gun. Cripes, my ex "won" a gun at a dinner. They did no background check or anything, just handed it to him and off he went. What problem is there with taking the time to make sure they aren't an abuser, psychotic, a felon, or some other sort of criminal that should have no business owning a gun? And also making sure they have the knowledge to handle the gun safely, rather than just giving them a gun for fun? Seriously, is that asking too much?