PDA

View Full Version : How screwed are we?


Dantedamean
07-20-2012, 3:41 PM
The events of last night were tragic and horrific. That being said, that's not what this thread is about.
I want to see what everyone thinks the impact will be on gun control. I'm already hearing hints of it even on fox news. Saying "guns were purchased legally" and talking about both Obama and Romneys actions toward gun control. Someone posed on my Facebook that CNN had a big gun control segment due to this as well. I'll post the link in a bit.

erik_26
07-20-2012, 5:20 PM
Just remember, there were 84 million gun owners that didn't kill anyone last night.

Ubermcoupe
07-20-2012, 5:40 PM
Bloomberg (et al) is already tooting his more gun control propaganda.

My immediate concern is this may harm the carry fight, albeit it could also help the carry fight.

Regardless, this incident (and those like it) do one thing well and that is to increase emotional responses, many of which are swayed into supporting further restrictions on our right 2A civil liberties.

Dantedamean
07-20-2012, 5:45 PM
Here's the link.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/20/CNN-Explots-Batman-Tragedy

Kendall6.8
07-20-2012, 6:43 PM
Just remember, there were 84 million gun owners that didn't kill anyone last night.

Well said

CBruce
07-20-2012, 8:08 PM
The events of last night were tragic and horrific. That being said, that's not what this thread is about.
I want to see what everyone thinks the impact will be on gun control. I'm already hearing hints of it even on fox news. Saying "guns were purchased legally" and talking about both Obama and Romneys actions toward gun control. Someone posed on my Facebook that CNN had a big gun control segment due to this as well. I'll post the link in a bit.

Not much. We're too far from the elections to be meaningful unless the candidates want to abandon the economy and focus on gun-control to keep it propped up as an issue demanding attention.

Realistically, by the time November is here we'll have moved on to something else or moved back to the economy, health-care, etc and regardless of who's elected their stance on gun-control won't be much different than it was 2 days ago.

tbc
07-20-2012, 8:15 PM
In California, we are already screwed...


Sent from my iPhone

blockfort
07-20-2012, 8:22 PM
Just remember, there were 84 million gun owners that didn't kill anyone last night.

No, I'm pretty sure there's about 280 million guns in America, that's the number they were using on NPR today.

blockfort
07-20-2012, 8:24 PM
I could imagine some proposals against AR-15s and AKs getting support in the government and liberals.

JavaBrewer
07-20-2012, 8:27 PM
After seeing what the CBS spot on bullet buttons, or specifically the mag button, caused politically I am concerned. I am for background checks and limiting guns based on common sense approvals however I not ignorant to the fact that when it comes to firearm appreciation and hobby shooting I am/we are in the definite minority.

cruising7388
07-20-2012, 8:45 PM
Just remember, there were 84 million gun owners that didn't kill anyone last night.

That's going to fly about as well as Obama claiming that 52 million Americans didn't lose their jobs during the last four years.

joepamjohn
07-20-2012, 10:27 PM
I think you will see some heightened restrictions for sure in some of the "free states" as I so often hear that term on here, relating to high cap mags and also more restrictions on internet ammo purchases.

The rest of the country will soon have similar restrictions that we currently have in California and those "free states" will soon not be so free afterall.

What we have here is not as much of a gun and ammo issue as it is a complete breakdown of values in our society where human life has little to no value for many twisted individuals. Society will always insist blame needs to be placed on someone when an event like this happens and guns and related items are the easiest target.

In this case, along with the poor souls in the theather, society will also paint the shooter as a victim too rather than blame him for his actions as should be the case.

Agent 0range
07-20-2012, 10:28 PM
No, I'm pretty sure there's about 280 million guns in America, that's the number they were using on NPR today.

Yes, but those 280 million are owned by how many? 280 million guns divided by 84 million owners only equates to 3.33 guns per owner. I'm well over that already and I just started a little over a year ago.

Agent 0range
07-20-2012, 10:46 PM
With 84 million gun owners being about 27% of the US population, imagine a National "take a friend to the range day" where 25% of those first timers were converted to gun owners. That would put 33% of the US population as gun owners. What better way to spread awareness about our 2A rights?

drkphibr
07-20-2012, 11:03 PM
Just imagine how the movie theater events might have unfolded had ANY of the audience been armed/carrying (legally of course). The dead/wounded would probably have been significantly lower and there would be one less murderer that we'd have to support on death row for the next 25+ years.

Lawmakers stumble on this on every time. The bad guys don't follow the law, only the good citizens do because we're worried about the consequences. Regardless of what gun laws exist in any state, someone intent on doing great harm is not going to abide by them so they are irrivalent when it comes to the bad guys. Take away his guns and he'll go to plan B, C, D and all the way down the line.

Cars kill more people than guns do annually, no laws banning/limiting them. How many times have you read about someone plowing into a crowd and killing/injuring people either on purpose or by accident?

Innate objects by themselves don't kill people. People kill people and they will continue to find ways to do so, regardless of the method.

Look at the old guy who shot at 2 robbers with guns. Imagine how that would have gone down if he wasn't there and they were intent on hurting/killing someone.

The death and life changing damage this kid caused is truly devastating. Not trying to sidestep that. I don't, however, feel more gun control is the solution.

MrExel17
07-21-2012, 1:54 AM
In California, we are already screwed...


Sent from my iPhone

I was bought to say that!

negolien
07-21-2012, 2:14 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

send it_hit
07-21-2012, 2:50 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

:rolleyes: :lurk5:

roushstage2
07-21-2012, 3:01 AM
:rolleyes: :lurk5:

+1 :lurk5:

mosinnagantm9130
07-21-2012, 3:08 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

You can't be serious. There's plenty of people who go through 2,000 rounds of .22 alone a month, and that's not even getting into other calibers...

b18bturboek9
07-21-2012, 4:45 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..


If he had 10 10round mags or 100 round mag/drum you act like having hi-caps is the issue, tho people like this make the rest of us suffer. I really wanna know what does buying 6k in ammo have to do with it, I purchase cases all the time 1k-3k and 22lr shiet sometimes 5-10k depending on if there are any deals. Sometimes its best to buy in bulk because of shortages and getting a good deal/group buys since ammo prices are only going up. So since I don't compete in anything I should be restricted from buying large amounts of ammo, even tho I enjoy shooting and do it often. Was he carrying 6k rounds on him? No, and as for body armor why should we not be able to protect our self whether it be upper body or lower body armor. You say Loopholes should be closed to?? Theres a bunch in your claims, and sometimes loopholes let u hold onto your guns, kinda like how bullet buttons became a loophole or single shot exempt. I read this thinking wow you've given up or dont care what laws are put on you as long as you can own a gun. And with thoughts like that they will eventually take that from you. My 2 cents...

Kyle1886
07-21-2012, 5:37 AM
I heard one of the talking heads on TV stating that "internet purchase" of ammo should be "seriously" looked into or "banned". So I can possibly see a revived interest in on-line purchases by some of our legislators. This was in reference to the shooter's purchase of ammo off the Internet.

Respectfully
Kyle

NOTABIKER
07-21-2012, 6:57 AM
kiss your tactical rifle good by. the lefties will use this sad day as a rallying cry for more gun control. and stupid people will go along with it. maybe we should ban PHD students. they think too much. [ he was one]

MaHoTex
07-21-2012, 7:07 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

6K rounds is nothing. I exceed 2K in a 1/2 day at the range.

Travis590A1
07-21-2012, 7:17 AM
Online or via store, the ammo in CO is easily available. Just be ready to defend your 2A rights like never before.

Bobby Hated
07-21-2012, 7:27 AM
wait let me get holly mitchell's d*** out of my a** and i'll tell you how screwed we are. ha ha

Bobby Hated
07-21-2012, 7:29 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

EPIC FAIL!!!

what kind of calgunner are you guy? GTFO!!!!!!!

bigdawg86
07-21-2012, 10:00 AM
The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

So the guy here on CG that just bought 40,000 rounds of 5.56 will probably be getting a knock on his door anytime now...

Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.
I have a interceptor ballistic vest with the chest/back plates... but I agree that maybe it shouldn't be something you could pick up at Walmart lol


:chris:

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
07-21-2012, 12:37 PM
Just remember, there were 84 million gun owners that didn't kill anyone last night.

Exactly! Thanks erik.

And to the anti-gun lurkers who I'm sure read this forum. 400,000+ Americans are killed every year from tobacco plus thousands upon thousands more are killed from alcohol and a myriad of other 'legally' purchased products. So what are we suppose to do? Nurf the world?

"Freedom" isn't having a government outlawing things which frighten you. Freedom means free to live without government or others telling you what you can and cannot do when you're not harming anyone or their property. Unjustifiable homicide and assault with a deadly weapon are crimes. Owning and responsibly using firearms is not a crime. If you have a problem with that, then, you have a problem with the concept of freedom and perhaps you're not cut out to be an American. No sarcasm. I'm just saying maybe you'd be happier if you moved to a different country. Just leave our country alone with your freedom hating.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-21-2012, 12:56 PM
Exactly! Thanks erik.

And to the anti-gun lurkers who I'm sure read this forum. 400,000+ Americans are killed every year from tobacco plus thousands upon thousands more are killed from alcohol and a myriad of other 'legally' purchased products. So what are we suppose to do? Nurf the world?

"Freedom" isn't having a government outlawing things which frighten you. Freedom means free to live without government or others telling you what you can and cannot do when you're not harming anyone or their property. Unjustifiable homicide and assault with a deadly weapon are crimes. Owning and responsibly using firearms is not a crime. If you have a problem with that, then, you have a problem with the concept of freedom and perhaps you're not cut out to be an American. No sarcasm. I'm just saying maybe you'd be happier if you moved to a different country. Just leave our country alone with your freedom hating.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000
Is that enough zeros?

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
07-21-2012, 1:22 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..



Neither is it necessary to own a fast car as opposed to a little economy car. Neither is it necessary to own a mansion or multiple homes. Neither is it necessary to hunt when we have restaurants and grocery stores everywhere. We can keep going on and on but I think the point is made. Having a 100 round magazine isn't relevant in a free country. Acting responsibly or criminally is however.





kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.



Sorry, but again this is irrelevant. In a free society we don't outlaw non criminal activity because it MIGHT be used criminally. Besides prohibition never works. The war against drugs, the previous war against alcohol and the many other examples show this to be a fact. All prohibition does is provide a black market opportunity. If you can't even stop drugs from getting into 'prisons' how are you going to stop someone who wishes to buy more ammo than what's allowed? All you're going to manage to do is stop the responsible law abiding gun owner from stocking up on ammo.

God himself failed at prohibition and he only had two people (Adam & Eve) to watch. Successful prohibition is impossible and contrary to a free society.





kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited.....



I completely disagree again on the basis of this being contrary to a free society. In a free society it is nobody's business if someone wishes to own body armor. Its irrelevant unless it is used criminally. Also I reiterate the point I made above about prohibition.

Common sense is subjective. One person's idea of common sense may be another responsible and law abiding person's restriction against his/her freedom.


Peace,

foxtrotuniformlima
07-21-2012, 1:27 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..


Negolien,

I understand where you are coming from and if we could trust those that are elected to use a little common sense, I guess your ideas are within the frame of reason.

But time and time again the elected representatives have shown that they do not know how to do that. They only know how to live at the extremes.

My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. I cannot imagine nor do I ever want to know what it is like to have a loved one murdered but I do not believe that restrictions of any kind that would have prevented this. They would have just changed the method this murderer took to take all these lives.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
07-21-2012, 1:27 PM
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000
Is that enough zeros?


http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/beer.gif

http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/byebye.gif

mexicancolt1
07-21-2012, 1:30 PM
James Holmes named himself incorrectly. True name "A Joke" not Joker. Should have saved a .40 caliber bullet for himself.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-21-2012, 2:12 PM
Sorry, but again this is irrelevant. In a free society we don't outlaw non criminal activity because it MIGHT be used criminally. Besides prohibition never works. The war against drugs, the previous war against alcohol and the many other examples show this to be a fact. All prohibition does is provide a black market opportunity. If you can't even stop drugs from getting into 'prisons' how are you going to stop someone who wishes to buy more ammo than what's allowed? All you're going to manage to do is stop the responsible law abiding gun owner from stocking up on ammo.

Meth is illegal. It is illegal to buy large quantities of pseudoephedrine but that doesn't stop people from buying boxes and boxes of Sudafed. Sometimes a group of 5-6 people will buy a few boxes each from a few different stores in their area to get enough ingredients. It also doesn't stop people from buying boxes and boxes of matches and scratching off the red part that contains red phosphorus, also used to make meth.

The relevance is if you try to limit how much ammo people can buy, if someone really wants to do something like this they will find a way.

BTW, where do you live Hippie? I want to buy you a beer, you're on top of **** today.
BTW x2, I am agreeing with Hippie on this one, just adding to his statement.

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
07-21-2012, 2:44 PM
Meth is illegal. It is illegal to buy large quantities of pseudoephedrine but that doesn't stop people from buying boxes and boxes of Sudafed. Sometimes a group of 5-6 people will buy a few boxes each from a few different stores in their area to get enough ingredients. It also doesn't stop people from buying boxes and boxes of matches and scratching off the red part that contains red phosphorus, also used to make meth.

The relevance is if you try to limit how much ammo people can buy, if someone really wants to do something like this they will find a way.

BTW, where do you live Hippie? I want to buy you a beer, you're on top of **** today.
BTW x2, I am agreeing with Hippie on this one, just adding to his statement.



Thanks AfghanVetOrcutt and I agree with the points you're making. As for where I live. I live in San Pedro the new home of the battleship USS Iowa. :)

voiceofreason
07-21-2012, 3:24 PM
Thank the NRA and the people that support the NRA for suppressing the efforts that will inevitably arise to increase gun control.

FourLoko
07-21-2012, 3:32 PM
My fear has already been mentioned in this thread. If I can order ammo online then I might as well sell my rifles.

Local prices SUCK.

mexicancolt1
07-21-2012, 4:09 PM
I believe California will begin strong measures to eliminate large cap magazines of all types. I understand the law regarding magazines those capacity is more the 10 rounds. We have found a loop hole in the law and now sell Large Cap REBUILT magazines that are disasembled. Politicians will begin there since the Colorado issue involved an AR type assult rifle with a 100 round magazine

GW
07-21-2012, 4:17 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons.. Are you serious

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear. Again? Are you serious? A certificate to buy ammo because someone bough a random number that you think is too much?

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not. Why not?

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..
Take your 2 cents and toss them in the trash like you've done with your testicles.
I do not know whether you are simply trolling (If yes, Well done!) or a coward who wants to lower everyone else to your level. The reason law-abiding people are using 10-round magazines is because they are forced to by laws made by ninnies who are are too cowardly to address the real issues and/or by political whores who cash in on tragedies like this one to make a name for themselves all the while knowing their laws will not stop one criminal. Why should anyone have to give up their rights because of the act of a single madman?
Do you know there are laws against murdering people?
How well did those laws stop this guy? But no, you would rather take away the rights of people who have done nothing wrong and if you succeed you will have only made it easier for bad people to do evil.

Go away!

rojocorsa
07-21-2012, 4:29 PM
My fear has already been mentioned in this thread. If I can order ammo online then I might as well sell my rifles.

Local prices SUCK.

This.

guitar-nut
07-21-2012, 4:30 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

Wow... just wow. You're definitely on the wrong forum pal. Better log off so you can watch some more CNN and go to an Obama fundraiser, maybe kiss a picture of Hillary Clinton while yearning for the "good old days" of the first "Assault Weapon" Ban.

L84CABO
07-21-2012, 4:37 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

Well it's clear that you slept through your high school History and Civics classes because you Sir have absolutely no earthly idea what the Second Amendment is all about.

It is not about your right to duck hunt or target shoot. It's about your right to defend your freedom, whether threats to that freedom come from an oppressive foreign king or, god forbid, your own government.

And in a situation where you might actually have to defend your freedom (war), you might need every round you have stored, every round you can manage to carry in a 100 rd drum, and all the body armour you can wear.

Hopefully that clears up the meaning of, "shall not be infringed," for you.

FalconLair
07-21-2012, 5:12 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..prolly not the best of ideas, seems like you're trying to mediate instead of understand the real problem...the magazine he had was irrelevant, the guy was intent on killing people and he would have done it with a 10,20,50 or 100 round magazine, whatever was at his disposal and having 6k in ammo is not that much, even for guys who dont compete. When I go with my son and a few of his friends to the range we may blow through nearly 2k ourselves in a hour and a half...when you have multiple people loading up and firing from 2 lanes you can use quite a bit in a short period of time, besides, buying in bulk is pretty much the best way to do it now, if you're not reloading yourself...even a certificate would be meaningless, what do you do the first time a guy who has one snaps himself and goes on a rampage? "Oh but he had a certificate for all that stuff" :rolleyes:

Are far as the body armour goes, that was meaningless too, mainly because there was no one there in the theatre who had an opportunity to shoot back at him, because it was a gun free zone...he could have went in there naked and gotten the same results...would your next step be the banning of gas mask too? The main point is this, the laws are already in place, what he did was already illegal, what more can really be done to emphasize on that? One day we all see a nice POSITIVE story about a guy who is carrying that botched an attempted hold up, showing a good example of how citizens that are armed can be of a great service to their communities and it all goes down the toilet 2 days later because of one unstable mind...its almost like 1 step forward and 2 steps back

Riksk
07-21-2012, 5:24 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

THIS......



has convinced me to go buy another lower ASAP, as well as double my stock of ammo. On top of that I think I'll stock up on rebuild kits. Some people... :confused:

kengotit
07-21-2012, 6:05 PM
Need to buy a few lower ASAP!

thrasherfox
07-21-2012, 6:11 PM
Bottom line, no one knows when someone is going to nut up and decide to hurt one or more people.

However there is one fact remains. the majority of people are good. if half the threater was armed this guy proabably would have been taken out before he was able to do much harm.

An umarmed society are lambs just waiting for someone to nut up and slaughter.

An armed society is typically a polite society and it allows ordinary citizens to eliminate a thread before the police have the chance to arive. police are not magicians, they cant be everywhere at once.


Arm everyone and you will see crime rates drop. disarm everyone and you will see crime rates skyrocket.

voiceofreason
07-21-2012, 6:36 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..


1. Why does anyone REALLY need a gun? ban 'em all! make ALL guns special ownership like full auto weapons. No one REALLY needs a gun. 100rd mag, 10rd mag, anything more than a single shot bolt action?

2. So if you don't compete, you shouldn't be able to buy more than 2,000 rounds a month? Who is this "average bear"? YOU?
I buy my ammo by the case, and go through 600-800 rounds in a single 9 hour day at the range sometimes. Many firearms classes have very high round counts that equal about 1200 or more rounds over 2 days which includes instruction time.

Just because it doesn't fit YOUR criteria for what YOU do, doesn't mean that is the "norm".

3. Why not? Armor is a passive piece of equipment. I've never heard of body armor alone killing another person while the user was wearing it.

As a law abiding citizen, I CHOOSE to wear armor anytime I'm at a range, on a line, instructing, or taking a course. It's just another piece of safety gear like eye or ear protection. If the guy next to me chooses to wear ballistic leg protection, that's his choice if he's not a felon. I'm good with a basic Level II or higher covering the torso.

Why should a passive piece of safety equipment be made unavailable to citizens because you don't wear it or feel no one else should have access to it?

4. "Common Sense" gun control

"only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited"
HOW?
When everything is banned, Brady people can't say "we told you so?"

Why bother fighting for our country? Just let Iran nuke us to prove they would have.

Why should competitors be in a higher class than anyone else? Given how fast a mag change happens, it doesn't matter whether there are 5 or 30 in the magazine, if they want to kill lots of people, they will.



Going off of your logic, let's just ban all cars and swimming pools and require a special certificate in order to have/use them.

That's save lives!

It's just "common sense" to ban such things, as they are responsible for so many deaths.


You can't compromise with someone when their ultimate goal is the total ban of something. They'll just keep asking you to meet in the middle until you're all the way over to where they want you to be.

When you're elderly, alone, disabled, or otherwise unable to defend yourself from young, strong men alone or in a group, you may feel differently about "common sense".

They have "common sense" gun control in Chicago, NY, and D.C.

Seems like they have some serious gun violence issues. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that only the criminals are armed in these large unofficial gun free safe zones.

slick44
07-21-2012, 7:02 PM
As horrible and unfortunate as this shooting was it could've just as well have happened anywhere including in our own law ridden state of California. We all know the Hi-Cap ban is easily worked around and even with a BB equipped rifle a 45 second switch of parts or a finger tool makes dropping mags an immediate solution. Body armor whether it be leggins or a ballistic helmet also had no contribution to this disaster nor did the large purchase of internet ammo, as it has already been stated he wasn't carrying 6K rounds of ammo and could've just as well acquired 6K rounds with smaller purchases over a slightly longer amount of time. Limiting or restricting United States citizens from purchasing body armor, large quantities of internet ammo or creating more laws banning large cap mags in more states is not a solution, if anything this reaction only fuels the opinions for anti gun laws, hell I reload 3K rounds a month or more myself so where would it stop? Where would the line be drawn? Most all people feel that something ought to be done to try to prevent horrific disasters such as this, unfortunately the fact is evil has always been in our world and bad things have been happening to good people since the beginning of time. This guy was obviously messed up in the head and it probably wouldn't have mattered what laws were or were not in effect, he was out to hurt innocent people whether it be with a firearm or homemade pipe bombs he could've tossed in instead of a smoke grenade. I pray we can effectively prepare to defend our 2nd amendment rights against the obvious upcoming onslaught of anti gun activists and the raw emotions that will be fueling them. Its a sad thing what happened, but in reality I doubt any law of any kind could have actually prevented it from happening, he was out to hurt as many innocent people as he could anyway he could.

My prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims.

Det
07-21-2012, 8:38 PM
Bottom line, no one knows when someone is going to nut up and decide to hurt one or more people.
Yes, but the question is, how quickly and how many people does that someone have the power to kill.

However there is one fact remains. the majority of people are good. if half the threater was armed this guy proabably would have been taken out before he was able to do much harm.
The second sentence is true. However, the third sentence is a silly argument. The "more guns, less crime" myth is highly contested at the least, debunked at best.

An umarmed society are lambs just waiting for someone to nut up and slaughter.
That is true in a society where criminals have easy access to weapons. The real lambs are people who think a gun gives you "freedom"

An armed society is typically a polite society and it allows ordinary citizens to eliminate a thread before the police have the chance to arive. police are not magicians, they cant be everywhere at once.
An armed society is a polite one? Not sure where you're getting that from.

Arm everyone and you will see crime rates drop. disarm everyone and you will see crime rates skyrocket.
This is completely erroneous.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US. And keep in mind, not even the bobbies have guns.
This is undisputed by intelligent people.
[/QUOTE]

m03
07-21-2012, 8:53 PM
The second sentence is true. However, the third sentence is a silly argument. The "more guns, less crime" myth is highly contested at the least, debunked at best.

Cite?

This is completely erroneous.
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 48 times fewer than in the US. And keep in mind, not even the bobbies have guns.
This is undisputed by intelligent people.


Which would be a powerful argument if it were true, which it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

India, for instance, has some of the lowest gun ownership per capita in the world (they're at the bottom of the list, second only to Tunisia), yet has murder rates that are roughly comparable to the United States (India being only slightly lower when looking at the raw numbers). Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership rates, being 4th from the top, yet their murder rates are at the bottom of the list.

There are many other examples that took me less than 30 seconds to find. Murder is a complex subject, with many factors being involved. People don't kill each other just because they have access to weapons, otherwise we'd all be stabbing each other with our kitchen knifes and running over each other with our cars in much higher rates than we actually are. Guns have just made for easy scapegoats for those who are too lazy to do any real research into the issue.

EDIT: Fixed spelling mistake

Det
07-21-2012, 9:20 PM
Cite?



Which would be a powerful argument if it were true, which it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

India, for instance, has some of the lowest gun ownership per capita in the world (they're at the bottom of the list, second only to Tunisia), yet has murder rates that are roughly comparable to the United States (India being only slightly lower when looking at the raw numbers). Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership rates, being 4th from the top, yet they're murder rates are at the bottom of the list.

There are many other examples that took me less than 30 seconds to find. Murder is a complex subject, with many factors being involved. People don't kill each other just because they have access to weapons, otherwise we'd all be stabbing each other with our kitchen knifes and running over each other with our cars in much higher rates than we actually are. Guns have just made for easy scapegoats for those who are too lazy to do any real research into the issue.

Here's a few for more guns less crime.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/econojunk.doc

http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/blog/201102170004

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

Those two examples are valid, and there are always exceptions.
I agree it's a complex subject, and unfortunately, all we really have to debate about are statistics and biased "scientific" studies on both sides.

Secret
07-21-2012, 9:21 PM
Do you guys think body armor plates may be in danger aswell?

m03
07-21-2012, 9:46 PM
Here's a few for more guns less crime.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/econojunk.doc

http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/blog/201102170004

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

Appreciate the cite. I've never bought the whole "more guns, less crime" thing, since it's obvious there are other factors involved. This was covered a bit in the book Freakonomics as well. As also mentioned by Levitt/Dubner, that doesn't mean that availability causes more crime either (I'm butchering the quotes, but basically the statistics didn't support either side of that argument).

I personally err on the side of whatever provides the most freedom.

Those two examples are valid, and there are always exceptions.
I agree it's a complex subject, and unfortunately, all we really have to debate about are statistics and biased "scientific" studies on both sides.


Agreed.

Det
07-21-2012, 10:07 PM
Appreciate the cite. I've never bought the whole "more guns, less crime" thing, since it's obvious there are other factors involved. This was covered a bit in the book Freakonomics as well. As also mentioned by Levitt/Dubner, that doesn't mean that availability causes more crime either (I'm butchering the quotes, but basically the statistics didn't support either side of that argument).

I personally err on the side of whatever provides the most freedom.



Agreed.

I completely agree, I don't think anyone wants something taken away from them, that is leagally owned. Nor should they.

I do believe it is a unique problem to the USA. Like you mentioned with Switzerland and also with Canada, they have much higher gun ownership rates per capita than the US, they just don't shoot each other with them. If someone could answer why that is, I would be impressed.
It seems that every mass murder committed in another country is by crazy religious zelouts. More often than not, this country kills themselves indiscriminately, for no reason.

Agent 0range
07-21-2012, 10:21 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

:facepalm:

http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u516/J_Russell621/1342937241.jpg

:lurk5:

m03
07-21-2012, 10:55 PM
LOL @ what you did there, since I know you're not serious, but I'll address them for fun...


1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

The "100 rounds" capacity was speculation on the part of the press. The overhead photos of the AR laying on the ground seem to show a standard capacity magazine in the rifle, disproving this assertion. In addition, it's clear that he simply changed magazines or changed weapons as they ran out, so magazine capacity limits would not have affected the death toll at all. Given that he was sophisticated enough to manufacture his own bombs and tear gas, even if he had been limited to 10 round magazines, he could have easily constructed his own higher-capacity magazines in the months leading up to the shooting.

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

He planned the event for months according to the current evidence. If purchase amounts are limited, this will not affect future killers, as they'll just work with the system by purchasing small amounts of ammo on a daily basis so that it wont raise any alarms. In addition, he only shot a tiny fraction of the ammunition purchase, so it's doubtful that it would have made any difference if limits already existed.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at..

The body armor did not factor into the shooting at all, since he encountered no opposition. Besides that, again, you're dealing with a neuroscience student...I'm pretty sure he could have easily figured out how to obtain enough material necessary to construct his own body armor, and making your own steel plates and a basic plate carrier is so simple that anyone with a sewing machine could do it.


Clearly it's people of high intelligence and people who live in apartments that commit most of these mass shootings. I say we round them all up :rolleyes:

m03
07-22-2012, 12:44 AM
It seems that every mass murder committed in another country is by crazy religious zelouts. More often than not, this country kills themselves indiscriminately, for no reason.

Mass murders make up an almost insignificant part of the statistics though.

As for indiscriminate killing, I would have to disagree. People generally have a very good reason for putting all of their personal freedoms at risk. Reasons vary from state-to-state, and region-to-region. In urban areas, though I don't have statistics handy at the moment, I'd guess that a fair amount of the murders committed are drug-related (turf wars, rival gangs, dealers robbing each other, etc). For remote areas of the Southern United States, I'll reference a quote from the Malcolm Gladwell book Outliers:

The homicides in which the South seems to specialize are those in which someone is being killed by someone he (or often she) knows, for reasons both killer and victim understand. The statistics show that the Southerner who can avoid arguments and adultery is as safe as any other American, and probably safer.

There's also the fact that we "import the poor and undesirables from other countries" as I once heard someone so eloquently say. Basically, due to the stricter immigration standards and/or "better" geographic location that many other countries have (Switzerland or Canada, for instance) you don't see the same sort of issues in that you see here, so we have a problem that's unique to our country. Basically, to use cold-war terminology, we're a "first world" country that shares a giant, almost wide-open border with a huge "third world" country, and we have all the problems one would expect from such an arrangement.

That's not to say that I'm complaining about the immigration situation...I'm not. Just stating it as a matter of fact.

Det
07-22-2012, 2:01 AM
Mass murders make up an almost insignificant part of the statistics though.

As for indiscriminate killing, I would have to disagree. People generally have a very good reason for putting all of their personal freedoms at risk. Reasons vary from state-to-state, and region-to-region. In urban areas, though I don't have statistics handy at the moment, I'd guess that a fair amount of the murders committed are drug-related (turf wars, rival gangs, dealers robbing each other, etc). For remote areas of the Southern United States, I'll reference a quote from the Malcolm Gladwell book Outliers:



There's also the fact that we "import the poor and undesirables from other countries" as I once heard someone so eloquently say. Basically, due to the stricter immigration standards and/or "better" geographic location that many other countries have (Switzerland or Canada, for instance) you don't see the same sort of issues in that you see here, so we have a problem that's unique to our country. Basically, to use cold-war terminology, we're a "first world" country that shares a giant, almost wide-open border with a huge "third world" country, and we have all the problems one would expect from such an arrangement.

That's not to say that I'm complaining about the immigration situation...I'm not. Just stating it as a matter of fact.

Mass might not have been the best word. Multi is better.

While most murders are personal, I'm talking about uniquely American multi murders like in Aurora for example, or Littleton, It's random shooting at strangers or almost strangers that are indiscriminate. Those murderers were American citizens and those types of murders hardly happen in other countries.
That typically only happens in America. And I'm talking compared to developed, first world countries. We should compare apples to apples.

Among developed nations, the United States has one of, if not the highest rate of civilian gun ownership, and the highest homicide rate.
It's really simple. More guns equals more gun deaths, at least in America
Btw, upon further review, your links in response to my op were pretty weak, I stand by my op, I'll post more cites tomorrow.

m03
07-22-2012, 2:39 AM
Mass might not have been the best word. Multi is better.

While most murders are personal, I'm talking about uniquely American multi murders like in Aurora for example, or Littleton, It's random shooting at strangers or almost strangers that are indiscriminate. Those murderers were American citizens and those types of murders hardly happen in other countries.
That typically only happens in America. And I'm talking compared to developed, first world countries. We should compare apples to apples.


Like these (random shooters in Finland):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57442105/random-shooter-kills-2-wounds-7-in-finland/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

Or these (Germany):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-19-germany-hospital-shooting_N.htm

Or this (England):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

Or this (Belgium):

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1171168/1/.html

Or this (Norway):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/norway-shooter-anders-breivik-pleads-guilty-cries-court/story?id=16147108#.UAvX4jGe518

Or this (Netherlands):

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/09/dead-gunman-opens-dutch-shopping-mall/

Or this (Canada):

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/2012/07/17/two-dead-19-injured-after-toronto-shooting-spree

Or these (multiple incidents committed by the same individual in France):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/19/france-s-shocking-shooting-spree.html

Or this (Italy):

http://www.channel4.com/news/italian-gunman-kills-two-on-shooting-spree

Or this (two different mult-stabbing crimes in China):

http://www.newser.com/story/87305/28-children-stabbed-in-china-attack.html

Or this (Poland - only managed to wound one tourist before he was killed by Police though):

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/slask/nie-zyje-mezczyna-ktory-postrzelil-turyste,1,3729381,region-wiadomosc.html

And those are only incidents from the last 5 years. Just because we don't hear about most of them here doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in the rest of the world. Granted, a couple of those were race-based, but that's fairly close to a random shooting since the shooters didn't know the victims.

Among developed nations, the United States has one of, if not the highest rate of civilian gun ownership, and the highest homicide rate.

Does the term "developed" allow us to dehumanize people in nations that we consider inferior (or "developing"), and therefore exclude their statistics from consideration?

To continue along that same vein, there are portions of our country that could be considered developing (rather than developed), and the great big border that we share with a large developing nation does play a significant part in the violent crime that happens in our country as well. As such, I don't think we can be so exclusive.


It's really simple. More guns equals more gun deaths, at least in America

...and less deaths via other means that would subsequently increase substantially to fill the role of the gun deaths if guns were removed from the picture. The motivation to kill is present whether or not the most efficient means are available.

Btw, upon further review, your links in response to my op were pretty weak, I stand by my op, I'll post more cites tomorrow.

I only provided two obvious examples, and I'm sure if I spent a few more minutes, I could find several more. There are other countries (Jamaica, for example) that have strict, long-standing gun control laws and still have high murder rates.

negolien
07-22-2012, 4:25 AM
2A zelots hurt gun owners almost as much as anti-gun nutz /shrug. Middle ground is needed but think what ya like the nets full of opinions. I legally own my weapons and follow the law. If you feel the need to "replace" the springs in your 100 round pre-99 mags that's your issue. that's also fodder for anti gun nutz and rightfully so..

Kyle1886
07-22-2012, 5:25 AM
Laughtenberg is at it again, not surprised;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/21/mass-shooting-prompts-calls-from-capitol-hill-and-beyond-for-tighter-gun-laws/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Interna l+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Kyle

SanPedroShooter
07-22-2012, 5:30 AM
2A zelots hurt gun owners almost as much as anti-gun nutz /shrug. Middle ground is needed but think what ya like the nets full of opinions. I legally own my weapons and follow the law. If you feel the need to "replace" the springs in your 100 round pre-99 mags that's your issue. that's also fodder for anti gun nutz and rightfully so..

I'm sorry but no.

Your 'middle ground' is a lie or is politically impossible, thank God. How well has compromise served us so far?

There will be no change in the law, because there is never any change. In the aftermath of these tragedies, people rave about assaultguns and bulletclips and kinds of other nonsense, but when these issues actually get analyized, common sense usually prevails, especially when liberals dont have majorities.

So I think I will be sad and speculate about the 12 people that died, and of course the hundreds, maybe thousands that die all across the country everyday in cars, swimming pools, trampoline accidents etc... and possibly wonder about the nature of insanity, but I dont think I will be burying my rifle just yet.

Riksk
07-22-2012, 9:49 AM
That is true in a society where criminals have easy access to weapons. The real lambs are people who think a gun gives you "freedom"

[/QUOTE]

I don't have the time to deal with all your dribble, however I'm sure my fellow patriots will roast you plenty.

I will say that apparently our forefathers of the Revolutionary War were a bunch of lambs. Though you may disgrace them, I would be proud to be a lamb. Im not afraid of the lion because I have the teeth of a Shepard. :43:

Ripon83
07-22-2012, 9:57 AM
Its funny, they had to look back in time to promote their agenda, from the article linked above:

"According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened."

Det
07-22-2012, 12:41 PM
I don't have the time to deal with all your dribble, however I'm sure my fellow patriots will roast you plenty.

I will say that apparently our forefathers of the Revolutionary War were a bunch of lambs. Though you may disgrace them, I would be proud to be a lamb. Im not afraid of the lion because I have the teeth of a Shepard. :43:

Good job on twisting my words! I hold our founding fathers in high regard. I did not call them lambs or disgrace them.

You are awarded that 2A right as a US citizen.
Simply owning a gun does not give you actual "freedom". It may give you power, and I agree, exercising rights further enforce those said rights.

It may seem like simantics, but it's important to use words in context and to know the meaning of those said words.

Det
07-22-2012, 1:38 PM
Like these (random shooters in Finland):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57442105/random-shooter-kills-2-wounds-7-in-finland/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

Or these (Germany):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-19-germany-hospital-shooting_N.htm

Or this (England):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

Or this (Belgium):

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1171168/1/.html

Or this (Norway):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/norway-shooter-anders-breivik-pleads-guilty-cries-court/story?id=16147108#.UAvX4jGe518

Or this (Netherlands):

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/09/dead-gunman-opens-dutch-shopping-mall/

Or this (Canada):

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/2012/07/17/two-dead-19-injured-after-toronto-shooting-spree

Or these (multiple incidents committed by the same individual in France):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/19/france-s-shocking-shooting-spree.html

Or this (Italy):

http://www.channel4.com/news/italian-gunman-kills-two-on-shooting-spree

Or this (two different mult-stabbing crimes in China):

http://www.newser.com/story/87305/28-children-stabbed-in-china-attack.html

Or this (Poland - only managed to wound one tourist before he was killed by Police though):

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/slask/nie-zyje-mezczyna-ktory-postrzelil-turyste,1,3729381,region-wiadomosc.html

And those are only incidents from the last 5 years. Just because we don't hear about most of them here doesn't mean that they aren't occurring in the rest of the world. Granted, a couple of those were race-based, but that's fairly close to a random shooting since the shooters didn't know the victims.



Does the term "developed" allow us to dehumanize people in nations that we consider inferior (or "developing"), and therefore exclude their statistics from consideration?

To continue along that same vein, there are portions of our country that could be considered developing (rather than developed), and the great big border that we share with a large developing nation does play a significant part in the violent crime that happens in our country as well. As such, I don't think we can be so exclusive.




...and less deaths via other means that would subsequently increase substantially to fill the role of the gun deaths if guns were removed from the picture. The motivation to kill is present whether or not the most efficient means are available.



I only provided two obvious examples, and I'm sure if I spent a few more minutes, I could find several more. There are other countries (Jamaica, for example) that have strict, long-standing gun control laws and still have high murder rates.

Good post, it took me a while to get through all those cites!
You have valid points with the links for Finland, England, Germany, Canada and Belgium. It seems Norway, Netherlands, France and Italy were either religiously or politically motivated. I still think, comparatively speaking, these incedences happen at a much lower rate with other developed counties.

Yes, we should exclude 3rd world countries from this debate. You mentioned India in an earlier post. In the lower classes, It's extremely common for a child who is born female, to be murdered by her parents.
In Africa, an estimated 10,000-16,000 children die every DAY, due to starvation. It's comparing apples to oranges.

In Mexico, almost every person shot, is with an American gun. I don't agree they play a significant role in violent crime in America. If anything it's the opposite, since so many guns are flowing one way into that country.
I would agree they play a significant roll in drug crime.

Falstaff
07-22-2012, 1:47 PM
All points above about "reasonable" gun control are moot, this event will be used to force the few senators on the fence about the UN arms treaty to ratify it. In spite of the assurances by the "right people" here on calguns, who repeatedly poo pooed concerns about this treaty, this treaty will result in a total ban on ALL semi auto firearms and ALL handguns.

Salient points to ponder;

1. The Right People have always insisted that the UN gun ban treaty was tin foil and nothing to worry about

2. Large anti 2nd amendment legislation is always preceded by curiously timed tragedies

3. Gabriel Giffords and Judge Roll were investigating Fast and Furious, an admitted false flag operation designed to demonize the 2nd amendment

Sunday
07-22-2012, 2:00 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..
Never under estimate the stupidity of the American public. This many if not more people are killed in auto accidents on any given 3 day holiday.

Det
07-22-2012, 2:20 PM
Never under estimate the stupidity of the American public. This many if not more people are killed in auto accidents on any given 3 day holiday.

There is however, a slight difference between auto ACCIDENTS and deliberate murder.

m03
07-22-2012, 3:05 PM
Good post, it took me a while to get through all those cites!
You have valid points with the links for Finland, England, Germany, Canada and Belgium. It seems Norway, Netherlands, France and Italy were either religiously or politically motivated. I still think, comparatively speaking, these incedences happen at a much lower rate with other developed counties.

I'll go ahead and agree with you on the last point, in as much as violence is more glorified here.

Religiously or politically motivated shootings could still be considered effectively random, since the killers listed had no way to confirm the religion or political affiliation of the victims other than their physical proximity to a target area at the time of the shooting. In addition, we do not yet know the reasons for the Aurora massacre, so we cannot yet say what the motivations were. Perhaps he specifically targeted members of certain races, or had a grudge against a particular church/religion and knew that members of said church/religion would be at the theater that night.

Yes, we should exclude 3rd world countries from this debate.


I disagree for the reasons previously mentioned. We wont come to a consensus on this issue.

You mentioned India in an earlier post. In the lower classes, It's extremely common for a child who is born female, to be murdered by her parents.

My understanding is that those crimes do not factor much into the intentional homicide statistics, since they are almost always reported as accidental or birth-related, if they're even reported at all. In addition, though the indian government has made it illegal, sex-selective abortions are becoming a more common way to deal with that "issue" in Indian society.

In Africa, an estimated 10,000-16,000 children die every DAY, due to starvation. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Not applicable to the discussion since we're on the topic of intentional homicides, and those deaths are not part of the intentional homicide statistics.

In Mexico, almost every person shot, is with an American gun. I don't agree they play a significant role in violent crime in America. If anything it's the opposite, since so many guns are flowing one way into that country.
I would agree they play a significant roll in drug crime.

Assuming your referring to American civilian weapons, that assertion has been partially debunked already.

See the "Tracing Seized Mexican Guns" section here (half-way down): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETrace

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/atf-mexico-gun-statistics-are-misleading-requesting-diplomatic-cables-on-the-sources-of-arms-from-mexico-central-and-south-america/

http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/27/atf_publishes_misleading_trace_data_from_mexico/page/full/

One noteworthy section in the Wikipedia entry dealing with guns that are successfully traced back to the United States:

ATF fails to address misleading factors in statistics of seized Mexican guns. For example, ATF fails to separately identify:
1. American origin guns legitimately sold to the Mexican military.
2. American origin guns legitimately and commercially exported to the Mexican gun shop in Mexico City.
3. American origin guns legitimately sold to Mexican police - at the Federal, state or local level.
4. American origin guns legitimately sold to Mexican banks, private security firms, or other companies.
5. American origin guns legitimately sold to other Mexican government entities.
6. American origin guns legitimately sold to police, military, security companies or private parties in other countries, which have been smuggled into Mexico.
7. American origin guns exported to Mexico many years ago. (The average age of traced guns from Mexico is over 14 years).
8. Foreign guns with American markings which were never imported into the United States for any number of reasons.
9. Counterfeit guns made elsewhere with fake American markings. ATF has acknowledged this is a problem.
10. Frequently, pictures of seized Mexican guns show many .22 rimfire rabbit rifles and sporting shotguns. Are these included in ATF statistics? ATF doesn't say.

postal
07-22-2012, 3:43 PM
In Mexico, almost every person shot, is with an American gun. I don't agree they play a significant role in violent crime in America. If anything it's the opposite, since so many guns are flowing one way into that country.

I would agree they play a significant roll in drug crime.


NOW WE ***ALL KNOW FOR A FACT*** that you are a troll

Troll

Troll

Troll
:troll:


It is simply not possible in any way shape or form for a real calguns member that is not a :troll: to not be well aware of fast and furious. Not believe that it happened, ignore that it happened and *STILL* pretend that gun violence in mek sucko is due to guns from the United States.

Beat feet troll. I'm done with you, and will go straight from this post, to blocking you so I dont have to read any of your Bu**sh** again.

Now GTFO!

Det
07-22-2012, 4:09 PM
I'll go ahead and agree with you on the last point, in as much as violence is more glorified here.

Religiously or politically motivated shootings could still be considered effectively random, since the killers listed had no way to confirm the religion or political affiliation of the victims other than their physical proximity to a target area at the time of the shooting. In addition, we do not yet know the reasons for the Aurora massacre, so we cannot yet say what the motivations were. Perhaps he specifically targeted members of certain races, or had a grudge against a particular church/religion and knew that members of said church/religion would be at the theater that night.



I disagree for the reasons previously mentioned. We wont come to a consensus on this issue.



My understanding is that those crimes do not factor much into the intentional homicide statistics, since they are almost always reported as accidental or birth-related, if they're even reported at all. In addition, though the indian government has made it illegal, sex-selective abortions are becoming a more common way to deal with that "issue" in Indian society.



Not applicable to the discussion since we're on the topic of intentional homicides, and those deaths are not part of the intentional homicide statistics.



Assuming your referring to American civilian weapons, that assertion has been partially debunked already.

See the "Tracing Seized Mexican Guns" section here (half-way down): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETrace

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

http://www.therightplanet.com/2011/11/atf-mexico-gun-statistics-are-misleading-requesting-diplomatic-cables-on-the-sources-of-arms-from-mexico-central-and-south-america/

http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/04/27/atf_publishes_misleading_trace_data_from_mexico/page/full/

One noteworthy section in the Wikipedia entry dealing with guns that are successfully traced back to the United States:

I'm just trying to highlight the massive differences between developed and non-developed society's.

Interesting links on the US guns in Mexico issue. I need to read up a bit more.
But, you would have to agree at the least, most of all illegal guns in Mexico came from the US, no?

Det
07-22-2012, 4:20 PM
NOW WE ***ALL KNOW FOR A FACT*** that you are a troll

Troll

Troll

Troll
:troll:


It is simply not possible in any way shape or form for a real calguns member that is not a :troll: to not be well aware of fast and furious. Not believe that it happened, ignore that it happened and *STILL* pretend that gun violence in mek sucko is due to guns from the United States.

Beat feet troll. I'm done with you, and will go straight from this post, to blocking you so I dont have to read any of your Bu**sh** again.

Now GTFO!

Yes, FAF guns were found on both sides of the border, and also the customs agent who was killed. In relation to total numbers, I just don't think they play a significant role. I don't know if it's easier to buy an illegal gun in Mexico and bring it across, or buy an illegal gun in the US once your here. You cannot deny the mojority of illegal US weapons in Mexico, stay in Mexico.

Hey, but thanks for chiming in!
You ever been called a hypocrite?

m03
07-22-2012, 4:27 PM
Interesting links on the US guns in Mexico issue. I need to read up a bit more.
But, you would have to agree at the least, most of all illegal guns in Mexico came from the US, no?

Well, if you include military weapons that the US government provided to various Mexican institutions, that were ultimately sold on the black market due to widespread corruption, then my answer would be "probably".

If you only consider illegally obtained United States civilian weapons and nothing else, I'd guess that a realistic number would be around 35%-40%.

negolien
07-22-2012, 4:30 PM
Never under estimate the stupidity of the American public. This many if not more people are killed in auto accidents on any given 3 day holiday.

Umm so what's your point LOL that's retarded. As for an above statment about the shooter not having a 100 round drum mag. Please try doing a little research before ya post ya just look stupid denying the obvious. The fact his AR jammed while using it saved countless lives but don't let the facts get in the way of you baseless propoganda.

Opinion is not always gonna be one you agree with that doesn't make it less valid. It's an opinion...the fact some people think all 2A supporters should be like lemmings and fight for the everything legal all the time no matter what losses alot of moderate firearms supporters :TFH:

Nitro Express!
07-22-2012, 4:49 PM
Umm so what's your point LOL that's retarded. As for an above statment about the shooter not having a 100 round drum mag. Please try doing a little research before ya post ya just look stupid denying the obvious. The fact his AR jammed while using it saved countless lives but don't let the facts get in the way of you baseless propoganda.

Opinion is not always gonna be one you agree with that doesn't make it less valid. It's an opinion...the fact some people think all 2A supporters should be like lemmings and fight for the everything legal all the time no matter what losses alot of moderate firearms supporters :TFH:


In Mexico, almost every person shot, is with an American gun. I don't agree they play a significant role in violent crime in America. If anything it's the opposite, since so many guns are flowing one way into that country.
I would agree they play a significant roll in drug crime.

http://i.imgur.com/LwpuK.jpg

rob474
07-22-2012, 5:00 PM
well if want to think a long the same stupid lines they are why done we just ban all movies and this could never happen again? oh here is a great idea make it illegal to shoot people in the movie theaters that will solve it all:rolleyes:
gun control is just plain stupid crimals are going to do it illegal or not they don't care about any law out there if they did we wouldn't have crimals right

Det
07-22-2012, 5:59 PM
Opinion is not always gonna be one you agree with that doesn't make it less valid. It's an opinion...the fact some people think all 2A supporters should be like lemmings and fight for the everything legal all the time no matter what losses alot of moderate firearms supporters

Absolutely. Both points are completely correct. And as stated earlier, even if you use "bias" studies and stats to form your opinion, you're still only half informed.
[/QUOTE]

Det
07-22-2012, 6:09 PM
Well, if you include military weapons that the US government provided to various Mexican institutions, that were ultimately sold on the black market due to widespread corruption, then my answer would be "probably".

If you only consider illegally obtained United States civilian weapons and nothing else, I'd guess that a realistic number would be around 35%-40%.

Yea, it's hard to find any real truths in issues such as these. Peer reviewed articles, which are supposed to be the pinnacle of scientific studies, and even University studies are often bias in some form.

Det
07-22-2012, 6:30 PM
On a related note, I flew into Denver the day before the shooting, and local news is mentioning little to none about gun rights/laws. Right now, to them it's just a tragedy.
The local LA news is probably running with it.

Gem1950
07-23-2012, 7:28 AM
"maybe we should ban PHD students. they think too much. [he was one]"

^ ^ ^ I like that!

SuperSet
07-23-2012, 9:04 AM
It's interesting to note that even with an AR, drum magazine, 30 round magazines, 2 handguns, a shotgun, tac vest, tear gas and a physically concentrated audience, he wasn't able to inflict more damage, thankfully. The Virginia Tech shooter had 1 9mm Glock and a .22 and killed 32 people in 15 minutes.
I think the general public understands that it's not about the guns anymore, which is one of the reasons that support for stricter gun control has been falling.

Dantedamean
07-23-2012, 10:30 AM
It's interesting to note that even with an AR, drum magazine, 30 round magazines, 2 handguns, a shotgun, tac vest, tear gas and a physically concentrated audience, he wasn't able to inflict more damage, thankfully. The Virginia Tech shooter had 1 9mm Glock and a .22 and killed 32 people in 15 minutes.
I think the general public understands that it's not about the guns anymore, which is one of the reasons that support for stricter gun control has been falling.

Oh ya, this could have been a lot worse.

postal
07-23-2012, 11:55 AM
Agree. ^^^^^

It is a sick, horrible tragedy. But had the potential to be far worse.

Dantedamean
07-23-2012, 3:35 PM
I was watching CNN at the gym. Seems there pushing gun control every day. They were talking about renewing the assault weapon ban and ratifying the UN arms trade treaty. Naturally that moron wolf ( whatever ) is spearheading it.

sixoclockhold
07-24-2012, 5:00 AM
A tragedy. It would be interesting to see interviews with those who were in attendance that wished they had a weapon on them at that split second to try to stop the madness. Not many are good under stress in these times, but the ones that are, SHOULD be required to carry.

There should be a new law, "I got your back", an oath you take before a Judge to protect innocent lives with affidavits from at least 3 individuals where you have demonstrated the ability to act under stressful situations of any kind.

If it's my day to go, so be it, but at least I would have the comfort of eating popcorn and watching a movie knowing that a couple in attendance are willing to go above and beyond should the situation arise.

We don't need less guns and ammo, we need to be smart enough to utilize special abilities some people have. The world has changed and we should also.

Sunday
07-24-2012, 11:01 AM
There is however, a slight difference between auto ACCIDENTS and deliberate murder.Tell me what is the difference to the dead people?

Sunday
07-24-2012, 11:03 AM
It's interesting to note that even with an AR, drum magazine, 30 round magazines, 2 handguns, a shotgun, tac vest, tear gas and a physically concentrated audience, he wasn't able to inflict more damage, thankfully. The Virginia Tech shooter had 1 9mm Glock and a .22 and killed 32 people in 15 minutes.
I think the general public understands that it's not about the guns anymore, which is one of the reasons that support for stricter gun control has been falling.The public is pretty ignorant.

thrasherfox
07-24-2012, 11:54 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

Dude!! there are such things as balistic leggings!!! schweet!! I didnt know you could get such a thing, going to find a place to order them and get some right now!!


Thanks!!

Oh, and didnt really pay much attention to the rest of what you said, sorry something in my head filters it out. all I saw was balistic leggings.. :)


On a serious note, no disrespect to anyone who has been touched by this tragedy.

I would like to think someone, even myself could have stopped it if we were there and carying, but I was talking to a friend earlier about it and I came to the conclusion if I would have been sitting in the right place, at the right time, and that was if tear gas was not used I "might" have been able to do something, but that is a big maybe. I am thinking the tear gas pretty much would have been what would have negated my ability to do anything. Too close to the tear gas and you are inefective, you are overwhelmed by the tear gas.

Too far away and difficult to place a good shot to get around his body armor in a dark theater with smoke filling the theater. Dont know what could have been done by the average person in a situation like that. with 3d movies, special effects it probably would have taken most people to get out of the movie frame of mind and realize something serious was going down.

But this guy was determined and bent on killing a lot of people. and with the explosives at his house, if all guns and high capacity magazine were totally banned and were not available anywhere, this guy probably would have just blown the threater up causing more casualties and loss of life. Someone bent on killing large numbers of people will figure out a way. no matter what tools some "perceive" they have taken to mitigate the risk, in the end all you are doing is preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, you are NOT doing anything to prevent someone who is bent on killing lots of people from killings lots of people.

postal
07-24-2012, 3:15 PM
I would like to think someone, even myself could have stopped it if we were there and carying, but I was talking to a friend earlier about it and I came to the conclusion if I would have been sitting in the right place, at the right time, and that was if tear gas was not used I "might" have been able to do something, but that is a big maybe. I am thinking the tear gas pretty much would have been what would have negated my ability to do anything. Too close to the tear gas and you are inefective, you are overwhelmed by the tear gas.

Too far away and difficult to place a good shot to get around his body armor in a dark theater with smoke filling the theater. Dont know what could have been done by the average person in a situation like that.

Teargas sucks, but you can function in it. Eyes watering like crazy, sinuses drain so fast you wouldnt believe your head could possibly hold that much 'snot'.

Navy bootcamp send everyone through a teargas chamber to give you a good whiff. It proves the gas masks work, and then everyone takes off the mask, shouting general orders for about 3-5 minutes to make sure everyone is breathing the stuff. It isnt fun, but you can function.

sixoclockhold
07-24-2012, 4:13 PM
These nut jobs are not targeting the police with body armor and guns, they don't want a tough victim. We should be given carry permits and armor piercing bullets. I would bet then these clowns find a new avenue to pursue.

joepamjohn
07-24-2012, 7:00 PM
One thing that has always bothered me about these forums is how often we talk about our 2a rights, and when someone offers an opinion that differs from many he is bashed over and over for voicing that view. Why do we preach about our 2a rights and the constitution, yet we rip people when they excercise their 1a rights? This is a public forum and this thread is asking for opinions on where we will go after these tragic events. The one thing I have noticed among gun owners is that we fight and slam each other more than the opposition does at a time when we all need to stick together. There is no "brother hood in arms" here. Now I suppose I will get bashed too.

thrasherfox
07-25-2012, 10:17 AM
Teargas sucks, but you can function in it. Eyes watering like crazy, sinuses drain so fast you wouldnt believe your head could possibly hold that much 'snot'.

Navy bootcamp send everyone through a teargas chamber to give you a good whiff. It proves the gas masks work, and then everyone takes off the mask, shouting general orders for about 3-5 minutes to make sure everyone is breathing the stuff. It isnt fun, but you can function.

Yeah, I freaked out in Marine boot camp. they walked us in to a room with our masks on and 3 pots of smoke coming out. Had four drill instructors in there screaming at us. they did NOT have gas masks on. So I assumed there was no gas in the room.

Then they DI's came to us one by one and had us remove our masks and provide our full names, SSN etc. As soon as I took my mask off my nose was expelling fluid that I have no idea where it came from, eyes were water so bad could not see. I was all jacked up even 5 minutes after leaving the room.

The scary part was the DI's were in there and didnt seem effected by the stuff. at that the point the DI's seemed to not be human, never looked at them the same again. :-O

Capybara
07-25-2012, 11:41 AM
I have read that the "body armor" he was wearing was nothing but a "ballistic vest". One shot, center mass, during a reload, would have done the trick. Sad that there was nobody there to do it.

I can't say I could have done it if I would have been there and was a CCW holder. I am sure that it was chaos, with the smoke, gun shots, people dying, yelling and the movie was cranked up, I am sure that it was disorganized, noisy and terrifying. But out of a full theater of people, if there would have been a dozen people carrying, there is chance that there could have been someone who would have been able to get the job done or could have at least distracted him long enough to save a few more lives.

So sad.

ASTMedic
07-25-2012, 12:51 PM
A tragedy. It would be interesting to see interviews with those who were in attendance that wished they had a weapon on them at that split second to try to stop the madness. Not many are good under stress in these times, but the ones that are, SHOULD be required to carry.

There should be a new law, "I got your back", an oath you take before a Judge to protect innocent lives with affidavits from at least 3 individuals where you have demonstrated the ability to act under stressful situations of any kind.

If it's my day to go, so be it, but at least I would have the comfort of eating popcorn and watching a movie knowing that a couple in attendance are willing to go above and beyond should the situation arise.

We don't need less guns and ammo, we need to be smart enough to utilize special abilities some people have. The world has changed and we should also.

Sign me up.

I really like that idea and would feel much better knowing a few people around me were dedicated to the safety of others.

Have you hear of the book "Even Safer Streets 2011"?

sixoclockhold
07-25-2012, 1:34 PM
Sign me up.

I really like that idea and would feel much better knowing a few people around me were dedicated to the safety of others.

Have you hear of the book "Even Safer Streets 2011"?

Had not, but just now read some reviews. I actually made my post based on a crowded restaurant and someone is now choking, a man pops up immediately and delivers the Heimlich Maneuver. Give that man a gun I say !

So the CPR thang hit home. Our problems are solvable, we just need common sense.

m98
07-25-2012, 3:00 PM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..



So much wrong here.....? Iggy implant? Look at location status.

JxPakman
07-26-2012, 12:08 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

1. The guy had a 100 round mag.. really that's not necassary.. ban em period or make em special ownership like full auto weapons..

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.

3. Body armour sales.. that should seriously be looked at.. really the average joe should be able to buy balistic leggings? Ya I think not.

Some common sense implimentation of gun control only helps us normal people when stuff like this is limited. The more stuff like this happens the more it hurts the legal gun owner. Loopholes should be closed too. If they want to limit it to 10 round mags fine. It should be limited for everyone except those who compete and they should be isssued a ceritificate. These loopholes are a joke the only ones using 10 rounds mags in longuns are law abiding people the rest are criminals. My 2 cents..

agreed sir to a certain degree. the 100 round mag i think is overkill, cool, but overkill.
i do think the sale of ammo is an area that should be looked at. but putting a limit like 2000 rounds per month is wrong.
body armor too, ballistic leggings is overkill. civilians should be able to get a vest or something. but full on head to toe body armor is overkill...

Nyanman
07-26-2012, 12:27 AM
Bottom line, no one knows when someone is going to nut up and decide to hurt one or more people.

However there is one fact remains. the majority of people are good. if half the threater was armed this guy proabably would have been taken out before he was able to do much harm.

An umarmed society are lambs just waiting for someone to nut up and slaughter.

An armed society is typically a polite society and it allows ordinary citizens to eliminate a thread before the police have the chance to arive. police are not magicians, they cant be everywhere at once.


Arm everyone and you will see crime rates drop. disarm everyone and you will see crime rates skyrocket.

Look at the wild west. Cracked mentions it at number six here http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true.html and they even have sources.
Most people were armed in the wild west, and was safer then than Baltimore is now.

Delfuego
07-26-2012, 12:32 AM
kinda gotta look at it thru objective lenses.

2. The guy had ordered 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time. Something should be done about that. If you compete they should issue you a certificate so you can buy more ammo. Anything over 2,000 rounds a month is a little overkill for the average bear.


No way, I own three .22 guns and one .380. Every time I go out to shoot, I and the people I invite to go shooting put at least 1,200 to 2,000 rounds down range. 6k rounds is a drop in the bucket if I go shooting 3-4 times a month. By the way, I usually only have 100 rounds of. 380 because it is a lot more expensive. I can buy 100 rounds of .380 ammo for $16.99 and 500 rounds of. 22 ammo for $15.99. I don't think I should go to jail for having 8,000 rounds of ammo.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Dantedamean
07-26-2012, 12:51 AM
agreed sir to a certain degree. the 100 round mag i think is overkill, cool, but overkill.
i do think the sale of ammo is an area that should be looked at. but putting a limit like 2000 rounds per month is wrong.
body armor too, ballistic leggings is overkill. civilians should be able to get a vest or something. but full on head to toe body armor is overkill...

Armor should never be limited. Armors only job is to protect. I hate the idea of limiting body armor I think it's unsafe and completely backwards.
As far as ammo purchases are concerned if I had the cash I would have close to 10-15k rounds of ammo on hand. I can easily go through 1k per gun per range visit. I don't because work is extremely slow right now. All this talk about ammo sales is moronic, professional clay shooters go through crazy amounts of ammo a month. I know what some people are going to say "well they can give out permits for higher amounts of ammo"... Ya, they said that about concealed firearms too and look how well that worked out for us.

Excelsior
07-26-2012, 1:36 AM
The events of last night were tragic and horrific. That being said, that's not what this thread is about.
I want to see what everyone thinks the impact will be on gun control. I'm already hearing hints of it even on fox news. Saying "guns were purchased legally" and talking about both Obama and Romneys actions toward gun control. Someone posed on my Facebook that CNN had a big gun control segment due to this as well. I'll post the link in a bit.

To be honest I see a lot of disgust regarding gun control on the response areas of many news services. That wasn't true years ago.

One thing I do suspect will happen is that there will be a Federal 10-14 day waiting period on the purchase of any firearms.

Bumslie
07-26-2012, 1:38 AM
One thing that has always bothered me about these forums is how often we talk about our 2a rights, and when someone offers an opinion that differs from many he is bashed over and over for voicing that view. Why do we preach about our 2a rights and the constitution, yet we rip people when they excercise their 1a rights? This is a public forum and this thread is asking for opinions on where we will go after these tragic events. The one thing I have noticed among gun owners is that we fight and slam each other more than the opposition does at a time when we all need to stick together. There is no "brother hood in arms" here. Now I suppose I will get bashed too.

+1.

Excelsior
07-26-2012, 1:38 AM
I think you will see some heightened restrictions for sure in some of the "free states" as I so often hear that term on here, relating to high cap mags and also more restrictions on internet ammo purchases.

The rest of the country will soon have similar restrictions that we currently have in California and those "free states" will soon not be so free afterall.

What we have here is not as much of a gun and ammo issue as it is a complete breakdown of values in our society where human life has little to no value for many twisted individuals. Society will always insist blame needs to be placed on someone when an event like this happens and guns and related items are the easiest target.

In this case, along with the poor souls in the theather, society will also paint the shooter as a victim too rather than blame him for his actions as should be the case.

I agree.

greasem0nkey86
07-26-2012, 7:50 PM
Ban body armor, and someone with a strong enough will would just wear iron furnace plates on them (ie: A Fistful of Dollars), and the media will STILL call it ballistic plates.

m98
07-26-2012, 9:15 PM
Ban body armor, and someone with a strong enough will would just wear iron furnace plates on them (ie: A Fistful of Dollars), and the media will STILL call it ballistic plates.


Just what the scumbag was just wearing: a tac vest, now = armor? Every gun = Ak47 or assault rifle with hi capacity clips

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 9:23 PM
The events of last night were tragic and horrific. That being said, that's not what this thread is about.
I want to see what everyone thinks the impact will be on gun control. I'm already hearing hints of it even on fox news. Saying "guns were purchased legally" and talking about both Obama and Romneys actions toward gun control. Someone posed on my Facebook that CNN had a big gun control segment due to this as well. I'll post the link in a bit.

Largely here, locally, we have established quite a media presence of responsible, law abiding gun ownership and land stewardship


If you, personally, can not say the same - I whole heartedly suggest you reach out to your chapter members (via the regional sections, just a few short mousewheel scrolls below this one) and get involved.


Hot rhetoric and election year(s) aside: you, me, Our Land, Our Rights - we persist, but only if properly shepherded. To those ends, you'd do better putting this energy towards clean ups and positive education campaigns rather than fear, uncertainty and deceit. :)